Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
NailedOn said:
Pesty said:
.Radio 4 today. About noon
Ipcc we have to become completely zero emissions if we wish to stop 2 degrees increase by end of century. No doubt now allclimate change is man made.
So solar activity and axial precession are ruled out?Ipcc we have to become completely zero emissions if we wish to stop 2 degrees increase by end of century. No doubt now allclimate change is man made.
I'd like to see the definitive science on that.
It's pure reasoning by assertion in the absence of data and the presence of gigo.
Foppo said:
I hope you are correct Turbo.
If all this data about climate change is a con nothing to be concerned about then.Who do we believe?
Loaded sentence there. What data are we talking about? The output of fantastical computer models? The same models that have never been validated; that do not model clouds; and the same models that failed to predict the 'pause' in warming (i.e. no warming for at least 18 years)? If all this data about climate change is a con nothing to be concerned about then.Who do we believe?
The IPCC is little more than a political advocacy group somewhat compromised by blatant self interest (gravy train) and blinded (wilfully) by their own (redistribution of wealth) ideology.
Science does not operate on the basis of belief systems; data counts. Data says: BS.
Spot on.
Just to be clear, the statement made was that all climate change is manmade.
This is nonsensical gibberish. Anyone with a minuscule amount of awareness and one operational brain cell will know that climate has been changing naturally for billions of years, still is and always will.
Claiming all climate change is manmade at any time signals that the person speaking is completely clueless or has other reasons for adopting that absurd level of information pollution.
It signals desperation and game over on the one hand but as this topic left science and reality behind long ago and entered a world where gigo is seen as reality, it's just another step along the same fairytale pathway and as such the vast majority of media outlets won't question it.
Just to be clear, the statement made was that all climate change is manmade.
This is nonsensical gibberish. Anyone with a minuscule amount of awareness and one operational brain cell will know that climate has been changing naturally for billions of years, still is and always will.
Claiming all climate change is manmade at any time signals that the person speaking is completely clueless or has other reasons for adopting that absurd level of information pollution.
It signals desperation and game over on the one hand but as this topic left science and reality behind long ago and entered a world where gigo is seen as reality, it's just another step along the same fairytale pathway and as such the vast majority of media outlets won't question it.
some very interesting reading for those who enjoy French wine.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/clim...
Whilst the assuption is that the climate has changed, there is no suggestion that this change is man-made.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/clim...
Whilst the assuption is that the climate has changed, there is no suggestion that this change is man-made.
Millions for the Met Office to carry on getting it wrong
Five years after we paid £33 million to buy the Met Office a new
computer, we are now to pay £97million to give them a "world-leading
super-computer" - described by its chairman as "our integrated weather
and climate model, known as the Met Office Unified Model". That's
because it will not only "produce the most accurate short-term
forecasts that are scientifically possible", but can also predict how
the Earth's climate will change over the next 100 years.
I scarcely need remind readers of how the Met Office's computer
modelling has performed in the past 10 years. In 2004, it predicted
that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that four of the
five years after 2009 would beat the 1998 record as the "hottest year
ever". In 2007, its computer predicted that this would be the "warmest
year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by
0.7C, equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. That summer
in the UK, it told us, would be "drier than average", just before some
of the worst floods in living memory.
From 2008 to 2010 the models consistently predicted "warmer than
average" winters and "hotter and drier summers": three years when much
of the northern hemisphere endured record winter cold and snow; while
in the UK, as in that promised "barbecue summer" of 2009, we had
summers wetter and cooler than usual. A particular triumph, in October
2010, was the prediction that our winter would be up to "2C warmer
than average", just before the coldest December since records began in
1659.
In November 2011, the computer forecast global temperatures rising
over the next five years by up to 0.5C from their 1971-2000 average, a
prediction so embarrassingly off-beam that, a year later, it was
quietly removed from the Met Office website, replaced with one showing
the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". In 2012, it
told us that spring would, yet again, be "drier than average", just
before the wettest April on record. Last November, the computer
predicted that the winter months would be "drier than usual" - then
came the wettest three winter months on record. And today, we can
measure the success of that 2004 forecast that, by 2014, the world
would have warmed by 0.8C - when temperatures have now not risen for
18 years, and not one has got near 1998's record as the "hottest
ever".
Of course, the main reason why the Met Office's record has become much
worse than just a national joke is that it relies on computer models
programmed to assume that the chief factor determining our changing
climate is the steady rise in CO2. Hence all those "hotter, drier
summers" and "warmer than average" winters. As its smug recent annual
report shows, still nothing has led them to question that belief. Yet
those same computer models are the basis not only for Britain's crazy
national energy policy, but also for the projections on which the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies to predict how the
world's climate will change over the next 100 years.
Instead of giving them £97million for yet another new computer, can
anyone explain why we do not call the Met Office staff to account for
perpetuating one of the most catastrophically influential scientific
blunders in history?
The National Grid is keeping us in the dark about its huge 'reserve'
bill
The media has been full of scare stories about how this winter may
bring us serious power cuts. Their cue was a National Grid Winter
Outlook Report, which warned that the gap between our generating
capacity and peak demand will be only 4.1 gigawatts (GW), the "lowest
for seven years". What everyone missed, buried on page 65 of the
66-page report, was why National Grid is nevertheless confident that
our supply will be quite capable of meeting demand - for precisely the
reasons I explained in July 2013, in a column headed "Our lights will
stay on - but it will cost us a fortune".
For years after 2006, analysing the shambles successive governments
were making of our energy policy, I was almost alone in warning that
this would eventually put our lights out But last year, just when
everyone else was at last piling in to predict the same, I described
how National Grid and others had been beavering away to come up with
various ingenious schemes to prevent this happening. Under such
headings as "short term operating reserve", "demand side balancing
reserve" or "supplemental balancing reserve", these cover a range of
devices which either supply the grid with extra electricity when
needed, or can reduce demand. Hundreds of commercial and state
concerns have installed their own gas or diesel-powered generating
systems. Others, to save on demand, are getting hooked up
electronically to allow power to be switched off for periods short
enough not to be noticed.
Although National Grid's report scarcely explains all this in detail,
enough is already in place to give it a "hidden reserve" of another
7GW, equivalent to four large nuclear reactors. Even less does it
spell out this system's huge cost, which for brief periods could lead
to us paying up to 40 times the usual wholesale cost for the
electricity it provides.
And even though it may stop our lights going out this winter, it will
not save us from the real disaster we can anticipate by 2030 when, to
meet government targets set under the Climate Change Act, we will have
shut down all our gas and coal-fired power stations, to rely for
electricity almost entirely on wind turbines and nuclear reactors that
don't yet exist. David Cameron may huff and puff over that extra
£1.7biUion he was told at the European Council we must pay into the EU
budget. But, at the same time, he proudly agreed with his EU
colleagues to a general 40 per cent slashing of CO2 emissions by 2030,
putting us on course to achieve the almost complete "decarbonisation"
of our economy by 2050. The estimated cost of this is now £1.3
trillion, 764 times larger than the budget contribution Mr Cameron
complains about. But by then, without a very dramatic change of
course, our lights really will have gone out.
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 02 November 2014
Five years after we paid £33 million to buy the Met Office a new
computer, we are now to pay £97million to give them a "world-leading
super-computer" - described by its chairman as "our integrated weather
and climate model, known as the Met Office Unified Model". That's
because it will not only "produce the most accurate short-term
forecasts that are scientifically possible", but can also predict how
the Earth's climate will change over the next 100 years.
I scarcely need remind readers of how the Met Office's computer
modelling has performed in the past 10 years. In 2004, it predicted
that by 2014 the world would have warmed by 0.8C, and that four of the
five years after 2009 would beat the 1998 record as the "hottest year
ever". In 2007, its computer predicted that this would be the "warmest
year ever", just before global temperatures temporarily plummeted by
0.7C, equal to their entire net rise in the 20th century. That summer
in the UK, it told us, would be "drier than average", just before some
of the worst floods in living memory.
From 2008 to 2010 the models consistently predicted "warmer than
average" winters and "hotter and drier summers": three years when much
of the northern hemisphere endured record winter cold and snow; while
in the UK, as in that promised "barbecue summer" of 2009, we had
summers wetter and cooler than usual. A particular triumph, in October
2010, was the prediction that our winter would be up to "2C warmer
than average", just before the coldest December since records began in
1659.
In November 2011, the computer forecast global temperatures rising
over the next five years by up to 0.5C from their 1971-2000 average, a
prediction so embarrassingly off-beam that, a year later, it was
quietly removed from the Met Office website, replaced with one showing
the flat-lining temperature trend as "likely to continue". In 2012, it
told us that spring would, yet again, be "drier than average", just
before the wettest April on record. Last November, the computer
predicted that the winter months would be "drier than usual" - then
came the wettest three winter months on record. And today, we can
measure the success of that 2004 forecast that, by 2014, the world
would have warmed by 0.8C - when temperatures have now not risen for
18 years, and not one has got near 1998's record as the "hottest
ever".
Of course, the main reason why the Met Office's record has become much
worse than just a national joke is that it relies on computer models
programmed to assume that the chief factor determining our changing
climate is the steady rise in CO2. Hence all those "hotter, drier
summers" and "warmer than average" winters. As its smug recent annual
report shows, still nothing has led them to question that belief. Yet
those same computer models are the basis not only for Britain's crazy
national energy policy, but also for the projections on which the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies to predict how the
world's climate will change over the next 100 years.
Instead of giving them £97million for yet another new computer, can
anyone explain why we do not call the Met Office staff to account for
perpetuating one of the most catastrophically influential scientific
blunders in history?
The National Grid is keeping us in the dark about its huge 'reserve'
bill
The media has been full of scare stories about how this winter may
bring us serious power cuts. Their cue was a National Grid Winter
Outlook Report, which warned that the gap between our generating
capacity and peak demand will be only 4.1 gigawatts (GW), the "lowest
for seven years". What everyone missed, buried on page 65 of the
66-page report, was why National Grid is nevertheless confident that
our supply will be quite capable of meeting demand - for precisely the
reasons I explained in July 2013, in a column headed "Our lights will
stay on - but it will cost us a fortune".
For years after 2006, analysing the shambles successive governments
were making of our energy policy, I was almost alone in warning that
this would eventually put our lights out But last year, just when
everyone else was at last piling in to predict the same, I described
how National Grid and others had been beavering away to come up with
various ingenious schemes to prevent this happening. Under such
headings as "short term operating reserve", "demand side balancing
reserve" or "supplemental balancing reserve", these cover a range of
devices which either supply the grid with extra electricity when
needed, or can reduce demand. Hundreds of commercial and state
concerns have installed their own gas or diesel-powered generating
systems. Others, to save on demand, are getting hooked up
electronically to allow power to be switched off for periods short
enough not to be noticed.
Although National Grid's report scarcely explains all this in detail,
enough is already in place to give it a "hidden reserve" of another
7GW, equivalent to four large nuclear reactors. Even less does it
spell out this system's huge cost, which for brief periods could lead
to us paying up to 40 times the usual wholesale cost for the
electricity it provides.
And even though it may stop our lights going out this winter, it will
not save us from the real disaster we can anticipate by 2030 when, to
meet government targets set under the Climate Change Act, we will have
shut down all our gas and coal-fired power stations, to rely for
electricity almost entirely on wind turbines and nuclear reactors that
don't yet exist. David Cameron may huff and puff over that extra
£1.7biUion he was told at the European Council we must pay into the EU
budget. But, at the same time, he proudly agreed with his EU
colleagues to a general 40 per cent slashing of CO2 emissions by 2030,
putting us on course to achieve the almost complete "decarbonisation"
of our economy by 2050. The estimated cost of this is now £1.3
trillion, 764 times larger than the budget contribution Mr Cameron
complains about. But by then, without a very dramatic change of
course, our lights really will have gone out.
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 02 November 2014
warmest august ever ? i think not.
Final example for today. October 2nd this year they deleted all the August data for the rest of the world(ROW) leaving only USHCN data in the database. They even deleted US station data not part of USHCN. Amazingly, they still managed to add ROW data for September during the deletion period. The August ROW data was missing until October 8th when they re-inserted it. Still don’t know why they deleted it. Mentioned it in an email about a week ago. No reason has been provided. The data deletion did increase the mean value of the remaining August data by 0.9C. Was there some announcement concerning global temperatures for summer or August during that period?
With such erratic data handling, the accuracy of their product is questionable.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/ncdcs-ghcn-f...
this is now way too high a profile subject for this to be simple incompetence . this mistake allows people to claim all sort of nonsense in relation to highest ever temps,or continue to state positive anomalies month on month in perpetuity, yet when the mistakes are pointed out there are never any corrections made to these statements,even when the original mistake is corrected.
Final example for today. October 2nd this year they deleted all the August data for the rest of the world(ROW) leaving only USHCN data in the database. They even deleted US station data not part of USHCN. Amazingly, they still managed to add ROW data for September during the deletion period. The August ROW data was missing until October 8th when they re-inserted it. Still don’t know why they deleted it. Mentioned it in an email about a week ago. No reason has been provided. The data deletion did increase the mean value of the remaining August data by 0.9C. Was there some announcement concerning global temperatures for summer or August during that period?
With such erratic data handling, the accuracy of their product is questionable.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/ncdcs-ghcn-f...
this is now way too high a profile subject for this to be simple incompetence . this mistake allows people to claim all sort of nonsense in relation to highest ever temps,or continue to state positive anomalies month on month in perpetuity, yet when the mistakes are pointed out there are never any corrections made to these statements,even when the original mistake is corrected.
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but it strikes me as totally hypocritical that Leonardo DiCaprio is so concerned about the environment that he's fronting the IPCC, yet he's happy to go on an ego trip on the Virgin Galactic commercial 'spaceliner' and support the pointless burning of tonnes of filthy rocket fuel in the higher altitudes with god knows what harm!
Mr GrimNasty said:
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but it strikes me as totally hypocritical that Leonardo DiCaprio is so concerned about the environment that he's fronting the IPCC, yet he's happy to go on an ego trip on the Virgin Galactic commercial 'spaceliner' and support the pointless burning of tonnes of filthy rocket fuel in the higher altitudes with god knows what harm!
Not to mention flying around the world filming, lots of CO2 generated there. Then flying around the world publicising the films. Then showing the films etc. Then all the CO2 to make those DVDs and the trucks to put them in shops etc.. But there are all too many hypocrites in the world, rather a lot of them involved in this scam.
Mr GrimNasty said:
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but it strikes me as totally hypocritical that Leonardo DiCaprio is so concerned about the environment that he's fronting the IPCC, yet he's happy to go on an ego trip on the Virgin Galactic commercial 'spaceliner' and support the pointless burning of tonnes of filthy rocket fuel in the higher altitudes with god knows what harm!
That and his penchant for using extremely luxurious yachts as a base for watching World Cup footie even though as an American he, obviously, would not understand the game.In summary Christopher Booker says "Met computer didn't get much right so they want a better one and now I'm complaining about that too".
Any agenda to push their Chris? I guess if you were the manager of Man U your supporters would be upset if you kept singing the praises of Arsenal.
Any agenda to push their Chris? I guess if you were the manager of Man U your supporters would be upset if you kept singing the praises of Arsenal.
TransverseTight said:
In summary Christopher Booker says "Met compuer didn't get much right so they want a better one and now I'm complaining about that too".
The computer has changed but the junkscience remains the same.If you programme an expensive computer with false assumptions you'll get the same type of nonsense out of it as you got with a slightly less expensive computer only quicker and to a higher degree of spurious accuracy while wasting more taxpayers' money than the last time.
TransverseTight said:
Any agenda to push their Chris? I guess if you were the manager of Man U your supporters would be upset if you kept singing the praises of Arsenal.
Is CB involved with a UKMO competitor? Suggested replacement for the latest waste of tens of millions of £ is pictured below.
TransverseTight said:
In summary Christopher Booker says "Met computer didn't get much right so they want a better one and now I'm complaining about that too".
Any agenda to push their Chris? I guess if you were the manager of Man U your supporters would be upset if you kept singing the praises of Arsenal.
I've yet to read a Christopher Booker column that wasn't spot on and yes he has an agenda = common sense ,this is no different these silly fAny agenda to push their Chris? I guess if you were the manager of Man U your supporters would be upset if you kept singing the praises of Arsenal.
kers at the met office are a standing joke and that Sligo woman wtf!!As we know most of the IPCC endorsed predictions of thermalgeddon were vastly erroneous (97% of model outputs wrong or whatever). The bottom of their range of predictions (i.e. of little consequence for anyone) now tallies with what rational skeptics have said all along i.e. the science is undeniable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the warming effect on the earth is not 'dangerous'.
So the latest reporting trend on the BBC, over the last few days with the latest self-validating IPCC report issued, is to paint this fact as the 'skeptics' now falling into line and accepting that the IPCC were right all along.
Not so much spinning the truth, more like putting it in an industrial centrifuge and turning it up to 11!
Also no mention of Canada or Australia, strangely.
So the latest reporting trend on the BBC, over the last few days with the latest self-validating IPCC report issued, is to paint this fact as the 'skeptics' now falling into line and accepting that the IPCC were right all along.
Not so much spinning the truth, more like putting it in an industrial centrifuge and turning it up to 11!
Also no mention of Canada or Australia, strangely.
Right, just a quick one. As a driver you don't need to worry about global warming any more. I'm prety sure Telsa have just ended the debate on the best way to power vehicles... 1st review is out.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/14...
This is the P85D, imagine what the P120Q (quad motors) will be like in 2017.
Owning a fast car like that means no blame on you. Blame the energy industry ;-)
This is the old one P85+, kind of eating up a Aston Rapide in what I'd call a real world test of acceleration. Kind of thing you mnight want to do overtaking on the back roads. Not seeing how fast you can get 0-200/kmh.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-tesla-mod...
Does that makes the politics easier? Shouldn't we ask the government to make all electric cars VAT free? Or something. Better than giving out tax payers money as grants. Rather than giving money away, take less in taxes? Even the most hardened politically motivated skeptic can't argue with that.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/14...
This is the P85D, imagine what the P120Q (quad motors) will be like in 2017.
Owning a fast car like that means no blame on you. Blame the energy industry ;-)
This is the old one P85+, kind of eating up a Aston Rapide in what I'd call a real world test of acceleration. Kind of thing you mnight want to do overtaking on the back roads. Not seeing how fast you can get 0-200/kmh.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-tesla-mod...
Does that makes the politics easier? Shouldn't we ask the government to make all electric cars VAT free? Or something. Better than giving out tax payers money as grants. Rather than giving money away, take less in taxes? Even the most hardened politically motivated skeptic can't argue with that.
turbobloke said:
Is CB involved with a UKMO competitor?
Suggested replacement for the latest waste of tens of millions of £ is pictured below.
I like that ;-)Suggested replacement for the latest waste of tens of millions of £ is pictured below.
I remember watching a documetary about BBC or the met, can't remember which, saying that their baseline for checking weather forecasting accuracy is can you beat the 70% figure saying tomorrows weather willbe the same as today. If you can make a prediction that the wather isn't the same as today and get it right, then you're on to something.
My personal approach is to take sunglasses, a hat and an umbrella.
TransverseTight said:
Right, just a quick one. As a driver you don't need to worry about global warming any more. I'm prety sure Telsa have just ended the debate on the best way to power vehicles... 1st review is out.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/14...
This is the P85D, imagine what the P120Q (quad motors) will be like in 2017.
Owning a fast car like that means no blame on you. Blame the energy industry ;-)
This is the old one P85+, kind of eating up a Aston Rapide in what I'd call a real world test of acceleration. Kind of thing you mnight want to do overtaking on the back roads. Not seeing how fast you can get 0-200/kmh.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-tesla-mod...
Does that makes the politics easier? Shouldn't we ask the government to make all electric cars VAT free? Or something. Better than giving out tax payers money as grants. Rather than giving money away, take less in taxes? Even the most hardened politically motivated skeptic can't argue with that.
Yes a sound like a kids remote controlled toy car over a v something petrol really does it for me !!! http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/14...
This is the P85D, imagine what the P120Q (quad motors) will be like in 2017.
Owning a fast car like that means no blame on you. Blame the energy industry ;-)
This is the old one P85+, kind of eating up a Aston Rapide in what I'd call a real world test of acceleration. Kind of thing you mnight want to do overtaking on the back roads. Not seeing how fast you can get 0-200/kmh.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/video-tesla-mod...
Does that makes the politics easier? Shouldn't we ask the government to make all electric cars VAT free? Or something. Better than giving out tax payers money as grants. Rather than giving money away, take less in taxes? Even the most hardened politically motivated skeptic can't argue with that.
Vat free !!! more like double plus a good contribution via say a £1000 RFL ..
Today, my contempt for wind turbines increased by several notches.
Southbound on the M1, three turbine blades and one tower section, turning it into a 1 lane motorway with 40 - 45mph queues for fifteen miles.
One was not amused, in fact one was jolly well pissed orf...
Regardez le crappage...
Why can't they shift this rubbish at 2am..?
Southbound on the M1, three turbine blades and one tower section, turning it into a 1 lane motorway with 40 - 45mph queues for fifteen miles.
One was not amused, in fact one was jolly well pissed orf...
Regardez le crappage...
Why can't they shift this rubbish at 2am..?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff