In your face evidence of climate change

[mark69sheer]

come on guys we can't even do a five day forecast.

Whos making this stuff up meteorologists or eco warriors.

The Globla Warming Hysteria industry seems to be the only place where hindsight has an elavated value.

In every other walk of life hindsight is worth 'tuppence a ton'

Models are just pointless as mentioned as they are just tweeking variables to prove assumptions.

Noone predicted the current 30yr climate stasis when Global warming became the new Aids Crisis.

Everyone is just playing with data to justify their education wasn't just a complete waste of time.

[gopher]

Whilst not going off topic but if I could take a slight deviation for a post or two, I'm emailing CMD and whilst I'm sure he is aware I'd like to quote those figures on C02 production by uk cars as a percentage of total world wide CO2 production (natural and man made).

I know the breakdown is here somewhere but I can't seem to find the right search term.

[turbobloke]

gopher said:

Whilst not going off topic but if I could take a slight deviation for a post or two, I'm emailing CMD and whilst I'm sure he is aware I'd like to quote those figures on C02 production by uk cars as a percentage of total world wide CO2 production (natural and man made).

I know the breakdown is here somewhere but I can't seem to find the right search term.

The breakdown involves IPCC, DEFRA and SMMT data depending on which figures you want to use. one exampke involving 4x4s from a year or so ago is:

8% of 16% of 2% of 3.4%

% of new car sales that are 4x4 (this changes) 8
% of UK emissions due to cars 16
% of global emissions due to UK 2
% of cycled carbon dioxide due to human activity 3.4

For all cars just omit the last 8% stage.

[gopher]

Cheers TB the 16% will do - it's low enough anyway.

[Jasandjules]

I will be writing to Mr Yeo to inform him he's just lost a vote.

[nigelfr]

gopher said:

Cheers TB the 16% will do - it's low enough anyway.

Just a point Gopher, if you're going to raise the taxes issue with him, make sure you use the correct figures: if you use TB's "approaching £40 billion", you'll look foolish. Some people may have been taken in by the spin, but I sure an opposition minister will know that only a part of hydrocarbon taxes are AGW taxes: same with VED and if you include the Landfill and Aggregate taxes which have nothing at all to do with AGW, you'll totally ruin your case.

As I've said before, I deplore the Government's taxation policy with repect to AGW, and the more people that complain about it the better, but if you use the wrong figures you won't be taken seriously. TB gave us a link to the Government's figures: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=152

Unfortunately he has not looked at them critically. For one thing they show that Environmental taxes have fallen as a percentage of GDP since a peak in 1999. (They are increasing this year because the oil price has gone up: as everyone knows there is duty and VAT on fuel, so as all this is now considered an environmental tax and accounts for 2/3 of "eco-taxes", it's not surprising.)The introduction of environmental taxation was announced in a Statement of Intent in 1997: in a spin exercise, VED and all hydrocarbon taxes were declared environmental taxes. This is complete nonsense, because the duty on fuel has been around since the year dot. Same with VED which was just another tax until 1997.

Now it is clear that TB and others posting here trust the Government uncritically on this issue, because a lot of the rhetoric here is complaining about this "approaching £40 Billion", so I've e-mailed the Statistics Office to raise this issue. I await with interest their reply.

[gopher]

nigelfr said:

Just a point Gopher, if you're going to raise the taxes issue with him, make sure you use the correct figures: if you use TB's "approaching £40 billion", you'll look foolish. Some people may have been taken in by the spin, but I sure an opposition minister will know that only a part of hydrocarbon taxes are AGW taxes: same with VED and if you include the Landfill and Aggregate taxes which have nothing at all to do with AGW, you'll totally ruin your case.

As I've said before, I deplore the Government's taxation policy with repect to AGW, and the more people that complain about it the better, but if you use the wrong figures you won't be taken seriously. TB gave us a link to the Government's figures: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=152

Unfortunately he has not looked at them critically. For one thing they show that Environmental taxes have fallen as a percentage of GDP since a peak in 1999. (They are increasing this year because the oil price has gone up: as everyone knows there is duty and VAT on fuel, so as all this is now considered an environmental tax and accounts for 2/3 of "eco-taxes", it's not surprising.)The introduction of environmental taxation was announced in a Statement of Intent in 1997: in a spin exercise, VED and all hydrocarbon taxes were declared environmental taxes. This is complete nonsense, because the duty on fuel has been around since the year dot. Same with VED which was just another tax until 1997.

Now it is clear that TB and others posting here trust the Government uncritically on this issue, because a lot of the rhetoric here is complaining about this "approaching £40 Billion", so I've e-mailed the Statistics Office to raise this issue. I await with interest their reply.

I just wanted to highlight out the pointlessness of taxing car users on the basis of Co2 production as such the % figures are fine.

[ludo]

gopher said:

nigelfr said:

Just a point Gopher, if you're going to raise the taxes issue with him, make sure you use the correct figures: if you use TB's "approaching £40 billion", you'll look foolish. Some people may have been taken in by the spin, but I sure an opposition minister will know that only a part of hydrocarbon taxes are AGW taxes: same with VED and if you include the Landfill and Aggregate taxes which have nothing at all to do with AGW, you'll totally ruin your case.

As I've said before, I deplore the Government's taxation policy with repect to AGW, and the more people that complain about it the better, but if you use the wrong figures you won't be taken seriously. TB gave us a link to the Government's figures: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=152

Unfortunately he has not looked at them critically. For one thing they show that Environmental taxes have fallen as a percentage of GDP since a peak in 1999. (They are increasing this year because the oil price has gone up: as everyone knows there is duty and VAT on fuel, so as all this is now considered an environmental tax and accounts for 2/3 of "eco-taxes", it's not surprising.)The introduction of environmental taxation was announced in a Statement of Intent in 1997: in a spin exercise, VED and all hydrocarbon taxes were declared environmental taxes. This is complete nonsense, because the duty on fuel has been around since the year dot. Same with VED which was just another tax until 1997.

Now it is clear that TB and others posting here trust the Government uncritically on this issue, because a lot of the rhetoric here is complaining about this "approaching £40 Billion", so I've e-mailed the Statistics Office to raise this issue. I await with interest their reply.

I just wanted to highlight out the pointlessness of taxing car users on the basis of Co2 production as such the % figures are fine.

the 3.4% figure is also wrong, it is not the size of the annual cycling that matters as far as the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 is concerned, it is the difference between environmental emissions and environmental uptake that matters and this is negative (i.e. the environment is taking in more CO2 over the course of a year than it gives out).

[gopher]

ludo said:

the 3.4% figure is also wrong, it is not the size of the annual cycling that matters as far as the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 is concerned, it is the difference between environmental emissions and environmental uptake that matters and this is negative (i.e. the environment is taking in more CO2 over the course of a year than it gives out).

Okay what are your figures for UK car production of Co2 (assuming thaqt's an issue) as a % of total gain?

[ludo]

gopher said:

ludo said:

the 3.4% figure is also wrong, it is not the size of the annual cycling that matters as far as the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 is concerned, it is the difference between environmental emissions and environmental uptake that matters and this is negative (i.e. the environment is taking in more CO2 over the course of a year than it gives out).

Okay what are your figures for UK car production of Co2 (assuming thaqt's an issue) as a % of total gain?

I don't see any reason to distrust the other figures given by turbobloke, the 3.4% figure is the only one that I know to be wrong from an understanding of the carbon cycle.

ETA: although nigelfr also has a point regarding the retrospective relabelling of all of the fuel duty as an ecotax.

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 5th August 10:40

[gopher]

ludo said:

gopher said:

ludo said:

the 3.4% figure is also wrong, it is not the size of the annual cycling that matters as far as the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 is concerned, it is the difference between environmental emissions and environmental uptake that matters and this is negative (i.e. the environment is taking in more CO2 over the course of a year than it gives out).

Okay what are your figures for UK car production of Co2 (assuming thaqt's an issue) as a % of total gain?

I don't see any reason to distrust the other figures given by turbobloke, the 3.4% figure is the only one that I know to be wrong from an understanding of the carbon cycle.

ETA: although nigelfr also has a point regarding the retrospective relabelling of all of the fuel duty as an ecotax.

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 5th August 10:40

So it's still tiny then?

[nigelfr]

ludo said:

s2art said:

I disagree. You are making the assumption that you can make theory free accurate models, based AFAICT on Bayesian probabilities. Fine, up to the point that reality doesnt conform to your linear assumptions.
Basically you would be guilty of curve matching, just as the current set of climate models are. Plug in enough variables and tweak accordingly and its always possible to get an apparent match. Right up until the underlying laws/rules/behaviour gets non-linear. Think of phase changes as an example.

Not if it was a Bayesian model, the increased Occam factor due to the added degrees of freedom would reduce the marginal likelihood of the model, so a Bayesian model selection procedure would not allow you to choose it. BTW, I often fit non-linear Bayesian models, they are nothing new in statistics.

Guys, I was just trying to get across a very basic idea of modelling, for those who have never had any experience with them: you know, data, theory, test etc. Let's not over complicate things please.

[ludo]

gopher said:

ludo said:

gopher said:

ludo said:

the 3.4% figure is also wrong, it is not the size of the annual cycling that matters as far as the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 is concerned, it is the difference between environmental emissions and environmental uptake that matters and this is negative (i.e. the environment is taking in more CO2 over the course of a year than it gives out).

Okay what are your figures for UK car production of Co2 (assuming thaqt's an issue) as a % of total gain?

I don't see any reason to distrust the other figures given by turbobloke, the 3.4% figure is the only one that I know to be wrong from an understanding of the carbon cycle.

ETA: although nigelfr also has a point regarding the retrospective relabelling of all of the fuel duty as an ecotax.

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 5th August 10:40

So it's still tiny then?

Depends on what argument you are trying to make, however the important thing is that the argument is made using figures that are not obviously wrong (especially if you are going to use them outside the friendly envionment of the P&P).

[nigelfr]

mybrainhurts said:

nigelfr said:

mybrainhurts said:

nigelfr said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Biased fudge springs to mind here.

I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.

I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.

If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.

Odd, don't you think?

Have you checked their sources, old boy..?

So in the seventies, were you reading the primary scientific litterature or were you reading the reports in the media? It was an invention of the media, the survery of the primary scientific litterature of the time shows it was a misrepresentation of the balance of opinion. If you want to disprove that, feel free to do your own survey of the scientific journals of the seventies and get back to us.

You have it arse about face there, old boy. You're making the claim, you support it, please.

My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?

It appears that you are claiming that the scientific community did not voice any criticism back then. Can you back this up with facts?

Why should I waste time and effort doing that? I was there. I heard nothing. If you know differently, I'm all ears.

World's temperature likely to rise; The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A

Pardon me while I pause. Are we discussing corrupt scientists or the media...?

nigelfr said:

And regarding "The Cooling World" Newsweek's alarmist article about the ice age in 1975: On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."'

And your point is what...?

This is getting a bit too nested here, but I need the first quote, to show how unreasonable you are: when presented with any evidence, you call it a biased fudge and you also believe scientists to be corrupt. SO I present you with a 1976 media report and you say that you don't want media, you want scientists. BTW the Times report from 1976 is about the warning issued by the World Meteorological Organization that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.

Unfortunately, this report was based on the work of scientists: so you won't accept it will you?

And while the popular press like Newsweek was hyping "the Ice Age Cometh" (and, as I say, they apologised 31 years later: don't you find that amazing?) an analysis of publications from that time does not show that scientists shared that concern. Ah yes, but that would be " a biased fudge" wouldn't it.

So let me be clear in my understanding of your opinion: all scientists are corrupt, therefore all reports in the media of scientists' work are untrustworthy. So on what are you basing your posts?

[esselte]

im said:

Unfortunately even the next administration is seeing things with GW googles on.

In a nut shell, Tim Yeo (Shadow Cabinet) said:

Government plans to increase car tax for "gas-guzzling" vehicles should be bolder to increase the environmental impact, MPs say. The Environmental Audit Committee's official report backs the move as a "step in the right direction". But chairman Tim Yeo said the benefit to the environment would be limited, and called for more ambitious changes.

Full story here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7539625.stm

Same old-same old I'm afraid.

Of course Tim Yeo has no agenda has he? Isn't he the chairman of Eco City Vehicles? Do you not think it a bit rich that an MP who can benefit financially from increased VED is on the comittee discussing it?

[nigelfr]

Blib said:

Nigelfr. I was taught about Global Cooling as fact in geography lessons at school.

Just as my daughter was taught about Man Made Global Warming as fact in geography lessons at school.

You need(ed) better teachers: with the currently state of knowledge, the most that scientists will say is that AGW is VERY likely to be true.


From IPCC 4th Report: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Footnote 6 on page 3 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively.

[turbobloke]

nigelfr said:

Blib said:

Nigelfr. I was taught about Global Cooling as fact in geography lessons at school.

Just as my daughter was taught about Man Made Global Warming as fact in geography lessons at school.

You need(ed) better teachers: with the currently state of knowledge, the most that scientists will say is that AGW is VERY likely to be true.

Not so, there is no evidence for MMGWT, no human signal in global climate data, so it's very likely not true. It has only a metaphysical existence. In effect it doesn't exist.

[Apache]

The Oregon petition etc have as many scientists who say otherwise.....it's simply wrong to convince children that something is true when it patently isn't provable. Shouldn't MMGW be included in RE classes?

[nigelfr]

Apache said:

The Oregon petition etc have as many scientists who say otherwise.....it's simply wrong to convince children that something is true when it patently isn't provable. Shouldn't MMGW be included in RE classes?

That's the point I'm trying to make AGW sceptics/deniers claim that AGW is considered proven. But that is just a strawman that they can knock down. AGW is still considered a possibility with a 90% probability of being right.

So your Oregonists also have a possibility of being right, but this is currently estimated at 10% at most.

However, a couple of provisos: the petition is open to anyone with a degree: you don't have to be a climate research scientists. You only have to agree with the petition, you don't have to prove it's right.

I'm sure if the IPCC asked for people with a degree to sign a petition agreeing with it there would be more than 31,000 signatories:
Here's some info on OP signatoriestaken from Wiki):# Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree. As of 2007, about 2400 people in addition to the original 17,100 signatories were "trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition." The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but provided no details confirming this claim. As of 2008, the petition's website states that "The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science." [

1. Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. The petition sponsors state the following numbers of individuals from each discipline: 1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,697; 2. Computer and mathematical sciences: 903; 3. Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,691; 4. Chemistry: 4,796; 5. Biology and agriculture: 2,924; 6. Medicine: 3,069; 7. Engineering and general science: 9,992.

[nigelfr]

turbobloke said:

nigelfr said:

Blib said:

Nigelfr. I was taught about Global Cooling as fact in geography lessons at school.

Just as my daughter was taught about Man Made Global Warming as fact in geography lessons at school.

You need(ed) better teachers: with the currently state of knowledge, the most that scientists will say is that AGW is VERY likely to be true.

Not so, there is no evidence for MMGWT, no human signal in global climate data, so it's very likely not true. It has only a metaphysical existence. In effect it doesn't exist.

Oh, puhleese! You're splitting hairs again. There is no evidence that you exist, except for some electrons exciting my screen, but most rational people accept that you do. It's the same old, same old straw man that you keep bringing out over and over again.