In your face evidence of climate change
Discussion
nigelfr said:
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.Just as my daughter was taught about Man Made Global Warming as fact in geography lessons at school.
king man-made signal in Climate change - go on, dare ya!Show it, prove it, define it...
ludo said:
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. 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.
ludo said:
There is no blame to be found in floods, they cause natural fertilisation.
If there is any 'blame' to be had from floods as they effect man then it might be just being the fact that the risk was taken to live there because of the fertility such floods make life good most of the time.
Floods are good.
Going back a few pages, because I'm still catching up...
That level of misinformation and media/government fuelled mass hysteria is very worrying and I can now see the point of some con-MMGW people on here!
JMGS4 said:
All you MMGW fans and true-believers should read this. More information than any skewed false computer predictions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelso...
The Royal Navy is probably the best source for ACCURATE climate data EVER!! Mind you GoreOn wasn't around then nor were the IPCC idiots when this data was accurately recorded, and they have blatantly ignored it from the beginning as it doesn't fit into their fantasy religion!!
Nice, but you and this story clearly imply that the pro-MMGW "true believers" appear to think that ANY GW is cause ENTIRELY by man? Surely all the pro-MMGW believers don't think any climate change is purely down to man and nothing else? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelso...
The Royal Navy is probably the best source for ACCURATE climate data EVER!! Mind you GoreOn wasn't around then nor were the IPCC idiots when this data was accurately recorded, and they have blatantly ignored it from the beginning as it doesn't fit into their fantasy religion!!
That level of misinformation and media/government fuelled mass hysteria is very worrying and I can now see the point of some con-MMGW people on here!
www.withouthotair.com
dont know if its already been posted but well worth the read, yes its a long document but do print it out and read it as it comes hihgly recommended.
dont know if its already been posted but well worth the read, yes its a long document but do print it out and read it as it comes hihgly recommended.
nigelfr said:
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 signatories
taken 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." [- 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.
"Oregonists also have a possibility of being right, but this is currently estimated at 10% at most"
and
"AGW is still considered a possibility with a 90% probability of being right"
This is based on what exactly?
We end up in countless circular arguments with each opposing side trying to outdo the other. It's easy to do because there is so much information on the web but it's not so easy to find the motivation or agenda behind that information. This is why I posted the thread MMGW where it started, it was penned by an environmental advisor to the Government with some pretty solid credentials making some pretty AGW comments. I feel the report contents are very important and show how this whole subject was a political tool from the outset and decades later no closer to revealing any tangible basis in truth.
esselte said:
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?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.
As I said, same old-same old, the party of the arse is irrelevent - its all about the individual.
nigelfr said:
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..?
My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?
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...?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?
Listen carefully, I will say zis only once....
(1) This research has presented us with scientists who have admitted to lying, cheating, allowing their work to be misrepresented by politicians and throwing dickyfits every time someone challenges them.
(2) This phenomenon is new in the field of scientific research.
(3) I am a layman. Having observed the bluster, I am unable to judge which scientists have integrity.
(4) As a consequence, I cannot take anything they say at face value.
(5) The End.
Jasandjules said:
esselte said:
Isn't he the chairman of Eco City Vehicles?
http://www.ecocityvehicles.com/aimrule26/directors.phpYEP.
I've sent him a nice letter today telling him he's just lost my vote.
They have the population arguing and b
hing at each other, fuelling petty prejudices, mopping up all the profits whilst all your backs are turned. And there was me thinking MP’s were voted in to look after their constituents, not work/scheme against them for personal gain, silly me…..Apache said:
I was using the Oregon petition as an example and don't really want to refute your claims of it's validity...nested quote nightmare, there are other examples should one care to look. What I am bothered by is statements like
"Oregonists also have a possibility of being right, but this is currently estimated at 10% at most"
and
"AGW is still considered a possibility with a 90% probability of being right"
This is based on what exactly?
We end up in countless circular arguments with each opposing side trying to outdo the other. It's easy to do because there is so much information on the web but it's not so easy to find the motivation or agenda behind that information. This is why I posted the thread MMGW where it started, it was penned by an environmental advisor to the Government with some pretty solid credentials making some pretty AGW comments. I feel the report contents are very important and show how this whole subject was a political tool from the outset and decades later no closer to revealing any tangible basis in truth.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: it's 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.""Oregonists also have a possibility of being right, but this is currently estimated at 10% at most"
and
"AGW is still considered a possibility with a 90% probability of being right"
This is based on what exactly?
We end up in countless circular arguments with each opposing side trying to outdo the other. It's easy to do because there is so much information on the web but it's not so easy to find the motivation or agenda behind that information. This is why I posted the thread MMGW where it started, it was penned by an environmental advisor to the Government with some pretty solid credentials making some pretty AGW comments. I feel the report contents are very important and show how this whole subject was a political tool from the outset and decades later no closer to revealing any tangible basis in truth.
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.
So I took the 90% from 100% to estimate the likelihood of the Orogonists being right. Actually, since the petition dates from 1999 and data have accrued since then, I may be over estimating.
I find it extraordinary that AGW is now considered to have been politically motivated from the beginning. It took almost 30 years before the scientists were taken seriously.
BTW I compare the bluster to the tobacco companies attempts to obscure the harmful effects of smoking. Just a few, (bought and paid for?), experts were enough to get them off the hook for years.
(Edited as I messed up the nested comments)
Edited by nigelfr on Tuesday 5th August 21:57
talking to the easter bunny the tooth fairy said:
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.
Statement made with no supporting data - checkClaim opposed by observation - check
Reasoning by assertion - check
Political advocacy - check
mattikake said:
Going back a few pages, because I'm still catching up...
That level of misinformation and media/government fuelled mass hysteria is very worrying and I can now see the point of some con-MMGW people on here!
Er, I thought the OP was an anti AGW as other antis have said that the data proves AGW doesn't exist.JMGS4 said:
All you MMGW fans and true-believers should read this. More information than any skewed false computer predictions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelso...
The Royal Navy is probably the best source for ACCURATE climate data EVER!! Mind you GoreOn wasn't around then nor were the IPCC idiots when this data was accurately recorded, and they have blatantly ignored it from the beginning as it doesn't fit into their fantasy religion!!
Nice, but you and this story clearly imply that the pro-MMGW "true believers" appear to think that ANY GW is cause ENTIRELY by man? Surely all the pro-MMGW believers don't think any climate change is purely down to man and nothing else? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelso...
The Royal Navy is probably the best source for ACCURATE climate data EVER!! Mind you GoreOn wasn't around then nor were the IPCC idiots when this data was accurately recorded, and they have blatantly ignored it from the beginning as it doesn't fit into their fantasy religion!!
That level of misinformation and media/government fuelled mass hysteria is very worrying and I can now see the point of some con-MMGW people on here!
I think you'll find that AGW proponents are aware that the climate changes naturally, but that there is also a man made element.
IPCC 2001 said:
The fact that the global mean [surface] temperature has
increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have
been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic
effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has
always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may
be natural.
Not too far out, then it all went political.increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have
been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic
effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has
always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may
be natural.
turbobloke said:
talking to the easter bunny the tooth fairy said:
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.
Statement made with no supporting data - checkClaim opposed by observation - check
Reasoning by assertion - check
Political advocacy - check
Well, that's it chaps, TB's made the definitive pronouncement and we can all go home. It's all my fault, because I said I believe he existed on the evidence of a few electrons hitting my screen. It only takes one believer to create a new God and it looks like I've just done it.
All hail mighty TB, all hail.
The Manhattan Declaration of the NIPCC said:
‘Global warming’ is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend—
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.
Nothing more to be said.We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend—
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.
nigelfr said:
I find it extraordinary that AGW is now considered to have been politically motivated from the beginning. It took almost 30 years before the scientists were taken seriously.
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
and if TB could post a link to the author you might find it interesting.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff