Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Blib said:
Micronesia take on he Czech Republic over Climate Change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/business/global/...
Greenpeace. I wondered which of the tax avoiding NGO's would be behind it.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/business/global/...
Personally I think the sooner people get so pissed off with the messages about the badness of flying (and the constraints imposed on passengers due to security 'threats' that will surely make flying a less and less accpetable experience) the better.
The people and economy of 'Micronesia' will then be returned to the peace and tranquility the current population's descendants must have enjoyed up until a couple of generations ago. That should be perfect for them. They will also be able to take pride in dramatically reducing their local carbon footprints.
Parrot of Doom said:
You know what I noticed last night when reading that article? It's the fact that it is No1 in the 'most read today' box on the Times website... BUT. The article (from the path at the top of the page) is in the environment section. However, if you actually click on the environment section it is nowhere to be found!
I think it's fair to say that the Murdoch media isn't fully onside at the moment.
LongQ said:
Phil1 said:
King Fisher said:
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
Why the need to go straight for the ad-hominem? Are you unable to argue the science?King Fisher said:
...
And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.
before you quote those clowns, perhaps you ought to review the "predictions" they've made in the past about cycle 24 - and how they keep changing the prediction as the sun, inconventiently, keeps doing its own thing....And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.
Much like gloobal wombling in fact.
Edited by mondeoman on Tuesday 19th January 13:32
King Fisher said:
...
And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.
Is that the same NASA team as this?And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/8155921...
Whilst this is an article principally about swine flu - it is rather scathing about alarmist panics from scientists and references global warming.
Oh, and it's in the Grauniad!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/1...
Oh, and it's in the Grauniad!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/1...
Guam said:
mondeoman said:
King Fisher said:
...
And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.
before you quote those clowns, perhaps you ought to review the "predictions" they've made in the past about cycle 24 - and how they keep changing the prediction as the sun, inconventiently, keeps doing its own thing....And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.
Much like gloobal wombling in fact.
Edited by mondeoman on Tuesday 19th January 13:32
NASA have been offering a moving feast for a long time.....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/08/the-new-nasa...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/20/new-solar-cy...
Guam said:
And for me (and many others I suspect) the killer paragraph would be this
"This is why people are ever more sceptical of scientists. Why should they believe what "experts" say when they can be so wrong and with such impunity? Weapons of mass destruction, lethal viruses, nuclear radiation, global warming … why should we believe a word of it? And it is a short step from don't believe to don't care."
Great quote and the perfect illustration of what politicians will deliver to the world for playing fast and loose with junkscience."This is why people are ever more sceptical of scientists. Why should they believe what "experts" say when they can be so wrong and with such impunity? Weapons of mass destruction, lethal viruses, nuclear radiation, global warming … why should we believe a word of it? And it is a short step from don't believe to don't care."
More on the 30 year is-it-climate or is-it-weather thing.
We have a ruling: from the arbiters of truth and wisdom at the ASA.
I imagine most UK PHers will be familiar with the commercial radio advert for science and maths courses in which a 'climate forecaster' struts her stuff "I'm a climate forecaster..." pause for a
"this means I look into a crystal ball and say what the climate will be in 20 years' time" or words to that effect. Not to mention the propaganda thrown in for free "and it's more of the same, unless we DO something..." Well, her getting a proper job would be a start but anyway.
Bearing in mind the PH posts from the weather is not climate company of which there are several independent outlets, I thought I'd waste a few minutes by complaining to the ASA that as the IPCC and sundry sources say climate cannot involve any timescale less than 30 years, the advert is inaccurate and misleading.
Clearly, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, their reply could have been written for the ASA (by me) and sent to them (by me) so they could post it back to me. But at least we now have the definitive answer from the keyboards of officialdom's most revered sages. No specific timescale is needed to define climate, as people listening to such statements would clearly understand any reference to climate, independent of timescale. So, it's open house, the ASA said so, and if they said so it must be true.
Obvious really.....
We have a ruling: from the arbiters of truth and wisdom at the ASA.
I imagine most UK PHers will be familiar with the commercial radio advert for science and maths courses in which a 'climate forecaster' struts her stuff "I'm a climate forecaster..." pause for a
"this means I look into a crystal ball and say what the climate will be in 20 years' time" or words to that effect. Not to mention the propaganda thrown in for free "and it's more of the same, unless we DO something..." Well, her getting a proper job would be a start but anyway.Bearing in mind the PH posts from the weather is not climate company of which there are several independent outlets, I thought I'd waste a few minutes by complaining to the ASA that as the IPCC and sundry sources say climate cannot involve any timescale less than 30 years, the advert is inaccurate and misleading.
Clearly, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, their reply could have been written for the ASA (by me) and sent to them (by me) so they could post it back to me. But at least we now have the definitive answer from the keyboards of officialdom's most revered sages. No specific timescale is needed to define climate, as people listening to such statements would clearly understand any reference to climate, independent of timescale. So, it's open house, the ASA said so, and if they said so it must be true.
Obvious really.....
Guam said:
And for me (and many others I suspect) the killer paragraph would be this
"This is why people are ever more sceptical of scientists. Why should they believe what "experts" say when they can be so wrong and with such impunity? Weapons of mass destruction, lethal viruses, nuclear radiation, global warming … why should we believe a word of it? And it is a short step from don't believe to don't care."
Giving me the perfect segway (media speak) to post this
Credit Prison planet (yes they are off the wall but they do great art)
Might be media speak, but it's spelt "segue", unless you're referring to the gyroscopic pogo stick with wheels that GW bush fell off!"This is why people are ever more sceptical of scientists. Why should they believe what "experts" say when they can be so wrong and with such impunity? Weapons of mass destruction, lethal viruses, nuclear radiation, global warming … why should we believe a word of it? And it is a short step from don't believe to don't care."
Giving me the perfect segway (media speak) to post this
Credit Prison planet (yes they are off the wall but they do great art)
King Fisher said:
LongQ said:
Phil1 said:
King Fisher said:
Of course, the armchair scientists will heed the sensationalist headlines and that damages the public's perception of the argument for climate change. And that will obviously please the vast majority of the pistonheads community who frankly don't give a damn about the science but just want climate change to be disproved so they can drive their gas guzzling monsters with a clear conscience.
Why the need to go straight for the ad-hominem? Are you unable to argue the science?
Where we may differ is about scientific cause and effects, in the details perhaps, and maybe what part, if any, of the inevitably accompnying politics is acceptable. I fear that the latter and the financial developments that stem from it, are far more influential than the science ever was or ever will be by itself.
'They' don't care about what would or would not do the planet any good. In part this is because neither they nor anyone else can possibly know the answers. This suits their purpose well. It provides a perfect excuse for doing anything at all that they feel good about. Redistributing wealth, and doing so inefficiently making the idea even worse, seems to be the primary objective. The beauty of the AGW concept from that perspective is that it is unmeasurable and unprovable, either way, in any realistic human understood timescale. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, there is nothing conclusive that can be decided as this time. That in turn implies, to me, that the entire exercise is either flawed or a scam.
Your take may vary.
LongQ said:
King Fisher said:
LongQ said:
have a go at all the Carbon Trading profiteers
yes, I'll have a go at the carbon traders with pleasure. The most pointless activity on the planet. The only people who benefit are those who tradeNothing better than running a Bentley with a 'Carbon Neutral' sticker in the rear windscreen to confuse a greeny, it's worth every penny for the complete piss take
Best bit of all is asking a Prious driver at the pumps if they offset their 106 grammes of C02 per kilometre? because if they don't, my car is greener!
Edited by Balmoral Green on Tuesday 19th January 18:22
Balmoral Green said:
Hey, I carbon trade. It's not pointless and I benefit. I pay some idiots a few quid each year to make my Bentley carbon neutral.
Nothing better than running a Bentley with a 'Carbon Neutral' sticker in the rear windscreen to confuse a greeny, it's worth every penny for the complete piss take
Best bit of all is asking a Prious driver at the pumps if they offset their 106 grammes of C02 per kilometre? because if they don't, my car is greener!
Nothing better than running a Bentley with a 'Carbon Neutral' sticker in the rear windscreen to confuse a greeny, it's worth every penny for the complete piss take
Best bit of all is asking a Prious driver at the pumps if they offset their 106 grammes of C02 per kilometre? because if they don't, my car is greener!
Edited by Balmoral Green on Tuesday 19th January 18:22
That sums the scam up quite nicely actually.The balMoral of the story : we should all drive a Bentley, pay some idiots, planet saved! Well that's more or less how they want it.
Balmoral Green said:
LongQ said:
King Fisher said:
LongQ said:
have a go at all the Carbon Trading profiteers
yes, I'll have a go at the carbon traders with pleasure. The most pointless activity on the planet. The only people who benefit are those who tradeNothing better than running a Bentley with a 'Carbon Neutral' sticker in the rear windscreen to confuse a greeny, it's worth every penny for the complete piss take
Best bit of all is asking a Prious driver at the pumps if they offset their 106 grammes of C02 per kilometre? because if they don't, my car is greener!
Of course once you have the sticker there is no need to renew the indulgence each year and one would have to point out that to qualify as a 'trade' you really should 'discover' that you have bought more 'offsets' than you needed and sell your excess holding to the Pious driver for a net profit. THAT would be trading.
Better still, get a certificate of excess and re-sell that multiple times, VAT added, and the don't pay the VAT to the EU coffers. Then you would be a proper Carbon Trader.
Hooty said:
Backtracking!!!!!!!!!this is the SECOND time they re-(surpressed)-ported this story.....
They had this story on the 5th of December 2009 here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/838773...
Wonder why it was buried away, in the south east asia section of the website
NOT reported in the main news, tv or otherwise
Not reported on the Science section
Not reported in the Copenhagen section
surely this was GOOD news.
Could it be it was the WEEK BEFORE Copenhagen.
And they were hiding anything that might damage their belief in the man made climate change religion.
Anybody for a climate change bias complaint.
trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk <trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk>
I've been trying to compose one since this story rebroke on Sunday.
Just a bit too cross to make it coherent yet!
BBC Article said:
Dr van Ypersele said this was not the case.
"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report," he said.
"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."
"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report," he said.
"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."
The bare-faced cheek of the man.
The IPCC didn't uncover it. Furthermore, they've only canged it after pressure from the chap who was mis quoted in the first place.
Beyond belief.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff