Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
the paul hudson blog is good for a bit of debate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-fr...
An example:
144. At 00:39am on 21 Jan 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:
Barry,
You seem to have quickly forgotten David Michaels' book "Doubt is their Product", which I refered to in the newer thread.
Any vested interest amongst a small number of global warming scientists is miniscule when compared to the multi-billion dollar industries which have been funding the "professional sceptics" I referred to!
You need to start asking yourself which side of the debate REALLY stands to lose most it loses the argument!
Paul
Complain about this comment
145. At 11:12am on 21 Jan 2010, you wrote:
You seem to have forgotten I can and (for the moment - despite some politicians call for laws! against denial) allowed to think for myself, and make my own judgements. There is equally good book I could quote you on risk..
Ie who benefits from the scare stories, bse, sars, swine flu, weapons of mass distruction, politics through creating a fear,etc,etc.
But I won't patronise anybody by saying read this, it will change your mind. Just it might give a few ideas to think about.
What tends to happen is:
the poor old scientists, says, yes this is a new flu, yes it is highly infectious and could become a pandemic (ie in the technical sense) journalist just think ebola!, yes it COULD mutate, yes it could be bad, but actually it seems mild in most people. Being a scientists, they do tend to say could, but journo's want definites, so choose the most 'newsworthy' element, ignoring the caveats.
The media hype it to death, pointing out one or 2 deaths (whereas 'normal flu' kills many more people every winter anyway) demand to know on behalf of their readers of course, what the politicians are doing about it (brave politico, not much it seems quite mild)
they sell a few more papers and their editors are happy.
Experts demand more reseacrh, demand action, - people who ask sensible questions, are called ignrant sceptics who are dangerous, and would kill us all. (their motive and allegiances are questioned (but never the experts)
The politicians go into panic mode, must do something, the lobbyists scare them along, lots of swine flu vaccine is baught. A little later on, a billion pounds worth is being sold of to anyone who will take, it, and various politicians retire at the next election, to the saftey of a pharmaceutical company that used to lobby then...
Vested Interests!
Yes, UN (global tax, start of world gov) EU, (rompey says, the start of global management, and talks CO2 taxes - first speech - see it on youtube) the big corporations, big finacial instititions, lots of tax for lots of governments (who need a tax - and we are only doing this to SAVE the planet, is a good stick for the public to be hit with), lots of western 'guilt' money going to corrupt regimes. Do you think a penny will be spent on reducing co2..
The 'professional sceptics' if their is such a beast (why the quotes) are the poorly funded ones... I'm 'just' a home dad with a part time business at the moment. (whht am I an 'ignorant' memeber of the public, a sceptic, a deniar, or something else, to be dismissed - I'm far better qulaified scientifically, and in computer modelling than either , Brown, Miliband, Al Gore, sting or bono))
The sceptics (apparently 50% of the public, as well) are after all going up against the EU, and the majority of greenwashed polticians around the world (after 20-30 years of lobbying - especially the tories, the former nasty party, can't be seen to be called nasty by the green crowd))
A quote from the spectator:
"I'd really like to Gordon Brown call this man a "flat-earther" to his face
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate...
a physicist at CERN shows strong correlation between solar radiation and climate variations"
From why the maldives are NOT sinking article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why...
Who stands to lose. Well it is either MONEY or POLITICICS.
Money has no shame, it will change it's mind in an instant, and 'follow the money'
Poltics: Loss of face!
Complain about this comment
146. At 11:17am on 21 Jan 2010, you wrote:
It might be of interest to get a Freedom of Information request.
To see how much the NHS and councils have spent so far on, Carbon offsets, carbon credits, etc.
and what projected budgets for the next 5 -10 years are to meet the government target...
Whilst in Bedford last week, I noticed an article about locals objecting about a wind farm (and some green groups!?) but the council was more concerned about LOSS of government funding, if it did NOT meet it's CO2 targets.
I will have to buy a carbon credit (do you get a certificate?) asa a historical novelty.
It will probably last longer framed, than a 17th century Dutch tulip bulb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_bubble
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-fr...
An example:
144. At 00:39am on 21 Jan 2010, Paul Briscoe wrote:
Barry,
You seem to have quickly forgotten David Michaels' book "Doubt is their Product", which I refered to in the newer thread.
Any vested interest amongst a small number of global warming scientists is miniscule when compared to the multi-billion dollar industries which have been funding the "professional sceptics" I referred to!
You need to start asking yourself which side of the debate REALLY stands to lose most it loses the argument!
Paul
Complain about this comment
145. At 11:12am on 21 Jan 2010, you wrote:
You seem to have forgotten I can and (for the moment - despite some politicians call for laws! against denial) allowed to think for myself, and make my own judgements. There is equally good book I could quote you on risk..
Ie who benefits from the scare stories, bse, sars, swine flu, weapons of mass distruction, politics through creating a fear,etc,etc.
But I won't patronise anybody by saying read this, it will change your mind. Just it might give a few ideas to think about.
What tends to happen is:
the poor old scientists, says, yes this is a new flu, yes it is highly infectious and could become a pandemic (ie in the technical sense) journalist just think ebola!, yes it COULD mutate, yes it could be bad, but actually it seems mild in most people. Being a scientists, they do tend to say could, but journo's want definites, so choose the most 'newsworthy' element, ignoring the caveats.
The media hype it to death, pointing out one or 2 deaths (whereas 'normal flu' kills many more people every winter anyway) demand to know on behalf of their readers of course, what the politicians are doing about it (brave politico, not much it seems quite mild)
they sell a few more papers and their editors are happy.
Experts demand more reseacrh, demand action, - people who ask sensible questions, are called ignrant sceptics who are dangerous, and would kill us all. (their motive and allegiances are questioned (but never the experts)
The politicians go into panic mode, must do something, the lobbyists scare them along, lots of swine flu vaccine is baught. A little later on, a billion pounds worth is being sold of to anyone who will take, it, and various politicians retire at the next election, to the saftey of a pharmaceutical company that used to lobby then...
Vested Interests!
Yes, UN (global tax, start of world gov) EU, (rompey says, the start of global management, and talks CO2 taxes - first speech - see it on youtube) the big corporations, big finacial instititions, lots of tax for lots of governments (who need a tax - and we are only doing this to SAVE the planet, is a good stick for the public to be hit with), lots of western 'guilt' money going to corrupt regimes. Do you think a penny will be spent on reducing co2..
The 'professional sceptics' if their is such a beast (why the quotes) are the poorly funded ones... I'm 'just' a home dad with a part time business at the moment. (whht am I an 'ignorant' memeber of the public, a sceptic, a deniar, or something else, to be dismissed - I'm far better qulaified scientifically, and in computer modelling than either , Brown, Miliband, Al Gore, sting or bono))
The sceptics (apparently 50% of the public, as well) are after all going up against the EU, and the majority of greenwashed polticians around the world (after 20-30 years of lobbying - especially the tories, the former nasty party, can't be seen to be called nasty by the green crowd))
A quote from the spectator:
"I'd really like to Gordon Brown call this man a "flat-earther" to his face
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate...
a physicist at CERN shows strong correlation between solar radiation and climate variations"
From why the maldives are NOT sinking article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why...
Who stands to lose. Well it is either MONEY or POLITICICS.
Money has no shame, it will change it's mind in an instant, and 'follow the money'
Poltics: Loss of face!
Complain about this comment
146. At 11:17am on 21 Jan 2010, you wrote:
It might be of interest to get a Freedom of Information request.
To see how much the NHS and councils have spent so far on, Carbon offsets, carbon credits, etc.
and what projected budgets for the next 5 -10 years are to meet the government target...
Whilst in Bedford last week, I noticed an article about locals objecting about a wind farm (and some green groups!?) but the council was more concerned about LOSS of government funding, if it did NOT meet it's CO2 targets.
I will have to buy a carbon credit (do you get a certificate?) asa a historical novelty.
It will probably last longer framed, than a 17th century Dutch tulip bulb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_bubble
I wonder how long this will last on Conservative Home website this time?
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010...
cloudedyellow@fsmail.net said in reply to barry woods...
Usual list of myths and half understood facts.
All you questions are answered on the New Scientist website e.g. the old ice age in the 70s urban myth"
Hi Cloudedyellow,
for the record I've never voted Labour, if you think I'm a labour troll. Actually since I've been allowed to vote, I have always voted tory...
BUT, this time?
Well I've got 2 science degrees as well...
SNAP
BSC Applied Chemnistry
MSC Information Systems Engineering. (Comp Sci/Cybernetics) I know more than a little about the hazards and pitfalls attempting to model non linear complex systems in computers..
Oh an ten years plus IT (big multi million pound projetc, banks, telco's)..
(just look what happened in the finacial markets when they tired to model risk in this way -ooops! - against lots of sceptics warnings)
I can safely I'm better qualified to write complex computer models. than a couple of climate scientists, doing really bad fortran at CRU, East Anglia, see climategate...
Oh and bit more qualified than a PHd history (labour poloics) Brown, and climate sabatouer Miliband!
The ultimate proof that AGW theory is discredited is BROWN theory:
Whateve G Brown Attaches himself to with Moral authority, will embarrsingly quickly be shown to be the exact opposite of truth...
The sceptics have the best jokes you see, is another theory, which will indicate the way 'consensus' an awful word in science, is going.
More seriously:
When hopefully the labour party is in opposition.
How quickly do you think the LABOUR party will start to say the CO2 taxation policy is wrong?
Especially when the unions realise (ie corus closure example) that big corporations can relocate industry to abroad (outside the EU) and then claim tens, hundreds, of millions of punds in carbon credits, to sell to other polluters (ie they have reduced emission here- but don't worry the CO2 will now be pumped out in India, at 3 new steel plants)
After all
it was all MAGARET THATCHER fault (the labour party like to say that..
FRONT Page of cheif AGW theory supoprting website:
The Hadley Centre:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...
"Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians:
•A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada.
•A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change.
•The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options.
In December 1988 the UK Government announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research"
TALK about unintended consequence, she wanted to break the power of coal, and bring in gas/nuclear...
30 years on we get the IPCC, UN governmentand CO2 taxation!!!
Even now, Miliband has started saying, I'm not a climate expert, but the scientists are telling me...
Looking for an escape route?
Seriously though:
When this all falls apart, have the tory party got a facesaving back up plan when they are in Government, hopefully. Cap and Trade is never going to get past in America.
As for New scientist.... AGW is their religion....
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010...
cloudedyellow@fsmail.net said in reply to barry woods...
Usual list of myths and half understood facts.
All you questions are answered on the New Scientist website e.g. the old ice age in the 70s urban myth"
Hi Cloudedyellow,
for the record I've never voted Labour, if you think I'm a labour troll. Actually since I've been allowed to vote, I have always voted tory...
BUT, this time?
Well I've got 2 science degrees as well...
SNAP
BSC Applied Chemnistry
MSC Information Systems Engineering. (Comp Sci/Cybernetics) I know more than a little about the hazards and pitfalls attempting to model non linear complex systems in computers..
Oh an ten years plus IT (big multi million pound projetc, banks, telco's)..
(just look what happened in the finacial markets when they tired to model risk in this way -ooops! - against lots of sceptics warnings)
I can safely I'm better qualified to write complex computer models. than a couple of climate scientists, doing really bad fortran at CRU, East Anglia, see climategate...
Oh and bit more qualified than a PHd history (labour poloics) Brown, and climate sabatouer Miliband!
The ultimate proof that AGW theory is discredited is BROWN theory:
Whateve G Brown Attaches himself to with Moral authority, will embarrsingly quickly be shown to be the exact opposite of truth...
The sceptics have the best jokes you see, is another theory, which will indicate the way 'consensus' an awful word in science, is going.
More seriously:
When hopefully the labour party is in opposition.
How quickly do you think the LABOUR party will start to say the CO2 taxation policy is wrong?
Especially when the unions realise (ie corus closure example) that big corporations can relocate industry to abroad (outside the EU) and then claim tens, hundreds, of millions of punds in carbon credits, to sell to other polluters (ie they have reduced emission here- but don't worry the CO2 will now be pumped out in India, at 3 new steel plants)
After all
it was all MAGARET THATCHER fault (the labour party like to say that..
FRONT Page of cheif AGW theory supoprting website:
The Hadley Centre:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/...
"Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians:
•A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada.
•A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change.
•The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options.
In December 1988 the UK Government announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research"
TALK about unintended consequence, she wanted to break the power of coal, and bring in gas/nuclear...
30 years on we get the IPCC, UN governmentand CO2 taxation!!!
Even now, Miliband has started saying, I'm not a climate expert, but the scientists are telling me...
Looking for an escape route?
Seriously though:
When this all falls apart, have the tory party got a facesaving back up plan when they are in Government, hopefully. Cap and Trade is never going to get past in America.
As for New scientist.... AGW is their religion....
Steve996 said:
Given that my MP seems to be open to discuss this issue and gave me a decent, non-generic response I thought I'd drop him another email back plagiarising a lot of the good stuff from here.
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you very much for your personal reply to my earlier email on the above subject. Whilst I may not agree with the majority of its content I genuinely respect the time you have taken to provide me with a full and non-generic response. ............... etc, etc, etc
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingt...
You realise that article says that the thermosphere cools as part of climate change....Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you very much for your personal reply to my earlier email on the above subject. Whilst I may not agree with the majority of its content I genuinely respect the time you have taken to provide me with a full and non-generic response. ............... etc, etc, etc
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingt...
Hope your MP doesn't read it!
deeps said:
I checked in to read King Fisher's response to TB's post of 06.39 but can't seem to find it, has he given up already or is he sharpening his teeth?
Neither, actually - as well as being extremely busy at work, I'm proof reading an article (on Seyfert Galaxies, NOT climate change) for someone and am too busy to spend the requisite amount of time on this forum at the moment .Be assured, I have not run away!
As Arnie says, "I'll be back"!
Guam said:
jshell said:
Steve996 said:
Given that my MP seems to be open to discuss this issue and gave me a decent, non-generic response I thought I'd drop him another email back plagiarising a lot of the good stuff from here.
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you very much for your personal reply to my earlier email on the above subject. Whilst I may not agree with the majority of its content I genuinely respect the time you have taken to provide me with a full and non-generic response. ............... etc, etc, etc
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingt...
You realise that article says that the thermosphere cools as part of climate change....Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you very much for your personal reply to my earlier email on the above subject. Whilst I may not agree with the majority of its content I genuinely respect the time you have taken to provide me with a full and non-generic response. ............... etc, etc, etc
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingt...
Hope your MP doesn't read it!
Bless
turbobloke said:
If you're having trouble finding anything new and relevant on FakeClimate, Dalektoid or Skeptickle Junkscience, you could always try peer-reviewed literature...actually, cancel that, there's nothing new or helpful to the agw cause there either 
It's all gone strangely quiet of late...Cap'n'Trade may survive loss of Kennedy's seat in the Senate, if the Cap'n'Trade bit is removed.....
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31690_Pa...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31690_Pa...
More IPCC bloopers surfacing.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/heat-... [scan down to third or fourth para below the first image]
The passage on the Asian glaciers is not alone in including internal inconsistencies or imprecision. The sections on the risks of extinction from warming in the report and the panel's summaries are, at the very least, confusing.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the report on climate impacts, there are different summations of extinction risk within a few pages. On page 6, the summary states:
Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C. * N [4.4, T4.1]
In a chart on page 16, at a point marking a 2°C warming from the global average temperature through the 1980s and 1990s, a label reads:
Up to 30 percent of species at increasing risk of extinction.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the final Synthesis Report drawing on the entire 2007 assessment, the extinction risk is summarized in yet another way (the italics are from the report):
There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 percent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (relative to 1980 to 1999).
I asked a half dozen I.P.C.C. scientists about this during a side session at the Copenhagen climate talks and, in particular, asked them to decipher for me the meaning of the nested qualifiers in that final statement. Among other things, how much would extinction risk rise? Basically, they acknowledged there was inconsistency and flawed writing.
ALSO
"What did Pielke think about this? Good question, easily answered. The IPCC never asked, but that did not stop the IPCC from making up an answer for me, which it did in its response to Zwiers..."
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-doe...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/heat-... [scan down to third or fourth para below the first image]
The passage on the Asian glaciers is not alone in including internal inconsistencies or imprecision. The sections on the risks of extinction from warming in the report and the panel's summaries are, at the very least, confusing.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the report on climate impacts, there are different summations of extinction risk within a few pages. On page 6, the summary states:
Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C. * N [4.4, T4.1]
In a chart on page 16, at a point marking a 2°C warming from the global average temperature through the 1980s and 1990s, a label reads:
Up to 30 percent of species at increasing risk of extinction.
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the final Synthesis Report drawing on the entire 2007 assessment, the extinction risk is summarized in yet another way (the italics are from the report):
There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 percent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (relative to 1980 to 1999).
I asked a half dozen I.P.C.C. scientists about this during a side session at the Copenhagen climate talks and, in particular, asked them to decipher for me the meaning of the nested qualifiers in that final statement. Among other things, how much would extinction risk rise? Basically, they acknowledged there was inconsistency and flawed writing.
ALSO
"What did Pielke think about this? Good question, easily answered. The IPCC never asked, but that did not stop the IPCC from making up an answer for me, which it did in its response to Zwiers..."
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-doe...
RogerHelmer MEP said:
It is now clear that the IPCC at the very least has failed in due diligence, and has not adequately verified the data it is using, if indeed it has not colluded in the fraud. Accordingly, I and several colleagues (Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, US Professor S. Fred Singer, and Dutch Professor Hans Labohm), have written to the Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee in Norway calling on him to withdraw the 2007 Nobel Prize awarded to the IPCC.
turbobloke said:
RogerHelmer MEP said:
It is now clear that the IPCC at the very least has failed in due diligence, and has not adequately verified the data it is using, if indeed it has not colluded in the fraud. Accordingly, I and several colleagues (Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, US Professor S. Fred Singer, and Dutch Professor Hans Labohm), have written to the Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee in Norway calling on him to withdraw the 2007 Nobel Prize awarded to the IPCC.
A short (90 seconds) speech by realist UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom. I liked the cheering at the end.
Godfrey Bloom UKIP said:
Al Gore - Crook, Phil Jones - Crook, when are you all going to wake up, Scam Scam Scam!
http://www.mixx.com/videos/10540783/godfrey_bloom_...Guam said:
WOW just time travelled again!
Times of my posts are out by 50 minutes and yet the clock on the computer and server at this end are bang on the money and my posts are being sorted into the relevant time slot even though they were the last post written!!!
Something very strange going on here Mods!
Agreed. I blame CO2. More tax needed.Times of my posts are out by 50 minutes and yet the clock on the computer and server at this end are bang on the money and my posts are being sorted into the relevant time slot even though they were the last post written!!!
Something very strange going on here Mods!
b2hbm said:
sa_20v said:
a link to a Met Office sourced petition to MMGW
Well, that was a futile gesture from the Met Office, wasn't it ? I see they only managed 1700 "signatures" in 4 days and yet they appear to have circulated this around the entire UK climate change gang, which sounds pretty poor to me. I also note that whilst there are Drs & profs in there, the petition also includes quite a few unlisted qualifications - students ? lab technicians ? the cleaners ? the guy selling papers outside ?The article states...
article said:
The Met Office has co-ordinated a united statement, gathering over 1,700 signatures in just four days. The list includes responses from over 100 institutes across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Met Office's Chief Executive John Hirst and Chief Scientist Julia Slingo say the response “affirms our confidence in the science, and reinforces the immediacy of the challenge and the critical nature of the discussions at Copenhagen”.
The statement reads: “We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.
“The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.
“That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here.
“As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "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".
laughable really - peer review, professional integrity, meticulous research, traceability of evidence, support for the scientific method, it's got the lot. It's amazing how anyone who has read the CRU emails, reviewed the Mann hockey-stick graph or the latest glacier story could possibly sign up to those statements. The Met Office's Chief Executive John Hirst and Chief Scientist Julia Slingo say the response “affirms our confidence in the science, and reinforces the immediacy of the challenge and the critical nature of the discussions at Copenhagen”.
The statement reads: “We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.
“The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.
“That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here.
“As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "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".
It doesn't say a lot for our next generation of scientists if this is the pass mark.
My main concern - apart from the effect this biased effort will have on Joe Public and his willingness to support GB and DC in their costly schemes - is that they must have had people taking time as Met Office employees to sort this, therefore at our expense as tax payers. Is it their right to use publicly funded work time to organize, agitate and propagandize, even with the change of their title? I think it is doubtful behaviour and would love to know who initiated and actioned this desperate activity.
deeps said:
A short (90 seconds) speech by realist UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom. I liked the cheering at the end.
Thanks so much for that - it had me laughing out loud from start to finish; "snake oil salesman", "crook", "scam" etc. what a delivery method! Brilliant.Godfrey Bloom UKIP said:
Al Gore - Crook, Phil Jones - Crook, when are you all going to wake up, Scam Scam Scam!
http://www.mixx.com/videos/10540783/godfrey_bloom_...Definitely UKIP for me this time (not my 'strongly pro AGW' conservative chief whip) protest vote or not. Won't make any difference of course as they could pin a blue rosette on a donkey here and it would trot through; in fact I think they have more than once . . .
Being appreciative of members of the various parliaments who take the time and trouble to research and to challenge the Govt./Euro dictatorship's assumed view of AWG I just wrote to thank Geoffrey Bloom . .
Contact:
The Office of Godfrey Bloom MEP
108 Main Street
Wressle
Selby
YO8 6ET
Phone - 01757 630778
Fax - 01757 630395
email - gbloom@ukip.org
. . for being another to bring the alternative view to the Euro machine as part of his work on the EU Environment Committee.
Also to inform him/his party leadership that I will be changing my voting preference to UKIP largely as a result of their approach to this.
In doing so I found on the contacts page details of letters he has sent etc. to the press and govt. alike and it seems he is on the ball, active and definitely a kindred spirit to many of us on here.
Here are some quotes from things he has sent . .
Dear Sir
Baroness Amos seems to think that climate science is ‘settled’ and that thinking people have ‘moved on’. She clearly has no understanding of science. It is never settled. New information breaks almost daily. Most of the dynamic new thinking is coming from Australia, led by Professor Ian Plimer.
The world climate has been static for 12 years now in spite of the growing man made CO2 emissions. She must recognise this and ‘move on’ herself.
Yours sincerely
Godfrey Bloom
EU Environment Committee
November 15, 2009
Sent to all national dailies
Dear Sir
The exclusive Times survey has confirmed that the majority of British people do not believe that Man has caused global warming.
In its accompanying leader it denigrates everyone who shares view as 'global village idiots.' Including, presumably, the 30,000 independent scientists who also support this view.
It is precisely this sort of oafish approach that re-inforces such scepticism.
Yours faithfully
Godfrey Bloom
Member of European Parliament Environment Committee.
November 1, 2009
Sent to local general media
Dear Sir
Now I see how the government treats their scientists when they don’t toe the line I begin to understand why they continue to spout their nonsense on climate change.
Yours faithfully
Godfrey Bloom
UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire
From: Godfrey UKIP
To: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:21 PM
Subject: From Godfrey Bloom MEP
Dear Sir
I wonder if I can ease the mind of Chimpoo Trakullertsthien on global warming. The hottest year on record was 1934 the world has been cooling since 1998 and he is getting hot and bothered for no reason. The world was warmer in both the Roman period and Medieval warm period. Just part of nature’s natural cycle.
Yours faithfully
Godfrey Bloom
Member of the European Parliament
Environment Committee Member
E Miliband Esq
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
House of Commons
London
SW1A 1AA
21 April 2009
Dear Mr Miliband
It would appear that as usual this government has not thought through the dire consequences of its actions. This time on wind turbines.
Industrial wind turbines have minimal impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” "The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.
These turbines are not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15 cents/kwh). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, "windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." Aase Madsen , the Chairman of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament calls it "a terribly expensive disaster." The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 - compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25 cents; coal at 44 cents; hydro at 67 cents; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call "a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Economist magazine in a recent editorial, "Wasting Money on Climate Change" notes that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137.
A growing body of scientific and medical evidence suggests that the health effects on those subjected to long and frequent periods of pulsating, low-frequency noise associated with wind turbines include sleep disturbances leading to depression, chronic stress, migraines, nausea and dizziness, exhaustion and anger, memory loss and cognitive difficulties, cardiac arrhythmias, increased heart rate and blood pressure. Kamperman and James list no fewer than 13 studies that show noise from wind turbines at night can disturb residents more than 2 km away. Those living close to the source of noise can develop what has been termed "Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD). Noise from wind turbines exhibit the characteristics of noise experienced in various occupations (aircrews, aircraft maintenance workers, ship workers and an islander population exposed to environmental infra and low frequency noise) and has been shown to lead to VAD. Complaints from people living near wind turbines are the same as those from persons who have developed VAD. Also, flicker from turbines at a minimum are disruptive and annoying. Flicker poses a potential risk of photosensitive seizures. The refusal of the government to order full independent environmental assessments, including assessments of health effects, of any wind turbine project, undermines the credibility of claims that there will be no such negative effects.
While wind developers deny that industrial wind turbines have any effect on property values of neighbouring residents, simple common sense suggests otherwise: how many readers familiar with this development would be prepared to buy recreational or retirement homes in this area, even at sharply discounted prices? In a recreational area that promotes its scenic attractions, like The Yorkshire Dales or the West Country, these effects on property values are likely to be even more pronounced. Refusal by either wind developers or the government to provide legally enforceable guarantees of compensation for property value losses warrants further skepticism over the claim that there will be no such losses.
Even if one thinks that wind turbines are a good idea environmentally and economically, there is a simple solution to the impact on rural residents, who are being conscripted to bear most of the burden of solving a problem they mostly did not create. Ensure that set-backs from residences conform to international standards as endorsed by renowned medical and scientific bodies that have closely examined the health and environmental risks. The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1.5 km, pending further research on health effects of persistent exposure to low-intensity noise. Alternatively, the government could concentrate wind farms in more remote or sparsely populated areas, as in much of Europe. These measures would also minimize negative impacts on property values. But these are modest palliatives to the fundamental policy flaws and do not address industrial wind power's failure to reduce significantly carbon emissions and its exorbitant cost to taxpayers and consumers.
I urge you to put an immediate moratorium on wind farms until a serious independent survey is undertaken.
Yours sincerely
Godfrey Bloom
UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire
Contact:
The Office of Godfrey Bloom MEP
108 Main Street
Wressle
Selby
YO8 6ET
Phone - 01757 630778
Fax - 01757 630395
email - gbloom@ukip.org
. . for being another to bring the alternative view to the Euro machine as part of his work on the EU Environment Committee.
Also to inform him/his party leadership that I will be changing my voting preference to UKIP largely as a result of their approach to this.
In doing so I found on the contacts page details of letters he has sent etc. to the press and govt. alike and it seems he is on the ball, active and definitely a kindred spirit to many of us on here.
Here are some quotes from things he has sent . .
Dear Sir
Baroness Amos seems to think that climate science is ‘settled’ and that thinking people have ‘moved on’. She clearly has no understanding of science. It is never settled. New information breaks almost daily. Most of the dynamic new thinking is coming from Australia, led by Professor Ian Plimer.
The world climate has been static for 12 years now in spite of the growing man made CO2 emissions. She must recognise this and ‘move on’ herself.
Yours sincerely
Godfrey Bloom
EU Environment Committee
November 15, 2009
Sent to all national dailies
Dear Sir
The exclusive Times survey has confirmed that the majority of British people do not believe that Man has caused global warming.
In its accompanying leader it denigrates everyone who shares view as 'global village idiots.' Including, presumably, the 30,000 independent scientists who also support this view.
It is precisely this sort of oafish approach that re-inforces such scepticism.
Yours faithfully
Godfrey Bloom
Member of European Parliament Environment Committee.
November 1, 2009
Sent to local general media
Dear Sir
Now I see how the government treats their scientists when they don’t toe the line I begin to understand why they continue to spout their nonsense on climate change.
Yours faithfully
Godfrey Bloom
UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire
From: Godfrey UKIP
To: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:21 PM
Subject: From Godfrey Bloom MEP
Dear Sir
I wonder if I can ease the mind of Chimpoo Trakullertsthien on global warming. The hottest year on record was 1934 the world has been cooling since 1998 and he is getting hot and bothered for no reason. The world was warmer in both the Roman period and Medieval warm period. Just part of nature’s natural cycle.
Yours faithfully
Godfrey Bloom
Member of the European Parliament
Environment Committee Member
E Miliband Esq
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
House of Commons
London
SW1A 1AA
21 April 2009
Dear Mr Miliband
It would appear that as usual this government has not thought through the dire consequences of its actions. This time on wind turbines.
Industrial wind turbines have minimal impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” "The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.
These turbines are not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15 cents/kwh). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, "windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." Aase Madsen , the Chairman of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament calls it "a terribly expensive disaster." The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 - compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25 cents; coal at 44 cents; hydro at 67 cents; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call "a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Economist magazine in a recent editorial, "Wasting Money on Climate Change" notes that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137.
A growing body of scientific and medical evidence suggests that the health effects on those subjected to long and frequent periods of pulsating, low-frequency noise associated with wind turbines include sleep disturbances leading to depression, chronic stress, migraines, nausea and dizziness, exhaustion and anger, memory loss and cognitive difficulties, cardiac arrhythmias, increased heart rate and blood pressure. Kamperman and James list no fewer than 13 studies that show noise from wind turbines at night can disturb residents more than 2 km away. Those living close to the source of noise can develop what has been termed "Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD). Noise from wind turbines exhibit the characteristics of noise experienced in various occupations (aircrews, aircraft maintenance workers, ship workers and an islander population exposed to environmental infra and low frequency noise) and has been shown to lead to VAD. Complaints from people living near wind turbines are the same as those from persons who have developed VAD. Also, flicker from turbines at a minimum are disruptive and annoying. Flicker poses a potential risk of photosensitive seizures. The refusal of the government to order full independent environmental assessments, including assessments of health effects, of any wind turbine project, undermines the credibility of claims that there will be no such negative effects.
While wind developers deny that industrial wind turbines have any effect on property values of neighbouring residents, simple common sense suggests otherwise: how many readers familiar with this development would be prepared to buy recreational or retirement homes in this area, even at sharply discounted prices? In a recreational area that promotes its scenic attractions, like The Yorkshire Dales or the West Country, these effects on property values are likely to be even more pronounced. Refusal by either wind developers or the government to provide legally enforceable guarantees of compensation for property value losses warrants further skepticism over the claim that there will be no such losses.
Even if one thinks that wind turbines are a good idea environmentally and economically, there is a simple solution to the impact on rural residents, who are being conscripted to bear most of the burden of solving a problem they mostly did not create. Ensure that set-backs from residences conform to international standards as endorsed by renowned medical and scientific bodies that have closely examined the health and environmental risks. The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1.5 km, pending further research on health effects of persistent exposure to low-intensity noise. Alternatively, the government could concentrate wind farms in more remote or sparsely populated areas, as in much of Europe. These measures would also minimize negative impacts on property values. But these are modest palliatives to the fundamental policy flaws and do not address industrial wind power's failure to reduce significantly carbon emissions and its exorbitant cost to taxpayers and consumers.
I urge you to put an immediate moratorium on wind farms until a serious independent survey is undertaken.
Yours sincerely
Godfrey Bloom
UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire
"James Hansen: Would you buy a used temperature data set from THIS man?"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff