Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Curious. You have to wonder what temperature change dolphins et al experience for other reasons apart from the cars that belong to PHers.
It's data but responding to politics in the politics thread so OK hopefully.
As nothing has changed for 10 years why did this not happen ten years ago?
Or it it a local phenomenon or from a cause not eliminated by the lightweight thought that usually goes into this kind of reporting?
Didn't we have all this before? I defy anyone to 'feel' or pretty much have any measurable physiological response to a 0.4 degree change in temp.It's data but responding to politics in the politics thread so OK hopefully.
As nothing has changed for 10 years why did this not happen ten years ago?
Or it it a local phenomenon or from a cause not eliminated by the lightweight thought that usually goes into this kind of reporting?
After all these years of debating this stuff on PH, my interest in this topic is severely waning now. I simply cannot accept that over a 10 year, 100 year, or 1000 year period we can measure temperatures all over the world to a degree of accuracy that represents any justification for declaring a 0.2 degree rise or fall is significant.
As Guam will (hopefully) most happily tell us, recording the highest and lowest temp on any day does not give us a mean temp for that day by choosing the median value.
We see it all day every day on the news and reported here when people say 'ooo the temp in Chelmsford should be 8 degrees according to the BBC but my car says it's only 4 degrees!'
It's just garbage in and of course garbage out.
All noise, all of the time, only 90 days/months/years to save the planet.... and still nothing to see here.
(Seriously f
king sick of all of this I am)Sorry, should probably this post in science thread be
(Edit for formatting)
Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 6th March 20:30
nelly1 said:
So the SST has increased in the last few months? Winter-->Spring?
An areas biology can change in a season? Who knew?
The Plankton is 'richer and stronger than before'.
Who / what is to blame?
"Truth is I don't know..."
Another piece of emotive drivel then.
it was obvious what the angle of the report wasAn areas biology can change in a season? Who knew?
The Plankton is 'richer and stronger than before'.
Who / what is to blame?
"Truth is I don't know..."
Another piece of emotive drivel then.
they sprinkled a few may/mights in there for good measure though after the initial daily mail style start to the report.
i think it fit here better than science because even the scientists they had on wouldnt say what they thought teh problem was but the piece left me in no doubt at the start what c4 thought it was.
just more drip drip propaganda.
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 6th March 20:30
Jasandjules said:
The only thing you need to know is whether or not he knows what he is talking about.
The answer is, as I am sure your degree can attest, Yes.
Now, unless and until someone can post accurate data which refutes what he posts..............
I accept that there are reasons why Turbo bloke may wish to remain anonymous so I will leave that. It does however still leave my primary concern unaddressed.The answer is, as I am sure your degree can attest, Yes.
Now, unless and until someone can post accurate data which refutes what he posts..............
With that in mind I am left with a problem.
Understanding the science and making
sense is one aspect. I can read what someone posts and get a reasonable idea whether they understand the subject.The issue lies with the validity and interpretation of the data. People with a vested interest are quite capable of posting any data they want online and I have no way of knowing if it is genuine or not. Just slightly manipulated data or even data gathered in an innapropriate way could look perfectly good but tell quite a differet story to what was actually happening. On top of this the same set of data can be interpreted in more than one way by people with just as good an understanding of the subject. Data is rarely 100% conclusive. Finally, it's quite common for people to see what they want too see, ignore evidence that doesn't suit and only focus on that that does.
turbobloke said:
Update. There has been an uptick, a microtrend and people are getting overheated. Just look at the shocking situation here.
Caught the 'news' piece and the issue... the whales were in an area much earlier due to the surface being ahead of the norm temps from the last few years. The whale expert hadn't seen the whales in that area that early in the year in the last 30 years. Well, that's significant isn't it? 30 years... duh.Interestingly the implications are that the warmer water and greater amounts of plankton may improve the white whale population which is down to less than 500...
But we all know warmer is worse(er).
nelly1 said:
SST near Cape Cod:
Slight localised warming, but hardly 'Global' is it?
Not sure if it is of any interest, but their web directories appear to be unsecured, so if you want a look through, it appears to be allowed.Slight localised warming, but hardly 'Global' is it?
For example...
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/
The Excession said:
After all these years of debating this stuff on PH, my interest in this topic is severely waning now. I simply cannot accept that over a 10 year, 100 year, or 1000 year period we can measure temperatures all over the world to a degree of accuracy that represents any justification for declaring a 0.2 degree rise or fall is significant.
As Guam will (hopefully) most happily tell us, recording the highest and lowest temp on any day does not give us a mean temp for that day by choosing the median value.
We see it all day every day on the news and reported here when people say 'ooo the temp in Chelmsford should be 8 degrees according to the BBC but my car says it's only 4 degrees!'
I have a thermometer in the garden that accurately says 0C when water starts freezing, and the university weather station online which has another temperature sensor - but a better one.As Guam will (hopefully) most happily tell us, recording the highest and lowest temp on any day does not give us a mean temp for that day by choosing the median value.
We see it all day every day on the news and reported here when people say 'ooo the temp in Chelmsford should be 8 degrees according to the BBC but my car says it's only 4 degrees!'
My garden thermometer and the university one are within 1C of each other which as we are about 5miles apart is pretty close. On a regular basis the BBC/Met will often be between 3 and 6 degrees too high.
Interestingly look at the Met site directly and the BBC often gives 1C hotter on the BBC.
Ironically Horizon 'Solar Storms' is on BBC2 currently, showing us how much the Sun affects the Earth.
Then they expect us to believe that marginal increases in a 0.039% trace gas that weakly interacts with IR changes our climate....
Devil2575 said:
With that in mind I am left with a problem.
Understanding the science and making
sense is one aspect. I can read what someone posts and get a reasonable idea whether they understand the subject.The issue lies with the validity and interpretation of the data. People with a vested interest are quite capable of posting any data they want online and I have no way of knowing if it is genuine or not. Just slightly manipulated data or even data gathered in an innapropriate way could look perfectly good but tell quite a differet story to what was actually happening. On top of this the same set of data can be interpreted in more than one way by people with just as good an understanding of the subject. Data is rarely 100% conclusive. Finally, it's quite common for people to see what they want too see, ignore evidence that doesn't suit and only focus on that that does.
errrm Am i missing somethign here?Understanding the science and making
sense is one aspect. I can read what someone posts and get a reasonable idea whether they understand the subject.The issue lies with the validity and interpretation of the data. People with a vested interest are quite capable of posting any data they want online and I have no way of knowing if it is genuine or not. Just slightly manipulated data or even data gathered in an innapropriate way could look perfectly good but tell quite a differet story to what was actually happening. On top of this the same set of data can be interpreted in more than one way by people with just as good an understanding of the subject. Data is rarely 100% conclusive. Finally, it's quite common for people to see what they want too see, ignore evidence that doesn't suit and only focus on that that does.
everything you have just writen is obvious and applies to any subject(especially wars) on the internet/tv/ any other media.
May I suggest you read the posts in the science thread take everything with a pinch of salt, take nothing for gosspel but you may just may read enough to make you at least change your mind a little.
Nobody here is forcing you to belive anything, make your own mind up as bext you can with the material available.
we are not the ones who are saying the science is settled
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 6th March 23:16
Devil2575 said:
The issue lies with the validity and interpretation of the data. People with a vested interest are quite capable of posting any data they want online and I have no way of knowing if it is genuine or not. Just slightly manipulated data or even data gathered in an innapropriate way could look perfectly good but tell quite a differet story to what was actually happening. On top of this the same set of data can be interpreted in more than one way by people with just as good an understanding of the subject. Data is rarely 100% conclusive. Finally, it's quite common for people to see what they want too see, ignore evidence that doesn't suit and only focus on that that does.
Exactly this.So one starts to look for motives on all sides. This especially since it seems fairly evident that the chance of setting up a controlled experiment to verify the theories is less than small and because, even if you could concieve a way to run the experiment, the natural scale required would exceed known human life spans. That suggests that pure interest, untainted politically, may be hard to identify generation after generation.
If you can't test them the scientific ideas promoted are just ideas. Ideas have their place and many may be worthwhile, though probably more are not or, worse, are distinctly related to 'negative outcomes'.
In my view anyone, no matter their background, who claims a need for enforced rapid and specific changes in social attitudes and actions is involved with politics and not hard science. The various version of the climate is changing scares over the decades all seem to have had the same base argument to promote no matter which way mankind was supposed to be influencing the 'temperature'. To the main promotoers of the 'cause for change' 'the science' has never mattered (other than as a source of fees or grants). The drivers for the whole process have always been political in their nature.
Using 'scientists' to market the ideas was somply an extension of TV advertising that used 'men in white coats' (later adding some women) to make day to day 'scientific' products credible for a 'chemical sceptic' audience (Wash powders, soaps, toothpastes, deoderants spring to mind). It was all a matter of 'What washes whiter'. (Now more a case of 'How big a Whitewash'?)
All that the prime movers of global social change (or at least 'Industrialised Regions social change' did was lift the concept of 'the scientist' being the person in the white coat basing all their decisions on testable laboratory science and guide people to think in the same way about about 'Science' presented as public policy.
Clever idea. Highly political. Nothing to do with science.
Hence the reason for starting tis thread.
Nice to see others around the world catching on at last.
Devil2575 said:
People with a vested interest are quite capable of posting any data they want online and I have no way of knowing if it is genuine or not. Just slightly manipulated data or even data gathered in an innapropriate way could look perfectly good but tell quite a differet story to what was actually happening.
At last, we are to the core of the issue, as it has been since even Roman Times, with Cui Bono. Now let's expand upon it.The IPCC, an organisation whose entire existence depends on finding AGW.
Mr Cameron, a man whose entire Govt gets increased tax revenue based on AGW
Mr Cameron, a man whose father in law makes millions from Wind Farms thus AGW
The UEA Climate Research unit, an entire group of people who get grants which only will continue whilst they can show possible AGW and the need for them to to research it
Can you think of any reason why the above might well, just possibly, want to make up s**t about AGW and "adjust" the data etc?!!?? Why do you think the scaremongering gets more and more alarmist? Keep a population scared and you can do what you like with them as you are "protecting them" - read 1982 for further details....
Then, what does Turbobloke make out of putting up the truth? The data which shows there is no AGW and no links etc with Co2..
Jasandjules said:
The data which shows there is no AGW and no links etc with Co2..
I agree but I think it's more than that, it Climategate1, Climategate2 and Fakegate all cast doubt on the inner mechanisms of the Church of Warming, but the average Guardian reading sucker will not have heard much about that.Personally I think the turning point was Winter 2010, after nearly a decade of doom mongering, marketing, 'green' taxation etc everyone suddenly realised that the constant subzero temperatures, often into double figures, meant that the whole AGW theory was a crock of s
t.Since that winter AGW simply hasn't had any traction because the lie was exposed to everyone right in front of their eyes.
The same situation happened in the US, and the floods in Australia put paid to the lies there with fatal results.
There are Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and Global Warming.
dickymint said:
CBR JGWRR said:
Devil2575 said:
PRTVR said:
But why do you need to know?
Not need, want to know.Why? I haven't read the whole thread by any stretch. It would take hours and I don't have the time. However it would appear that most of the information is comming from Turbobloke. Ok other people are linking some political blogs etc connected to opposition to MMGW but the last time I looked Turbobloke was in essence the main driving force behind information.
Given this fact I'd like to know who i'm talking too. Is he just some bloke who like spouting off, is he a well respected scientist or his he connected to a political party/lobby group. It matters.
Jasandjules said:
Devil2575 said:
People with a vested interest are quite capable of posting any data they want online and I have no way of knowing if it is genuine or not. Just slightly manipulated data or even data gathered in an innapropriate way could look perfectly good but tell quite a differet story to what was actually happening.
At last, we are to the core of the issue, as it has been since even Roman Times, with Cui Bono. Now let's expand upon it.The IPCC, an organisation whose entire existence depends on finding AGW.
Mr Cameron, a man whose entire Govt gets increased tax revenue based on AGW
Mr Cameron, a man whose father in law makes millions from Wind Farms thus AGW
The UEA Climate Research unit, an entire group of people who get grants which only will continue whilst they can show possible AGW and the need for them to to research it
Can you think of any reason why the above might well, just possibly, want to make up s**t about AGW and "adjust" the data etc?!!?? Why do you think the scaremongering gets more and more alarmist? Keep a population scared and you can do what you like with them as you are "protecting them" - read 1982 for further details....
Then, what does Turbobloke make out of putting up the truth? The data which shows there is no AGW and no links etc with Co2..
In fact it's quite a gentle smear compared to those in the past, and not really to be taken seriously. However as a UK bloke I can put on record that I've paid enough in but had no share back from the £40bn annual ecotax rip-off in this country, a lot of which is predicated on fairytales and not looking at the data in the light of sound science.
Also for the record, being a UK bloke, I can confirm I received nothing from the move by the Heartland Institute proposing to spend $200,000 in a year on education against climate alarmism. Also it's very unlikely I'd get anything from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation - with assets of $7.2 billion - that would be anywhere near their grant of $100 million to the ClimateWorks Foundation (a pro-wind power organisation) or the $481 million it gave to the same recipient in 2008, nor any monies from the Sierra Club which recently admitted that it took $26 million from the gas industry to lobby against coal.
If somebody is lining their pockets we all know which side of the debate they are most likely to be on...so once again the irony is deep and with these phoney sideways suggestions you are in fact taking the pss monsieur le Devil. Try aiming your fiery pointy tail at Gore and Pachauri.
Dear Devil2575,
you needed to know if you were being conned and were concerned at your inability to evaluate the "science".
Likewise I am not a climate scientist but a professional electronics design engineer.
I am not at all concerned that I do not/choose not to spend the time to evaluate the science.
I can, however, recognise bad science and processes when I see them.
The cherry picking of data rather than drawing conclusions from the whole set.
The secrecy of the methods by which conclusions are drawn rather than open for all analysis. Conclusions by the by which are costing us dear.
The suppression of opposing peoples views.
Oh and the money, always follow the money. AGW support = funding,
regards,
Jet
you needed to know if you were being conned and were concerned at your inability to evaluate the "science".
Likewise I am not a climate scientist but a professional electronics design engineer.
I am not at all concerned that I do not/choose not to spend the time to evaluate the science.
I can, however, recognise bad science and processes when I see them.
The cherry picking of data rather than drawing conclusions from the whole set.
The secrecy of the methods by which conclusions are drawn rather than open for all analysis. Conclusions by the by which are costing us dear.
The suppression of opposing peoples views.
Oh and the money, always follow the money. AGW support = funding,
regards,
Jet
jet_noise said:
Dear Devil2575,
you needed to know if you were being conned and were concerned at your inability to evaluate the "science".
Likewise I am not a climate scientist but a professional electronics design engineer.
I am not at all concerned that I do not/choose not to spend the time to evaluate the science.
I can, however, recognise bad science and processes when I see them.
The cherry picking of data rather than drawing conclusions from the whole set.
The secrecy of the methods by which conclusions are drawn rather than open for all analysis. Conclusions by the by which are costing us dear.
The suppression of opposing peoples views.
Oh and the money, always follow the money. AGW support = funding,
regards,
Jet
Talking about following the money, Devil may also like to know where his BBC license fee is going. An £8 billion pension pot of it!!you needed to know if you were being conned and were concerned at your inability to evaluate the "science".
Likewise I am not a climate scientist but a professional electronics design engineer.
I am not at all concerned that I do not/choose not to spend the time to evaluate the science.
I can, however, recognise bad science and processes when I see them.
The cherry picking of data rather than drawing conclusions from the whole set.
The secrecy of the methods by which conclusions are drawn rather than open for all analysis. Conclusions by the by which are costing us dear.
The suppression of opposing peoples views.
Oh and the money, always follow the money. AGW support = funding,
regards,
Jet
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension...
If you follow the link to the "Biased BBC" there's more including this little snippet.........
"Update: I've been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC's news and current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe."
No wonder "the science is settled".
Globs said:
Then there is 'The Weather' from the Met office, whose error on the current temperature in Cambridge is wrong on a daily basis us to about 6C.
So the met office consistently report the temperature in Cambridge as being 6 degC different to what it actually is?Thios sounds very strange. A degree or two here and there could be accounted for with local variations depending on where they get their numbers from related to you. However 6 degC is a big difference.
Globs said:
You are (incidentally) starting to sound a bit like a Lib.Dem. TBH. The last Lib Dem I spoke to wanted to eliminate all CO2 from the planet to avoid this catastrophic warming we will soon experience (This was in 2005, no warming occurred since). He failed of course to realise - not unsurprisingly given how much bad press it gets - that without CO2 we'd all be dead, and if it was reduced significantly large numbers of us would starve to death.
I'm not sure what you are saying now? Have i suggested that we need to get rid of all CO2 from the atmosphere?Globs said:
Lets face facts, China continues to spew out more and more CO2, and the planet isn't warming up at all. And you want to know who TB is? You need to find out who the people telling you that you'll never see snow again went this winter.
It's perfectly reasonable to want to know who the messenger is because they control what information you see to some extent.Whether the overall average temperature of the planet is warming bears little relation to whether we get snow or not in the UK.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff