Apparently we are antisocial bastards...
Discussion
D_Mike said:That's an accurate summary but part of the detail lost in its brevity is that, when papers not explicitly supporting or refuting anthropogenic warming are considered, there is still a very decent 2:1 majority in favour of those who explicitly or implicitly deny man-made causes. The primary source data must be the way to go, and you can't do any better than Dr K Lassen's peer reviewed papers looking back through the industrial revolution at over 400 years of climate data, he concludes that there is no human signal in the data, just a strong correlation with the Hale and Gleissberg solar cycles. As you would expect for natural and inevitable climate change over such a short period. Over shorter periods you can detect events like El Nino and the Mt Pinatubo eruption, over longer timescales the Milankovitch Cycles are there, and over the longest aeons the cosmic ray flux rules OK. Nowhere is there any sign of a PHer maxing their 993 Porsche 911 Turbo 4wd, or even a motoring journo celeb halfway up a scottish hillock - breathe easy Jezza.
I think if you read turbobloke's post he's saying that the majority of scientists in the papers brought up by that search don't go for anything definite one way or the other, but three times more than those who do say it is not anthropogenic.
Edited to add - this whole affair reveals a lot about the limitations of the peer review process and the politicisation of climate science. What the f
k were Oreskes' peer reviewers doing, not even replicating the initial stage of the search to see if it 'looked about right'? That would be the most basic, trivial level of verification you'd expect, and it smacks of an easy ride for a paper refelecting - perhaps - a degree of tacit opportunism regarding the (at the time) imminent climate conference 
Then you get perfectly well worked papers that don't fully endorse the man-made pinko-greeno-politico viewpoint given a meaty peer review process and held up for 'procedural' reasons i.e. - perhaps - because there's a forthcoming international climate conference for ecoministers to go to in limos from their five star hotels and eat themselves senseless. Also wtf is the Royal Society doing, similarly going out to back BLiar's save-the-planet crusade by using the Oreskes study that they couldn't possibly have attempted to verify even though it's the easiest thing in the world for any scientist to do, never mind the nation's best? And they expect to remain credible? The whole man-made global warming lie will eventually provide enough egg on face for this era's so-called leading scientists to make Edwina Curry wince. Bring it on.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 3rd January 17:21
There are plenty of examples of man destroying the very planet he lives on; de-forestation, local vicinity pollution and wholesale livestock slaughter being three; but these could be tackled by Governments actually DOING something to stop cited examples.
However, as many Governments concerned are in the pay of, or turn a blind eye to, these wanton criminals, these inept and inadequate Governments would surely be a better target than attacking motorists.
However, as many Governments concerned are in the pay of, or turn a blind eye to, these wanton criminals, these inept and inadequate Governments would surely be a better target than attacking motorists.
mrmaggit said:On a temporary basis and often for a good reason, agreed.
There are plenty of examples of man destroying the very planet he lives on
mrmaggit said:agreed, that's happening, but the number of trees worldwide is increasing, and while the oceans are more important than forests in terms of climate, they may yet prove to be a worthy equivalent in terms of biodiversity...I'm not arguing for deforestation, just doing what folk do on PH
de-forestation
mrmaggit said:agreed but buses are the real villain for outdoor air quality in any town in any fully or half-developed country, and you forgot to specifcally mention indoor air which in the UK is on average ten times more polluted than city smog
local vicinity pollution
mrmaggit said:agreed, we're back - or not - to Dr King again
wholesale livestock slaughter
mrmaggit said:agreed, but no government is going to tax indoor air quality (revised window tax anyone?) when there's an easier and softer target in 4 x 4s
these could be tackled by Governments actually DOING something to stop cited examples
mrmaggit said:agreed
inept and inadequate Governments would surely be a better target than attacking motorists
Has anyone mentioned Bjorn Lomborg? His superb book The Skeptical Environmentalist gives the lie to much of what the Greens have been asserting as 'fact'.
(Interestingly, the principal Green claim that he challenges least is Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but at the same time he offers a fascinating analysis of how delaying Kyoto implementation by a few years and diverting the money thus saved to cleaning up global fresh water supplies would prevent millions of premature deaths.)
Apart from recommending the book to anyone who's interested in the broad subject, I mention it because of mrmaggit's reference to de-forestation.
In the book Lomborg (who by profession is a university statistics lecturer) demonstrates that the infamous, shameful European de-forestation of the past century of which all we modern wastrels are implicitly guilty actually took place in its entirety four centuries ago. It was done to gather fuel for fires and to clear land for agricultural use.
flemke said:Spot on flemke, we - and forgive me if I don't identify my two co-conspirators - had an agreement with a major international science publisher to write a book like that, but unbeknown to us Lomborg was already on the case and he beat us to publication by a country mile. He did a great job (apart from the global warming section you mention). Also it's worth noting that the poor chap took lots of greenie flak that we'd have faced, he still checks his mail with great care, and was temporarily ostracised by the politicised climate science 'establishment' so cheers Bjorn we owe you a pint or three.
Interestingly, the principal Green claim that he challenges least is Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but at the same time he offers a fascinating analysis of how delaying Kyoto implementation by a few years and diverting the money thus saved to cleaning up global fresh water supplies would prevent millions of premature deaths.
The Joburg climate beanfeast you allude to, attended a few years back by Five-Homes-Meacher ... he was initially left off the delegate list but was added alongside Two Jags after intense lobbying by the greens ...had a choice as to how to spend $75 trillion. Either provide clean drinking water for all those in poverty who lack it, and so save millions of lives annually, or for the same price, endorse that pile of ecoclaptrap called Kyoto, and of course the sharpest minds in politics chose the Kyoto protocol.
Balmoral Green said:
I'm suggesting tax be used to encourage people to drive more environmentally-friendly vehicles.
Give over, we can't move as it is. get the numpties off the roads and on to buses and trains, I say.
Suckmychrsitmas said:
www.lomborg-errors.dk/
As a former member of Greenpeace, he was bound to take some flak. Try this view for a more balanced report on
Lomborg
Don't forget the former co-founder member of Greenpeace, who resigned in disgust as his once-rational organisation "abandoned science and logic" told the world about what was really driving the green agenda:
Dr P Moore said:
I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology. At the same time that business and government are embracing public participation and inclusiveness, many environmentalists are showing signs of elitism, left-wingism, and downright eco-fascism. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric...there were always extreme, irrational and mystical elements within our movement, but they tended to be kept in their place during the early years. Then in the mid-Eighties the ultraleftists and extremists took over. After Greenham Common closed and the Berlin Wall came down these extremists were searching for a new cause and found it in environmentalism. The old agendas of class struggle and anti-corporatism are still there but now they are dressed up in environmental terminology... science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism. The public is left trying to figure out what is reasonable and what is not.
heebeegeetee said:Build more bypasses and motorways - it can also protect the environment, according to the University of Surrey team who looked at the environmental impact of the Newbury Bypass...yes the one that swampy unwashed types and other ignorant greens had been protesting over.
Give over, we can't move as it is. get the numpties off the roads and on to buses and trains, I say.
Or www.lomborg-errors.dk/principles.htm
>> Edited by Suckmychrsitmas on Tuesday 3rd January 19:23
Lomborg Errors said:
When one simply reads Lomborg´s text, the errors are seldom apparent. Although you often disagree with his interpretations, you must admit that the text is well-written, logical and, in most cases, consistent. Most errors can only be found by comparing the text with other texts. The clue is: "Check the sources". The errors arise when Lomborg writes something that is not in complete accordance with what his sources say. He lies, and he believes that his lies will not be revealed because nobody bothers to check thousands of references. That is precisely why we have to do that. Try to make a random choice of a few references, and check them. Chances are fairly good that you get a "bingo". But the problem is that most readers do not have the time to do that.
So, one purpose of Lomborg-errors is to be a service to readers of Lomborg´s book. If you read something of which you think "That is hard to believe, but I cannot point out where the flaw is" or "This is a surprise to me, so I must admit that I will have to revise my ideas", then try to check if Lomborg-errors has something to say about this point. There is a good chance that it will be one of those parts of the book which are already covered by the error list. And most likely you will find out that you had become misled by Lomborg in ways which were not apparent to you.
>> Edited by Suckmychrsitmas on Tuesday 3rd January 19:23
turbobloke said:Yep, if we got rid of trains and tarmaced over the tracks, you would double the motorway network. And as for buses, they cause more congestion than cars. Look at any major two lane highway into a town that has been allocated lane 1 as a bus lane leaving the cars to lane 2 only, If the same amount of traffic that used to use two lanes now has to use one lane, then that has doubled congestion at a stroke. And bus lanes are so elitist, they remind me of the VIP lanes they used to have in Moscow under communism.
Give over, we can't move as it is. get the numpties off the roads and on to buses and trains, I say.
tinman0 said:
OK, own up - who let Turbobloke out? You know hes only allowed to kill the trolls once a month.
Suckmychrsitmas said:As Lomborg basically agrees with man-made global warming, why are you trying to discredit him? Weird. He is wrong on that count but that's by the by.
Lomborg Errors
Either way it makes no odds, the claimed consensus on man-made climate change doesn't exist - if anything it goes the other way - and we're all waiting for some objective evidence in the form of scientific data to refute the folk such as Dr Lassen who have shown there is no human signal in climate data going back over 400 years, just natural forcings. C'mon I've shown you mine now show us yours
New Year horoscope prediction ... the only semi-credible such source available isn't evidence at all but the discredited, over simplified IPCC computer model GIGO i.e. their risible 'storylines' which actually assume carbon dioxide to be a major forcing when all the evidence shows it's not. They still can't get it right. Oooops.
Balmoral Green said:[irish accent]There's more[/irish accent] It's all coming full circle...the 2012 Olympic transport plan for London has Soviet style Zyl Lanes to get competitors and bigwigs to the track on time - stray into one of these and you're facing a fine said to be between £1000 and £5000
And bus lanes are so elitist, they remind me of the VIP lanes they used to have in Moscow under communism.
Head of Automotive Economics at Cardiff Business School Professor Garel Rhys said:Of course he didn't know about the Olympic bid and was talking more generally but he couldn't have been more prophetic.
Labour's plans to tax and penalise car use are leading Britain into a former Soviet-style regime...the impact threatens to be very serious...there will be no-go areas
flemke said:Now that's funny, our planners have known this for years, and actually do it on purpose. Amazing to think the French might have had genuine good intentions and it just didnt work out.
From today's Autocar:
Calming makes congestion worse
A report investigating congestion-cutting measures in Paris has concluded that the E900m (£600m) scheme hasn't worked. Road narrowing and bus lanes have actually increased congestion and pollution.
flemke said:
From today's Autocar:
Calming makes congestion worse
A report investigating congestion-cutting measures in Paris has concluded that the E900m (£600m) scheme hasn't worked. Road narrowing and bus lanes have actually increased congestion and pollution.
Thanks for that flemke, valuable ammunition - but as a graduate in cynicism (class 2:1) I'd say that increased congestion was the general idea of pinko-green traffic mismanagers in the developed worldwide scene...while buses are bound to cause worsening air quality, they emit as much particulate pollution as 128 modern petrol engined cars. This includes the two most carcinogenic toxins known to science.
Balmoral Green said:Sorry to repeat much of your comment there BG, I'm getting slower on the typing due to some half-decent red wine. Cheers
Now that's funny, our planners have known this for years, and actually do it on purpose. Amazing to think the French might have had genuine good intentions and it just didnt work out.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff