Climate Change - the big debate

Climate Change - the big debate

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Hooty

398 posts

170 months

Tuesday 19th January 2010
quotequote all

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 19th January 2010
quotequote all
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 trade
I'm glad you confirmed my views on carbon trading.
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 hehe

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!

rofl
Like the idea BG but you really should not encourage them you know!

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. smile

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. wink

BJWoods

5,015 posts

283 months

Tuesday 19th January 2010
quotequote all
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!

Blib

43,797 posts

196 months

Tuesday 19th January 2010
quotequote all
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."


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.


nelly1

5,630 posts

230 months

Tuesday 19th January 2010
quotequote all
Hooty said:
Report said:
Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.

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."
What he really said:
This is one of a multitude of mistakes that are coming to light, even though we're doing our best to cover them up.

The credibility of the IPCC has been irreversably damaged, but if we can quietly change some more data while waffling on about 'Weather' instead of 'Climate', we may be able to extend our time on the Gravy Train for long enough to switch the blame from CO2 to CH4 and dream up a whole new way of making the gullable public feel guilty enough to give us that new holiday home in the Seychelles.

bd cows.

bd Internet!

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Tuesday 19th January 2010
quotequote all
King Fisher said:
But there are also some whose acquaintance I would not wish to make for a variety of reasons, but mainly because of their extreme, unmerited rudeness to some members of the forum who expressed views contrary to their own, exhibited long before I began to contribute.
How do you feel about hypocrites?

Given that your opening salvo concluded with the unwarranted, mass condemnation of the selfish gas guzzlers you so charitably described?

" . . extreme, unmerited rudeness . ."? From your good self? Surely not.

deeps

5,391 posts

240 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
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?

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
James Dellingpole criticising BBC on Radio 4 right now (1.30 pm)

Edited to say it was on The Media Show if anyone missed this and can catch it again on their website.

He gave them a pasting linked to specific programmes/reports/details - followed by a self-serving trollop pontificating insincerely on how unbiased they are. Typical, pitiful blather that missed most of his points, purposefully I'd guess.

Admits part of their job is to help the public make up their minds on what our govts. should do! God help us then. Given the steer they've taken, if they are successful in this Joe Public will back anything they throw at us on the tax and limit front.

Sorry to go on but . . the other apologist talking about EAU says they should have had the publicity people out as every e-mail she has seen has an explanation (I'm guessing she means genuine rather than the explanation was self-serving, fraudulent hiding of dodgy doings) + she doesn't agree with equal weight in reporting! Pity Dellingpole wasn't allowed to come back to her.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 20th January 13:40


Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 20th January 13:43


Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 20th January 13:46

odyssey2200

18,650 posts

208 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
furious

OK Piss sublimated!!

Remember this gem?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

I sent a complaint to the BBC

my complaint said:
find it quite unacceptable that the BBC should use such emotive terms
and wording regarding the recent Climate issues.

According to the BBC the issues base around "Science " versus "Skeptics"

when the reality is that there are many Scientists who also doubt the
MMGW theory.

Can I also point out that the source of the Data has recently been
called into doubt as the recently released emails prove manipulation of
the data and the lack of independent peer reviewing.

It would seem that the BBC has become nothing more than the labour
Party's propaganda machine spewing out a one sided and emotively worded
politicised opinion to suit it's masters.

May I remind you that your charter does not allow the BBC the luxury of
an opinion.
Well I have recieved a reply

BBC said:
Dear Mr ,

Thanks for your email. Apologies, but I cannot agree with your judgement
on this webpage. Nowhere does it say "sceptics" vs "scientists". It
really doesn't.

Best regards,

Richard Black



So in responce

My second complaint said:
Dear Richard

thank you for your belated reply.

At no point did I say that the article says "sceptics" vs "scientists"

I said "According to the BBC the issues base around "Science " versus
"Sceptics"

In my opinion the BBC article is blatantly biased towards MMGW and has
afforded itself an opinion on the matter which its charter forbids it from
doing.

With regard to your comments "I cannot agree with your judgement"

I really don't care what you think.

I would like a proper investigation into the BBC's attitude to the whole
Climate Change issue and an end to the biased reporting of the issue.

The article in question is clearly biased and written to refute the
sceptical point of view and to reinforce the MMCC theory.

May I suggest that you start doing some proper research into the whole
Climate Gate issue and you might see that the MMGW theory should be the one
countered by the Facts.


Regards

dickymint

24,103 posts

257 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
Guam said:
Lawnmomwer tax coming to a town near you - unless you use a cow in which case you are exempt as you will already be paying a cow tax hehe

Ahonen

5,015 posts

278 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
dickymint said:
Guam said:
Lawnmomwer tax coming to a town near you - unless you use a cow in which case you are exempt as you will already be paying a cow tax hehe
You might have to pay double due to the methane produced by the cow.

nelly1

5,630 posts

230 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
Ahonen said:
dickymint said:
Guam said:
Lawnmomwer tax coming to a town near you - unless you use a cow in which case you are exempt as you will already be paying a cow tax hehe
You might have to pay double due to the methane produced by the cow.
Have you noticed the subtle shift towards Methane as the Bad Guy recently?

You can almost hear the cogs going round...

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
nelly1 said:
Ahonen said:
dickymint said:
Guam said:
Lawnmomwer tax coming to a town near you - unless you use a cow in which case you are exempt as you will already be paying a cow tax hehe
You might have to pay double due to the methane produced by the cow.
Have you noticed the subtle shift towards Methane as the Bad Guy recently?

You can almost hear the cogs going round...
Wait a minute..

Does this mean I can sell fart credits to John Prescott...?

nelly1

5,630 posts

230 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
nelly1 said:
Ahonen said:
dickymint said:
Guam said:
Lawnmomwer tax coming to a town near you - unless you use a cow in which case you are exempt as you will already be paying a cow tax hehe
You might have to pay double due to the methane produced by the cow.
Have you noticed the subtle shift towards Methane as the Bad Guy recently?

You can almost hear the cogs going round...
Wait a minute..

Does this mean I can sell fart credits to John Prescott...?
Knock yourself out. Won't make any difference.

It won't be his money after all... wink

Steve996

1,240 posts

214 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
b2hbm said:
Steve996 said:
Lots of interesting stuff in his MPs response
Interesting post, it's nice to see someone (the MP) standing up for their corner although I'm not sure about the Carbon Capture bit, that sounds a waste of investment to me given that no-one has actually proved the causality of CO2 in this merry-go-round.

It's the response from Joan Ruddock that caught my eye though, and there may well be an opening to exploit. As expected, she's stopped defending the CRU and joined the bandwagon of "well, even if the CRU have fiddled things, there's lots of other scientists who haven't". At that point I'd draw your attention (and your MP's attention) to the link posted earlier by dickymint (page 373 on the thread)

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/8155921...

That video is quite short but astounding in it's claims and does refute Joan Ruddock's defence for the government position because is illustrates just how other sources have manipulated their data to show warming.

And given that it's US tv, and they are known to have a tendency to sue at the slightest chance, it sounds to me like they have real evidence.
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.

Since you appear open to dialogue on the subject and clearly hold some influence within your parliamentary role I thought I would write back with some further discussion points.

Firstly, in relation to the EUETS impact into the viable lifespan of North Sea infrastructure. I note the response by Mr Mike O'Brien to your very pertinent question and that it doesn't really state anything other than "we continue to work together with industry to review the impact". I am aware of impact models forecasting acceleration of COP by potentially 5 years + as a direct result of EUETS with all other economic assumptions remaining constant. I consider this to be a huge risk to maximising recovery of this countries oil reserves and should think that it results in something of a quandary in terms of clashing objectives within DECC. On one hand they have a remit to maximise recovery and ensure robust stewardship of our finite resource base by the licensed operators, but on the other hand they preside over a cap-and-trade system which many believe will not in any way reduce CO2 emissions other than by needlessly killing an
important UK industry earlier than necessary.

Secondly, In relation to the DECC response you kindly enclosed. This correspondence interests me greatly as Joan Ruddock appears to infer in her response to you that DECC accepts the assertion that the CRU data set is indeed compromised. I hope you had some time to review the assassination science link I forwarded to you in my previous correspondence. The analysis of the CRU and US institute correspondence within it clearly demonstrates that there was collaboration to manipulate the data set and usurp the peer review process as well as institutionally bulling of anyone who was not toeing the CRU/Mann line in relation to AGW. This does somewhat undermine the DECC defence that more than one data series has been used to form their view on the link between CO2 and temperatures as it is not just the CRU dataset that has been brought into question. I also enclose a further link summarising over 1000hrs of independent review work that has been
undertaken into the US datasets which again demonstrates significant manipulation of raw data; http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/8155921...

I appreciate that you are a very busy man but I have included some further web links in relation to various elements of AGW that make interesting reading;

Scientific challenge to the IPCC- http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Polar Bears - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08050...
Antarctic Polar Ice - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-ant...
Arctic polar Ice - http://www.eco-can.ca/eco-news/2009/1/5/arctic-ice...
Recent details emerging relating to erroneous spinning of Himalayan glacier soundbite pre-copenhagen - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...
Article relating to CO2 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
Further document relating to CO2 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_C...
Sun and climate correlation http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12316782.300...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingt...
http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Solar_Arch_NY_Ma...
Some interesting info relating to another AGW soundbite relating to Maldives being under threat of sea level inundation http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDo...

Documents included;

Spinning the climate (document discussing IPCC output and process).
Article relating to glaciers and icecap status.

Until relatively recently I had accepted the commonly held belief that there was a solid link between CO2 and climate change. I decided to do some further review of both sides of the science and I must confess that the more I have read, the more I have become convinced that the science is far from settled in this matter and it worries me greatly that genuine scientific debate is being stifled. There seems to me to be a very real prospect of our policymakers taking us down a premature and potentially very damaging path as a result of a mixture of half truths and poorly worked science mixed with some significant media management to ensure only one side of the debate is getting the vast majority of the airtime.

I fully appreciate that I have attached a lot of material to this email and that you will not likely have the time to look at it in depth but hopefully, given your influential role in relation to this topic, any review you may manage might prompt further discussion, challenge and questioning to further the debate.

Kind Regards

Steve996


Edited by Steve996 on Thursday 21st January 07:02

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Wednesday 20th January 2010
quotequote all
nelly1 said:
Ahonen said:
dickymint said:
Guam said:
Lawnmomwer tax coming to a town near you - unless you use a cow in which case you are exempt as you will already be paying a cow tax hehe
You might have to pay double due to the methane produced by the cow.
Have you noticed the subtle shift towards Methane as the Bad Guy recently?

You can almost hear the cogs going round...
Anyone want to join my Methane Trading Cartel?

Get in first and capture the market. I'm applying for a grant from the IPCC to reverse engineer cows as methane capture devices. Either that or flying pigs . . .

deeps

5,391 posts

240 months

Thursday 21st January 2010
quotequote all
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.
Good work Steve, let's hope he looks at some of those links.
I've emailed my MP again today asking why he hasn't responded to my previous email, yet has found the time to respond to other emails dated after mine. If he has something to hide by not replying to emails concerning the topic of AGW I would like to find out what that something is from the horses mouth.

sa_20v

4,108 posts

230 months

Thursday 21st January 2010
quotequote all
At the time this article was published it wasn't worth mentioning. Once again, 1700 academics, a few with a tenuous link to AGW research (and most with none at all - and yes I've checked) signed a petition supporting 'core climate science and methods' in light of Climate Gate etc etc. Amusingly, all this was ahead of our cold spell (their huge outlier), the glacier scandal (which we already knew - well done to the Times for waking up...eventually) and all coordinated by the MET Office - who even according to the BBC (that ineffective, wasteful propaganda machine), have only succeeded in accurately predicting one in ten forecasts!

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/opinion/opinion/12985...

I will ensure every single name from this and similar petitions is stored away. When this theory is dead (and it's already on it's back, writhing in agony with it's tongue slapping against the roof of it's bloodied mouth) a great number of so-called scientists are going to struggle to secure grants - no longer will scientific research be used to force personal politic ideals or satisfy lust for power, greed or publicity. In my opinion, I would question whether any scientist could, or rather should, put their names to such a petition - in this example it is quite clear the majority of 'experts' simply aren't!

b2hbm

1,291 posts

221 months

Thursday 21st January 2010
quotequote all
Steve996 said:
a good reply to his MP
Good stuff Steve, nicely balanced without sounding extremist, I think that's important. As you say there's a lot of data in there and I suppose it's unrealistic to expect him to review it all. I just hope he looks at the kusi TV link if nothing else.

Let's know how you get on....

b2hbm

1,291 posts

221 months

Thursday 21st January 2010
quotequote all
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.

It doesn't say a lot for our next generation of scientists if this is the pass mark.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED