permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/1599000
Cardiff04 Posted on 17/12/2009 13:44
Climategate

it seems ages since we've had a climate global warming thread [8)] and the ones we did have seem to have dissapeared quicker than Al Gore's credibility.

so here's another one >>>

russia exposes man-made climate change as a big hoax.


Link: Climategate

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 14:00
Climategate

James Delingpole is the TV critic for the spectator and a politically biased right wing knob.

Cardiff04 Posted on 17/12/2009 14:05
Climategate

and the russians?

(by the way, its snowing outside) [;)]

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 14:19
Climategate

What about the Russians? We don't know what they are saying, just what this tit end sub standard journalist is reporting they are saying. We don't know whether these Russians are bought off cranks similar to the American global warming 'skeptics'.

And we don't know whether there is any truth to the reported claims. I reckon not.

littlejimmy Posted on 17/12/2009 14:22
Climategate

What it boils down to is that 50% of the public would rather believe the likes of this "journalist" and Jeremy Clarkson than 99% of the scientific community.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 14:25
Climategate

Did you see the second of Iain Stewart's shows last night Jimmy?

Rod100 Posted on 17/12/2009 14:26
Climategate

but when 99% of the scientific community have been found to be telling lies and manipulating data for their own agenda.....

its happening. it cant be stopped or reversed. but we will be taxed in the name of it.

littlejimmy Posted on 17/12/2009 14:26
Climategate

Nope. What side?

littlejimmy Posted on 17/12/2009 14:27
Climategate

A few scientists in one place have been found putting some spin on the figures....that's not 99%.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 14:34
Climategate

It was on BBC2 at 11.20 on Tuesday night and Wednesday night. It is worth checking out on iplayer.

There is the final one on tonight I think.

It pretty much showed the 'skeptics' and their arguments up.



littlejimmy Posted on 17/12/2009 14:38
Climategate

Right. Will have to find it.

I saw a bit they had on Newsnight last night where a reporter got 2 scientists to come to his house and conduct experiments in front of a group of people, some of who were sceptical. Most changed their minds after hearing what the scientists had to say, and the consensus seemed to be that the message, or at least an unfiltered, honest version of the message, wasn't getting through to the public for one reason or another.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 14:43
Climategate

The message doesn't get across because of lazy so called journalists, who find reporting that there is an argument going on easier to report on and more likely to win higher ratings, than informing the public responsibly that one side of the argument is baloney but perpetuated because of vested interests.


Cardiff04 Posted on 17/12/2009 14:51
Climategate

were any skeptics interviewed in this show? were they given as much air time to put their argument across? or was it one of those shows that makes a passing comment about what the skeptics say about so and so but then goes on to dismiss it willy nilly? genuine question Lefty as i missed it and i'm yet to see a program that isn't biased one way or the other

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 15:04
Climategate

Over the two parts so far it told the story of the debate, from the 60's onwards, the errors made in the collection and interpretations of the data by the scientists in the 70's etc and last nights part focussed on the various 'skeptics' objections. Stewart showed why the various criticisms were shown to be invalid and have actually strengthened the case that man is having an effect. He also touched on the motivations behind the skeptics position.

About 5 minutes before Stewart's show was aired I'd actually just finished posting something reasonably lengthy response to nidge along the same lines on one of the pulled threads which was rather maddening [:(!]

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 15:11
Climategate

I wouldn't say that the programme was biased other than favouring the better science.

The skeptics objections are all covered and answered.

djlocky9999 Posted on 17/12/2009 15:15
Climategate

Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.04%

as the %'s show, CO2 makes up such a small part of the atmosphere so I can't see how it be responsible for raising the temperature so much.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/12/2009 15:22
Climategate

So what if he's right wing. It's not his accusation but that of an institute in Russia.

Similar to that of why the Indian Government no less recently stated to the UN that the Glaciers in the Himalayas had shown no runaway melting what so ever, contrary to the UNís claims.

By the way, what has been stated in fact is the vested interests in the UN's climate body itself, which you seem to overlook with apparent ease lefty.

If any climate skeptic had such business interests you'd be screaming it from the rafters.

As I keep saying, the science behind it is rendered completely useless anyway, since itís those business interests that ultimately decide the policy. Not the science.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 15:32
Climategate

'By the way, what has been stated in fact is the vested interests in the UN's climate body itself, which you seem to overlook with apparent ease lefty. '

What vested interests?

'As I keep saying, the science behind it is rendered completely useless anyway, since itís those business interests that ultimately decide the policy. Not the science.'

Then attack the proposed solutions, which unfortunately must be socio-economic and political in nature, not the science.

The global warming deniers are attacking the science. The science is good.


wilkos_perm Posted on 17/12/2009 15:34
Climategate

Cardiff, there have been endless scientific studies by the world's leading scientific institutes that time and time again point towards man's effect on the climate. The same theories against these findings are raised time and time again and always disproved yet they continue to be raised.

As for you comment regarding the snow does actually raise an interesting point. Whilst there has been and will contine to be a trand of global warming this country would possibly actually become colder as melting of the ice caps would interfere with the gulf stream, which contributes to this country actually having a milder climate than would be expected for its location.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 15:39
Climategate

'So what if he's right wing. It's not his accusation but that of an institute in Russia.'

Has he looked into the accusations in detail? Has there been an investigation? Is there any truth in the allegations? If there is, does it actually make any difference to the scientific conclusions?

The answer to these is that he doesn't care to do that hard work, but he is content to present a half baked not even half investigated story because it is spin to further his own agenda a career.

'Similar to that of why the Indian Government no less recently stated to the UN that the Glaciers in the Himalayas had shown no runaway melting what so ever, contrary to the UNís claims. '

Again, even if true, does it mean that the overwhelming amount of other evidence is also wrong?

ThePrisoner Posted on 17/12/2009 15:43
Climategate

"Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.04%

as the %'s show, CO2 makes up such a small part of the atmosphere so I can't see how it be responsible for raising the temperature so much."

This mereley illustrates your total ignorance of science and the properties of gases. You are just parrotting the ignorance of equally ignorant journalists.

Presumably you would hve no problem breathing an atmosphere that contained, say, a mere 0.03% of hydrogen cyanide vapour? How could such a small fraction affect you?[:D]


rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/12/2009 15:43
Climategate

You should know by now, It's been discussed to death. The vested interests of the IPCC chairman and TaTa for starters.
Even if you donít believe the links of the Carbon trading and Corus, itís still a vested interest none the less.

Again if a sceptic had been in the employment of a an oil major for twenty years youíd have an issue with it.

I also beg to disagree on the science, the CRU hack shows otherwise. Which by the way isn't a handful of random scientists. The institute is the backbone of the IPCC.

Thereís tons of shining examples in those emails which the university has confirmed are genuine.

Discussion of altering the peer review process, deleting emails for the specific purpose of freedom of information requests, denying FOI requests repeatedly, putting pressure on the freedom of information officer.

Sounds more like an old boys club than a science institute.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 15:44
Climategate

'Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.04%

as the %'s show, CO2 makes up such a small part of the atmosphere so I can't see how it be responsible for raising the temperature so much.'

Is that so, djlocky9999? May I ask what makes you qualified enough to overrule the 99% of scientists who think it probably does?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/12/2009 15:49
Climategate

Yes.


Link: Fraid so

chorleyphil Posted on 17/12/2009 16:03
Climategate

All this climate stuff reminds me of the Aids 'crisis' in the early 80s.
We were told that each person would know somebody who had died from Aids.

I dont !! Whilst obviously, its a terrible desease, its spread was nothing like the scaremongering that was announced.
The same for Bird Flu if you will.

So I will remain a sceptic until someone actually spells out, truthfully and exactly, what the bloody hell is going on !

And if Gordon is SO concerned, why isnt he addressing the UK public?



Cardiff04 Posted on 17/12/2009 16:06
Climategate

lefty i found the first part of that program on i-player and have just finished watching it.


i found my first big unanswered question after just 10 minutes - it states warming started in 1910 and continued until 1940 then stoppped for 30 years until 1970. it doesn't explain why there was a 30 year pause, it just goes on to the next bit??? WTF? it should explain the 30 year pause! and surely the 1940's was the most industrially active time in human history with the world at war busy building up their militaries on a colossal scale. more c02 = warmer temps. but no, we had a 30 year pause which they don't explain!

after a bit of digging it just so happens that during that 30 year temperature pause (between 1940 - 1970) the steady increase in solar activity paused too, only to increase again in the 1970's. coinicidence? infact if you follow the graph of solar activity its almost an exact match to the worlds temperature, it rises at the same place, pauses at the same place, and rises again at the same place. so why didn't the program writers mention that little tidbit? don't they think solar activity may have some effect on the earths temperature? ok I may be jumping the gun and they may cover this in the next episode but they should have mentioned it right there and then!

there's another fallacy after about 25 minutes about the skeptics saying warming isn't happening, when in fact they're saying no such thing. i may be wrong but i think the skeptics are questioning the human role in climate change, not the fact that its happening (i will have to check this). the program done some smart editing at this part to make the skeptics out to be saying something they're not, with the pro-lobby interviewed putting their point across in a codecending way. not really impartial reporting there then.


i've seen too many of these programs from both sides of the arguement and they're all the same, they'll only peddle the info that fits in with ther view and they'll go as far as putting words into the mouths of the other side to try and discredit them

this program was in three parts, thats long enough for the writers to do one show on the pro man-made climate change side, one show from the skeptics side, and one show to an open forum for debate. i haven't watched the other 2 yet so i'm hoping this will be the case although i don't hold out much hope as i've seen too many of these shows before (not just on climate change but on all current affairs) to see where its heading and to see exactly what the writers views are from the outset.


sorry, it hasn't convinced me one bit so far, just reinforces the fact that the people who commission, fund, and back these shows don't want an unbiased debate. i can see how it'll convince the undecided to think one way though, these program makers are experts at what they do, but it doesn't mean the message their selling is the whole truth just because of how glossy they make their shows appear. its made a boring afternoon stuck in with the mut interesting though [^]

i will watch the other shows when i get time and comment if its even worth it.

rob_fmttm Posted on 17/12/2009 16:09
Climategate

Have just been over to Mount Grace Priory - I discovered that recent Uni researchers reckon that if projected sea level rises happen then everything in the "Tees Valley" and beyond will flood to the height of the terrace of Mount Grace Priory - the Priory itself will be at the seafront. Middlesbrough would be under an awful lot of water indeed.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 16:40
Climategate

'You should know by now, It's been discussed to death. The vested interests of the IPCC chairman and TaTa for starters. '

Rivals,

Here is the thing.

I don't know what sort of a man the chairman of the IPCC is. He may be a corrupt, unscrupulous, devious, greedy political animal for all you or I know.

On the other hand he may be a man of huge integrity.

I wonder if there is any way of ascertaining from a distance which is more likely. Is there anything in his CV that suggests he might indeed be held in very high regard? Oh, as it happens he has an absolute sh*tload of qualifications, awards, advisory appointments, within academia and, as a result, industry.

Now if I was the director of a large company and I was planning the direction that company needed to take in the future with regard to environmental issues then I think I would be looking to take advice from those most qualified and respected in that field.

Is there anything to suggest Pachauri was fixing the SCIENCE, under the very noses of the many thousands of scientists who collaborate around the world, to accord with Tata's economic strategy, rather than to give advice to Tata on how to fix their decisions based on the science?

I acknowledge he is open to these sort of allegations, but it doesn't mean he is guilty, nor does it change the science.

I find the timing of all this rather curious also. Do you know what it reminds me of?

Do you remember when the USA were meeting severe criticism from the UN prior to the Iraq war? Strangely Kofi Annan became the subject of a smear campaign. The smears were later shown to be false, but that was irrelevant to those doing the smearing at the time.

You know, now that I think about it, largely the same groups stand to benefit in both scenario's.

As I say, I don't know if Pachauri is bent, but it is irrelevant to the science. I have no problem with you having a go at the proposed measures to tackle the problem, it is the denial that there is (almost certainly) a problem that I find silly.

'Again if a sceptic had been in the employment of a an oil major for twenty years youíd have an issue with it. '

I would indeed, but because the science doesn't stack up in the deniers camp so the motivation for the bad science becomes an issue.


Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 16:48
Climategate

Cardiff,

Keep watching. The solar flares point is answered, as are all the others in part 2.

Maybe you and some of the other deniers should re-familiarise yourself with the principles behind scientific method.

Cardiff04 Posted on 17/12/2009 16:54
Climategate

i'm not a denier lefty. i believe in global warming even if we do get a white xmas. i don't believe our part in it is what its made out to be though. and don't talk about science when the core of the cru have been caught fiddling the numbers to fit their graphs. if you want to talk about deniers, talk about the ones who deny that little slip up on how it was all faked to discredit the official line [V]

TheSmogMonster Posted on 17/12/2009 16:55
Climategate

"after a bit of digging it just so happens that during that 30 year temperature pause (between 1940 - 1970) the steady increase in solar activity paused too, only to increase again in the 1970's. coinicidence? infact if you follow the graph of solar activity its almost an exact match to the worlds temperature, it rises at the same place, pauses at the same place, and rises again at the same place. so why didn't the program writers mention that little tidbit? don't they think solar activity may have some effect on the earths temperature? ok I may be jumping the gun and they may cover this in the next episode but they should have mentioned it right there and then!"

This is one of the hottest years on record and solar activity has reached a new low - a much longer low then the scientists had previously predicted as the sun actually works on 11 yearish cycles.

If you actually look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

Most of the scientists who believe solar activity contributes to global warming, believe it only accounts for a percentage of the rise and that the greenhouse effect contributes as much if not more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

"All this climate stuff reminds me of the Aids 'crisis' in the early 80s.
We were told that each person would know somebody who had died from Aids."

Great example that, as it would probably have been true if people hadn't listened to the scientific advice and in general changed their attitudes to sex.

Cardiff04 Posted on 17/12/2009 17:04
Climategate

smog, the data i looked at werent off wikipedia they off the harvard university website on solar activty 1900 - present;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941PASP...53...32N

also; http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NcjGTRxEPsM/SV0fHTKSSSI/AAAAAAAA9-o/u_s3d1YnOt8/s1600-h/sunclimate_3b%5B3%5D.gif

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 17:04
Climategate

Cardiff,

Let's see what the enquiry into the CRU 'scandal' says and what a new look at the data reports.


rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/12/2009 17:05
Climategate

Thatís irrelevant though Lefty and you still miss the point. guilty or not.

Guilty or not the man has been in the employment of tata, chairs the IPCC and has been one of the main proponents for carbon credits.

Now Tata has a windfall of said credits. It completely halts the process because it is a vested interest, bottom line. You cannot get around such a point as suggested by Paul Nutell who brought it up in the EU.

None of itís smear by the way, none of its been brought up by any leading government body. It simply highlights a huge vested interest which by the way goes further than Pachauri .

By the way, the idea thatís sceptics are all centred around bad science is just a big a smear as to what your insinuating.

From my own personnel point of view, I donít like the way many people have latched onto environmentalism cloak to hide their anti-capitalism ideals.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 17:09
Climategate

'"All this climate stuff reminds me of the Aids 'crisis' in the early 80s.
We were told that each person would know somebody who had died from Aids."

Great example that, as it would probably have been true if people hadn't listened to the scientific advice and in general changed their attitudes to sex.'

Plus, you'd know plenty if you lived in sub saharan Africa.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 17/12/2009 17:14
Climategate

Cardiff04, you are kidding right?

The article is about sunspot activity in 1940...? the graph... well thats from just shy of 30 years ago....? you'll note that that the data after that doesn't match up at all with the quite real graphs I presented that are up to date and render the argument completely mute.

Cardiff04 Posted on 17/12/2009 17:14
Climategate

the enquiry thats to be chaired by sir muir russell, the bloke who was heavily criticised by a government enquiry for going millions over budget on the scottish parliament building - but ultimately kept his job. yes, i can seen why he was chosen since he has no favours to repay. [V]

littlejimmy Posted on 17/12/2009 17:14
Climategate

Rivals, the right are as bad as anyone for politicising the issue and casting anyone who believes in GW as a goddam commie. I know it happens both ways. Sensible discussion is pretty much impossible as a result.

Lefty Posted on 17/12/2009 17:20
Climategate

Rivals

Whether he is guilty of corruption or not has no bearing on the scientific evidence. There is simply too much of it, better done, by so many people around the world.

Saying the sceptics science is bad is not a smear. Their theories and models do not stack up to serious scrutiny.


'From my own personnel point of view, I donít like the way many people have latched onto environmentalism cloak to hide their anti-capitalism ideals. '

Eh? Turning carbon emmision's into a tradeable commodity is not capitalism????


BobUpndown Posted on 17/12/2009 17:34
Climategate

I was a sceptic but now think it's use that are a big cause of a problem that will affect millions of people in years to come..

watched a prog on BBC2 last nightand he presented the case from both sides, which I've been after for a while, and I arrived at the following:
big business is trying to resist change & discredit GW theory for profits.
Gov are looking to create new tax revenues alongside weak GW policies.
GW activists are right.. (which is a new one for me, as I normally loath them)

one of the biggest things we need to do is stop over population..this won't happen at gov level & individuals will think it should only apply to other people.. it's just human nature..

I kinda want everyone to do nothing in an "I'm alright jack" way.. millons maybe billions will suffer, but in the long run, maybe we'll see the planet as one world rather than individual counties.. & be better for it.

zaphod Posted on 17/12/2009 17:55
Climategate

The problem with the CRU affair is that the CRU's data is used by scientists worldwide to form their conclusions. If the data has been manipulated by the CRU, then blameless climate scientists could well be reaching inaccurate conclusions based on false data (GIGO). This accusation about Russian data has also been raised before with regard to the manipulation of Russian tree ring data by the CRU, where they selected data that confirmed their AGW hypothesis & did not input other data into their model.

I find it deeply troubling, as someone who has in the past supported the pro-AGW camp. I'm no longer sure.

The analogy with AIDS is actually pretty appropriate. Even in Africa, it hasn't been nearly as dreadful as predicted. I lived in Tanzania from 1990 to 1995 at the height of the scare & despite the Government doing little to try to change behaviour, not that many people were dying of AIDS. More were dying of malaria. It's the same now. I suspect it's the same situation with AGW: it's happening but the effects are being exaggerated.

bigrichardthe3rd Posted on 17/12/2009 18:07
Climategate

the problem with glogal warming is simmple,,,to many humans on this earth[;)]

zaphod Posted on 17/12/2009 18:08
Climategate

So what do you suggest, bigrichard: mass euthanasia?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 17/12/2009 18:09
Climategate

ďEh? Turning carbon emmision's into a tradeable commodity is not capitalism????

No it isnít, as it isnít free market. Where are my tradable carbon credits?
Not sure what you call it but it isnít capitalism. Iím merely billed for it on somebody elseís behalf.

Also I apologise lefty, that was a separate point I was making.

What I meant was the entire movements been jumped on by too many to get any real answers from, like Jimmy says.

Too many commies, socialists, capitalists and vested interests have jumped onto the bandwagon to render anything from it hence I donít trust the science. No way anything worth this amount of money is going t be free from lies.

Gore predictions of killer hurricanes is as erroneous as his latest ice cap doomsday prediction of 75% fee ice. If you think the UN is free from scare mongering then your very naive.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 17/12/2009 18:10
Climategate

zaphod, the infamous Hockey Stick graph is only one of several graphs created using different kinds of proxy data, its certainly not the only graph showing the upswing.

The last graph on this page shows numerous different studies:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

junkyard_angel Posted on 17/12/2009 18:20
Climategate


"Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.04%

Carbon dioxide is a non toxic inert gas. Carbon monoxide on the other hand...

bigrichardthe3rd Posted on 17/12/2009 18:22
Climategate

no but to the people of the world have less kids,[^]

boroBuoy Posted on 17/12/2009 18:34
Climategate

We could prove once and for all if man made C02 emissions were causing global warming. Just get all the pro-brigade to stop breathing for a day. Just think of all the C02 that won't be pumped into the atmosphere, and at the same time we would rid the world of so many gullible fools who'll belive everything that comes out of a politicians gob. Gets my vote.





[to the pedantic tw@ts, yes it was sarcasm]

chorleyphil Posted on 17/12/2009 18:47
Climategate

[^]

Show some evidence!

GaZBoro Posted on 17/12/2009 19:01
Climategate

"Whilst there has been and will contine to be a trand of global warming this country would possibly actually become colder as melting of the ice caps would interfere with the gulf stream, which contributes to this country actually having a milder climate than would be expected for its location."

So in essence...

If it's hot, that proves global warming.
If its cold, that proves global warming.
If it's dry, that proves global warming.
If it's wet, that proves global warming.
If you don't agree that the science is settled, you are an Exxon-funded shill.
If you point out that Exxon actually supports carbon taxes, you are an Exxon-funded shill.

They do like to cover all bases with this ideology of theirs, don't they? [rle]

Let it snow! [^]

plazmuh Posted on 18/12/2009 02:29
Climategate

Don,t let the truth get in the way of governmental lies


Link: THE WORLDS BIGGEST CON

SplendidStuff Posted on 18/12/2009 02:44
Climategate

I love the cut and paste technique they have employed to discuss such an important issue.

"ē The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world."

Ok what else is FACT?

"ē Global temperature peaked in 1998"

Hold on a minute !!!!


Plazmuh do you actually proof read this tripe?


Timboi Posted on 18/12/2009 03:53
Climategate

I think you need to dig a bit deeper to make snese of any of it. Just because the large majority seem to subscribe to a theory, doesn't mean it's right.

We're dealimg with a heavily political issue here, and as we all know politics can make things become cloudy.

Have a read of this article and it does raise a good few points - there are agendas here (on both sides) so it's certainly not all black and white as some would suggest. At the same time, just because people are getting money doesn't mean they're cooking things up but there's a distinct possibility.



Link: Follow the money

The_263 Posted on 18/12/2009 06:35
Climategate

Not sure about the analogy with aids, as aids was real.

A better analogy are the 6sigma quality initiatives that were divised by quality management types (those detached from actual work and detached from reality) that developed into an 'in' bandwagon that many ambitious bored and lazy types in a fat corporate organsiation jumped on to cement their unaccountable position in their organisation. The stock market loved it and bought it too. Although 6sigma is valid you do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

NEWSFLASH: A deal is very close to being struck in Copenhagen. Does this mean everything will be OK from now especially when Obama arrives today in his personal jumbo to save the day.

Buddy Posted on 18/12/2009 06:47
Climategate

"Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.04%

as the %'s show, CO2 makes up such a small part of the atmosphere so I can't see how it be responsible for raising the temperature so much."

Point of order - it depends what you are using as your "base" temperature. My very basic physics suggests that if there was no atmosphere then the minimum possible temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin or minus 273 degrees Celsius.

In that context, the "worst case" theorised rise of 5 degrees Kelvin/Celsius from a global average of 287K/14C is a rise of 1.74%.

I don't think trying to correlate the percentage rise with the percentage concentration of CO2 is valid physically or statistically, I'm just trying to show that the overall increase in temperature is not enormous.

The_263 Posted on 18/12/2009 06:59
Climategate

I would think measuring 400ppm of CO2 reliably and consistently from a variety of analysts, labs and locations would be very difficult to interpret.

strict_fp Posted on 18/12/2009 07:24
Climategate

Whether or not CO2 is the primary cause of climate change is irrelevant.

It's way too late for any argument. The fact is that sufficient politicians and corporations smell money and power to have created a massive inertia toward carbon taxes in various forms.

While there has been moderate success in controlling less pervasive substances using taxes or credits, the fact is that every aspect of our lives is affected by carbon based substances and taxes or credits will simply drive prices through the roof.

The fiasco that is the Corus carbon credits saga is a case in point.

Every CO2 emitting plant in Britain will be offshored to India, China or wherever, resulting in a reduction in numbers employed, a general deterioration in living standards and escalating prices.

Barroso more or less admitted that was a natural consequence of EU policy.

And yet the net effect of this offshoring will be zero change to global CO2 emissions.

Surely even the most climate conscious must realise this is lunacy.

Or is the real agenda of climate change more to do with social re-engineering?


nidge Posted on 18/12/2009 07:50
Climategate

Or is the real agenda of climate change more to do with social re-engineering?

This [^]
And where did the other thread go?

plazmuh Posted on 18/12/2009 11:50
Climategate

Just don,t ask any questions


Link: BULLYBOYS AT WORK

SNOWBANDIT Posted on 18/12/2009 13:27
Climategate

"From my own personnel point of view, I donít like the way many people have latched onto environmentalism cloak to hide their anti-capitalism ideals.
"
Going a bit skew whiffy for them isn't it - they just HATE the fact that Big Capitalist buiness' and governments have hijacked it and are making a FORTUNE spanking the poor and the Rich just carry on as per...hench that placard being waved by a protester in Copehhagen..." Fight GREEN Capitalists.."...it might of said pigs the end - I laughed .

Wonder what they will come up with next?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 14:01
Climategate

Spot on. They all vanished when the Berlin wall came down and piled into environmentalism

Itís communist-lite at best.

Only at Copenhagen could third world tyrants like Robert Mugabe be allowed to get on a stage, demand a bigger cut of western cash (kickback money) spouting out anti-capitalism drivel, throwing down the blame of his suffering people entirely at our feet.

Rising temps aren't starving your people Robert, you are!!!!

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 14:23
Climategate

Let me get this straight.

Are all you climate change deniers saying that the climate is not getting warmer and the carefully selected handfull of CRU e-mails that were put into the public domain just in time for the Copenhagen talks are proof of that?

Or are you saying that the earth is getting warmer but the e-mails are proof that the cause is not down to man?


rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 14:36
Climategate

"climate change deniers"?

Who here has denied the climate is changing?

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 15:05
Climategate

I'm just trying to check, because some of the controversy appears to be over suggestions that the CRU bods were tampering with or leaving out temperature readings that did not show the world was getting warmer.

So it is just the opinion that this current rise in temperatures is down to mankinds influence, via CO2 emmissions that you dispute?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 15:13
Climategate

Nicely dodged mate, but let me just check.

Who here has denied the climate is changing?

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 15:37
Climategate

I'm not dodging. Over the last few days on the various threads, much has been made of the CRU e-mails suggesting that the temperature data is being manipulated. I assume that the deniers aren't suggesting the scientists are suppressing temperatures.

So it is just the notion that the increase in co2 due to mankinds actions is to blame that you contend?

littlejimmy Posted on 18/12/2009 15:45
Climategate

Give over rivals. You're just employing semantics there. It's short-hand for man-made climate change deniers, and you know it.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 16:00
Climategate

Actually it isn't and you know it.

It's a carefully used orchestrated word used in a negative context.
Itís in the same manner why I donít label you lot fanatics.

Itís about the differing levels of disagreement that is at issue, fu*k all to do with denial.
There in lies the answer to your second question, I donít pretend to speak for anyone but myself. Thereís no one voice regarding the disagreements in question.

Another reason on this desperate attempt to lump anyone with a contradicting voice into a denial camp, as if it somehow means weíre all collectively in on something to refute what is the opposite, i.e. your truth.

littlejimmy Posted on 18/12/2009 16:04
Climategate

Righto. [8)]

The_263 Posted on 18/12/2009 16:04
Climategate

the big question is this: would you trust any academic anyway, even excluding those rely on excessive funding??

I know loads of academics and believe me, they're away with the fukking fiaries.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 18/12/2009 16:06
Climategate

"Another reason on this desperate attempt to lump anyone with a contradicting voice into a denial camp, as if it somehow means weíre all collectively in on something to refute what is the opposite, i.e. the truth."

Fixed



rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 16:06
Climategate

Oh dear. [rle]

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 16:22
Climategate

I was using denier as Jimmy stated. The term skeptic is equally objectionable a title to me in this context.

Shall we use dissenters as a better term?

Can I also be clear on whether you do believe that the temperature rise, which we agree is happening, is going to continue no matter what we do and that it will have the most serious repercussions?

I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to understand. You say yourself 'thereís no one voice regarding the disagreements in question' so I admit I'm finding it difficult to logically follow the dissenters side of the argument.

The_last_person_to_post Posted on 18/12/2009 16:28
Climategate

rivals - spot on re: the 'denier' comments.

Instead of wild specualtion on what these emails say, why not look for yourself? You can download the emails from places like rapidshare, they've been all over the internet since they came to light to make sure they weren't supressed, deleted, and swept under the carpet by those who don't want this info out in the public domain.

http://www.rapidshare.net/tag/cru-emails

Lord Monkton's (UK science advisor in the 1980s) comments on how much Gore is making off the back of his new found celeberity status is particualrly interesting.


Link: Monkton on AGW

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 16:28
Climategate

'The_263 Posted on 18/12/2009 16:04
Climategate
Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

the big question is this: would you trust any academic anyway, even excluding those rely on excessive funding??

I know loads of academics and believe me, they're away with the fukking fiaries.'


Interesting question there Rivals. What's your opinion?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 16:39
Climategate

Well you'd first need confidence in said data to begin with, I don't.


TheSmogMonster Posted on 18/12/2009 16:42
Climategate

"Lord Monkton's (UK science advisor in the 1980s)"

He wasn't a UK science advisor ever, he says he was, but he wasn't.

If the think the CRU emails are a major exposure of lies, I can't for the life of me imagine how you'd cope with the outright lies this guy comes out with;

He says he's a member of the house of Lords... he's not.

He says he was the scientific advisor - he was an economic advisor, and did some work on social housing.

There's a further irony that he's created this myth around himself to sell himself to the American market, so if anyone should be hung out to dry for making money off the back of the climate change argument its him not Gore.

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 16:49
Climategate

'Well you'd first need confidence in said data to begin with, I don't. '

[?]

What is that in answer to? The question about the scientists or the impact of the temperature rise or something else?

The_last_person_to_post Posted on 18/12/2009 16:50
Climategate

"Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s and invented the Eternity puzzle at the end of the 1990s. More recently, he has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change. He also announced a sequel to his original puzzle called Eternity II in 2007, which is still unsolved."


Off wikipedia which seems to be often cited on here as a reliable source of info. So there you go.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 16:53
Climategate

Your first question.

"Can I also be clear on whether you do believe that the temperature rise, which we agree is happening, is going to continue no matter what we do and that it will have the most serious repercussions"?

I fear we're about to tred over old ground.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 18/12/2009 16:58
Climategate

The_last_person_to_post... can you point me to the part of it where it says he was a scientific advisor?

He's as dishonest as they come....


Link: He can't help himself.

The_last_person_to_post Posted on 18/12/2009 17:07
Climategate

Mate, you're being pedantic. So what if he was referred to as a science advisor in the clip? You missed the point - the point being I'd hazard a guess the man knows a cite more about what he's talking about than you or I wether he got O'Level chemistry or not. If you want to be pedantic then how about Al Gore? The man studied for a degree in English at university wanting to become a writer, took a single course in environmental issues and is suddenly a world expert and spokesman for the whole theory. [rle]

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 17:09
Climategate

This bit.

He has been described in some quarters as a "former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar."[9] However, his credentials as a commentator on climate change have been questioned by some commentators. James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", and criticise his asserted credentials as "unfounded self-promotion."[10] The Daily Telegraph has described him as "a former economic adviser".[4][:D][:D]


TheSmogMonster Posted on 18/12/2009 17:14
Climategate

How am I being pedantic? You said he was a science advisor, then you pull up information that doesn't back you up.

The guys been publicly outed as a liar on several occasions.

He knows sweet XXXXXX all, his degree was in journalism so he's as qualified as Gore so if you really want to argue by authority; seeing how the vast majority of experts in the field view climate change in a completely different way then Lord Monckton tells you everything you need to know.

The_last_person_to_post Posted on 18/12/2009 17:18
Climategate

"He knows sweet XXXXXX all, his degree was in journalism so he's as qualified as Gore"


Well we agree on this at least. [^][:D]

The_last_person_to_post Posted on 18/12/2009 17:21
Climategate

Has anyone bothered to download these emails yet? Or are we all still speculating?

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 17:26
Climategate

Rivals, if we go over old ground I apologise. I'm making an effort to understand you more now, I was possibly too dismissive earlier in the week.

I must be being dense though, because I'm still not sure what your position is.

Q Do you believe that the temperature rise, which we agree is happening, is going to continue no matter what we do and that it will have the most serious repercussions"?

A Well you'd first need confidence in said data to begin with, I don't.'
[?]

You accept the rise in temperature. I think you accept the published CO2 levels. I think you broadly accept the trend shown on the hockey stick graph. So I assume it is not this data you have a problem with.

Therefore you logically can't think the trend is suddenly going to stop. Or do you?

plazmuh Posted on 18/12/2009 17:27
Climategate

FAO SMOG MONSTER
you can slag Monkton off all you you want fella but you don,t address the e/mails Do You.Are you saying they are just made up or real lies or does it not fit in with the Global Warming fraud.
Its gonna cost the taxpayers trillions and
is pure speculation.
PS al gore is a big fat lier FACT

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 17:29
Climategate

ďHe knows sweet XXXXXX all, his degree was in journalism so he's as qualified as GoreĒ.

The subtle difference being one has had major influence on policy surrounding climate change and the other barely none if any.

Surly on the point of importance alone you'd be having more of an issue with Gore then wouldnít you?

The_last_person_to_post Posted on 18/12/2009 17:35
Climategate

plazmuh you don't know how this game works mate. No one ever clicks on the links. People just skim through a post looking for a single key word or sentence to use as a whole basis of attack, dismissing everything else written in the process (sadly, there's a prime example of it a couple of posts up by yours truly [;)])

God forbid anyone done any objective thinking and actually, oh I dunno, educated themselves with a differnt point of view. The whole internet would implode!

scooby Posted on 18/12/2009 17:39
Climategate

lastperson, to be fair I've read a lot of stuff he has posted and some of the best laughs ever were some of his posts on a thread about the pentagon attack on 11.09. I also recall his 'disclosure' thread which was called as XXXXXX at the time and has turned out to be XXXXXX.

The only common denominator in his posts is that he talks XXXXXXe so I no longer even bother skimming for a 'key word' now.

plazmuh Posted on 18/12/2009 17:47
Climategate

FAO The_last_person_to_post
Surely that means some of these people
are still living in the dark ages lol.
[:D][^][^]
regards
plazmuh

TheSmogMonster Posted on 18/12/2009 17:53
Climategate

@Plazmuh, I've talked about those emails alot on here and I've read them.

Theres XXXXXX all in the emails, and nothing that 1000s of other studies haven't confirmed.

Part of my point earlier on in the thread with the graphs, is that even if you take the CRU's data out of it, there's still plenty of others confirming the same data.

Shouldn't climate change fit in with your 2012 views anyway?

@Rivals, the difference is Gore gets his facts from others who know more then him, Monckton just makes stuff up. Monckton knowningly spreads lies, and is regarded as a leading commentator in the states, so yeah I take issue with him more then I do Gore.

@The_last_person_to_post, you've not addressed the fact Lord Monckton is a freaky liar yet, so I'd stay away from the 'they take one thing you say and run with it' XXXXXX.

The_last_person_to_post Posted on 18/12/2009 17:56
Climategate

plazmuh I think we'll all be living in the dark ages if people like Gore get their way because no fcuker will be able to afford their leccy bill.


"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." - MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, PhD, Atmospheric Science.

The_263 Posted on 18/12/2009 17:56
Climategate

Isn't a PhD about doctoring results to fit a pre-conceived theory? In this respect, these experts will be well groomed.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 18:00
Climategate

"I must be being dense though, because I'm still not sure what your position is".

How much more basic can I put it than 'I don't trust the published science out of the IPCC'?

You donít know my position with good reason, because to have a position I'd have to put some faith into the data published from the IPCC, to go on and discuss the science.

As Iíve said over and over it's a heavily politicised institution with some questionable vested interests involved at the very least. An increasingly futile subject to discuss,
with a man as lefty, as his board name. I might point out.

Itís like talking the benefits of free markets with an out and out communist.

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 18:08
Climategate

'The subtle difference being one has had major influence on policy surrounding climate change and the other barely none if any.'

The other difference, and this isn't subtle, is that Gore's position is based on the sheer overwhelming volume of scientific evidence and opinion.

Why is it that you people think that equal weight should be given to both sides of the argument?

The argument about whether we have AGW is a scientific argument. It isn't a political one or an economic one, though the solutions most certainly are.

98+% of Scientists believe in evolution and they have formed their opinion based on the evidence. Should equal weight also be given to the opinion of the tiny minority of scientists, some of whom are ID proponents? When you've finished with Copenhagen get yourself off to Kansas to argue that ID should be taught in school science lessons why don't you.




rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/12/2009 18:37
Climategate

"The other difference, and this isn't subtle, is that Gore's position is based on the sheer overwhelming volume of scientific evidence and opinion".

Like the CRU evidence you mean, which again is in question.

Here is an exert on a report from the house of lords back in 2005 that helps sum up my point on the operation of the IPCC, which Gore relies on.

116. We cannot prove that Professor Reiter's nomination was rejected because of the likelihood that he would argue warming and malaria are not correlated in the manner the IPCC Reports suggest. But the suspicion must be there, and it is a suspicion that lingers precisely because the IPCC's procedures are not as open as they should be.

It seems to us that there remains a risk that IPCC has become a "knowledge monopoly" in some respects, unwilling to listen to those who do not pursue the consensus line. We think Professor Reiter's remarks on "consensus" deserve repeating:
"Consensus is the stuff of politics, not science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. Professional scientists rarely draw firm conclusions from a single article, but consider its contribution in the context of other publications and their own experience, knowledge and speculations".
We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists whose credentials should rest solely with their scientific qualifications for the tasks involved.

Cardiff04 Posted on 18/12/2009 19:33
Climategate

lefty i've now watched the other 2 parts of the show you mentioned (so at least someone on here bothered to look at the other sides viewpoint). i expected an even debate and equal time devoted to all sides. unfortunaltely it offered no such thing. biased from the first minute to the last imho, and it conviently failed to answer some very important questions by a bit of expert editing. it just skipped them and moved on to the next dramatic revelation to the next, time and again. writers artistic licence i suppose. its sure to win a bafta (or is it oscars these days?). i can understand how people swallow it hook line and sinker though. very convincing if you haven't done an ounce of reading about the other viewpoints which i suspect the majority of its viewers haven't since the alternative viewpoint is suppressed time and time again - (see plazmuh's link about "bullyboys at work" and see how far they'll go to shut people up for a typical example).

also to quote you...

quote " Why is it that you people think that equal weight should be given to both sides of the argument? "

in answer; because many qualified people from the same fields of expertise as those on the ipcc have raised concerns and want a few answers. a simple concept to understand if you have an open mind. incomprehensible if you don't.

and finally... throwing around the "denier" phrase shows those who use it are on weak ground. as has been pointed out no one on here has denied the worlds getting hotter, but you're insinuating they are everytime you use it just to make your argument sound stronger. congrats, parrot-fashion you've done exactly what the writers of that program did when they used it in the wrong context to discredit the alternative viewpoint.

i wasn't going to bother replying again as it turned into a merri-go-round of the same old sh!te and silly cut & pastes a while ago but now i'll leave you all to amuse yourselves to your hearts content. so have fun and for the sake of the worlds co2 would the last one here please turn out the lights, cheers [V][V][V][V][V]

OPEO Posted on 18/12/2009 20:21
Climategate

Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? and why are car exhaust emmissions blamed for an increase in co2 when in fact they release co. Do the mo;ocules join together as they are released?
I am not a scientist. Neither is Tom Cruise.

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 20:30
Climategate

'You donít know my position with good reason, because to have a position I'd have to put some faith into the data published from the IPCC, to go on and discuss the science.'

Then how about telling me about the explanation(s)and data put forward by the dissenters? Put your faith in that. I'll consider what you say and if I have any queries you can settle them for me.

I say explanation(s) because as you say there are many arguments put forward. I'd have thought this in itself though would give you a problem. I mean, why can't you all decide on what is the actual explanation?

If you agree that there is a climate trend towards warming, then surely it behoves the scientists to discover the actual reason why. It can't just be left as 'not that', wouldn't you agree?

This is why scientists become scientists. It is the quest for knowledge. It isn't because they want wealth, or power or even fame, though I'm sure they have all dreamt of winning the Nobel Prize. For the vast majority this is the pinnacle of their ambition, but that is hardly worldwide fame, is it? I mean, how many winners can you name in the last 10 years? It is the respect of their peers that they generally crave, for excellence in their field. Losing the respect of their peers, which is a certainty for those who make stuff up, is their worst fear. And their experiments and results are subjected to rigorous testing across the world.

If scientists were the sort of people for whom greed, wealth and power was their motivation for a career then they would have gone into business or politics in the first place. But they didn't, they became scientists. Oh, I have no doubt that there are some who are greedy, some who can become corrupted, some who become intoxicated if they get a little bit of fame (and one sure way to get that is to court controversy), but the overwhelming majority? No. The idea that this is a worldwide conspiracy by the scientists is utterly ridiculous.

I note Professor Ritters comments. I note also that he is an entomologist. I also note that in every walk of life people have disagreements and resign from a position, but that does not automatically mean the former employeeís criticisms are an empirical truth. I totally agree with his comments ĎScience proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. Professional scientists rarely draw firm conclusions from a single article, but consider its contribution in the context of other publications and their own experience, knowledge and speculationsCouldnít agree more. This is what the scientists have individually done. A consensus in this context is therefore quite appropriate and Mr Ritter is wrong.

How about, in accordance with this scientific method, since we agree it is happening, you and I can seek to answer this puzzle about why we have global warming ourselves. I mean surely you wouldn't advocate just leaving a mystery like that alone without trying to solve it? That wouldn't be a scientific approach at all.

So like Hooke and Newton, Einstein and Bohr, Ginzburg and Lysenko lets get to it, what do you say? You put forward your theory (or theories) and I'll question you and subject it to rigorous scrutiny and testing and if stands up to everything I can throw at it then I'll happily concede.

Or you could just let the people with more knowledge, time and yes funding to tackle it and then reject their conclusions because ...erm it will scare you Ö might lead to a modification of your cherished economic model... you see conspiracies everywhereÖ ?

By the way if youíd like to discuss the benefits of the free market economy over communism, I could give it a go sometime next year if you wish. It could give me an insight into nominative determination if nothing else.

littlejimmy Posted on 18/12/2009 20:46
Climategate

In summary 60% of the public believe (and so desperately want to believe) the 1% of scientists who go against the grain on the subject of man-made climate change. What is this all about? Is almost the whole scientific world really in cahoots with government to push a left-wing conspiracy? Maybe some of them are, but ALL OF THEM?

Bukowski Posted on 18/12/2009 20:59
Climategate

News that the British meteorological office has been caught misrepresenting Russian weather data came to light yesterday but has been ignored by the mainstream media as far as I know.

There comes a point where you have to question why this isn't being acknowledged and reported.


Link: from Russia Today

boroBuoy Posted on 18/12/2009 21:07
Climategate

"In summary 60% of the public believe (and so desperately want to believe) the 1% of scientists who go against the grain blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"


78% of 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot, 72% of the time. [:P][xx(][:o)][:o)][:O]

boroBuoy Posted on 18/12/2009 21:10
Climategate

OPEO Posted on 18/12/2009 20:21
Climategate
Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer?


Co2 fixed it. [cr][ref][ref]

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 21:15
Climategate

Fair enough Cardiff, you gave it a go.

What important questions did it fail to answer?

As for the denier tag, that is what you are. You are not advocates of any alternative theory are you?

This is the first argument I've had on here about climate change. Every time in the past that this subject has come up, I've stayed completely out of the debate. If it comes up again and the discussion is about the solutions and the people such as yourself and Rivals suggest the crisis is being exploited by people for gain I'll probably actually agree with you, but you'll notice I have never once mentioned anything but the science in the threads this week.

I am a believer in Science and I will defend the science for as long as the scientists stand by their conclusions. When scientists can't explain something, they say so. If credible evidence is discovered that stands up to all their tests and over turns a theory then the scientists say 'I was wrong'.

When they do that, so will I, happy that our knowledge of the world has been furthered.

If this was another issue I might well be agreeing with a lot of your sentiments.

I've had some right old ding dong arguments on here over the years. I have argued against received wisdom on many occasions, against our pathetic journalists and media on many issues, I have on occasions argued that some things ARE a conspiracy, I have argued against the governments position numerous times, and on the repeated religious/evolution threads, despite being an atheist and darwinian, I often defend the religious point of view.

This is the first time I've been accused of not being able to see the other viewpoint, even if I disagree with it, but I'm afraid this one isn't really a matter of opinion. Denying the science and believing the likes of Monckton is for the credulous, I'm afraid.

It wouldn't surprise me if plazmuh comes on here and jumps on your side before too long.



TonyGubba Posted on 18/12/2009 21:18
Climategate

> the big question is this: would you trust any academic anyway, even excluding those rely on excessive funding??

> I know loads of academics and believe me, they're away with the fukking fiaries.

Shall we start a list of things that these distrustful maniacs have given us? I'll start: the world wide web.

TonyGubba Posted on 18/12/2009 21:22
Climategate

Penicillin.

TonyGubba Posted on 18/12/2009 21:23
Climategate

Radar. (Look it up on Wikipedia - came in quite handy during the war).

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 21:26
Climategate

Could this be an explanation, Bukowski?

'Russia Ė one of the worldís largest producers and users of oil and gas Ė has a vested interest in opposing sweeping new agreements to cut emissions, which will be discussed by world leaders in Copenhagen tomorrow.'



Link: Those pesky Russians

TonyGubba Posted on 18/12/2009 21:29
Climategate

Football. (Cambridge University).

TonyGubba Posted on 18/12/2009 21:37
Climategate

> the big question is this: would you trust any academic anyway, even excluding those rely on excessive funding??

Banking bail-out: £74,000,000,000.
Typically excessive funding for research project: £1,000,000.

Cardiff04 Posted on 18/12/2009 21:57
Climategate

again you to call me a denier when i've specifically stated i'm not (17/12/2009 16:54) it just reinforces what i said earlier about casting assertations to strengthen your own point of view. but you obviously missed that bit so i'll repeat myself here just so you're clear on the matter.

i don't, never have, and never will deny that global warming is real and is happening. i've seen enough information to know and firmly believe it is so i don't need to 'advocate any alternative theory'. however there is far too much cloak and dagger going on about it, there are no debates allowed, people asking questions are denied a voice, there are too many other scientisits picking holes in what they've been given from the ipcc and wanting a few answers for clairfication, with none coming, and now there is geniune concern about the data the core of the ipcc have used thanks to the emergence of cru emails.

an open mind would query any of one of those just to satisfy their own concerns. a closed mind won't even aknowledge they exist. thats about it in a nutshell. i don't think i can make it any easier for you to understand so i'll leave it at that.

Lefty Posted on 18/12/2009 23:24
Climategate

Also in your post on 17/12/09 at 16.54

Ďi don't believe our part in it is what its made out to be though.í

As I said earlier today I was using denier as short-hand for man-made climate change deniers.

'an open mind would query any of one of those just to satisfy their own concerns. a closed mind won't even aknowledge they exist.'

Just saying you have an open mind, that you are happy to accept there are two sides to an argument is only admirable for so long. There is being open minded and then there is being credulous.

The line is crossed when you are so 'open minded' as to either dispense with coming to a judgement once sufficient information is present, or once arriving at at considered opinion, to blithely accept any future contrary information as sufficient to overturn or even open the debate up again without it standing up to rigorous scrutiny. That includes taking into account such things as the timing of these release of hacked e-mails etc. Do you only smell a rat in one direction?

Here is just one response to those e-mails

'Tom Wigley, a former director of the CRU and now head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, commented: "None of it affects the science one iota. Accusations of data distortion or faking are baseless. I can rebut and explain all of the apparently incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do so."[22]

Time consuming. The people doing this know the scientists will answer these allegations in full, but the media won't be interested by then. They have got their headlines at exactly the time they need them to impress the ignorant and gullible.

Come on, the scientists have formed their judgement and they are standing by it. Are you with them, or do you believe they are part of a world wide conspiracy?

SNOWBANDIT Posted on 19/12/2009 01:13
Climategate

"Come on, the scientists have formed their judgement and they are standing by it. Are you with them, or do you believe they are part of a world wide conspiracy?"


So which is it lefty -?
1st an Ice Age ( circa 70's)
then "Global Warming".
Now "Climate change"

Clearly the zillion scientists on board have singularly failed to persuade the various world governments that we REALLY ARE going to hell on a cart horse ( carbon if not methaney friendly mode)judging by the fudge served up in Copenhagen.

If they are not going for it - why the XXXXXX should us plebs be expected to bend over and say pick your hole?

The elephant in the room is population control - not just for any effect on the climate - but for the finite resources left.

Frankly they ( politicians) have no will or gumption to do the right thing before worldwide anarchy takes root, Melodramatic?

We shall see - but the true visionary to lead the world has not been born yet - and maybe never will.

Lefty Posted on 19/12/2009 09:39
Climategate

Snowbandit,

Did you not watch Iain Stewarts documentary that explained the 70's error?

Nearly 30-40 years have passed since then, so there is far more data. Plus the world and in particular science has moved on beyond all recognition. We have satellites, we have far more powerful computers, we have the world wide web bringing together scientists and information from all over the globe and we have far more specialists working in the field.

As someone said earlier, what do you suggest for population control, euthanasia?

There is a measure that seems to have an effect on population control. Whenever a society grows richer, family size reduces, but if I was to suggest that there was enough wealth in the world to lift everyone out of poverty and a method to do that I'd be straying into politics and economics and all this thread is about is the science about AGW.

There was nothing like the same amount of agreement in the 70's among the scientists anyway.

The scientists have at least made an impact on the politicians and the public, but clearly not enough yet. In part that is because of the cleverness of the deniers. By clever I mean cunning. They know how to manipulate the soundbite media to create confusion and doubt.

It sounds as if from your last line that you are awaiting the second coming? If the predicted effects of global warming start taking effect, we're going to here more predictions of that.

j_d76 Posted on 19/12/2009 09:47
Climategate

"Come on, the scientists have formed their judgement and they are standing by it"


You know, a long time ago a scientist had a theory. He was the only scientist of his generation that had this theory. Every other scientist and all his peers believed in another theory because all their observations were well thought out and made complete sense.

The lone scientist was ridiculed and laughed at. But he was undeterred and stuck to his own theory because he found problems with the consensus theory that the other scientists couldn't or wouldn't answer.

Eventually, as the years passed and as more evidence came to light, the consensus slowly shifted. It took a lot of time and a lot of vilolent upheaval for those who were indoctrined into believing only one possibility was true to fianlly accept the lone scientist was right all along, and that the world was indeed a sphere and not flat afterall.

Ok so the story is simplistic and Eratosthenes wasn't exactly a scientist in the modern sense but the moral of the story is whats important -- Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.

Time will tell who was right or wrong, but to blindly go along with the consensus when legitimate doubts have been made, and for the consensus to refuse to talk about those doubts, shows who the true gullible ones are.

j_d76 Posted on 19/12/2009 09:49
Climategate

"We shall see - but the true visionary to lead the world has not been born yet - and maybe never will."


Sadly I wouldn't hold out much hope. We as individuals have to change our way of thinking, rather than keep looking for an external "saviour" to come and fix our problems for us.

Lefty Posted on 19/12/2009 10:10
Climategate

I was expecting a post like this long before now.

Thank you for actually making a fantastic point but getting it completely arse about face.

In this case, the suggestion of global warming was made first. This was not accepted by the scientific community for a long time until more and more data was collected so as to convince the vast, vast majority.

Just accepting that the warming was happening wasn't enough for the scientists. They wanted to know why. Many suggestions have been made and each time the scientists have tested these possibilities to the data. The only theory that stands up to the data is the AGW. All the others fail the test and were rejected. As time has gone on the evidence for AGW has grown and grown to make the theory more robust.

j_d76, if you are going to use an Eratosthenes analogy to decide where you should stand, might I suggest not picking the flat earther camp.

j_d76 Posted on 19/12/2009 10:15
Climategate

Actually Eratosthene's calim to fame was measuring the circumference of the earth but that wasn't the point. You missed the point, but never mind its been an interesting read none the less. [^]

Lefty Posted on 19/12/2009 10:23
Climategate

I missed the point?

What was the point? Were you being ironic?

The_263 Posted on 19/12/2009 10:24
Climategate

Tony: to qualify my comment. Academic institutions are pleading for funding and many papers that come from them are box ticking exercises in order to obtain funding. Also money talks especially with student admissions as they'll admit anyone willing to stump the tuition fees.

number9point5 Posted on 19/12/2009 10:31
Climategate

For me I am an agnostic on the issue, but leaning toward Mr Lawsons view, why?

Well as was once said in a movie that i cannot remmeber the name of....

"Follow the Money"

I want a grant for some obscure research project... Where's all the grant money these days?

Al gore certainly followed the money.... Net worth when he stepped down circa $2mill. Now since he became a "Zealot" $32mill. As i said "follow the money".

But i'l tell you the real disgrace is Gordon Brown offering £700mill a year so that tin pot dictators like Mugabe et al can buy more AK47's and brand new mercs whilst we have people living on the streets.

Should hang his head in shame.

Lefty Posted on 19/12/2009 10:59
Climategate

Mr Lawson?

number9point5 Posted on 19/12/2009 11:09
Climategate

nigel

boroBuoy Posted on 19/12/2009 11:11
Climategate

TonyGubba Posted on 18/12/2009 21:18
Climategate
Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> the big question is this: would you trust any academic anyway, even excluding those rely on excessive funding??

> I know loads of academics and believe me, they're away with the fukking fiaries.

Shall we start a list of things that these distrustful maniacs have given us? I'll start:

the world wide web.
Penicillin
Radar


Don't forget -

Agent orange [V]
Nuclear weapons [xx(]
Swine flu [:(]
CO2 based industry [rle]
Bio warfare [B)]
Digital watches [|)]
TV [ref]
X-factor, thanks to TV [V][V][V]
Sir Clive sinclair's noddy car [:o)]

Lefty Posted on 19/12/2009 12:06
Climategate

Nigel Lawson the former chancellor?

Is he only attacking the proposed economic solutions or is he attacking the science?

littlejimmy Posted on 19/12/2009 14:06
Climategate

"There is a measure that seems to have an effect on population control. Whenever a society grows richer, family size reduces, but if I was to suggest that there was enough wealth in the world to lift everyone out of poverty and a method to do that I'd be straying into politics and economics and all this thread is about is the science about AGW."

Unfortunately, this is contributing to the problem. India and China are trying their best to get in on the action the West have had for so long and who can blame them? Why shouldn't they aspire to the lifestyle. The worst bit of all of this is (IMO) how it seems the USA and the rest are turning round and saying to them that they can't have it. Please continue to be poor and keep producing more cheap plastic crap for us, thank you very much.

attonBORO Posted on 19/12/2009 14:35
Climategate

CARDIFF04 - Excellent post fella

Only_Me Posted on 19/12/2009 15:11
Climategate

As always, good post Snowbandit.




" Well as was once said in a movie that i cannot remmeber the name of....

"Follow the Money" "


The film you are thinking of is possibly All The Presidents Men. ( Which was about Watergate )
The quote being the clue from Deep Throat that set Woodward and Bernstein on the trail of Nixons dealings and the Watergate affair.




I have yet to hear a convincing excuse from the alarmists with regards to the EU on the one hand giving out £90 Billion pounds in the last few weeks, to alarmists groups, whilst at the same time, using the Deutsche Bank ( and others ) to buy rainforest acreage in order to hatchet the trees in favour of Palm oil groves.
Don't forget, a lot of those politicians that decided to give out the 90£ Billion ( an awful lot of money, is it not?) will be on the board of a lot of the companies that are on the recieving end and therefore will be picking up a lovely bonus just in time for Christmas.



Seems to me that if there really was a major problem with CO2 emissions, then the last thing you would do would be to choppeth down the trees. ( That's without the damage caused to a well established eco system and the flora and fauna within.)
So Lefty, how does that fit in to your way of thinking?
For me, that goes a long way to proving the lie.
If you were at the zoo for a day, would you dismantle the lion enclosure?



" but the true visionary to lead the world has not been born yet "

In the meantime, I'd be willing to give it a try - I've always wanted to rule the world! [;)][ref][:D]



number9point5 Posted on 19/12/2009 17:11
Climategate

If they all believed that the end was niegh they would not have "flown" (by areoplane as i have yet to see a politico with wings) to copenhagen now would they?

In fact if they were all so "convinced" they would never fly again!

Or is that too much of a simplistic argument?

br14 Posted on 19/12/2009 18:36
Climategate

"Unfortunately, this is contributing to the problem. India and China are trying their best to get in on the action the West have had for so long and who can blame them? Why shouldn't they aspire to the lifestyle. The worst bit of all of this is (IMO) how it seems the USA and the rest are turning round and saying to them that they can't have it. Please continue to be poor and keep producing more cheap plastic crap for us, thank you very much."

Finally, the heart of the matter.

Unfortunately for the West littlejimmy, China and India will become rich regardless of anything the West may do.

Largely because our corporations and governments are selling out big time to India and the Chinese.

Even though we know both countries cheat like hell in the economic game (Chinese currency rules for example), our corporations and governments are still addicted to the drug of reselling low cost consumer products, and the ability to outsource our intellectual jobs (and therefore wealth).

The truth is that if we implement carbon taxes without full participation by India, China and others, the West will be as poor as church mice within 20 years.

It's already happening without carbon taxes, it will accelerate at an alarming rate with them, particularly the UK.

Corporate greed in the US and UK will be the ruin of us all.

littlejimmy Posted on 19/12/2009 18:52
Climategate

Good job I live Chinese and Indian food then, eh? [^][;)]

br14 Posted on 19/12/2009 18:55
Climategate

You won't be able to afford it. [smi]

We'll all have to eat turnips and cabbage.

littlejimmy Posted on 19/12/2009 19:00
Climategate

Oh well. It will keep me warm in bed.

Lefty Posted on 20/12/2009 17:24
Climategate

Only_Me

Can you give me a link to any reports on this £90 billion given to alarmist groups?

Can you also give me a link to the report that says the EU is buying rainforest acreage to replace with palm oil groves?

As I understand it there are pro's and cons to Palm Oil, and there are many considerations within the EU.

Again though, when you say 'proving the lie' you are surely talking about how we solve the problem not the science that says there is an AGW problem.


rivals_oldschool Posted on 20/12/2009 17:53
Climategate

Lefty, your own political bias shines through on this subject quite apparent. That veil your hiding behind just isnít thick enough, I can still see the warts.

Youíre very adept at pointing out possible political agendas behind those who appose the theory, yet have said nothing, absolutely nothing on those who defend it.

Like your example of the Russians accused of the hack at the CRU. Talk about missing the point.

The university has confirmed the emails are genuine.

Therefore if Stalin himself had performed the hack, the questions that raised out of them still stand true.

The same way of the attack on the reporter from the Telegraph. Apparently you can just write him off because heís right wing. Notably that then allows you to avoid his points.

Your unwillingness to concede that political agendas have impacted the theory and the science of AGW is nothing short of stupidity. Perhaps Iíll start labelling you a climate change hypocrite, Iím a denier after all.

br14 Posted on 20/12/2009 17:57
Climategate

I'm afraid the political agendas of carbon tax supporters are all too obvious.

It's the usual suspects attempting social re-engineering and the impoverishment of the masses.

Very few doubt that energy consumption needs to be restrained. It's how we do it that is the problem.