Interesting News Snippets

I wasn’t going to re-enter the debate but thank you for that dispassionate, well argued post, John.

There are few things I feel more strongly about nor am I more worried about than the headlong rush to ever more expensive and ever more limited energy resources because of our political leaders’ blind belief in the unarguable rightness of 20 years of utterly flawed computer modelling. But backed by the Pope, Prince Charles, the Guardian and the BBC how could it not be right? The folly of man never ceases to disappoint!

Entrenched opinions on the subject of global warming and what to do about it are unlikely to be swayed one way or another by argument on this forum or, for that matter anywhere else. I do not know whether global warming of any origin is a reality. I do know that the steps so far taken to try to prevent it are – courtesy of taxpayers subsidies – ruinously expensive.

I do know that the egos of the warming lobby, permit of no discussion that throws any doubt on their almost Messianic claims. There is something that is almost sinister about the ferocity of the arguments of the warmists and their entirely unjustified conclusions in support of their flawed contentions.

The warmist ‘evidence has been exposed as fraudulent but, none of that really matters. What matters is the time scale. The shortest period of time that might offer some continuity of evidence that global warming is an established fact is reasonably to the order of at least one thousand years. That seems to me to be the shortest period of time in which to assess temperature levels and thus the probability or otherwise of warming.

Reliable weather and temperature recording is a recent industry going back a mere ninety years. We should not, based on those short term comparisons, penalise our industries and our way of life by foolishly imposing un-necessary restrictions on ourselves based on flawed reasoning.

The emerging industrial giants, India and China go on their merry way belching out a scale of pollution that reduces that emitted by the West to barely measurable proportions. Let all the warmist doomsayers direct their anger towards those countries and see how far you get !

I don’t see India and China throwing shedloads of taxpayers cash to subsidise alternative sources of renewable clean energy.

I’m burning car tires this winter to keep warm.

There will not be any lights to keep on eventually if emissions are not cut.

At what stage do you propose cutting emissions? I guarantee that by whatever stage you say it will be too late.

Nuclear is the answer in combination with wind, solar, hydroelectric and perhaps wave.

It was the failure of wind and solar that precipitated the emergency measures, weather calm and dull, the over hyped windmills didn’t function and solar just went into a sulk, nuclear, you’re having a laugh, this government has just basically handed our future nuclear generation over to the nationalised industry, pity it’s not ours, but that of two foreign countries, guaranteeing artificially inflated prices to boot, hydroelectric, we simply don’t have the facilities for much, wave, plenty of experiments, but very little result.

Personally I would have thought tidal was the way forward, but mention building barrage dams and the same environmentalists start screaming about protecting estuary mud flats for the birds.

Show us something that works instead of the propaganda.

Hi All,
Beermat,
I say it as to me without 100% evidence from the beginning of earths creation along with all the variables that are constantly changing, also this so called scientific evidence that is offered as exact evidence are at best educated guess’s judged on what evidence that has been collated over the time period since records began.

The only difference between myself or others like me and an expert is a lot of experts have been trained to ask questions and have been taught to make decisions based on certain models to be applied to achieve an answer, where as I can look at it in black and white. As an example I know 1+1=2 why do I know that ? because that is how I/You and millions were taught and you have the physical evidence to back that up, with climate change you do not have the other half of the sum, it’s that missing part of the sum you need to achieve an accurate total.

The time period that we have been able to actually take measurements and record climate change is miniscule compared to how long the earth has actually had weather patterns affecting the earths climate, all the evidence is based on If/Buts and Maybe’s and is all different depending on who you talk to. In my tiny mind it’s as accurate as trying to predict the weather and getting it 100% spot on 100% of the time. We cannot do that from one day to the next so how can we say whatever is the cause of whatever if you do not have 100% evidence to back it up from when whatever it is alleged to have started ?

Could all be coincidence, could be fact nobody can say for certain because nobody was around millions of years ago to take notes and record, even with computer models and simulations if one piece of the data entered into a programme is wrong, keyed into the programme when being designed by accident
etc.etc.etc. It can throw it all out shape and produce a different Forecast/Answer to what is expected or produce a model of what is likely to happen then when whatever does not happen it’s blamed on the computer being wrong. When in actuality it’s simply because it only has part of the equation it needs to achieve an accurate answer.

Geoff.

I can see you are as I suggested totally in thrall to the “evidence”, Snafu, so that there is no point in engaging in a debate. Your refusal to respond and dismissal of extremely relevant questions proves the point. Your position is fixed, as is mine. But I would just add that your repeated accusation of a conspiracy is utter balderdash, as you are aware. Not that I have even mentioned the subject, but the cost of “new energy” is not being artificially pushed up by restricting it it is being pushed up because it has to be so heavily subsidised for any provider to even be remotely interested in the investment. Wind turbines around the UK shores are mind-numbingly inefficient. Just take a look at the DECC website – it’s all there! And check the ACTUAL output figures not the potential output figures, which are meaningless.

Anyway I will not return to the subject but merely repeat my fervent hope that Paris fails and the UK starts to see some sense. But with the government we have and any we might get, I’m not holding my breath….

Clearly the green energy isn’t up to the job, with that in mind which is more important, keeping the lights on, or cutting emissions?, bearing in mind that we are not even in to winter yet.

There will not be any lights to keep on eventually if emissions are not cut.

At what stage do you propose cutting emissions? I guarantee that by whatever stage you say it will be too late.

Nuclear is the answer in combination with wind, solar, hydroelectric and perhaps wave.

Science, and the scientific method, is too hard for the majority of the public to comprehend is the answer I suspect.

Plus people like conspiracy theories. The idea that there’s a great big conspiracy to push prices of energy up by restricting use of “cheap” energy is a little stupid. Yet this is essentially what Charlie and Geoff, along with many other deniers, are implicitly claiming.

Even if climate change is not impacted by human activity (which it clearly is) the measures being offered to combat it are sensible ones for the long term sustainability of resources and ultimately the planet.

With regard to your questions Charlie, what a load of rubbish. They are, as I suspect you well know, very loaded questions. The science is not black and white and those questions demand black and white answers. Thus any attempt to answer them will result in an answer that will likely allow climate change deniers such as yourself to trumpet that scientists cannot demonstrate conclusively that such and such is a fact.

Simplistic tools such as those questions have been used though out history in order to manipulate the masses.

I’m also minded to note that it is generally the older generations that are in the fore front of denying any human impact, I ascribe this to two factors; 1) they are set in their ways and the need for change is not something that they will wish to accommodate and 2) acknowledging and accepting that human activity has, is and will have an on-going impact will mean that they have to acknowledge the errors and mistakes their generations have unknowingly made.

Geoff

Not sure I follow.. why does not being able to time travel and instead using available data make that data ‘100% incorrect’?

I think there are some fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of scientific method going on in this discussion.

Re your last paragraph – that’s 2015. By 2020 we will be lucky to have sufficient energy on a daily basis!

We are becoming accustomed to the doom laden prophesies from the clean, green energy fascists, interestingly YESTERDAY this country had to bring into play the emergency scheme of major energy users reducing their use, because with no wind the generating capacity couldn’t handle the load, the statement went on to say that alternative generating capacity was brought on line to cover the shortfall, presumably this meant firing up coal fired plant kept on standby.

Clearly the green energy isn’t up to the job, with that in mind which is more important, keeping the lights on, or cutting emissions?, bearing in mind that we are not even in to winter yet.

Hi All,
What makes me laugh with some of these so called scientific experts and their claims using whatever data as evidence along with their associated accurate models 😀 is that they claim this that and the other going back however many years and use this as evidence we are the ones 8uggering up this green and blue dot in the cosmos. Yes we haven’t helped with all our pollution but there are plenty of natural pollutants released into the air over the
same time period we have been taking records all we have done is added to the natural problem nothing more nothing less.

Well all I can say is how the hell can they claim to be 100% accurate when they can in all honestly go back to when we as humans first started taking notes ? I mean the planet is millions of years old and has evolved and is evolving so unless they have managed to time travel to the creation of the planet and watched as the earth cooled down and evolved over these millions of years their data is 100% incorrect, because they can only compare the present to Human recent history and not before taking no more than an educated guess at what the actual climate was whenever based on their ever evolving testing methods….:eek:

Mods – Any idea why (BU GG ERING) would be classed as an offensive word being replaced with * instead please ?

Geoff.

I wish I was, Snafu. Your first six words utterly prove the blinkered brainwashed crass stupidity of those who cannot detach themselves from the folly of the last 20 years.

With any luck the Indians and Chinese will save the world from yet more economically unsustainable energy policies although I fear that Europe and the UK, with the by far the largest targets for emission reduction, will blunder on until we can no longer afford the limited amount of energy we will be producing.

I am claiming no conspiracy – never even mentioned the word. And the “cherry-picked” data you mentioned only happens to be the key foundation upon which the whole AGW edifice was built. So hardly insignificant, I would have thought.

Try answering a few of the questions I linked. Then I might start to get interested.

Sorry Charlie you are plain wrong. The evidence is there. If you and your ilk wish to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes whilst shouting I can’t hear you, so be it.

You final sentence illustrates all that is wrong with your stance. Cherry picking data that suits your position.

This is not black and white, like most of life it is a series of shades of grey. It is difficult for many to comprehend as it is not nicely package and obvious plus it probably requires people to actually adjust their lifestyles, that however does mean that it can or should be dismissed.

Human effects on climate change deniers are akin to the anti vaccination and anti gmo crowd.

A penultimate point, please re-read this:

“Ball went on to note that Booker’s position required the reader to believe that “1) Most of the world’s climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world’s climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction.”[26]”

You are claiming that there is a massive conspiracy… of incompetent folk who have all managed to generate similar conclusions and also keep the conspiracy secret…

You and I will be long dead before the consequences of our generations actions come to pass.

Christopher Booker and his peers talk more sense about the proto-religious fanaticism of AGW than most of the world’s “leaders” put together.

I doubt we will get any answers, if at all, that make sense to these very basic questions.

http://pcc15.org/

This paragraph from the above link is the key point.

“It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.”

Added to which there has been no warming for over 18 years, as accepted by the IPCC, after much procrastination.

More evidence of the lying, conniving bullsh*t perpetrated by booker and his ilk if people can be bothered to read it:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/christopher-booker-and-the-mystery-of-the-decc-calculator

For those that can be bothered to read and can comprehend more than their own close held beliefs:

http://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/blog/climate-at-imperial/2014/07/18/fact-checking-a-recent-telegraph-article-by-christopher-booker/

Christopher Booker is a nutter.

Global warming[edit]

Booker’s views on global warming run counter to statements issued by the IPCC, and the scientific consensus on climate change.

He had previously claimed that the Climate Change Act 2008 was “the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament”, and likely to cost hundreds of billions over the next 40 years.[23] In May 2009 Booker spoke at an International Conference on Climate Change organised by The Heartland Institute.[24] In the Autumn of 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster. The book, which became his best-selling work, claims that there is not actually a consensus on climate change, and postulates that the measures taken by governments to combat climate change “will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made”.[25] The book was characterised by Philip Ball in The Observer as being as “the definitive climate sceptics’ manual”, in which “he has rounded up just about every criticism ever made of the majority scientific view that global warming, most probably caused by human activity, is under way, and presented them unchallenged”.[26] Ball went on to note that Booker’s position required the reader to believe that “1) Most of the world’s climate scientists, for reasons unspecified, decided to create a myth about human-induced global warming and have managed to twist endless measurements and computer models to fit their case, without the rest of the scientific community noticing. George W Bush and certain oil companies have, however, seen through the deception. 2) Most of the world’s climate scientists are incompetent and have grossly misinterpreted their data and models, yet their faulty conclusions are not, as you might imagine, a random chaos of assertions, but all point in the same direction.”[26]

In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North had published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain,[27][28][29][30] with a follow-up Telegraph article in January 2010.[31] On 21 August 2010,The Daily Telegraph issued an apology,[28] and withdrew the December article from their website[29] having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures.[29] Dr Pachauri described the statements against him as “another attempt by the climate sceptics to discredit the IPCC.”[32]

Intelligent design[edit]

Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, claiming that supporters of the theory of evolution “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

In the UK it will not be a sensible use of for profit services it will be, yet again, the all or nothing approach which will likely be just as bad as the issues of today.

Quite the most realistic and balanced article I have read in recent months. And what some of us have been saying for years!! Coming hot on the heels of the latest OECD survey of health services worldwide it makes for salutary reading.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11975958/Junior-doctors-are-victims-of-an-NHS-thats-broken-beyond-repair.html