I was not happy with this article

[Chaard]

Apology accepted my good fellow.

Again i don't think it matters who is right or wrong. So long as we have the same goal - a push to cleaner renewable. Hell I work for an oil company (admittedly in a research department trying to reduce fuel consumption). If anyone wants to debunk climate change as a man made issue it should be me.

 

[Toddy]

Denier is the thickness of ladies stockings !!

http://www.mytights.com/gb/hosieryadvice-denier-information

This argument totally confused me

M

 

[Macaroon]

Most things confuse me greatly these days, I'm afraid; it's a very good job I've got my Guide Dog for the Bewildered to see me right!

 

[British Red]

Also you could be right! We might all be ok and worrying too much but steering away from non renewable fuel seems like a good idea wouldn't you agree.

I wouldn't agree no. Energy use and origin is a tiny fraction of the symptoms we face in a global crisis. War, economic migration, water and food shortages, housing crises, financial crises and many more (including climate change) are all symptoms of over population and over complex, integrated societies.

Unless and until we tackle the big problems (which are also scientifically acknowledged), addressing per capita climate change is an exercise in futility. Start with population growth and work from there is my advice.

 

[dewi]

Apology accepted my good fellow.

Again i don't think it matters who is right or wrong. So long as we have the same goal - a push to cleaner renewable. Hell I work for an oil company (admittedly in a research department trying to reduce fuel consumption). If anyone wants to debunk climate change as a man made issue it should be me.

There is a problem though Chaard and its a problem that very much depends on who is right and who is wrong.

As long as this myth of consensus continues (and it is very much a myth) then the western world will accept what the politicians have planned... and what they have as a plan is nothing to do with protecting our environment. The global warming theory is a mere distraction, being used by the establishment in the west as an excuse to implement taxes and policies that will not only effect the west, but the developing nations. And the developing nations have the most to lose.

Look at the IPCC report on food and agriculture... its obvious that the suggested route will lead to millions starving in the developing world. At the same time, the developing world who through no fault of their own are technologically behind the west will be pressured to slow their development due to CO2 emissions. If the CO2 argument for warming is false, they are being pressured for no good reason, and their development stunted for the sake of political posturing.

The biggest loser when it comes to the manmade myth carrying on is the planet... its the very thing we're supposed to be focusing on.

How many polluted rivers are being tackled by the IPCC? None

How many rain forests have the IPCC prevented being decimated? None

How many pints of fuel use have been avoided due to the IPCC? None

The political will is not to tackle the real issues... its not to solve the problem. It is all geared towards taxation... it's a capitalist's dream scenario. Convince the western world there is a consensus on a dodgy scientific theory to justify taxation of the poorest, whilst allowing the polluters, the corporations who are causing the real environmental damage, to 'buy' their way out of the problem.

Name me one thing the politicians discussed in Paris that will result in a cleaner planet? I couldn't find a single argument for a cleaner planet... just a shoddy agreement about temperatures that isn't legally binding and won't make a jot of difference even if the agreement is followed to the letter.

We can debate all day about which science is to be followed, whether there is consensus and even about whether the climate is changing if you wish.... but nothing is going to change with regards to our environment because of the IPCC policy recommendations.... in fact, the opposite is true. As long as you have a sufficiently large cheque, you will be able to continue to pollute the planet to your hearts content.



Totally separate argument on the environment, but hydrogen fuel cells are proven to work and there are numerous sites around the world using solar power to convert water into hydrogen. The oil industry should be finished with regards to domestic vehicles, and arguably most commercial vehicles... but it turns out the soon to be released hydrogen-powered cars will be more expensive to run than oil powered cars.

The Sun costs nothing, water is freely available and even I can get a standard petrol engine to run on hydrogen... so you have to wonder... why will they be more expensive to run?

Its almost as if the interests of the big oil companies is outweighing the environmental gains of hydrogen as fuel. And I'm not talking about CO2... I'm refering more to the finite resource that is oil and the current warring around the world because of it.

 

[Goatboy]

There may be dispute over the bigger issues, implications and ramifications but regulation and taking care can be demonstratively proved on a smaller more local scale. If you take the likes of the December 1952 London smog where it's reckoned it caused or greatly contributed to around 4,000 people dying prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, at about 12,000.
The 1956 Clean Air Act which was the response to it went a long way to cleaning up the UK's act in terms of pollution and though a tiny blip it helped those living in this small country. Now if all the small countries (and the larger ones too) followed suit surely it would do the world a lot of good especially as countries like China which are barrelling along towards industrial dominance don't necessarily have such a clean act. Look at the vanity measures they brought in for the Beijing 2008 Olympics where it was more of a PR exercise rather than care for the general public and general environmental good.
So if we all chip in small scale, encourage the bigger folk to do the same then it surely can't hurt. As the auld Scots phrase goes: - many a mickle makes a muckle.

 

[Corso]

Start with population growth and work from there is my advice.

or wait for nature to do it for us....

 

[British Red]

It already is Corso, hence the appeals by Water Aid etc. This is what the author in the OP fails to realise. Nature will balance humanity to sustainable levels. The only question is who will be left to carry on - the fact that its coming is inevitable.

 

[Tengu]

My Father can remember Peasoupers.

But they were just one of those things....

...Now in China they are well aware of the cause, -I suspect they will have their problems cleared up before we ever do.

Pollution `is` a serious issue, -we seem to forget it

 

[boatman]

Oh dear Tengu, I feel old! I remember the smogs. Green air actually inside Selfridges, let alone walking home through it.

 

[petrochemicals]

British red- pretty sure denialist is a word - I googled it and OED have a great example of it in a sentence you should check out (link)

And what, pray, is wrong with "denier"? Why do we need a new and longer word for one which has been in common use for yonks?

And they even have a variation on the word luddite, honestly!

BRITISH & WORLD ENGLISH

LUDDITE
Luddite
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: Lud|dite
Pronunciation: /ˈlʌdʌɪt/
Definition of Luddite in English:
noun

1A member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, which they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

1.1 derogatory A person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology:
a small-minded Luddite resisting progress

Derivatives

Ludditism
Luddism

You would have thought luddite would have been enough, but nooooooooo, they have to come up with fancy new words doing the job other words have satisfactoryily done for contrifibularities.

 

[Goatboy]

And they even have a variation on the word luddite, honestly!

BRITISH & WORLD ENGLISH

LUDDITE
Luddite
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: Lud|dite
Pronunciation: /ˈlʌdʌɪt/
Definition of Luddite in English:
noun

1A member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, which they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).

1.1 derogatory A person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology:
a small-minded Luddite resisting progress

Derivatives

Ludditism
Luddism

You would have thought luddite would have been enough, but nooooooooo, they have to come up with fancy new words doing the job other words have satisfactoryily done for contrifibularities.

hehehe.

 

[Chaard]

Handbags at dawn gents!

As for me taking the word of the consensus this video explains better than I could. I suppose I was wrong earlier. Belief does play a part in science. You have two chose who to believe at some point or you'll have to physically perform the experiments themselves.

Vid is a bit condescending at times but aimed at a very wide audience I guess.

[video=youtube;WAqR9mLJrcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

[dewi]

Handbags at dawn gents!

As for me taking the word of the consensus this video explains better than I could. I suppose I was wrong earlier. Belief does play a part in science. You have two chose who to believe at some point or you'll have to physically perform the experiments themselves.

Vid is a bit condescending at times but aimed at a very wide audience I guess.

[video]https://youtu.be/WAqR9mLJrcE[/video]

That is John Cook that is

He's fantastic at manipulating data, so good that he can make those in the 'denier' camp shift to the 'believer' camp with the push of a pen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

So no consensus still Chaard.

I do like the bit at the end of his video when he claims we need to be aware of fake experts trying to confuse people. A bit like John Cook does

 

[Chaard]

Oops double post- sorry

 

[santaman2000]

Handbags at dawn gents!

As for me taking the word of the consensus this video explains better than I could. I suppose I was wrong earlier. Belief does play a part in science. You have two chose who to believe at some point or you'll have to physically perform the experiments themselves.

Vid is a bit condescending at times but aimed at a very wide audience I guess.

[video=youtube;WAqR9mLJrcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE&feature=youtu.be[/video]

So the only "experts" that are qualified are the ones in a field of science that's only a few decades old?

 

[dewi]

Just to reinforce the point a bit, because I'm aware that my last post makes it look like I'm making fun out of John Cook (it looks that way because I am... but anyway)

Here's NASA.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Take a close look at the graph at the top of the article... look at the scale of the graph to begin with, then the starting temperature and the end temperature. 0.8C is the maximum variation on temperature and the only thing I would argue with on that graph is that it doesn't accurately represent the independent satellite data. It's roughly the same, but the only data set that matches the satellite data is that of the JMA.

Scroll down a bit in the article and there is the IPCC statements:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

No mention that the temperature has remained static for 18-19 years, no increase. No mention of the 220 billion tons of extra ice and snow in the Antarctic and no qualification of the global average sea level.

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Where is the evidence for this? It isn't reflected in the temperature record as a large portion of scientists seem to believe the temperature increases to in line with natural temperature fluctuations.

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

They can define it anyway they want to. It doesn't make their previous statement factual.


Finally, scroll down to see NASA's references. John Cook... proven data manipulator.

Think about it, if the case for global warming is so strong, so unequivocal, why would a prominent 'believer' like John Cook feel the need to falsify data? What would be the purpose? Why not just publish the actual results without any manipulation if the case is so strong?


Since NASA published that article, there have been a number of experts who previously wrote extensively in favour of man made global warming for the IPCC who have since changed their minds, the majority agreeing that the evidence just isn't there to support it now.

 

[petrochemicals]

But the artic has lost 36% in a decade http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2013/02/18/arctic-sea-ice-loses-36-volume-in-a-decade/
greenland has lost9 trillion tonnes since 1900 and it is now melting at a rate twice as quick

http://mashable.com/2015/12/16/greenland-lost-9-trillion-tons-ice/#MhgOfZG84uqT

 

[dewi]

But the artic has lost 36% in a decade http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2013/02/18/arctic-sea-ice-loses-36-volume-in-a-decade/
greenland has lost9 trillion tonnes since 1900 and it is now melting at a rate twice as quick

http://mashable.com/2015/12/16/greenland-lost-9-trillion-tons-ice/#MhgOfZG84uqT

And that would be incredibly worrying unless it was countered elsewhere on the planet....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...dy-antarctica-isnt-losing-ice-mass-after-all/

There is a net gain of around 112 billion tonnes between 1992 and 2001, slowing to 82 billion tonnes 2003 to 2008.

Ice gain over 220 billion, ice loss around 68 billion presently.

Extrapolate the data over 115 year period... I wonder how many trillion tonnes we'd be looking at? I'd do the maths, but its late.

Interesting though that the IPCC report mentions the loss of ice, but nothing about the gains. Almost as if they were being misleading in their overall data, which is unusual. Thankfully though, Zwally saves the day at the end of the article...

"I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

When Zwally comes back with a report that shows net losses and actual significant sea level rises, hopefully the IPCC will report on it in a more accurate manner.

Edit: don't know why it sprang to mind, but I remember Al Gore telling the world in 2007 that the Arctic ice would be completely gone within 5 years. As I say, no idea why, but just remembered it.

 

[dewi]

Hold on a minute...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...orld_returns_to_sea_ice_levels_seen_in_1980s/

Something doesn't add up here.