Global Warming... a hoax?

[chieftiff]

Hmmmm..... How old are you MikeMcc?
You see, you don't appear to have the moderation that comes with maturity. You fight too hard for something that you claim to be obvious.

Not sure how old he is, but he did use the term 'math' instead of 'maths' which may tell us something else...

In fairness I occasionally use the word math when I mean maths and can't be bothered to type out mathematics on a forum! I'm not a yank, I have a BSc in mostly pure and applied mathematics with a bit of mathematical history and statistics thrown in as well as a diploma in mathematics........... should know better but then again I have spent a fair amount of my life in yank land so should be forgiven.

[tekirdag]

Even the Russians, who probably have some of the worst environmental problems in the world, are slowly coming on board the climate change bus.

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...5AF1SU20091116

Of course Russia wants America to sign up to the Copenhagen Agreement, because Russia will be one of the biggest winners if the price of Carbon Credits goes up. If the Global Warming fraud unravels now, then Russia will lose $billions.

This is all politics, and nothing to do with climate. Imagine the Eurovision Song Contest, but with $billions or $trillions at stake (they all vote for their Euro-mates, not for the songs, as you all know.)

.

[doc80905]

Well after 18 pages I've came to the conclusion I'm still gonna drive my 265g/km 25 mpg car as much as possible. When I can park a boat outside my living room window (and where I live is next to the a couple of TV transmitters i.e. *a lot* above sea level) I'll start to worry. Untill then the tree huggers can chain themselves onto whatever they want, I'm not convinced unfortunately.

[Toasted_Giant]

I bought a copy of the BBC 'Focus' magazine yesterday. It's the sciency one aimed primarily at geeky teenagers, but I like it for the technology articles, gadget reviews and just snippets of useless information (Snails can repair their shells when damaged apparently. I'm still excited by that one). <snip>

Essentially, it is unashamed AGW propaganda, and I am very surprised that the BBC put their name to it. The fact that it is aimed primarily at teenagers only makes it more worrying.

Think I can shed some light on this:

(Reference Climate change)... "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."

Did you know that?

On this highly contentious issue, where there has been virtually no proper public debate- certainly not on the BBC- the state broadcaster has held some private meeting, to which we pleb taxpayers were not invited, and decided to load its coverage in favour of Al Gore.

The full article is here.

[chieftiff]

(Reference Climate change)... "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."

Did you know that?

On this highly contentious issue, where there has been virtually no proper public debate- certainly not on the BBC- the state broadcaster has held some private meeting, to which we pleb taxpayers were not invited, and decided to load its coverage in favour of Al Gore.

The full article is here.

Lots of organisations have taken the same line, they essentially bowed to the lobbying in order to present a unified front and help shape public opinion in light of the weight of scientific opinion. Initially I agreed with the principle, the IET did something similar but when it became obvious that despite the line "not giving both sides equal space" they now merely ignore one side completely I handed in my membership. (they obviously miss me because I get a regular stream of e-mails and phone calls asking me to come back, maybe it's just the membership fee?)

I think it's fair to side with the larger scientific community, you can't just sit on the fence, however there are some very credible scientists out there asking some very important questions, those questions aren't getting a fair airing scientifically or publicly. Siding with the science is fine, but you have to give the opposition a chance to oppose, I suspect filtering out all the absolute crap is just too much work and they have opted for the easy choice.

[scoobish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLg...layer_embedded

hide the decine




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2153PnMzSw

[scoobish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2153PnMzSw

[HectortheInspector]

Even the Russians, who probably have some of the worst environmental problems in the world, are slowly coming on board the climate change bus.

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...5AF1SU20091116

Of course Russia wants America to sign up to the Copenhagen Agreement, because Russia will be one of the biggest winners if the price of Carbon Credits goes up. If the Global Warming fraud unravels now, then Russia will lose $billions.

This is all politics, and nothing to do with climate. Imagine the Eurovision Song Contest, but with $billions or $trillions at stake (they all vote for their Euro-mates, not for the songs, as you all know.)

.

I agree that Russia and Ukraine both stand to do very well AT THE MOMENT out of carbon credits.
http://www.acton.org/commentary/commentary_319.php

I think, however, that the time scale might not be being appreciated. Environmental projects are generally very slow. For instance, some of the UK water pollution projects are not expected to see any appreciable impacts for years, if not decades, simply because of the size of the problem, and the time it takes for corrective actions to work through. Some pesticides that were banned decades ago still routinely show up in drinking water pumped up from boreholes, because they are still filtering through the rocks.

Likewise, any actions taken under these climate change agreements will take years to implement, and even if they were instantly applied, might, or might not, show an effect. Over the same time, the economics of the situation may change enormously. Powers that stand to gain now could very easily lose out in the long run, and vice versa.

Now, I'm not convinced about climate change. I know that the science is flawed, that climate is a volatile thing, and naturally prone to changes. I also think that there might be vested interests in academia who would rig the figures.

What I also know, and I think that some of the smarter politicians and businessmen are starting to realise, is that measures to correct climate change, even if it is illusory, will have benefits (And profits) elsewhere.

Reductions in CO2 will involve developing new, cleaner, (less air/water pollution) power plants. Moving away from fossil fuels will reduce the amount of oil needed from those irritating Arab countries. Preserving rainforests means that big pharmaceutical countries can find new, weird chemicals in plants for medicines and so on. In themselves, all worthwhile things. Cleaner countryside attracts more tourists, and so on.

Governments do like to tax things. But what do they spend the money on? Clever Governments invest it in things that win votes. (Stupid ones use it to prop up collapsing Scottish banks.) There is a general trend in popular support for 'green' issues. Every Party now must pander to it. The fact is that however faulty or corrupt the data from one academic source, THERE IS STILL SOME PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that things are changing. You can protest as much as you like, but the general public is well aware that the environment generally, even if not the climate, is stuffed. It would be a brave Government that announced 'We don't think climate change is happening, cos some bent academics massaged the data, so we're not going to tax you.'
Their electorate would simply say. 'Thanks. But what are you going to do about the smog, the landfill and the rivers full of dead fish then?'

Most voters don't like tax. BUT- If there must be tax, environmental taxes that benefit them are probably the most acceptable form.

[doc80905]

Reductions in CO2 will involve developing new, cleaner, (less air/water pollution) power plants. Moving away from fossil fuels will reduce the amount of oil needed from those irritating Arab countries. Preserving rainforests means that big pharmaceutical countries can find new, weird chemicals in plants for medicines and so on. In themselves, all worthwhile things. Cleaner countryside attracts more tourists, and so on.

Governments do like to tax things. But what do they spend the money on? Clever Governments invest it in things that win votes. (Stupid ones use it to prop up collapsing Scottish banks.) There is a general trend in popular support for 'green' issues. Every Party now must pander to it. The fact is that however faulty or corrupt the data from one academic source, THERE IS STILL SOME PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that things are changing. You can protest as much as you like, but the general public is well aware that the environment generally, even if not the climate, is stuffed. It would be a brave Government that announced 'We don't think climate change is happening, cos some bent academics massaged the data, so we're not going to tax you.'
Their electorate would simply say. 'Thanks. But what are you going to do about the smog, the landfill and the rivers full of dead fish then?'

Most voters don't like tax. BUT- If there must be tax, environmental taxes that benefit them are probably the most acceptable form.

You make some good points there. There are a number of reasons why I'm sceptical (and sick fed up) of the climate change thing. Government ministers and advisors coming out with wild predictions of what the future is going to be like i.e. climate change will cause civil war/45 minutes to save the world/75% of the UK will be under 100 feet of water/zombies stalking the streets etc.

If it was that bad, why don't they ban cars, and flying and everything else? Why set the tax levels for things 'quite high', high enough to gain revenue but not high enough to stop people from doing those things? Why support companies like Land Rover and Rolls Royce, and airport expansion if it's all so bad?

To me they just like to keep us under the cosh, if it's not climate change it's fcuking swine flu, or a dirty bomb, or I'm drinking to fcuking much, or I've not had my five a day. Oh noes, I'm gonna die!

Now I've done absolutely no acedemic research into it at all, but I'm happy to predict that in my lifetime there won't be vineyards in Newcastle, that London won't become Atlantis, that there will still be Polar bears, and that no one in the UK's gonna be hit by an ICBM from Baghdad. Probably

[Bazzinho1977]

You make some good points there. There are a number of reasons why I'm sceptical (and sick fed up) of the climate change thing. Government ministers and advisors coming out with wild predictions of what the future is going to be like i.e. climate change will cause civil war/45 minutes to save the world/75% of the UK will be under 100 feet of water/zombies stalking the streets etc.

You think that is a wild prediction? You want to visit Middlesbrough on a Saturday afternoon mate.