Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

Why are you trusting them? What is it about their track record on the stewardship of the planet that gives you such a high degree of confidence in their pronouncements?

I'm not MrP but all this is politics and not physics.
The question no one seems prepared to answer is to tell me is where the physics of greenhouse gas theory is flawed.
If it is such an obvious scam, it should be an easy thing to do.
Is the understood physics flawed or is the level of C02 not rising?

[MrPlum]

I'm not MrP but all this is politics and not physics.

Quite. So which is more important? Scientists aren't going to arrest me for burning my toast. Scientists aren't establishing 'carbon cops' on every street corner. Scientists aren't likely to be the 'neighbourhood snitches' calling in my crime of having my wheelie bin in the wrong place and picking my pocket (on pain of imprisonment) to support another army of empire-building faceless bureaucrats. Can you imagine the restrictions on our activities and misery these people will have on our lives?

It is the politicians who decide how much they are going to burden us with tax and the politicians who decide how much they will control us. Not scientists. Scientists merely provide the pretexts.

Is the understood physics flawed or is the level of C02 not rising?

I think both sides agree, it is rising. This is not the area of contention. What is, is that '...there is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.

The GW cause has been harmed by alarmists who have exaggerated the issue, tried to suppress dissenting opinion, told everyone the science was settled when it wasn't, framed every climatic and geological event as due to man-made GW, refused to release source data, attempted to hide data that contradicts their agenda and fed the public a pack of lies through mouthpieces such as Gore. His propaganda is still brainwashing our children in schools.

I do agree that energy companies are trying to maintain their model of polluting industry, which should absolutely come to an end, and they provide a platform for dissent.

But. It is also the case that communistic elements have hijacked the environmental movement. Their totalitarian instincts are a far greater danger to mankind than simply adapting to a 2 degree rise in temperatures. Vaclav Klaus (who has lived under communism) stated it very simply... the environmental movement 'is the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity'

I'm absolutely for cleaning up the planet but not at the cost of what little freedom we have left. The proposals on the table are a recipe for massive fraud, huge hikes in energy bills and increased systems of control.

I go back to my main point. It is not you and I that are responsible for the pollution. I don't wish to be turned into a carbon criminal because an oil company won't adopt clean technologies. I don't wish to be turned into a criminal because food manufacturers wrap five biscuits in a kilo of packaging and then blame me for buying it. Or pharma companies are turning us into hermaphrodites through our water. Or weapons manufacturers are irradiating whole countries, while talking about saving the environment.

It is bizarre that those who are busily destroying the planet are providing the 'solutions' to 'save' us.

Enrich the bankers and politicians = Tick!
Shut down capitalism and democracy = Tick!
Criminalize the masses = Tick!
Add another step towards global government = Tick!
Save the planet = Hahahahahaha. Suckers!

[STEVE G]

I think both sides agree, it is rising. This is not the area of contention. What is, is that '...there is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.

So we agree that it's happening.
The easiest way of reducing emissions is to simply use less fossil fuels which actually saves you a lot of money.
What is wrong with that approach? It will cut pollution as well.
You can buy far more fuel efficient vehicles today that are cheap and carry very low levels of tax, or you can get on your bike!

[MrPlum]

The easiest way of reducing emissions is to simply use less fossil fuels which actually saves you a lot of money.

Agree if that is actually what happens. But what evidence do you have that the schemes introduced will achieve this? The carbon credit schemes allow the biggest polluters to purchase credits and dodge emissions reductions.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... posed.html

There is massive fraud taking place...

http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp? ... 101228.htm

Many schemes will see our money being thrown down the proverbial toilet because green technologies would be adopted anyway in a free market.

How do these schemes stop the OTC market naked shorting new technology startups into oblivion? Or new technologies being bought up by corporates in order to snuff out competition?

10 reasons carbon emissions trading does not work
http://www.ecowho.com/blogs/99/10%3A10_ ... ork/-63d5e

[STEVE G]

Yes, I'm in agreement that the schemes you mention are inadequate.
One sensible way of reducing fossil fuel usage is to introduce revenue neutral taxation that would reward people who cut back and penalize those that don't. Effectively those who want to use more end up paying those who are trying to save the planet.
Of course the main reason you wont see much of this is because it doesn't increase taxation over all!
Again, this is just politics and not science.

[MrPlum]

Yes, I'm in agreement that the schemes you mention are inadequate.

Since they are inadequate, why are they still 'conspiring' to force them on us?

One sensible way of reducing fossil fuel usage is to introduce revenue neutral taxation that would reward people who cut back and penalize those that don't.

How do you tax depleted uranium, white phosphorus and Abrams tanks?

I don't like the sound of the word 'Penalized'. How many more oppressive laws do we want in our so-called 'free' societies?

[STEVE G]

I don't like the sound of the word 'Penalized'. How many more oppressive laws do we want in our so-called 'free' societies?

Only penalized through the wallet, I'm not suggesting sending people to Australia! (Although that might be an apt punishment considering what is happening there.)
Actually such a scheme already exists in the UK with car tax; if you buy a gas-guzzling V8 you pay £435 a year whereas some small low emission cars such as the Toyota IQ are taxed at £0.
You can save money and the environment at the same time.
Of course, my BMW driving coleagues maintain that these small cars are not cool but how cool did Superman look saving the world with his underpants on the wrong side of his trousers?

[sandman67]

something to watch...sorry ye skeptics but this puts your postition in perspective - bad science touted by quack scientists using skewed and selective data they deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent, usually to sell books and media to a gullable public fed cynicism by other quacks on Faux News and the net. You cant cherry pick data and say that proves your point - you must take the whole picture on board.:



I find the arrogance and stupidity of the journalist most revealing. He doesnt recognise established scientific processes such as peer review, and disreguards logic and reason evaluative processes. Sod the facts, the skepticism sells. Im making a living off this, so f**k the facts. Vaccine skepticism is just another example of this dishonesty. The GP that started all that has been discredited and struck off in the UK....response.....move to the USA, work for Faux, and make more fast bucks selling his quack science.

this is also very relevant - its a natural world example of how pumping CO2, SO2O4 and Flourine into the atmosphere causes immdiate and drastic climate change with disasterous results:

In 1783 thousands of Britons died in a terrible environmental disaster. Victims of a huge volcanic eruption in Iceland they choked on the poisonous gases that enveloped Europe. The ensuing winter was one of the worst on record and took countless more lives. The tragedy wrought by the Laki eruption is well documented in Iceland but its impact on Britain has remained a mystery for the past 200 years. Timewatch goes in search of the evidence of Britains forgotten disaster.

http://veehd.com/video/3116032_Timewatc ... Cloud-2007

Laki did it very fast....we do the same year on year on a slower but still very significant rate.

enjoy

[Rider]

I don't like the sound of the word 'Penalized'. How many more oppressive laws do we want in our so-called 'free' societies?

Only penalized through the wallet, I'm not suggesting sending people to Australia! (Although that might be an apt punishment considering what is happening there.)
Actually such a scheme already exists in the UK with car tax; if you buy a gas-guzzling V8 you pay £435 a year whereas some small low emission cars such as the Toyota IQ are taxed at £0.
You can save money and the environment at the same time.
Of course, my BMW driving coleagues maintain that these small cars are not cool but how cool did Superman look saving the world with his underpants on the wrong side of his trousers?

Yes someone could own Toyota Yaris, drive 70,000 miles per year on it, mostly commuting, gas guzzling more than a V8 Engined SUV which may only be used for long-distanced, comfort travel @ 20,000 miles per year instead of using the failed public transport system.
And yet, the SUV, despite using less fuel, get's the so-called 'green' tax!
The rich can affort it, but the poor person who saved up enough cash to get a nice car is suddenly driven down by the running costs!

[STEVE G]

Surely trying to save the environment is more laudable than owning a V8 SUV.
Actually, even if you don't believe in global warming, burning fossil fuels for the sake of it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

[MrPlum]

bad science touted by quack scientists using skewed and selective data they deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent

MrS. That Horizon program is patent propaganda. This Telegraph article discusses the broadcast http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 93241.html
Read the comments section.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ states...

'There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. '

[sandman67]

MrP

There is the rub:- the comments section, and indeed the critique itself, are in scientific terms irrelevant. They are unqualified commentary by people with niether knowledge or expertese in the field they discuss....just the issue that the program flagged up and exemplified by the idiot journalist who was shown up as a fool.

Climategate was a totally manufactured "scandal" - the unit was cleared of the accusation that it fudged the science by 4 separate enquiries....but as the program showed that was not the news reported. Instead they misreported teh findings and flagged up the minor negative criticisms around secrecy of the data. The journo in teh program makes a continual big fatass buck off this so keeps the crapola flowing.

The evidence that gasses like CO2 and SO2 cause climate change is right there in front of your eyes. Laki was one example, Krakatoa another. Currently the UK is experiencing severe weather after the recent Icelandic eruption. When Surtsey went boom it was the same. Mt St Helens...same same. These are natural feeds to climate change and cause visible and evidenced A to B results.

Examine ice core records from the Arctic and you can see the same all through the ice core records. Particulates show eruptions, climate shift follows. Look back around 2500 years in the core record and you see increases in particulates related to the Romans environmental rape of Spanish gold, silver and lead deposits after the second Punic war. They ripped Spain apart and turned it into a smelting hell hole not seen again till the bad days of the early Victorian Black Country. Result....climate shift shown by those cores and tree ring records.

As the program flags up we currently pump seven times the amount of gasses into the sky as natural feeds like volcanoes. To therefore state, when eruptions have visible effects on climate, that the other 7 parts we shove up has no effect is a logical fallacy. It makes no sense to anyone who as basic chemistry and physics knowledge, let alone climate expertese. To anyone with geology training its complete nonsense, as the records show direct links between increased volcanic activity and climate shifts.

One final point. When your skepticism aligns you with vested interests such as oil companies and car manufacturers, and anti-intellectual money grubbing idiots like the US Republicans and Faux News who are proven liars, you really have to question whether you are being conned into standing the wrong side of the fence.

[MrPlum]

As the program flags up we currently pump seven times the amount of gasses into the sky as natural feeds like volcanoes. To therefore state, when eruptions have visible effects on climate, that the other 7 parts we shove up has no effect is a logical fallacy.

I agree but what does logic have to do with provable, repeatable science? They have not PROVEN how the 1/7th affects climate, so how can they PROVE what absolute effect the other 6/7ths has?

Even if you are correct, the solutions on offer won't fix the problem. What we need is a political 'windbag' tax.

One final point. When your skepticism aligns you with vested interests such as oil companies and car manufacturers, and anti-intellectual money grubbing idiots like the US Republicans and Faux News who are proven liars, you really have to question whether you are being conned into standing the wrong side of the fence.

Both sides of the fence will tell you, you are being conned. I'm not aligned with anybody, just because I refuse to accept the GW fanaticism. I've just presented the counter arguments which no-one has yet refuted. The orthodoxy have been proven in court to be LIARS and the science has been hijacked and subverted by opportunistic chancers.

"For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore."


The IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one. East Anglia were caught with their pants down. Michael Mann gave us the discredited Hockey Stick graph, while Maurice Strong was involved in the crooked Oil for Food program. Obama and Gore stand to make billions. While the constant Doomsday predictions have come to nothing. How come you are so willing to call others 'tin foil hatters' yet on this issue you don't see the blatant exaggerations?

Give me a truly independent scientific body that stands apart from corporate money and political ideology and I'll happily accept the science but right now neither 'side' has the confidence of the public because the process is clearly contaminated. Huffing and puffing will not put the genie back in the bottle.

Public confidence in truly independent Science needs to be restored.

[STEVE G]

Researchers now think they've figured out why climate change is having a more pronounced effect in the Arctic region — the influx of water from the Atlantic Ocean that feeds into the Arctic Ocean is warmer now than at any time in the 2,000 years prior.

Many residents of the Northern Hemisphere are suffering through an unusually snowy and chilly winter, but while those below the Arctic are shivering in the cold, denizens of the northernmost latitudes have seen very warm winter months in recent years. A climate pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation is playing a part in this temperature flip, scientists suspect, but global warming has also been heating up the Arctic atmosphere and oceans.

Reporting today (Jan. 27) in the journal Science, a group of scientists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany evaluated seafloor sediment core containing a record of plankton dating back about 2,000 years. Based on the species present in the sediment and a chemical evaluation of the amount of magnesium and calcium — minerals that make up the shells of certain organisms and fluctuate in abundance depending on water temperature — scientists were able to determine how water temperature has changed from around 2,000 years ago up through the present.

The core was taken from the Fram Strait, the area where the Atlantic Ocean feeds into the Arctic Ocean between Greenland and the northernmost islands of Norway.

According to the researchers' analyses, throughout history, water temperature fluctuated in the strait by only about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius), even during the mini-ice age in Europe and the relatively warmer period during the medieval ages, until about 100 to 110 years ago, when the temperature of water entering the Arctic began to spike.

Now, the water is about 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) warmer than it was 100 years ago, or has ever been, and is likely contributing to the melting sea ice in Arctic waters, the study suggests.
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/arctic- ... ater-1025/

[PeteC]

Someone has referenced or talked about similar on here before. Look up what happens to the Gulf Stream if too much fresh water enters the system from a melting arctic ice cap and suppresses the salt water. I'll look it up again tomorrow as forget the entire story, but a huge impact on the entire planet, not just the Americas, Uk and EU. Pete