Climate change

[CliveH]

The debate is getting into deeper areas KOTR - and like any conversation it will move along at its own pace.

 

Not sure you are being fair to try to influence what is said just because you initiated the thread (lol)

[Guest Tracker]

I disagree with Malcolm in that it is always good that a thread wanders a bit - or even a lot - because as with normal conversation it helps ideas and observations to flow.

 

I agree with you that all too often we tend to get bogged down with such overly long epistles to make a point and then prove it that I suspect many of us get bored one third of the way through and never get to read the whole thing thus defeating the object?

 

It is then compounded by a respondent reprinting it in full so that a comment can be made on one sentence of the original!

 

Never mind -as long as it is all being conducted with good nature, good humour and tolerance those elements are far more valuable than the occasional member being pedantic!

 

 

[nightrider]

CliveH - 2010-01-15 8:00 PM

 

The debate is getting into deeper areas KOTR - and like any conversation it will move along at its own pace.

 

Not sure you are being fair to try to influence what is said just because you initiated the thread (lol)

 

Clive,

I am not trying to influence things, I am not a climatologist or a scientist with a vested interest.

If as you say the debate is going into deeper area's well away from the original question posed then I think it would be better to open a completely different thread and take it from there? just a thought.

[Mel B]

Hull is getting 'concerned'! They've been on the news tonight about the city being 60% below sea level and worries that the flood defences won't stop it getting innundated again, although the floods we had more recently were more to do with the drainage system not being able to cope rather than global warming and climate change!

 

There's a load of nice houses, about 20 years old, built right on the edge of the River Hull (Victoria Docklands) and they're now being 'warned' that they may have to move if the sea level rises .... We considered buying one when they were first built but they would not 'entertain' us ... obviously didn't like the look of our trainers ... the shoe's on the other foot now! :D

 

One of the worried residents has said we should get the Dutch in to sort it out, because they know all about keeping flooding at bay ... yeah, except that they'll be one of the first countries to get their socks wet!! 8-)

[nightrider]

Tracker - 2010-01-15 8:05 PM

 

I disagree with Malcolm in that it is always good that a thread wanders a bit - or even a lot - because as with normal conversation it helps ideas and observations to flow.

 

I agree with you that all too often we tend to get bogged down with such overly long epistles to make a point and then prove it that I suspect many of us get bored one third of the way through and never get to read the whole thing thus defeating the object?

 

It is then compounded by a respondent reprinting it in full so that a comment can be made on one sentence of the original!

 

Never mind -as long as it is all being conducted with good nature, good humour and tolerance those elements are far more valuable than the occasional member being pedantic!

 

 

Tracker,

I much prefer to read and study what people themselves think rather than read reams and reams of technical data dragged off the internet which to the layman like myself is a load of gobbledigook.

[Guest Tracker]

knight of the road - 2010-01-15 8:18 PM

I much prefer to read and study what people themselves think rather than read reams and reams of technical data dragged off the internet which to the layman like myself is a load of gobbledigook.

 

Fair comment Malc - but think how much time you save by not having to look it all up yourself and transcribe it all - time much better spent shovelling snow!

[nightrider]

Tracker - 2010-01-15 8:29 PM

 

knight of the road - 2010-01-15 8:18 PM

I much prefer to read and study what people themselves think rather than read reams and reams of technical data dragged off the internet which to the layman like myself is a load of gobbledigook.

 

Fair comment Malc - but think how much time you save by not having to look it all up yourself and transcribe it all - time much better spent shovelling snow!

 

Thankfully the snow looks as though it thawing now, had enough of it.

[nightrider]

Mel B - 2010-01-15 8:13 PM

 

Hull is getting 'concerned'! They've been on the news tonight about the city being 60% below sea level and worries that the flood defences won't stop it getting innundated again, although the floods we had more recently were more to do with the drainage system not being able to cope rather than global warming and climate change!

 

There's a load of nice houses, about 20 years old, built right on the edge of the River Hull (Victoria Docklands) and they're now being 'warned' that they may have to move if the sea level rises .... We considered buying one when they were first built but they would not 'entertain' us ... obviously didn't like the look of our trainers ... the shoe's on the other foot now! :D

 

One of the worried residents has said we should get the Dutch in to sort it out, because they know all about keeping flooding at bay ... yeah, except that they'll be one of the first countries to get their socks wet!! 8-)

 

I'm glad that I live up on Nob Hill well away from the river Irwell :-D

[Guest Tracker]

Mel B - 2010-01-15 8:13 PM

One of the worried residents has said we should get the Dutch in to sort it out, because they know all about keeping flooding at bay ... yeah, except that they'll be one of the first countries to get their socks wet!! 8-)

 

You must have seen the size of the Dutch sea barriers Mel?

Very impressive we thought especially as they keep raising them every few years?

I'd rather live behind their sea defences than our mainly puny and inadequate by comparison so called sea walls!

 

[Mel B]

I'm glad I live towards the top of the 'hill' where I am too in Cottingham! :-D

[Guest Tracker]

Tracker - 2010-01-15 8:05 PM

It is then compounded by a respondent reprinting it in full so that a comment can be made on one sentence of the original!

[Basil]

knight of the road - 2010-01-15 7:49 PM

 

As far as I am concerned this thread has gone totally off track to the question I originally posed and that question was "are you concerned about climate change as an individual"

It seems to have developed into an intellectual tussle from two sources blowing in a lot of hot air and is getting rather boring, put a sock in it guys.

 

To be honest KOTR your subject says 'Climate Change' therefore the thread is wide open on that subject, IMO irrespective of your origional post, which again IMO is not nearly as interesting as the way the thread has developed. I like to hear peoples opinions on the subject that is the title of the thread and I thank you for raising it as there has been some very interesting debate, both interesting and good natured as well and it is far from boring.

I also don't see any intellectual tussle just good debate.

 

Bas

[nightrider]

Basil - 2010-01-15 11:10 PM

 

knight of the road - 2010-01-15 7:49 PM

 

As far as I am concerned this thread has gone totally off track to the question I originally posed and that question was "are you concerned about climate change as an individual"

It seems to have developed into an intellectual tussle from two sources blowing in a lot of hot air and is getting rather boring, put a sock in it guys.

 

To be honest KOTR your subject says 'Climate Change' therefore the thread is wide open on that subject, IMO irrespective of your origional post, which again IMO is not nearly as interesting as the way the thread has developed. I like to hear peoples opinions on the subject that is the title of the thread and I thank you for raising it as there has been some very interesting debate, both interesting and good natured as well and it is far from boring.

I also don't see any intellectual tussle just good debate.

 

Bas

 

Bas,

What does IMO mean? I agree with you that the thread has developed and some interesting issues have been raised but like a good book I like a beginning a middle and an end.

It seems that there will be no concrete conclusion to this thread, if the experts can't agree how will we?

[Usinmyknaus]

knight of the road - 2010-01-15 7:49 PM

 

As far as I am concerned this thread has gone totally off track to the question I originally posed and that question was "are you concerned about climate change as an individual"

It seems to have developed into an intellectual tussle from two sources blowing in a lot of hot air and is getting rather boring, put a sock in it guys.

 

Boring? 2024 views and 7 pages of comments so far? You're a victim of your own success Malcolm.

 

Bob ;-)

[CliveH]

IMO is forum shorthand for "In My Opinion" - similarly IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion".

 

I too think this thread has been great! :-D – and hope it continues to cover what is a very important subject.

 

Having a quick review of it shows a huge breadth of opinion and views. I know my opinions are very much that of a sceptic on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming - Anthropogenic being the word the Alarmists love to use which means "Man Made"! - however my feeling is that there is so little real science that they just love to use big words to give a veneer of credibility)

 

- And as a sceptic and reasonably well versed in money matters - and coupled with the fact that a whole lifetime ago I did a degree in Microbiology - I can see what I strongly believe to be huge flaws in the economic reasons to devastate our economy just to reduce a trace gas that may or may not be doing what the likes of the CRU at the U of EA were shoving down our throats.

 

And as well as the economic reasons - I am that old that when I was a student the "Global Threat" that was going to kill us all was Global Cooling - not Global Warming!!!!

 

Now - trawling back through the training I had on experiment design and statistics - I am absolutely bloody certain that mixing and matching data sets from two different areas just so you can "prove" a preconceived idea would have got me thrown off my course!

 

Yet here we have Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame doing just that!

 

So sorry to anyone fed up with my pontifications on the subject - but I do believe this is the biggest scam ever. All geared up to get huge grant sums - Mann having been given over US$500,000 a few month ago - and to make the likes of Gore bigger billionaires via the deeply flawed carbon Trading schemes that they dreamt up on the back of the dodgy science.

 

Why is it some people moan (quite rightly!) about the £ and $'s used to bail out the banks and yet seem to turn a blind eye to the idea of huge tax increases to pay for our reducing a trace gas from 14% of 0.0385% of our atmosphere to 12% of 0.0385%?

 

IMO - the science is dodgy and the economic analysis flawed.

 

The alarmists often bleat about "the children - think about the children!" when cornered after all their spurious arguments have been systematically dealt with. To which my argument is - "Yes - we should be thinking about the children and the unwarranted burden the Carbon Trading schemes will place upon them and the cost in lives that restricting the development in the Third World will cost".

:-S

[nightrider]

CliveH - 2010-01-16 9:24 AM

 

IMO is forum shorthand for "In My Opinion" - similarly IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion".

 

I too think this thread has been great! :-D – and hope it continues to cover what is a very important subject.

 

Having a quick review of it shows a huge breadth of opinion and views. I know my opinions are very much that of a sceptic on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming - Anthropogenic being the word the Alarmists love to use which means "Man Made"! - however my feeling is that there is so little real science that they just love to use big words to give a veneer of credibility)

 

- And as a sceptic and reasonably well versed in money matters - and coupled with the fact that a whole lifetime ago I did a degree in Microbiology - I can see what I strongly believe to be huge flaws in the economic reasons to devastate our economy just to reduce a trace gas that may or may not be doing what the likes of the CRU at the U of EA were shoving down our throats.

 

And as well as the economic reasons - I am that old that when I was a student the "Global Threat" that was going to kill us all was Global Cooling - not Global Warming!!!!

 

Now - trawling back through the training I had on experiment design and statistics - I am absolutely bloody certain that mixing and matching data sets from two different areas just so you can "prove" a preconceived idea would have got me thrown off my course!

 

Yet here we have Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame doing just that!

 

So sorry to anyone fed up with my pontifications on the subject - but I do believe this is the biggest scam ever. All geared up to get huge grant sums - Mann having been given over US$500,000 a few month ago - and to make the likes of Gore bigger billionaires via the deeply flawed carbon Trading schemes that they dreamt up on the back of the dodgy science.

 

Why is it some people moan (quite rightly!) about the £ and $'s used to bail out the banks and yet seem to turn a blind eye to the idea of huge tax increases to pay for our reducing a trace gas from 14% of 0.0385% of our atmosphere to 12% of 0.0385%?

 

IMO - the science is dodgy and the economic analysis flawed.

 

The alarmists often bleat about "the children - think about the children!" when cornered after all their spurious arguments have been systematically dealt with. To which my argument is - "Yes - we should be thinking about the children and the unwarranted burden the Carbon Trading schemes will place upon them and the cost in lives that restricting the development in the Third World will cost".

:-S

 

Clive,

Could it be that the general public are not aware of these huge sums being given in grants? could it be that they are being conned by the use of gobbledigook lingo? It is scandalous that children of the future are being robbed before they are even born and people like Gore are getting richer by the day.

[nightrider]

Usinmyknaus - 2010-01-16 9:02 AM

 

knight of the road - 2010-01-15 7:49 PM

 

As far as I am concerned this thread has gone totally off track to the question I originally posed and that question was "are you concerned about climate change as an individual"

It seems to have developed into an intellectual tussle from two sources blowing in a lot of hot air and is getting rather boring, put a sock in it guys.

 

Boring? 2024 views and 7 pages of comments so far? You're a victim of your own success Malcolm.

 

Bob ;-)

 

Bob,

I have looked through the list of threads that I have started and I can honestly say that they generate healthy replies.

As a group manager myself I know exactly what threads to start in order to stir things up when the group goes quiet as they do on occasions.

On my group it is ok to say what I want because I am the boss, on this group I have to be careful of what I say because as an ordinary member I am subject to the mods rules, have a nice day :-D

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-07 5:03 PM Hi Brian ............. I have never erected visions of financial Armageddon! 

CliveH - 2010-01-16 9:24 AM ..........  I can see what I strongly believe to be huge flaws in the economic reasons to devastate our economy .........

Now Clivikins!  Ducks waddle, quack, and have a distinctive appearance, no?  That is how we know them to be ducks. 

I think your second statement above demonstrates you would be an unreliable spotter on a duck shoot!!  :-)

[CliveH]

Trawling for crumbs again Brian! (lol)

 

Do be serious!!

 

The reference to financial Armageddon was originally yours when you described what was happening in the banking system. That was a gross overstatement and I said as much. Here we are a year after the event and we have low interest rates and banks back in profit. Hardly Armageddon is it?

 

As for the huge flaws in what the alarmists want to inflict upon us - then yes - I believe that to be true. What they want to do will cost $billions - but it will not be Financial Armageddon - it will be a disaster for most and a huge unethical profit for a select few. I am talking opportunity cost here – not global financial meltdown.

 

If I may be so bold Brian - methinks you hang onto perceived slights - slights that are/were, in reality, never intended. Cobbling together two out of context comments and extrapolating the logic beyond the reality horizon just to salve a wounded pride is a bit below you, don’t you think?

 

As for my ability to describe a "duck" - I would say that mine is a realistic description of the situations - both the financial crisis and the Alarmists dodgy dealings re AGW - stated without rancour or ill humour or petty gamesmanship. Just genuine concern that we are being lied to on both counts.

 

I would suggest I quick look in the mirror to see if it's a Turkey looking back at you? (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

[Guest Tracker]

CliveH - 2010-01-16 12:38 PM

I would suggest I quick look in the mirror to see if it's a Turkey looking back at you? (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Freudian slip eh Clive?

 

C'mon fellas surely we can have some good natured ribbing without getting all precious can't we?

[nightrider]

In todays issue of the Daily Mail in the coffee break section page 106 there is an interesting question and answer regarding global warming, check it out.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-16 12:38 PM Trawling for crumbs again Brian! (lol) Do be serious!! The reference to financial Armageddon was originally yours when you described what was happening in the banking system. That was a gross overstatement and I said as much. Here we are a year after the event and we have low interest rates and banks back in profit. Hardly Armageddon is it? As for the huge flaws in what the alarmists want to inflict upon us - then yes - I believe that to be true. What they want to do will cost $billions - but it will not be Financial Armageddon - it will be a disaster for most and a huge unethical profit for a select few. ........................

Now, now, now, Clive.  I think you may be guilty of that of which you accues me!  :-)

What I said previously, in this string, is "Part of my response to Clive is that it is no more helpful for him to erect visions of a financial Armageddon if we do as the theory suggests, than it is for others, myself included I'll admit, to promote visions of an ecological Armageddon if we do not.  We have a present financial Armageddon, and so far, touch wood, we have survived.  I think financial problems are far more easily fixed than climatic ones may be, mainly because they are within human control."

The first reference to Armageddon was in response to your claims, as I read and understood them, that we should suffer financial meltdown if we followed the advice of those you call the "alarmists", and moved to a low carbon economy. 

In my reference to the present financial "Armageddon" I expressed the opinion that financial problems are more easily fixed than climatic ones may be.  It seems that in that respect, after all, we may agree?

My point was just that: we could indeed survive the financial repercussions of changing to a low carbon policy, if we so chose, and there would be no financial Armageddon.  Some disruption, maybe, but it will/would be survivable. 

So would the worst impacts of climate change be survivable, although it seems for rather fewer people around the world.  I cannot begin to say how many might die as a result of the financial effects of a low carbon economy, but surely not so many as might die as a result of the forecast climatic changes if we do not?

So, "a disaster for most and a huge unethical profit for a select few" sounds rather like business as usual to me. :-) Seriously, what actually would change?  Besides which, is it not concievable that some would make entirely honest, ethical, and justifiable profits?  What is inherent in changing to a low carbon economy that would, actually, result in the financial disaster you propose?  In the final analysis, is this any more soundly based than the projections of the climate alarmists?  Are you not, perhaps, guilty of being just a financial alarmist?

[CliveH]

I have made it no secret Brian that I am pretty much in full agreement with Lomborg who makes a simple point about the opportunity cost of getting it wrong- that money spent on climate change mitigation can't be spent on other things, and that it would be better off spent on things like fighting malaria because the amount of benefit received for each dollar spent is so much greater.

 

So if spending £Billions is on the agenda – surely we had better make absolutely certain we spend it on the correct thing or things?

 

If that is being a financial alarmist then I admit to it 100%. Guilty and happy to be so.

 

Because I am alarmed at what the AGW=Catastrophe Alarmists would have us do. I do not see Gore and his cronies making an “honest profit” from carbon trading. The money they gain is more like the pimps cut in a brothel. And Gore is setting up the new currency to be used in that brothel.

 

So far better to be asking the questions now – especially seeing as how the CRU emails have opened the Pandoras box the AGW=Catastrophe disciples tried to keep closed for so long.

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-17 9:14 AM .................. So if spending £Billions is on the agenda – surely we had better make absolutely certain we spend it on the correct thing or things? If that is being a financial alarmist then I admit to it 100%. ........................ I do not see Gore and his cronies making an “honest profit” from carbon trading. The money they gain is more like the pimps cut in a brothel. ......................

To the first point above, I would say that what you seek is unattainable, and I think that is part of the problem with this debate.  It is desirable that we have, as you say, absolute certainty, but if trying to avert future events, absolute certainty is not on offer.  "Events, dear boy, events", to quote SuperMac!  Here, we are in the realms of forecasting, in which events are inevitably unpredictable in precise terms.  Risks can be identified, but they may not arise as predicted, may not have the predicted severity, or may not arise at all.  Hence the lack of precision.  This does not mean we should not attempt to predict them, it merely means we should understand, and accept, the practical limitations on prediction.  By the same token, Lomberg's predictions, of what could be achieved instead, are equally prone to fail - because of factors he does not take into account.  He idealises about what we could do, but if it were really that easy, we should already have achieved a good few of those objectives.  It is not just the money that prevents us doing so, it is all too often the politics, corruption, and culture in the countries concerned.

As to who may make the dishonest profit, why is that a concern?  It may be Gore, it may be someone else.  Who cares?  There will always be someone who makes their money by fraud or dishonesty, and there will always be someone else who makes it through honest endeavour.  If large sums of money suddenly become available, some may say especially through government funding, there will always, it seems, be "leakage", because, unfortunately, that seems to be human nature.  I do not condone this, I do not meekly accept it, and I do not like it, but I cannot think of a single example, off hand, to refute it either.  So, reluctantly, I accept that it is inevitable, and fervently hope to be proved wrong.

Even if we do nothing in either respect, there will still be the dishonest trader, the false prophet, the fraudster, the corrupt politician, among us.  We should accept this, while looking for ways to limit their activities, and then get on with doing what we think is best for ourselves, and the rest of humanity, to the best of our abilities.

None of which, to me, means we should stop asking the questions: quite the reverse, in fact.

[CliveH]

"I would say that what you seek is unattainable,"

 

Nonsence Brian

 

What I seek is achievable and do-able

 

Spending money on those that need it

 

Not spending money on CO2 reduction when there is no actual proof that CO2 is the issue.

 

The increasing populations of the world with the attached demand of ever higher standards of living will bring us enough problems as it is--hysteria about 20 ft walls of water will only make it worse, causing us to misallocate resources and charge off in the wrong direction, instead of soberly planning a strategy that will be not only effective, but cost-effective.

 

The AGW Alarmists want us to waste £billions on reducing a trace gas. I am very much alarmed (so thank you Brian for the notion of “Financial Alarmist”) at this as I do not think it is the correct way to go.

 

I actually think it immoral to advocate spending such billions on winding back our economy and stopping the development of other countries economies rather than spending those billions on developing new “greener” technologies. Again I would suggest you read what Lomborg ACTUALLY advocates – based on your inaccurate assumptions I doubt that you have as yet. – No reason why you should of course – but it does come across as being a bit odd when you purport to apply a negative to what Lomborg advocates whilst not seeming to have a grasp of the whole picture of what he is actually saying. And then go onto say that his (and mine by proxy) proposals are somehow “unattainable” whilst they are far far less costly and most certainly more achievable than what the Alarmists state.

 

Read his deposition to the UK House of Lords and US Congress if you want to get up to speed on what a true environmentalist is suggesting as a way of dealing with a warming world.

 

But if you look at what the AGW alarmists want – they want the use CO2 as a stick to beat capitalism because most of the activists driving the AGW Alarmism are “Watermelons” – Green on the outside – red on the inside.

 

Their agenda is more about anti-capitalism rather than true environmentalism.