Climate change

[Brian Kirby]

Now Clive,

I made two points.

First that "absolute certainty" is unattainable with either course of action.  Do you really disagree?

Second, that it seems to me inevitable that someone will make unjustified or dishonest profits from whichever course is adopted.  So, do you disagree with that?

My negative regerding Lomberg was that he assumes that what he advocates (i.e. a prediction) will be achieved.  My contention is that this is no more likely than that the outcomes of climate change will materialise as predicted.  That is the uncertainty: it is inherent in trying to predict, or dictate, future outcomes of present plans.

I don't detect your response on either point.  Just another diatribe against reducing CO², which I did not comment upon.  I already know you think that is irrelevant, you have said so many times.  What, I don't know, is what, of what I actually said, are you objecting to?

[malc d]

Reading Clives' point that: Alarmists ( as he calls them) are " green on the outside and red on the inside " would indicate that, sadly, Macarthyism is not dead.

 

 

 

 

:-(

[CliveH]

Brian - you are a master at splitting hairs

 

1) Where have I EVER said anything about "absolute certainty". I have said that rather than combat climate change at huge cost we should adapt. I do not think I have ever talked about absolute certainty (but then I never talked about Financial Armageddon either (lol) )

 

It is precisely because there is no absolute certainty that I feel this adaptation scenario is the best.

 

2) To me making a profit is not a sin. But to create a spurious market so that resources are diverted from "good causes" (for want of a better description) to make profit at the expense of the worlds poor is immoral in my view.

 

As for my making the point several times about how relevant to the worlds and its populations (both animal and vegetable) would reducing CO2 be? - To be honest I was rather hoping you would make a comment on the relevance because you steadfastly ignore this point and throw up ad hominem arguments about profit and certainty.

 

Perhaps you could answer this point as I have always tried to answer yours (but Lord you are a slippery one! – you expect me to answer you points – but never get to grips with the real issue! :-S ) - Are you happy for £Billions to be spent on reducing our Carbon Footprint/Cap and trade agreements etc. such that the opportunity cost affects adversely the development of other Nations and their indigenous peoples?

 

As for Lomborg - I am not sure he is the one making the predictions!! :-S

If you read his books and his articles you will see that he actually accepts Global Warming is happening. He thus makes not predictions as such but what he actually states is that the Alarmists that advocate that Global Warming = catastrophe are leading us down the wrong path and states that as an economist he believes that there are far better ways of dealing with the ills of the world.

 

As for Malc's comment about McCarthyism - Malc - if you want examples of McCarthyite dirty tricks - read the CRU emails on how they acted together against any dissenting voices in the climate debate.

 

Oh and if anyone wanted good examples of how these people think have a look at the following quotes – then decide if they have the worlds best interests at heart:-

 

 

 

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

 

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

 

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

 

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

 

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

 

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

 

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

 

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

 

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

 

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

 

“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

 

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

 

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

I meant to add that of all those amazing statements - this one has got to be the one that undelines the point about "Watermelon Politics":-

 

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

 

- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

 

Staggering!

 

 

 

[malc d]

The "Macarthyite trick" was to say that anyone who didn't agree with them must be a communist.

Not a very convincing 'argument'

 

 

 

 

[Basil]

malc d - 2010-01-17 8:51 PM

The "Macarthyite trick" was to say that anyone who didn't agree with them must be a communist.

Not a very convincing 'argument'

 

 

I don't believe anyone has said that about the 'alrmists' but they sure as hell have said similar about those that have tried to show that the whole thing is a con. Not only that but there have been death threats made against scientists that have left the origional groups because they knew the findings were being misrepresented and have spoken out against the alarmists.

Regarding the 'politics' of some of the global warming pressure groups, you just need to look into the background of some of these people to learn what their true leanings are.

 

Bas

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-17 8:32 PM Brian - you are a master at splitting hairs 1) Where have I EVER said anything about "absolute certainty". ..............

Here:  "So if spending £Billions is on the agenda – surely we had better make absolutely certain we spend it on the correct thing or things?"  Your words, not mine!!

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-17 8:32 PM .............. (but then I never talked about Financial Armageddon either (lol) ) ..............

No, that was my phrase, to capture what I understood you to imply would result from adopting a low carbon strategy. 

I didn't say said you had used that phrase, just that you had suggested that scale of outcome.  Apparently, you think it will be somewhat less severe.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-17 8:32 PM .......... As for my making the point several times about how relevant to the worlds and its populations (both animal and vegetable) would reducing CO2 be? - To be honest I was rather hoping you would make a comment on the relevance because you steadfastly ignore this point and throw up ad hominem arguments about profit and certainty. ...................

I ignore the point, because I have no comment to make on it. 

Because first, as I have said several times, I think we need to adopt the same strategy as those you call the "alarmists" propose, because we need to conserve the resources (and a lot more besides just those) that a high carbon economy consumes. 

Because second, I don't much care if climate change is natural or man made, it seems it is happening and it will have an impact on the world as we know it.  Part of our preparation for the impact of that, should be a move toward economic self-sufficiency. 

Both conservation, and moving to a more self-sufficient economy seem to me to require much the same measures as your "alarmists" propose so, kind of on the basis that my enemy's enemy is my friend, I'm happy to accept their reasoning, right or wrong.

By the way, is not an ad hominem argument, one which seeks to discredit the originator so as to discredit his argument by association?  I don't think that is where I have been, have I?

[CliveH]

Context Brian – Context

 

The “absolute certainty” – that was under discussion was that of the Alarmists who want no further discussion because the “debate is over”. Well it isn’t – the CRU emails prove that.

 

As for spending Billions and not being "absolutely certain" – sorry Brian but this is a bit of an old chestnut to you and I. As a businessman I have to be “absolutely certain” that money we spend is spent wisely. I have a legal responsibility to do so. I see no reason why our spending £100 should be any different to Governments spending £billions. If I can apply due diligence - they sure as hell should as well!

 

I have long felt that governments both national and local do not follow the same standards – just because the money is not theirs but the taxpayers should mean that even higher standards apply - but sadly the reverse seems to be true.

 

Your suggestion that we should spend £billions on what the Alarmists propose to reduce CO2 output because they also suggest self sufficiency is a good idea as well, is somewhat odd. Not least because we sceptics most certainly advocate energy self sufficiency! So perhaps you should support the sceptics if you are happy with the enemy of my enemy is my friend cop out.

 

As for adopting the proposals that the Alarmists propose – do you really go along with the likes of Maurice Strong:-

 

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

 

- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme."

 

We live in a Global Village – like it or not. The UK could not be self sufficient even if it wanted to – unless you removed a sizable chunk of the population. Perhaps that is what Maurice Strong is getting at? I am all for self sufficiency - one of my pet theories for some time is - Why do we need 240V and 13 Amps pumped into our houses? Modern technology and low energy hardware is now available such that much of what we do today could be powered by household solar panels, wind power generators. The technology is there - all we need to do is install it. So why do governments still prefer to spend billions on importing power? Is it possibly because the thought of each individual household being THAT independent is a concern to them rather than a goal?

 

So on that level of self sufficiency we would no doubt agree. But on other areas such as food - probably not.

 

As for your ad hominem arguments – which means “against the person” rather than as you say “by association” – an example would be:-

 

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

So when you said that I was a “Financial Alarmist” and therefore inferring that my arguments do not count, you were making the classic ad hominem argument. It does not matter if I am a Financial Alarmist or a Financial numbskull or genius (hopefully neither – but somewhere in-between – someway from numbskull) – that is irrelevant to the central point – which is

 

Should we allow dodgy science and alarmist views to force us down a particular economic road that will have dire consequences for many of the worlds populace? – Or should we lake a leaf out of Lomborgs and other realists such as Prof Reiter’s books (no pun intended) and simply adapt to Climate change because a) it is too costly and ineffective to follow the alarmists agenda and b) simpler methodology that is achievable and cheaper would have a greater economic and humanitarian impact.

 

That way the chances of unethical profits via obscenities like the Carbon trading schemes would never happen.

 

So why are you making all these points around the issue but ignoring the central issue. Genuine question because – if as you say “I ignore the point, because I have no comment to make on it.” – why make all the other comments? Classic displacement activity??? Brian???

 

As it happens – I am very alarmed at what the Alarmists propose and have grave reservations about some of the current “Environmentalists” credentials. The Green Party for example – a bit off topic here but having seen Caroline Lucas speak – I was amazed at the tone and how vitriolic she was on the subject of anyone even questioning the Alarmist viewpoint. She is rolled out by the Greens as an “expert” on Climate Change and in the same gushing breath she is introduced as “Dr” Caroline Lucas – so she must have a PhD is a scientific discipline surely?????

 

Well no as it happens.

 

She does have a PhD.

 

She earned her PhD from the University of Exeter in 1989 with a thesis entitled

 

“Writing for women: a study of woman as reader in Elizabethan romance”

 

You could not make it up!.

 

[Syd]

Well the temperature of the earth may or may not be rising but the temperature of the posters most certainly is.

 

Up to date this thread has most certainly been one of the very best threads that I have seen on here.

I would like to personally thank the posters for all the information that they have taken the trouble to find and place here for us all to benefit from.

Can we please keep it right on topic and not let any personal snipeing get in the way to spoil it.

Yours Faithfully

 

Worried from Sunderland >:-)

[CliveH]

Happy to oblige Syd! :-S

[Travelling Tyke]

Hello Sid, CliveH and Brian.

 

First, I am enjoying this debate and finding it useful.

 

Second, I do not feel that that there is any acrimony or malice in the "sniping" to me it is just the cut and thrust of a healthy debate........

 

Thirdly, Gentlemen, as respected members of the forum I trust it will

remain so. :-D

[Travelling Tyke]

Hello Sid, CliveH and Brian.

 

First, I am enjoying this debate and finding it useful.

 

Second, I do not feel that that there is any acrimony or malice in the "sniping" to me it is just the cut and thrust of a healthy debate........

 

Thirdly, Gentlemen, as respected members of the forum I trust it will

remain so. :-D

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-18 7:56 AM Context Brian – Context The “absolute certainty” – that was under discussion was that of the Alarmists who want no further discussion because the “debate is over”. Well it isn’t – the CRU emails prove that.

Not as I read it, it wasn't!  The context appeared to me quite clear.  That it was "perfectly certain" that Lomborg's proposition - that (I paraphrase) spending on medicines etc would yield more future humanitarian benefit than spending on low carbon technologies - is corect.  I maintain that is just as conjectural as the claimed benefits of spending on low carbon technologies.  Both propositions are based on projections, so both are equally vulnerable to inaccurate assumptions.

As for spending Billions and not being "absolutely certain" – sorry Brian but this is a bit of an old chestnut to you and I. As a businessman I have to be “absolutely certain” that money we spend is spent wisely. I have a legal responsibility to do so. I see no reason why our spending £100 should be any different to Governments spending £billions. If I can apply due diligence - they sure as hell should as well!

But you do not have absolute certainty, you merely have the conviction that you are right - not, I'm afraid, the same thing at all.  Absolute certainty cannot, by definition, be wrong, else it cannot be absolute.  You claim the science degree, you must know that.  You have no legal responsibility to be absolutely certain of anything, "due diligence" and "reasonable certainty" do not translate to absolutes, they admit the failings of human judgement.  You could be penalised for not striving for perfection, but not for failing to attain it despite your best endeavours (always subject to judgement by your peers).

I have long felt that governments both national and local do not follow the same standards – just because the money is not theirs but the taxpayers should mean that even higher standards apply - but sadly the reverse seems to be true. Your suggestion that we should spend £billions on what the Alarmists propose to reduce CO2 output because they also suggest self sufficiency is a good idea as well, is somewhat odd. Not least because we sceptics most certainly advocate energy self sufficiency! So perhaps you should support the sceptics if you are happy with the enemy of my enemy is my friend cop out.

Don't see it as a cop out, just pragmatism.  However, to the extent the "sceptics" (but why these silly battle camps?) support self sufficiency, I warmly welcome their support.

As for adopting the proposals that the Alarmists propose – do you really go along with the likes of Maurice Strong:- “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme." We live in a Global Village – like it or not.

No, I do not, but why should I?  Am I supposed to agree with every pronouncement of every protagonist on the "pro" side of the argument, and reject those of every protagonist "against", or vice versa?  Find a nut, or a badly expressed argument, and use that to damn all other similarly directed arguments of whatever worth.  That is politics, or gang warfare, not debate.  I agree with the "global village" though, but that was McLuhan, not these guys.

The UK could not be self sufficient even if it wanted to – unless you removed a sizable chunk of the population. Perhaps that is what Maurice Strong is getting at? I am all for self sufficiency - one of my pet theories for some time is - Why do we need 240V and 13 Amps pumped into our houses? Modern technology and low energy hardware is now available such that much of what we do today could be powered by household solar panels, wind power generators. The technology is there - all we need to do is install it. So why do governments still prefer to spend billions on importing power? Is it possibly because the thought of each individual household being THAT independent is a concern to them rather than a goal?  So on that level of self sufficiency we would no doubt agree. But on other areas such as food - probably not.

UK population too high, of course it is - because it is unsustainable from UK's resources.  To live, we must import, and we should strive not to do so.  Re power: much as the idea of supplying all our energy needs from wind and solar power appeals, the technology is not, in reality, there.  For domestic use, maybe, to a limited extent, but even there wildly inadequate given present housing stock.  But industrially?  Surely you jest!  :-) :-)

As for your ad hominem arguments – which means “against the person” rather than as you say “by association” – an example would be:- Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." So when you said that I was a “Financial Alarmist” and therefore inferring that my arguments do not count, you were making the classic ad hominem argument.

What I actually said was "Are you not, perhaps, guilty of being just a financial alarmist?".  Not quite the same as saying you are one such.  Not to say your arguments do not count, but to invite you to consider whether they actually count for any more than those you consider alarmists.  Surely that is the real ad hominem, they are alarmists, therefore their arguments do not count.  The obvious implication being that you are not, so yours do.  Sort of pot and kettle argument, somehow?

It does not matter if I am a Financial Alarmist or a Financial numbskull or genius (hopefully neither – but somewhere in-between – someway from numbskull) – that is irrelevant to the central point – which is Should we allow dodgy science and alarmist views to force us down a particular economic road that will have dire consequences for many of the worlds populace? – Or should we lake a leaf out of Lomborgs and other realists such as Prof Reiter’s books (no pun intended) and simply adapt to Climate change because a) it is too costly and ineffective to follow the alarmists agenda and b) simpler methodology that is achievable and cheaper would have a greater economic and humanitarian impact.

Alarmists v realists!  What wonderful certainty!  Can a realist be wrong?  He can if his grasp of reality is flawed, while remaining absolutely convinced he is right!  History of religion, lesson 1?  :-)

That way the chances of unethical profits via obscenities like the Carbon trading schemes would never happen. So why are you making all these points around the issue but ignoring the central issue. Genuine question because – if as you say “I ignore the point, because I have no comment to make on it.” – why make all the other comments? Classic displacement activity??? Brian???

Agree about carbon trading.  The result of letting politicians run the world!  Pregnant with potential for grand corruption, hopeless policy that will achieve only transfers of money from A to B, with no benefit beyond someone's bottom line.  Tokenism gone mad!

As it happens – I am very alarmed at what the Alarmists propose and have grave reservations about some of the current “Environmentalists” credentials. The Green Party for example – a bit off topic here but having seen Caroline Lucas speak – I was amazed at the tone and how vitriolic she was on the subject of anyone even questioning the Alarmist viewpoint. She is rolled out by the Greens as an “expert” on Climate Change and in the same gushing breath she is introduced as “Dr” Caroline Lucas – so she must have a PhD is a scientific discipline surely????? Well no as it happens. She does have a PhD. She earned her PhD from the University of Exeter in 1989 with a thesis entitled “Writing for women: a study of woman as reader in Elizabethan romance” You could not make it up!.

As to relevance M'Lud?  She is a politician, not a scientist, who has been convinced of an argument.  She argues in its favour.  She disparages those who disagree, and rubbishes her opponents.  She is firmly in a camp.  Familiar territory?  Shame really, because she is in other ways a quite effective constituency MEP.  But there you are, that's camps for you!

[CliveH]

Good example of how to swamp an issue. Having been in innumerable meetings meetings meetings I sort of recognise the game play. Some people do not want to make a decision on the issue in hand and so bring up anything and everything to stop the decision making process. It is not a debate – it becomes a game of filibuster. Those that use such methods congratulate themselves for “whilst not actually being able to make a decision – we are now far closer to making said decision than before” – whilst those of us able to make decisions just get frustrated.

 

So Brian – sorry mate – no personal disrespect intended but I do feel your methodology is the same kind of “swamping” or displacement activity. Analysing every sentence for that hidden meaning or perceived slight is true filibuster.

 

So let’s draw a line under that and get back on topic. I can deal with every slippery twist and turn you make Brian but it would simply turn everyone off and as some have been kind enough to say they have enjoyed the debate so far – I really do think the time is right for a summary now.

 

In summary

 

1) The Science

 

There have been many respected scientists asking questions about the “science” of Global Warming. Mainly because the proponents of AGW = Catastrophe wanted the “debate to be over”.

 

Just one example of the “sexing up” is what happened to Prof Reiter of the Pasteur institute. His actual report to the IPCC as lead author stated that local deforestation was causing the increase in malaria in East Africa. But what appeared in the IPCC summary, written by non scientists, was that CO2 levels were the cause and that malaria was going to travel north and south because of GW. Prof Reiter said nonsense and pointed out that the worst malaria outbreak ever was in Siberia and so the Anopheles mosquito that carries the disease can exist in most climates but does so no longer because of our management of it.

 

The whole sorry tale can be read at

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm

 

and a good background article

 

http://www.scidev.net/en/health/climate-change-insect-borne-disease/opinions/the-malaria-myths-of-climate-change-1.html

 

 

2) The People

 

It is not possible to dismiss the advocates of AGW = Catastrophe as “Politicians” and so neatly pigeon hole them into a box for expense fraud numpties. My point regarding The Green Parties leader and MEP, “Dr” Caroline Lucas is that the advocates role her out to state their case and unless you know that her PhD was in Victorian literature – you might just think she is authoritative and learned on the subject of Climate?

 

So for some time – those that drive the AGW agenda in the corridors of power have not been scientists.

 

3) The CRU leak.

 

It is normal for scientists to release data to others so that their work can be properly reviewed and this is an important part of the “Peer review” process. Without it we could have papers saying that ‘black is white’ and so how do we check that this is true? The answer is that the evidence for saying that ‘black is white’ is made available by those that discovered it and other scientists check the same evidence.

 

What happened in the prestigious Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia – a department that supplies data and input to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was that they refused to release the data.

 

Many Scientists even tried to get the data via the Freedom of Information Act and were still refused. Prof Jones who headed the CRU even emailed his colleagues saying that any correspondence (other emails) where they discus the deliberate thwarting of FoI requests should be deleted because the universities nominated FoI Officer was getting concerned that they were breaking the law.

 

It then seems that one of the “New Faces” in the team had had enough of what was happening and facilitated the leak of all the damning files and emails that show what an unsavoury and unscientific bunch of people the “Old Guard” within Climate Science were.

 

The evidence from the leaked info is damning – “Hide the decline” seems to be the mantra of the CRU scientists.

 

4 The Sceptical Environmentalist. (I) & (II)

 

(I) – Having been a student in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s – I vividly remember the Global Cooling scare. A new Ice age was just around the corner and one day we would wake up to see Polar Bears in the garden sitting on a Glacier that had just arrived from the Arctic. These same climate change alarmists just changed direction when the cooling trend of 30/40 years ago changed and we began a warming phase.

 

Now we have the met office stating that no warming has actually taken place for the last 10 years.

 

So whilst I see myself as a true environmentalist and humanitarian – I see those that want to manipulate the science for a specific agenda as at best misguided or at worst some sort of activists.

 

(II) Lomborgs book – the Sceptical Environmentalist – is well worth a read as it outlines the cost of running down the wrong road on Global Warming. And Brian is wrong to equate the costs of what the Alarmists propose to combat CO2 as being the same as the cost of what Lomborg proposes.

 

Thankfully more and more governments – The Australians being the latest are rejecting the Alarmists shrill cries and are taking a far more pragmatic, prudent and humanitarian approach. The Australians rejected the proposed Cap and Trade legislation that would have burdened Australians and their industry with huge tax rises where these taxes were to be used to wind down Australia’s industry.

 

Thank goodness the average Ozzy, including their MP’s saw what was going on with the CRU data and said an emphatic No!

 

Therefore as a “Sceptical Environmentalist” myself I am appalled at the shenanigans that went on in Climate Science. I hope that the investigations now going on will sharpen up the science and put it back on the right footing.

 

I believe we all have a choice – we either require high standards or we don’t. Putting our heads in the sand – stating platitudes such as “My enemies enemy is my friend” just won’t wash. Look what happened to Finland if you think that argument works!

 

That is my opinion. The above is not an exhaustive summary but I think it covers the main points that concern me.

:-D

[Syd]

Gosh Im absolutely stunned to read in yesterdays newspaper that the ice on Everest isn't now going to melt, damned inconsiderate of it I thought.

 

Someone got their figures wrong again ??

[CliveH]

No its called "Climate Change" Syd. - All change on the gravy train!!!!!

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

For those who may be interested - here is what appeared in The Times ;-

 

The Times, January 17, 2010

 

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

 

Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings

 

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

 

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

 

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

 

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

 

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

 

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

 

[CliveH]

Perhaps it is worth quoting something that was cited years ago when Prof Paul Reiter geve his evidence to the UK House of Lords inquiry into the IPCC and its “dodgy dossiers” (my term)

 

The full test is available in the link in my post above – but considering the IPCC states that it is made up of the very best scientists – the debacle of the himlayan glaciers melting by 2035 and the very poor “science” that backed that statement is not the first time this happened. This from Prof Reiter:-

 

“ 11. This chapter appeared at a critical period of the climate change debate. Fully one third was devoted to mosquito-borne disease, principally malaria. The chapter had a major impact on public debate, and is quoted even today, despite the more informed chapter of the Third Assessment Report (see below).

 

12. The scientific literature on mosquito-borne diseases is voluminous, yet the text references in the chapter were restricted to a handful of articles, many of them relatively obscure, and nearly all suggesting an increase in prevalence of disease in a warmer climate. The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

 

13. Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Niño, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cell phones).

 

 

Again!

 

You could not make it up!!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)

[Syd]

So am I right in thinking

 

1) It is not disputed that man will certainly be having some effect on our envirenment as a whole but to what extent remains unknown

 

2) the pro climate change supporters have almost fatally wounded their cause for serious intervention by blatant manipulation of the data and other dispicable acts.

 

3) The end result is, because of 2), we are now no further towards getting at the truth than we were before all of this started, in fact maybe even further away from the truth

 

In the main we have had three posters here who have each most eloquently put the case for both sides of the discussion but are bedevilled by, not so much the cause of the problem, more by wether action is needed to be taken to resolve it.

 

One concern that I have is what happens if you remove something that our environment may be used to and be useing for some purpose that we have not discovered as yet, I suspect the same could apply to changing anything

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-01-19 9:18 AM ...............– I really do think the time is right for a summary now.

Depends on how you see things, I guess!  I do take some exception to the continuing jibes and innuendos, which really add nothing of substance to your points.  You responded to my earlier point at three times its length, and I sought to reply to you point by point.  That, it seems, was wrong, because it a "swamping" tactic, a "filibuster".  I am disinclined to join one "camp" or the other, but that is because I am "indecisive".  I try to answer your points, as I read and understand them, and that becomes "hair splitting", or "slippery twists and turns".  So, yes, I am niggled by the tone of your replies, and I do struggle to reply in neutral terms.

A summary, you say.  Brief, I think that means.

You are an environmentalist who does not think climate change is man made, or has a significant man made component.  Your view is based upon those of a number of scientists you regard as good.  You reject the views of other scientists, who think climate change presents a risk to much of humanity, and has at least a man made component, because you distrust the basis of their arguments, which you see as largely self interested.  You regard these scientists as bad, because you think they have cooked the books, and you believe their advice on averting climate change will cause serious financial difficulties around the world, while enriching them.  You would instead prefer (presumably rather less) money to be spent on aid, especially medical aid, to the third, and developing, worlds, which you consider would ultimately be of greater benefit to humanity. 

I hope I haven't missed too much of importance, but think that is about it.

And Brian is wrong to equate the costs of what the Alarmists propose to combat CO2 as being the same as the cost of what Lomborg proposes.

 

Er, he didn't, and doesn't!  What he does think is:

1) That he is unconvinced by the arguments both for and against man made global climate change, and has some reservations as to whether what has been observed is any more than natural climatic variation.

2) That our resources are finite, and we need to conserve them.  To do this we need to adopt broadly the same measures as the climate change advocates propose to avert man made climate change.  Therefore, I think what they propose offers the better future strategy.

And I think (hope!) I managed all that without calling anyone else a "numpty", whatever one of those may be, "slippery" or "platitudinous"!  :-D

[CliveH]

 

Brian - interestingly I agree with 90% of your last two points.

 

The only point we differ on is how on earth you can possibly come to the conclusion that following what the global warming alarmists advocate is a sensible way forward if you are unconvinced by their "science".

 

As for your previous summary paragraph:-

 

"You are an environmentalist who does not think climate change is man made, or has a significant man made component."

 

No I have never said man does not affect the climate of our planet - we began doing that as soon as we evolved - using fire, agriculture, deforestation etc.

 

"Your view is based upon those of a number of scientists you regard as good."

 

No, because a) neither myself nor these "scientists" I quote believe that Man has no effect on climate and b) It is not just me that questions the Alarmists.

 

"You reject the views of other scientists, who think climate change presents a risk to much of humanity, and has at least a man made component, because you distrust the basis of their arguments, which you see as largely self interested. You regard these scientists as bad, because you think they have cooked the books, and you believe their advice on averting climate change will cause serious financial difficulties around the world, while enriching them."

 

In a nutshell - yes - and the two examples of the simplistic dodgy science of the IPCC are quoted above. And these are not isolated incidents. The IPCC made spectacular statements about Global warming increasing the number of tornadoes and hurricanes - when in fact we have had fewer. The lead author on the relevant section of the IPCC report resigned in disgust at the spin of the IPCC summary.

 

"You would instead prefer (presumably rather less) money to be spent on aid, especially medical aid, to the third, and developing, worlds, which you consider would ultimately be of greater benefit to humanity."

 

I would prefer my tax money to be spent wisely and to the maximum benefit. If you look at what was spent trying to achieve what was agreed at Kyoto and which failed miserably and ask yourself what else could we have done for the world with all those £billions and you will get the idea.

 

..................

 

Why I find what you say slippery Brian is because you do slip and slide and wriggle in a rather desperate way - sorry - but that is how I see your actions.

 

Similarly it seems you like to accuse others acting in a way that frankly you rather come across as doing yourself.

 

One example that I had a chuckle at - because I have been called lots of things in my time so name calling or derogatory nicknames is not really an issue and I only repeat what you did here because it tells us all a lot about you more than the recipient of what you say.

 

So why did you call me "Clivykins" Brian (or however you spelt it)?

 

Seems a very strange way to set the tone for a conversation. Unless it was calculated on your part to offend?

 

You tell me?

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

My mistake, then!  "Clivikins" was intended to be humorous, as part of my tease that you had apparently contradicted yourself over the financial consequences of moving to (what I would call) a low carbon economy.

So, absolutely no offence was intended, and I had half expected you to reply saying "Oh poo!" or similar!

[CliveH]

No offence was taken Brian - it just seemed very odd for an adult to start a conversation thus.

 

But if i may suggest, as there have been a couple of instances - you may want to think before saying what you consider to be a"tease" - which, frankly I gave up doing in about year 3 junior school.