The scientists are frighted

[Mrs T]

That we don't believe them and are staging yet another effort to convince us on radio 4 Tuesday 2nd Oct at 3.30 pm.

 

We all know its warming of course, that's what the planet does every few thousand years. The annoying part is they blame people. Rubbish ! This is yet another excercise to try and lull us into forgetting about the current costs of everyday life.

 

It was all started by a Life Scientific programme recently on Radio 4 when Joanna Dorothy Haigh CBE FRS FRMetS the current head of department and professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London was interviewed.

 

She was inundated wirh complaints recently after the broadcast so the department and the BBC has orchestrated another 'Lets fool the public again' venture.

[Tracker]

He who pays the piper calls the tune?

 

Good excuse for higher taxes and punitive laws.

 

That said, mankind would be more stupid than is thought humanly possible not to reduce it's dependence on burning ever diminishing resources of fossil fuels for every source of energy it consumes.

[Mrs T]

There's one simple remedy stop people breeding.

[John 47]

Mrs T - 2013-09-27 10:10 AM

 

That we don't believe them and are staging yet another effort to convince us on radio 4 Tuesday 2nd Oct at 3.30 pm.

 

We all know its warming of course, that's what the planet does every few thousand years. The annoying part is they blame people. Rubbish ! This is yet another excercise to try and lull us into forgetting about the current costs of everyday life.

 

It was all started by a Life Scientific programme recently on Radio 4 when Joanna Dorothy Haigh CBE FRS FRMetS the current head of department and professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London was interviewed.

 

She was inundated wirh complaints recently after the broadcast so the department and the BBC has orchestrated another 'Lets fool the public again' venture.

 

It didn't "all start" in a recent BBC radio programme; scientists have been warning about man's effect on the climate for over half a century. You are, of course, right to say that climate change has happened ever since the world began but that is not the point. To use an analogy, if a bucket is place in the middle of your carpet and a hosepipe slowly fills it then your carpet will get wetter sooner if you add to the filling by pouring cups of water in. In other words, if climate change is happening (and only a fool would dispute that it is) then we should think very carefully about the actions that we engage in which might hasten the ill-effects of it. Man is not the cause of climate change but he can and does have effects on climate that can sometimes be harmful.

 

 

[Mrs T]

George ... We are but peanuts in space and have no effect on this planets climate, every ton of waste gas is sub-divided into millions of other gasses. It does not just sit in the sky neither anywhere else. Are you really suggesting that in the vast vacuum of life we can effect the sun, for its the sun which controls us.

 

Sorry George you are a believer.

[Guest Peter James]

I've always been a bit of Global Warming sceptic - as least as far as it being a man-made phenomena, but I'm very concerned about a new Apocalyptic scenario that I've only just become aware of.

It all started this afternoon, when I was raking up some leaves in the garden, and I was visited unexpectedly by an old acquaintance of mine, Professor Boffin.

Standing watching me at my raking, he began to shake his head sadly, and when I asked him the reason for his gloominess, he explained that the effects of over-population were causing the leaves to fall, and that it would be a harsh world indeed once they had all gone, never to be seen again.

As you can imagine, I was horrified, and felt quite depressed after he'd gone.

Luckily, my next-door neighbour is also a Professor, and I went straight round to him to tell him the news that leaves were falling off the trees because of over-population, and that we would never see leaves again.

He sat me down, gave me a cup of tea, then went on for some considerable time, using all manner of technical terms, and illustrating his talk with graphs and diagrams.

At the end of it I was as perplexed as when he'd begun, and I told him I was a simple soul, and could he perhaps tell me the worst in layman's terms?

He thought for a moment, then said, "Well, basically ... and subject to certain critera, it's all b*****ks. You see, it's simply Autumn."

"Autumn?" I gasped in surprise. "You ... you mean ... like last year?"

He smiled indulgently. "And like the year before that, and the year before that, and for many, many years before those."

My mind struggled to grasp the concept. "But over-population is a problem, isn't it?" I asked.

"Oh, yes," he replied. "But it isn't making the leaves fall of the trees - that just happens every twelve months."

"But Professor Boffin told me ..."

"Oh, he may well believe it," said my neighbour, generously, "but many people who put forward such theories don't really believe in them themselves."

This was too much for my poor addled brain to take in. "Then why would they say such things?" I queried, open-mouthed.

By way of an answer he showed me an advertisement in the local paper. It was for the position Falling Leaf Advisor with the local council, at £100,000 per annum.

Finally the penny dropped, and I knew in that instant that Falling Leaves is a serious, even apocalyptic problem that has to be dealt with, and that I must play my part.

 

[John 47]

Mrs T - 2013-09-27 10:59 AM

Are you really suggesting that in the vast vacuum of life we can effect the sun, for its the sun which controls us.

 

 

Who has suggested that we can affect the sun? And who, by the way, is George?

 

If anyone thinks that man can exist on this planet without contributing to the climate then they are living in cloud-cuckoo land. You simply have to look at the differences in temperature between large urban areas and the surrounding countryside (which can, on average, be in excess of 1 degree Celcius) to see that we do indeed affect the climate. Some of those effects are beneficial but some are not. A wise person looks to see which is which and what, if anything, we can do about the negative bits. A fool buries his or her head in the sand and hopes it will all get better.

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

I do not think any "sceptic" of the Alarmist Predictions so beloved of Anti-Capitalists who see the demonisation of CO2 as a way of dismantling society and those Climate Scientists keen to secure the next huge grant believes that we do not effect climate!

 

As soon as man adapted the land by way of agriculture we started that change.

 

The point is that as a biologist (I have a degree in Microbiology from so far back it is broadly irrelevant - but I do have a working knowledge of the Carbon Cycle and Krebbs Cycle in particular) I have yet to meet a Climate Scientist or proponent of CAGW that can

 

a) tell the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide

 

b) has any comprehension of Photosynthesis were plants convert CO2 to Oxygen and carbohydrate

 

c) differentiate between natural cycles of temperature variation and those that are man made.

 

The very best example of the sort of people whittering on about how bad mankind is and that we are all going to fry because the scientists have computer models that says this will happen (even if the real data indicates nothing of the sort) is our esteemed Green party MP Caroline Lucas who recently got herself arrested at a Fracking site in Balcombe that never was a Fracking site in the first place.

 

Caroline Lucas used to strut her stuff as a "Climate Expert" and was regularly introduced as "Dr Caroline Lucus" with bowing and scrapping and other sycophantic claptrap by her minions.

 

But at a meeting she spoke at I was so appalled at her mind- blowing lack of even the most basic of scientific knowledge I went away from the meeting genuinely thinking she must be some sort of Fraud! 8-)

 

So I checked her out - a quick google explains it all:-

 

"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.[6]"

 

Do we really want someone with a second degree in Elizabethan Literature dictating to the country what our energy policy should be?

 

You could not make it up! :-S

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

The sooner it warms up the better, then I wont have to drive so far South in winter........which will mean less emissions......thus I'll save the planet ;-)

[Mrs T]

Apologies to George, it should read John.

 

So far the thinkers amongst you although agreeing that a change is happening are still bowing to what they're being told. Forget the bucket on the carpet and the hot spot people dwellings, any high ground is cooler and depressions are warmer. One side of the planet is on fire and the opposite side is freezing so what.

 

The plain facts are that the future cannot be predicted, the sun and moon control our planet, all scientists can do is base their findings on the past. They have to justify their salaries.

 

Only those people born before 1930 can provide correct opinions to the present situation. Only they have lived through firstly a quiet and steady increase in temperatures then a disrupting spell during WWII and the atomic age when tons of impurities we being send skyward, those impurities are the cause of the present faster warming rate which will adjust to its original slower climb by 2050.

 

Scientists are not free thinkers, they are blinkered to numbers and calculations which the media is jumping on to the antagonize the public and cause ill feeling, the result of which will be more public stress and more job opportunities to cater for THE FOLLOWERS OF DOOM.

 

There is a plan amongst the establishment that if the public are threatened of warming the planet now then in 2050 all is ok they can say "Oh how wonderful you followed our advise".

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

The only way I can see that the theory could be proven is to have two identical Earths, one without mankind ever evolving, then compare the two after a few million years.

 

My own view is as a species we are only in our first day of nursery school as far as understanding the natural forces in our galaxy and the universe,.I read somewhere that just one average volcanic eruption is equal to all man made emissions ever created, so perhaps we should put a lid on them.

 

In the meantime buy shares in inefficient technologies like wind turbines, after all the manufacturing of them, transport and installation of them, and having to turn them off if the wind speed is to high is all very green, and making loads of cash for some pockets. ;-)

 

Oh and don't forget to do your bit with your energy saving light bulbs, just ignore the fact they cost considerably more, and contain Mercury, unlike the old incandescent ones.

[antony1969]

1footinthegrave - 2013-09-27 4:19 PM

 

The only way I can see that the theory could be proven is to have two identical Earths, one without mankind ever evolving, then compare the two after a few million years.

 

My own view is as a species we are only in our first day of nursery school as far as understanding the natural forces in our galaxy and the universe,.I read somewhere that just one average volcanic eruption is equal to all man made emissions ever created, so perhaps we should put a lid on them.

 

In the meantime buy shares in inefficient technologies like wind turbines, after all the manufacturing of them, transport and installation of them, and having to turn them off if the wind speed is to high is all very green, and making loads of cash for some pockets. ;-)

 

Oh and don't forget to do your bit with your energy saving light bulbs, just ignore the fact they cost considerably more, and contain Mercury, unlike the old incandescent ones.

 

Two earths , one where mankind has not evolved , could you not settle for a country ,say Scotland . They have not evolved much over the last few million years but maybe that's down to all the in-breeding .

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I live in Wales, but will say no more, except it pisses down a lot and always has.

[Guest pelmetman]

That explains it........The experts say sea levels will rise.....except the weathers getting colder........So its the fault of Wales....... >:-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Experts were saying not that long ago we were fast running out of Oil, now we are awash with the stuff, and Rover can't build gas guzzling Range Rovers fast enough to keep up with demand, so excuse me everyone for keeping my cynical hat on, and you can bet your arse those same experts of climate change have one on order.

[antony1969]

T'was better when mills kicked out filth from chimneys and helped create wonderful smog because then the weather never changed t'was a constant can't see in front of ya kind of weather . happy days .

[CliveH]

Richard Lindzen is a American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Education: Harvard University

Books: Dynamics in atmospheric physics

 

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

 

He is certainly not a “denialist” of climate change and mans effect upon the planet. However, he does take issue with the Political interference that skews the utterings that come out of the IPCC.

 

His take on the latest IPCC report makes interesting reading:-

 

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

 

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

 

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with their being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”

 

------------------------

 

But to those on that Climate Change Gravy Plane - those contortions are (literally) worth (££$$) every twist and turn.

 

 

 

[Mrs T]

So ... there will be a rise in sea water ... great but by the time it levels out via the Pacific to Indonesia etc the extra water will have evaporated so everyone is back to square one again. I have a friend who sails oceans, he receives gallons of sea water over the side which then evaporates, he says its his contribution to any rises that take place.

[Guest pelmetman]

Mrs T - 2013-09-28 3:39 PM

 

So ... there will be a rise in sea water ... great but by the time it levels out via the Pacific to Indonesia etc the extra water will have evaporated so everyone is back to square one again. I have a friend who sails oceans, he receives gallons of sea water over the side which then evaporates, he says its his contribution to any rises that take place.

 

Don't worry MrsT as the extra water will go over the edge............as us people in the know....know the world is flat ;-)

[John 47]

Well, after reading that load of nonsense, I think that the most intelligent person on this thread is probably pelmetman - his last post makes more sense than much of what is sandwiched between my last post and this.

 

Clive - are you seriously trying to tell us you know of no scientist who can distinguish between CO and CO2 or who knows how photosynthesis works? If so, I suggest you get out more.

 

As for Mrs T, I started off by treating her seriously - I won't make that mistake again.

 

Enjoy life in your blinkered world. Thank goodness, for all their faults, the real world is run by people who take a more objective view than a lot of the contributers to Chatterbox!

 

 

[CliveH]

You meed tp read what is written John - not what you feel you need to see! :-S

 

I stated -

 

"The point is that as a biologist (I have a degree in Microbiology from so far back it is broadly irrelevant - but I do have a working knowledge of the Carbon Cycle and Krebbs Cycle in particular) I have yet to meet a Climate Scientist or proponent of CAGW that can"

 

Climate Scientist or proponant of CAGW - being the operative description. And believe me John - I do get out a fair bit - enough to attend several "Green" party meetings where you would think that having an Arts degree provides that person with an absolute right to as arrogant and obnoxious as they possibly can to anyone that points out their version of events is way off mark.

 

Sadly John - as much as you and I agree on the Muslim issue - I would have to agree with some on here that you - as many Socialists do I have noted over time - attack the individual when a fact is displayed that the Socialist does not like. Proponents of CAGW are known for this.

 

Rather than deal with the very real issue that Caroline Lucas "masqueraded" (my terminology) as a climate scientist when the reality is that she has a PhD in Romantic Elizabethan Literature - and as a consequence the Green Party in the UK was hijacked by a woman on a mission to destroy society as we know it.

 

When challenged - Lucas can be quite vicious - as indeed can the Alarmista in general.

 

Calling a group of people Denialists is highly offensive when all they are is sceptical of the the alarmist hype! The Term Demialist with all its Holocaust denier connotations is a calculated smear.

 

I would strongly recommend that you do not fall into the same trap as they have by way of attacking the individual rather than the point that individual makes. I note that you ignore the follow on and main point re Caroline Lucas. My inference was quite clear - Climate Scientists or Proponents of CAGW - as based upon MY EXPERIENCE OF ALARMISTS - and believe me I have gone out of my way to attend meetings to see how they abuse the science and spin the facts.

 

The confusion between CO and CO2 is common amongst the Arty Farty crowd that just loves to tell everyone that Carbon is a poison. Believe me I have had that conversation and had to laugh out loud when this chap was flummoxed by my asking him what elemental base his own personal lifeform was based upon - - he had NO idea - but he was convinced that Carbon was a poison and that CO and CO2 were the same and Man was poisoning the planet with his wicked ways!

 

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of Krebs cycle and who has had the misfortune to try to converse with one of these Alarmists will know what I mean.

 

 

 

[Mrs T]

I'm not surprised that I'm not believed, the facts are that most people cannot live without aggravation in their lives, the arguments that carry on here are proof of that !

 

All recent wars and dramatic events are programed to agitate the populace. The security forces knew all about the twin towers as did they also know about the Kenya event recently.

 

This climate fiasco is no different, as long as people are arguing about it, great, it produces many column inches for the media and occupies thousands in word play about it.

 

Some of the posters on here may have strings of qualifications but do they have the common senses to be able to see through the constant propaganda that's pumps out to keep everyone arguing.

 

Following so many complaints after the recent Life Scientific radio programme the powers that be have moved swiftly to institute another climate discussion. The result will be even more arguments and media time. (Have you noticed how its constantly advertised?)

 

The object being as I keep pointing out is to persuade people to buy goods. Polite satisfied and nice people are not good for business.

 

Now that the conflict in Syria is cooling and Iran are friends again the Climate along with the survival of Wild Life will occupy increasingly more media space until the next conflict arises.

 

Hey Ho who cares, definitely not me !

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-09-29 5:48 PM

 

You meed tp read what is written John - not what you feel you need to see! :-S

 

I stated -

 

"The point is that as a biologist (I have a degree in Microbiology from so far back it is broadly irrelevant - but I do have a working knowledge of the Carbon Cycle and Krebbs Cycle in particular) I have yet to meet a Climate Scientist or proponent of CAGW that can"

 

Climate Scientist or proponant of CAGW - being the operative description. And believe me John - I do get out a fair bit - enough to attend several "Green" party meetings where you would think that having an Arts degree provides that person with an absolute right to as arrogant and obnoxious as they possibly can to anyone that points out their version of events is way off mark.

 

Sadly John - as much as you and I agree on the Muslim issue - I would have to agree with some on here that you - as many Socialists do I have noted over time - attack the individual when a fact is displayed that the Socialist does not like. Proponents of CAGW are known for this.

 

Rather than deal with the very real issue that Caroline Lucas "masqueraded" (my terminology) as a climate scientist when the reality is that she has a PhD in Romantic Elizabethan Literature - and as a consequence the Green Party in the UK was hijacked by a woman on a mission to destroy society as we know it.

 

When challenged - Lucas can be quite vicious - as indeed can the Alarmista in general.

 

Calling a group of people Denialists is highly offensive when all they are is sceptical of the the alarmist hype! The Term Demialist with all its Holocaust denier connotations is a calculated smear.

 

I would strongly recommend that you do not fall into the same trap as they have by way of attacking the individual rather than the point that individual makes. I note that you ignore the follow on and main point re Caroline Lucas. My inference was quite clear - Climate Scientists or Proponents of CAGW - as based upon MY EXPERIENCE OF ALARMISTS - and believe me I have gone out of my way to attend meetings to see how they abuse the science and spin the facts.

 

The confusion between CO and CO2 is common amongst the Arty Farty crowd that just loves to tell everyone that Carbon is a poison. Believe me I have had that conversation and had to laugh out loud when this chap was flummoxed by my asking him what elemental base his own personal lifeform was based upon - - he had NO idea - but he was convinced that Carbon was a poison and that CO and CO2 were the same and Man was poisoning the planet with his wicked ways!

 

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of Krebs cycle and who has had the misfortune to try to converse with one of these Alarmists will know what I mean.

 

 

 

I don't think I misread you. When you state that you have yet to meet a Climate Scientist who can distinguish between CO and CO2 you have clearly lost the plot. And to bang on constantly about Caroline Lucas and a few other campaigners proves nothing. Regardless of the accuracy or not of what she may say, she is but one voice. I can only conclude that you concentrate on her because it isn't quite so easy to criticise the conclusions of eminent Climatologists the whole world over. I have a degree in Geography with a specialism in Climatology and I have yet to meet anybody with any claim to a scientific background who cannot distinguish between the things you list.

 

You talked earlier of balances - ie a change in one direction being balanced by a change in another but you pay no attention to time lags. A simple example for you - if all the ice caps were to melt, the sea level would rise approximately 300 feet; but the heat responsible for that melting would also increase evaporation and so the oceans levels would fall. But the time lag between the former and the latter could run into decades. The result? 80% of the world's population and the vast majority of the world's agricultural areas would be flooded. But never mind, evaporation will take care of that......leaving behind sterile salt encrusted former farmland to be used by those who had managed to hold their breathe long enough. But, hey-ho, what do I care - I live above 300 feet and am surrounded by farmland. Bye, bye suckers! . (lol)

[CliveH]

Hardly - John - when I say

 

"I have yet to meet a Climate Scientist or proponent of CAGW that can" - And I have met a number of people who profess to be "Climate Scientists" - and I can assure you - from my direct experience - they lump CO CO2 and carbon it self as the AGW "culprit".

 

Lucas is simply the prime example of this that we see on our TV screens.

 

The issue is that the Green Party and other alarmists do not differentiate between types of "Carbon"

 

I quote:-

 

"Climate crisis

 

A Green government will take bold, responsible and scientifically credible action to avoid catastrophic climate change. We will apply a contraction and convergence strategy to reduce emissions to a safe and equal per-capita level. Pursuing the necessary annual reductions of around 10% will create many jobs. Total emissions will be capped and will reduce each year in line with our 2030 emission reduction target of 90% on 1990 levels."

 

Specifically - "We will provide free monthly carbon emission allowances and people wanting to use more than their fair share could trade allowances."

 

So two things here - a) Carbon emissions - i.e. no differentiation and b) the Eco Fascists want to give us "allowances" that if we exceed because we are old and cold and want to be warm in the winter, we have to trade something we have to enable us to use the fuel to be warm.

 

This is the policy derived from the party that had someone who said they were a "Climate Expert" and liked to be called 'Dr' Caroline Lucas when the reality was that here expertise was in Woman's Romantic Elizabethan Literature!

 

Sorry - John - what i say is still true - there may well be Alarmists and Climate 'Scientists' out there that do know the difference between CO and CO2 - but from my experience they are not amongst those that profess to know all the answers about how Mankind is bu99erng up the planet by simply standing on it.

 

CO2 is a vital part of Krebs Cycle, increase CO2 levels and you get greater crops - ask any Market Gardener!!! *-)

 

They increase CO2 concentrations in greenhouses to increase yield.

 

And thanks for the ridiculous example re all the arctic ice melting and how the heat required would boil of all the water anyway. If I wanted an example of what happens when a sun goes nova that would be it.

 

Meanwhile the alarmists are trying to say that the missing heat that Mother Nature is not demonstrating and so is not playing ball with the alarmist models is somehow residing in the deep oceans.

 

The Alarmists seem to be going "Ta da!!!!" as tho' this is some Eureka Moment when the reality is that it simply demonstrates that they models did not take into account that the deep oceans COULD act as a heat sink and therefore are inaccurate. There is a lot of smiling going on at the moment regarding the squirming going on in Alarmist circles as to why we have had a "pause" for circa 17 years.

 

What is more interesting now is how even the MSM is beginning to look at how the Alarmists 'adjusted' past temperature data to lower temperatures in the past.

 

They say there is good reason to do this and that may be true - but with a temperature graph as flat as a witches t!t of late there is some scrutiny on why temperature data in the distant past has been adjusted down.

 

The effect of this adjustment is to emphasise a history of warming.

 

If the same scrutiny is applied to past temperature data as is now being applied to current data - it is entirely possible that AGW hype is finally seen to be exactly what it is.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-09-29 3:44 PM

 

Well, after reading that load of nonsense, I think that the most intelligent person on this thread is probably pelmetman

 

Eh? 8-) .....................I think I've just been insulted :D