The scientists are frighted

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-09-30 11:11 AM

 

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.

 

 

Well then, all I can say is that you may have met people who claim to be Climate Scientists but you should be intelligent enough to know that if they say things like that then they are not Climate Scientists. I see once again you are homing in on Caroline Lucas and the Green Party. Forget them. Tell me why the Climate experts (the real ones) who sensibly suggest that we should mitigate against the negative effects of humans on the climate are wrong.

 

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

 

1. Are you saying that the activities of man have no effect at all on climate? (I'll give you a clue - only a fool would answer yes to that one :-D )

 

2. Given the answer to question 1, are you saying that we should ignore the negative effects that we have on climate (Another clue: only a fool would say yes to that one as well :-D ).

 

Forget the Green Party; give me the name of a reputable Climatologist or Scientific Institution that would answer yes to my questions.

 

 

PS Yes, my example was ridiculous - deliberately so, in order to demonstrate the point that you cannot offset one effect with another without acknowledging that time lags have to be considered - and those time lags are the critical thing.

[CliveH]

1. Are you saying that the activities of man have no effect at all on climate? (I'll give you a clue - only a fool would answer yes to that one )

 

No I have never said that - and if you read back you will see very clearly that I do not. - And frankly John I do not think much of you by way of your "I will give you a clue" arrogant twaddle. You are better than that John - don't act the child.

 

2. Given the answer to question 1, are you saying that we should ignore the negative effects that we have on climate (Another clue: only a fool would say yes to that one as well ).

 

Same exasperated sigh from me again- You just cannot help yourself can you - must be all that practice of being 'clever' to a captive audience of children.

 

As regards "negative' effects - i ask you if we should ignore the positive effects of higher CO2 levels? - namely greater crop harvests.

 

Also - if we do get a a tad more heat - then Geriatricians in Scotland have stated that less people will die of the cold.

 

Similarly, Canada and Russia have stated that a partial thaw or their regions of Arctic Tundra would enable them to farm more land.

 

And before you say that Climate Change is linked to Extreme Weather events - as someone who works in finance may I point out that the big re-insurers use the threat of increased 'extreme weather events' to up corporate premiums.

 

If you could list ACTUAL negative effects of Climate Change I would like to see the list because all the negatives listed by the alarmists and PREDICTIONS linked to highly dubious computer models that are demonstrably running hot.

 

And please do not fall into the trap that many alarmists do and start citing the negative effects of things like deforestation which whilst extreme and should be stopped and sweet FA to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

A couple question for you John, What percentage does CO2 actually constitute in our atmosphere?

 

What assumptions do all the Computer models make about the relationship between CO2 and Water Vapour?

 

(I doubt that anyones state of mind would seriously influence their ability to answer these questions)

 

 

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-09-30 2:26 PM

 

1. Are you saying that the activities of man have no effect at all on climate? (I'll give you a clue - only a fool would answer yes to that one )

 

No I have never said that - and if you read back you will see very clearly that I do not. - And frankly John I do not think much of you by way of your "I will give you a clue" arrogant twaddle. You are better than that John - don't act the child.

 

2. Given the answer to question 1, are you saying that we should ignore the negative effects that we have on climate (Another clue: only a fool would say yes to that one as well ).

 

Same exasperated sigh from me again- You just cannot help yourself can you - must be all that practice of being 'clever' to a captive audience of children.

 

As regards "negative' effects - i ask you if we should ignore the positive effects of higher CO2 levels? - namely greater crop harvests.

 

Also - if we do get a a tad more heat - then Geriatricians in Scotland have stated that less people will die of the cold.

 

Similarly, Canada and Russia have stated that a partial thaw or their regions of Arctic Tundra would enable them to farm more land.

 

And before you say that Climate Change is linked to Extreme Weather events - as someone who works in finance may I point out that the big re-insurers use the threat of increased 'extreme weather events' to up corporate premiums.

 

If you could list ACTUAL negative effects of Climate Change I would like to see the list because all the negatives listed by the alarmists and PREDICTIONS linked to highly dubious computer models that are demonstrably running hot.

 

And please do not fall into the trap that many alarmists do and start citing the negative effects of things like deforestation which whilst extreme and should be stopped and sweet FA to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

A couple question for you John, What percentage does CO2 actually constitute in our atmosphere?

 

What assumptions do all the Computer models make about the relationship between CO2 and Water Vapour?

 

(I doubt that anyones state of mind would seriously influence their ability to answer these questions)

 

 

 

 

In answer to all your questions I refer you to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their recent report - http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm#.Ukl8kEpwbIU . Not a Green Party member among them!

 

As for my attitude - what about your stereotypically nonsensical attitude to teachers? I may have come across as arrogant but that was only because I cannot believe that someone with intelligence could make the frankly idiotic statements that you do on this subject. I hope your comment about Scotland was intended as a joke but from now on can we stick to proper science please?

 

Finally, yes increased CO2 levels can and do have some positive results in some cases but there are simultaneously lots of negative results too (such as the well-documented melting of the ice sheets in Antarctica) so, and this is NOT a flippant point, you have to balance increased yields against liability to flood. Bearing in mind that the vast majority of our agricultural land is well within flood limits resulting from melting ice, you can see that the situation is by no means simple. And I not that you have been unable to come up with the name of a single "real" expert to support your case.

[CliveH]

As regards the sort of stance I take on the extremism of some re Climate Change John - may I refer you to my previous post:-

 

 

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.

 

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

 

Now I am certain Prof Lindzen as past IPCC Lead Author and who got pilloried by the Climate Science Establishment for daring to talk real science when they wanted to play politics, knows the difference between the various states of carbon. But the point is I have not met him - what I have met is people like Lucas who whilst they are not short of arrogance and opinion, they are most defiantly short on knowledge.

 

I trust someone of Prof Lindzen's Stature within the Speciality of Climate Science satisfies your requirement for a reference John,

:-S

[CliveH]

As for comments re Scotland John? - what comments would that be John?

 

8-)

[John 47]

OK, so you have one expert; put him against the 1300 who serve on the IPCC. There will always be some who dispute any theory, whatever the subject, but the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists accept that we do indeed have an effect on climate and that those effects need to be monitored and if necessary mitigated.

 

In your quote from Lindzen, I noted a very strange claim relating to the absence of warming over the past 17 years. What absence? 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have been in the last 17 years! Professor Lindzen seems to be basing at least some of his argument on incorrect information. No wonder the vast majority of experts regard him as a fringe figure.

 

PS Have you forgotten what you wrote already? The geriatricians in Scotland - remember writing about them? If not, just re-read your previous post. :-D

[CliveH]

Yes i mentioned Geritraicians in Scotland but you wrote as tho it were somne kind of slur - it was nothing of the sort.

 

As for the IPCC AR4 was a debacle of grey literature masquerading as real science.

 

If you want more skeptical scientists then what about Judith Curry

 

Who talks about the Pause you say did not happen but strangely is a key part of AR5.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/29/how-the-ipcc-forgot-to-mention-the-pause/#more-13168

 

"Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

 

She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

 

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

 

Curry has stated that she is troubled by the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review. She has written that climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public and should engage with those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[12]

 

In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That and other blogs.[13] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[12]

 

In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc., a blog related to the climate change debate and hosted by Curry. In the site's "About" section, the blog's purpose is stated as "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[3]

 

Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[14] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate"

 

There are many many scientists that dispute the Alarmism - and I note you must have read the Guardian recently because that loss making apology of real reporting on Science is guilty of spin re the past 17 years.

 

As for others sceptical of the Alarmist Stance the look at thos listed here John:-

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1

 

 

[CliveH]

In August this year an interview with Apollo astronaut Walter Cunningham appeared:- the full interview is here:-

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/06/a-conversation-with-apollo-astronaut-walter-cunningham-about-a-vital-need-to-restore-climate-science-integrity/

 

But a interesting snipitt is :-

 

Interviewer.

 

"During a 2008 CBS 60 Minutes interview, Al Gore, who was launching a major global warming crisis advertising campaign at the time, responded to a question by Leslie Stahl about skeptics stating: “I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.”

 

Having seen the Earth from orbit, I don’t expect you are one of those “flat- Earther” skeptics Gore referred to, are you?

 

Cunningham

 

No, Larry, I can emphatically vouch for the fact that the Earth is spherical. But, when it comes to global warming, the public- at-large really doesn’t know whom to believe anymore. And NASA has contributed to that confusion.

 

With lots of help from James Hansen and others at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), alarmist camps have been hammering us for years. The media is made up mostly of “true believers”. Politicians, in the absence of understanding and knowledge about climate science, have put themselves out on a limb from which it is difficult to retreat. Given the economic interests and the political powers involved, this dilemma will not go away quietly or anytime soon. In the court of public opinion, media and money play powerful roles.

 

The biggest problems I see with the sorry state of “climate science,” as the public comes to know it through the media, are the alarmist claims, unsupported by data and history, being presented as facts. When these claims cannot be validated by empirical data, they attempt to justify them by equally dishonest claims of proof by “consensus”. These alarmist claims create unwarranted fear in order to promote their political and profiteering agendas, while establishing regulatory policies that kill business and grow government–all at a terrific cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.

 

Without the science to back up their wild forecasts and claims, and the overwhelming evidence for natural temperature variation, alarmists try to exploit this unwarranted fear by resorting to the precautionary argument: “We must do something just in case we are responsible, because the consequences are too terrible if we are to blame and do nothing.”

 

Those of us who challenge alarmist claims of accepted theory and “consensus” are referred to as “skeptics”, as if that’s a bad thing. Responsible scientists are supposed to be skeptical. Those who aren’t qualify as demagogues. In the days of Apollo, astronauts, engineers, flight controllers and managers were skeptical of anything that might impact landing a man on the Moon. That attitude led to success in one of the biggest challenges in history.

 

If you buy a phony conclusion, as Al Gore obviously did, the consequences can be terribly costly.

 

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

 

Costly indeed - Ed Milliband signed the UK up to the Climate Change Act - a piece of legislation that will cripple our competitiveness in the world and increase the fuel costs of every household and individual in the UK.

 

Something silly boy Ed seemed to forget when he blurted out that Labour would freeze energy costs when we all know that thanks to him energy costs can only sky-rocket because of the green taxes we will all pay so that his land owning mates can reap the reward of FIT's by way of bat,chomping,bird,munchin,noisemaking,wind farms!

 

Amazing hubris

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

John 47 - 2013-09-30 12:25 PM

 

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

 

1. Are you saying that the activities of man have no effect at all on climate? (I'll give you a clue - only a fool would answer yes to that one :-D )

 

2. Given the answer to question 1, are you saying that we should ignore the negative effects that we have on climate (Another clue: only a fool would say yes to that one as well :-D ).

 

 

DAMN !! Got them both wrong :$

 

Dave (lol)

[Mrs T]

Its a religion, No one will ever find the answer cos there isn't one and you and I will be long dead. The arguments will go on for ever and all those who can will take advantage of it. The fact that people live on our planet makes them easier to blame.

 

Take this mythical character called god, hundreds of buildings they call churches will hear hundreds of sermons told within them and its all impossible to quantify, exactly the same as this planets' climate impossible.

 

I don't care how many brownie points anyone has, the more they have the less common sense they have.

 

Mathematicians and scientists will keep the plot going to be sure if only to justify their existence.

 

What is certain is that money will be made for that's why its 'In Vogue' at present.

[RogerC]

The changing climate is obviously a combination of natural activity over which we have no control, the activities of mankind whether from industry, farming, deforestation, population explosion etc etc.  It is a long standing claim that deforestation at the rate it is, and has been advancing is a great contributor to greenhouse gasses so why is the ripping out of forests in the Far East to plant palm oil crop being permitted?  Why is the deforestation of the Amazon going ahead at such a rate? 

The answer to both is because the interests of big business and corrupt politicians is much more powerful than the 'want or need' to address the 'green' issue.

 

Regardless of which side of the 'climate change' argument you sit does anyone really believe that the financial penalty we are being hit with in this country to enable the building of hideous wind farms, to pay huge incentives to those big business concerns etc will make one iota of difference?

 

It really annoys me when I read about politicians claiming we.....the 'all inclusive we' are at the forefront of dealing with climate change..........and at what cost?  It is claimed that by 2020 energy bills will increase by 33% because of 'green' taxes.  And what real difference will the raid on our pockets have?  Bugger all that's what.

 

We are a piddling little island that makes a miniscule contribution to 'global warming'....or is it more convenient now to refer to it as 'climate change'?  I bet if everyone in China farted at once they would produce more greenhouse gas than the UK would in a decade.

 

It's all nothing more than a political football which is being punted around in order to get their hands ever deeper into our pockets.

 

As an example of industry over climate concerns how's this for something to illustrate the fact:

The June fires in Sumatra once again drew international attention to Indonesia’s forests. At the fires' peak, 140,000 hectares were burnt in just one week.  That is an area of approximately 25 x 50 miles!  These fires were set in order to clear pristine forestation and make way for palm oil trees which recent research claims to actually contribute to 'climate change' through the release of  greenhouse gasses in the peat they grow in.

 

So what's it to be........big business and corrupt politicians digging ever deeper into our pockets or a 'real' open and honest debate on the problem which can only be dealt with on a global scale?

Until our 'lords and masters' can come clean over this it is my firm belief that this is just another round, and a long term one at that, of legalised theft.

 

[CliveH]

Excellent post Roger.

 

I would add that much of the deforestation you so rightly condemn so that Palm Oil can be harvested is done so because we in Europe in particular now have targets for things like biodiesel that we cannot produce in Europe ourselves. So we get Indonesia to destroy by slash and burn techniques its pristine rain-forests so that we can make a green target.

 

As a good "old fashioned environmentalist" it makes my blood boil to think that the con that is AGW is skewing rational thought and logic when it comes to actually PROTECTING the environment - and it is all being done in the name of "Climate Science".

 

I wonder exactly where the blame will be placed when it becomes known that whole rain forests and other habitats have been destroyed in the name of "Carbon Reduction".

 

Barmy!

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-09-30 4:57 PM

 

Yes i mentioned Geritraicians in Scotland but you wrote as tho it were somne kind of slur - it was nothing of the sort.

 

 

I assumed your comment about Scotland must be a joke. For you to confirm that it was not shows more clearly than anything else you have written that a little learning is indeed a dangerous thing. The changes to our climate are often wrongly referred to as global warming. The result of those changes will not mean that everywhere gets warmer. many places, indeed, will cool down. Your comment makes about as much sense as saying its ok that next door is burning down because we won't have to turn the fire on!

 

As for your attempted slur on me by saying that I must read the Guardian - I don't. I am trained as a scientist; I rely on measured facts. Among those facts are that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by around 40% since the Industrial Revolution (20% in the past 50 years); that 2012 recorded the highest mean temperatures of the world's oceans; that the melting of the ice sheets (three times greater now than in the 1990's) is resulting in a steady increase in sea levels and so on. You may find a handful of scientists who reject what is obvious but the vast majority of Climate Scientists agree with what I have said and I ask you to consider the following point:

 

Since action on climatic change necessarily involves restrictions to the free market, why is it that virtually every responsible western Government takes climate change very seriously? The easiest and most free-market reaction would be to side with your small handful of scientists rather than the majority. However, in the recent past only one significant free-world leader has done that and he is widely regarded as the least Intelligent person to ever occupy the White House. Or are you saying that all western world leaders must have shares in wind farms? I know that Mrs T believes that everything from the destruction of the twin towers to climate change is a conspiracy but I expected a more considered approach from you.

 

Finally, this is not about saving the planet. The planet will survive. It will be a different planet but it will survive, with or without the human race. This is about making the planet work for us - and you don't do that by contributing to things that any sensible person knows will make life more difficult.

 

[John 47]

Clive, I've just been reading some of your references relating to the "Pause" and it is clear to me (and to many others, judging by the comments on those reports) that those who talk about the so-called pause are the real scaremongers. To talk about pauses is to deny that climate is continuously changing in cycles which range from the long term (cycles of 200 million years have been identified) to the short-term (the most common of which is related to sun spot cycles and on a roughly 15 year basis). Sometimes those cycles emphasise man's contribution and sometimes they hide it. That has always been the case. There is no "pause"; rather there is a continuous cycle and if there is a period when the natural cycle hides the effects of man it does not mean that those effects have disappeared; it means that there will be a phase in the not-too-distant future when both trend will be in the same direction. To ignore all that is to bury your head in the sand. It may suit that small number of scientists with vested interests or those who want to have their 15 minutes of fame but it makes no serious contribution to the wider debate.

 

 

[CliveH]

Certainly CO2 levels have increased but the issue is what is the natural level of release and what is the Man Made or Anthropomorphic levels.

 

Plus there is enormous debate over the accuracy of the pre-industrial levels because in the main these levels come from ice bubbles.

 

And as Dr Tim Ball states here:-

 

http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-industrial-and-current-co2-levels-deliberately-corrupted/

 

There is evidence that the levels are deliberately reduced to make the current levels "look" worse. Which is what many scientists now think the likes of Hansen did with temperature data sets before NASA got wind of what he was up to and fired him!

 

Then we have the fact that the models predict that as the CO2 levels increase, so will the temperature. But as the last 17 years have shown, Mother Nature does what she wants - not what a Climate Scientist with all the dodgy code available wants to predict.

 

As for why Governments want the scare story of catastrophic climate change? - I am not so sure it is Governments necessarily, tho the taxation benefits of a whole new swaith of "Green Taxes" is very attractive to them - And the likes of Lord Debben has run a blinder by way of getting green taxes applied to all so that he and his mates can benefit from the substantial FIT's.

 

Then we have the likes of Judith Curry - Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.

 

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

 

So she knows a bit about Climate.

 

Some selected paragraphs from her new paper “Scientists and Motivated Reasoning”:-

 

"Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were.

 

However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.

 

These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

 

The red carpet and rewards are rolled out for those with fewer scruples. It includes not just scientists, but organizations and journals:

 

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.

 

Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC.

 

These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative."

 

http://judithcurry.com

 

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

 

More and more true scientists in the field of Climate Science realise the damage the more politically motivated, usually less able, Climate Catastrophe Alarmists are doing to Science in general and Climate Science in particular.

 

So they are speaking out.

 

I applaud them.

 

Consensus Science is an Oxymoron.

 

Do not be fooled John.

 

It is not the Sceptical Scientists that have a vested interest - they have been pilloried by those who see AGW as some sort of religion and many have had careers suspended and suffered knock backs just for daring to state views differing from the "consensus".

 

Those that have vested interest in AGW are those on the AGW Gravy Plane such as Judith Curry describes in her paper.

 

Let me ask you this John - - when you have a Government Department actually called The Dept of Energy and Climate Change - and also a Super agency called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - people within those organisations are hardly going to want to hear voices telling them that there is NOT a problem! (lol)

 

Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.

 

No far more likely is big government saying "yes the problem is huge!! - we need more funds to tackle it!!

 

Not until the whole sorry dodgy dossiers fall flat on their ar$e will reality sink in and everyone will see the con will the debacle stop.

 

We are getting very close because as time goes on the dire predictions you mention simply are not being seen as credible. The predictions of the models just do not fit the real data.

 

Arctic Ice is this year within 2 SD of norm. Whilst Antarctic Ice is significantly increased over the norm.

 

Temperature data from Satellites and Balloons show no warming over the last 17 years, despite CO2 levels increasing.

 

No John - those with a vested interest in the scam are not those sceptical of the spin and the hype and the dodgy dossiers - those with a vested interest are those on the AGW Gravy Plane.

 

:-S

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-01 2:13 PM

 

Certainly CO2 levels have increased but the issue is what is the natural level of release and what is the Man Made or Anthropomorphic levels.

 

Plus there is enormous debate over the accuracy of the pre-industrial levels because in the main these levels come from ice bubbles.

 

And as Dr Tim Ball states here:-

 

http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-industrial-and-current-co2-levels-deliberately-corrupted/

 

There is evidence that the levels are deliberately reduced to make the current levels "look" worse. Which is what many scientists now think the likes of Hansen did with temperature data sets before NASA got wind of what he was up to and fired him!

 

Then we have the fact that the models predict that as the CO2 levels increase, so will the temperature. But as the last 17 years have shown, Mother Nature does what she wants - not what a Climate Scientist with all the dodgy code available wants to predict.

 

As for why Governments want the scare story of catastrophic climate change? - I am not so sure it is Governments necessarily, tho the taxation benefits of a whole new swaith of "Green Taxes" is very attractive to them - And the likes of Lord Debben has run a blinder by way of getting green taxes applied to all so that he and his mates can benefit from the substantial FIT's.

 

Then we have the likes of Judith Curry - Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.

 

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

 

So she knows a bit about Climate.

 

Some selected paragraphs from her new paper “Scientists and Motivated Reasoning”:-

 

"Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were.

 

However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.

 

These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

 

The red carpet and rewards are rolled out for those with fewer scruples. It includes not just scientists, but organizations and journals:

 

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.

 

Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC.

 

These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative."

 

http://judithcurry.com

 

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

 

More and more true scientists in the field of Climate Science realise the damage the more politically motivated, usually less able, Climate Catastrophe Alarmists are doing to Science in general and Climate Science in particular.

 

So they are speaking out.

 

I applaud them.

 

Consensus Science is an Oxymoron.

 

Do not be fooled John.

 

One thing that I can definitely echo is "don't be fooled". You make the kind of statements that suggest you have made up your mind and are only willing to tolerate "evidence" that supports your view. As an example, you say that evidence for past CO2 levels comes from ice bubbles, ignoring the evidence from a whole host of other sources ranging from ice cores to tree rings. You claim that when cycles mask other effects then those effects have disappeared, ignoring the factual evidence of temperature records and CO2 emissions. You also believe (although I've no idea where you get your information from) that all the models all assume that CO2 increases will lead to an increase in temperatures, ignoring the fact that things are much more complicated than that and that for each cause there are several effects which have to be built into any model. You now appear to be denying that western governments are all now accepting the role of man in altering the climate!

 

I repeat, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those of us who really have a background in this kind of thing know that we can never be absolutely sure of anything (long-term weather forecasts are far from infallible but nonetheless very valuable to those who pay vast sums of money to receive them) but to ignore warning signs is foolish. As time goes on, forecasting will get more accurate but there are certain basics which are overwhelmingly accepted and one of those is that man's activities DO affect the climate. We can argue over rates and scale of change but not even the references you have provided deny that change occurs. You, my friend, are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

And I have now just read your addition to your last post. You produce lots of statements with no evidence - and in contradiction to the actual figures. The thing that stands out is your ridiculous claim that Antarctic ice is not decreasing. You are confusing extent with amount. The sea ice front is expanding but the land ice is shrinking at a far greater rate. To put it in terms that a non-expert like you might understand, if you place a ball of dough on a table it might cover a limited area; if you then throw away half that dough and roll the remainder out over twice the original area, you have not got more dough. You have half the dough spread out over a wider area. No serious scientist denies that the ice is melting at a rapid rate.

[CliveH]

Sigh! *-)

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high-doesnt-refute-global-warming/

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

And more clearly:-

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

 

Which shows that sea ice extent in the Antarctic is increasing.

 

And once again your arrogance betrays your annoyance - I too studied a science subject to a reasonable level - Microbioliogy in my case. So forgive me if I have a chuckle at a Teacher saying:-

 

"I repeat, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those of us who really have a background in this kind of thing know that we can never be absolutely sure of anything (long-term weather forecasts are far from infallible but nonetheless very valuable to those who pay vast sums of money to receive them) but to ignore warning signs is foolish"

 

Another sigh!!! *-)

 

And so may I repeat - you post with all the arrogance of a teacher used to dealing with a captive audience of children. And whilst i would agree that a little knowledge most certainly IS a dangerous thing as this can lead to wrongful certainty - you seem to think it OK for the likes of Lucas, Milliband Debben et al to dictate energy policy!

 

As a Sceptic - (I believe all scientists should be sceptical - even of their own results) I believe Consensus has no place in Science. The 95% certainty the IPCC talks about is not even the result of a poll - it is an analysis of feeling. It is a crock. The world deserves better.

 

The Climategate emails were a shock to the real scientific community - they showed malfeasance and the corruption of the peer review process. In Climate Science it is now nick-named "Pall Review" such is the disquiet with what the likes of the CRU at the UoEA got up to.

 

If we are to throw huge sums at trying to control the Climate - we had better be certain the effects we get for the spend are the effects we want.

 

The dire predictions the models make are just that predictions - the increase in CO2 levels have not caused the temperature increase the models predicted.

 

It may be that the deep oceans are somehow absorbing this heat - but if they are? what was happening prior to 1998 when the warming according to the likes of Hansen was extreme and heading for a "tipping point".

 

What changed? What turned the oceans "on"?

 

But whatever is happening - one fact remains - and that is that the Models are running hot and those on the IPCC Gravy Plane are running round like headless chickens trying to explain.

 

John - do yourself a favour and start reading the work of Climate Scientists such as Curry Lindzen and Tim Ball to name just three who now openly criticise the dogma and the Consensus of the IPCC.

 

You may not agree with them - but i would suggest they will upset your cozy notion of a Scientific Consensus. Which as i have said before - is an Oxymoron.

 

 

 

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-10-01 2:34 PM

CliveH - 2013-10-01 2:13 PMCertainly CO2 levels have increased but the issue is what is the natural level of release and what is the Man Made or Anthropomorphic levels.Plus there is enormous debate over the accuracy of the pre-industrial levels because in the main these levels come from ice bubbles.And as Dr Tim Ball states here:-http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-industrial-and-current-co2-levels-deliberately-corrupted/There is evidence that the levels are deliberately reduced to make the current levels "look" worse. Which is what many scientists now think the likes of Hansen did with temperature data sets before NASA got wind of what he was up to and fired him!Then we have the fact that the models predict that as the CO2 levels increase, so will the temperature. But as the last 17 years have shown, Mother Nature does what she wants - not what a Climate Scientist with all the dodgy code available wants to predict.As for why Governments want the scare story of catastrophic climate change? - I am not so sure it is Governments necessarily, tho the taxation benefits of a whole new swaith of "Green Taxes" is very attractive to them - And the likes of Lord Debben has run a blinder by way of getting green taxes applied to all so that he and his mates can benefit from the substantial FIT's. Then we have the likes of Judith Curry - Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.So she knows a bit about Climate.Some selected paragraphs from her new paper “Scientists and Motivated Reasoning”:-"Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.The red carpet and rewards are rolled out for those with fewer scruples. It includes not just scientists, but organizations and journals:When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative."http://judithcurry.com.........................More and more true scientists in the field of Climate Science realise the damage the more politically motivated, usually less able, Climate Catastrophe Alarmists are doing to Science in general and Climate Science in particular.So they are speaking out.I applaud them.Consensus Science is an Oxymoron.Do not be fooled John.

One thing that I can definitely echo is "don't be fooled". You make the kind of statements that suggest you have made up your mind and are only willing to tolerate "evidence" that supports your view. As an example, you say that evidence for past CO2 levels comes from ice bubbles, ignoring the evidence from a whole host of other sources ranging from ice cores to tree rings. You claim that when cycles mask other effects then those effects have disappeared, ignoring the factual evidence of temperature records and CO2 emissions. You also believe (although I've no idea where you get your information from) that all the models all assume that CO2 increases will lead to an increase in temperatures, ignoring the fact that things are much more complicated than that and that for each cause there are several effects which have to be built into any model. You now appear to be denying that western governments are all now accepting the role of man in altering the climate! I repeat, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those of us who really have a background in this kind of thing know that we can never be absolutely sure of anything (long-term weather forecasts are far from infallible but nonetheless very valuable to those who pay vast sums of money to receive them) but to ignore warning signs is foolish. As time goes on, forecasting will get more accurate but there are certain basics which are overwhelmingly accepted and one of those is that man's activities DO affect the climate. We can argue over rates and scale of change but not even the references you have provided deny that change occurs. You, my friend, are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.And I have now just read your addition to your last post. You produce lots of statements with no evidence - and in contradiction to the actual figures. The thing that stands out is your ridiculous claim that Antarctic ice is not decreasing. You are confusing extent with amount. The sea ice front is expanding but the land ice is shrinking at a far greater rate. To put it in terms that a non-expert like you might understand, if you place a ball of dough on a table it might cover a limited area; if you then throw away half that dough and roll the remainder out over twice the original area, you have not got more dough. You have half the dough spread out over a wider area. No serious scientist denies that the ice is melting at a rapid rate.

 

Taking the above in red into question I would say 'cobblers'.  Forecasting is simply the extrapolation of historical data and is simply inaccurate and will continue to be so.    Just because something has happened in the past it does not naturally follow that it will happen in the same 'pattern' as it has done historically.  Natural phenomenon is/are nothing more than chaos theory exemplified on a grand scale.  Scientists might be able to show a trend but they can not, and never will be able to 'predict' with any degree of accuracy what 'nature' is going to throw at us.  It is all 'best guess' nothing more nothing less.

 

All the talk of 'global warming' was proffered to 'scare' Joe Public and when it was proven not to be the case the name/title was conveniently changed to 'climate change'...............so it's all smoke and mirrors to scare us into allowing our pockets to be picked ever deeper.

 

Yes the planet weather systems and temperatures are changing.  They have since the big bang went bang and will continue to do so until it goes bang again.  Yes humans are affecting the planet........it's the butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon causing a hurricane in the Atlantic syndrome.  Cause and effect...........is there really a link that shows how much our activities are contributing to global warming?  If there is then by reducing this, that and the other output, by stopping the stripping of rain forests, by stopping cows farting etc by just how many years/decades will we prolong the life of the planet?  So we take all these expensive...(read profitable for some!) measures and a couple of volcanoes erupt and we are back where we were 20 years ago.

 

Save the planet by reducing carbon emissions?  Better to start by stopping the rampant destruction of the rain forests.

 

Maybe the mindless adherence to those who profess to be able to save the planet should be known as 'The Canute Climate Syndrome'.

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-01 6:26 PM

 

Sigh! *-)

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high-doesnt-refute-global-warming/

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

And more clearly:-

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

 

Which shows that sea ice extent in the Antarctic is increasing.

 

 

 

The dire predictions the models make are just that predictions - the increase in CO2 levels have not caused the temperature increase the models predicted.

 

 

Brilliant! You try to refute what I say by producing links that back me up!

 

As I said, you are confusing extent with amount - try reading the links yourself and you might begin to understand.

 

I repeat, NO reputable Climatologist claims that the ice sheets are expanding in volume - and the melt-rate currently is three times what it was in the 1990s.

 

 

 

And, as for the second extract I have quoted from you, it is no good taking the upper end of predictions and then claiming failure if they are not reached. If a weather forecast states that there will be between 0.5 and 2mm of rain tomorrow, it is not a failure if 2mm is not reached! Even the sceptics you quote do not try to deny that change is taking place. The only argument is over the rate and the degree to which man contributes. Note that - the DEGREE to which man contributes. Nobody - not even your "witnesses" claims that we have no effect. So, in conclusion, if a car is rolling down the hill towards you, it doesn't really matter if it is travelling at 5 mph or 30 mph. If you don't get out of the way it will hit you eventually.

 

If you read any of the links, it is not a question of whether; it is a question of when.

[Mrs T]

Its now getting too complicated for me to follow, sorry everyone. Living on our planet was nice and simple until scientists were thought of and started inventing all kinds of divisions between elements and protons. All of them will adjust quite easily on their own as they always have done for millions of years and will do so for ever more.

 

I couldn't be bothered to listen to the programme that was on radio yesterday. 1foot was it who had the best answer ... its the fault of Wales ... so there.

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-10-01 10:16 PMTaking the above in red into question I would say 'cobblers'.  Forecasting is simply the extrapolation of historical data and is simply inaccurate and will continue to be so.    Just because something has happened in the past it does not naturally follow that it will happen in the same 'pattern' as it has done historically.  Natural phenomenon is/are nothing more than chaos theory exemplified on a grand scale.  Scientists might be able to show a trend but they can not, and never will be able to 'predict' with any degree of accuracy what 'nature' is going to throw at us.  It is all 'best guess' nothing more nothing less.

 

All the talk of 'global warming' was proffered to 'scare' Joe Public and when it was proven not to be the case the name/title was conveniently changed to 'climate change'...............so it's all smoke and mirrors to scare us into allowing our pockets to be picked ever deeper.

 

Yes the planet weather systems and temperatures are changing.  They have since the big bang went bang and will continue to do so until it goes bang again.  Yes humans are affecting the planet........it's the butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon causing a hurricane in the Atlantic syndrome.  Cause and effect...........is there really a link that shows how much our activities are contributing to global warming?  If there is then by reducing this, that and the other output, by stopping the stripping of rain forests, by stopping cows farting etc by just how many years/decades will we prolong the life of the planet?  So we take all these expensive...(read profitable for some!) measures and a couple of volcanoes erupt and we are back where we were 20 years ago.

 

Save the planet by reducing carbon emissions?  Better to start by stopping the rampant destruction of the rain forests.

 

Maybe the mindless adherence to those who profess to be able to save the planet should be known as 'The Canute Climate Syndrome'.

There will always be inaccuracies in predictions but to use that to say we should ignore them is quite simply ridiculous. Tell that to everybody who listens to the weather forecast, to the fishing boats that depend on the shipping forecast, to those who live near earthquake zones etc etc. Of course we can't be totally accurate but we can mitigate losses by using prediction. We all do it, every day of our lives. Its all about the balance of probabilities not about certainties. And it wasn't changed from "global warming" to "climatic change" when it "failed to happen". As I said earlier, it has always been referred to as climatic change - except by the sensationalist media. So don't blame the scientists for the actions of reporters!And, as I also said earlier, it is not about saving the planet or cows farting. The planet will survive. We (the human race) do not have the same guarantee. I agree with you that we should be doing more to protect what is left of the rain forest (and not only for climatic reasons) but, in general, I have to turn your own phrase back at you - cobblers!

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 10:04 AM

 

 

The planet will survive. We (the human race) do not have the same guarantee.

 

 

 

You really are a hopeless romantic John, if you think the human race can do anything about climate change (lol)

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-10-02 10:13 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-10-02 10:04 AM

 

 

The planet will survive. We (the human race) do not have the same guarantee.

 

 

 

You really are a hopeless romantic John, if you think the human race can do anything about climate change (lol)

 

If you read what I wrote then you would know that my case is not that we can reverse it but that we can mitigate the effects of it. If that is romantic, then thank goodness most of the scientists are romantic! (lol)

[RogerC]

John please do try not to expand the discourse into areas that do nothing to address the topic but are merely used by you to justify your argument.

 

The shipping forecast looks at a validity of 12 hour windows and broadcasts as follows:

 

The shipping forecast is issued four times a day at 2300, 0500, 1100, 1700 UTC and covers a period of 24 hours from 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800 UTC respectively.

 

Therefore it is a short term warning system that is constantly updated from existing weather conditions and those weather systems moving into the area being reported on.  Therefore the probability of greater accuracy is enhanced.

 

 

Earthquakes are 'semi predicted' by seismological sensors linked to a computer which operates on 'historical data'.  It is 'best guess' monitoring until the thing actually goes 'pop'.  It is a 'reactive' not a 'predictive' methodology.

 

Having been involved in aviation for over 30 years (including flying C130 as crew for over 18 years and 7000+ hours flying in my log book) I am well versed in met office predictions.  They are never accepted more than a few hours in advance and crews, like those involved in shipping will always do a met check closer to the 'action' to be as well informed as possible on the 'likely' conditions.

 

So to go back on topic if you honestly believe scientists can 'predict' with any accuracy what effect certain actions by the human race will have on the time based 'life' of planet you really have 'swallowed' the publicity.  The only exception I would make to that is where there is tangible proof, such as grand scale deforestation which 'does' have an immediate detrimental effect on the planet and I would like to see it stopped.  Air pollution from industry should be reduced.  Pollution of the oceans needs to be stopped.  Anything that has a basis in truth and is actually proven to better the conditions we, the human race live under is to be applauded.  (Please do not nit pick this comment down to the finite/minute examples I know you could quote.  I am commenting on things on a realistic global scale...so a few wind farms here and there for example are irrelevant to the argument).

 

Whatever mankind does or does not do the planet will do what it wants in the fullness of time...........and at that time, be it measured in hours/decades/centuries/aeons what it does no one can predict.  It might go bang, it might die as an over heated desert, it might re-enter an ice age but in reality whatever we do or don't do in the fullness of time, and the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. 

 

If the 'scientists' can 'accurately' and 'honestly' tell me that if we don't stop this, that or the other now the human race will die out in 50 years I might be more inclined to listen.  Until then I really can not accept that having my pocket raided by 'the State' to support these wild claims is justified.

What I do agree with is the advance/use of technology in order to promote healthier conditions for the immediate future of the human race.

 

Climate change will happen of that there is no doubt.  However if making my life more austere in order to extend the viability of the human race by a few years/decades in the fullness of time then to be honest I feel it is a pointless exercise and one I would rather not contribute to.  I want to live my life as best I can and not 'invest' in the lifespan of the human race by a few generations some thousands/billions of years down the line.

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 10:23 AM

 

pelmetman - 2013-10-02 10:13 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-10-02 10:04 AM

 

 

The planet will survive. We (the human race) do not have the same guarantee.

 

 

 

You really are a hopeless romantic John, if you think the human race can do anything about climate change (lol)

 

If you read what I wrote then you would know that my case is not that we can reverse it but that we can mitigate the effects of it. If that is romantic, then thank goodness most of the scientists are romantic! (lol)

 

Which was entirely my point ;-)..............We are being shafted.......oop's I mean't taxed...... to provide a green levy to save the planet *-) ....................whilst China Russia and every other developing nation are building coal fired power stations by the score, to power polluting industries on a massive scale, making our "industrial revolution" look minuscule by comparison 8-).....................

 

So whats the point of digging a hole when the rest of the world is filling it faster than you can dig? :-S