Global Warming

[Guest starspirit]

And so the debate goes on.

 

None of knows who to believe and few of us (me included) have enough brain power and/or enthusiasm to do our own investigations, and even if we did, on what would we be able to truly base our own conclusions with every side attacking and counter attacking each other's views and theories in such a negative way?

 

So for most of us it comes down to just carrying on as before with, maybe, a bit of thought for the environment because we are being so bombarded with so much contradictory propaganda that it all starts to become meaningless and we just switch off.

 

I suspect maybe that the truth is that, just like the 1976 ice age forecast, the 'experts' just don't know and we will just have to wait and see what happens.

 

Meanwhile it makes very good sense to me if we all (globally) try to reduce consumption and find effective replacement energy sources - but without the added burden of 'extra' taxation for being naughty, and without penalising those developing countries who do not yet have our technological know how. Carrots work better than sticks generally.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2007-03-18 10:09 AM I was responding to such language as:- "The detractors are, in reality, now somewhat akin to the flat earth society." "I think Clive is reacting too much to the hype, and not enough to the underlying science." So I think most will see that no personal attack was intended from my end!!! But I am answering a few points - such as those re-quoted above - from someone who seems determined to "poo poo" valid objections to the slavish “consensus”. Like I have said before – I would have more faith in todays fashionable disaster scenario if it was not the exact opposite of the one that was going to kill us all thirty years ago!! But if anyone is offended by my bluntness – then for that alone - I apologise.

Don't worry, Clive, I'm not fluffed.

All I'd say is that your reply to my provocations seems to me to have more to do with a view based on politics, than with any kind science.  Of course scientists are also political animals, which of us isn't?

What I can't see, however, is how big "government", one way or the other, fits into the scientific arguments.  I've no problem with genuine debate, it is essential, and I'm not a scientist - though I do have a science O level!

It is exactly the conflation of science, pseudo science and politics that bugs me.  Whatever were the earlier claims for global cooling, they identified a change in climatic behaviour that was outside the known range.  They just drew conclusions that have since been reversed.  Whereas that was a faulty forecast, it doesn't negate the observations.  This is not black and white.  The whole issue is complex, the data often contradictory, and forecasting future change fraught with uncertainty.  However, just like the weather forecast, it may well be proved wrong from time to time, but we still get the weather.  That, to me, is the central message.

[CliveH]

One thing I never am Brian - and that is worried!

[Guest starspirit]

Me neither - I'll be long dead by the time it gets really bad - if it ever does - so why the blue blazes should I care - s#d you Jack I'm allright suits me just fine and dandy?

[Brian Kirby]

Ooooooooooh, Richard!  You're just a great big softy at heart!

[Guest starspirit]

Oh come on Brian I expected a better response than that!

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

I'd just like to add to this debate and mention something so obvious that I can't believe it hasn't been raised, which is:

We never had weather like this under the Tories!

[Guest starspirit]

Heartbreaking as it is for me to agree with you again - you are absolutely right Frank.

 

Strange that because blue tends to be a cold colour and red for hot?

 

And as for yellow or green, well custard and grass come to mind, both being thick and impenetrable at times.

[CliveH]

Agreed - but I think it all went pear shaped with John Major. Mind you with Norma on one hand and Edwina Curry on the other I am surprized he is in any shape at all.

 

If anyone is interested - this is a good read:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

 

As a taster here is a bit:-

 

"Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

 

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

 

 

 

Read on via the link!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

:-S

[colin]

I must apologise that I'm now adding to global warming, got the council tax bill £1720, I'm fumeing as for 5th year we are not getting a pay rise at work because any rise in income goes in taxes and to pay for extra breaurocracy >:-(

[CliveH]

Morning Colin,

 

So now may not be the best time to suggest you ask your council how much of your £1720 actually goes on local services and how much on the pensions of past council employees.

 

Nationally it averages about 30% but this is +/- a fair percentage so it is worth checking your local situation. Especially considering that these Government guaranteed pension schemes are fully indexed linked pegged to Final Salary (you know - the guaranteed type that has no fund as it is paid out of current taxes and so NOT affected by Gordon Browns very first stealth tax that has decimated most company schemes) and where you can retire at 60 on an enhanced pension if your age and years of service add up to "60".

 

These schemes are so expensive that no Company can afford to run them. So I suppose it is just as well that our local Councils can afford to pay these "Rolls-Royce" type benefits because all they have to do is to tax the population more to pay for the benefits of their current and past members.

 

Meanwhile the rest of us have the growth in our pension schemes taxed so that the benefits of those that make the rules (including the "rule" that says everybody else’s pension funds must be taxed but NOT theirs) can be maintained, whilst most company/private schemes struggle.

 

And of course we now have three diferent vehicles collecting our rubbish - one for general stuff, one for paper etc, and another for green waste. Now I am sure recycling is a good thing - but could someone explain how having three vehicles that do about 5MPG and 1500g CO2/Km to collect my rubbish is reducing GW????

 

It's an Equitable Life Henry

 

[Brian Kirby]

Very, very, gently Chaps, can we please try to keep this one on topic?

The subject is Global Warming, not council tax increases, council employees pensions, or re-cycling - at least insofar as recycling is intended as a foil to GW. 

Any/all of these issues is worthy of debate, but might I softly request you start new threads to run them?  Please.

[Brian Kirby]

I don't think this debate is, any more, about science.  I think it may have been once, but I think it has now become perverted into a kind of left/right politial contest.  I also think the scientists have now become, willingly or otherwise, the champions of the opposing political forces.  Telegraph versus Guardian, if you like.

Neither side fully understands the complexities of the arguments, but each knows which arguments it best likes the sound of.  They therefore choose their scientific champions accordingly, and range them against each other.  The champions are shoved out into the arena - the political arena - to slug it out.  Each time one falls, another is chosen in his/her place and the contest endlessly continues.

As with the ancient Greeks, this is just war by other means.  Somehow, the rest of us are supposed to discern the truth among the fog of exaggerations, outright lies, distortions, half truths, polemics, sophistications and odd bit of genuine science that are being served up, and decide where we stand.

Why?  Not why should we decide, but why has it gone this way?  What are the underlying vested interests that have hijacked a rather arcane (although important) scientific debate about why the earth's climate is changing, and turned them into a political battlefield?  Who is trying so hard to fool us, and why?  To whom does it matter so much which side of the argument prevails?

If we do as exhorted by the pessimists, and rein in our consumption of carbon fuels, who looses?  True we may all have to suffer a bit for a while, but it seems that "suffering" will be more in the nature of inconvenience than catastrophy.  So why not do it?  Even if the science is eventually proved wrong, we shall at least have ensured the continuing availability of coal, gas and oil for a few more future generations.  Why is this such a bad idea?

If, on the other hand, we ignore the pessimists and carry on as before, we just might cause the climate to alter to the extent that real hardship results for millions, with consequent wars, famines, droughts etc.  Will that be our legacy?  Even if that were not the outcome, we should have used up our planet's finite resources much faster than seems sensible or reasonable.  Who would benefit from this?  How will those who come after us benefit?  Do I hear that is for them to discover and decide?  Is that really the best we can offer them?

The answers seem outstandingly clear to me.  Try as I do, I simply cannot understand why so many people are hostile to the path of conservation and restraint.  At the very least, that path gives us more time to review our impact on our climate, and if necessary modify our behaviour as our understanding improves.

Can someone, please, just tell me why we should not go that way - and to hell with all the quasi scientific arguments?

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Can someone, please, just tell me why we should not go that way - and to hell with all the quasi scientific arguments?

Because it's a total waste of time! The U.K.'s emissions are a tiny percentage of the world's and whatever we do will make no difference because, believe me, China, India, Indonesia and all the other developing countries will do bugger all!

Because in just three or four generations those nasty carbon-based fuels will run out anyway and mankind will have to find a new way of powering the planet.

Because in the 19th century we were told that if the number of Hansom cabs in London continued to proliferate at the then rate, that by 2007 the entire Home Counties would be six feet deep in horse sh*t.

But of course it didn't happen and mankind invented the internal combustion engine and Hansom cabs disappeared.

Because, in the unlikely event of global warming proving to be a man-made phenomenon, mankind, in whom I have the utmost faith, will once again find a way to correct it and restore the balance.

Because I'm sick of do-gooder treehuggers spouting on about how I shouldn't fly and how I should restrict my driving and how evil I am because I want to enjoy what short time I have on this planet.

And because everyone loses, when greedy politicians who have loose morals, use global warning as an excuse to turn the screw of taxation even tighter and in restricting our economic growth make it even harder for British industry to compete with the afore-mentioned developing countries.

[CliveH]

Firstly Brian – I think you need to appreciate the system of money as it works in “science” – A silly example but for anyone who remembers the opening scenes of Jurassic Park (the first one) the scenario outlined is fairly accurate.

 

All scientists want funds – the more “important” their work, the more likely they will get the funds. If you can hype up the importance of your work then the money flows a little easier. Scare the sh*t out of the politicians and the grant money becomes a flood.

 

As for no-one understanding the complexities of the argument – then I tactfully suggest you read some of almost religious zeal-like vitriol that has been thrown at the “deniers”. I personally think your statement is correct – we do not understand the complexities. But that has not stopped Mann and his cronies at the IPCC altering the data to produce the hockey stick graph and announcing that there is a world wide scientific consensus when there isn’t.

 

And this is where we see the big problem of “Peer Review” – the idea of which is that a new paper is reviewed by ones “peers” prior to publication. The disadvantage is that if you have a dissenting voice then your “peers” block publication of your work. Peer Review when abused in this way essentially means that in a room full of scientists a “consensus” is reached. (Just ask anyone who was convinced by others that the earth was flat) - whereas in reality, if you get a room full of scientists in a room you will get on average 30% for an issue and 30% against with the remaining 40% playing devils advocate to tease out the truth.

 

Consensus is the stuff of politicians not scientists. Hence the UK House of Lords expressing concern at the politicisation of the IPCC (Use your Thesaurus to understand what they meant – they certainly did not mean “party political influence” – they meant the IPCC, far from being independent was now following its own agenda and objectives) many scientists have resigned from the IPCC in protest.

 

So in answer to your question “what would drive a scientist to predict such events as GW?” – I believe it is the same that drove the Global Cooling scare in the 1970’s – Grant Money. When that grant money is threatend - those that disagree with the "consensus" are likened to Holocaust Deniers and idiot politicians like Margaret Becket anounce that those who disagree with the "consensus" are as dangerous and as evil as Terrorists!

 

 

So tell me Brian - if it were all so impartial and fair - why the hell are the GW fanatics so worried that they could be proved wrong? So far the only other re-writing of the facts has come from Communist States and the likes of Pol Pot.

 

 

Moving onto the issue of what harm will it do if we all stop our economies – then I would refer you to one of the links I suggested earlier, repeated below.

 

http://www.fundstrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=133856&d=pnd&h=pndh&f=pndf

 

Do read it.

 

If we wind back our economies, it is the third world development that suffers. If we stop our development we halt others as well. This would mean much of Africa remains in poverty with no chance of development. We see it now with the EU Common Agricultural Policy. We should from an economic viewpoint buy in more food from the third world. We don’t because that would give the third world power over our food supplies.

 

What I found interesting is that I as a believer in market forces have come to the same conclusion as Durkin (a guy known to have very left wing views) and that is that the so called “green” “planet saving” strategies of the GW apostles is a kind of imperialism.

 

Is it right that we deny electricity to Africans and then feel good about changing our bulbs to low wattage ones?

 

 

I suppose I would not feel so adamant about the situation if a) I had no experience of what our western ideologies are actually doing in Africa and Asia and b) if I had not studied at length the medieval warm period, that Mann and the IPCC now try to convince people NEVER HAPPENED!

 

[CliveH]

Oh and forgot to mention - my post on Local Government Pensions is relevant because it is these Local Government personnel that dictate we are going to have computer chipped wheelie bins to check our recycling and we are going to be taxed more so that we can be greener.

 

Meanwhile those employed by the Local Councils have a pension scheme, better than anything else apart from perhaps the civil service scheme which is non-contributory whereas Local Government employees pay just 6% and we the taxpayer contribute 14%.

 

Thus any "green" activities and recycling is almost entirely paid for by our taxes, but a significant %'age of our local taxes never get to be used on such green issues because of the pension situation.

 

[twooks]

"So tell me Brian - if it were all so impartial and fair - why the hell are the GW fanatics so worried that they could be proved wrong? So far the only other re-writing of the facts has come from Communist States and the likes of Pol Pot."

 

bit optimistic there Clive, History is always written by the victors, regardless of their political leanings, always has been and probably always will - even the day to day reporting of events is adjusted to suit. Just compare the same news item as written in the Telegraph with the Daily Worker f'rinstance.

 

B-)

[twooks]

starspirit - 2007-03-08 8:27 PM

 

Programme on C4 at 9.00pm might be worth watching?

Could fuel a good natured debate at least?

 

 

Certainly fuelled a lengthy and complex debate.

Didn't see the program, and don't know enough to comment on the rights / wrongs / and just plain differences, but I must accept responsibility for my actions in life. I hate waste, selfishness, self-serving greed [much as I am capable of all those things]. Resources are not ours to waste.

 

Must sit down when I get a chance and read these posts properly, when I'm not watching and waiting for the dinner to cook.

[oh to be in France - baguettes, pate, salad, - much much easier]

 

B-)

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

twooks - 2007-03-20 6:52 PM

starspirit - 2007-03-08 8:27 PM Programme on C4 at 9.00pm might be worth watching? Could fuel a good natured debate at least?

Certainly fuelled a lengthy and complex debate. Didn't see the program, and don't know enough to comment on the rights / wrongs / and just plain differences, but I must accept responsibility for my actions in life. I hate waste, selfishness, self-serving greed [much as I am capable of all those things]. Resources are not ours to waste. Must sit down when I get a chance and read these posts properly, when I'm not watching and waiting for the dinner to cook. [oh to be in France - baguettes, pate, salad, - much much easier] B-)

Yes, but who decides what's waste? Is your trip to France absolutely necessary, or is it self-serving greed?

Or perhaps it's your right as a human being to exploit the resources of the planet for your happiness?

[CliveH]

 

Whilst it is true that history is often re-written by the victor - I fail to see how fabricating data to win a scientific argument constitutes any form of war.

 

After all those climatologists who convinced us all that we were heading for an Ice Age in the 1970's were not doing it to win a war, or even a battle! Not even to win a little skirmish - hardly even a fist fight.

 

No - they did it to get grant money and a cosy lifestyle at the expense of others. All those lecture tours and Symposia held in wonderful parts of the world in 5 star hotels!

 

Attendees flew in from all over the world (yes I am being sarcastic)

 

As a ruse it worked then, but people are more intelligent now. Personally I doubt that their latest version of reality will stand up to scrutiny much longer than the next five years such is the distrust after the global cooling "we're all gonna die!" fiasco.

 

So it is hardly a "War" scenario - but if we try to insist that the developing nations halt their development because we in the West supposedly know better, then that is certainly a recipe for conflict.

 

 

[Guest starspirit]

And because everyone loses, when greedy politicians who have loose morals, use global warning as an excuse to turn the screw of taxation even tighter and in restricting our economic growth make it even harder for British industry to compete with the afore-mentioned developing countries.

 

 

Absolutely my view entirely Frank and I totally agree that we (the entire country) are being heavily conned.

 

I don't agree with Brian's point that this thread was a scientific argument.

 

The thread is 'Global Warming' and as the science and the politics are so closely interwoven there is no distinct border where one ends and t'other begins so any thing remotely connected to GW (like recycling and conservation) are also fair topics.

[CliveH]

It is worth looking at L Ponte's recent comments :-

 

 

"As you probably recognized, all such Leftist doomsaying - hothouse or ice age, wet or dry, population explosion or drastic decline - calls for the same remedy.

 

We must have bigger government, more political regulation and control, higher taxes, and permit less individual and private sector liberty if we are to survive whatever is this year's fashionable danger."

 

 

L Ponte - author of "The Cooling". An advocate of the 1970's fashionable disaster concept of a new Ice Age by 2050.

 

Thankfully like most of us taken in by the charlatans, he is now what the GW "religion" hates more than anything else - an apposite.

 

[Brian Kirby]

starspirit - 2007-03-20 8:43 PM  I don't agree with Brian's point that this thread was a scientific argument. The thread is 'Global Warming' and as the science and the politics are so closely interwoven there is no distinct border where one ends and t'other begins so any thing remotely connected to GW (like recycling and conservation) are also fair topics.

But Richard, that was exactly what I did say!  I pointed out, above, that the thread was Global Warming.  I didn't say it was science.

I think, having read the offerings above, that this debate has far more to do with politics than with science.  Both Frank and Clive have amply demonstrated that in their contributions. 

I'm sorry Clive was a little miffed by my allusion to the flat earth scoiety.  However, it is relevant in two ways.  First, it was at one time a heresey to claim the earth was spherical.  It was also a heresey to claim the earth went round the sun, and not vice versa.  For such hereseys people were killed in rather nasty ways. 

That too, was a potent mix of science and politics, leavened in that case with a fair dollop of religious orthodoxy for good measure!  Sound familiar? 

Secondly, the society exists today as a philosophical debating society, where people amuse themselves taking extreme positions and arguing these out.  Sound familiar?

However, I got my answer, for which I'm grateful.  It seems this has naught to do with science.  It is, indeed just the usual left right diatribe with new clothes.  You can dress it in any pseudo-scientific finery you like, all it boils down to is self interest versus collective interest, and that divide seems to have run through all civilisations and societies since the dawn of time.  Some place their own interests above those of others, some place the interests of others higher than their own.  It is at the fundamental root of all political philosophys, and quite a few religions.  Both have given us great people from time to time, both are necessary for "constructive tension" in society, and neither will ever shut up!

However, this time I think they really should, and start concentrating their energys on responding constructively to what just could be a timely warning.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

It's almost April and I've just returned from a meeting. The temperature has dropped below zero and all of the roads have been gritted.

It's a bugger this global warming!

[Geoff Bell]

Frank, its official, 2006/7 is on record as being the wettest drought since 210 ad. It must be true cos Micheal Fish told me.