boomer

Take the test and see if you still think that cLIEmate change still exists!!

mb

Shark Man

I've actually taken to repairing them

Not to be eco-freindly. Just because I can, and I had a number of bulbs get damaged through water ingress. 1p diodes were cheaper than a £1.99 bulb (I also used lead-based solder)

Martin2005

Well does the test actually say that the climate isn't changing - NO

You really ought to check the source before posting this sort of thing up, The Heartland Institute are a right wing US think tank, who have been denying man made climate change for years, and will still be doing so when we are under 10 foot of water!

They also lobby for the tabacco industry, and other dubious bodies.

I'm all for an open unbiased debate about this important issue, but let's at least do it with both eyes open

Suresh

Unbiased debate indeed

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

10 - 15 years ago the environmental doom bringers were saying that Norfolk was going to be under water already.....

Now unless I'm missing something, My feet are still dry.

And before anyone starts running off pointing at Hull and the like, that was caused by antiquated sewerage, and inadequate drainage - and was the result of inadequate maintenance, and careless planning of new homes - Not the rising tides.

...I'm still waiting for that acid rain to come myself..

Martin2005

I think you may have misconstrude what I was saying, my point was on this Institute and their credentials.

I don't believe we are going to be under 10 feet of water either, I was trying to make a point.

Martin2005

Don't use acid rain as an example...because it's a particularly bad one, it was a big issue for Scandinavia, we did something about it and the problem was reduced. It's still a big issue in developing ecconomies that burn lots of coal.

I know that there are plenty of zealots on both sides of the debate, I don't think either side have really made the case yet. And I am just a frustrated as most on here that we don't seem to have had a proper debate in this country about this issue.

My fear is that there are certain sections (on both sides) that are never going to accept the others point of view, which is dangerous when you consider what might be at stake (or not).

Leslie

Of course we are going through climate change, whether it is cyclical or because of man's efforts to destroy the planet is uncertain to my mind, I don't think that anything has been proved yet in that respect.

The change in our climate in this country, especially in winter is considerably more than just significant and to say it is not shows lack of practical experience or just good old head in the sand attitude.

We must not ignore what is happening since we have a duty to leave a planet which is still liveable in to our descendants. By the same token that does not excuse greedy politicians and their like to heap enormous taxes on us in order to better themselves and their loopy actions with our money.

Les

boomer

Maybe one of the reasons why people are becoming "sick of the 'green'/Global warming stuff" is because when you confront a cLIEmate change disciple with irrefutable facts backed up by full citable sources, rather than saying...

"Oooh, heck, i never realised that, so i will shop shooting my mouth off, research this new information properly and see how it affects my existing models and beliefs!"

...they shoot the messenger, stick their fingers in their ears, say "la, la, la, i can't hear you", and claim that the "debate is over".

They don't want to accept that whether the messenger is The Pope or Fred West, the facts are still the same. Even if you don't agree with the Pope (and he isn't too happy about the climate change prophets of doom either!), don't deny the science. You may try to disprove it, but do so without resorting to lies and deceit.

mb

Martin2005

I agree with you, but this arguement goes both ways doesn't it

PeteBrant

As Martin says, that works both ways.

You can't give the example of Milankovitch theory and say it proves everything you're saying and then discount the evidence of ice core sample correlated to temperature rise because it doesn't suit your point of view.

Klaatu

Interesting the number of "non-"scientists citing a paper on climate change. As I keep stating, don't rely on online "mis"information, go to libraries and research centres for accurate infomation. Interestingly, there are many Russian scientists who do not receive lucrative IPCC grants who suggest we're heading for another 70's style cool period. Givent that the decadel trends since 1998 are flat, or even slightly dropping, I'd be inclined to agree with them.

Leslie

Are the quotes by the scientists who are on the side of man made only global warning theory or proved facts?

Les

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

What continues to annoy me is that the question we should all be asking is not, "is mankind causing climate change?", but instead, "are we taking the right action over climate change?"

The former question is of academic interest. If:

- atmospheric carbon dioxide causes global warming, AND
- the effects of global warming are considered harmful, AND
- mankind's contribution is significant, THEN
- reducing our carbon emissions may reduce the harmful effect.

It doesn't make any difference whatsoever whether the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 'our fault' in the first place - it's the same gas, in the same atmosphere, and therefore has the exact same effect, whether it came out of the sea, a volcano, a power station or a Range Rover.

What we should be concerning ourselves with is whether we're taking the right action. I've argued before that there are a lot of people who desperately want to "do something", or maybe "be seen to be doing something", regardless of whether that "something" actually makes any sense. My favourite example is still the "energy-saving" bulb being used in a centrally heated house.

Take a step back, and we see that the level of consistency applied to environmental issues is staggeringly poor. Politicians are up in arms when Great Aunt Elsie can't afford to keep warm in winter because gas is so expensive, yet when Steve the plumber is put out of business because his van attracts Ken's punitive new carbon charge, nobody bats an eyelid.

Perhaps somebody with the figures to hand could do a simple calculation for me:

How much gas needs to be burned in a central heating boiler to release the same amount of CO2 as a car rated at 225 g/km crossing Central London and back - and what are the relative levels of taxation?

Klaatu

Consensus, assumption, "clear sky" computer models with unatural levels of forcing factored in, many of the 2600 "scientists" who cited a paper backed by Clinton area not climate scientists at all. Don't see what gyaenocology has to do with climatology. Make you're own mind up.

Klaatu

A report published of a survey of "generation Z" types, meaning our kids, on what they thought was the biggest problem facing the world today. The unanimous answer was "Glabal warming/climate change". Proof enough the brain washing in schools is working.

Little do these kids know the world is on the brink of a serious resource war in the next 25 years but at least their carbon footprint will be small.

PeteBrant

Nothing wrong with that though, is there.

Klaatu

A result based on scaremongering, unfacts and unthruths (Al Gore)? School children "worried to death" about how their trip to school will "kill the planet". Rediculous! No wonder kids in the UK are killing themselves (To "save" the planet perhaps?)!

Morons!!!

Here's my "prediction" based on statistcal and cyclical info I have (The same info used to "predict" the current "wet and cold" cycle in the east coast of Aus in the midst of another 36 year cycle), it's going to get cold.

PeteBrant

What make those people morons, and those skeptical of mans contribution to climate change, presumably "not morons" despite having significantly less scientific back up? (ie.e at close as it to make no odds).

Klaatu

Gyaenocologists (Some of the 2600 "scientists" who cited a paper on climate change) know about climate?

I know nothing about "climate", but I'll have a good look (Or will sign anything to keep the beer tokens flowing).

PeteBrant

How many? 5? 10? 2000? I don't know, but surely this is only relevant if a significant amount are gyaenocologists.

Thing is, people see it as a revenue raising exercise - which only makes sense if you are forced to pay the tax. You aren't, alternatives are offered which make it cheaper to live in a green way. Which is a bit odd for a revenue raising exercise, i.e. offering a way for people to pay less tax than more.

Therefore the best way to keep your beer tokens flowing is to live a green lifestyle.

lozgti

Feels more like forced on a car tax front .Not really freedom of choice if there are tax penalties

Klaatu

Rubbish! Why involve gyaenocologists, and other non-scientists, in the "numbers"? Just to make the numbers?

It's "forced", on fuel, right now, yes. But, trust me, and I have seen some forecasts, "carbon tax" be on EVERYTHING. Where will the choice be? Govn't "approved" choices. An Orwellian "1984" here we come for real.

Ask yourself one question: Why would a Govn't cut it's throat (Revenue) for "green alternatives"?

PeteBrant

Agreed, I think on the car front you could argue a forced tax - espcially if you live in more rural areas.

But in terms of the headline grabbers , you know, like paying for rubbish collection etc you can avoid.

I don't know that they have been, which is why I asked you for numbers - I was hoping you were going to link me to some report or other.


I don't buy the fear and control aspect, we have the war on terror for that. I think the PR for CO2 emission reduction could be handled a lot better (coupled with some more joined up thinking - Tax flights and luxuries before work travel costs for example) but on the whole I think a reduction in emissions is a good thing. Its just not being presented in a very good way by govenrments

Klaatu

The problem with "believers" is the people who have researched the issue and reached an opposing conclusion have to constantly prove their PoV, links/data etc etc. I have stated before many "links" contain "massaged" data, you have to read the real data. Do some research on someone called Carol Browner of the EPA. It was she who constantly refered to these "experts" on "climate change", many actually turned out to be non-scientists, even a hotel administrator was listed. A large proportion, something like 80%, of those listed weren't climate scientists at all.

Yes it is about fear, and with fear, people want solutions. People turn to Govn't for those solutions, one of which is control. You already have in the UK school children living in fear of climate change because of the Govn't and media misinformation and propaganda machine.

Pay your carbon tax and ye shall be saved!

PeteBrant

But Carol Browner doesn;t seem to weild any particular power - She was head of the EPA during the Clinton years, so her tenure ended some 8 years ago.

She seemingly referred to an IPCC report that was made in 1995, in an interview some 5 years ago, that has some "bloggers" in a flap because many of the signatories werent climate change scientists (without actually proving they weren't).

Of course the most recent IPCC report was in 2007.

I am yet to see any reason why I shouldn't beleive 90% of the scientific community, and instead beleive the 10%.

The favourite tact of the skeptic is now to say "ahh, but it isn't really 90%, the media just tell you that"..... But i'm not seeing any proof.

Klaatu

If you'd have done any reaserch at all you would have discovered Al Gore's mocumentary is based on those reports. His mocumentary is being shown in schools and presented as fact. Hence the court case in England recently.

To believe in others opinion (After all that's all it is "concensus opinion", opinion delivered to the IPCC who fund such research), without proving facts for yourself, is a very silly thing to do. Consensus and assumption (The basis for "climatology" and IPCC reports) isn't science.

If we believe Govn't on an unprovable situation on climate, why didn't we believe Govn't on WMD in Iraq? Govn'ts are "economical with the truth" for a reason?

Martin2005

Klaatu old boy, you're seriously expecting me to believe that this is all some kind of global conspriacy?

That would require amazing and unheard of, cooperation between governments across the globe, it would have had to have been 'trumped up' 20 years ago. Those in power then are not in power now. Is the fact that the US administration has been in total denial of this issue until recently, part of the conspiracy too (I suppose you could argue that the US coming onboard recently adds to the believability of the conspiracy)?
It is very convincing plot, when you consider that tackling this issue will (in the short to mid term) actually damage western economies, did Germany recently announce a unilateral emmissions reduction as part of the conspiracy?

The problem with conspiracy arguement is that no one has ever explained to what end this devious plan is supposed to achieve.

Klaatu

I never once mentioned conspiracy, theory of otherwise. Misinfomation, assumption, concensus and un-science to manipulate, yes. It's happening right in front of you.

Klaatu

This is hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped. Which falls inline with Russian figures since 1998, decadel trends have been negative.