Climategate

[DODGYDODDS]

Yes Cliff, but it takes a lot less time to boggle at the claims in a slack jawed fashion and take it as gospel. I mean, that's X-Factor viewing time you've burnt up there, c'mon.

 

 

X factor, Well i suppose you have to spend some quality time with the wife

[Snooze]

I wonder how many climate-change-cynics would still be questioning it all if it wasn't going to affect them (eg. petrol taxes, carbon emmissions taxes, etc.).

 

If the goverment proposed that climate change would be tackled entirely by a special tax on horse boxes and caravans, I bet there's quite a few (Clarkson fans, probably!) who would change sides!

[Ian C]

Actually, on a more contributory note, Mister Dodgy have you ever considered that there may be negative climate effects being caused by humans/civilisation but the governments are also cynically cashing in on it for power and tax? You seem to have a bit of a false dichotomy going (god I love that phrase) where "climate change" can't* be happening just because the govt are making money off it and they quote the science a bit wonky etc..

 

I used to be quite against the idea of CC but Cliff's well presented arguments and evidence (plus his credibility) have made me think "oh dear we've probably cocked it up a bit". I'm not sure it's all 100% our fault as the planet and sun go through natural cycles but I don't think we're blameless whith colossal deforestation, mining, fuel usage etc etc. It's all got to go somewhere

 

I am, however, wholly unsurprised that people in power would see this as a chance to make cash and get more power. Who'd have thought. But it's not quite as tabloid as "EU superstate now roolz ur ass", and coming forth with such leftfield claims only serves to undermine your argument. Bit like when I said Gordon Brown was the biggest threat to the country since Hitler**

 

-Ian

 

*I appreciate my use of bold is almost equivalent to your use of caps, sorry.

 

**I was misinterpreted, I never said he was the same size threat, just the biggest once since, so there. Thankfully he's just a joke now.)

[DODGYDODDS]

I wonder how many climate-change-cynics would still be questioning it all if it wasn't going to affect them (eg. petrol taxes, carbon emmissions taxes, etc.).

 

If the goverment proposed that climate change would be tackled entirely by a special tax on horse boxes and caravans, I bet there's quite a few (Clarkson fans, probably!) who would change sides!

 

 

not just petrol, un figures say the new measures will take another 40% out of your income, through increased bills taxes prices ect.

 

Climate change cynics? What do you mean by that. people who dont believe there is a change in climate? or people who dont buy in to the man made climate change farce. As thats what it is and alot of the top scientists emails that were published online, show falsification of data. witholding of info, destruction of data. And collusion and rackateering.

 

Like i have said numerous times, i do believe in climate change, you would have to be a fool to deny it, but it is a natural process, from things like solar activity, earths changing orbit, earths weakening magnetic field, interstellar radiation. And normal natural cycles. Not entirely man.

Who only contribute to 3.2% {iirc} to the total yearly carbon.

 

It as a scam, to tax, control and depopulate.

[mathew]

'climate change' is an excuse to make numerous people a lot of money.

[Harris25]

yes the earths temperature does flow circular. The argument is that we have taken it out of balance so what is in front of us is not going to follow the usulal trend. Its is co2 that decides the temperature of our planet and i think it is important that we regulate it. At least take notice off it!!

[DODGYDODDS]

Actually, on a more contributory note, Mister Dodgy have you ever considered that there may be negative climate effects being caused by humans/civilisation but the governments are also cynically cashing in on it for power and tax? You seem to have a bit of a false dichotomy going (god I love that phrase) where "climate change" can't* be happening just because the govt are making money off it and they quote the science a bit wonky etc..

 

I used to be quite against the idea of CC but Cliff's well presented arguments and evidence (plus his credibility) have made me think "oh dear we've probably cocked it up a bit". I'm not sure it's all 100% our fault as the planet and sun go through natural cycles but I don't think we're blameless whith colossal deforestation, mining, fuel usage etc etc. It's all got to go somewhere

 

I am, however, wholly unsurprised that people in power would see this as a chance to make cash and get more power. Who'd have thought. But it's not quite as tabloid as "EU superstate now roolz ur ass", and coming forth with such leftfield claims only serves to undermine your argument. Bit like when I said Gordon Brown was the biggest threat to the country since Hitler**

 

-Ian

 

*I appreciate my use of bold is almost equivalent to your use of caps, sorry.

 

**I was misinterpreted, I never said he was the same size threat, just the biggest once since, so there. Thankfully he's just a joke now.)

 

lol

 

Posted as i was writing, to clear some of your points up mate.

 

I dont deny a climate change, as i have said numerous times before, ( so you can take back your false dichotamy ) i think it is mostly part of the natural process, As listed some in my previous post to snooze and i think the govt's are using it as you said to control and tax.

 

And yes we MAN, do have a great effect on our climate, doing stupid things like you mentioned, real issues that should be tackled with the same energy as mmcc. But the real issues are clouded by the co2 debate

 

Yes deforrestation is an issue, which I AM DEAD AGAINST but most of the mmcc legislation only tackles co2, making the little guy on the street the bad guy, dont do this dont do that etc. Making us pay when ultimately industries have the biggest affect along with uneducated and {poss desperately poor populations} looking to exploit the earth to survive.

 

Flouride in water too is a real issue polluting numerous water courses and even us, along with massive rises in the levels of estrogeon in water affecting wildlife and even us.

 

 

so to finish i do think we cause negative climate and environmental affects, yes. Thats obvious, we are even called consumers, as thats what we do consume everything

 

But it aint all co2 co2 co2 is my view, Most natural effect but most of the human damage to environment { not climate} is industry and govt policy, around the world, and that needs to be tackled first. And the marxist agenda to control us needs to end.

 

lastly i dont ever say the eu roolz your ass. I dont read papers, just sometimes site them as thats all joe bloggs will look at lol.

I will have to say that i am anti beaurocracy. And can only see this lothiathan getting bigger each yr. And i agree with your G brown comment

 

BLOODY HELL MY HEAD HURTS CHEERS IAN

[DODGYDODDS]

yes the earths temperature does flow circular. The argument is that we have taken it out of balance so what is in front of us is not going to follow the usulal trend. Its is co2 that decides the temperature of our planet and i think it is important that we regulate it. At least take notice off it!!

 

the most influential green house gas is water vapor not co2, constituting 95% of the effect iirc. And we cant regulate that. But the cc bills go way beyond regulating mate.

[Harris25]

the most influential green house gas is water vapor not co2

 

Well not really, the temperature follows the levels of all gases. However as co2 increase so does temperature on a corresponding ascent

[AJI]

There are 3 factors at work in general with all the usual climate change discussions.

 

Number (1) A drive towards being energy efficient.

This is more at being sensible with the energy that we use and nothing at all to do with man-made-global-warming theory.

I do fully support this drive towards being more efficient and producing less waste. This is a correct step towards the way an increasing population should go.

 

Number (2) A link between current/past man-made CO2 affecting the climate.

This link as of yet does not exist and has not been proven. There are many vested interested people providing graphs and trends left right and centre but there still is no accepted scientific proof of any link between the CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere and it having any effect on the climate.

Any logical person/scientist will accept that there will of course be some 'effect', but this effect as of yet is sooooo small that it can not be detected and as such is insignificant. (if there were some big effect like the gubberment would like everyone to belive, then it would be easily apparent and measurable, and there would be no opposition to the whole debate).

 

Number (3) Here is the main one...

The future predictors who look into their magic crystal balls and claim millions will die due to 'man-made-global-warming'. Al Gore and others who started the ball rolling on a global scene, again no doubt with vested interests, have predicted man-caused-global-warming will cause sea levels to rise, ice caps to dissapear, etc. etc. that will kill millions etc.

If it were not for these prick-ends then the G8,G20 governments would have no public reasons to be taking such actions as committing the UK tax payer to raise billions to fund whatever plans they are conjouring up in their playgroups.

(Due to be signed by Gordon Brown soon in Copenhagen).

 

 

The earth has not warmed in over 11 years, completely against all the pro-MMGW believer expectations and their manipulated computer models. The recent email leaks from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia showed discussions on how they were going to try and 'fix' the data and explain away the lack of warming. One reason why I think they have refused over 60 requests for data under the freedom of information act.

 

 

The IPCC used to be claimed to be made up of climate scientists, but as in a similar situation as Tannhauser has explained above, these so called climate scientists are nothing of the sort. Many are not expert in the field of climatatology and some are not even scientists at all. But they may have a signed bit of paper to say they might have read some text here or there.

It all stinks of vested interest parties who are more than happy to explain recorded data under very dodgy scientific jargon and manipulated results.

 

 

 

[if you want to read some good debate on this subject then pistonheads has some threads which stretch to around 200 pages worth of replies - note the responsed made by a user called 'Turbobloke'].

[Tannhauser]

 

 

The IPCC used to be claimed to be made up of climate scientists, but as in a similar situation as Tannhauser has explained above, these so called climate scientists are nothing of the sort.

 

In my view, almost every single statement you've made in that post would not stand up to any analysis, including the suspicipusly timed leaked emails. But I think you and I have done this before.

 

Seeing as I get an honorary mention, though, I'll respond to the accusation against the IPCC not being 'climate scientists'. Seeing as part of the IPCC's job is to assess the impact of climate change, there are presumably going to be a variety of academic areas other than climate science represented. However, when it comes to the evidence for climate change, the IPCC are:

 

The world’s best climate scientists

 

But then that's just the position statement from the The Royal Metereological Society, who are no doubt also puppets of the tax-grabbing world government conspiracy.

 

By the way, one of the regular criticisms of the IPCC is that they are way too cautious in their estimates of how quickly climate change is happening.

[Tannhauser]

Also:

 

Now, I'm not exactly a huge fan of conspiracy theories. However, many of those who remain unconvinced about anthropogenic climate change have some - usually fairly undeveloped - idea about a world government conspiracy to gain control and/or tax.

 

So, fighting fire with fire, here's the opposite case: anti-global warming 'information' and contrarian science is largely funded by (a) free market pressure groups and (b) oil companies.

 

Again, breaking with tradition, here's a youtube clip that outlines the case:

 

ElBwFwX23Qo

 

And here's a fairly comprehensive document from the Union of Concerned Scientists: focusing on Exxonmobil's involvement.

[AJI]

In my view, almost every single statement you've made in that post would not stand up to any analysis,..

 

Similar to the situation of the Climate Research Unit

They have ignored requests for their data to be released/analysied and peer reviewed by the wider scientific cummunity.

 

 

IF there were data and proper reviewed results that showed a link between man's CO2 and climate change I would be happy to hold my hands up and accept it. I am a person of scientific way of thinking and accept science as fact, when its properly done in the correct ways.

But the plain fact is that there is no link ...CO2 produced by man is not even registered in many data that has been published (even by the IPCC), and more to the point the amount of CO2 produced by man has had no recordable effect on the climate.....

sure there are computer models that have been 'fudged' that will show 'hockey stick' graphs etc. these programs have been found out to produce 'hockey stick' graphs no matter what data is fed into them. Produced to install fear and quick acceptance of results.

 

 

The climate is changing, very true. Is man's CO2 the cause?, definitely undecided by science at the moment (no link can be found and proven - which means at current CO2 emission levels probably not). And therefore can not be taken as fact that man is to blame.

 

Are the G8,G20 governments right to be forcing the taxpayer to fork out billions for natural cycle climate change because of unproven science and the wild predictions of a few vested interest people?...I'd say big NO NO.

[Scooter]

What is annoying, what ever side of the camp you are on, is that there is no irrefutable evidence to support your stance yet for both sides there is masses of 'evidence' put forward from lots of sources. Then lots of condemning of each others evidence and the odd person on both sides getting something completely wrong and the other side then latching on that as a basis for condemning that 'side' in general rather than just ignoring that evidence/line of thought and seeking the truth.........

 

........it seems to me to be very hard to get meaningful data. If there were instruments to measure CO2 and temerature at thousands of locations back in say the 1600's would you get stable data over the decades? I very much doubt it........you have the natural phases the mini ice ages, the thames freezing (1800's was it?), the odd solar flare/activity year(s).......all factors effecting the climate overlapped and seemingly, to me at least, it's extremely difficult to identify the part they play in isolation.

 

What i'm also interested in is the projected average temperature rise, what are the possible global consequences of that and is there any basis of truth for runaway/exponential increase in temperature? (is the result of more Co2 ie a higher temperature really that bad for us as a species?) Isn't there a possibility we will face this in the future at some point even if we stopped CO2 production tomorrow so what are the actual consequences?

 

Also does anyone know if we can apply basic thermodynamics to the earth? ie we have heat coming from within the earth, additional heat from the sun and a loss of heat from the atmosphere to space (preusmably all as radiation?), so in laymans terms with an increase in CO2 we are effectively putting extra insulation down in the loft and with all else being equal 'enjoying' a warmer home. Just thinking that if this (very) basic premise can be made then in my head it makes runaway continually increasing temperature unlikely.

 

just some general rambling, sorry!

[Tannhauser]

Similar to the situation of the Climate Research Unit

They have ignored requests for their data to be released/analysied and peer reviewed by the wider scientific cummunity.

.

 

Well, you could hop over to real climate at the heart of the dispute and read the discussion and their response. They have started putting up links to data, aqn enormous job one might imagine, here

 

Good luck analysing it.