Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[JFKvsNixon]

Agreed lot's of people have lost their jobs due to many reasons. However the Job losses at Corus (and many other local firms) are a DIRECT result of the parent company deciding to play fast and loose with carbon credit trading schemes. Schemes that are based on the unproven mythology that is MMuGW. Your point re the end of the cold war doesn't really stand up though. The cold war was tangible, Global Warming isn't. Once someone can prove the causal link (not a correlation) between manmade CO2 and rising temperature then I'll quite happily sell the TVR and buy a Prious.

 

 

PS did you get a chance to look at Jasper Kirkby's work @ CERN?

 

You're now blaming the actions of multinationals and governments on a scientific theory. Blame the multinationals and the governments, not the theory.

 

I haven't looked at Kirby's work, but now you have asked I will make sure I will. Have you got a link?

[Stormy]

To clarify, I am not suggesting this is the issue with Corus Redcar. All I am saying that it is a point to consider.

 

 

 

 

No, and I have never suggested that it is a good thing.

 

The problem is that these are the real life effects of our clamouring to cut emmissions in the name of AGW. I totally agree with your later point about blaming multinationals and governments. I do blame them.

 

I have a great amount of respect for people who practise what they preach, even if I do not agree with them, and environmentalists or ordinary members of the public who seek to lower their personal emissions because they believe it is right I have no problem with, in fact they are to be commended for standing up for what they think is right.

 

However. The problem is that the ones who push this hypothesis, call us flat earthers, block out non beliver scientists from the peer review process and wilfully disregard scientific evidence which is contrary to what they want to believe are the ones who are running the show. Yes the governments and multinationals should be blamed, but its the governments who set up carbon trading and its the multinationals who profit. They are the ones who turn up to Copenhagen in private jets then tell us we need to pay more in our energy bills so emissions can be cut in order to save the planet.

 

For example, David Rothschild was at Copenhagen, getting air time and interviews! What does a Rothschild have to do with Global Warming one might ask? Oh wait... he's part of arguably the most successful banking dynasty ever known

Edited January 14, 2010 by Stormy

[BBanzai]

A point I would like to clear up regarding the Met office, as I understand it they don't actually make predictions, but more accurately they make PROBABILTY predictions, the distinction is crucial.

I guess growing up in Canada I am used to this, weather forecasts would always say a 30% chance of rain or snow or sunshine, or whatever.

 

The Met office actually did predict this severe winter, contrary to a lot of the perceived wisdom here, as I recall it was a one in five probability that we would have a bad winter, made sometime in September.

[Stormy]

A point I would like to clear up regarding the Met office, as I understand it they don't actually make predictions, but more accurately they make PROBABILTY predictions, the distinction is crucial.

I guess growing up in Canada I am used to this, weather forecasts would always say a 30% chance of rain or snow or sunshine, or whatever.

 

The Met office actually did predict this severe winter, contrary to a lot of the perceived wisdom here, as I recall it was a one in five probability that we would have a bad winter, made sometime in September.

 

If you are interested in Weather forcasting, check out Piers Corbyn at Weather Action. His predictions are far more accurate than that of the Met offices. (He successfully predicted this cold snap long before the Met office, for example.)

http://www.weatheraction.com/

 

Incedentally he is a prominent scientist in the "denier" camp as well. Some of his videos are excellent and worth watching:

 

Edited January 14, 2010 by Stormy

[retep]

Duh, this is painful. A conversation with you is like banging my head against a wall. I never suggested it, I asked you if you are suggesting it.

 

I'll help. When I wrote - "So do you think" I was asking you a question. Also when a sentence ends with a question mark it usually indicates that the person is asking a question.

 

I know exactly what you meant, it's just that I like seeing you bang your head on that wall.

[retep]

Would someone care to comment about what I posted a few pages ago, about Corus Redcar shutting down? Whilst we are all here arguing about whether or not CO2 has any effect on our climate, one major effect on peoples lives is happening as a direct result of the church of AGW and critically carbon trading which is so revered in political circles. In case some people missed it I shall re-post the general gist of what I said. It would be nice if some warmist could attempt to justify this, Wildcat I know you already pointed to criticism of carbon trading in response but another persons criticism of a scheme is irrelevant, I could point you to hundreds of criticisms of it but it doesn't make one tiny bit of difference.

 

 

 

The point is that people are making a fortune out of this. One might think that a company such as Tata, who belch out CO2 on an industrial scale would be horrified by the idea of carbon trading. But they make millions, potentially billions off the back of it.

AGW is a racket, a fraud. The sooner you open your eyes to the vast sums of money which are being made off the backs of you and I, the better.

Wake up!

 

I did mention this back in post 648.

[Stormy]

I did mention this back in post 648.

 

Apologies for the lack of acknowledgement, I must admit I haven't trawled through all the pages of this thread though.

 

I think that this is probably one of the most important aspects of AGW, this is the real effect of their much loved carbon trading and how it is affecting the lives of real people.

We can all argue for and against AGW but this is fact and it needs to be exposed.

[flamingjimmy]

Incedentally he is a prominent scientist in the "denier" camp as well. Some of his videos are excellent and worth watching:

 

I started watching that video, but one of the very first sentences in it was a lie (either that or this guy is thick which is unlikely) and anyone who uses the term 'climategate' without irony is a sensationalist populist douche.

[Wildcat]

My answer shows that other natural factors are contributing to the cooling stratosphere.

 

Has anyone yet accounted for the current cooling trend, or is it still atravesty that they can't work out where the energy is going.

 

Linking to a pro AGW, true believer site doesn't convince me at all; and even less of the general public are being fooled by it these days.

 

The other natural factors contributing to the cooling of the Stratosphere are other in what sense? The effect of water is a part of the climate change models you are criticising. The point is that you have missed is that water vapour is not a forcing factor, unless you can give any reason to suggest it is?

 

As I have shown before the climate change models fit the facts and only do so because of the inclusion of the greenhouse effect and CO2.

 

Hmm of course I am going to link to pro-AGW site to explain a pro-AGW point... It is not a matter of belief, it is about the science, the link contains a reference to report on which it is based. If you are going to discount evidence simply because it takes an opposing view then your believer reference is rather hypocritical.

 

And before you accuse me of the same where I have discounted sites on this thread it has been because they have been shown to be misleading, misused sources and give platforms for ideas that have been comprehensively refuted.

[Wildcat]

A question you should be addressing to the Met Office. Their October prediction was for a mild winter. If the models they used for this prediction are no better than the models they use for AGW then why should we give any credence to their predictions for the climate in 2100 ?

 

Medium term predictions have much lower accuracy than long term ones and they are given in terms of probabilities. So when they say there is a 60% chance of something happening and it doesn't happen that doesn't refute the process with which that prediction was made. It is simply the way probabilities work.

 

Your if condition is not met. No one has ever claimed the models for medium term prediction are as good as long term ones, in fact the position is and is always explained as that they are not.