Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

Exactly! And the scientific data continues to mount.

 

"Robert Orr, UN under secretary general for planning, said the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming will be much worse than the last one." (22 Nov 2010)

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101122/sc_afp/climatewarmingun_20101122204030

 

 

 

No.

 

Do you conclude that a lack of political will and consensus on a way forward negates the scientific observations? That if nobody is doing anything that there's not a problem?

 

Human's are very reluctant to change.

 

"Faced with the choice between making changes

and proving there is no need to do so,

almost everyone gets busy on the proof. "

 

In the town I grew up in there was a fire in a supermarket. The fire alarm went off and nobody took it seriously. People didn't want to lose their place in the queue at the tills. It was a real fire and one woman lost her life because she didn't do anything until it was too late.

 

The alarm bells are ringing loud on global warming.

 

How long have we got to respond?

 

Where will we escape to?

 

BTW It's most likely not our generation who will suffer, but do we want to be the ones that destroyed our little oasis in a hostile universe?

 

Scientific data !

 

What from a UN quango who's very existence depends upon man made climate change being true !

 

Where is the link to man made CO2 ?

 

Please also answer my first question, why are developing countries allowed to emit as much CO2 as they want, whilst we in the west have to curb our emissions?

Edited December 2, 2010 by convert

[spinac]

Scientific data !

 

What from a UN quango who's very existence depends upon man made climate change being true !

 

Where is the link to man made CO2 ?

 

Do you believe that the IPCC is the ONLY international organisation/academic institiution/individual scientist or informed individual discussing climate change and that the only reason to conclude that there is man made climate change is to keep yourself in a job?

 

Do you believe that?

 

Or is there a possibility that some people who respect themselves, their work. their scientific ideals and credentials and the opinions of their peers who have examined the evidence carefully and still conclude that yes, our influence on the planet IS changing its climate?

 

Is that possible?

 

Or, in your world is there always a conspiracy?

 

Please also answer my first question, why are developing countries allowed to emit as much CO2 as they want, whilst we in the west have to curb our emissions?

 

Are we curbing our emissions? Or making a token effort? How would we stop developing countries? Military force? I'm really not sure where you are coming from on this. Are you looking for a scapegoat? Trying to blame the developing world for our sins?

[retep]

Twas the night before Cancun.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/humor/8216-a-visit-from-st-rick

[convert]

Do you believe that the IPCC is the ONLY international organisation/academic institiution/individual scientist or informed individual discussing climate change and that the only reason to conclude that there is man made climate change is to keep yourself in a job?

 

No I believe others have jumped on the research grant / departmental funding / junkscience tax gravy train. I also think that some really do believe their (adjusted) findings. I also believe that governments (and the EU) are always looking for new and inventive ways to tax the populace.

 

 

Or is there a possibility that some people who respect themselves, their work. their scientific ideals and credentials and the opinions of their peers who have examined the evidence carefully and still conclude that yes, our influence on the planet IS changing its climate?

If they really did respect the scientific process they would have made the (unadjusted) data available for others to disprove their theories

 

Or, in your world is there always a conspiracy?

No, not always, however there are usually those who jump on bandwagons, without checking exactly which way they're going.

 

Windmill feed in tariff anybody? Just exactly how much will that add to the average homes energy prices?

 

 

 

Are we curbing our emissions? Or making a token effort? How would we stop developing countries? Military force? I'm really not sure where you are coming from on this. Are you looking for a scapegoat? Trying to blame the developing world for our sins?

Nice attempt at a side step there. Please answer the question:

 

Is the CO2 emitted by developing nations any less damaging (if it is damaging at all, after all it is just plant food gas) than the CO2 we emit? If not, then why should developing nations be allowed to 'pollute', 'poison', 'damage' the atmosphere? After all it's just one big climate isn't it?

[Wildcat]

For goodness sake. He said "Snow will be a thing of the past." Have a look outside, we had the same last year and a little bit less (but still snow) the year before. How can you possibly question whether he was wrong or not!?

 

How can you say he is wrong? He didn't say there would be no snow in 10 years time, he said in the future.

 

I sort of agree with you here. Snow here does not prove or disprove MMGW/CC one way or another. But it shows how ludicrous some of the arguments have been in favour of the MMGW argument. If they got this wrong, and so many other things wrong too, then what else have they got wrong?

 

He didn't make the argument in favour of global warming. He made the argument as a consequence of global warming. You have cause and effect the wrong way around.

 

Bills have gone up significantly recently, and a lot of it is due to the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ets.pdf

 

"We estimate that the ETS cost to British Consumers is £3Billion per year, equivalent to around £117 per family"

 

Im not sure how on earth you manage to blame the Tories since they weren't in power last year or the year before when this article was written AND they have kept the winter fuel allowance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/3531276/Thousands-of-elderly-people-die-of-cold-each-winter-in-a-national-scandal.html

 

"Last winter 25,300 more people died in the winter months than in the summer, an increase of seven per cent on the previous year, data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

 

Most of these are due to circulatory and respiratory diseases and the majority occur among the elderly in a situation which has been condemned by campaigners.

 

There are fears the death toll will be higher this year as forecasters predict lower temperatures than last year, utility bills have risen and the credit crunch means many households are struggling to make ends meet."

 

 

BUT - since snow will be a thing of the past, high domestic energy bills are a price worth paying

 

I said Tory policies, anyone that reads my posts will know I have criticised and continue to criticise New Labour for buying in to the monetarist dream world that all came tumbling down in the finanancial crisis recently.

 

The TaxPayer's Alliance is a front group for tax avoiding millionaires you would be more credible quoting David Icke.

 

Discussions of costs and various trading schemes are also irrelevant to the issue. I too am sceptical of Carbon Trading. But my scepticism does not justify trying to make out the science and evidence of global warming says something other than what it does. That is one of reasons why Delingpole, Monckton and others are so lacking in credibility, they intentionally misinterpret the science to fit in with their own self interest.

[Stormy]

How can you say he is wrong? He didn't say there would be no snow in 10 years time, he said in the future.

 

Actually, the article is titled "Snowfalls are NOW JUST A THING OF THE PAST. Pretty unambiguous.

 

 

He didn't make the argument in favour of global warming. He made the argument as a consequence of global warming. You have cause and effect the wrong way around.

I don't think too much emphasis should be placed on this article one way or another. When I linked to it I actually mentioned it was light hearted. It does, however, show how wrong the warmists can be. It was written from a point of authority, with no balance given to a sceptical point of view. The article was meant to be taken as gospel and as anybody can now see (apart from you of course,) its total nonsense.

 

I said Tory policies, anyone that reads my posts will know I have criticised and continue to criticise New Labour for buying in to the monetarist dream world that all came tumbling down in the finanancial crisis recently.

But by saying "Tory" you are implying that its the Conservative Parties fault, when Labour had 13 years to do something about it.

 

The TaxPayer's Alliance is a front group for tax avoiding millionaires you would be more credible quoting David Icke.

I shall take no lessons in links from the person nicknamed wikicat

 

Instead of criticising me for what I link to, why not look at the link and come up with a coherent argument against the figures.

 

Discussions of costs and various trading schemes are also irrelevant to the issue. I too am sceptical of Carbon Trading. But my scepticism does not justify trying to make out the science and evidence of global warming says something other than what it does. That is one of reasons why Delingpole, Monckton and others are so lacking in credibility, they intentionally misinterpret the science to fit in with their own self interest.

 

Carbon Trading is partly how big business gets rich off the backs of the little person like you and me who have to pay over the odds for domestic energy, transportation and other goods and services. It is also a reason why there are so many sceptical people out there, so I don't think its irrelevant at all. Without Carbon Trading there would be a lot more belivers out there.

[Wildcat]

Actually, the article is titled "Snowfalls are NOW JUST A THING OF THE PAST. Pretty unambiguous.

 

I don't think too much emphasis should be placed on this article one way or another. When I linked to it I actually mentioned it was light hearted. It does, however, show how wrong the warmists can be. It was written from a point of authority, with no balance given to a sceptical point of view. The article was meant to be taken as gospel and as anybody can now see (apart from you of course,) its total nonsense.

 

A position he still argues if you google him. Yes pretty unambiguous and considering the evidence like the alarming loss of ice in the arctic he is likely to be correct.

 

But by saying "Tory" you are implying that its the Conservative Parties fault, when Labour had 13 years to do something about it.

 

I have already explained why I used the term. Perhaps I should have chosen another, but picking up on it seems like pedantry to me.

 

I shall take no lessons in links from the person nicknamed wikicat

 

Which says a lot more about you than it does me.

 

Instead of criticising me for what I link to, why not look at the link and come up with a coherent argument against the figures.

 

Because the link won't open for me. I have tried several times and it times out before opening.

 

Carbon Trading is partly how big business gets rich off the backs of the little person like you and me who have to pay over the odds for domestic energy, transportation and other goods and services. It is also a reason why there are so many sceptical people out there, so I don't think its irrelevant at all. Without Carbon Trading there would be a lot more belivers out there.

 

Which only goes to show how discreditable the anti-global warming arguments are.

[redruby]

A position he still argues if you google him. Yes pretty unambiguous and considering the evidence like the alarming loss of ice in the arctic he is likely to be correct.

 

I think the issue this this: 10 years ago, the mild winters and hot summers of the 90's were being presented as "evidence" of GW/CC.

 

Now we have recently had some colder than average winters and washout summers. But this is dismissed as "weather".

 

If we have recently had hot summers and mild winters would this have so easily been dismissed as "weather"

Edited December 3, 2010 by esme
quote tags

[Wildcat]

A position he still argues if you google him. Yes pretty unambiguous and considering the evidence like the alarming loss of ice in the arctic he is likely to be correct.

 

I think the issue this this: 10 years ago, the mild winters and hot summers of the 90's were being presented as "evidence" of GW/CC.

 

Now we have recently had some colder than average winters and washout summers. But this is dismissed as "weather".

 

If we have recently had hot summers and mild winters would this have so easily been dismissed as "weather"

 

To which the answer is simply, yes. Evidence for global warming only looks at UK weather in the context of the global climate

Edited December 3, 2010 by esme
quote tags

[retep]

So if theres been all this global warming, would we expect it to have affected the temperatures here in Sheffield, or are we imune.