Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Halibut]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8438408.stm

 

Last month was the coldest December in almost 30 years according to readings taken at the Armagh Observatory.

 

The mean temperature was 1.5C, the coldest average measurement since 1981.

 

The average temperature for 2009, at 9.87C, was close to the average of 9.94C for the last 20 years.

 

But actually colder than the 20 year average...........

 

Wheres this global warming ?

 

Sorry if I sound rude, but this post just reveals that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[Wildcat]

The church of AGW continues to crumble...

 

Has anyone actually seen any (unadjusted) figures for 2009...

 

Can anyone tell me how many Polar bears have actually died?

 

Can anyone tell me how many old people are going to die from the ridiculous effect that the wealth re-distribution, carbon trading scheme taxation will have on their heating bills?

 

What we need now is a major political party to present us with a true alternative to these stupid CO2 reduction schemes; a party willing to invest in short to medium term nuclear power whilst 'greener' (wash my mouth out with carbolic) options are delveoped; a party to stick 2 fingers up at the IPCC and the EU and invest in science, to look at how we adapt to climate change, rather than the current self perpetuating 'science' to falsify the source of climate change.

 

Figures for 2009 will no doubt come out shortly.

 

Impossible to say how many Polar bears have died because of global warming for a variety of reasons including the impossibility of disentagling deaths from pollution etc from any figures.

 

However Polar Bears international and IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, have this to say:

 

The main threat to polar bears today is the loss of their icy habitat due to climate change. Polar bears depend on the sea ice for hunting, breeding, and in some cases to den. The summer ice loss in the Arctic is now equal to an area the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined.

 

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming.

 

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

 

Wealth redistribution normally redistributes wealth to the poor, thus preventing deaths. The answer to your question is then either zero or a negative number.

 

Re: your last paragraph. The premises are clearly false and without you having anything positive to say about causes whilst discounting the only explanation that fits the facts... (warming tropospere, cooling stratosphere), it makes no sense. The only falsisfications I have seen are from denialists.

 

That said I have no problem with the conclusion of looking to Nuclear or Clean Coal technology as part of the solution to the problems.

 

Ps.... Rod Liddle. If ever there was a reason for knowing Climate Change is happening it is to know Rod Liddle has the opposite view.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Wildcat

[retep]

Figures for 2009 will no doubt come out shortly.

 

Impossible to say how many Polar bears have died because of global warming for a variety of reasons including the impossibility of disentagling deaths from pollution etc from any figures.

 

However Polar Bears international and IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, have this to say:

 

 

 

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

 

Wealth redistribution normally redistributes wealth to the poor, thus preventing deaths. The answer to your question is then either zero or a negative number.

 

Re: your last paragraph. The premises are clearly false and without you having anything positive to say about causes whilst discounting the only explanation that fits the facts... (warming tropospere, cooling stratosphere), it makes no sense. The only falsisfications I have seen are from denialists.

 

That said I have no problem with the conclusion of looking to Nuclear or Clean Coal technology as part of the solution to the problems.

 

Ps.... Rod Liddle. If ever there was a reason for knowing Climate Change is happening it is to know Rod Liddle has the opposite view.

 

 

Computer models drive polar bear extinction fears

 

In September, yet another report was issued based on computer models predictions. This report found that polar bear populations are allegedly going to be devastated by 2050 due to global warming. The report was issued as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's consideration of listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

 

This is a classic case of reality versus unproven computer model predictions. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, estimates were as low as 5,000-10,000 bears. We currently have an estimated four or five times more polar bears than 50 years ago. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.'

 

Top biologists and wildlife experts are dismissing unproven computer model concerns for polar bears.

 

In 2006, Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut, dismissed these fears with evidence based data on Canada's polar bear populations.

 

"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," Taylor said, noting that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world's polar bears.

 

He added: "It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."

[splodgeyAl]

Figures for 2009 will no doubt come out shortly.

 

Impossible to say how many Polar bears have died because of global warming for a variety of reasons including the impossibility of disentagling deaths from pollution etc from any figures.

 

However Polar Bears international and IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, have this to say:

 

 

 

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

 

Wealth redistribution normally redistributes wealth to the poor, thus preventing deaths. The answer to your question is then either zero or a negative number.

 

Re: your last paragraph. The premises are clearly false and without you having anything positive to say about causes whilst discounting the only explanation that fits the facts... (warming tropospere, cooling stratosphere), it makes no sense. The only falsisfications I have seen are from denialists.

 

That said I have no problem with the conclusion of looking to Nuclear or Clean Coal technology as part of the solution to the problems.

 

Ps.... Rod Liddle. If ever there was a reason for knowing Climate Change is happening it is to know Rod Liddle has the opposite view.

 

You might not have a problem with using nuclear as part of the solution, but unfortunately the, erm, nuclear industry does:

22. Prior to starting this inquiry, we heard from multiple sources that the engineering sector was concerned about a skills time-bomb. Here is a small selection of the many facts, figures and opinion we received on this issue:

 

— the total number of registered engineers and technicians has declined from 263,999 in 1997 to 242,530 in 2006, which represents a fall of 8%;[15]

 

— there has been a 22% decline in the numbers of Chartered Engineers in all age groups under 55 years, a two-thirds decline in the numbers of Incorporated Engineers; and a 50% decline in Engineering Technicians;[16]

 

— one in ten organisations in the SEMTA footprint have had difficulties recruiting;[17]

 

— around 13% of graduates leave university with the most valuable science, technology, engineering or maths degrees and this needs to rise to at least 25% if the UK is to match the predicted growth in jobs;[18]

 

— "As engineering populations age and vacancies are 'booming' worldwide, the result is the visibility of the shortfall of young people entering the engineering profession. The result for many companies is a true shortage of engineers that is (and will continue) to endanger their growth and in some cases their existence."[19]

 

— 40% of National Grid's workforce will reach retirement age over the next 10-15 years.[20] The UK faces a "crucial skills shortage from 2015 to 2025 that will make power supplies less reliable and more expensive".[21]

 

23. This final point drives home one potential impact of a skills shortage. We decided to explore the skills issues in more depth by way of a case study on nuclear engineering.

 

24. The Prime Minister announced in July 2008 that Britain must build several new nuclear power stations over the next 15 years to replace ageing plants and contribute to a post-oil economy, with the first of the new reactors coming online in 2017.[22] Our reaction, like other interested observers, was concern that there might be a gap between the PM's desire for a rapid 'nuclear renaissance' and the UK's capacity to deliver such a programme. We address this question in the following sections of the report.

 

The rest of the article is here

[Wildcat]

Computer models drive polar bear extinction fears

 

In September, yet another report was issued based on computer models predictions. This report found that polar bear populations are allegedly going to be devastated by 2050 due to global warming. The report was issued as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's consideration of listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

 

This is a classic case of reality versus unproven computer model predictions. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, estimates were as low as 5,000-10,000 bears. We currently have an estimated four or five times more polar bears than 50 years ago. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.'

 

Top biologists and wildlife experts are dismissing unproven computer model concerns for polar bears.

 

In 2006, Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut, dismissed these fears with evidence based data on Canada's polar bear populations.

 

"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," Taylor said, noting that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world's polar bears.

 

He added: "It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."

 

I guess you didn't read the article I referenced before googling a response, because if you had you would have realised the quote you gave was of issues already addressed in that article.

 

Firstly here:

 

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming.

 

And also here:

 

Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears' distribution patterns. Data is needed to understand the change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, "In the declining polar bear population of Canada's Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."

 

You have chosen an interesting person to reference. His views don't come cheap.

 

James M. Inhofe has accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $160,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See above for oil and energy voting record.[2]

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe#Oil_and_Coal_Money_in_Politics

 

So not only was your response out of date, refuted by the article you were responding to, it was also provided by someone paid nearly $1 million by the fossil fuel industry.

[Wildcat]

You might not have a problem with using nuclear as part of the solution, but unfortunately the, erm, nuclear industry does:

 

 

The rest of the article is here

 

Interesting. We need to encourage more people in to engineering.

[retep]

I guess you didn't read the article I referenced before googling a response, because if you had you would have realised the quote you gave was of issues already addressed in that article.

 

Firstly here:

 

 

 

And also here:

 

 

 

You have chosen an interesting person to reference. His views don't come cheap.

 

 

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe#Oil_and_Coal_Money_in_Politics

 

So not only was your response out of date, refuted by the article you were responding to, it was also provided by someone paid nearly $1 million by the fossil fuel industry.

 

Yeah and we were going to have a mild winter,

I'll stick with realistic info if you don't mind.

[Zaytsev]

Do you understand Global warming is not just about UK temperatures?

 

Australia for example is worried about its fruit crops because Spring has been so hot.... what does that prove? it proves it is hotter than normal in Autralia, and nothing in isolation about global warming.

 

http://www.fruitnet.com/content.aspx?cid=5211&rid=2

 

That article relates to one season.

[Wildcat]

Yeah and we were going to have a mild winter,

I'll stick with realistic info if you don't mind.

 

If you want realistic info then the BBC gives an explanation for the recent weather.... the Arctic Oscillation, which means it is cold here, but in Newfoundland their temperatures are 23 degrees centigrade above the average.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

[retep]

If you want realistic info then the BBC gives an explanation for the recent weather.... the Arctic Oscillation, which means it is cold here, but in Newfoundland their temperatures are 23 degrees centigrade above the average.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

 

So when it's cold it's cold, and when it's hot it's hot, with a few ups and downs in between that sounds realistic, and doesn't cost the trillions they'd like to charge us, gerr a life and stop trying to feed bull----.