OT: Carbon emissions
Nige Danton
might be of interest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
and the link from within the article:
--
Nige Danton
Donwill
surprised by the article's relevations, scientists have to chase grants
to avoid being made redundant or having their department changed or
closed down. I'll guess what field, the majority of grants are made
available for these days, and what choice of statistical packages are
made to encourage even more grants to their particular area of work.
A cynical Don
Andrew Gabriel
Donwill <Donwill...@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Nige Danton wrote:
>> This has been discussed here few times and so I thought this article
>> might be of interest
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
>>
>> and the link from within the article:
>>
>> http://www.thegwpf.org/
>>
> surprised by the article's relevations, scientists have to chase grants
> to avoid being made redundant or having their department changed or
> closed down. I'll guess what field, the majority of grants are made
> available for these days, and what choice of statistical packages are
> made to encourage even more grants to their particular area of work.
> A cynical Don
I worked in a government research establishment back when I was a
student. Still maintain occasional contact with a couple of colleagues
there, and got much the same story from them a few years ago. You can
now only apply for research grants to prove global warming. If you
don't come up with some proof of global warming each year before
refunding for next year, there is no next year. The science you see
now is all horrbly bent, and isn't science anymore. Real scientists
are dismayed (rather than the self-promoting pseudo scientists who you
increasingly see in the press, chasing the publicity and research
funding). The last source of unbiased research funding - governments
- ceased being so some years back in this area.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Donwill
Don
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 23 November 2009 10:32
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> I worked in a government research establishment back when I was a
>> student. Still maintain occasional contact with a couple of colleagues
>> there, and got much the same story from them a few years ago. You can
>> now only apply for research grants to prove global warming. If you
>> don't come up with some proof of global warming each year before
>> refunding for next year, there is no next year. The science you see
>> now is all horrbly bent, and isn't science anymore. Real scientists
>> are dismayed (rather than the self-promoting pseudo scientists who you
>> increasingly see in the press, chasing the publicity and research
>> funding). The last source of unbiased research funding - governments
>> - ceased being so some years back in this area.
>>
>>
> And we must ask ourselves the question WHY? should our goverment do this.
> Don
I was going to say the same thing... What do they have to gain. they have
more to gain by disproving global warming, ie they keep the status quo, no
hard bargaining re Kyoto etc, no panics, no unpopular bollocks like trying
to ban incandescent lighting etc.
I don't think the EcoNutters have deep enough pockets to bribe an entire
governement, unlike, perhaps, oil companies might *cough*.
--
Tim Watts
This space intentionally left blank...
Donwill
like that, that is if the people are
daft enough to be taken in by it. "SAVE THE PLANET" bollocks and
similar emotive slogans.
Don
dennis@home
"Nige Danton" <nige....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d463022b-1544-4397...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Please don't bring facts into climatology.
dennis@home
"Tim W" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:hedqii$s80$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I was going to say the same thing... What do they have to gain. they have
> more to gain by disproving global warming, ie they keep the status quo, no
> hard bargaining re Kyoto etc, no panics, no unpopular bollocks like trying
> to ban incandescent lighting etc.
They have a lot to gain..
Less foreign energy dependency to start with.
If you ignore wind power then the measures are quite sensible.
Everyone benefits from better insulation, etc.
Andrew Gabriel
It's an interesting question, and there are lots of possible
answers. One of my colleagues believes firmly that it's part of
a government ploy to keep everyone frightened, because this
allows them to easily impose regulations and taxs which would
otherwise be unacceptable. I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy
theories when plain incompitence provides an adequate explanation,
and I think plain incompitence (from the government's perspective)
probably does cover this one. Ministers (and MPs in general) are
not scientists (even at an amateur level) and don't know how to
assess conflicting information from different sources.
Furthermore, the public is currently whipped up into a carbon
frenzy, and any politician expressing any even slightly less
100% commitment to man-made global warming is getting much the
same stigma attached as if they admitted they're a peodophile.
There won't be any sensible debate whilst that sort of situation
persists, combined with the bad science. However, lots of people
will make lots of money from the situation.
Tim W
wibbled on Monday 23 November 2009 12:30
> Furthermore, the public is currently whipped up into a carbon
> frenzy, and any politician expressing any even slightly less
> 100% commitment to man-made global warming is getting much the
> same stigma attached as if they admitted they're a peodophile.
> There won't be any sensible debate whilst that sort of situation
> persists, combined with the bad science. However, lots of people
> will make lots of money from the situation.
>
It has been my observation that we are in a new witch finder age.
No one questions the Witch Finder General, even if he is talking bollocks
and using bad science lest one draw attention and be labelled a witch.
The only saving grace is that they aren't burning dissidents like me (yet).
terry
> Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk>
> wibbled on Monday 23 November 2009 12:30
>
> > Furthermore, the public is currently whipped up into a carbon
> > frenzy, and any politician expressing any even slightly less
> > 100% commitment to man-made global warming is getting much the
> > There won't be any sensible debate whilst that sort of situation
> > persists, combined with the bad science. However, lots of people
> > will make lots of money from the situation.
>
> It has been my observation that we are in a new witch finder age.
>
> No one questions the Witch Finder General, even if he is talking bollocks
> and using bad science lest one draw attention and be labelled a witch.
>
> The only saving grace is that they aren't burning dissidents like me (yet).
>
> --
> Tim Watts
>
> This space intentionally left blank...
Plant trees.
I completed one of those 'What is your carbon footprint?' surveys and
then noticed it made no allowance for trees or other offsetting
measures. Also that here almost 100% of electrcity is generated
without use of fossil fuels such as gas, oil OR god forbid 'coal'!
Since 19070 we have planted and successfully grown some 70 trees on
this half acre that contains two homes. Some of those are 30+ feet
high.
Richard Russell
> It's an interesting question, and there are lots of possible
> I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories when plain
> incompitence provides an adequate explanation
This is surely a case where the simplest explanation is the right one:
man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon. No need for either
conspiracy theories or incompetence!
The really interesting question (to me) is why a disproportionate
number of contributors to uk.diy seem to veer towards the opposite
point of view. Maybe it indicates a rebellious nature; I don't know.
Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
Donwill
> On 23 Nov, 12:30, and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
>
>> It's an interesting question, and there are lots of possible
>> answers.....
>> I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories when plain
>> incompitence provides an adequate explanation
>>
>
> This is surely a case where the simplest explanation is the right one:
> man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon. No need for either
> conspiracy theories or incompetence!
>
never worked in a Scientific research establishment for half your life.
> The really interesting question (to me) is why a disproportionate
> number of contributors to uk.diy seem to veer towards the opposite
> point of view. Maybe it indicates a rebellious nature; I don't know.
>
practical people who struggle with solving real problems, this brings an
honesty of purpose sadly lacking in the chattering classes. These
engineers et al, do not fall for bullshit readily they always look at a
problem from all directions not the narrow pseudo political viewpoint of
the sheep.
Don
David Paste
> This is surely a case where the simplest explanation is the right one:
> man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon.
Prove it. You see, this is the crux of the matter - can we prove it?
It looks unlikely that anyone can prove this idea. Convincingly, I
mean.
> The really interesting question (to me) is why a disproportionate
> number of contributors to uk.diy seem to veer towards the opposite
> point of view. Maybe it indicates a rebellious nature; I don't know.
Many people find the idea of carbon dioxide as a nasty killer gas
laughable due to the evidence that... it generally isn't. It has been
a long, long time since the earth's atmosphere had enough CO2 to be
lethal. You'll find very few botanists and geologists who are
concerned about elevated levels of CO2.
Getting the world worked up over CO2 is like getting an obese person
worked up over their excessive perspiration. It's irrelevant. It
detracts from the far more /provable/ notions that we should be
cleaning up after ourselves much more than we do in general, and not
be so wasteful with resources (and eat less cake & take more
exercise!). This doesn't mean that we need to model ourselves on
Edmund Blackadder's puritan relations, but there is much scope out
there for us to become more energy efficient.
No matter how this debacle involving the UEA turns out, it ultimately
serves to tarnish science — real science — in the eye of the layman.
This is the real tragedy of it all.
Andy Champ
>
> The really interesting question (to me) is why a disproportionate
> number of contributors to uk.diy seem to veer towards the opposite
> point of view. Maybe it indicates a rebellious nature; I don't know.
>
a waste of time and money (and landscapes and energy) than think that
global warming is a myth. It's certainly my view: we must go nuclear
because nothing else can provide the energy density we have become used to.
Andy
Richard Russell
> Obviously you've never heard of negative feedback, and presumably have
> never worked in a Scientific research establishment for half your life.
Oh, really? http://tinyurl.com/2ojlkx
Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.
Bob Eager
The Medway Handyman
> On 23 Nov, 12:30, and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
>> It's an interesting question, and there are lots of possible
>> answers.....
>> I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories when plain
>> incompitence provides an adequate explanation
>
> This is surely a case where the simplest explanation is the right one:
> man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon. No need for either
> conspiracy theories or incompetence!
There are several black swans. Why did the Thames regularly freeze over
being my personal favourite.
If man made global warming is causing climate change, how would one explain
that?
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
The Medway Handyman
Indeed. The environment is now an industry. Every major company, govmint
department, quango, local authority simply has to have an 'environmental'
manager or department or face huge critisism from the green pressure groups
and in turn the media.
And we are also breeding new generations of environmental 'professionals'.
Look at the courses offered by Universities. Heaven knows where we will
find engineers or scientists in the future.
Politicians, as ever, are only driven by self interest and in any case have
little ability to make scientific decisions. None are intelligent or brave
enough to do anything other than ride the popular wave.
Foil hats on lads.
John Rumm
> On 23 Nov, 12:30, and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
>> It's an interesting question, and there are lots of possible
>> answers.....
>> I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories when plain
>> incompitence provides an adequate explanation
>
> This is surely a case where the simplest explanation is the right one:
> man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon. No need for either
> conspiracy theories or incompetence!
You seem to have missed the question. It was not "is global warming real
or otherwise", but why is (a proportion of) the scientific community
seemingly intent manipulating data to match predictions, and seeking to
suppress publication of contrary views. Also why is government
apparently complicit in this act.
This may simply be a case of Turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas,
or as other have said it may suit government to keep minds focussed on a
bogy man as a way of diverting attention from other areas they would
rather avoid scrutiny of.
I had to smile at some of the cretins they interviewed on the news the
other night - were getting out of their pram about how bad it was
someone "stole" these data and emails etc, as if it was in some way
depriving the scientists the information they need to do their job.
(when obviously all that happened was someone copied some of the data
and made it public (well done those people!)).
> The really interesting question (to me) is why a disproportionate
> number of contributors to uk.diy seem to veer towards the opposite
> point of view. Maybe it indicates a rebellious nature; I don't know.
I am not sure many of us are of the opposite view on the fundamentals -
is climate change happening? Yup, looks like it. Is it man made? - yup
some of it at least. Where we probably differ is how important we feel
this is, and more significantly how we feel one should react to this.
I freely admit that I actually favour Lord Lawson's more balanced
reaction to these things. He may or may not be a climate change sceptic
- but that is a separate issue from how one goes about dealing with
and reacting to the change. It is here that many observers seem to be
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
dennis@home
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:b6GdndZRFOg-gZbW...@brightview.co.uk...
> You seem to have missed the question. It was not "is global warming real
> or otherwise", but why is (a proportion of) the scientific community
> seemingly intent manipulating data to match predictions, and seeking to
> suppress publication of contrary views. Also why is government apparently
> complicit in this act.
Money..
there is money in climate change..
there isn't money in there is no climate change.
The Natural Philosopher
completeley convinvced that its largely man made, and totally
unconvinced that any politician or marketing man's alleged efforts to
make a difference are as effective as pissing on my shoes to save on
boot polish.
I am an engineer.
I moved from 2 feet below sea level to 300 ft above it, ten years ago.
The Natural Philosopher
same as a volcano. First effects, global cooling due to ash dirt and
shit in the air. Second effect, global warming on a massive scale as teh
ash comes out, and the CO2 stays in.
Volcanoes are natures farts of CO2. the perspiration is methane in the
(no longer) permafrost.....
Nige Danton
"Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers
at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the
university's Climatic Research Unit."
--
Nige Danton
Roger Chapman
The trouble with Lawson is that he is a politician who thinks science
works the same way as politics - if he shouts long enough and loud
enough the lies he tells will automatically become truth. Organising the
deniers with a prestigious front body dedicated to denying is not
actually going to change anything physically. Likewise funding research
aimed at proving the world hasn't been warming these last 10 years is
doomed to failure, unless of course the current figures that show it has
warmed really have been faked. But they are precisely the figures he
uses to argue the world hasn't continued to warm so, as far as climate
change at least is concerned, Lawson is just another charlatan who
concentrates on the El Nino anomaly of 1998 to the exclusion of all else.
Just look at the quote below from Lawson's article. He is apparently
uncertain that there will be a net disadvantage from a warmer world. So
what about the certain rise in sea level that will wipe out huge areas
of low lying land, currently home to many millions and the location of
most of the major cities of the world including London? Where will they
all move to when increased desertification is also on the cards? Siberia?
"For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if
there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the
economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation."
dennis@home
"Roger Chapman" <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lrmdnW_LDKOUBJbW...@bt.com...
Who cares what Lawson says?
The facts are that GW is based on a few mathematical models that have failed
to get at least the last decade right.
Any attempt to correct the models that doesn't show increased GW as fact is
thrown away.
They have tried to hide the fact that the models have failed.
Why should any other scientist believe what they say?
Roger Chapman
> Who cares what Lawson says?
The Torygraph readers for a start.
> The facts are that GW is based on a few mathematical models that have
> failed to get at least the last decade right.
> Any attempt to correct the models that doesn't show increased GW as fact
> is thrown away.
Global warming would appear to be establish fact. You can argue if you
like whether the rise over the 2nd half of the last century was, as
Lawson claimed, about 0.5C or somewhat higher or lower, but rise there was.
> They have tried to hide the fact that the models have failed.
> Why should any other scientist believe what they say?
Models are based on past observations to predict future events. They may
not have got every facet right yet but they have a much better chance of
predicting the future than the crystal balls used by the likes of the
Lawsons.
One of the major influences on annual temperatures has very little if
anything to do with external factors such as radiation from the Sun or
even Cosmic Rays. That is the so called oscillations in sea surface
temperature.
The seas cover some three fifths of the surface of the world and any
changes in the surface temperature of the sea has a significant effect
of the temperature of the atmosphere above. But alter the circulation
patterns for any reason and the surface temperature of the sea can
change while the heat content of the oceans remains constant and the
reverse is also true, albeit much less likely.
The at present better known oscillation is the ENSO (El Nino Southern
Oscillation) which has a relatively short period and was (allegedly)
responsible both for the exceptionally high average temperature of 1998
and the exceptionally low average temperature of 2008. Take that
influence out of the equation and you are still left with a slight
increase in temperature:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf
Some idea of the complexity of modern modelling can be gauged from the
size of the squares on plot (c) where the trends are well out of line
with predictions.
Those (or at least most of them) who are predicting either a slowdown in
GW or a spell of global cooling seem to be basing their predictions on
the effect of the PDO (Pacific decadal Oscillation) which has supposedly
entered its cool phase, which as the name suggests is likely to continue
for some considerable time.
news0...@moo.uklinux.net
> On 23 Nov, 17:31, Richard Russell <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
> > This is surely a case where the simplest explanation is the right one:
> > man-made global warming is a genuine phenomenon.
> Prove it. You see, this is the crux of the matter - can we prove it?
> It looks unlikely that anyone can prove this idea. Convincingly, I
> mean.
I think the crux has little to do with some kind of absolutist proof,
which is going to be pretty tricky to manage in the field of climate
science. Put away your straw man, and try these for size instead:
(a) "balance of probabilities"
(b) "insurance policy"
and then
(c) Who is least untrustworthy? Who is least ignorant? Pick one of
Scientists, Politicians, Industrial interests,
or some random bloke/blokette off the internet?
#Paul
David Paste
> I think the crux has little to do with some kind of absolutist proof,
> which is going to be pretty tricky to manage in the field of climate
> science. Put away your straw man, and try these for size instead:
>
> (a) "balance of probabilities"
>
> (b) "insurance policy"
>
> and then
>
> (c) Who is least untrustworthy? Who is least ignorant? Pick one of
> Scientists, Politicians, Industrial interests,
> or some random bloke/blokette off the internet?
>
> #Paul
I don't know why you raise the idea I was trying to build a straw man
- this smacks of you actually having an agenda to push. I am not
asking for absolute proof of anything, rather the somewhat ludicrous
idea that people would sit down and examine evidence - all that is
available - and ask more questions about their own behaviour.
I not bothered either way about CO2 & 'global warming'. What I am
bothered about is human society as a whole being cleaner in all
aspects of their industrial endeavour.
So:
A. Balance of probabilities - there's too many people on the planet
for the current methods used to provide them with convenient energy.
B. Insurance Policy - Nonsense. This is a straw man. It's equivalent
to 'the precautionary principle', another self-defeating idea which
relies on a static set of assumptions and doesn't allow for the
dynamic nature of science. And nature.
C. Who is least untrustworthy? Ha! The million dollar question. You
pays your money, you takes your choice!
Andrew Gabriel
Gosh - I've been on the road for the past few days, and only now
catching up with what's been going on in the wider world. That's
one hell of a story.
Something I did hear on the radio at the beginning of the week
is that the proportion of people who no longer believe in man-
made global warming is increasing rapidly, and is now over 50%.
(I think that was before those emails were known about, at least,
before I knew about them.)
Roger Chapman
> In article <a8a23839-0de4-453f...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Nige Danton <nige....@gmail.com> writes:
>> From the Telegraph:
>>
>> "Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers
>> at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the
>> university's Climatic Research Unit."
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
>
> Gosh - I've been on the road for the past few days, and only now
> catching up with what's been going on in the wider world. That's
> one hell of a story.
I tend to take newspaper reports with a pinch of salt (even when they
tend to agree with my prejudices). Quotes out of context can be very
misleading particularly if the quoter has an explanation but fails to
divulge the detail (as in the first item).
To take one of the less contentious items:
"From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research).
To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming
sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over
the past 10 years"
The Torygraph response is deliberate misinterpretation. Trenberth refers
to 'lack of warming', not complete lack of warming. The Met Office
figures show that warming continues albeit at a reduced rate. (And that
is evidence however you rate its accuracy). It continues even if you
expand the period to 11 years to take in the deniers holy grail, the so
far peak year of 1998. What bothers those who support the notion of GW
is that they don't have an adequate explanation for the reduction in
rate of increase other than the PDO which doesn't fully explain it.
> Something I did hear on the radio at the beginning of the week
> is that the proportion of people who no longer believe in man-
> made global warming is increasing rapidly, and is now over 50%.
> (I think that was before those emails were known about, at least,
> before I knew about them.)
Shows how religious fervour is far more effective at influencing opinion
than scientific fact. Liked it or lump it main stream science is firmly
in the GW camp.
The Met Office (short item in yesterday's Independent) is apparently
forecasting a return to a higher rate of increase for the next 10 years
with the likely prospect of 2010 being warmer than 1998. If the Met
Office is correct this will destroy a main element of the deniers
charter - that average temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been going
downhill ever since.
The Natural Philosopher
northern hemisphere.
However, what people believe doesn't affect physics (much)
The game has already shifted from 'how can we stop climate change' to
'how do we cope with climate change'
Viz cockermouth type floods being a once every year event in the UK
these days.
And the UK wine grape harvest getting better every year too.
Nige Danton
> Something I did hear on the radio at the beginning of the week
> is that the proportion of people who no longer believe in man-
> made global warming is increasing rapidly, and is now over 50%.
> (I think that was before those emails were known about, at least,
> before I knew about them.)
I just wish I knew what to believe. It's all so muddied now I find it next to
impossible to formulate any conclusion either way. It's the apparent absence
of any real peer reviewed supporting data that causes me the most frustration.
It all feels distinctly odd.
Here's another article in the Telegraph for those that missed it:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-fi
nal-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
--
Nige Danton
email: swop the obvious for g_m_a_i_l
Roger Chapman
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> In article
> <a8a23839-0de4-453f...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>> Something I did hear on the radio at the beginning of the week
>> is that the proportion of people who no longer believe in man-
>> made global warming is increasing rapidly, and is now over 50%.
>> (I think that was before those emails were known about, at least,
>> before I knew about them.)
>
> I just wish I knew what to believe. It's all so muddied now I find it next to
> impossible to formulate any conclusion either way. It's the apparent absence
> of any real peer reviewed supporting data that causes me the most frustration.
> It all feels distinctly odd.
The sceptics have a lot of money behind them so it is not surprising
that they get a lot more publicity than some of their wild claims
deserve. Too many commercial interests have too much to lose to simply
accept that CO2 is a major issue for climate change.
I was, like a lot of others, initially very sceptical myself but I have
gradually come off the fence because the sceptics case is based far too
much on downright dishonesty.
Delingpole claims "The world is currently cooling" but is it? Where is
his evidence. He attempts to discredit the Met Office figures which show
it isn't but hasn't anything to put in their place. No doubt if the Met
Office's latest predictions of an increase in the rate of GW over the
next decade proves anywhere near accurate we can expect more claims
about falsified data.
>
> Here's another article in the Telegraph for those that missed it:
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-fi
> nal-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>
There are undoubtedly nut cases on both sides of the divide and
Delingpole is well up there among the zealot deniers.
As before there is a quote about that strange item about adding in 'real
temperatures':
"Manipulation of evidence:
I�ve just completed Mike�s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961
for Keith�s to hide the decline."
Taking out real temperatures would flag up all sorts of alarms but
adding them in? Can anyone explain the context?
Stewart
perhaps tending more to events being natural rather than man made.
Whatever, we do know that fossil fuels are limited so if we can reduce our
dependance on these then that is a good thing.
"Nige Danton" <nige....@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004794...@nigel-dantons-macbook-2.unknown.dom...
Dave Liquorice
> Whatever, we do know that fossil fuels are limited so if we can reduce
> our dependance on these then that is a good thing.
That is the crux of the matter, we must wean ourselves off the
limited fossil energy supply. If we don't when (not if) the crash
comes it will be very fast and very hard. Ther probably still will be
some form of crash but we can possibly take the edge of it by moving
to more sustainable form of energy.
--
Cheers
Dave.
geoff
writes
>I have great respect for David Bellamy,
Is that the same beardie who, when the evidence indicated otherwise, was
saying that worldwide, glaciers were growing, not receding ?
Bet he understood about not top posting in newsgroups though
>he is still sitting on the fence and
>perhaps tending more to events being natural rather than man made.
>Whatever, we do know that fossil fuels are limited so if we can reduce our
>dependance on these then that is a good thing.
>
--
geoff
news0...@moo.uklinux.net
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:50:06 -0000, Stewart wrote:
> > Whatever, we do know that fossil fuels are limited so if we can reduce
> > our dependance on these then that is a good thing.
> That is the crux of the matter, we must wean ourselves off the
> limited fossil energy supply.
Sometimes this sort of thing reminds of the fall of Olaf Stapleton's
First Men. They were quite keen on fossil powered flight too.
#Paul
news0...@moo.uklinux.net
> I just wish I knew what to believe. It's all so muddied now I find it next to
> impossible to formulate any conclusion either way. It's the apparent absence
> of any real peer reviewed supporting data that causes me the most frustration.
> It all feels distinctly odd.
I doubt there's an absence of peer-reviewed science. It's just in
the scientific literature, which is rarely open access. And although
I feel that open access is undoubtedly a good thing, it's not clear
to me that reading the scientific literature will actually help the
average person much -- probably better that than the pre-spun media
reportage, mind.
#Paul
Andrew Gabriel
and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:
> In article <a8a23839-0de4-453f...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Nige Danton <nige....@gmail.com> writes:
>> From the Telegraph:
>>
>> "Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers
>> at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the
>> university's Climatic Research Unit."
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
>
> Gosh - I've been on the road for the past few days, and only now
> catching up with what's been going on in the wider world. That's
> one hell of a story.
Well, for some reason, I found myself browsing some of the emails
at http://www.junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/ this evening.
I have to say how gobsmacked I am at the behaviour of the researchers;
it's unbelievably unprofessional, and not at all what should be going
on in a research establishment which is genuinely trying to make
discoveries. However it very well fits what you might expect from
a team trying to make dramatic claims (to keep funding coming,
although I didn't see anything mentioning that).
There are emails discussing how they can hide the fact that there
isn't any global warming and their models aren't fitting reality.
Something else I saw in the emails which I hadn't previously heard
about is that the research team "lost" the original data which they
used to generate their results, so they then couldn't supply the
original data to other groups who wanted to peer review the research.
This team was a key contributor to the IPCC, and I can't see any
way in which they aren't now completely discredited. I think this
leak will have much larger implications than we've seen so far, as
the contents of it are analysed in more detail.
Tim W
wibbled on Thursday 03 December 2009 22:54
> Something else I saw in the emails which I hadn't previously heard
> about is that the research team "lost" the original data which they
> used to generate their results, so they then couldn't supply the
> original data to other groups who wanted to peer review the research.
Worked for Millikan...
--
Tim Watts
This space intentionally left blank...
Roger Chapman
snip
>
> Well, for some reason, I found myself browsing some of the emails
> at http://www.junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/ this evening.
> I have to say how gobsmacked I am at the behaviour of the researchers;
> it's unbelievably unprofessional, and not at all what should be going
> on in a research establishment which is genuinely trying to make
> discoveries. However it very well fits what you might expect from
> a team trying to make dramatic claims (to keep funding coming,
> although I didn't see anything mentioning that).
>
> There are emails discussing how they can hide the fact that there
> isn't any global warming and their models aren't fitting reality.
There is a lot of stuff to wade through so why not quote a few of the
e-mails you think are evidence for your claims.
I only read the first few items but FWIW anyone who calls Piers Corbyn
and utter pratt is more likely to get my support than anyone who
believes his predictions.
> Something else I saw in the emails which I hadn't previously heard
> about is that the research team "lost" the original data which they
> used to generate their results, so they then couldn't supply the
> original data to other groups who wanted to peer review the research.
That is a major accusation against a team who claim most of their data
is freely available and that which isn't is because the originators have
not given permission to publish.
> This team was a key contributor to the IPCC, and I can't see any
> way in which they aren't now completely discredited. I think this
> leak will have much larger implications than we've seen so far, as
> the contents of it are analysed in more detail.
Andrew can live in hope but my bet is that they will come out of any
review relatively untarnished unlike the charlatans who have taken
everything out of context in order to build a fictitious case.
The 'adding in the real temperatures' seems to be the major item they
are trying to smear with. So another bet. I bet Andrew hasn't bothered
to follow up the link I gave which explains what was actually meant.
>
Andrew Gabriel
Roger Chapman <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>> Well, for some reason, I found myself browsing some of the emails
>> at http://www.junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/ this evening.
>> I have to say how gobsmacked I am at the behaviour of the researchers;
>> it's unbelievably unprofessional, and not at all what should be going
>> on in a research establishment which is genuinely trying to make
>> discoveries. However it very well fits what you might expect from
>> a team trying to make dramatic claims (to keep funding coming,
>> although I didn't see anything mentioning that).
>>
>> There are emails discussing how they can hide the fact that there
>> isn't any global warming and their models aren't fitting reality.
>
> There is a lot of stuff to wade through so why not quote a few of the
> e-mails you think are evidence for your claims.
I clicked on probably about 20, a few near the beginning, and then
lept forward. I'll have to see if my browser can remember which ones.
However, probably about 2/3rds of the ones I clicked on were rather
alarming - I didn't need to search hard at all. Don't know if someone
already filtered to get just these - they seemed to be sequences of
mail threads and not just isolated messages.
> I only read the first few items but FWIW anyone who calls Piers Corbyn
> and utter pratt is more likely to get my support than anyone who
> believes his predictions.
Since I've never heard of him, I was unlikely to refer to him.
>> Something else I saw in the emails which I hadn't previously heard
>> about is that the research team "lost" the original data which they
>> used to generate their results, so they then couldn't supply the
>> original data to other groups who wanted to peer review the research.
>
> That is a major accusation against a team who claim most of their data
> is freely available and that which isn't is because the originators have
> not given permission to publish.
>
>> This team was a key contributor to the IPCC, and I can't see any
>> way in which they aren't now completely discredited. I think this
>> leak will have much larger implications than we've seen so far, as
>> the contents of it are analysed in more detail.
>
> Andrew can live in hope but my bet is that they will come out of any
> review relatively untarnished unlike the charlatans who have taken
> everything out of context in order to build a fictitious case.
I see the UN is now launching it's own enquiry too.
I think any enquiry will need someone reasonably well known, and
recognised as thoroughly trustworthy by the public, like Richard
Feynman (known to every Physics student for decades because of his
Lecture books, and latterly his role in the Challeger Enquiry).
I'm stuggling to think of someone who might fill that role today.
Roger Chapman
snip
>> I only read the first few items but FWIW anyone who calls Piers Corbyn
>> and utter pratt is more likely to get my support than anyone who
>> believes his predictions.
>
> Since I've never heard of him, I was unlikely to refer to him.
I mentioned him because he was called an utter prat in one of the first
few items I read. He is an extreme denier and his rantings can be found at:
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact10&fsize=0
just a snippet of which is quoted below.
"3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is
over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver
of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the
relationship is more the other way around:-
a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when
the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on
temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data
which the 'Global Warmers' refuse to properly consider.
b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years
while CO2 is rising rapidly.
c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000 years
ago to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed Greenland
is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), there was LESS ice
in the Arctic and there was notably LESS CO2 than now.
The UN Climate Committee - the IPCC - is deliberately ignoring or
covering-up these facts which show in official data."
>>> Something else I saw in the emails which I hadn't previously heard
>>> about is that the research team "lost" the original data which they
>>> used to generate their results, so they then couldn't supply the
>>> original data to other groups who wanted to peer review the research.
>> That is a major accusation against a team who claim most of their data
>> is freely available and that which isn't is because the originators have
>> not given permission to publish.
>>
>>> This team was a key contributor to the IPCC, and I can't see any
>>> way in which they aren't now completely discredited. I think this
>>> leak will have much larger implications than we've seen so far, as
>>> the contents of it are analysed in more detail.
>> Andrew can live in hope but my bet is that they will come out of any
>> review relatively untarnished unlike the charlatans who have taken
>> everything out of context in order to build a fictitious case.
>
> I see the UN is now launching it's own enquiry too.
>
> I think any enquiry will need someone reasonably well known, and
> recognised as thoroughly trustworthy by the public, like Richard
> Feynman (known to every Physics student for decades because of his
> Lecture books, and latterly his role in the Challeger Enquiry).
> I'm stuggling to think of someone who might fill that role today.
>
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Since the charge is that the
data have been falsified then they need to be compared with the 2 other
independent temperature series that are supposedly in broad agreement to
see where they diverge and then investigate why if the deviation is
significant.
Meanwhile I wait to hear which e-mails Andrew found alarming.
geoff
<t...@dionic.net> writes
>Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk>
> wibbled on Thursday 03 December 2009 22:54
>
>
>> Something else I saw in the emails which I hadn't previously heard
>> about is that the research team "lost" the original data which they
>> used to generate their results, so they then couldn't supply the
>> original data to other groups who wanted to peer review the research.
>
>Worked for Millikan...
>
--
geoff
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Roger Chapman
<ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> saying something like:
>c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000 years
>ago to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed Greenland
>is so named because it was warmer in Viking times),
Interestingly (or not) I recall a tale about how the Vikings spun a web
of lies about Greenland in order to encourage settlers. One of them
being about how green it was...
Of course, there's another explanation - that 'Greenland' is a
corruption of some old Norse phrase meaning 'shithole'.
Tim W
wibbled on Saturday 05 December 2009 01:54
> Interestingly (or not) I recall a tale about how the Vikings spun a web
> of lies about Greenland in order to encourage settlers. One of them
> being about how green it was...
Ah, the original politician.
> Of course, there's another explanation - that 'Greenland' is a
> corruption of some old Norse phrase meaning 'shithole'.
--
Roger Chapman
That's the way I remember it as well.
While looking at that e-mail dump that Andrew referred to I came across
a draft article on tree ring data that seemed to suggest that the
Medieval Warm Period was a European event rather than global. IIRC the
item said something to the effect that the MWP hadn't crossed the Urals.
Andrew Gabriel
Roger Chapman <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> Meanwhile I wait to hear which e-mails Andrew found alarming.
Sorry, with a bit of random probing I couldn't find them again.
However, there was a programme on Radio4 yesterday which went
into much more detail about the raw data they destroyed than
I saw in the email. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p6t26
The excuse they've since given is that they didn't have space
to store the data, but the programme cast serious doubt on the
validity of that claim.
Apparently, the information commissioner is now investigating
too with a view to possible prosecution, because of the clear
attempt to destroy data just to thwart the FOI Act, which is
of course an offence in itself.