Another attack on the veracity of global warming...
Ret.
has now become the producer and purveyor of endless propaganda on climate
change. Its latest production is an expensive, glossy, 20-page pamphlet. It
is packed with highly controversial and disputed assertions that are
delivered with the authority of a government agency as if they were
unarguable fact.
There is no room for doubt, for instance, in the assertion that humans are
causing climate change.
'Human activities like burning coal, oil and gas have led to...extra
warming. As a result, over the past century there has been an underlying
increase in average temperatures which is continuing.'
Yet no discernible warming has been recorded since 1998.
Indeed, it has snowed in the UK for the past three years, famously last
October as MPs were voting through the Climate Change Bill. Each winter has
been harsher than the last, and many independent meteorologists, including
Joe Bastardi, believe the Earth has entered a cooling cycle.
What was once a highly respected organisation risks becoming a laughing
stock in the weather community and a danger to the rest of us.
Farmers who rely on the Met Office risk their animals dying and their crops
being destroyed. Local authorities, who ran down their grit stocks because
the Met Office said it would be mild, are putting the lives of motorists and
pedestrians at risk. Airlines, unprepared for the snow, have lost millions
of pounds, while the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of people have
been disrupted.
The Met Office seems to have forgotten what it was set up for - to predict
weather day by day. Instead, it is devoting it energies to the fantasy that
it can predict climate decades ahead when it cannot even tell you whether it
is going to snow next week, or whether we might have a barbecue summer.
Big Les Wade
>Indeed, it has snowed in the UK for the past three years,
What does that prove? We nearly always get *some* snow.
>famously last October as MPs were voting through the Climate Change
>Bill.
I don't remember it snowing here in October.
>Each winter has been harsher than the last,
I don't think so.
>The Met Office seems to have forgotten what it was set up for - to
>predict weather day by day. Instead, it is devoting it energies to the
>fantasy that it can predict climate decades ahead when it cannot even
>tell you whether it is going to snow next week, or whether we might
>have a barbecue summer.
Illiterate nonsense. It is often possible to make firm predictions about
events far ahead while not being able to predict them in a shorter
timeframe. For example I can tell you quite certainly that the weather
in London on June 21st will be warmer than tomorrow's. I'll bet you a
thousand pounds that it will be.
There are many good reasons to doubt the received wisdom on MMGW, but
ignorant ranting of this sort isn't one of them.
>Read more:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercompute
>r-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html#ixzz0bXLEKe>OM
>
I bet he has an arts degree.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
martin
I think you're right.
"This is our own famous Met Office, which last September confidently
predicted a warmer than average winter for Britain. Tell that to
Eurostar passengers stuck in the Channel Tunnel for 18 hours before
Christmas, the breakdown of their trains blamed on the coldest weather
for 15 years."
I thought it was blamed on unusualy powdery snow getting past the
stsandard snow filters fitted for winter running.
Graham Murray
> "This is our own famous Met Office, which last September confidently
> predicted a warmer than average winter for Britain. Tell that to
> Eurostar passengers stuck in the Channel Tunnel for 18 hours before
> Christmas, the breakdown of their trains blamed on the coldest weather
> for 15 years."
The winter is nowhere near over yet. So, it is still possible that when
spring starts that this winter will be found to be warmer than average.
Ret.
Either way - the Met office *did* predict a warmer than average winter this
year - and yet again they were hoplessly wrong. As, I believe, they are
about global warming.
Once this cooler weather continues for a few years there are going to be an
awful lot of supposed eminent climatologists left with egg on their faces.
Kev
Kev
martin
Winter is only 2 weeks old! How the hell do you know they are hopelessly
wrong?
> As, I believe, they
> are about global warming.
Your scientific credentials would be?
Phil Stovell
down to us, which seems a bit arrogant. The climate of the planet does
change, 400 years ago there was a mini-ice age.
I wonder if the Sun is a long-period variable, of around 1000+ years. I
recall reading reports that the other planets are also warming up (BICBW).
If it is a LPV, it will start cooling down after the maximum is reached,
whenever that is.
However, it could still have a catastrophic effect on us so we MUST
consider the worst possible scenario, that it IS us, and act accordingly,
before it is too late.
Phil Stovell
> Either way - the Met office *did* predict a warmer than average winter
> this year - and yet again they were hoplessly wrong. As, I believe, they
> are about global warming.
Rubbish, Kev. The weather is a chaotic system and is nearly impossible to
predict long term with any accuracy. If a butterfly flaps it's wings ....
Ret.
Have a read of this:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
January 1, 2010 Posted by John at 7:34 PM
The whistleblower at the University of East Anglia who leaked emails and
other documents that
reveal the fraud that is being perpetrated by the world's leading global
warming alarmists did us
all a great service. But it is important to realize that the deception
didn't just begin: rather,
the global warming hysteria movement has been shot through with fraud from
the start.
The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global
warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second
Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United
Nations in 1996. This report was the principal basis for the Kyoto Accord
which was signed in 1997, and for the nonsense that has been inflicted on
the world's elementary school students ever since.
But the Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who
re-wrote key conclusions and injected a level of alarmism that had not been
present in the consensus document. You can get the whole story here, along
with a great deal more information about the global warming controversy. The
Science and Environmental Project summarized what happened as follows:
IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers
(SPM), are noted for
their selective use of information and their bias to support the political
goal of control of
fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming
(AGW).
Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR),
completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable
phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate." You may recall that this 1996 IPCC report played a key role
in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both
human and natural
influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and
carefully weighing
their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened. The IPCC has
consistently ignored the major natural influences on climate change and has
focused almost entirely on human causes, especially on GH gases and more
especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to industrial activities and
therefore 'bad' almost by definition.
How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at "balance of evidence"? It was the work
of a
then-relatively-junior scientist, Dr Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as a major actor in
ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead Author of a crucial IPCC chapter, Santer
carefully removed any verbiage denying that human influences might be the
major or almost exclusive cause of warming and substituted new language.
There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC authors,
nor do we know who instructed him to make these changes and later approved
the text deletions and insertions that fundamentally transformed IPCC-SAR.
The event is described by Nature [381(1006):539] and in a 1996 WSJ article
by the late Professor Frederick Seitz (See also my Science Editorial #2-09).
Seitz compared the draft of IPCC Chapter 8 (Detection and Attribution) and
the final printed text. He noted that, before printing, key phrases had been
deleted from the draft that had earlier been approved by its several
scientist-authors.
This is from Professor Seitz's 1996 Wall Street Journal article:
This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely
because it has been
peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved
by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their
reputations on the line. But this report is not what
it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the
contributing scientists listed on
the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American
scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and
the published version reveals that key changes were made after the
scientists had met and accepted what they thought wasthe final peer-reviewed
version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC
Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions.
Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after
it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full
IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in
Madrid last November;
the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15
sections in Chapter 8 of
the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and
against a human influence
over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with
examining this question had
accepted the supposedly final text. Few of these changes were merely
cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which
many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major
impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report
but deleted from the
supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed
[climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has
positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date]
to anthropogenic
[man-made] causes." "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate
change are likely to
remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of
the climate system are
reduced."
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and
the IPCC honest. I am
in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the
report's lead author,
Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon
taxes and restraints
on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive
impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who
made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and
the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human
activities are causing global warming.
Fred Singer, in the SEPP editorial quoted above, continues:
[I]n addition to these text changes there are also two key graphs that
were doctored in order to
convey the impression that anthropogenic influences are dominant. Again, my
Hoover essay gives the details.
1. According to all climate models, [greenhouse] warming shows a
characteristic 'fingerprint': a
'hot spot' in temperature trend values in the tropical upper troposphere.
Michaels and
Knappenberger [Nature 384 (1996):522-523] discovered that the IPCC's claimed
agreement with observations was spurious and obtained by selecting a
convenient segment of the radiosonde
temperature data and ignoring the rest.
2. Santer also claimed that the modeled and observed patterns of
geographic surface temperatures were correlated, with the correlation
coefficient increasing over time (suggesting to the reader that a growing
human component gradually emerged from background noise). I found, however,
that Santer had obtained this result by simply deleting from a published
graph all the trend lines that disagreed with his desired outcome [Eos 80
(1999):372]. In fact, the original paper had Santer himself as lead author
and did not appear in print until after the IPCC report was completed - in
contravention of IPCC rules.
It is interesting that these several documented falsifications went
largely unreported and had
little impact on scientists and politicians, who went on to support the
passage of the Kyoto
Protocol -- in spite of the absence of any scientific support.
So the Kyoto protocol was based on fictitious science, exaggerated or
fabricated outright for
political purposes. The same Professor Santer who hijacked the Second
Assessment Report figures prominently in Climategate. Many of his emails
were disclosed by the East Anglia whistleblower; among other things, they
show Santer resisting all efforts by independent scientists to obtain
information, through Freedom of Information Act requests, about the
statistical manipulations that Santer applies to raw climate data to "prove"
the existence of anthropogenic global warming.
Fraud: it is the one constant in the history of the global warming hysteria
movement.
Kev
Richard
The Met Office like the IPPCC and every other government funded
agency, is primarily concerned with the creation of positive
propaganda favourable to government.
The fact that posters on here seem to have little understanding of how
modern propaganda actually works, is perhaps reflective of the ever
increasing number of people falling within the realms of what Walter
Lippman described as the stupid majority.................
In the scheme of things it is extremely worrying that government
funded agencys, and various ridiculous pantomime inquiries into the
most serious of subjects, are afforded any sort of serious
consideration. Actually taking this nonsense to heart is perhaps
comparable to understanding that a bus was found on the surface of the
moon, and then trying to buy tickets for a ride on it.
Ret.
So if it's nearly impossible to predict long term with any accuracy - what's
all this nonsense about global warming?
Kev
Phil Stovell
Oh dear. That's long-term trends, the average temperature of the globe
over a long period. It's summer down under, I don't know if it's hotter or
colder than normal. If it's 6C hotter and we're 5C colder then, overall,
we have a temperature increase of 1C. There are other weather stations
than Northcliffe House.
> Kev
Smurf
> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> posted
>> Indeed, it has snowed in the UK for the past three years,
>
> What does that prove? We nearly always get *some* snow.
>
>> famously last October as MPs were voting through the Climate Change
>> Bill.
>
> I don't remember it snowing here in October.
>
>> Each winter has been harsher than the last,
>
> I don't think so.
>
>> The Met Office seems to have forgotten what it was set up for - to
>> predict weather day by day. Instead, it is devoting it energies to
>> the fantasy that it can predict climate decades ahead when it cannot
>> even tell you whether it is going to snow next week, or whether we
>> might have a barbecue summer.
>
> Illiterate nonsense. It is often possible to make firm predictions
> about events far ahead while not being able to predict them in a
> shorter timeframe. For example I can tell you quite certainly that
> the weather in London on June 21st will be warmer than tomorrow's.
> I'll bet you a thousand pounds that it will be.
>
> There are many good reasons to doubt the received wisdom on MMGW, but
> ignorant ranting of this sort isn't one of them.
The most important point though, is that agents of the crown, that were once
world renouned for their independence and impartiality are now caught up in
a propoganda exercise.
Smurf
Yes, and the climate is so immensely complex that no model can accurately
predict what happens when carbon in the atmosphere increases.
Smurf
> I'm certain the global warming is real, but I have doubts that it's
> all down to us, which seems a bit arrogant. The climate of the planet
> does change, 400 years ago there was a mini-ice age.
This is an absolutely fair point. Another one is, that we cant just keep
digging up carbon based fuels that have been burried for millions of years,
and release that into the atmosphere without it having some kind of impact.
Francis Burton
>This is an absolutely fair point. Another one is, that we cant just keep
>digging up carbon based fuels that have been burried for millions of years,
>and release that into the atmosphere without it having some kind of impact.
...on the buried carbon-based fuels - yes, that's for certain!
Francis
martin
> Have a read of this:
>
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
Kev, a right wing blog owned by lawyers
http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php is not the basis for evaluating
scientific evidence. Not one scientist on the About Us page.
Getting your information from right-wing newspapers and blogs is not the
way forward when it comes to critical thinking. How many papers have you
actually read in your entire life? The DM doesn't count btw - just so's
we're clear on this one ;)
How can you justify saying "Either way - the Met office *did* predict a
warmer than average winter this year - and yet again they were hoplessly
wrong."
When winter is only 2 weeks old? Don't you think that would count as
jumping the gun just a tad.
Mr. Benn
@news.zen.co.uk:
> On 03/01/2010 12:53, Ret. wrote:
>
>> Have a read of this:
>>
>> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
>
> Kev, a right wing blog owned by lawyers
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php is not the basis for evaluating
> scientific evidence. Not one scientist on the About Us page.
>
> Getting your information from right-wing newspapers and blogs is not the
> way forward when it comes to critical thinking. How many papers have you
> actually read in your entire life? The DM doesn't count btw - just so's
> we're clear on this one ;)
Anything right-wing cannot be relied upon. The Guardian on the other hand
is a totally unbiased source of news and should be used as a reference for
all issues.
<waits for laughter>
Ret.
> On 03/01/2010 12:53, Ret. wrote:
>
>> Have a read of this:
>>
>> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
>
> Kev, a right wing blog owned by lawyers
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php is not the basis for
> evaluating scientific evidence. Not one scientist on the About Us
> page.
Where the article is sourced is less important that what it says. Did you
read it? Are you claiming that it's untrue?
Kev
Ret.
I would say that most people regard Winter as starting around October. If
we had had an extremely mild winter - don't you think that the AGW fanatics
would be saying: "There you are, we told you so..."?
Of course a mild winter is proof of AGW - whereas an extremely cold one is
just a hiccup on the way to hothouse hell...
Kev
Kev
Steve Firth
Nest thing you'll ne claiming that you don't treat the Daily Mail as if
every word were true.
Steve Firth
> Anything right-wing cannot be relied upon. The Guardian on the other hand
> is a totally unbiased source of news and should be used as a reference for
> all issues.
>
> <waits for laughter>
I'll get back to you with laughter once I've finished the session on the
defibrillator.
The Teachers' Daily News has published nothing but unmitigated bollocks
since the 1970s. Once the name had changed to "The Guardian" from "The
Manchester Guardian" it started to lose credibility at an incredible
pace.
I prefer to read the Torygraph since at least the bias is clear and the
news reporting continues to be of a decent standard. Better still the
format puts the plebs off reading it.
martin
> martin wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 12:53, Ret. wrote:
>>
>>> Have a read of this:
>>>
>>> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
>>
>> Kev, a right wing blog owned by lawyers
>> http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php is not the basis for
>> evaluating scientific evidence. Not one scientist on the About Us
>> page.
>> Getting your information from right-wing newspapers and blogs is not
>> the way forward when it comes to critical thinking. How many papers
>> have you actually read in your entire life? The DM doesn't count btw
>> - just so's we're clear on this one ;)
>>
>> How can you justify saying "Either way - the Met office *did* predict
>> a warmer than average winter this year - and yet again they were
>> hoplessly wrong."
>>
>> When winter is only 2 weeks old? Don't you think that would count as
>> jumping the gun just a tad.
>
> I would say that most people regard Winter as starting around October.
When is autumn then? Last two weeks of september?
> If we had had an extremely mild winter
All two weeks of it
> - don't you think that the AGW
> fanatics would be saying: "There you are, we told you so..."?
I think you need to understand the difference between climate and weather.
martin
> martin wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 12:53, Ret. wrote:
>>
>>> Have a read of this:
>>>
>>> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
>>
>> Kev, a right wing blog owned by lawyers
>> http://www.powerlineblog.com/aboutus.php is not the basis for
>> evaluating scientific evidence. Not one scientist on the About Us
>> page.
>
> Where the article is sourced is less important that what it says.
Balderdash. It's people like you who will belive in homeopathy just
because it's published and what is says is more important than where it
is sourced from.
> Did you read it?
Yes, all I saw were unsubstantiated assertions.
> Are you claiming that it's untrue?
Without any evidence I don't know. I suspect it's all a load of rubbish
because there is no evidence given for the assertions. For example it is
stated that in Chapter 8 of the IPCC report the results were doctored.
Not one example from before/after was given.
You need to ask yourself "why not?".
> Kev
Dave Muir
This may help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
So, according to traditional reckoning, winter begins between 5 November
and 10 November, Samhain, 立冬 (lìdōng or rittou); spring between 2
February and 7 February, Imbolc, 立春 (lìchūn or rissyun); summer
between 4 May and 10 May, Beltane, 立夏 (lìxià or rikka); and autumn
between 3 August and 10 August, Lughnasadh, 立秋 (lìqiū or rissyuu). The
middle of each season is considered Mid-winter, between 20 December and
23 December, 冬至 (dōngzhì or touji); Mid-spring, between 19 March and
22 March, 春分 (chūnfēn or syunbun); Mid-summer, between 19 June and 23
June, 夏至 (xiàzhì or geshi); and Mid-autumn, between 21 September and
24 September, 秋分 (qiūfēn or syuubun).
So we are probably around 8-9 weeks into Winter according to tradition.
--
Dave
"Democracy is not Liberty. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on
what to have for supper. Liberty is an armed lamb contesting the vote."
Ret.
Certainly not two weeks!
Kev
Mr. Benn
news:1jbr3dc.1y0suy21q5h9shN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk:
I read both The Times and The Telegraph for news. Although the BBC News is
generally reliable on most issues, I treat it as a news source with
caution.
I read the Guardian only when I feel like I need some amusement. The Daily
Mash (www.thedailymash.co.uk) is also quite good if you like a laugh.
Ret.
Did you not read to the bottom:?
"The following passages are examples of those included in the approved
report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date]
to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
While eminent climatologists are still disputing the veracity of the IPCC
outpourings, then I will continue to be a sceptic.
Kev
Phil Stovell
> So, according to traditional reckoning, winter begins between 5 November
> and 10 November, Samhain, 立冬 (lìdōng or rittou); spring between 2
> February and 7 February, Imbolc, 立春 (lìchūn or rissyun); summer
> between 4 May and 10 May, Beltane, 立夏 (lìxià or rikka); and autumn
> between 3 August and 10 August, Lughnasadh, 立秋 (lìqiū or rissyuu).
> The middle of each season is considered Mid-winter, between 20 December
> and 23 December, 冬至 (dōngzhì or touji); Mid-spring, between 19
> March and 22 March, 春分 (chūnfēn or syunbun); Mid-summer, between
> 19 June and 23 June, 夏至 (xiàzhì or geshi); and Mid-autumn, between
> 21 September and 24 September, 秋分 (qiūfēn or syuubun).
Did you type that yourself?
Dave Muir
Of course not. It's just a cut and paste from the link I provided.
Wikipedia tries to be obscure in as many dialects as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
Ret.
Ah, right, *now* I understand: If we have very hot summers and very mild
winters - then that's global warming. If, on the other hand, we have
miserable summers and freezing winters - then that's just 'weather' - got
it...
Kev
Doug
> martin wrote:
> > On 03/01/2010 16:08, Ret. wrote:
> >> martin wrote:
> >>> On 03/01/2010 12:53, Ret. wrote:
>
> >>>> Have a read of this:
>
> >>>>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php
>
> >>> Kev, a right wing blog owned by lawyers
> >>> evaluating scientific evidence. Not one scientist on the About Us
> >>> page.
> >>> Getting your information from right-wing newspapers and blogs is not
> >>> the way forward when it comes to critical thinking. How many papers
> >>> have you actually read in your entire life? The DM doesn't count btw
> >>> - just so's we're clear on this one ;)
>
> >>> How can you justify saying "Either way - the Met office *did*
> >>> predict a warmer than average winter this year - and yet again they
> >>> were hoplessly wrong."
>
> >>> When winter is only 2 weeks old? Don't you think that would count as
> >>> jumping the gun just a tad.
>
> >> I would say that most people regard Winter as starting around
> >> October.
>
> > When is autumn then? Last two weeks of september?
>
> >> If we had had an extremely mild winter
>
> > All two weeks of it
>
> >> - don't you think that the AGW
> >> fanatics would be saying: "There you are, we told you so..."?
>
> > I think you need to understand the difference between climate and
> > weather.
>
> Ah, right, *now* I understand: If we have very hot summers and very mild
> winters - then that's global warming. If, on the other hand, we have
> miserable summers and freezing winters - then that's just 'weather' - got
> it...
>
for polluting?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.
Kim Bolton
martin wrote:
>For example it is
>stated that in Chapter 8 of the IPCC report the results were doctored.
>Not one example from before/after was given.
The 'doctoring' is documented, mainly in the programmer's remarks
buried in some of the code. Google for 'climategate emails'.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the CRU fought tooth and nail
to avoid releasing data or code, so it's a little hard to find the
original data when the custodians of it won't release it.
It is a generally-accepted scientific principle that if a published
paper used data and a code to process it, that is made available in
some form. That hasn't happened here.
--
from
Kim Bolton
Ophelia
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
news:3oednUyu2LN8Ed3W...@pipex.net...
> martin wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 11:03, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> posted
>>>> Indeed, it has snowed in the UK for the past three years,
>>>
>>> What does that prove? We nearly always get *some* snow.
>>>
>>>> famously last October as MPs were voting through the Climate Change
>>>> Bill.
>>>
>>> I don't remember it snowing here in October.
>>>
>>>> Each winter has been harsher than the last,
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>>> The Met Office seems to have forgotten what it was set up for - to
>>>> predict weather day by day. Instead, it is devoting it energies to
>>>> the fantasy that it can predict climate decades ahead when it
>>>> cannot even tell you whether it is going to snow next week, or
>>>> whether we might have a barbecue summer.
>>>
>>> Illiterate nonsense. It is often possible to make firm predictions
>>> about events far ahead while not being able to predict them in a
>>> shorter timeframe. For example I can tell you quite certainly that
>>> the weather in London on June 21st will be warmer than tomorrow's.
>>> I'll bet you a thousand pounds that it will be.
>>>
>>> There are many good reasons to doubt the received wisdom on MMGW, but
>>> ignorant ranting of this sort isn't one of them.
>>>
>>>> Read more:
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercompute
>>>> r-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html#ixzz0bXLEKe>OM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I bet he has an arts degree.
>>
>> I think you're right.
>>
>> "This is our own famous Met Office, which last September confidently
>> predicted a warmer than average winter for Britain. Tell that to
>> Eurostar passengers stuck in the Channel Tunnel for 18 hours before
>> Christmas, the breakdown of their trains blamed on the coldest weather
>> for 15 years."
>>
>> I thought it was blamed on unusualy powdery snow getting past the
>> stsandard snow filters fitted for winter running.
>
> Either way - the Met office *did* predict a warmer than average winter
> this year - and yet again they were hoplessly wrong. As, I believe, they
> are about global warming.
>
> Once this cooler weather continues for a few years there are going to be
> an awful lot of supposed eminent climatologists left with egg on their
> faces.
Watch what Lord Monkton has to say. He really knows his stuff
http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/label/Great%20Global%20Warming%20Racket
Mr Benn
"Dave Muir" <dm...@hotmail2.com> wrote in message
news:hhr1ka$m7u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 03/01/10 19:24, Phil Stovell wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:14:25 +0000, Dave Muir wrote:
>>
>>> So, according to traditional reckoning, winter begins between 5 November
>>> February and 7 February, Imbolc, ?? (l�chun or rissyun); summer
>>> between 4 May and 10 May, Beltane, ?? (l�xi� or rikka); and autumn
>>> between 3 August and 10 August, Lughnasadh, ?? (l�qiu or rissyuu).
>>> The middle of each season is considered Mid-winter, between 20 December
>>> March and 22 March, ?? (chunfen or syunbun); Mid-summer, between
>>> 19 June and 23 June, ?? (xi�zh� or geshi); and Mid-autumn, between
>>> 21 September and 24 September, ?? (qiufen or syuubun).
>>
>> Did you type that yourself?
>
> Of course not. It's just a cut and paste from the link I provided.
> Wikipedia tries to be obscure in as many dialects as possible.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
I think Phil was joking with you.
Dave Muir
this NG.
If I was more familiar with his posting style, I might have guessed.
Ret.
And for those who would rather read it:
Lord Monckton replies to Australia's canting, ranting Prime Minister
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
* Shortly before the Copenhagen Climate Conference, the Prime
Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, delivered a canting, 45-minute rant
about the "Denialists", "Climate Change Deniers", and "Skeptics" who, he
said, were entirely funded by special interests and who were now so
dangerous that they were putting Our Planet's Future And The Future Of
Our Children And Our Grandchildren in jeopardy. Kevin Rudd seems not to
like me very much: he mentioned me by name six times in the speech, in
generally uncomplimentary terms. I was too busy to reply to him before
Jokenhagen, but, since I shall be travelling to Australia in a couple of
weeks for a barnstorming three-week lecture-tour (watch this space for
dates and venues), I thought it was time to reply to Mr. Rudd. On New
Year's Day I sent him the following letter, but I am not holding my
breath for a reply. The unanswerable is seldom answered.
1 January 2010
The Honourable Mr. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of
Australia.
Prime Minister,
Climate change: proposed personal briefing
Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you
publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question,
has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on
tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this
month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why "global warming"
is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For
convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.
Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world
"government" in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding
Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a
"conspiracy theory" from the "far right" with "zero basis in evidence".
Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex
1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word "government" appears
twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic
countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped
before Copenhagen.
You say I am one of "those who argue that any multilateral action is by
definition evil". On the contrary: my first question is whether any
action at all is required, to which - as I shall demonstrate - the
objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral
action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West
are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori,
transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by
voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy
pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We
committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the
unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make
nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them
"Directives" or "Commission Regulations"). The Kommissars (that is the
official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless
of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or
wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.
You say I am one of "those who argue that climate change does not
represent a global market failure". Yet it is only recently that opinion
sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the
documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a
scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a "market failure".
Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the
giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and
trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU - and will become
in Australia if you get your way.
You say I was one of "those who argue that somehow the market will
magically solve the problem". In fact I have never argued that, though
in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual
but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the
classe politique today.
The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at
all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of
the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether
waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than
attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the
carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.
Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase
in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC.
The IPCC's bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will
convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in
temperature. I shall do it for them.
We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC's statement to
the effect that equilibrium surface warming delta-T at CO2 doubling will
be (3.26 � ln 2) C�. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer's Law,
defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than
linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is
the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and
the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,
delta-T = (4.7 � 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
We are looking at the IPCC's maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply
write -
delta-T = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius
degrees
Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that
the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now
determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to
be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2
emissions. Let me demonstrate.
By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all
parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to
report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking,
the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions
over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by
2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.
Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord
complies with its obligations to the full, today's emissions will be
reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business
as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as
usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to
atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.
We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing
the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if
we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would
follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today's CO2
concentration is 388 ppmv -
Business as usual: delta-T = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C�
- Copenhagen: delta-T = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C�
= "Global warming" forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C�
One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that
complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire
decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result - an outcome
so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it - would
run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that
this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.
You say "formal global and national economic modelling" shows "that the
costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting". You ask for my
"equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the
Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change". I
respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your
officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be
imagined to flow from anthropogenic "global warming" will scarcely be
mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the
coming decade.
Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern,
with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming
rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate
change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of
magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long
career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so
cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers' money as the trillions
which today's scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on
attempting - with all the plausibility of King Canute - to stop the tide
from coming in.
Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone
who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply.
Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen
Accord's predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and
it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after
billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions
have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.
Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2
imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in
CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC's central estimate of CO2's warming
effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the
peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers
are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions
squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a
degree.
Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers,
personally, and your administration's officials, personally, willing to
make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand
of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg
leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to
believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the
delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose
paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously
demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen.
Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was
really necessary - and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you
and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting
foreign junket at taxpayers' expense is in prospect, why, pray, should
the taxpayers tighten theirs?
You say that climate-change "deniers" - nasty word, that, and you should
really have known better than to use it - are "small in number but too
dangerous to be ignored", and "well resourced". In fact, governments,
taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and
taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000
times as much on "global warming" propaganda as their opponents have
spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before
we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the
mainstream news media.
How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that
the emperor of "global warming" is adequately clad, are somehow
prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the
population not to place any more trust in the "global warming" theory?
The answer is that the "global warming" theory is not true, and no
amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.
You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for
apocalypticism, is "to erode just enough of the political will that
action becomes impossible". No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the
truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious
resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic "global
warming". The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the
courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing.
Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically
speaking, is the right option.
You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that
"the cost of not acting is nothing". Well, after a decade and a half
with no statistically-significant "global warming", and after three
decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the
ever-falling predictions of the UN's climate panel, that notion has
certainly not been disproven in reality.
However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of
taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer
to this question is Yes.
Millions are already dying of starvation in the world's poorest nations
because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt,
vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production,
caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of
growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers
that don't. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate
policies that you advocate - however fashionable you may conceive them
to be - are killing people by the million.
You say my logic "belongs in a casino, not a science lab". Yet it is you
who are gambling with poor people's lives, and it is you - or, rather,
they - who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their
very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion - a
notion you uncritically espouse - that increasing by less than 1/2000
this century the proportion of the Earth's atmosphere occupied by CO2
may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world's people are
already short of food, the UN's right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler,
has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than
"a crime against humanity".
The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely
unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you
in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the
past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a
lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the
"global warming" since 1950 is manmade. This claim - based not on
science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with
China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure -
is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes
in cloud cover over recent decades - changes almost entirely unconnected
with changes in CO2 concentration - show that it was this
largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent
increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the
Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have
caused.
Nor is the IPCC's great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief
you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie
in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current
chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a "global warming"
profiteer.
However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour
before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of
excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest
scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of
their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land
is a "carbon sink", then I hope that you will at least nominate one of
the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I
have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness
of attempting to mitigate "global warming" by emissions reduction, and
the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that
a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five
times as much "global warming" as CO2. It is also a measured fact that,
while those of the UN's computer models that can be forced with an
increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in
the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality
there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be
trapped here in the troposphere to cause "global warming" is measured as
escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than
around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.
My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia's governing class is
attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02
C� of "global warming" in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half,
there has been no "global warming" at all. Can you not see that it would
be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether
global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted?
What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C� of global
warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It's a no-brainer.
Yours faithfully, VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
THE RUDD GOVERNMENT'S COPENHAGEN JUNKET LIST
December 2009
The following 114 officials or representatives of the Australian
Government and of State administrations attended the UN climate
conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 -
1. Kevin Michael Rudd, Prime Minister; 2. Penelope Wong, Minister, Clim.
Chg. & Water; 3. Louise Helen Hand, Ambassador for Clim. Chg.; 4. David
Fredericks, Dep. Chf. of Staff, Dept. of the Prime Minister; 5. Philip
Green Oam, Sen. Policy Advr., Foreign Affairs Dept.; 6. Andrew Charlton,
Sen. Advr., Prime Minister's Dept.; 7. Lachlan Harris, Sen. Press Sec.,
Prime Minister's Office; 8. Scott Dewar, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister's
Office; 9. Clare Penrose, Advr., Prime Minister's Office; 10. Fiona
Sugden, Media Advr., Prime Minister's Office;
11. Lisa French, Prime Minister's Office; 12. Jeremy Hilman, Advr.,
Prime Minister's Office; 13. Tarah Barzanji, Advr., Prime Minister's
Office; 14. Kate Shaw, Exec. Sec., Prime Minister's Office; 15. Gaile
Barnes, Exec. Asst., Prime Minister's Office; 16. Gordon de Brouwer,
Dep. Sec. Prime Minister's Dept.; 17. Patrick Suckling, 1st Asst. Sec.,
Intl. Div., Prime Minister's Office; 18. Rebecca Christie, Prime
Minister's Office; 19. Michael Jones, Official Photographer, Prime
Minister & Cabinet;
20. Stephan Rudzki; 21. David Bell, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police;
22. Kym Baillie, Aus. Federal Police; 23. David Champion, Aus. Federal
Police; 24. Matt Jebb, Federal Agent Aus. Federal Police; 25. Craig
Kendall, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police; 26. Squadron Leader Ian
Lane, Staff Offr., VIP Operations; 27. John Olenich, Media Advr., to
Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water; 28. Kristina Hickey, Advr.
to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water; 29. Martin Parkinson,
Sec., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 30. Howard Bamsey, Special Envoy for Clim.
Chg., Dept. of Clim. Chg.;
31. Robert Owen-Jones, Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 32.
Clare Walsh Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 33. Jenny
Elizabeth ; ilkinson, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 34. Elizabeth
Peak, Princ. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 35.
Kristin Tilley, Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim.
Chg.; 36. Andrew Ure, Actg. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept.
of Clim. Chg.; 37. Annemarie Watt, Dir., Land Sector Negots., Intl.
Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 38. Kushla Munro, Dir., Intl. Forest Carbon
Sectn. Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 39. Kathleen Annette Rowley,
Dir., Strategic & Tech. Analysis, Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 40. Anitra Cowan
Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.;
41. Sally Truong, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div. Dept. of
Clim. Chg.; 42. Jane Wilkinson, Asst. Dir., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 43.
Tracey Mackay, Asst. Dir., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 44. Laura
Brown, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.;
45. Tracey-Anne Leahey, Delegation Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 46. Nicola
Loffler, Sen. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 47.
Tamara Curll, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 48.
Jessica Allen, Legal Support Offr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 49. Sanjiva de
Silva, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 50. Gaia
Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
51. Penelope Morton, Policy Advr., UNFCCC Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of
Clim. Chg.; 52. Claire Elizabeth Watt, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim.
Chg.; 53. Amanda Walker, Policy Offr., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim.
Chg.; 54. Alan David Lee, Policy Advr., Land Sector Negots., Dept. of
Clim. Chg.; 55. Erika Kate Oord, Aus. Stakeholder Mgr., Dept. of Clim.
Chg.; 56. Jahda Kirian Swanborough, Comms. Mgr., Ministerial Comms.,
Dept. of Clim. Chg.; 57. H.E. Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador, Dipl. Miss. of
Aus. to DK; 58. Julia Feeney, Dir., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of
Foreign Affairs & Trade; 59. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham, 2nd Sec.,
DFAT, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to Germany; 60. Rachael Cooper, Exec. Offr.,
Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade;
61. Rachael Grivas, Exec. Offr., Envir. Branch, Dept. of Foreign Affairs
& Trade; 62. Moya Collett, Desk Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir. Sectn., Dept.
of Foreign Affairs & Trade; 63. Rob Law, Dept. of Foreign Affairs &
Trade; 64. Robin Davies, Asst. Dir. Gen., Sustainable Devel. Gp., Aus.
Agency for Intl. Devel.; 65. Deborah Fulton, Dir., Policy & Global
Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.;
66. Katherine Vaughn, Policy Advr., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency
for Intl. Devel.; 67. Brian Dawson, Policy Advr., Aus. Agency for Intl.
Devel.; 68. Andrew Leigh Clarke, Dep. Sec., Dept. of Res. Devel.,
Western Aus.; 69. Bruce Wilson, Gen. Mgr., Envir. Energy & Envir. Div.,
Dept. of Resrc. Devel., W. Aus.; 70. Jill McCarthy, Policy Advr., Dept.
of Resrc., Energy & Tourism;
71. Simon French, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries &
Forestry; 72. Ian Michael Ruscoe, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture,
Fisheries & Forestry; 73. David Walland, Acting Supt., Nat. Clim.
Centre, Bureau of Meteorology; 74. Damien Dunn Sen. Policy Advr., Aus.
Treasury; 75. Helen Hawka Fuhrman, Policy Offr., Renewable Energy Policy
& Partnerships; 76. Scott Vivian Davenport, Chf., Economics, NSW Dept.
of Industry & Invest.; 77. Graham Julian Levitt, Policy Mgr., Clim.
Chg., NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.; 78. Kate Jennifer Jones,
Minister, Clim. Chg. & Sustainability, Qld. Govt.; 79. Michael William
Dart, Princ. Policy Advr., Office of Kate Jones, MP, Qld. Govt.; 80.
Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien, Sen. Dir., Office of Clim. Chg. Qld. Govt.;
81. Michael David Rann, Premier, S. Aus. Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S.
Aus.; 82. Suzanne Kay Harter, Advr., Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S.
Aus.; 83. Paul David Flanagan, Mgr., Comms., Govt. of S. Aus.; 84.
Timothy O'Loughlin, Dep. Chf. Exec., Sust. & Wkfc. Mgmt., S. Aus. Dept.
of Premier; 85. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc, student, Linacre College, University
of Oxford; 86. Gavin Jennings, Minister, Envir. & Clim. Chg. &
Innovation, Victorian Govt.; 87. Sarah Broadbent, Sustainability Advr.;
88. Rebecca Falkingham, Sen. Advr., Victoria Govt./Office of Clim. Chg.;
89. Simon Camroux, Policy Advr., Energy Supply Ass. of Aus. Ltd.; 90.
Geoff Lake, Advr., Aus. Local Govt. Assoc.;
91. Sridhar Ayyalaraju, Post Visit Controller, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to
DK; 92. Tegan Brink Dep. Visit Controller & Security Liaison Offr.,
Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 93. Melissa Eu Suan Goh, Trspt. Liaison Offr.
& Consul, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 94. Lauren Henschke, Support Staff,
Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 95. Maree Fay, Accommodation Liaison Offr.,
Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 96. Patricia McKinnon, Comms. Offr., Dipl.
Miss. of Aus. to DK; 97. Eugene Olim, Passport/Baggage Liaison Offr.,
Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 98. Belinda Lee Adams; 99. Jacqui Ashworth,
Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 100. Patricia Smith,
Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK;
101. Martin Bo Jensen, Research & Public Dipl. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of
Aus. to DK; 102. Mauro Kolobaric, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus.
to DK; 103. Susan Flanagan, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK;
104. Stephen Kanaridis, IT Support Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK;
105. George Reid, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 106. Ashley
Wright, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 107. Jodie Littlewood,
Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 108. Thomas Millhouse, Support
Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 109. Timothy Whittley, Support Staff
Driver, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK; 110. Julia Thomson, Dipl. Miss. of
Aus. to DK;
111. Donald Frater, Chf. of Staff to Minister Wong Office of Clim. Chg.
& Water; 112. Jacqui Smith, Media Liaison, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK;
113. Greg French, Sen. Legal Advr. (Envir.), Dept. of Foreign Affairs &
Trade; 114. Jeremy Hillman, Advr., Prime Minister's Office.
A brilliant critique of the Global Warming bandwagon.
Kev
Francis Burton
>... repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes ...
Ooerr! (Excellent rebuttal though.)
Francis
Charles Bryant
Phil Stovell <ph...@stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote:
}I'm certain the global warming is real, but I have doubts that it's all
}down to us, which seems a bit arrogant. The climate of the planet does
}change, 400 years ago there was a mini-ice age.
}
}recall reading reports that the other planets are also warming up (BICBW).
}If it is a LPV, it will start cooling down after the maximum is reached,
}whenever that is.
}
}However, it could still have a catastrophic effect on us so we MUST
}consider the worst possible scenario, that it IS us, and act accordingly,
}before it is too late.
The worst possible scenario is that global warming is man-made, would
prevent the end of the current interglacial, and that stopping
man-made global warming causes the ice sheets to return as far south
as New York and southern England. Look at the temperature graphs at
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial >
and note particularly where the current temperature is in relation to
the past - it has only been this warm for a handful of periods which
overall are not a vary large fraction of the last half a million years
or so.
Ret.
Whatever - Lord Monckton's rebuttal, printed elsewhere on this thread is a
pretty damning verdict on how minute our efforts to tackle the supposed
problem are, how minute the results will be - but how catastrophically
expensive and damaging those efforts will be.
Kev
Phil Stovell
> Whatever - Lord Monckton's rebuttal, printed elsewhere on this thread is a
> pretty damning verdict on how minute our efforts to tackle the supposed
> problem are, how minute the results will be - but how catastrophically
> expensive and damaging those efforts will be.
As damaging as extinction?
> Kev
Ret.
But what he is pointing out is that the efforts currently being made will
achieve no measurable result, despite being horrendously expensive.
Every day more and more information comes out that tends to undermine the
AGW theory:
"Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in
East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative
Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness
of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at
Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the
journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over
the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has
expanded."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/
Kev
Dave Muir
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/05/times_asa_wrong/
News International are as reliable as the BBC when it comes to being 'on
message' regardless of the evidence.
Kim Bolton
Dave Muir wrote:
Are you saying the 1.89m figure is wrong, the 'densest ice for 10
years' is wrong, or the claim about the areaof ice around Antarctica
is wrong?
--
from
Kim Bolton
Cynic
<ph...@stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote:
>> Whatever - Lord Monckton's rebuttal, printed elsewhere on this thread is a
>> pretty damning verdict on how minute our efforts to tackle the supposed
>> problem are, how minute the results will be - but how catastrophically
>> expensive and damaging those efforts will be.
>
>As damaging as extinction?
Drama Queen!
Even the most pessimistic doom merchant has not predicted any effects
of global warming that will come close to causing the human race to
become extinct.
--
Cynic
Dave Muir
as quoted by The Register in the link I provided
'The Times ads claimed that global warming had caused the North East
shipping passage, the icy Arctic route which in summer links Russia's
European ports to the Bering Strait, to be opened for the first time. In
fact, the North East Passage opened in 1934, and was opened to overseas
traffic after the fall of the Soviet Union. Modern technology,
specifically radar, has permitted a safer passage in recent years.'
Phil Stovell
Is I've said elsewhere, I have strong doubts that humans are responsible
for GW, but I can certainly see that we aren't helping. If the worst-case
scenario unfolds, we could all be dead within a century or so if we do
nothing (and still likely to be if we do something - but not enough). It's
also possible that whatever we do will have no effect and this is an
extinction-level event.
I think it would be foolish to do nothing and it turns out it is us or
that disaster was preventable if it's not us. If we've wasted a few
tera£s, that's better than our great-grandchildren starving to death, or
nuclear wars between the starving and the squandering.
I've often wondered why I'm alive now and not in another age in the past
or future. Perhaps it's because human population is now at a maximum and
will collapse in future, so that now is the greatest chance of living.
Phil Stovell
Ha! What do they know when we've got the Daily Kevin to get our science
from!
Ret.
That's a bit below the belt!
Kev
Kim Bolton
Dave Muir wrote:
So the message quoted by Kev wasn't wrong, then?
--
from
Kim Bolton
Phil Stovell
I've started calling the Dourly Moral / Daily Hate the Daily Kevin for
some reason!
> Kev
Dave Muir
to be.
Is there some misunderstanding here?
nux vomica
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:34:09 +0000, Phil Stovell
>
Possibly reduced somewhat - but not entirely extinct?
<nux vomica>
Francis Burton
nux vomica <nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Even the most pessimistic doom merchant has not predicted any effects
>> of global warming that will come close to causing the human race to
>> become extinct.
>>
>> --
>> Cynic
>
>Possibly reduced somewhat - but not entirely extinct?
Arguably the human race needs to be reduced somewhat, current
trends being unsustainable. It's a pity that it will entail so
much suffering (if the GW effects turn out as predicted).
Francis
Kim Bolton
Dave Muir wrote:
Possibly. The link you gave in response to Kev's was an article about
The Times being admonished for an ad campaign about global warming; it
seemed to be a 'shoot the messenger' reply. If I misread that, I'm
sorry.
--
from
Kim Bolton
Dave Muir
If I posted a confusing message then it was my bad.