Lights to go out in Brighton and Hove for Earth Hour (From The Argus)

And when they don't come back on...?

People who question climate change like the highly intelligent David Bellamy should be given more time and patience and not squeezed out.

Bt'n-breezy wrote:
People who question climate change like the highly intelligent David Bellamy should be given more time and patience and not squeezed out.

Bellamy is also a creationist. Oh look my time and patience for him have run out!

The street light outside here has not worked since early December, so that one won't need switching off unless someone extracts the digit to repair it so that it can be turned off again. There have been five separate visits so far and it still remains off.

What a load of nonsense.

Surely not! wrote:

Bt'n-breezy wrote:
People who question climate change like the highly intelligent David Bellamy should be given more time and patience and not squeezed out.

Bellamy is also a creationist. Oh look my time and patience for him have run out!

Christopher Booker is not a creationist as far as I am aware.

When WWF was first set up in 1961, WWF stood for World Wildlife Fund.

In 1986 they changed this to World Wide Fund for Nature to emphasise the broad nature of WWF’s conservation work, which includes not only species, but also habitats and the reversal of environmental degradation.

Come on Argus - Keep up.

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/earth/environ

ment/globalwarming/9

919121/Look-at-the-g

raph-to-see-the-evid

ence-of-global-warmi

ng.html

So the figure change - again.

First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago?

Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

Bt'n-breezy wrote:
People who question climate change like the highly intelligent David Bellamy should be given more time and patience and not squeezed out.

Bellamy doesn't question climate change (he would be a fool to question that the Earth's climate has never changed when all evidence clearly shows it can and has done so in the past) but whether the changes are driven by man.

He clearly doesn't agree with the Fourth (2007) IPCC Report that gives a '...very high confidence...' (ie at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) that the observed warming effects are '....very likely...' (ie greater than 90% probabability) to be as a result of anthropogenic green-house gases.

In other words, Bellamy disagrees with the level of confidence that is assigned by scientists to scientific work that also underpins his own career.

The Fifth Report is due end of this year/start 2014 and will almost push the 'very likely' to 'extremely likely' ie greater than 95% probability. I know which side of the bet my money is on!

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/earth/environ
ment/climatechange/9
861908/BBC-backs-dow
n-on-David-Attenboro
ughs-climate-change-
statistics.html

Even Attenborough gets it wrong. And see the comments - want to know why we don't see David Bellamy on our screens anymore?

I wonder is the lighting shop on Western Road which has been closing down for the past decade with finally turn off its' lights.
I have noticed that they have gone one step further by putting up paper to cover some of the windows to give even more illusion that they are closing down.
Surely there is a law against a permanent closing down sale?

I wonder if the lighting shop on Western Road which has been closing down for the past decade with finally turn off its' lights.
I have noticed that they have gone one step further by putting up paper to cover some of the windows to give even more illusion that they are closing down.
Surely there is a law against a permanent closing down sale?

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.

RickH wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.

How can you say this? Plantpot is obviously someone who has carefully considered the evidence and come to a thoughtful conclusion.
I am now going to stick two pencils in my nostrils and put my underpants on my head

Is this some sort of social experiment, to see how mindless, sheeplike people are?

Surely not! wrote:

RickH wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.

How can you say this? Plantpot is obviously someone who has carefully considered the evidence and come to a thoughtful conclusion.
I am now going to stick two pencils in my nostrils and put my underpants on my head

Plant pot was defending bankers bonuses the other day, so climate change denial is no surprise.

CO2 is a global warming gas, we would not have liveable climate without it. By the end of my life there will be between one and two trillion tons of additional CO2 equivalent gas in the atmosphere. I would be interested to understand how this wouldn't lead to global warming.

I think climate change is a far better description of what we are creating and facing as the UK is predicted to have more unstable weather.

We are in a real mess over this, the 5th IPCC report is going to make for a very unsettling read. Better get your excuses in now plantpot.

As someone who has taken part in more than his fair share of pointless and futile protests can I just ask HOW sitting in the dark for an hour is going to 'raise awareness' of climate change, let alone do anything positive? Those who care already know about it and those who don't won't take part anyway.

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
As someone who has taken part in more than his fair share of pointless and futile protests can I just ask HOW sitting in the dark for an hour is going to 'raise awareness' of climate change, let alone do anything positive? Those who care already know about it and those who don't won't take part anyway.

well its a bit like the two minutes silence on remembrance day isn't it? That too appears to be pointless and futile, but maybe it has a small effect on a few people. Plus of course everything in life is ultimately pointless and futile but that's not going to stop me getting up in the morning and trying to acheive something. Perhaps you should just stay in bed tomorrow?

Bt'n-breezy wrote:
People who question climate change like the highly intelligent David Bellamy should be given more time and patience and not squeezed out.

Climate change is a complete man made con, totally. Temperatures haven't increased since 1998. Little publicity about that. Climate change is not man made, and it's not getting hotter. So, as for this, complete rubbish. We do rely on fossil fuels, that has to change, but as for Fossil fuels causing Climate change, complete rubbish.

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph


.co.uk/earth/environ


ment/globalwarming/9


919121/Look-at-the-g


raph-to-see-the-evid


ence-of-global-warmi


ng.html

So the figure change - again.

First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago?

Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

Absolutely spot on.

WWF - the friends of Southern Water, who are now being used by that organisation in their literature to provide justification for the imposition of water meters throughout the area.

Has Southern Water made any financial donations to WWF of late??

Surely not! wrote:

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
As someone who has taken part in more than his fair share of pointless and futile protests can I just ask HOW sitting in the dark for an hour is going to 'raise awareness' of climate change, let alone do anything positive? Those who care already know about it and those who don't won't take part anyway.

well its a bit like the two minutes silence on remembrance day isn't it? That too appears to be pointless and futile, but maybe it has a small effect on a few people. Plus of course everything in life is ultimately pointless and futile but that's not going to stop me getting up in the morning and trying to acheive something. Perhaps you should just stay in bed tomorrow?

Well you've waffled, but you haven't answered the question. Enjoy the dark.

HJarrs wrote:

Surely not! wrote:

RickH wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.

How can you say this? Plantpot is obviously someone who has carefully considered the evidence and come to a thoughtful conclusion.
I am now going to stick two pencils in my nostrils and put my underpants on my head

Plant pot was defending bankers bonuses the other day, so climate change denial is no surprise.

CO2 is a global warming gas, we would not have liveable climate without it. By the end of my life there will be between one and two trillion tons of additional CO2 equivalent gas in the atmosphere. I would be interested to understand how this wouldn't lead to global warming.

I think climate change is a far better description of what we are creating and facing as the UK is predicted to have more unstable weather.

We are in a real mess over this, the 5th IPCC report is going to make for a very unsettling read. Better get your excuses in now plantpot.

Bankers bonuses are easy to defend as these people are employees like any other. In any case, which bankers are you talking about? Cashiers? Back office staff? Managers? Directors?

Believe me, when you go out and win business for a living, you aren't going to put up with all the stress and c*** for an average salary. Plus also, few people either want to do it or can do it, yet it's about the most important job in any company.. So it's worth rewarding people in proportion to the money they bring in. The risk is that if you win insufficient business you get fired.

The UK represents 40% of financial services in the EU, therefore any changes hit us disproportionately hard.

The IPCC is a highly political organisation run by a railway engineer. It has made numerous startling claims, none of which has come to pass, and it doesn't tolerate internal dissent from the man-made global warming line.

If CO2 was exclusively responsible for climate change we would see temperatures rising in proportion to the increase. We haven't. Care to explain why there has been no real global average temperature increase over the last 20 years? (Despite claims to the contrary that have now been debunked).

Many people have got important and wealthy off of climate change..... Show me the money.

RickH wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.

Hmmmmm.....

Not true about the single newspaper article. The US National Academy of Sciences warned of a coming Ice Age in 1975. I'll let you read the link:

http://www.climatede
pot.com/a/3213/Dont-
Miss-it-Climate-Depo
ts-Factsheet-on-1970
s-Coming-Ice-Age-Cla
ims

More useful info here:

http://au.answers.ya
hoo.com/question/ind
ex?qid=2009120801190
2AAwe6XE

Ref your claims about the "Little Ice Age", your beloved IPCC can't decide on what caused it:

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Little_Ice_
Age

Ref the credibility of the IPCC:

http://www.colby.edu
/sts/controversy/pag
es/ipcc_controversy.
htm

Includes the content:

"....a survey conducted in 1991 by SEPP suggests otherwise, reporting that many scientists involved in the IPCC process do not agree with the Summary as printed in the 1990 and 1992 reports. The survey indicated that not only did 40 percent of the group not agree with the IPCC summary, but also, that many felt that the report was running into the danger of describing a false scenario to the public. Almost all of the IPCC group agreed with the basic conclusion stated on p 254 of the report that, "it is not possible to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global mean warming to the enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of observational data currently available."

More comment on the "impartiality" of the IPCC:

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/comment/colum
nists/christopherboo
ker/8584210/The-IPCC
-declares-Greenpeace
-in-our-time.html

Bt'n-breezy wrote:
People who question climate change like the highly intelligent David Bellamy should be given more time and patience and not squeezed out.

One of the few genuine environmentalists to speak out about the severe damage caused to the environment by over-population and mass-immigration.

Unlike the Green leadership, most of whom are members of the 'No Borders' pro mass-immigration pressure group

Plantpot wrote:

HJarrs wrote:

Surely not! wrote:

RickH wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.

How can you say this? Plantpot is obviously someone who has carefully considered the evidence and come to a thoughtful conclusion.
I am now going to stick two pencils in my nostrils and put my underpants on my head

Plant pot was defending bankers bonuses the other day, so climate change denial is no surprise.

CO2 is a global warming gas, we would not have liveable climate without it. By the end of my life there will be between one and two trillion tons of additional CO2 equivalent gas in the atmosphere. I would be interested to understand how this wouldn't lead to global warming.

I think climate change is a far better description of what we are creating and facing as the UK is predicted to have more unstable weather.

We are in a real mess over this, the 5th IPCC report is going to make for a very unsettling read. Better get your excuses in now plantpot.

Bankers bonuses are easy to defend as these people are employees like any other. In any case, which bankers are you talking about? Cashiers? Back office staff? Managers? Directors?

Believe me, when you go out and win business for a living, you aren't going to put up with all the stress and c*** for an average salary. Plus also, few people either want to do it or can do it, yet it's about the most important job in any company.. So it's worth rewarding people in proportion to the money they bring in. The risk is that if you win insufficient business you get fired.

The UK represents 40% of financial services in the EU, therefore any changes hit us disproportionately hard.

The IPCC is a highly political organisation run by a railway engineer. It has made numerous startling claims, none of which has come to pass, and it doesn't tolerate internal dissent from the man-made global warming line.

If CO2 was exclusively responsible for climate change we would see temperatures rising in proportion to the increase. We haven't. Care to explain why there has been no real global average temperature increase over the last 20 years? (Despite claims to the contrary that have now been debunked).

Many people have got important and wealthy off of climate change..... Show me the money.

We are not talking about bank cashiers, the figures published for Barclays show the vast majority do not earn above £50000, most below £25000 per annum, we are talking about what seems to be a cartel of senior bankers and others in the financial sector hoovering up the profits. Their rewards far outweigh any effort or risk and seem to promote the geedy and manipulative to positions of power. The financial services have had scandal after scandal, ripping us off, but they sponsor the Conservative party and can't you tell! I bet if you take all the additional tax revenue from the financial sector since the Big Bang in the 80's it wouldn't pay for the hundreds of billions of cost and liabilities we hold for bailing out the banks nor for hundreds of billions for quantative easing or low cost loans for the banks that are depressing savings rates and pension returns. It is zealots like you that have lead us to this position when we should have been a mixed economy powerhouse like Germany.

The only people I see getting wealthy off climate change are your spiv friends in the city trading carbon credits. Another scandal waiting to break.

I read in the New Scientist recently that we are going through a mild cooling period, which is masking temperature rise and we are past a tipping point for Artic Sea ice and emissions continue to climb.

I am afraid I can't understand why some people think that the atmosphere can be treated like an unlimited toilet.

Plantpot wrote:
RickH wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.Hmmmmm.....

Not true about the single newspaper article. The US National Academy of Sciences warned of a coming Ice Age in 1975. I'll let you read the link:

http://www.climatede

pot.com/a/3213/Dont-

Miss-it-Climate-Depo

ts-Factsheet-on-1970

s-Coming-Ice-Age-Cla

ims

More useful info here:

http://au.answers.ya

hoo.com/question/ind

ex?qid=Let me understand this correctly.

On order to support your argument you cite:

- a science paper that nearly 45 years old;

- Wikipedia;

- Yahoo Questions; and

- A Rightist UK newspaper with a history of running 'climate change denial' articles with little or no basis on current science.

Good job no one really treats this board as a serious contribution to political decision making.

And you neglect to take into account the epistemic nature of the IPCC (that being issues around shared normative values and beliefs) and that the IPCC uses methodologies shared across the whole scientific community.

Again, when the last report speaks of greater than 90% probabilties that warming is anthropogenic vs the citations you give, I know which side Is place my bet.

RickH wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
RickH wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.Hmmmmm.....

Not true about the single newspaper article. The US National Academy of Sciences warned of a coming Ice Age in 1975. I'll let you read the link:

http://www.climatede


pot.com/a/3213/Dont-


Miss-it-Climate-Depo


ts-Factsheet-on-1970


s-Coming-Ice-Age-Cla


ims

More useful info here:

http://au.answers.ya


hoo.com/question/ind


ex?qid=Let me understand this correctly.

On order to support your argument you cite:

- a science paper that nearly 45 years old;

- Wikipedia;

- Yahoo Questions; and

- A Rightist UK newspaper with a history of running 'climate change denial' articles with little or no basis on current science.

Good job no one really treats this board as a serious contribution to political decision making.

And you neglect to take into account the epistemic nature of the IPCC (that being issues around shared normative values and beliefs) and that the IPCC uses methodologies shared across the whole scientific community.

Again, when the last report speaks of greater than 90% probabilties that warming is anthropogenic vs the citations you give, I know which side Is place my bet.I think you're being disingenuous.

You claimed that the ice age scare was down to a media article. Not so.

You claimed the little ice age was down to volcanic activity. But it was one of only a number of theories.

You ignore the fact that 40% of scientists disagreed with much of the original IPCC reports, plus many more disagreed with some of the key conclusions.

Internet sources are exactly that in the cases I've given you - gateways to opinions etc. Do you really think anyone is going to do anything other than that on a message board like this?

BTW, the IPCC has had to change its methodologies in light of some of the baseless claims it's been making.

There is plenty of criticism of the IPCC e.g. answer these queries about the 2007 report:

https://sites.google
.com/site/globalwarm
ingquestions/ipcc

There is plenty of stuff out there that should make everyone sceptical of absolute positions.

BTW, The Telegraph broke the MP's expenses scandal. I'll bet you were onside with it then.

HJarrs wrote:

Plantpot wrote:

HJarrs wrote:

Surely not! wrote:

RickH wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/environ ment/globalwarming/9 919121/Look-at-the-g raph-to-see-the-evid ence-of-global-warmi ng.html So the figure change - again. First we were going to have a new Ice Age when I was growing up. Then it was global warming. Now we find out there hasn't really been global warming, but it's called climate change instead. Is this the same climate change that allowed the Romans to make decent red wine in warmer conditions in the north of England two thousand years ago, or the Thames freezing over only a few hundred years ago? Climate change is the new socialism - used to control the way people behave, and providing taxation opportunities and nice little earners for a few.

My comment below covers the probability of whether recent climate change is driven by man. The 'imminent Ice Age' story is a red-herring and based on a single newpaper article in the 70s that had no basis in science. The 'Little Ice Age' you mention was largely caused by cooling associated with sulphur dioxide/sulphuric acid aerosols related to volcanic activity. Both Left and Right-wing governments have signed the Kyoto Agreement somehwat putting a hole in the argument that 'climate change is the new socialism' - you confuse natural climate change (something that has and will continue to occur) with climate change, mainly warming, associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I know from where I'd rather take my scientific briefing on the issue ie I believe a UN-founded panel consisting of experts rather trumps a UK right-wing w**k-mag mascerading as a newspaper.

How can you say this? Plantpot is obviously someone who has carefully considered the evidence and come to a thoughtful conclusion.
I am now going to stick two pencils in my nostrils and put my underpants on my head

Plant pot was defending bankers bonuses the other day, so climate change denial is no surprise.

CO2 is a global warming gas, we would not have liveable climate without it. By the end of my life there will be between one and two trillion tons of additional CO2 equivalent gas in the atmosphere. I would be interested to understand how this wouldn't lead to global warming.

I think climate change is a far better description of what we are creating and facing as the UK is predicted to have more unstable weather.

We are in a real mess over this, the 5th IPCC report is going to make for a very unsettling read. Better get your excuses in now plantpot.

Bankers bonuses are easy to defend as these people are employees like any other. In any case, which bankers are you talking about? Cashiers? Back office staff? Managers? Directors?

Believe me, when you go out and win business for a living, you aren't going to put up with all the stress and c*** for an average salary. Plus also, few people either want to do it or can do it, yet it's about the most important job in any company.. So it's worth rewarding people in proportion to the money they bring in. The risk is that if you win insufficient business you get fired.

The UK represents 40% of financial services in the EU, therefore any changes hit us disproportionately hard.

The IPCC is a highly political organisation run by a railway engineer. It has made numerous startling claims, none of which has come to pass, and it doesn't tolerate internal dissent from the man-made global warming line.

If CO2 was exclusively responsible for climate change we would see temperatures rising in proportion to the increase. We haven't. Care to explain why there has been no real global average temperature increase over the last 20 years? (Despite claims to the contrary that have now been debunked).

Many people have got important and wealthy off of climate change..... Show me the money.

We are not talking about bank cashiers, the figures published for Barclays show the vast majority do not earn above £50000, most below £25000 per annum, we are talking about what seems to be a cartel of senior bankers and others in the financial sector hoovering up the profits. Their rewards far outweigh any effort or risk and seem to promote the geedy and manipulative to positions of power. The financial services have had scandal after scandal, ripping us off, but they sponsor the Conservative party and can't you tell! I bet if you take all the additional tax revenue from the financial sector since the Big Bang in the 80's it wouldn't pay for the hundreds of billions of cost and liabilities we hold for bailing out the banks nor for hundreds of billions for quantative easing or low cost loans for the banks that are depressing savings rates and pension returns. It is zealots like you that have lead us to this position when we should have been a mixed economy powerhouse like Germany.

The only people I see getting wealthy off climate change are your spiv friends in the city trading carbon credits. Another scandal waiting to break.

I read in the New Scientist recently that we are going through a mild cooling period, which is masking temperature rise and we are past a tipping point for Artic Sea ice and emissions continue to climb.

I am afraid I can't understand why some people think that the atmosphere can be treated like an unlimited toilet.

Why are we not a mixed economy? We are the 9th largest manufacturing nation in the world.

The rest of it I can't be bothered with.

What a waste of time. When are these idiots going to accept that climate change is nothing to do with us? We are between ice ages, of course it is warmer. All their actions is doing is putting up the cost of our energy bills to levels that many cannot afford.

Morpheus wrote:
What a waste of time. When are these idiots going to accept that climate change is nothing to do with us? We are between ice ages, of course it is warmer. All their actions is doing is putting up the cost of our energy bills to levels that many cannot afford.

If only.
Unfortunately, the reality is like this:
Conservative MP Peter Lilley, one of only three MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act, has received share options worth at least $400,000 from an oil company.
He also got £47000 over the period of a year for "attending meetings and advising on business developments".

redwing wrote:

Morpheus wrote:
What a waste of time. When are these idiots going to accept that climate change is nothing to do with us? We are between ice ages, of course it is warmer. All their actions is doing is putting up the cost of our energy bills to levels that many cannot afford.

If only.
Unfortunately, the reality is like this:
Conservative MP Peter Lilley, one of only three MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act, has received share options worth at least $400,000 from an oil company.
He also got £47000 over the period of a year for "attending meetings and advising on business developments".

Tim Yeo earning £140k pa from renewables:

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/politics
/9473917/Climate-com
mittee-chairman-Tim-
Yeo-under-pressure-o
ver-industry-links.h
tml

I'm assuming he voted for the climate change act?

Surveys tend to say what the money behind the survey want it to say. I think the reason for the one hour without lights,is for the results it will give,to see how much difference a mid size city such as Brighton and Hove can make with one simple test.

The results will be multiplied and taken as an indicator on a greater scale ie: UK as a whole. I do think that there is something to GW and CC,i know how when i grew up,you could rely on the summer being hot and the winter cold,over my 51 years it is significantly different,maybe to younger people the change doesn`t appear so drastic. But believe me the change is real.

Compared to the CO2 put out by volcanoes and other natural phenomenon, the CO2 put out by human activity is but a teaspoon full. It's a scam to fleece yet more money from ordinary people to multinationals and governments under the guise of "Saving The Planet". If tomorrow, we stopped all human activity that produced CO2, forever, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

"A study that reviewed 928 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate science published between 1993 and 2003 found that not one disagreed with the IPCC view that human activities are causing global warming (Oreskes 2004)"

Oreskes , N (2004) 'Beyond the Ivory Tower: the scientific consensus on climate change, Science, vol 306 no 5702 p 1686

Use the Internet to find your pseudo-science all you like - I prefer my sources to be peer-reviewed and properly published.

RickH wrote:
"A study that reviewed 928 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate science published between 1993 and 2003 found that not one disagreed with the IPCC view that human activities are causing global warming (Oreskes 2004)"

Oreskes , N (2004) 'Beyond the Ivory Tower: the scientific consensus on climate change, Science, vol 306 no 5702 p 1686

Use the Internet to find your pseudo-science all you like - I prefer my sources to be peer-reviewed and properly published.

Opps....my bad.....sent before could finish....quote taken from Humphreys D (2009) 'The role of science in climate change policy' in A Warming World - Earth in Crisis ed. Humphrey D & Blowers A. The Open University.

RickH wrote:
"A study that reviewed 928 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate science published between 1993 and 2003 found that not one disagreed with the IPCC view that human activities are causing global warming (Oreskes 2004)"

Oreskes , N (2004) 'Beyond the Ivory Tower: the scientific consensus on climate change, Science, vol 306 no 5702 p 1686

Use the Internet to find your pseudo-science all you like - I prefer my sources to be peer-reviewed and properly published.

I agree entirely, and it's a shame not all your council colleagues share your view.

The council sells out for money over science every time. Look at the Wild Park - a complete disgrace in terms of the lack of studies before the woodland was hacked down for grant money.

And how many peer-reviewed papers, properly-published in recognised journals, have advocates of the council's actions such as Dave Bangs and Dan Danahar published on chalk grassland?

Please feel free to enlighten us with references. I haven't been able to locate any scientific papers by Chris Todd either, who is leading your biosphere bid.