quote:

Originally posted by boo2u:
word smithy
you have found my secret...i WANT the world to warm...have you ever heard of winnipeg canada?????

Could that be selfish?

quote:

Originally posted by jerel:
in the debate on global warming, one mistake will allow your opponents to dismiss everything you ever said or will say again, no matter how valid your other arguments are."

When I'd posted that about the Greenhouse effect I had a moment of 'damn have I got it right. So I went to Realclimate and found Dr Gavin Schmitt of NASA getting all mixed up some time ago. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=58
i.e.
"14/Jan/05: This post was updated in the light of my further education in radiation physics.
25/Feb/05: Groan...and again."
Because it can happen to anyone we all have to forgive mistakes.

It's just that when they happen a lot, you start to think....

quote:

I don't think CobblyWobbly is the type to get snotty about it, but I thought I would run some interference anyway.

Don't what there is to get snotty about Jerel.


I've re-read Svensmark, aside from adding the old objection of how much natural dust/spray etc is available and pressure temperature humidity being greater factors, I can only say I agree with Dr Benestad in his post at realclimate.

PS
Svensmark refers to Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991), bottom of column 1, page 1. That paper is signifcantly flawed. Damon and Laut discuss their work over years on these papers.

Mr Cobblyworld
You seem to have done a lot of research. I am too lazy and don't have enough time to verify what you say. I'm sure myself and many others would like a spoonfed version of your arguments. Your virtuoso display of the science shows a little bit too much vanity. It makes it very hard for me to want to listen to what you say. Which i really want to do as i'm not very clever and am now REALLY confused as the tv program seemed very credible and simply presented. cheers

quote:

Originally posted by WordSmithy:
Has the balance been redressed? Or have they simply thrown an old spanner into the works. Only be trying to understand the subject can anyone answer that. Yes, occasionally the alternative view should be presented. But it is irresponsible to present it as truth when it is not. So much of the information presented was flawed, anyone should start to question what was going on. Who to trust is the problem, but Carl Wunsch is trying to set the record straight http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/s...arl-wunsch-responds/

quote:

When, for many, there WAS NO alternative to the 'accepted' GW point of view presented in popular programming to this point then I stand by what I said, the only spanner I can see being put in the works here is that it puts in to mind questions about the motivations behind the GW hysteria. That is a good thing. There are plenty of flaws (as has been amply debated here) in the Co2 GW argument, which themselves need to be addressed.

Originally posted by Bobbit:
The rhetoric of the GW 'debate' is that of scaremongering of the highest order,

It is scary, as David Milliband said after he had studied to get up to speed as Environment Minister. We have to act. The consequences are getting worse the longer we wait.

quote:

Once again, the rhetoric of fear. Remember whose theories he was reading, and frankly, do you expect those reports to be calm sober reading? Not when they would be as woo scary as they could be made.

Originally posted by Bobbit:
and not just to those who have the ways and means to reason, but to young unformed minds,

How about the way impressionable people were traeted to the corrupted 'science' on the Swindle?

quote:

I don't expect they had a large child audience, that is what I was talking about.

Originally posted by Bobbit:
It has also given governments new and complex opportunities to tax us, watch and control our movements, every 'solution' involves pain to those that can't afford it, and a minor inconvenience to those that can.

I note the the Conservative Party announced the latest green taxes and also said that other taxes would be reduced to balance it out.

quote:

Now come on, don't be so naive, once you have managed to introduce one tax 'for your own good', when's the next one coming? There is a lot of money in this business, they haven't even started on us...

Originally posted by Bobbit:
I have read (as much as i could!) Cobbyworld's arguments here, and jerel's, and all I can say, from the standpoint of an historian, that the world has been warmer in the past, and it will be warmer again (and colder too) in the future, it is very unlikely that in either instance the sky will come falling down.

It's time that a counter argument is not treated as a heresy, and that scientists who don't toe the line are brought in to add their obviously valid opinion and study into the equation.

Obviously valid? When it is so obvious that they have lied and cheated? Once trust has been lost, it is almost impossible to restore it fully.

Yes, they are scientists, they are known experts in their field, they are more qualified than most to have a valid opinion. And yes, trust, once we have a fuller understanding about the motives behind the rabid screams and shouts about GW then perhaps we can better trust those clammering for us to act the way they want us to. I am pretty sick of being told what to do and having hideous apocolyptic images rammed down my throat when there is serious doubt and glaring flaws in the logic behind them. Furthermore, a government can freely punish it's subjects for a 'crisis' that is not their doing, whilst allowing the global economy to happy buy and sell carbon credits from one another to allow them to merrily carry on firing all sorts of crap into the air absolutely reeks of hypocracy. The situation has reached fever pitch, it's about time it became rational again.

God this is going to look messy, my quotes are all over the shop!

They have finally done it theyve found a way to tax air

Oh yes, and above, very nicely drawn parallel between the sale of indulgences and carbon credits, the perfect balance of guilt and well meaning combined with avarice and financial gain recreated for the 21st century. Johann Tetzel would have been proud.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex D:
__________________________________________________
We live in an age where western mankind has become so arrogant that we believe that we can effect anything, even nature. Indeed we do, often with catastrophic consequences, such as genetic modification and pesticides. But when such arrogance is elevated to the degree that people believe that they can make an impact on the cycles of the universe, on which the human effect on the earth's atmosphere has a miniscule bearing, I wonder what has become of our sense of perspective.


Halleluya Bazoom!
How neatly put...Arrogance is correct...that and vast amounts of Government money!
___________________________________________________

Yeah, how about travelling once round the Earth each year in a vehicle that is 20 times your body weight, with no physical effort. How about that vehicle being only 2% efficient at converting the energy in oil into your mobility. How about extracting 50% of the known reserves of oil up in around 100 years, and burning it all.

How about a human needing 100W to stay alive, but each American needing a continuous 11000W to maintain their economy and lifestyle. We aren't far behind.

Please name another species that gets anywhere close to this.

Are you suggesting that flying is a major polluter or have you forgotten about shipping which is far worse but hey not enough tax paying passengers on ships..That is if you believe that CO2 is responsible and you believe the dodgy dossier oh sorry climate model.

eddieknocker
New Member
Posted 13-03-07 21:15 Hide Post
Mr Cobblyworld
You seem to have done a lot of research. I am too lazy and don't have enough time to verify what you say. I'm sure myself and many others would like a spoonfed version of your arguments. Your virtuoso display of the science shows a little bit too much vanity. It makes it very hard for me to want to listen to what you say. Which i really want to do as i'm not very clever and am now REALLY confused as the tv program seemed very credible and simply presented. cheers

its called being baffled by bullsh*t or some people say bullock on stilts...iether way if it doesnt sound right simlpy reject it...trust the force

quote:

Originally posted by boo2u:
eddieknocker
New Member
Posted 13-03-07 21:15 Hide Post
Mr Cobblyworld
You seem to have done a lot of research. I am too lazy and don't have enough time to verify what you say. I'm sure myself and many others would like a spoonfed version of your arguments. Your virtuoso display of the science shows a little bit too much vanity. It makes it very hard for me to want to listen to what you say. Which i really want to do as i'm not very clever and am now REALLY confused as the tv program seemed very credible and simply presented. cheers

its called being baffled by bullsh*t or some people say bullock on stilts...iether way if it doesnt sound right simlpy reject it...trust the force

quote:

Originally posted by Bobbit:
Yes, they are scientists, they are known experts in their field, they are more qualified than most to have a valid opinion. And yes, trust, once we have a fuller understanding about the motives behind the rabid screams and shouts about GW then perhaps we can better trust those clammering for us to act the way they want us to.

I haven't seen any rabid screams. The motives behind those on the program are also of interest. My motives are simple. I've been reading about this since about 2000. (I've spent far too many hours on it, quietly reading away. I didn't start reading or posting in these forums until about Oct 2006.) I've made my mind up that we do have a problem, that it is as the IPCC say, greenhouse gases. (BTW some one said that methane was more potent, but it stays in the atmosphere for much less time that CO2 which stays up there for about 100 years or so.) I have seriously considered just trying to forget about the whole problem, and if I didn't have kids I might well have done.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobbit:
I am pretty sick of being told what to do and having hideous apocolyptic images rammed down my throat when there is serious doubt and glaring flaws in the logic behind them.

Rather than "serious doubt" the IPCC have it as "very likely" (90-95%). There are not glaring flaws, however if you investigate the science presented on TGGWS you will find a completely different story.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobbit:
Furthermore, a government can freely punish it's subjects for a 'crisis' that is not their doing,

90-95% that 50% is due to us, and hence we can address it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobbit:
whilst allowing the global economy to happy buy and sell carbon credits from one another to allow them to merrily carry on firing all sorts of crap into the air absolutely reeks of hypocracy.

I am against carbon offsetting. "Pushing your food around to make it look like you've eaten it. ". Indulgences. However, if they can say the emissions are not to go up (in fact they are to ramp down), and those that don't co-operate must reward those that do...

quote:

Originally posted by Bobbit:
The situation has reached fever pitch, it's about time it became rational again.

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobbit:
God this is going to look messy, my quotes are all over the shop!

No problem that I saw.

quote:

How about a human needing 100W to stay alive, but each American needing a continuous 11000W to maintain their economy and lifestyle. We aren't far behind.

M.Y.
you seem to be confusued... usa is the driver of the world economy...without usa the worlds population would practacly die of mass starvation...idiotic EUtopia's buricrats are going to screw europe into the ground thanks to the political elite and main stream media's brainwashing of their populations [read zombie-like you]the EUtopia EUidiots are going to screw thier economies trying to go green...no doubt you will want to blame those stump toothed mother-and-sister-loving americans but you will be too enfeebled to do anything but fart at them

"How do "carbon offsets" work? Well, let's say you're a former vice president and you want to reduce your "carbon footprint," but the gorgeous go-go Gore gals are using the hair dryer every night. So you go to a carbon-credits firm and pay some money and they'll find a way of getting somebody on the other side of the planet to reduce his emissions and the net result will be "carbon neutral." It's like in Henry VIII's day. He'd be planning a big ox roast and piling on the calories but he'd give a groat to a starving peasant to carry on starving for another day and the result would be calorie-neutral."

I cant quite see how europe going green will drive the economies into the ground. The biggest issue is buisness does not like taxes, and will move to try and avoid them. As the current approach to going green is taxation, buisness will potentially suffer. Though it seems unlikey they will by too much, esp if the green taxes are ofset by other taxes. Add onto that the fact that most new incentives seem to be aimed at personal use rather than buisness (though air fares will impact both and there could be a 'brain drain')

Going green (in the renewable sense) seems a good move politically. Europe cannot be at the ransom of Russia and middle eastern nations over oil and gas. Russia has already shown what it can do to our economies by withholding gas for a short period. Anything that removes our dependance on them and in turn the middle east has to be good.

Additionally, long term all these fossil fuels will run out. Even before that time, the increase in demand from places such as China and India will perhaps start to push oil and gas prices upwards. This may mean that the cost of renewables will acctually become quite competitive, and eventually be much cheaper than these other fuels. It would be an major advantage to have them in place before that happens.

I would be interested to see how the cost/MW compares for renewables, once the construction cost are taken out. Long term they may be cheaper (but i have no evidence, so this is not a strong part of the point I have made).

I would be interesting in hearing more on why you think europe is shooting itself in the foot, as I have no real idea why you would think that. Esp in connection with renewables.

mond
did you see above?..i inserted my amswers in brackets into your text

There will be one way to tell if this is indeed true. The day we see Al Qaeda switching from hijackings and kidnappings to the reckless release of aerosol hairspray along with leaving and SUV idling instead of blowing it up, then we'll know Gore's on to something.

sorry
Al Gore, et al, are continually saying that global warming is a "greater threat to the planet" than terrorism.

There will be one way to tell if this is indeed true. The day we see Al Qaeda switching from hijackings and kidnappings to the reckless release of aerosol hairspray along with leaving and SUV idling instead of blowing it up, then we'll know Gore's on to something.

about that

I see the move to clean technology as being similar to adoption of computers and the creation of the internet: it took about 40 years, it was very disruptive for some big businesses and for many business practices, but resulted in continued economic growth and a lot of new opportunities.

We went from telegraphs at post offices to mobile phones.
We went from mainframes to laptops.
And we are now going from OPEC to personal renewables on your house.

ed gardener
none of the stuff you list was forced on people... people wouldnt have to be install solar panels if it made sence to do it in the first place

Maybe that can be the next series of 24. Terroists have all got SUVs and aerosols and are recklessly using them in downtown LA. Who knows when they will next start up their dishwashers? Looks like a job for Jack Bauer.

quote:

Originally posted by rickyjk:
Are you suggesting that flying is a major polluter or have you forgotten about shipping which is far worse but hey not enough tax paying passengers on ships..That is if you believe that CO2 is responsible and you believe the dodgy dossier oh sorry climate model.

No.
I'm talking about cars.

quote:

Originally posted by boo2u:

quote:

How about a human needing 100W to stay alive, but each American needing a continuous 11000W to maintain their economy and lifestyle. We aren't far behind.

M.Y.
you seem to be confusued... usa is the driver of the world economy...without usa the worlds population would practacly die of mass starvation...idiotic EUtopia's buricrats are going to screw europe into the ground thanks to the political elite and main stream media's brainwashing of their populations [read zombie-like you]the EUtopia EUidiots are going to screw thier economies trying to go green...no doubt you will want to blame those stump toothed mother-and-sister-loving americans but you will be too enfeebled to do anything but fart at them

Hi. Zombie here. I think you are confused too. We all are. It's a confusing subject.
All I'm pointing out is that each person in industrialized countries RELIES on huge amounts of energy, and that energy is used very inefficiently. This was in response to someone saying they thought in impossible that we could have any impact on the atmosphere.

USA is just an example, but obviously a high user. Like Canadians and Australians. Quite how the EU is going to "screw europe into the ground" I don't know, personally I reckon you haven't a clue what you're talking about. But then again I'm brainwashed.

Americans seem to be getting pretty interested in getting better mpg from their cars now. When you hear Americans interested in efficiency, you know that something serious has changed.

Up til now the general attitude has always seemed : "If brute force doesn't work....you're not using enough of it"