Climate Change (a.k.a. Global Warming): Real or not?

[birdie1971]

I know I run the risk of ridicule from certain quarters about this subject but bear with me.

I know opinion is divided on whether (pun intended!) climate change is man made or not. I believe that it has not been proved that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is occurring.

I also know that many, many people do believe that AGW is true and poses a threat to our existence as a race. I'm also aware that globally, several hundred thousands people's jobs exist solely due to the the theory of AGW.

With the above in mind, I would appreciate it if people read this rather sober, rational document (and it's only 18 pages long)....


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stori es/papers/originals/no_evidence.pdf


Seriously folks, before commenting, please read the above title.

I know this is a big ask.

[DaisyMae]

I have read through the document and it is very convincing, but I do have a nagging doubt - although doubt is perhaps too strong a word - that because the US is one of the largest producers of CO2 emissions and one that is least prepared to change, there is a vested interest in proving that CO2 is not the demon that we have all been led to believe it is.

Perhaps we should consider the attempt at reducing the so-called 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere in a more positive way - albeit for the wrong reasons. We will all get a positive result ultimately from the reduced cost of making and storing electricity as a result of more effectively insulated homes and offices requiring less power to achieve this. A simplistic view perhaps but I believe it has some merit.

[jake-the-peg]

Opinion is divided

On one side is a mass of the world's most respected scientists and scientific institutes

On the other is a mish mash of individual scientists often with relationships with oil companies.

Even George Bush accepted Man-made Global warming in the end!

That's how one-sided it is!

When looking at something like this ask yourself who wrote it?

What do I know about him?

Have a read here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scient ist-david-evans

According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Now on the other hand we have the Royal Society which is one of the most pre-eminent scientific institutuions in the World and has been for 350 years.

Here is their run down of the most common misleading arguments from Global warming conspiracy theorists:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

See how many of Evan's you can spot

[jake-the-peg]

Sorry forgot to turn off Bold (note to self preview!)

[rov1200]

I'm coming round to the Peter Lilley (MP) argument.

Land's End is on average 2 deg hotter than Newcastle. The Loire Valley is 2 deg hotter than Lands End.

I think we can live with the extra 2 deg rise.

[jake-the-peg]

In a sense you may be right rov

The UK is in the bottom 10 of the list of countries most likely to be affected by climate change.

But think wider

Nice will become like Cairo, Cairo like, well you get the idea.

You think illegal immigration is a problem now?

See what it's like in 20-30 years!

[New Judge]

Whether global warming is evident and (more importantly) whether it is man made is an argument that will go on until the last human switches off his useless �energy-saving� light bulb before turning up his toes.

What is more important to most people is how it is proposed to tackle the problem (if it exists and if it can be shown than humans can influence it). In Europe and in the UK particularly, the government�s answer is to raise taxes and charges on energy related products. So I will pay more for my electricity in order to fund so-called �wind farms� which will (intermittently) contribute small amounts to our total energy requirements. The cost of these is totally out of proportion to the power they produce, and the energy consumed in making the things outweighs all the �carbon savings� they are alleged to make for many years.

Then there is �carbon trading� and �carbon offsets�. Huge bureaucracies are being created so that people can shuffle paper around. (There�s even a London Carbon Exchange, would you believe). This makes developed countries and individuals feel good and suggests they are doing their bit to solve a problem that is probably not of their making and over which they probably have little or no influence anyway. And guess who pays for that bureaucracy?

I�m now treated as if I drowned a sack full of puppies if I turn on a tungsten light bulb, travel on an aircraft, or even fart. Meantime China continues to open one new coal fired power station each week, India vows its intention to catch up with developed nations by burning everything it can lay its hands on and the US (for all Obama�s �new broom� rhetoric) will continue to see growth in its emissions.

If I�m expected to reduce my activities to reduce my �emissions� I don�t expect to have to pay through the nose for the privilege.

[jake-the-peg]

You know NJ China would probably point out that each Chinese person uses a fraction of the Carbon that you do and that you are asking them to remain undeveloped so that you can continue to fly off on foreign holidays and drive a large car around the place.

You allege that wind generators consume more carbon than they save.

You have shown no evidence of that and it's not true

http://www.vestas.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload .aspx?File=%2FFiles%2FFiler%2FEN%2FEPD+Brochur es%2FBrochure_210x280mm_EPD_V80-2.0MW_offshore .pdf

Payback is in 9 months

[New Judge]

Well, jake, the manufacturers� blurb is most unlikely to say anything else is it? I think their estimates, especially for the concrete involved are wildly optimistic.

My calculations suggest that one of these things might just produce enough juice to power about 1500 homes (if they only want to switch anything on when the wind is strong enough) � hardly worth the trouble since it means about 20,000 of them would be needed to intermittently feed enough power into the grid to meet just domestic demand.

China produces ten times the emissions of the UK. With about 16 times the population, I don�t make their per capita emissions that much short of that of the UK. But I don�t expect them to remain �undeveloped� � they can do what they like as far as I am concerned. I only wish I was allowed to do the same.

But none of this matters. It is the manner in which we are being instructed to tackle this alleged problem that concerns me. Forcing me to change my light bulbs to ones which are not fit for purpose will not address the problem one jot.

And by the way I drive one of the lowest emission cars available (apart from the zero-rated ones which seem unavailable) and I do about 3,000 miles a year. I drive such a car because it suits my needs, not because I have been made to feel guilty if I drive anything else.

I suppose all of this makes me a bit of a heretic.

[bentaxle]

Anybody see the old boy on dragons den with the idea of putting small generators on chimneys stacks ,even if it only puts a few watts into your hot tank it must be worth looking into ,looking out of my window I can see dozens of redundent stacks as most have wall vented boilers

[jake-the-peg]

When I said you I meant it in the more generic "you in the west" manner as I obviously don't know your personal details.

Things light light bulbs make more than a jot of difference they matter a lot.They matter 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year in the UK

What doesn't make a difference is people tree-hugging and paying carbon offsets on flights from their own volition.

You won't like it I know but changes have to be enfoced over the whole country, over the whole continent. We can't just let people continue to waste energy.

We will probably have to follow Obama's lead and ban cars that can't reach a certain mpg figure and other similar measures.

But the debate is over. The need to reduce carbon is understood by the Labour Party , the Liberals and by the Tories.

You can moan and whine as much as you like but things are going to change.

Your choice is to get on board or stand in the road. If you chose to stand in the road it's going to hurt!

[LazyGun]

Looked it over - I remain unconvinced by David Evans view on things.
I will stick with interpretations made by the IPCC and the Royal Society and all the other respected scientific institutions thanks.

[Everhelpful]

Pleased to see Prince Charles does his bit about Carbon Footprint!!!!!

[New Judge]

As far as I know, jake, there never was a debate. We were told what was going to happen, and that's what sticks in my craw.

[1ARMEDBANDIT]

If I can stick my tuppence worth in! For the past several years the jet stream during the summer months have dropped way down past Britain, the reason for our bad weather. Francis Wilson said "unusually low". Now the jet stream is a ribbon of fast moving winds squeezed between hot air coming up from the south and cold air coming down from the north. If the jet stream is descending that surely means the cold air is winning. I have also been monitoring the temperature locally which is low, average summer 18/22 degrees. winter 5/10 degrees. So where is this global warming?.

[New Judge]

It's not merely condescending, infund. it's downright arrogant bullying. But that's the way our "democratic" system works now - "We've decided what's to happen and here's what you will do."

Thanks for the support.

[Oneeyedvic]

Before you buy into the "All the leading scientists believe it so it must be true" argument, please do some research into Eugenics. Look at how many leading scientists and people believed that Eugenics would be the downfall of civilisation.

Jake, maybe you could point out to me a single piece of research that has accurately predicted what would happen in the climate over a 10 year period.

With all the scientists agreeing on this - maybe you could explain why their research varies by about 400%. A 400% variance doesn't sound like any kind of accuracy to me.

Maybe you could also show me any piece of research / evidence that has micromanaged an environment over a 10 year period with any degree of accuracy.