Is Climate Change A Sham To Get More Money From The Taxpayer?

[pdq1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224

It has just been announced the forecasting is all wrong and is now set at a lower figure. In fact global temperatures haven't risen at all for the past two decades and is all due to normal cyclic variation. They say we should consider climate change over centuries rather than decades.

Who should we believe? We will all be in our boxes before the new century is upon us.

[Gizmonster]

I've never believed it:

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

[Slapshot]

No that's not strictly correct, what HADgem3 has identified is a slowing of the increases more in line with cyclic variation however The Met Office maintains its original hypothesis of forecast levels of warming.

I'm a sceptic anyway and Climate change is a long term process the AGW people continually question this what this report infers is that AGW is not as fundamental a driver of climatic change as has maybe been suggested which does help play into the AGW sceptics hands.

I think one thing everyone should remember is that this research and development of these models is in it's infancy and there will always be variation in the results of the decadel stuff, doesn't change the fact that the climate is gently warming, whether that be normal cyclic change or AGW no one really knows!

[Old_Geezer]

Forecasting is always subject to new information causing corrections. "They" have always said that one needs to see the long terms not a few decades. Past trends indicate the climate is clearly changing. Whether that is used as a bandwagon for tax opportunities or whatever is a separate issue. You may be in a box before the weather is too much for you, but your descendants won't be so lucky.

[Slapshot]

Politically the AGW movement has been critical back up to governments and the Green policies, that's why they support IPCC and the like but quosh the research that dares disprove any theories. The new results fit....just

[modeller]

If you examine the climatic changes over the past 15,000 years they follow common factors but this one is different. We should be entering a cold phase but we are not, apart from a few blips during the 20 century the average temps are rising . It could be argued that our greenhouse gases are 'saving' us from entering another Medieval Little Ice Age or in the much longer term another glacial period.

[PetitAnglais]

I believe 100% in climate change, it has been going on all the time over millions of years. I don't see how anyone can say it's not happenning.

[xud]

Whether global warming is a sham or not, they're certainly using it as an excuse to jack up taxes.

For as long as the scientists are providing the Government with the information they want to hear, they will contine to receive extra funding. Very cosy.

My opinion is that if global warming was as bad as what they say it is then Joe Taxpayer wouldn't even have a say in the matter.
They would stop importing oil, ground aeroplanes, stop deforestation and much more.

Yes, it is a cash cow, which is going to continue for years to come, so the opportunities for tax rises are seemingly limitless.

If global warming didn't exist you can bet your botom dollar that they would find some other way to get more money out of you.

Ohhh, what was that song by the Beatles? I can't remember now but the lyrics sum it up in one.

[New Judge]

Beware boys and girls. Beso might be along at any moment.

I vowed not to get involved with any further “global warming” or “climate change” questions following bitter experience of two during the last couple of months. It’s a shame because I enjoy the debate and everybody bar one expresses their views with courtesy and civility. I particularly enjoy contributions from jake-the-peg and birdie and indeed many others who seem able to debate and argue without insults. I won’t expect you to trawl through all the answers but have picked out a taster. There are some very profound and inflexible statements followed by sheer insults when the going gets tough:


http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question1191943.html

“Global temperature is still rising despite the misinformation promulgated by skeptics and lapped up and repeated by the likes of NewJudge who have no concern for the facts. “

"They [computer models] are calibrated by attempting to match historical conditions. They do so reasonably well and are being improved all the time."

“Grow up and and let the world get on with it. “

"I am sick and tired of the ignorant naysayers who pretend the science is wrong."

“Unfortunately those like NewJudge are happy to leave the massive costs to future generations so he can continue to gluttonously indulge on the planet's resources."

"birdie. You don't understand computer models. “

"The rest of your post is such rubbish is does not warrant further comment. “

“Those who dismiss the problem because it isn't going to affect them directly are very sick people indeed. “

“The cause of the temperature rise is no longer debatable. It is from human activity and the evidence is overwhelming. You are a pathetic hypocrite.”

Then a later question:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question1193878.html

“However a vast amount of has gone into refining climate models such that they accurately match the measurements embedded in the geological records of the past. “

“Dozens of independent models are coming up with the results all in the same direction. Increased carbon dioxide causes the atmosphere to retain more heat. The evidence is conclusive. AWG is real. “

“Your lies that the observed reality is short of the modelling make me sick.
If it isn't going to affect you much it doesn't really matter. People with this attitude are incredibly greedy and selfish. “

Finally, the piece de resistance that silenced all his critics:

“It makes you a genuine for sure, but a genuine arseh0le.”

Best of luck with your question, pdg. I hope it is not ruined.

[jake-the-peg]

You need to read this more carefully not just picking out the bits that appeal to your point of view.

//It says that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 C by 2017 - as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.//

That's an adjustment of the preciction down not an admission that it isn't happening It certainly isn't *all wrong*

Look at the graph at the bottom of the article

If you looked at that graph at 1990 you'd have concluded no significant change.

You have to look at a longer time scale

There are certain simple facts

1/ Carbon dioxide traps heat and increases the global temperature - this is simple incontrvertable physics like saying a greenhouse warms up by trapping heat

2/ The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing - Direct measurements showing this have been available for over 50 years and indirect measurements from ice cores support this and extend the trend further.

3/ Humans have been adding significantly to the CO2 output - we account for this it's not open for debate - 33 Billion tonnes in 2010 about 3% of the natural emission

So Humans don't count?

Here's the CO2 concentration

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

I's going up by what? 2.5% in the 60s, 4% in the 70s 4.5% in the 80s etc

The planet has a limited ability to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and we were close to that limit - that balance is being thrown out.

If your bath can drain 100 litres a minute and the tap is putting 99 litres a minute in you're OK

If you add a hose pipe with an extra 3% you're going to get wet feet


Working out that they'll be 20% less wet than you originally thought does not put you in the clear!

[ludwig]

No, it isn't a sham, and yes it is being used to get more money from the taxpayer.

[pdq1]

Is it beyond the reach of man to aleviate the effects of climate change? Assuming that countries like China, India and the emerging economies will put themselves first and continue to produce extra carbon why are we trying to turn the clock back and so out of step?

We know their are methods to create holes in the atmosphere so that carbon is not trapped at the lower levels. I refer of course to the holes in the atmosphere caused by CFCs and now banned because of harmful Infra Red penetration. But it shows we could use similar technology to allow carbon to escape. Just as doctors are now using the deadly thilolemide that caused deformation in babies to cure present day illnesses we could manipulate the atmosphere if we really wanted to.

[goodlife]

In view of what we know, can we expect mankind as a whole to make an about-face so as to spare our beautiful home—and us too? What is more, if human activity is causing global warming, we may have only years, not centuries, to make the needed changes. At the very least, making such changes would mean promptly addressing the root causes of earth’s problems—human greed, self-interest, ignorance, inept government, and apathy. Is such a prospect probable or just wishful thinking? If the latter, are you without hope.

[LazyGun]

@goodlife - The usual doommongering I see. No solid proposals mind, except perhaps to all fall down on our knees and pray to your god.

@pdq. So if I am reading you right, are you saying that we in the UK and elsewhere in the West are wasting our time trying to implement changes to a low carbon energy policy because of what China and the other emerging economies are doing?

And as for holes in the atmosphere allowing CO2 to, presumably, escape into space - is that what you meant? So we should consider deploying CFCs to purposefully created "holes" in our atmosphere, and this will let the CO2 preferentially drain out (but at the same time, O2 and Nitrogen will just hang around?) - Because, to my knowledge, CFCs did not create a physical hole, or tunnel, or tube, in the atmosphere - the term hole is something of a misnomer - what they actually did was to thin out and deplete the ozone within just the outermost layer of the atmosphere, and that ozone depletion in turn allowed passage for increased quantities of UV light, most especially UVB light through the atmosphere - not a good thing, but not a tunnel through which CO2 could funnel out either....

[naomi24]

Goodlife relishes the thought of global disaster.

I don't know how serious the threat is, but a lot of people are making a lot of money from it - and not just governments.

[Davethedog]

I believe it, there is strong evidence that the Earth warms up and cools down, to degrees (no pun) and has done regularly over the Billions of years.

What I have never believed is that man has influenced it, but of course admitting this would mean all the money taken would be redundant.

[pdq1]

The Daily Mail sums it up for most of us. How convenient for the Met office to release the lower figures on Xmas eve. Talk about trying to bury bad news. They may employ intelligent scientists but they must regard the rest of us as mugs.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2259934/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Global-warming-inconvenient-truth.html

[flobadob]

I think mankind's impact is not much more than negligible. The world will go through natural cycles.

World=4,500,000,000

Us doing what we do=500 perhaps

So the world wins.

[LazyGun]

@pdq - Your post "How convenient the Met Office releases the figures on Christmas Eve" implies a conspiracy of some sort. What do you imagine they were trying to achieve with such a conspiracy?

And it did make me laugh rather at the idea that somehow the Daily Mail is open and balanced on this issue. They have an agenda, just like other papers have theirs.

I do not propose to get drawn into an argument about the fundamentals on this - Suffice to say that the fact the global temperatures and weather patterns have varied cyclically over the eons is not unknown to the scientists - in fact, the models factor this in.

And although humanity has only been around an eyeblink, in geological timescales, the effect we have had on our environment is nothing short of extraordinary. 6 billion of us, and rising, all of us requiring the agriculture and resource extraction and industrialisation to support such a widespread and exponential growth - We undoubtedly have had an impact on a system that relies on homeostatic equilibrium to control it.

When those who do not believe the mankind has had some serious impact on the trend of global warming can point me in the direction of reputable scientific institutes, or national scientific academies that repudiate such evidence, then I might start to believe them.....

[birdie1971]

Lazygun - “... the fact the global temperatures and weather patterns have varied cyclically over the eons is not unknown to the scientists - in fact, the models factor this in...”

Having done a fair bit of computer modelling in my time, I'm not sure that your assertion is true. No one knows why interglacials stop and start. There are a number of theories but no one knows for certain what specific conditions are necessary to precipitate such events. That being the case, it is impossible for computer modellers to accurately incorporate such events into their models. As such, assumptions are made about why glacial periods occur and these assumptions are incorporated into the models in the form of algorithms; the variables of which are given arbitrary values until the model (run iteratively) roughly reflects what we observe today. Put simply, the models are a colossally simplified version of reality which may or may not have the ability to accurately predict future climatic conditions. As I have said before, even the IPCC admits that the output of computer models, “... may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty...” and as such they call them computer 'projections' rather than 'predictions'.

And the proof of this is in the output of these models which have now been shown to be inaccurate and in some cases, wildly so. That is why the Hadley Centre has finally had to admit that its forecasts for climate change and specifically global temperature increases have been incorrect when measured against the observed data. It's also worth noting that the recently leaked IPCC's AR5 report has also reached the same conclusion – global temperatures haven't been anywhere near as high as the computer models have 'projected'.

Despite what some other people my claim about my views on Anthropogenic Climate Change I have never said that mankind's industrialised activities haven't had and continue to have an effect on climate. Where I and others differ is in the magnitude of those effects and what we should do about it. Unfortunately, some people do like to claim that the sky is about to fall, the oceans are about to engulf us all and that mass extinctions are afoot due to man-made climate change.

Thankfully, they're wrong.

[LazyGun]

@Birdie

I am no expert on climate modelling - I leave that to the experts. But others here cite things like solar cycles, and also the long term cyclical change as the principal factors in any observed warming trend, pointing to these factors and then triumphantly proclaiming that the scientists must have overlooked, or forgetten to account for these drivers in their projections, models and predictions.

You and I both know that such a assertion is simply not true - the idea that national institutes, climatologists and all the rest would simply have overlooked, not understood or simply forgotten to include these factors in is, frankly, absurd.

So,as I understand the state of play at the moment - every single scientific institution of note, from every country of note, whose work impacts even remotely upon cimate change all agree that, taking these known factors into consideration, we are in an ongoing trend of global warming, and the principal driver of this trend is Anthropogenic.

Now, we can quibble about the extent of the slope of the graph, and all estimations will come with large error bars - but the trend for warming is ever upwards. And that will inevitably affect global weather patterns - warmer air will hold more water, which itself is a forcing agent and serves to reinforce that upward trend, coupled with increasingly disturbed weather patterns.

I think the extent of the impact such a change will have upon human populations is open for debate, because of those large error bars. I think that the pace of warming is open to debate, because the data shows that. but one thing that is not open to debate is the fundamental point that the sum of human activity and its impact upon the ecological systems of the planet are contributing significantly to global warming, and that such a change will have a very big impact upon human populations with the changing global weather patterns and extreme weather events.

A move away from a high carbon energy base, reliant on finite quantities of fossil fuel, and increasingly difficult extraction processes makes a lot of sense. Again, you can argue over the timing and pace of such changes, but fundamentally it makes sense to transition across.