Safe Speed Forums

BBC showing its neutrality again............

In an ITV on line poll recently after a week of global warming indoctrination 60% of the people who took part said that they did not thing mankind had any effect on climate.

BTW how many people in 3rd world countries did they phone for the poll. Presumably the minority who had access to a phone... Not the Global majority they claim.....what a joke.



EVER Just how long have they been measuring it. This stuff is just taking the piss.

Two of Britain's leading environmental thinkers say it is time to develop a quick technical fix for climate change.

[snip]

Professor Rapley, who has just moved to head up the Science Museum from a similar post at the British Antarctic survey, said the two men developed the ocean pipes concept during country walks in James Lovelock's beloved Devon.

Unbeknown to them, a US company, Atmocean, had already begun trials of a very similar technology.

Floating pipes reaching down from the top of the ocean into colder water below move up and down with the swell.

As the pipe moves down, cold water flows up and out onto the ocean surface. A simple valve blocks any downward flow when the pipe is moving upwards.

Colder water is more "productive" - it contains more life, and so in principle can absorb more carbon.

...

Atmocean CEO Phil Kithil has calculated that deploying about 134 million pipes could potentially sequester about one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by human activities each year. But he acknowledges that research is in the early stages.



1. Buoy: Helps hold the pump in position
2. Pump: James Lovelock believes the tubes would be about 100m long to access deep cold water, and 10m wide; Phil Kithil thinks 200m long and 3m wide could be optimum
3. Valve: Could be at the top or bottom of the pipe; top perhaps preferable for maintenance. Water is drawn through the open valve on wave down slopes; no external power needed
4. Cold water: On wave up slopes, cool water spills out of the pump
5. Pump sites: Locations could also be chosen to reduce hurricane risk by cooling surface waters

Fuel-cell cars to get test drive

A leading car manufacturer is to give drivers the chance to try out hydrogen-powered vehicles.

As part of "Project Driveway", General Motors (GM) will put more than 100 fuel-cell vehicles in the hands of customers before the end of the year.

[snip]

Al Gore (and the IPCC) have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their campaigning.

Not one of the science prizes, you will note. The scientific merit of their arguments is obviously weak and we all know the Peace prize is highly political - just look at previous recipients.

Al Gore (and the IPCC) have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their campaigning.

Not one of the science prizes, you will note. The scientific merit of their arguments is obviously weak and we all know the Peace prize is highly political - just look at previous recipients.

for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

Gore says prize must spur action

...
He said he accepted the Nobel award on behalf of scientists...

...for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change...

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Dr Gray wrote:

Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the IPCC and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are fundamentally unsound. Some of you may have received more detail if you received my recent NZClimate Truth Newsletters (see under “Links” on this website).

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.

Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction.

My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

BROWN SEEKS GREATER EMISSIONS CUTS
Saturday November 17,2007

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he is seeking to introduce greater long-term cuts in carbon emissions than previously planned.

He was speaking after publication of a major scientific report showing that the Earth is heading for a warmer age at a quickening pace because of human activity.

Mr Brown will set out in the next few days various ways in which he believes emissions can be cut.

The report, which results from six years of research compiled by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, declares that climate systems have already unquestionably begun to change. The evidence is in the warming of air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting snow and ice and rising sea levels.

Mr Brown said developed countries "must show leadership and take the first and largest responsibility", adding: "That is why I am asking the UK's independent climate change committee to report on whether our target of a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, already greater than most other countries, should be even stronger still.

"I will be setting out in the next few days some of the further action we will be taking in Britain to reduce carbon emissions, and climate change will be one of the key issues discussed at next week's meeting of Commonwealth leaders."

The report by the Nobel-winning UN scientific panel, agreed on after six days of sometimes tense talks, will be used by political negotiators meeting next month to begin talks on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the action plan for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. UN experts say a new global plan must be in place by 2009 to ensure a smooth transition when the Kyoto terms expire in 2012.

The report warns that recent research has heightened concern that the poor and the elderly will suffer most under climate change. Hunger and disease will be more common, droughts, floods and heat waves will afflict the world's poorest regions, and more animal and plant species will vanish.

Unless action is taken, human activity could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes" that would make the planet unrecognisable.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said after publication of the report that the world must work together to deal with the issue. He said: "We are all in this together, we must work together." And he urged: "Concentrated and sustained action can still avoid some of the most catastrophic scenarios."

Global Warming Is 'Not Science Fiction'

The climate change threat is "not science fiction" and reversing it is the "defining challenge of our age", the UN chief has warned.


Climate change has already begun

Ban Ki-moon said the potential impact of global warming is "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do".

He was speaking in Valencia, Spain, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has issued its latest report after six years of research.

It says the Earth is heading towards a warmer age at a faster pace and warned of inevitable human suffering and the threat of species extinction.

It believes climate systems have already begun to change, with warming of air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting snow and ice, and rising sea levels.

The UN Secretary-General has visited some of the areas worse affected so far by climate change.

Mr Ban said in the Amazon "the rain forest, the lungs of the Earth, is being suffocated".

He added: "In Chile the sight of one of the holes in the atmosphere, children wear protective clothing against ultraviolet radiation radiation."


Action needed to save planet

He said some days the children are not allowed to play outside or go to school.

"These scenes are frightening like science fiction movies," he explained.

"But they are even more terrifying because they are real and reversing these threats is the defining challenge of our age."

He also said poorer nations will be hit hardest because melting glaciers will trigger floods and lead to water shortages in South-East Asia and America.

The report will now be used as a how-to guide for policy makers meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia.

They will begin discussing a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 36 industrial countries to reduce carbon emissions by an average 5% from 1990 levels by 2012.

...what we are being told by our masters...