Safe Speed Forums

The actual evidence they have is that CO2 has an insulating effect (although tiny compared to water vapour & methane {largely due to cattle & sheep}).

When atmospheric C02 is high the global temperature is high although rather unfortunately it seems the temperature becoming high seems to send the CO2 high not the other way round. There also seems to be some tricky anomolies in that in the seventies they were predicting the next ice age and hence global temperatures must have been falling - however CO2 must surely have been rising fast during the preceding period.

The observational nonsence (eg drowning polar bears) are just marketing fluff to get the attention of the ill-informed and either untrue or easily attributable to some other cause. The main other cause is natural global changes in temperature which have been occuring ever since the Earth first existed.

Beyond this they have nothing more than a selection of computer models which follow that well known computer accronym GIGO. That's garbage in garbage out to those who are not computer literate.

The IPCC have admitted freely they don't fully understand the science. i.e. they haven't entirely worked out what exactly affects the climate nor to what extent. However they claim they can predict the global climate to within a few degrees centigrade using computer models that I believe calculate the climate 30 minutes into the future and then pipe the results back into the beginning. They do it like this because calculating a longer period is just not possible.

So let us consider that often quoted date 2100.

That's 2x24*365.25*92 iterations aways (2 per hour 24 hours per day ...). A grand total of 1612944 iterations away. So how accurate can you expect the result to be ?

Any statistical model is bound to be inaccurate to some degree and given that they don't know what lots of the input should be you might expect it to be quite large eg 10% so lets see what happens with some rediculously small inaccuracies :

error per iteration potential error by 2100
1% 1.36 e+6970
0.1% 1.38 e+700
0.01% 1.11 e+70
0.001% 10113274
0.0001% 5.02
0.00001% 1.175

So there you have it if one iteration is acurrate to one hundred thousandths of a percent the end prediction might be believable. The problem is this level of accuracy is plain unachievable with even tiny inaccuracies in the modelling - never mind when they haven't exactly defined all the potential inputs or even the accurate affects of the inputs they have assumed.

The only way such a model can produce anything that resembles consistent results is very heavy handed bodging.

The whole issue is driven by politics not science.

But surely if people really "don't have the knowledge or experience to evaluate the science behind the issue" then they should, for now, rationally take the default position that AGW doesn't exist? Until people are shown convincing evidence to support a belief and/or there's real scientific consensus so that people don't need to see the evidence for themselves, the default position must be not to believe, with anything, and that includes AGW. The onus is on believers to prove their case. Just as people don't believe in celestial teapots, fairies etc, they have no reason to believe in AGW until scientists really do more or less unite behind the theory, which they certainly haven't yet.

It seems to me that people who say they believe in AGW are usually the ones believing what they want to believe. Politicians want to believe in it because they want to control and tax us. Anyone doubt that that's what they want? They say the time for debate is over: how convenient. Fans of socialism and Communism have seen them fail and want a new trendy anti-capitalist cause to embrace, and AGW provides the perfect excuse (as I see Peter has mentioned). If you can get them to talk about it at all, their justification for the existence of AGW is flimsy at best, which is hardly surprising considering we have ye olde ulterior motive once again.

Some people want their friends and family to think they're "green", and the carbon footprint provides a way for them to show it. They don't want to know about CO2 being plant "food", not being a pollutant and being much less of a greenhouse gas than water vapour. Why don't they want to know? You'd think they'd want to listen, and listen with incredulity, if they actually thought AGW was bulletproof. In reality they're just pretending to believe for their own selfish reasons, either at a conscious or subconscious level, and they want to carry on with that pretence thank you very much. Just call them "green" and leave it there.

Being unnecessarily "green" is harmless enough in itself, but it's contributing towards us gradually being forced back into a medieval lifestyle, when it's by no means certain that there's any point whatsoever. Such a lifestyle would undoubtedly increase hardship and deaths hugely, and we shouldn't start on the slippery slope towards it until we're very sure that we need to. Some "green" people seem to have a romanticised view of the peasant lifestyle. I certainly don't. I think those people could do with a reality check. Maybe they should live in a Sudanese village for a while (and talking of third-world Africa, the eco-nuts are doing their best to hold back its development by, for example, insisting on them using expensive and unreliable solar and wind power if they're going to have electricity at all. Such callousness beggars belief and reminds me of the casual regard that pro-camera types have for the lives that are being lost.)

As opposed to those who purport to believe in AGW, those who do not are usually very happy to discuss and debate the issue in my experience. They genuinely believe that AGW is a load of nonsense. They may also like the fact that such beliefs allow them freedoms (which they're quite entitled to) etc, but what's wrong with that as long as they have good reasons for their beliefs? I've never come across someone who purports not to believe in AGW and tries to change the subject (or worse still demonise the person concerned) when someone challenges their stance. They're altogether less shrill at every level, and none of them have yet come up with the idea of attempting to gag their opponents by calling them (presumably) "affirmers". They don't keep attempting to spread propaganda which is obviously fallacious (e.g. "This ice cap is melting" when it's summer and such melting has always occurred every year...why do they attempt to deceive people if they really think the truth is on their side?) I find the AGW debate has parallels with the camera debate, in that one side is mostly calm, rational, open, truthful and willing to use unmassaged figures and unmoderated forum debate, while the other is, well, different.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

My name is cabbie and I’m a denier. I’ve struggled to cope with this affliction; spent hours seeking the arguments that will provide a cure – but, just when I’m beginning to believe I have it beaten, along comes a new tax proposal that puts me into relapse.
>
>
It is implausible to suppose that any of us mere mortals can form an opinion based on fact when the ‘facts’ presented to us are uncheckable. The most cogent, authoritative and documented argument that I have encountered was by (Lord) Christopher Monckton in the Sunday Telegraph last year; it considers the first two IPCC reports along with the Stern report (commissioned by Mr Bliar) and accrues respect by providing source and computational data for download – the initial article can be viewed here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsess...SFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml&site=5&page=0

No doubt others more informed than I might detect bias in the article – but I have yet to find any cogent response to it. In the same vein, I have yet to encounter a similarly argued and referenced case made by the proponents of global warming/climate change.

Being a natural sceptic, I tend to discount anything presented as ‘fact’ but not supported by credible evidence – especially so when tendered by politicians in support of new taxes…and I am minded to ask what, apart from the position they hold, qualifies ministers (actual or aspiring!) in the field of climatology…

ps: bombus - an excellent preceeding post

As has been said before.

What is the rational responce of a normal person to a Politician who stands on the podium and states "give us your money and we will control the weather"

Under any normal situation the responce would involve large quantities of laughter and quite possibly eggs and rotton fruit!

How have we come to the situation where we are even listening to them??

Now I am not saying that we do not face serious enviromental problems. But the problems are mainly (IMO) about numbers of people, natural resouce depletion, and changing land use (EG Peak oil, overfishing, deforestation and so on) CO2 emisiions may or may not be an issue, but whatever role they play they are well down on the list!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I have two main concerns with the AGW promoters-

All of the planning seems to be about stopping global warming rather than coping with the effects. Climate change is inevitable, believing humans can stop it is just ridiculous, I cannot give any credibility to anyone who thinks it can be controlled.

The huge campaign mounted around CO2 has drowned out other environmental issues such as pollution and waste. I am no eco-warrior but this weighting towards CO2 as the the only issue of importance leaves me somewhat dismayed.

Edit - You beat me to it Dusty. Different words, same sentiment

If our politicians really believed that man made CO2 was the problem they would immediately scrap the plans for the expansion of Stanstead and Heathrow airports, they would stop taking overseas holidays themselves and they would not be planning three million new houses. They are just using climate change as an excuse to tax us. If there really is a problem the only real immediate answer is to ration fossil fuel supplies, but since they are not even proposing that then we tend to assume they are lying in order to make money out of us.

Also, the IPCC seems to be the only place where a scientific "consensus" exists. And unfortunately the governments of the world choose who is on the IPCC gravy train... so no vested intrests or carefully selected pro AGW scientists there then. On top of that, as far as I can tell, an awful lot (highlighted excellently in 'scared to death'-along with numerous articles that don't pop up on mainstream media) of the scientists on the IPCC aren't actually climatologists at all, or even specialists in the fields for which they 'comment' during the reports - and yet EVEN THEN the comments are moderated by super editors who are even more carefully selected! Bit suspicious if you ask me

To Dusty. This is fantastic

I've never been able to put it so perfectly

Seconded. One to remember.


Thanks.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Will they ever prove their case such that it is beyond dispute unless the predicitions become self-evident, something that the existing generation are unlikely to experience? As long as there is room for doubt there are those who will use this to disbelieve.



Meh! I say its the sceptics believeing what they want to believe so you predictably say its the other way around.

I repeat what I asked earlier. Would people be so willing to disbelieve climate change theory if it were being touted as a good thing that would save us all money, give us tropical holidays on our own doorstep and let us have cheap fuel and gas guzzling cars to help accelerate the phenomenon? I think not!



Equally, what is the rational response of someone who is told that climate change may mean they will have to surrender some elements of the comfortable lifestyle they currently enjoy, or be forced to engage in some activity they can't be arsed to do at the moment because its purely voluntary?

Say...I don't believe in climate change theory perhaps?

Ooops, now I'm at it!


Note: I am neither a supporter nor sceptic of climate change theory at this moment in time. The only point I am making in this thread is that I am highly cynical of the average bod who says they don't believe climate change theory for any reason other than self-motivated ones. IMHO its only the fear of something in their life having to change for the worse that motivates most of the 'deniers'; if the issue came with no potential side effects for the populace nobody would give a damn lets face it.

They could go along way to start proving more reliable by using more reliable data, and by not changing their story/predictions every few months. They might also go some way to looking more believable by 1) practising what they preach 2) not making out tax is the way out and 3) stop glossing over science with doomsday stories, 4) stop filling the wallets of all scientists who show support and cutting of those who oppose. It shows bias in their reason for research and a lack of willing to find out the truth rather than what they want to be seen as the truth.



This is an entirely different question to what you intend it to be. If they said "Climate Change is a good thing, if you drive an economically friendly car then we're going to tax you - so go buy one with poor economics - then yes, people would complain. It doesn't matter if it's luxuries they try to enforce, if they intend to 'solve' problems by enforcing unfair expenses on people then it will result in people both a) disagreeing and b) finding out more for themselves.

I think the big problem is your assumption people disbelieve for personal reasons - it's not because I will get taxed more, it's the injustice of the 'solution' on all - because it clearly isn't a solution, I therefore struggle to believe the problem.

For example

"That cat you own, it's farts are dangerous to those around it... we're going to tax you for this"

It's not a solution, if the cats farts were genuinely dangerous they'd literally take the cat away.

In the same way
"Flying is bad for the environment, you should all be taxed for doing it"
"Cars are bad for the environment, we're going to tax you loads for driving them"
*politicians/activists fly from all over the world to Bali to discuss this*
*Politicians have personal chauffeurs to trundle them around in luxury saloons*

Of course a large proportion of the populace are swayed by the media - and we know that the great majority of those sources are sitting firmly on the bandwagon.

There was an interesting snippet on Radio 4 promoting a program - they were quite categoric in saying that the BBC is there to inform and to remain impartial. The next day on BBC TV news, the announcer was talking about "...the global warming crisi..."

Er no it isn't. You just went on to change it in to one you could provide a riposte to, anyone can do that

If climate change came with no net detrement to the general public, nobody would have any motivation to disbelieve it.

If I can sum up, both sides have interests tied to their POV.

For me, a strong deciding factor within my judgement is which side is open to debate and which side stifles it. Another is which side has scientists acting like politicians and politicians acting like scientists. Then we have those who insist on labelling sceptics as ‘climate change deniers’, can one be more disingenuous?

I am open to the possibility of AGW, but I simply can’t accept what these clowns say.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I'm with you smeggy

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

As far as im concerned, mmgw or as the holier than thou ipcc like to call it "climate change" is a load of old crap based on pseudo scientific quackery.

Read this and be enlightened.


http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=476094&i=0

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

I too saw the program on telly and the scientists against AGW seemed convincing, as did the pro-AGW scientists' argument. However, as soon as the politicians said "we will increase taxation to solve AGW", that in itself convinced me it was all twaddle...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Well I guess the posts on this topic have put to bed that theory!!!

Let me say that I don't know anyone who actually believes it, but for some wierd reason it seemed to get such a hold that people were afraid to be heretics.

I've read enough to put some serious doubts in my mind about Al Gore, the new Messiah:

- Grapes used to be grown on Hadrians wall
- Gore has admitted to lying in the film to get attention
- The Polar Bears actually drowned in a storm, nothing to do with melting ice caps
- CO2 samples from the ice caps show that CO2 content rises AFTER the temperature increases

Further observation are that Gore, despite what he preaches, does none of it:

- He uses more power in his house than a small town
- None of his power is renewable
- He's made $50 Million so far.

But let's just for a minute assume it's all true:

Shouldn't we be welcoming a 2-3 degree increase in temperature?

Wouldn't you expect that a government that believed this stuff did a bit more than increase departure tax, talk about banning plastic bags and plan thousands of wind turbines which will actually increase the cost of energy?

It's very sensible to look for other energy sources but:

Where's the urgent plan to convert to nuclear power? Have they switched off all the un-necessary traffic lights that run 24 hours a day to cope with the lone driver at 3am? Have they done anything about manufactured congestion (have a look at the queue for the Dartford tunnel)?

Where's the debate on the biggest contributor of all - world population? Why are we building more houses to take in people from countries that can't look after the populations they have, yet continue to breed?

Instead of houses, lets stop immigration and plant some trees on the land saved.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

In that case you fully intended it to be an unfair loaded question. You are only going to get the answer you want from that as of course, if something isn't affecting peoples lives then they won't bat an eyelid. But what you propose is not the opposite of what is happening now.

The opposite to the situation now would be them trying to enforce luxury on us, rather than opress us. That, despite the fact that it would be luxury, would still get on peoples tits, as it's enforcement, not freedom of choice. The question you pose is unfair as it's not in the slightest bit relative. If they said, carry on as you are - it wouldn't be in the news and no one would know they were saying that.

Look, I'm sorry the question was phrased in such a way as to prevent you from providing the answer you wanted to give, I'm not obliged to conduct this discussion on your terms I'm afraid. The question was merely intended to suggest that people are self-motivated. And they are, you've observed more or less the very same in the above excerpt from your post.
Loaded question? Yeah, insofar as the answer is a nobrainer. Few people would care one way or the other about the climate change debate if it hadn't been made abundantly clear that we're going to have to make some sacrifices in the near future.

I remember reading a short Sci-Fi story many years ago set in a world of near limitless automated production.

Citizens had a duty to consume. But, and hear is the catch. They werent allowed to waste anything. you couldnt just throw your trainers in the bin unworn. You had to wear them out first.

In this world low-caste people had all the big houses and consumer goods whereas the high caste citizens were able to live simple and frugal lives.

In a similar vain i remember an experiment where convicts were sent to a prison that was like a 5 star hotel. all the luxuries but you couldnt leave.

They absolutly hated it!

(Bit like working in a sweet factory. once the novelty has worn off, you never want to see another sweet again!)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"