UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?
By vested interest I mean that world leaders are not impartial and receptive to change things for the good of mankind if it alienates voters or jeopardises their re-election. For example will the president of Poland tell coal miners they have to cease production and find other employment. Will the oil producers stop? Possibly subsidies for poorer countries might be an inducement but will those subsidies be spent properly? Vested interest works both ways, it pays to keep the status quo and not change as well.
Once again, Will, you are asking questions that have already been answered. And as I said before, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself when you just don't like those answers and just repeat yourself ad nauseum.As for peer reviewing, you are on very thin ice as the IPCC reports have huge tracts that have not been peer reviewed over the years. Don't bother denying it Will, as that will merely make you a liar.
Let me ask you then, who are these amateurs, who have vested interests in climate change not being true, and what interests?
No, you haven't answered those questions. You've dodged them. You can't repeat something you haven't said in the first place. If you are going to make a claim be prepared to back it up:Who has a vested interest in climate change being true?
How was the worst Atlantic storm caused by energy redistribution?
There has been far more peer review of the IPCC reports and of the source research that it has based on than on any of the anti-climate change "evidence". Not that we can really call it evidence.
Who are the amateurs? Well, that's easy. We have a handful of journalists like Christopher Booker who has a history of supporting wacky causes and who has vested interests in getting people to read his columns. We have the usual conspiracy theorists who like to take a pop at anything that hints of the establishment. The oil industry have tried to fund anti climate change research (and failed).
More about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...
The vested interest question really is fundamental. If man made climate change is true, just about everybody loses. Governments have to spend more on flood defences and other forms of mitigation. Big businesses lose profit. Poorer countries face big bills responding to severe weather events. Consumers have to consume less and spend more in taxes.
Almost nobody benefits from climate change. Sure, there might be the occasional scientist or wind turbine manufacturer who makes a profit out of it, but these are tiny compared to all the industries who lose out. The idea that these tiny organisations have funded a global hoax to falsify data is ludicrous. Wouldn't you have thought that the bigger companies would have paid for research to counter anything that the small fry could do?
On the other hand, just about everyone has a vested interest in man-made climate change being not true. Governments don't have to spend as much on mitigation. Manufacturing companies can continue to do what they want. We private individuals can continue to consume as much as want, do as much damage as we want and not have to pay higher taxes.
Almost nobody wants man-made climate change to be true. The interesting thing is how people deal with that. Most people see the weight of evidence and - reluctantly - agree that we need to do something. That's where just about every Government in the world is right now.
But it is human nature to want to deny an unpleasant truth. It's a well known part of the change curve. Before we can accept change we nearly always have to go through a process of denial. So we have a number of people with no scientific background who don't want man-made climate change to be true because they don't want the consequences. These are the people who are trying to find any reason they can to deny the consensus of scientific opinion.
What the deniers are really saying is that they don't want it to be true. That's a perfectly natural human reaction, but it is something that we need to move past.
Google the change curve and see what I mean. You can start here:
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/artic...
It was 14 degrees in London today. I don't ever remember it being that warm in December in my youth. And it was the same yesterday and the day before.
Geoff, you're a friggin stirrer.One of just many of your dubious qualities.
I'm still looking forward to when you admit that you agree with Will on pretty much every point.
Guy wrote: "It was 14 degrees in London today. I don't ever remember it being that warm in December in my youth. And it was the same yesterday and the day before."I'm sure your grandparents would tell stories of it being even warmer. Colder as well.
Probably to acquaintances in a pub. The weather is a 'safe' subject to discuss.
Usually...
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Geoff, you're a friggin stirrer.One of just many of your dubious qualities.
I'm still looking forward to when you admit that you agree with Will on pretty much every point."
I stopped responding to Geoff's posts on this thread long ago as I'd decided that the naughty man is 'doing a Booker' - i.e. writing simply in order to provoke a reaction.
message 359:
by
eastwood (do you feel lucky punk,well do ya)
(last edited Dec 09, 2015 04:19AM)
(new)
what would you say to the people of Carlisle at this point in time, after been told this would never happen again. ?
I feel really sorry for the people in Cumbria. After the last big floods the Environment Agency invested £48 million in flood defences designed to cope with the previous record levels of rainfall. This was what they thought at the time was a "once in 100 year" event.Unfortunately, 2015 broke the 2009 records by quite some margin. The news reports are saying that the river Eden rose by more than 20 feet - more than five feet higher than in 2009.
I have quite a bit of sympathy for the Environment Agency. They come under attack whenever they spend money on expensive flood schemes because naysayers will say that the extra flood defences aren't needed. And yet when something like this happens they are criticised for not doing enough.
Up to now, we have been able to build flood defences by looking at previous record levels of flooding and making provision for those levels. Now it seems that we will have to get ready for records to be continually broken, which in turn means spending a lot more on flood defences than we have been doing.
It's really sad because this floodwater isn't clean riverwater. It gets into the drains and sewers and drags up all manner of nastiness. You can't just sweep it out and dry it off. It stinks to high heaven and carries diseases.
And, very sad to say, it looks like it is going to get worse before (if) it gets better.
aren't the dutch leading the way for flood defence systems, yet we have ignored their advice, or am I wrong.
The Netherlands have a particular problem with flooding as much of their land is reclaimed from the North Sea. That makes them very susceptible to flooding from the sea (unlike the Cumbrian floods which were caused by inland rainfall). They are currently looking at spending at least another £1 billion to cope with anticipated problems in the future.I don't think the UK is necessarily not very good at flood prevention and mitigation. We've just been overwhelmed by extreme events that few people were predicting. We've got the expertise. It's usually a matter of political will to overcome the sceptics who say that we don't need to do anything.
well the government tend not to use our expertise, they would rather pay for external expertise, as the steelworkers will tell you round here.
I'm beginning to wonder whether they are going to have to start demolishing stuff in Carlisle because frankly it's never going to be possible to protect it. It'll soon be impossible to insure it. It was built on the flood plain and should never have been built there in the first place and if they replace it with grass than it'll give the water somewhere legitimate to go and spare other areas from flooding
That's the big problem iwith flood defences. Its got to be a huge whole area solution, one measure just moves the problem elsewhere. You see old rural properties then new builds alongside then when there's exceptional rain or tides you see exactly why the old ones were built where they were and fields left untouched.
Add into that the deforestation and tarmacing upstream and you have the problem you now get.There was an estate of houses built on the flood plain in Gloucester in the 1950s. They were finally demolished as they kept flooding. Now, some 30 years later they are building new houses on the same site.
Perhaps we should go back to the Roman concept where they graze sheep and where the sheep get certain ticks or fleas, was where it floods. They didn't build there.
Unfortunately we have a shortage of land and a need for more new housing. That is forcing developers to build in areas that were previously considered to be flood plain. And with a changing climate we are seeing floods in areas that previously were not considered to be a flood risk.Added to that we have 5.2 million existing homes in England which are at risk from flooding.
No easy solutions to this one.
think the whole of Carlisle needs moving south.
Technically yes, to somewhere just south of Hesket Newmarket :-)
yes but would they understand the lingo.
Hesket Newmarket is about 15 miles south of Carlisle so probably :-)
message 372:
by
eastwood (do you feel lucky punk,well do ya)
(last edited Dec 10, 2015 08:19AM)
(new)
eh :-)
It is entirely possible of course that market forces will stop building in flood plain areas: when neither builders no buyers can actually get insurance, even at prohibitive rates, then areas become uneconomic to be used as residential building.Insurance Companies could be modern day fleas, Jim.
what about dredging the rivers again, that was stopped years ago.
The Government has been trying to save money by skimping on things like river dredging. Looks like that was a false economy and they will have to rethink.I've been arguing for better flood defences for years. They are not as sexy (in political terms) as a new road or hospital. If they work you never notice them. It's only when they don't work that you get misery like this.
False economy really, when you think of the millions it will cost to put things right.
True, but it is easy to be right with the benefit of hindsight. The extent of the flooding in the last few years has taken nearly everyone by surprise.
Didn't david icke predict this :-)
eastwood (do you feel lucky punk,well do ya) wrote: "eh :-)"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesket_...
Doesn't have a lot to do with race horses mind ;-)
Will wrote: "It is entirely possible of course that market forces will stop building in flood plain areas: when neither builders no buyers can actually get insurance, even at prohibitive rates, then areas become uneconomic to be used as residential building.Insurance Companies could be modern day fleas, Jim. ..."
https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-...
It's ironic that the conservatives were in there creating a system which works against market forces. :-)
A lot of properties are only insurable because of cross subsidy, and it's probably only a matter of time before Flood Re collapses under the weight of claims.
I suspect that because Flood Re only covers home insurance, we'll start to see industrial and commercial properties standing empty as impossible to insure first and it may be that that is where the demolition will start
It was just a play on words jim, in certain area's of Carlisle people always end their sentences with "eh". But thanks for the info didn't know there was two Newmarkets.
eastwood (do you feel lucky punk,well do ya) wrote: "False economy really, when you think of the millions it will cost to put things right."I've been on various Flood Defence Advisory Committees over the years and it's something that ALL governments have attempted to cut back on so it's not party political.
One problem is that dredging is rural and flooding that matters is Urban.
Rive maintenance is basically paid for by contributions for local authorities topped up by Defra.
Initially we had the National Rivers Authority, but that was swallowed by the Environment agency. Prior to that it was pretty strong on engineering and managing water flows. After that the environmental side dominated, To an extent the Environment Agency has been a victim of government. When you look at the people chosen to lead it, there was Labour peeress, Baroness Young of Old Scone, chair of English Nature; vice chairman of the BBC; board member of AWG plc; Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and of a number of local health authorities. She was not merely reluctant to dredge rivers, she is famously said to have remarked that she wanted to see ‘a limpet mine attached to every pumping station’. She was followed by Chris Smith, environmental spokesman under John Smith in opposition, but only Culture Secretary under Tony Blair in government.
You can judge the attitude of governments by the people they appoint.
Similarly the EA claimed they couldn’t afford the £4.5 million that it would have cost to dredge the rivers down on the Somerset Levels, but somehow found £31 million for a bird sanctuary.
Am I right in thinking that land that was set aside probably wasn't ditched as before. Our friend has some and couldn't do anything to it. Yet the things he needed to do to maintain it were common sense. It's cumulative when drainage and ditching isn't done lower down the water doesn't drain anywhere. A few years ago our our house insurance doubled we queried it and were told it was because we live near the haven waterway. I asked how they calculate the risk, it was nearer than so many metres, I asked about topography, What's that? I changed insurers.
The set aside schemes were complicated but pretty much the only things you could do with land in set aside was put in bird feed and similar. Certainly you couldn't keep the drainage up because they wanted the land 're-wetting' In fact I've walked away from any number of environmental schemes that wanted me to block drains.
message 386:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 13, 2015 06:02AM)
(new)
After the last one it was hailed as a success and then within two months it was realised that nothing changed.Same again in 2020 then. Waste of money.
PattiEach one of these climate change summits gets us a bit closer to taking the actions that are needed. None has yet solved all the problems - we may already be too late for that. But we make progress, one small step at a time. There will be more summits and conferences, each taking two steps forwards and one step back. That's the way it goes, I'm afraid.
The Washington Post article is exactly the sort of thing that we have been expecting. Up to now a lot of the science of climate change has been theoretical - along the lines of "bad things will happen if the Earth heats up by a certain amount". And while it was largely theoretical it was easy to ignore it or try to deny it.
Now that people are starting to see climate change in action, including the poor sods in Cumbria, York and Leeds, a lot of the theoretical stuff will start to make more sense.
message 389:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 31, 2015 04:59AM)
(new)
Although there are no permanent weather stations at the North Pole (or really anywhere in the Arctic Ocean), we can use weather forecast models, which ingest data from satellites and surrounding surface observations, to estimate conditions at Earth’s most northern location.As you would say Will, if the reporting were reversed - supposition.
El nino is a cyclic phenomena, Will. As usual, you are confusing weather with climate change.
Don't worry, you're not the only one confused.
http://rgsweather.com/2015/11/01/el-n...
Yeah, I thought twice about posting that article, Geoff.Didn't seem completely factual.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Yeah, I thought twice about posting that article, Geoff.Didn't seem completely factual."
They were also using Mashable as a source.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Patti (baconater) wrote: "Yeah, I thought twice about posting that article, Geoff.Didn't seem completely factual."
They were also using Mashable as a source."
Capital Weather Gang forecasts weather for the Washington DC area and often tries to provide some context on weather hitting us here. They do a pretty good job of providing accurate forecasts. And they often pull comments from various websites for some broader context. That they pulled a quote from an article on Mashable is to Geoff a reason to discount them says more about Geoff than about CWG's accuracy as forecasters. The quote was a historical reference to the intensity of two storms that occurred 23 and 29 years ago, not a comment on the current weather or any theory of climate change. But, heck, why not throw out an entire article because one quote in it is from a source you can deride. Maybe next time they should call someone up at the Reigate Grammar School Weather Station for a more reliable comment.
message 393:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 31, 2015 07:10AM)
(new)
David, That they pulled a quote from an article on Mashable is to Geoff a reason to discount them says more about Geoff than about CWG's accuracy as forecasters.
The point I was making was one of news sources quoting other news sources without substantiating it with any kind of facts. The point that it was Mashable was irrelevant.
I would therefore suggest that your quote above says more about you than it does me, David. I presume you are happy to accept unsubstantiated quotations.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "I presume you are happy to accept unsubstantiated quotations...."Sure. I do it all the time as part of my work deceiving people about climate change. Bwahahahahahaha.
Jim, ignore all that rain. It' s normal.
Oh dear, I thought we had finished this debate. If we must ...Geoff, yes an El Nino is a cyclical event. What matters is how severe it is on each of the occasions that it occurs. And ... guess what ? ... the El Ninos we are seeing are becoming more unpredictable and more damaging. The current one isn't over and already NASA are predicting that it will be as bad as 1998 and possibly worse.
The climate that we see is a mixture of natural incidents plus man-made climate change. The El Nino is not of itself caused by man-made climate change, but its effects are exacerbated by man-made climate change.
An individual weather system isn't climate. But when we see clear trends from one year to the next that does become climate and not weather.
There are no weather stations at the North Pole so scientists use weather forecasting models. That does not make it supposition. It's how science works. C'mon, you must see that. You measure what you can and extrapolate for things you can't measure.
I'm not quite sure what point you were making with the Reigate Grammar School link. I thought it was quite a thoughtful and well researched piece. Perhaps you would like to summarise it for us all? Or explain what point you were trying to make with it?
By the way, the Washington Post article did use Mashable as a source. But that was not its only source and the Mashable article itself quotes its own sources. What else do you expect a news agency to do?
Time to give up on this one, Geoff. You're flapping.
David wrote: "Jim, ignore all that rain. It' s normal. ..."What we have to remember is that when comparing figures we're not necessarily comparing like with like. In the north they've added a lot of weather stations because there weren't enough to be reliable.
http://www.weatherweb.net/wxwebtv2.php
Is very interesting
message 397:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 31, 2015 08:51AM)
(new)
Far from flapping, Will. I think you should consider your own position.You have previously quoted that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is man-made. Unfortunately, the correct quotation is that 97% of climate scientists believe that climate change is man-made. That's as laughable as saying that 97% of Catholics believe in God.
Geoff, yes an El Nino is a cyclical event. What matters is how severe it is on each of the occasions that it occurs. And ... guess what ? ... the El Ninos we are seeing are becoming more unpredictable and more damaging. The current one isn't over and already NASA are predicting that it will be as bad as 1998 and possibly worse.
Are you having a laugh, Will? You accuse climate skeptics of picking and choosing their comparisons, and there you go back to 1998. Oh sorry, you're being serious. It's hard to tell.
The climate that we see is a mixture of natural incidents plus man-made climate change. The El Nino is not of itself caused by man-made climate change, but its effects are exacerbated by man-made climate change.
Once again we come down to the fact that temperature has stalled despite CO2 rising, So why has El Nino become more unpredictable during a period of temperature stability?
There are no weather stations at the North Pole so scientists use weather forecasting models. That does not make it supposition. It's how science works. C'mon, you must see that. You measure what you can and extrapolate for things you can't measure.
Those same models that are used for weather forecasting are highly inaccurate, which is why the weather forecasts themselves are more wrong than right. Furthermore as there are no weather stations at the North Pole, what data is actually being extrapolated? Your last sentence sums it up you measure what you can . With what, when there are no weather stations?
Eh? Why are you dragging up the "97% of climate change scientists believe in man-made climate change" statistic? We haven't mentioned that in ages.
But seeing as you have raised it, let's deal with it. Not all climate change scientists are evangelical about the subject. Using your colourful analogy, they aren't all Catholics. Some are funded by the oil industry or others with a financial interest in disproving climate change. And still we have the vast majority agreeing that climate change is almost certainly man-made.
Non-Catholics believing in God. Who would have thought it?
What we are really saying is that people who know what they are talking about and have studied the subject mostly come to the same conclusion.
Then you say that "temperature has stalled" and we're into Christmas pantomime territory because the scientific community has to reply "Oh not it hasn't". 2015 is going to be the hottest year on record. By a long way.
The "climate change has stalled" claim is a dead goose.
Yes, models used for weather forecasting are highly inaccurate over the medium to long term. Weather is a chaotic system which means that we can't predict weather patterns more than about 5 to 10 days in the future. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. All chaotic systems are difficult to predict. That's why they're called chaotic systems. The clue is in the name.
How do we measure temperature at the North Pole? There are several methods, some described here:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-...
The point is this ... we have several different agencies all using different methodologies to try to measure global temperature. And all of these agencies are saying the same thing. If there is another statistical methodology out there that might say something different then I'm sure that we'd all love to know about it.
Or put it another way. Every single instrument we have, every organisation, every (credible) scientist, every piece of research ... they are all saying that the earth is getting hotter. So what if we don't have weather stations at the North Pole? You don't realistically think that if we did have a weather station that it would show us anything different? You're not trying to tell us that Santa has turned down his central heating to somehow fiddle the figures?
But let's turn this on its head. If you are demanding data, where is the data to suggest that climate change isn't happening or isn't largely man made? The dwindling number of deniers try to pick holes in other people's research because that is all they can do. They have no data of their own.
Maybe you can enlighten us. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that you are not a scientist. What evidence has convinced you that you know better than the scientific community?
message 399:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 31, 2015 10:01AM)
(new)
Listed below Will, are the techniques you attempt to use in any discussion where you think you are not getting the upper hand, Look back through the posts from the start, and list all the examples of each of the following in your posts. Warning , you will need to use more that your fingers. If you don't have a calculator, I would suggest that you invite the family and neighbours around to take their shoes and socks off to assist in your counting.1. Use punchy one-liners. You can sometimes throw your opponent out of his stride by interjecting a confident, concise cliché. Here are some good ones:
2. That begs the question.
3. That is beside the point.
4. You’re being defensive.
4. Don’t compare apples and oranges.
5. What are your parameters?
6. Ridicule and humiliate your opponent. This can be very effective in front of an audience but will never win over the opponent himself.
7. Deliberately provoke your adversary. Find something that makes them angry and keep wheedling away on this point until they lose their temper and so the argument.
8. Distract. Throw in diversions which deflect the other person from their main point.
9. Exaggerate your opponent’s position. Take it way beyond its intended level and then show how ridiculous and unreasonable the exaggerated position is.
10. Contradict confidently. Vigorously denounce each of your opponent’s arguments as fallacious but just select one or two that you can defeat to prove the point. Then assume that you have won.
Right, now you need to change your tactics. We are on to you and I will quote these whenever you use them.
*Edited to number the items, to make it easier to note them as we proceed.*
Fine, let's play your game. I like games. Your last post scores on at least four:1. Punchy one liners - "invite friends and neighbours around"
6 & 7. Provoke - do I need help counting?
8. Distract. You are dodging the questions again.
We can't really test your post against 9 and 10 because you've stopped talking about the issue at hand.
My last post:
Answered all of your points - so no distraction.
Dealt in facts, not conjecture.
Didn't attack you, only the topic we are discussing.
Didn't exaggerate your position.
I suppose I am guilty of "contradicting confidently". But that's not hard to do and not really a "tactic", as you want to define it. Isn't that what people do in discussions?
But if we're playing this game, let's add a few more bingo numbers to look out for:
1. Quote a statistic that you don't fully understand.
2. Post a link to a report that you haven't read in full.
3. Ignore awkward questions that you don't want to answer.
4 . Try to pick holes instead of making positive points.
5. When you run out of arguments resort to insults.
6. Claim to have won when have done nothing of the sort.
We can play your game if you want. We can argue like gentleman if you want that instead. I don't mind.
This whole debate has tended to follow a certain pattern. You will make a claim, often lifted from sceptic websites. I will respond to it, trying to point out as patiently and calmly as I can when you or they have misunderstood something. Eventually you will give up and either resort to insults or ignore the question and hope it goes away. Then a little while later you will try another argument.
As I've played your game, maybe you will play mine? Answer the questions you've been dodging
1. Who profits from climate change being true?
2. How was the biggest Atlantic storm caused by energy redistribution?
3. What solid evidence is there that climate change isn't man-made?
On one side, we have the near unanimous view of the world's scientists, Governments and international organisations. We have overwhelming evidence which has been peer reviewed many times over. And very few vested interests who want climate change to be true.
On the other side we have a smattering of amateurs with no evidence, no credibility and a great deal of vested interest in climate change not being true.
One side deals in evidence. The other deals in insults and ad hominem arguments. Guess which ones are the zealots. But you're still dodging the questions:
Who profits from climate change being true?
How was the biggest Atlantic storm caused by energy redistribution?