[Flatlander]

Quote

Quote

Habitat wars are ongoing too, but are on a more limited scale. What is a 'natural habitat'? Is 'conservation' a good idea? Are 'national parks' or 'protected areas' a good idea? etc etc

Imo, undoubtedly. Without them the world would be a lesser, blander place.

Ah...but...that is not where the argument is.

National Parks and 'protected areas' encourage isolation of species. They imply that other areas are fair game. One daft case I've seen recently is for the siting of some wind turbines in a large wilderness (well, moorland, anyway) area, with the attendant construction roads, peat bog draining etc, but because it is 400 yards outside a national park boundary it may be permitted. What changes over those 400 yards? Nothing. It is just an arbitrary line on the map. The eagles don't distinguish between national park and not national park. Should we?

'Conservation' is also a loaded term. It implies you are trying to keep somewhere as it is, in the interests of what is already in situ. In whose interest is that? Us who want to look at it, or the wildlife that lives there? Perhaps you are fighting a natural progression - a lot of habitats are entirely man-made. Perhaps you are killing other species that would otherwise have somewhere to migrate to? The RSPB love the Pennine moors for their Hen Harriers, but left to its own devices it would mostly return to woodland, which is also a scarce resource in this country. Which is better? Who decides? Who pays to manage it?


There isn't a lot of money in researching these questions, or providing solutions. Most of the 'green' money disappears down a big plughole marked 'climate change'.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic.

This post has been edited by Tim Prosser: 16 February 2012 - 16:41

[andre]

Meanwhile, it's now fakegate

Makes me think of a favorite joke.

Telephone call:

Voice: "Oh School master, Johnny can't come to school today. He is sick"

School master: "Oh that's sad, but with whom am I speaking"

Voice: "with my father"

[4wd]

http://www.drroyspen...eart-heartland/

Quote

The real scandal is that it took a private organization like Heartland to compile the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications which suggest that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might not be a problem for humanity or the biosphere. This is what the IPCC should have done, if it had any scientific objectivity.

[John Mason]

I see the troops have been mobilised!

Cheers - John

[Uskys]

Quote

during the financial year 2009/10 (the most recent for which the data is available), Research Council spending on “climate change research and training” amounted to £234 million. This analysis was provided by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) on behalf of Research Councils UK (RCUK).

Quote

Let’s be clear about one thing. This sort of money corrupts. It corrupts both individuals and organisations. Climate research funding is agenda driven, rather than result driven; it exists in large part because climate change is perceived as a problem. Research that attempts to prove otherwise is unlikely to be funded at all and even less likely to attract future grants, while scientists who exaggerate the dangers or effects will have no such problems.

Taken from the links above.

To fund a scientific study of a particular theory the outcome of that study should not be decided before it starts.
In the old days when it was all about AGW the theories found huge obstacles and the studies were easily debunked so the authorities had to change something.... perhaps the theory, but no, just the name ... and they came up with CC.... an international protocol adopted by most governments.


And now most of the 'AGW' ( climate change ) studies have , for the past few years , come out broadly with the same conclusions:- Conclusions driven by expensive computer models which predict the future and results which the public are meant to hold in great esteem .
Of course, these computer models are wrong* , they always have been. The results are however touted as 'evidence' supporting and upholding a climate change study. The emporer and his new clothes springs to mind.




* : Computer model predictions will never predict anything accurately... Its impossible.

[John Mason]

Uskys, on 17 February 2012 - 08:17, said:

In the old days when it was all about AGW the theories found huge obstacles and the studies were easily debunked so the authorities had to change something.... perhaps the theory, but no, just the name ... and they came up with CC.... an international protocol adopted by most governments.

But exactly when do people think this supposed changeover occurred????

Cheers - John

[Peter H]

Tim Prosser, on 16 February 2012 - 16:39, said:

Quote

Imo, undoubtedly. Without them the world would be a lesser, blander place.

Ah...but...that is not where the argument is.

National Parks and 'protected areas' encourage isolation of species. They imply that other areas are fair game. One daft case I've seen recently is for the siting of some wind turbines in a large wilderness (well, moorland, anyway) area, with the attendant construction roads, peat bog draining etc, but because it is 400 yards outside a national park boundary it may be permitted. What changes over those 400 yards? Nothing. It is just an arbitrary line on the map. The eagles don't distinguish between national park and not national park. Should we?

'Conservation' is also a loaded term. It implies you are trying to keep somewhere as it is, in the interests of what is already in situ. In whose interest is that? Us who want to look at it, or the wildlife that lives there? Perhaps you are fighting a natural progression - a lot of habitats are entirely man-made. Perhaps you are killing other species that would otherwise have somewhere to migrate to? The RSPB love the Pennine moors for their Hen Harriers, but left to its own devices it would mostly return to woodland, which is also a scarce resource in this country. Which is better? Who decides? Who pays to manage it?


There isn't a lot of money in researching these questions, or providing solutions. Most of the 'green' money disappears down a big plughole marked 'climate change'.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic.

A post I'm in sympathy with but you don't seem to be saying what would, for wildlife and habitats, be better. Any thoughts on that question? I'm also not sure, because I've not seen figures, that there isn't a lot of research going on not to do with our influence on climate rather than the way as you assert.

[Uskys]

Uskys, on 17 February 2012 - 08:17, said:

In the old days when it was all about AGW the theories found huge obstacles and the studies were easily debunked so the authorities had to change something.... perhaps the theory, but no, just the name ... and they came up with CC.... an international protocol adopted by most governments.

John Mason, on 17 February 2012 - 08:33, said:

But exactly when do people think this supposed changeover occurred????

Cheers - John

I am sure you know John. It was late 2008 to early 2009 when it became apparent that the world temperatures had decreased during the preeceding couple of years, and when 'an inconvinient truth' was shown to be somewhat falsfied , when 'climategate' was swinging and of course the hockey stick graphs finally nailed into their coffins.

[John Mason]

Uskys, on 17 February 2012 - 09:07, said:

I am sure you know John. It was late 2008 to early 2009 when it became apparent that the world temperatures had decreased during the preeceding couple of years, and when 'an inconvinient truth' was shown to be somewhat falsfied , when 'climategate' was swinging and of course the hockey stick graphs finally nailed into their coffins.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. The answer is to be found in the answers to these two questions:

1) When was the IPCC founded?

2) what does the 'CC' in IPCC stand for?

Cheers - John

[Uskys]

John Mason, on 17 February 2012 - 09:10, said:

I'm afraid you are incorrect. The answer is to be found in the answers to these two questions:

1) When was the IPCC founded?

2) what does the 'CC' in IPCC stand for?

Cheers - John

John, that is totally irrelavent to the topic I discussed.

GW or AGW term was used as the thrust tool by the scientists/media organisations backing the theory that global warming was occurring. It was suddenly changed to CC basically because of the reason I outlined in the previous post.

Just do a simple search and you will find much more information on this name change.

[John Mason]

Indeed - it's a myth that I've encountered time and again.

Of course, the IPCC - climate chance being the last two letters - was founded back in 1988. Moreover, the reasons for the increased use of this term are not what people always think. Consider this - the Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a 2002 memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

My personal preference is 'Climate Destabilisation' because it is a more accurate term for what is in store for us. The only positive thing I can take from it is that photo-opportunities should increase too!

Cheers - John

[PK2]

andre, on 16 February 2012 - 22:57, said:

Meanwhile, it's now fakegate

A few nice ad-homs in that link. Looks, to me, like he's trying his best to create an enemy to be demonised just as you talked about in your earlier posts .

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 10:44, said:

The problem Andy is that people tried to run before they could walk. It all started off with Thatcher and her drive to go nuclear. She needed a bargaining tool to persuade the public that nuclear was a better thing. Everyone knew that nuclear energy was a very dirty process. So how do you justify it. You compare it to something else just as dirty - Co2 emmissions from fossil fuel burning. This creates a positive motive.

Problem is, no-one thought at that time that this theory would be put under scrutiny in the following years. And the actual evidence does not compare favourably with what is actually occurring.

Problem with that is because we are human and it is not in our nature to admit something when it may be wrong, we keep chipping away at the block in the hope that the right answer will appear. If it ain't there it's not going to happen.

As has been said significant amounts of money are being put into researching AGW, and none into disputing it. It's a one-sided debate. If you question it, you are wrong; simple as that - irrespective of whether there is any truth in the first place. That doesn't seem to matter.

So, if I dispute the version of history you've presented you wont call me wrong, simple as that? C'mon Chris, we debate because we disagree and it's not just one view that will call the other wrong.

Fwiw, I don't think AGW is important because Mrs T wanted a cover for nuclear power.

[Peter H]

PK2, on 17 February 2012 - 10:24, said:

A few nice ad-homs in that link. Looks, to me, like he's trying his best to create an enemy to be demonised just as you talked about in your earlier posts .

Absolutely!

So, will Andre condemn him too?

This post has been edited by Peter H: 17 February 2012 - 11:07

[John Mason]

It started some time before Maggie though to her credit she did understand AGW - she had a background in chemistry. Maybe she did use it as a bat with which to beat Scargill - who knows?

Talking about origins though, I'd attach the PDF but it's slightly too big at ~4Mb, so I'll give a link to it instead:

http://www.rsc.org/i...cm18-173546.pdf

It also offers a nice insight into the style in which science papers were written back then - in a much more engaging manner, IMO.

Cheers - John

[Andy Mayhew]

Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 10:44, said:

As has been said significant amounts of money are being put into researching AGW, and none into disputing it.

How do you dispute AGW without researching into it?

Our understanding of how human activities - including carbon emissions - affect the climate have changed considerably since the 1950s and 1960s when research first got going in a big way. There is no question that any competent scientist who could falsify the greenhouse effect, for example, would jump at the chance to do so. Just as a physicist would jump at the chance of falsifying the theory of relativity.

Today a lot of money (though very little money compared with, say, research into building bigger bombs) is spend in furthering our understanding of climate processes and how humans affect them, so that we can be better prepared for what may happen in the furture and maybe mitigate the effects. Some seem to think this is a bad thing. I, instead, thing all research is good - the more we now about everything the better. It may be that as a result of all this money we find next year that carbon emissions have no effect at all on atmospheric temperature after all. Who knows? But if we don't do the research into AGW you van be certain no-one ever will

[andre]

PK2, on 17 February 2012 - 10:24, said:

A few nice ad-homs in that link. Looks, to me, like he's trying his best to create an enemy to be demonised just as you talked about in your earlier posts .

Would you please be so kind and point them out, substantiating why you think these are ad hominems?

[Andy Mayhew]

andre, on 17 February 2012 - 12:29, said:

Would you please be so kind and point them out, substantiating why you think these are ad hominems?

If you're happy for me to call you a "foam-flecked, cerebrally-deficient ... fruit loop" then I guess it's fine for Dellingpole to call people he knows nothing about the same But for the rest of us that's such a big ad hom we really don't need to read anything more he has to say. He's already lost whatever argument he might have had.