The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[trevw]

Even the CO₂ school now admit that water vapour is more effective as a GG than the carbon dioxide, within a range of 60-95%.

I have never seen anything in print or elsewhere that suggests that water vapour is not a more effective GG than CO₂, the proposition as I understand it has always been that by changing the level of CO₂ and other GGs we are adding a climate forcing of n W/m2 this in turn will result in numerous feedbacks one of which is increased amounts of water vapour which will also cause a warming - a new equilibrium would then be reached at a temp greater than that which would be caused by the increase in CO₂ equivalent alone..

To suggest that the 'CO₂ school' now admit water vapour is a more effective GG is to suggest that at one point they didn't and that they have now come around to your way of thinking which isn't really the case as I understand it.

Water vapour level changes that are directly caused by us would of course be another forcing on the climate, I guess one difference being that CO₂ increases linger for around a 100 of years (I think) while water vapour emissions would persist for a much lesser time.

[laserguy]

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...mes-hansen-now/

Ridiculous,absolutely ridiculous. My contempt for this madman and his acolytes grows daily.

[Mondy]

Totally agree.

It's such a shame people back him. He and Gore are like the leader / deputy leader of a party with a huge gathering hell bent on causing chaos around the cooling globe.

It just stinks.

[Devonian]

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...mes-hansen-now/

Ridiculous,absolutely ridiculous. My contempt for this madman and his acolytes grows daily.

So, you think it's wrong for Dr Hansen to appear as an expert witness in a UK court? Do you then think it was wrong for Dr Philip Stott to appear as an expert witness in the '9 errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth'' UK court case? And if not why not?

Why do you think certain people you dislike should not be called as witnesses in a trial? And if that applies to you why not anyone else? Why not therefore 'I don't like the police officer, I demand his evidence not be heard'?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, to me, that kind of "lawful excuse" thing is taking things somewhat far. Imagine if an environmentalist dynamited a parked car on the grounds that its owner used it regularly and the damage caused by obliterating the car and surrounding land was less than the physical and social damage caused by the driving, giving a "lawful excuse" for dynamiting it.

But remember, pro-AGW extremism does not show that the whole concept of AGW is untenable, just as the extremists at the likes of IceAgeNow don't prove that sceptics are all stupid. It works both ways.

[SnowBear]

That is worrying, regardless of the motives, in my view criminal damage was done. Vandalism has no excuses, what message does this give to other areas of vandalism like schools? Its now ok for a parent to daub slogans on a schools walls if they disagree with one of its policies? Will it be seen to be justified and a lawful excuse? Funnily, our local Police are stationing 600 new police on the streets in the next five years, yet the chief put an article in the local paper yesterday saying that's fine, but what's the point if those who break the law escape prison, fines etc for the offences committed?

This isn't about who, or why, but about how soft our laws have become.

Criminal damage or vandalism is defined in law as 'intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging any property belonging to another without lawful excuse' [Criminal Damage Act 1971]. Vandalism can range from scribbling on a wall, the daubing of political slogans or the destruction of graves in a cemetery to endangering life with a concrete post deliberately placed in the path of a train, smashing the glass of bus shelter windows or the burning of a school through an arson attack. The penalty for criminal damage up to a value of £5,000 is a maximum of three months imprisonment and/or a fine of £2,500 and a Compensation Order.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/crime/reducinggr...tireport?page=3

So how come they can get away with it when the law is as stated above?

Edited September 11, 2008 by SnowBear

[Mondy]

So, you think it's wrong for Dr Hansen to appear as an expert witness in a UK court? Do you then think it was wrong for Dr Philip Stott to appear as an expert witness in the '9 errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth'' UK court case? And if not why not?

Why do you think certain people you dislike should not be called as witnesses in a trial? And if that applies to you why not anyone else? Why not therefore 'I don't like the police officer, I demand his evidence not be heard'?

Do you think the vandalism issue is right?

[Roo]

So how come they can get away with it when the law is as stated above?

Because we are a country of free speech that errs, quite rightly, on the side of protest: it's the same reason that Otis Ferry and his fox hunting buddies and Fathers for Justice have not been given hefty sentences.

Now can we please get back to the GW debate.....

[Devonian]

I do tend to agree with TWS and SB. Indeed, I've written to Greenpeace asking similar questions. However, none of us were at the trial where the jury arrived at a verdict after considering the evidence.

I think, if I were a 'sceptic', I would have run with that 'strange verdict' angle and not the 'Dr Hansen is a bad man' one.

Do you think the vandalism issue is right?

After you answer my question. Or see my reply above.

Still I see you're dropping the ' Dr Hansen is a bad man' line

Because we are a country of free speech that errs, quite rightly, on the side of protest: it's the same reason that Otis Ferry and his fox hunting buddies and Fathers for Justice have not been given hefty sentences.

Good points.

[SnowBear]

Because we are a country of free speech that errs, quite rightly, on the side of protest: it's the same reason that Otis Ferry and his fox hunting buddies and Fathers for Justice have not been given hefty sentences.

Now can we please get back to the GW debate.....

Roo, no offence, but it is part of the debate, this thread is for "points for discussion" and unfortunately political, legal, trade and industrial events, thoughts and court case and debate outcomes elsewhere very much come into the whole thing. This is an event that has come out of the Climate Debate and very much brings into question in my opinion our laws and justice system.

Free speech is one thing, this is something else in my view.

I don't agree with many policies that this gov. has, but if I was to daub it across the nearest railway bridge, or over the local town hall I would get charged, but its a belief I hold in honesty, its my own view...so it is ok to do? With vandalism and criminal damage at such a high in this country it does not give the right impression to me.

[Roo]

Roo, no offence, but it is part of the debate

The problem is that, yet again, people have chosen to cherry pick something which suits their smoke screen agenda, rather than because it is relevant to the issue at hand. Even if we ignore the fact that such protest has a long and wide-ranging history, this bears no relation on whether AGW is happening or not.

Nor does it cast the AGW lobby in a bad light: everyone, from all parts of the political/social spectrum, is doing this kind of protest, not just Greenpeace. Yet again it's the media being used in an attempt to cover up some very convincing primary science. Barrel scraping extraordinaire.

So often, the requests for evidence showing why the IPCC consensus is wrong are met with a diatribe about the way some media outlet portrayed something, or with something irrelevant like the Greenpeace protest.

It does not matter who said what to who or when or how: what matters is the scientific evidence.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Roo

[jethro]

Roo, no offence, but it is part of the debate, this thread is for "points for discussion" and unfortunately political, legal, trade and industrial events, thoughts and court case and debate outcomes elsewhere very much come into the whole thing. This is an event that has come out of the Climate Debate and very much brings into question in my opinion our laws and justice system.

Free speech is one thing, this is something else in my view.

I don't agree with many policies that this gov. has, but if I was to daub it across the nearest railway bridge, or over the local town hall I would get charged, but its a belief I hold in honesty, its my own view...so it is ok to do? With vandalism and criminal damage at such a high in this country it does not give the right impression to me.

Fully agree SB.

Freedom of speech is allowed in this country, vandalism is not; hunt saboteurs do and have been convicted for causing vandalism and criminal damage. Sanctioned vandalism, using idealism as justification, is a dangerous road to go down IMO. Law isn't and shouldn't be designed to sympathise with causes, it's purpose is to define what is legally allowed against that which isn't, it should apply to all equally.

Wonder what these people think about yesterday's decision?

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/helenjohn.htm

The problem is that, yet again, people have chosen to cherry pick something which suits their smoke screen agenda, rather than because it is relevant to the issue at hand. Even if we ignore the fact that such protest has a long and wide-ranging history, this bears no relation on whether AGW is happening or not.

Nor does it cast the AGW lobby in a bad light: everyone, from all parts of the political/social spectrum, is doing this kind of protest, not just Greenpeace. Yet again it's the media being used in an attempt to cover up some very convincing primary science. Barrel scraping extraordinaire.

So often, the requests for evidence showing why the IPCC consensus is wrong are met with a diatribe about the way some media outlet portrayed something, or with something irrelevant like the Greenpeace protest.

It does not matter who said what to who or when or how: what matters is the scientific evidence.

Or perhaps it's just possible that some folk are concerned that laws of the land can be over-turned as and when it suits. Personally, this has nothing to do with my stance on the IPCC or AGW, certainly it isn't a reflection upon the science or my views of it.

If we wish to work purely on facts alone (scientific evidence) the evidence is they, by their own omission, caused criminal damage to the tune of 30k. Other folk have been sentenced for causing less than 1k worth of damage, also driven by a desire to protect. One is right and allowed, the other isn't and should be punished? Why? Because you support their cause? The Law isn't about choosing which cause to support, it defines guidelines of behaviour which is acceptable and safe for the masses.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

I agree this seems to be heading off topic, but anyway. As ever, it's a case of degrees, and clearly in this particular instance the jury decided that the amount of damage, (and probably the context of the 'damage' - cooling towers could be considered by many as vandalising local views anyway !), weighed against our right to protest and the circumstances surrounding this particular protest, did not warrant any more severe punishment.

That of course does not set any kind of precedent, and does in no way give anyone carte blanche to carry out their own acts of vandalism, and to suggest otherwise or draw any 'grand conclusions' from this one case is at best disigenuous, and at worst deliberately inflammatory.

[SnowBear]

Roo, I said "This isn't about who, or why....".

I am not cherry picking, it is not right to cause criminal damage or vandalism if pro, anti, whatever. In a country that is desperately trying to cut down anti-social behaviour this type of case does not help! There is no excuse for anti-social and damaging behaviour, period, for whatever reason, including pro or anti agw whatsit climate changing baloney.

To my mind they did put people at risk of harm, someone had to go up there and clean off the mess they made! Steeplejacking isn't exactly the safest job there is and having to do that because of someone's behaviour is not right in my view.

So Roo, lets say I am a GreenCalming activist, I bang a hole in a canister at your nuclear goldfish warming plant and it leaks contaminated liquid, it falls to you to have to clear it up, it hasnt hurt anyone else nor likely to if you do your job as per the rules and guidelines, but how do you view it? Would you see it as having needlessly endangered your life or putting you in harms way?

This has nothing to do with science, this is law, social behaviour and what is right and what is wrong.

Edited September 11, 2008 by SnowBear

[Roo]

I am not cherry picking, it is not right to cause criminal damage or vandalism if pro, anti, whatever. In a country that is desperately trying to cut down anti-social behaviour this type of case does not help!

Of course criminal damage is not right, no-one said it was, but maybe there is an argument that the damage caused to society in the long run could justify the short term painting of a chimney in protest.

I just think that people would not, and indeed have not, got so indignant/hot under their collars when other protests have been discussed elsewhere on NW.

As for someone having to go up and clean it: I see no reason why they could not have a chimney called 'Gordon'. They could get someone up there and call the others George, Tony and perhaps even Darling?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Roo

[Mondy]

God help the next generation coming through when it's apparently deemed ok to smash things up...beggars belief.

[Gray-Wolf]

Twelve people ,of diverse background and age, sat and listened to the evidence as it was laid out. Either the protesters were trying to 'save' the public' or they were off on their own agenda. The jury obviously felt, after considering the evidence laid before them, that the stunt was in the publics interest and so was excluded from the 'vandalism' charge.

I fear it would suit some on here to try and re-try until a verdict was reached which salved their own standpoints......this is not the way our legal system works and nor should it be (unless you're a 'shampoo bomber' and the jury don't think you were after aircraft of course )

I still feel that many folk do not gauge the problem of AGW as pertinent to them in their own lives..........they will probably be the first to fall foul of it when the 'changes' truely bite home........something satisfyingly Darwinian in that I feel ....agreed???

[Mondy]

It's nothing short of eco-terrorism.

Let me ask Roo or Devonian this: Is it ok for me to go to your house and spray paint "GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY - ECO-TERRORISM RULES, OK!" on your property?

Because thanks to Hansen testifying, it seems we can all just go about willy-nilly painting/graffitoing on things.

Opened up a can of worms has the loathesome Hansen

[jethro]

Average cost of a tyre? £100 for arguments sake, does this mean I can legitimately go out and slash a few hundred of them and walk away scot free?? I'm not harming anyone, I'm merely preventing the cars being used thereby reduced carbon emissions and saving mankind and humanity. Can I expect a world renowned scientist to testify on my behalf? Presumably if I am filmed whilst committing the crime and have a placard on my back saying "fighting to save the world" then I'll be ok. Mmmm, now where's the nearest CCTV, can I rely on all your support?

[Devonian]

God help the next generation coming through when it's apparently deemed ok to smash things up...beggars belief.

Indeed, we've smashed up much of the rainforests, most of the continental shelf has been smashed up by trawlers. Perhaps you deem that smashing up to be OK?

[Mondy]

Indeed, we've smashed up much of the rainforests, most of the continental shelf has been smashed up by trawlers. Perhaps you deem that smashing up to be OK?

Perhaps you'd like to answer the next question whilst you're on quote mode :-)

[Roo]

Because thanks to Hansen testifying, it seems we can all just go about willy-nilly painting/graffitoing on things.

And now I truly have seen it all:

Anti-social behaviour is the product of indigenous social problems and political conditions.

Nooooo. It is all down to Dr Hansen of NASA.

Oh my..... :lol:

[Devonian]

It's nothing short of eco-terrorism.

Let me ask Roo or Devonian this: Is it ok for me to go to your house and spray paint "GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY - ECO-TERRORISM RULES, OK!" on your property?

Because thanks to Hansen testifying, it seems we can all just go about willy-nilly painting/graffitoing on things.

Opened up a can of worms has the loathesome Hansen

No. And don't bring 'Dr James Hansen' into it - he gave evidence, no more that than. I asked you if you want the banning of expert witness of evidence - well, do you?

What the protesters did wasn't 'right'. Nor is chopping the rainforest, or flattening the sea bed with trawl nets, or hunting cod to local extinction, or treating the atmosphere as a dustbin. I'm powerless to do anything about that, at least , in their small way, Greenpeace makes peoples concerns public.

What would be worse would be to live an a society when protest is clamped down on - I wouldn't want that either.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Devonian

[Mondy]

And now I truly have seen it all:

Anti-social behaviour is the product of indigenous social problems and political conditions.

Nooooo. It is all down to Dr Hansen of NASA.

Oh my..... :lol:

Is there a reaon why you or Devonian refuse to answer my above question? Stuck?

Edit: I see Dev has answered. Not worth the reply.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Devonian]

Perhaps you'd like to answer the next question whilst you're on quote mode :-)

Done!

Perhaps you can answer one of my questions now?

Average cost of a tyre? £100 for arguments sake, does this mean I can legitimately go out and slash a few hundred of them and walk away scot free?? I'm not harming anyone, I'm merely preventing the cars being used thereby reduced carbon emissions and saving mankind and humanity. Can I expect a world renowned scientist to testify on my behalf? Presumably if I am filmed whilst committing the crime and have a placard on my back saying "fighting to save the world" then I'll be ok. Mmmm, now where's the nearest CCTV, can I rely on all your support?

Well, in that case of the 'nine errors in An Inconvenient Truth' the plaintiff had Dr Philip Stott as an expert witness. Was that wrong as well?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Devonian