Political Involvement With Agw / Gw / Climate Change

[weather eater]

God WE. I found one thing, hidden away with all the pro-market codswallop, that I agree with: GM foods would go a long way towards alleviating the plight of the world's starving! B)

I gather by 'junk science' they mean anything that stands in the way of the markets' total world domination? B)

I think it one thing to have a debate in regards the science surrounding AGW but posting denials by people with a known political agenda advances the debate on the climate threads not a jot. The link says that the views of the organisation are represented by 31,000 scientists, however it neglects to say what their fields of expertise are. It would be more relevant to see links to research by these scientist’s in the field of climate and climate change than bland statements by a group with an agenda. We already get many posts of this type on these threads anyway by NW members with an agenda, on both sides of the debate.

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...ang-regret.html

More from Peter Sissons. He relates how he interviewed Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green party and when he mentioned that the climate didn't seem to be playing ball (wrt "consensus") she replied that it was disgraceful that the BBC- the BBC!- should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views. Politicians, eh?

[Methuselah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...ang-regret.html

More from Peter Sissons. He relates how he interviewed Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green party and when he mentioned that the climate didn't seem to be playing ball (wrt "consensus") she replied that it was disgraceful that the BBC- the BBC!- should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views. Politicians, eh?

Very interesting read...It seems that extremists, on both side of the dabate, like to label everyone but themselves as extremists!

And, of course, NOBODY on here ever makes politically-loaded rhetorical statements, do they?

[laserguy]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tland_Institute

????

Yes very good WE! But they're still on the ball re 'AGW'. Here's another one.

http://www.heartland.org/_images/Advertising/mute.pdf

[Methuselah]

Yes very good WE! But they're still on the ball re 'AGW'. Here's another one.

http://www.heartland.org/_images/Advertising/mute.pdf

Whenever I read any of their extremist outpourings, I wonder whether they even know what the ball looks like - let alone be on it?

Edited July 15, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Whenever I read any of their extremist outpourings, I wonder whether they even know what the ball looks like - let alone be on it?

In what way is that piece, which does not hide that it is in fact advertising, an "extremist outpouring"?

Please justify your statement.

[Methuselah]

In what way is that piece, which does not hide that it is in fact advertising, an "extremist outpouring"?

Please justify your statement.

No, AF. I'd rather just let others read the things for themselves and draw their own conclusions; as I myself have done.

Many people's views will differ from my own; that is the nature of things, it's the way it goes. I see the world through my own eyes, as others do theirs, and as you do through yours?

Okay?

[weather eater]

Yes very good WE! But they're still on the ball re 'AGW'. Here's another one.

http://www.heartland.org/_images/Advertising/mute.pdf

Actually that’s an opinion, given that we are constantly being told that the science is not settled, the models not good enough etc by many of the deniers. then nobody can be on the ball. I wont use the term sceptics, because a true sceptic would deduce that the available evidence is inconclusive at this point of time and thus could go either way.

I thought these threads were for the purpose of debate and not an advertising slot for people who have already made their minds up because they have a political agenda.

As somebody who sits near the middle ground I find the musings of political think tanks as extremely unhelpful as the BBC invoking AGW every time a news worthy weather event takes place. In the case of the BBC I don’t think it’s a case of being bias, but it’s as good as an example of poor journalism as you could wish to see, they use AGW to hype stories to make them seem more interesting than they actually are.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

No, AF. I'd rather just let others read the things for themselves and draw their own conclusions; as I myself have done.

Many people's views will differ from my own; that is the nature of things, it's the way it goes. I see the world through my own eyes, as others do theirs, and as you do through yours?

Okay?

Do you mean to say that Heartland flyer is an equally valid opinion to yours?

It didn't sound to me like you were saying that. But then again, I'm just another one of these pedants.

[rob48]

Another heretic ripe for castigation and ridicule:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/fe...con-trick.thtml

I feel sorry for him already.

[noggin]

Ah, yes, Ian Plimer. He was castigated and ridiculed yesterday. Or was it the day before? See if I can find the link......

don't know if this'll work........

I haven't seen this chap getting a mention on here (but stand to be corrected!) May I introduce Ian Plimer....http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/part_6/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

PS maybe not, link doesn't seem to work.......

Try again http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/fe...con-trick.thtml

rob48........see page no 86, post no1454 of the general climate change discussion thread for Ian Plimer. That is the thread which was closed yesterday. No connection between the two, I am sure.

[rob48]

Thanks noggin.

Sorry I missed the original.

This censorship is so FAST!

[Methuselah]

Ah, yes, Ian Plimer. He was castigated and ridiculed yesterday.

Now why would that be?

[Solar Cycles]

Now why would that be?

Because he dare to speak out!!

[Methuselah]

Because he dare to speak out!!

So it's not coz he's an eejit, then?

[Solar Cycles]

So it's not coz he's an eejit, then? :lol:

Your confusing him with.............. Wait a minute, this is how the thread on this got closed isn't it?

[Methuselah]

Your confusing him with.............. Wait a minute, this is how the thread on this got closed isn't it?

He of the 'hockey stick'? :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

He of the 'hockey stick'?

:lol: :lol:

[Methuselah]

:lol: :lol:

I meant Sean Curly (sp?) SC... Who else did you think I meant?

[jethro]

I've long held the view that a lot of the drive to establish climate change, or more importantly, climate change due to fossil fuel usage and CO2, as being driven by the need to move away from our dependence upon a finite source.

Governments(IMO) have shied away from investing money into alternative means of generating power, probably for monetary reasons, for far too long. In essence, now being caught with their trousers down, facing an uncertain future and a game of catch up. Reducing fossil fuel usage is a means to an end, eking out what supplies there are, for as long as possible.

Here's an in interesting article in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

It says amongst other things:

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

And:

This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation,"

Is it any wonder then that Ed Miliband has rushed through the new Infrastructure Planning Commission in order to fast track nuclear power plants?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/6526566/New-nuclear-power-stations-to-be-announced-by-Ed-Miliband.html

It's a funny old world, Greenpeace campaigned endlessly to fight the building of nuclear power plants back in the '80's, here they are a few years later leading campaigns to reduce CO2 emissions which in turn lead to the fast building of those power plants. Oh the irony

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Is it any wonder then that Ed Miliband has rushed through the new Infrastructure Planning Commission in order to fast track nuclear power plants?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/6526566/New-nuclear-power-stations-to-be-announced-by-Ed-Miliband.html

It's a funny old world, Greenpeace campaigned endlessly to fight the building of nuclear power plants back in the '80's, here they are a few years later leading campaigns to reduce CO2 emissions which in turn lead to the fast building of those power plants. Oh the irony

Rarely can you praise a decision of this government but this is one of those times... at least this is said without any knowledge of the punchline (if any).

If you were a conspiracy theorist you might say they happily indulged the green groups in their batmelon crazy scare story about carbon fuels just so they would be cornered when it came to the new nuclear plants.

[Admiral_Bobski]

The funny thing is that Greenpeace activists are still opposing nuclear power. Perhaps they feel that solar power is the way forward - photoelectric cells could be positioned to capture the sunlight shining out of their bottoms.

CB

Edited November 11, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Well if they catch a glimpse of

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

there may be a few fireworks ......whose CO2 may not cause the concern it would have prior to the paper.......

[jethro]

So the sinks are working after all.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well if they catch a glimpse of

http://www.agu.org/p...9GL040613.shtml

there may be a few fireworks ......whose CO2 may not cause the concern it would have prior to the paper.......

So the author is saying that CO2 sinks are not failing - is that right? (Or at least there is little evidence to support the notion that they are.)

"Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found."

CB

EDIT - Jethro beat me to it!!

Edited November 11, 2009 by Captain_Bobski