Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 26th May 2008, 17:16
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Meanwhile the idiots continue with their crusade. Personal carbon emission allowances. The government monitoring what YOU do with YOUR money.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200805...n-16817a1.html

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain should consider giving individuals a personal carbon emissions allowance in order to help the country meet its CO2 emissions target, a report by a committee of MPs said on Monday.

Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee said the government had to reduce carbon emissions from individuals and households, as well as businesses and industry, if it was to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050 as planned.

Introducing a personal carbon allowance -- whereby people would have to trade in credits if they wanted to exceed their own CO2 quota -- would be more effective and fairer than bringing in "green" taxes, the report by MPs said.

The government said that while the scheme had appeal, it would be too expensive and complicated.

"Existing initiatives are unlikely to bring about behavioural change on the scale required, with many individuals choosing to disregard the connection between their own emissions and the larger challenge," the committee's report said.

"Personal carbon trading might be the kind of radical measure needed to bring about behavioural change."

The idea for CO2 trading is taken from the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which forces big industrial emitters of the gas to clean up their act or buy permits from companies that have.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said a personal emissions system was an "interesting idea" and one that the government had already researched.

"It's got potential, but in essence it's ahead of its time, the cost of implementing it would be quite high, and there are a lot of practical problems to overcome," he told BBC radio.

"It's not as if the government isn't taking lots of other action to get our emissions down."

He said the cost of introducing personal carbon trading would be between 700 million pounds and 2 billion pounds.

However, Tim Yeo, the committee chairman, said difficulties of implementing the scheme could be overcome and called for more feasibility work to be done.

"It engages people at all levels in their decisions, about whether they heat their house to a slightly lower temperature, whether they really need to put air conditioning in their flat, whether they really need to take that flight," he said.

"It does so more directly than any other system," he told BBC radio.

(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Matthew Jones)
corsair is offline  
Old 26th May 2008, 19:24
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 80
Posts: 5,344
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said a personal emissions system was an "interesting idea" and one that the government had already researched.

"It's got potential, but in essence it's ahead of its time, the cost of implementing it would be quite high, and there are a lot of practical problems to overcome," he told BBC radio.

"It's not as if the government isn't taking lots of other action to get our emissions down."

He said the cost of introducing personal carbon trading would be between 700 million pounds and 2 billion pounds.
The mind boggles to even think these morons are even considering such a scheme.
MReyn24050 is offline  
Old 29th May 2008, 12:22
  #603 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,052
Sacrifices to the Climate Gods
ORAC is online now  
Old 29th May 2008, 15:05
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Sacrifices to the Climate Gods

From the site quoted above:
Similarly, there is no experiment we can carry out in the laboratory to test the theory. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and yes we are adding more of it to the atmosphere. But since weather processes create and control over 90 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect through their continuous adjustments to water vapor and cloud amounts, it is not at all obvious that more CO2 will cause substantial warming. Indeed, it could well be that one of the functions of weather is to maintain a relatively constant greenhouse effect, no matter how much carbon dioxide is present.
The highlighted text implies a pretty astonishing view of the world -- That the weather has a designed function!! Does Spencer actually believe that the weather has been designed to maintain the Earths climate in equilibrium!

For someone endevouring to mock the practices of the Aztecs this is a strange view of the universe!
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 29th May 2008, 17:37
  #605 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Jetex Jim

I think you may be giving some "humanity" to a process where none is deserved. A "function" is merely a process, not a divined or "created" mechanism. "Result" may have been a better choice of word for the author. The weather obviously has no volition, or intent.

However, the Aztecs did fore-ordain Dr. Gore's theories and Sacrificing Humans to the "Gods" creates a certain level of fear and measured behaviour in the multitudes. Gore's Purpose, though is to sacrifice others' money and resources to the altar of his own personal portfolio, financial and political. The Elmer Gantry of the atmospheric vapors, as it were.

Airfoil
 
Old 30th May 2008, 06:49
  #606 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,052
There are a lot of people, scientists amongst others who, outside their areas of expertise are off the rails, ranging from Sir Isaac Newton to, errr, Al Gore.

Dr Spencer's profession, notwithstanding the ad hominem attacks, is a well qualified and respected climate scientist and an expert in his field.

"Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award."

The standard tactic of the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) is to perform ad hominem attacks and then to suggest corruption and bribery - as if no one can disagree with them without nefarious motivations. I see nothing has changed...

No doubt the President of the Czech Republic is being paid under the counter by the oil industry as well.....

Blue Planet in Green Shackles by Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.

President Klaus makes the case that policies being proposed to address global warming are not justified by current science and are, in fact, a dangerous threat to freedom and prosperity around the world. --- Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, while pursuing an impossible utopian dream of a perfectly "natural" world.
ORAC is online now  
Old 30th May 2008, 06:57
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Functions and processes are pretty much synonmous in software engineering but the phrasing of the statement reads as though the weather has a modicum of 'design'.

Elsewhere in the article Spenser says.
If a volcano like Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines dumps millions of tons of sulfur into the stratosphere, cooling the Earth for two or three years, this is simply Mother Nature at work. If humans did it, we would call it an environmental catastrophe.
And so it would be, if it occurs naturally it is still an environmental catastrophy, but we can't do anything about it. But if an intelligent species makes a positive contribution to its own destruction, that too can be an environmental catastrophe.

Maybe Gore has another agenda, so what? Suggesting that some kind of 'system' is in place, either God given or has occured naturally (as the Gia types seem to suggest) that will somehow maintain comfortable climatic conditions is more optimistic than I care to be. Moreover a look at the findings of paleoclimatologists suggests otherwise.

Further quoting Spenser:
Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005,
"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."
So, as well as being a tinfoil hat type, par excellance he is also a member of the Heartland Institute, hard to guess what that name refers to, but I wonder if they get any funding from those God fearing Mid-Western oil producing states?
Oh wait a minute what’s this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ce-790474.html

Quote:
The first international conference designed to question the scientific consensus on climate change is being sponsored by a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry.
Just fancy that!
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 07:15
  #608 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,052
Dr Spencer's FULL DISCLOSURE
(updated October 27, 2007)

It has become commonplace for scientists like me who are skeptical of mankind’s role in global warming to be branded as shills for “Big Oil”. As a result of misinformation posted at ExxonSecrets.org (and other web sites that spread that misinformation), I would like to set the record straight concerning my financial interests.

ExxonSecrets.org notes that I have given talks on global warming at conservative think tanks like the Marshall Institute, implying that I have some sort of financial relationship with them. In truth, I received no speaking fee for these talks — but I HAVE been paid for giving talks for environmental organizations in several states. I wonder why ExxonSecrets.org doesn’t mention this connection to “Big Environmentalism”? After all, they are the ones who have paid me speaking fees — not the Marshall Institute.

After 12 years of receiving no compensation for my writings, I was eventually asked to write global warming related articles for TechCentralStation.com (now TCSDaily.com). That website advocated science, technology, and free markets, and was indeed partially funded by Exxon Mobil. While I no longer write for that web site, over a three year period I augmented my “day job” salary by an average of 5% by writing articles. The views expressed in those articles were consistent with the views I had expressed for twelve years for no compensation. (Quite frankly, since I supported the ideals promoted on TechCentralStation.com, I really didn’t care who funded it).

The dirty little secret is that environmental organizations and global warming pessimists receive far more money from Big Oil than do global warming optimists such as myself. While professional environmental lobbyists are totally dependent upon environmental crises for their continued existence, atmospheric researchers and meteorologists have day jobs which are not. Some outspoken global warming pessimists have received large cash awards (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the positions they have taken; there are no such monetary awards for global warming optimists. Instead, we have to endure scorn from several outspoken peers in the scientific community, some of whom are successful at thwarting our publication of scientific articles and government funding of our research proposals.
ORAC is online now  
Old 30th May 2008, 08:11
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
ORAC
There are a lot of people, scientists amongst others who, outside their areas of expertise are off the rails, ranging from Sir Isaac Newton to, errr, Al Gore.
I'm sure Doctor Spencer would love to know he's being compared to Isaac Newton, less so Al Gore.

However if Spencer is genuine and not a 'shill' of big oil (though actually this would be 'honest' advocacy, no suggestion of corruption ), his beliefs regarding Intelligent Design are most pertinent to his credibility as an authority on climate matters.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 12:20
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Einstein had some ridiculous notions about God. Does that make the theory of relativity wrong?

You cannot say or imply that a belief in intelligent design makes anyone suspect when it comes to their views on climate change. In that case any scientist who believes in God must be suspect.

Besides Spencer is not the only skeptical scientist out there. I'm sure there are plenty of skeptics with impeccable atheistic credentials.


The first international conference designed to question the scientific consensus on climate change is being sponsored by a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry.
Does that make them wrong? Maybe they feel some balance is required. Are you suggesting all these skeptical scientists are right wingers in the pay of the oil companies? Are you suggesting that they are knowingly falsifying data in order to deny climate change? All the while knowing deep down in the hearts that man made climate change is a real and present danger to all of us? Why would you do that?

Could it be because they actually believe in what they are saying? Could they even be correct or even partially correct?
corsair is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 15:29
  #611 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
his beliefs regarding Intelligent Design are most pertinent to his credibility as an authority on climate matters.
Ah... the usual red herrings from the alarmist corner... is Newton a quack because he believed in God?
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 16:00
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Ah... the usual red herrings from the alarmist corner... is Newton a quack because he believed in God?
Not at all, but Spencer is clearly a card carrying tinfoil hat merchant because he says that the weather has been 'designed' to maintain climate stability, regardless of CO2 emmissions levels:
one of the functions of weather is to maintain a relatively constant greenhouse effect, no matter how much carbon dioxide is present
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 16:31
  #613 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,052
There must be a big market in tinfoil hats then, because homeostasis and feedback loops are some of the key features of the Gaia Hypothesis by Lovelock and Margulis, which has more than a few adherents.....
ORAC is online now  
Old 30th May 2008, 18:19
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
There must be a big market in tinfoil hats then, because homeostasis and feedback loops are some of the key features of the Gaia Hypothesis by Lovelock and Margulis, which has more than a few adherents.....
Yes, and for me Dr Spencer is definetly in the same hat, er class.

Gaia,
"The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota."
- James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia
Lovelock could be talking about the same sort of 'designed' weather system, CO2 regulating mechanism that Dr Spencer refers to in his NRO article.

My prediction, we can expect the cost of tinfoil to rise soon, and I expect to see Jeremy Clarkson wearing one on Top Gear.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 06:23
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
If the best advocate that the ‘No CO2 Problem’ dudes can produce would declare himself as a paid expert witness, (an honest enough position since the time of Cicero) I’d have no problem with Dr Spencer. But he disputes that; instead he states the view that some ‘designed’ process in the weather maintains CO2 stability.

While it’s true that some natural situations (I hesitate to say systems, less the terminally bewildered become confused) have states in which they are naturally stable, --if perturbed they will, within limits, return to a base position --only the lunatic fringe of Intelligent Design will pretend that some consciousness made them so.

But even engineered stability systems will only maintain within limits, kick your aircraft auto pilot with a big enough disturbance, and it’ll trip and leave control to the pilot. Exceed the cooling capacity of your fridge, perhaps by leaving the door open, and the ice won’t stay frozen. It’s no more complicated than that and you don’t have to be an alarmist to say so.

While we can all debate whether or not the CO2 limits are being approached; it’s infantile to pretend that Global Warming ‘couldn’t’ be a problem.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 07:13
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Jetex Jim ended...
"it’s infantile to pretend that Global Warming ‘couldn’t’ be a problem."

It's also infantile to believe in Dragons, Flat Earth, Witches etc but people did with the same blind belief that the Greenie Global Warmers exhibit!

No good spouting the usual "the science is proven", when it patently isn't. A computer prediction is NOT "proof". Also emotive Greenie gobbleygook like "Tipping Point" or "Frankenstein Food" has left this planet with expensive food and fraudulent taxes that need never have been introduced.

BTW Mars has 20 times our CO2 levels and yet the mean temperature is -70ºC. Maybe its position relative to the sun is more likely to be the cause? Control the Earth's climate? You have got to be joking!
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 17:46
  #617 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Yes, and for me Dr Spencer is definetly in the same hat, er class.
and your qualification is?
While we can all debate whether or not the CO2 limits are being approached
What limits? Any documentation?
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 18:29
  #618 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Linguistics

Jetex, you seem to take umbrage at Spencer's investing the weather with a "consciousness" or "duty". I can see where you get that, but even if that was his intent, it doesn't necessarily negate his conclusion. Different people have different perspectives relative to what can be concluded by all. Mickey Mouse doesn't really talk (personification) and Indy can't drive a tank over Niagara Falls, (suspension of disbelief). You may be confusing Weather with Climate. Two very different disciplines, neither of which lend themselves to computer modelling, which is in itself a sort of Religion. The "science" relative to the "Hockey Stick" conclusion of Anthropomorphic Global Warming, AGW, has been retracted, by its authors, who now, by the same "models" that produced what they retract, are proposing that there will be "no warming" for the "next" 10-12 years (SIC). You yourself may want to question the relevant "science" which is in doubt, rather than the perceived spiritual (sic) leanings of a Doctor of Climate. You could do no worse than the IPCC have done lately.
 
Old 31st May 2008, 18:53
  #619 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
As Long As I'm At It

Consider:
Climate, the Science of extended Thermodynamic History of the Earth, is a "backward" looking exercise. Historical in nature, it attempts with some success to categorize dozens of important parameters and their effect on our Planet at Large.

Weather, on the other hand, is more immediate, and has to do mostly with prediction in the very near future, and as such has a very important, even urgent impact on all of us.

What success do Weather predictors have? They attempt to precisely predict what will happen in the immediate future. Their record is dismal.

Climatologist? What, in General, are the results over a lengthy period of time of unreliably deduced conclusions.
Who would attempt to confuse people by presenting CLIMATE, a very long term proposition, as WEATHER, an immediate and at best unpredictable format? And what is there to GAIN.

The Friend of the Despot, (politician, dictator, demagogue) is FEAR. Frightened people don't think clearly. Seeing through this ridiculous attempt at Power and Prestige is easy.

Even if the fear-mongers are absolutely correct, (and to assume so is absurd), the effects of what they propose are at worst chronic and sequential, easily mitigated by adjusting to new and unexpected challenges, not without fear and sacrifice, but manageable.

Please, GET A GRIP.

Airfoil
 
Old 31st May 2008, 21:24
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northampton
Posts: 9
BTW Mars has 20 times our CO2 levels and yet the mean temperature is -70ºC.

Erm, I think you need to revisit your science check the atmospheric pressure on Mars first before making a comparison, and while you are googling have a look at the atmosphere and conditions of Venus!
pup150 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.