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 19th Jun 2011, 17:41
  #8261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
well hang on there chuks, in your son of climate change thread you assert:

Quote:
You cannot prove or disprove AGW; it is an hypothesis, sort of a working assumption, if you like.


link for you chuks... Son of Climate Change.
A clear case of shooting himself in both feet whilst they're stuck in his mouth. And STILL missing his brain.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2011, 17:49
  #8262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
A clear case of shooting himself in both feet whilst they're stuck in his mouth. And STILL missing his brain.
well as i put it:

Quote:
You cannot prove or disprove AGW; it is an hypothesis,
Ah. So AGW cannot be empirically proven then as the (manipulated) data cannot be shown or tested to prove that it is fact. Yet you attempt to discredit a professor's factual work on sea levels, because he doesn't present data that supports your theory of AGW, over his interest in dowsing, because it cannot be empirically proven or that data can be provided to test the method for conclusive proof.

You're just shot the wing off your own argument !

One would hope that your earlier seizure would have helped cleared that anal blockage.

'Hi ho silver!'
bless him, though, he didn't understand the response and had to resort to a grammar flame.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2011, 18:06
  #8263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Really, I could not have put it better myself! Well, not without the use of lots and lots of those little emoticons....

Is it the same, though, to speak of "a sort of 'proof'" and to speak of a 'proof?' Do you take those two things to mean exactly the same thing? Is there not some difference there that is plainly to be seen? (These are rhetorical questions; you need not bothering trying to answer them unless, of course, you are 'feeling lucky.')
chuks is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 02:35
  #8264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Simompro,

I don't care about what you think. You obviously can't read.

First learn to read and respond. Do not give lofty replies to me about links or comments which I did not post. You can't even seem to read who posted what and whom to respond.

Secondly go through the IPCC press release and tell me where the 80% figure they put out came from. It was not from that Greenpeace report.

Thirdly if you can't see a conflict of interest in a Greenpeace employee referencing his own study as a lead author in a IPCC report, there's to point in talking to you. One can discuss with people who have the basic knowledge of ethics and appropriate behaviour.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 08:52
  #8265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Secondly go through the IPCC press release and tell me where the 80% figure they put out came from. It was not from that Greenpeace report.
Seeing as this part of your diatribe is based on a scientific point I'll reply to it. The 80% (well, 77%) figure comes from the ER-2010 scenario, as identified in Chapter 10 of the SRREN report:
Low demand (e.g., due to a significant increase in energy efficiency) is combined with high RE deployment, no employment of CCS and a global nuclear phase-out by 2045 in the third mitigation scenario, Advanced Energy [R]evolution 2010 (Teske et al., 2010) (henceforth ER-2010).
The reference is:
Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T. Naegler, W. Graus, and C. Lins (2010). Energy [R]evolution 2010—a sustainable world energy outlook. Energy Efficiency, doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y.
If you look at the reference then you'll see lots of tables - those contain the data from which the 77% figure is calculated. If you can't be bothered dealing with lots of numbers then the abstract can also help you:
The Energy [R]evolution scenario shows that renewable energy
can provide more than 80% of the world’s energy needs by 2050.
So, they got the numbers, with no distortion, from a correctly referenced peer-reviewed journal article.
Happy now?
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 09:12
  #8266 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,924
James Delingpole: Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
ORAC is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 17:34
  #8267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
Speaking of cons and tax fraud, where is my money?

I should have been earning carbon credits since about 1979.

How?

My cars, with a single exception, have beev 30 mpg or better hwy. Well beyond national average, by at least one sigma.

Had solar heat panels on the roof before it was cool to do so. (Well, not true, I did get a tax break that year, it was 1984).

No carbon credit for me, eh? So, just who the hell gets the credit?

Big Institutions? Governments? Bond traders? Futures traders who deal in intangibles?

Sorry, but for about six billion people, a carbon credit is a chimera. It is a tool for an aracane branch of extortionary tax policy and its gnomes who do some magical mumbo jumbo to claim that something surreal is real.

When a carbon credit is something a citizen can be awarded, I'll start to listen.

Until then, no, it's a racket, and its proponents crooks.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 19:14
  #8268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 119
Lonewolf 50.

FWIW IMHO carbon trading is indeed a scam, with many guilty parties. Part of the story is that those who want to evade what might otherwise be a cap on their output can buy allowances from those who want to emit less (not necessarily for virtuous reasons, they might be going out of business). So it is not so different from catch limits for fishermen. Retire, sell your boat, and live from renting out your catch limit. Outrageous.

If there is a case for limiting carbon emissions (cue howls of outrage) then either drive up the market price of carbon based fuels (I seem to perceive this is happening anyway with oil), or reward those who drive smaller cars and fit solar panels. In the UK, cars with lower emissions are taxed less heavily (and of course their owners save on fuel bills) and there are generous (in my view too generous) rewards for those who fit solar panels to their houses.

If people are to be be encouraged to cut their emissions then they should indeed benefit personally. You should benefit personally.
911slf is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 20:55
  #8269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
Lonewolf 50,

Funny.... I've been asking myself the same question.
Where do I apply for the carbon 'credits' or 'rebates' for the (by the last count) roughly twenty full-grown trees in my garden? Not to mention the bushes, hedges, lawn, or roughly 40m² bamboo (some of them about 10m high....)?

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 22:45
  #8270 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 79
Posts: 4,669
Thirty-thousand-million tonnes of coal that no one wants to mine. IN THE UK!!?? Flippin 'ek, it seems it can be modified in situ and most of the energy piped up for use . . . as gas, I suppose.

Radio Essex c 18:30 Sunday.

Totally amazing.

Read this, and be very afraid. Well, I would be, if I could work up the energy these days.

BBC News - World's oceans in 'shocking' decline
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 22:53
  #8271 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 70
Posts: 1,768
it seems it can be modified in situ and most of the energy piped up for use . . . as gas, I suppose
nothing new under the sun
Lon More is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 23:14
  #8272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
Read this, and be very afraid...

Had a read. Came to this bit... "...The rate of change is vastly exceeding what we were expecting even a couple of years ago," said Ove Hoegh-Guldberg..."

Loose rivets, do a little research on Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and you will discover he has a history of making wild claims that are not backed up by reality.
Every few years Ove Hoegh-Guldberg will claim there has been massive destruction of the Australian Great Barrier reef. Unforetunatly fer Ove 'carbon muppet' Hoegh-Guldberg the reefs have suffered a mysterious full recovery when others look into the claims..


Bolt has many references to the Ove 'carbon muppet' Hoegh-Guldberg fantasy claims... Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog Search





.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2011, 23:55
  #8273 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 79
Posts: 4,669
But . . . but . . . it was on the BBC daily news snippets. It had to be right . . . didn't it?
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 02:44
  #8274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
And if you read roperly, Simonpro, there's no 80% reference anywhere. So stating that number is a deliberate barefaced lie, however you want to disguise it. You claim to be a scientist. Either a figure is there or not ther. 80% was not there. So don't bullshit with false excuses. It was a distortion.

This is the letter from Ottmar Edenhofer of IPCC regarding the report
Dear Oliver,
As I have written to Andrew Revkin, the press release was drafted by the WGIII and the Secretariat. Nick Nutall, spokesperson of the United Nations Environment Programme was acting IPCC spokesperson at the time of the Abu Dhabi meeting, because this position was vacant. He has drafted the first version, which was then reviewed by the Secretariat, the WGIII co-chairs, and the WGIII TSU. Sven Teske was not involved in the process of writing the press release.
It was based on the SPM but supplemented from the underlying chapters, for example with the numbers that describe the upper and the lower one of the four scenarios that have been analyzed in-depth:
“Over 160 [164] existing scientific scenarios on the possible penetration of renewables by 2050, alongside environmental and social implications, have been reviewed with four analyzed in-depth. These four were chosen in order to represent the full range. [...]
The most optimistic of the four, in-depth scenarios projects renewable energy accounting for as much as 77 percent of the world‘s energy demand by 2050, amounting to about 314 of 407 Exajoules per year. [...]
77 percent is up from just under 13 percent of the total primary energy supply of around 490 Exajoules in 2008. Each of the scenarios is underpinned by a range of variables such as changes in energy efficiency, population growth and per capita consumption. These lead to varying levels of total primary energy supply in 2050, with the lowest of the four scenarios seeing renewable energy accounting for a share of 15 percent in 2050, based on a total primary energy supply of 749 Exajoules.”
Best regards,
Ottmar


So there was no 80%. 77% was the most optimistic of the 160 scenarios.

The statement at issue is the lead statement is the IPCC press release which was done one month before the SPM which said that ‘Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.’
If you don't find a problem with that, don't bother to reply with more mealy mouthed excuses.


And I find that as usual you are silent about the post which you replied attributing to me when it was not. So as usual a pretense of not responding to an obvious point when pointed out that you were wrong. No ethics or honour or admission of mistake. Just bare faced diatribe in fact, from your side.

rvv500 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 08:04
  #8275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
More Warmist Propaganda!

From today's Verdener Nachrichten...

Der Meerespiegel steigt deutlich schneller which means that 'Sea levels are rising noticeably quicker.'

The article says that the use of sediments compared to recent records for sea levels shows that ocean levels are rising more quickly nowadays. The scientists claim that sea levels were static from about 200 BCE until 1000 CE, rose from about 1100 CE for about 500 years at a rate of about 5 centimetres per century, and were stable again until the late 1800s, because of a cooler climate. From that time, they claim, sea levels are rising at an increasing rate because of 'der globalen Erwärmung,' Global Warming.

The article takes up about 2/3 of one page and is illustrated by a large picture of salt water washing over a meadow, a smaller one of gravity fields which result in differing sea levels worldwide, and, finally, a picture of houses on the Maldives which are built on stilts. 'Diese Häuser auf Stelzen stehen auf den Malediven, für die der Meerespiegelanstieg einen große Bedrohung bedeutet. Die Inseln könnten in absehbarer Zeit versinken,' or 'These houses are on stilts are on the Maldives, which are threatened greatly by rising sea levels. The islands can be submerged in the foreseeable future.'

This ghastly fraud has been perpetrated by Professor Stephen Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for 'Klimafolgenforschung' (research into the consequences of climate warming) with the results published in the Proceedings of the U.S. Academy of Science before being excerpted in this newspaper article.

Not least, those poor fools on the Maldives have blindly built their houses on stilts, spending good money on that, despite having already been told by Dr M. that sea levels there are not rising at all. Why in the world would they do that, do you suppose? Misguided fool that I am, I would take that for empirical evidence that Dr M. is wrong and that sea levels on the Maldives are indeed rising. As in, 'I see you one picture of a tree and raise you a picture of houses on stilts.'

That is not 'science,' though and nor is that study by Professor Rahmstorf, whatever the U.S. Academy of Science might think about that. (They are all in this together, those climate 'scientists.') The one is my blind belief in the face of so much reasoned discourse here and the other simply must be a criminal fraud by some warmist faker, and I think we must be told!

By the way, if you want to round off numbers you can try this trick: From 70 to 74 you can round off to 70, and from 75 to 79 you can round off to 80. 77%, for instance, then rounds off to 80%. This is just one of those things that mathematicians do, no idea why.

Last edited by chuks; 21st Jun 2011 at 08:17.
chuks is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 08:37
  #8276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
Not least, those poor fools on the Maldives have blindly built their houses on stilts, spending good money on that, despite having already been told by Dr M. that sea levels there are not rising at all. Why in the world would they do that, do you suppose?
Storm surge? I have friends in Hawai`i with stilt-raised properties at the seafront.

Seasonal flooding? Traditional Thai architecture features stilts for just such events.

How long have the Maldivians been building on stilts?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 08:37
  #8277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
And if you read roperly, Simonpro, there's no 80% reference anywhere.
You mean apart from the quotes at the top of the page that show exactly where the value came from and how it was cited in the IPCC report?

Honestly, rvv500, I give up - I have responded to your point and yet, like a parrot that doesn't actually understand the words it is saying, you simply continue your rant as if nothing happened. No doubt this post will produce yet another caustic reply from you, but save your keyboard - I won't be reading it.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 08:50
  #8278 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
The good Dr Michael Mann has produced a new hockey stick, this time on sea level rise. Qh yes and at the same time he has re-instated the Medieval warming period and the LIA that he so carefully airbrushed out in his original temperature hockey stick.

Summary and links Mann’s new sea level hockey stick paper | Watts Up With That?

Also a letter from the Chairman of the Oversight Subcomittee of the US Science Committee to the UN Chairman asking that IPCC not be permitted to delay implementation of Conflict of Interest policy until after AR5

http://science.house.gov/sites/repub...20Interest.pdf
green granite is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 09:02
  #8279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
That sinking feeling

The president of the Maldives is also clearly also an alarmist. Obviously touched by the sun he has taken to holding meetings underwater in order to highlight the potential that rising sea levels might have to drown his stilt ridden island paradise.

Pity the mad deluded fool and his cabinet don’t read this thread! They might have been be persuaded by the high quality of scientific endeavour and debate going on here to know that they needn’t have wetted their scuba gear so to speak.

BBC News - Maldives cabinet makes a splash
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2011, 09:40
  #8280 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
That happened nearly 2 years ago Cacophonix, mainly as a publicity stunt to get more money from the Climate Compensation Fund, and designed to coincide with the Copenhagen conference. The following year the entire cabinet resigned.
green granite 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.