For me this debate is too often led by extremities when a simple bit of house keeping is needed.
If I was locked in a room with a fire burning, a cow burping, I chopped down the house plants one by one and I didn't look after my water supply properly then I don't think it would do me much good. I might well survive but I wouldn't feel too good.
Perhaps we could look at ways to reduce our demands/meet our demands for power and implement them to improve/look after the health of our planet in the same way that to look after out own health a lot of us realise that going out on the lash every night/smoking/taking drugs/eating poorly/etc isn't going to make us a particularly healthy person in the long run.
In other words I'd like if we stopped having such a massive row about this and actually did some stuff that would help ensure a long term future for life on the planet. It'll be here after we've gone but it might be quite nice if we get to enjoy it a bit longer and in a good way. We're pretty lucky to have what we've got so why not look after it?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]However on this forum sometimes you simply cannot win. If you assert an opinion you are asked to supply links and evidence which in principle is fair enough.
When you do that and opponents don't like the content they denigrate the source.
Well this is a question rather than a fact but why are sources such as The Guardian anymore reliable than mine?
Could it be that they fit your opinion more?
You're right, The Guardian isn't necessarily any more reliable, which is why no ones linked to it. I've said several times that you can't use media representations as the basis of any sort of point - if we start using the media to reach scientific conclusions then we're in a very bad state of affairs indeed. Bournemouth Addick has already pointed out the media distorts things, so if we want to keep as much spin as possible out of it we need to go straight to the scientific reports themselves.
By evidence I mean links to scientific bodies that argue against climate change or at the very least non-discredited individual opinions. And once you show those, you then have to show why they outweigh the huge majority that say they are wrong.
[cite]Posted By: randy andy[/cite]I'm happy to be swayed by evidence from either side, but so far this thread is mostly rhetoric and opinion with very little to back it up. Both sides of this debate are guilty of spouting off opinions and hearsay as fact, so in essence I'm attacking both. When somebody says there is overwhelming consensus, a link proving it (not a link showing somebody else thinks something similar) would be nice.
I agree, so for you (and Len) here's a good synthesis of studies done:
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions."
This is not actually using wikipedia as the source, it's just wikipedia summarising all the studies that have been done. If you wish you can look up all the studies it mentions individually.
Here's a few of the 50 or so listed that concur (I'd fill two pages of this forum on my own to even quote one line from each of them, but you can check them out for yourself on the article):
Geological Society of Australia
In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change:
Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events.
Geological Society of America
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
More than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[15]:
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.
And loads others if you read through the source
They range in their assertiveness, there are a few less strong in their opinion:
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
But basically:
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions."
Crucially, even the very most skeptical 4 or 5 merely hold a neutral 'non-commital' position and do not directly dispute the fact we are a cause of global warming, only the degree to which we are. The "American Association of Petroleum Geologists" used to say they didn't believe in it, but were so criticised by their own members, they had to change their stance to neutral
I'll emphasis again that I've only provided a snapshot of the list of organisations that concur. Look at the article yourself and the list is overwhelming
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]
As it happens, I feel there are plenty of things that science can't explain - chief amongst them is the state of human consciousness. I follow no particular religious doctrine, but do believe that there is 'something else' ('God', a universal force, little green men etc.) that exists which gives us our feelings/emotions/soul.
Definitely a fascinating area. But there's far better metaphysical explanations for mind than dualism imo. Anyways, don't want to drag out another tangent or this will simply become the 'insert big life questions here' thread of Charlton Life :-)
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]
As it happens, I feel there are plenty of things that science can't explain - chief amongst them is the state of human consciousness.
I think evolutionary psychology probably has that one covered. A more important question for me is whether God hates Gooners. Can I love God and not hate Gooners at the same time or are these incompatible theological positions? Guidance please.
Announced today that the EU is to give smaller countries £6.5 billion over a period of three years to help them cope with climate change. What astounds me though, is that of the 25 nations contributing to this sum - WE are giving £1.5 billion, the other £5 billion is spread between 25 other countries.
Brown seems eager to give away as much of OUR money as he can. Wer've got one of the worst performing economies, with one of the biggest National Debts of all the G20 countries and Brown still wants to make our debt bigger. Why should we pay so much? Our Governemant wants to take as much tax from us as it can in the name of being 'green' and then give it all away.
An interesting debate flying backwards and forwards on here, but I wonder whether in many cases it is the issue that is being debated or just schools of thought or political groups.
Scientists against the corporate (oil) elite Those who think the scientists are being used as a foil for green taxes (when not needed?!) vs scientists internationalists against nationalists (please accept small i and small n for these) Federalists and confederalists against non-EU'er and UKIP'ers
What always interests me is this, why is it predominantly ageing anti european Conservatives (big C/polticians) who are the majority speaking up in the media as climate change being 'an untruth'? Is this the climate camp :) that they fit into?
Just been watching Boris J on Andrew Marr. Says he has been convinced by the scientific evidence to change his mind about climate change. He is now a 'believer' and is off to Copenhagen to support the need for action!
So Steve, Len et al now is the time to redeem and see the light. Distance yourself from Sarah and follow Boris!
Having studied under Martin Parry, a former head of the IPCC, I find it incredible that people who know nothing at all about such a vital subject can pontificate so freely, acting as if their ill-informed selfish rants are of equal validity to the scientific findings of some brilliant minds who have spent their careers of 30 years and more studying Climate Change.
Unrelated to this, some of you may find this website interesting http://www.worldometers.info/ At least it may give some people a better idea of how long fossil fuels are likely to remain, 151,000 days more of coal, 15,000 left for oil.
Really ? how strange your info is . when huge new oil fields have just been confirmed in the Falklands (some of the biggest ever) and that there is as much North sea oil LEFT as has been used so far. Then there is the oil in pockets that are deemed at the moment to be not extractable---- as much of the north sea oil was 5 years age until Shell and ExxonMobil pionered horizontal drilling and water pressure relief technic`s. There is an awful lot of oil still about but its more and more difficult to get to. the biggest area now of exploration is Papua New Guinea -- it has possibly the biggest Natural Gas fields in the world and the project to get at it only stared last year. I worked (and still contract) for ExxonMobil and some of their projects are the size of a small countries GNP. Of course it has to run out some day. The huge unknown is CHINA its inpact on the Worlds resourses has only just started to filter through.Over a bilion people wanting cars etc and the goods / services we take for granted and then there is its industry. They have already brought up mountians (actual mountains) in Peru that contain copper, they are offering to be single sourse of sale to many smaller countries who have minerals etc----- what makes China so difficult to deal with is our own waste of the worlds resourse-- how can we tell them to use less ?
As for the boffins geting it right well as siad they didnt with Y2K and ooo dear what a surprise pig flu was going to meanmake shift mortuaries and no one to bury the dead -- but now the mortality rate is largley the same as seasonal flu .
Climate change - lets see---- wasting what the world has is the issue--- use less.
I was asked to prove the 'consensus' previously in this debate. I've linked to a comprehensive list of that consensus, not a blog, not a journalistic opinion piece in a newspaper but a dry factual list of the major scientific bodies and their statements on climate change. That hasn't been responded to, so I can only assume that I have fulfilled the demand for evidence? That only leaves the 'its a conspiracy' angle, which I haven't seen anyone flesh out in the even the slightest bit of detail.
Do you really trust people who act like this to suppress debate?
I thought this a little bit suspicious, so I looked up the guy, and he was involved in exactly the same thing a couple of months ago, with footage almost identikit in nature. Here's the so called 'armed guard' last time this exact thing happened:
"He accused me and SEJ of censoring a journalist, and observed that we were shielding our speaker from tough questions. I responded that he had been free to ask his question and even got a chance to follow it up, but that he didn't have a right to monopolize the Q&A"
He's not some innocent journalist who is crushed by the UN machine, he's a well known denialist film-maker who probably knew exactly what he was doing to get a sensationalist piece of footage. Why exactly did he bring his cameraman to film him asking questions? So it's his footage to edit how he likes,and this video is on his own youtube channel replete with jagged cuts and 'explanatory' captions. I imagine these press conferences have a certain etiquette to them, and he disrupted that by either going over his allotted number of questions, or being abrasive in his way of questioning. From there it's simple to edit together the first question, and the moment when they tried to make him stop, as if they followed from one another.
Every single journalist there would have asked about the leaked e-mails, as that's the big story at the moment. Do you really think they just cuffed them all?
[cite]Posted By: Chaz Hill[/cite]Just been watching Boris J on Andrew Marr. Says he has been convinced by the scientific evidence to change his mind about climate change. He is now a 'believer' and is off to Copenhagen to support the need for action
So Steve, Len et al now is the time to redeem and see the light. Distance yourself from Sarah and follow Boris!
I'm hoping that this starts to dispel the notion that climate change is 'right wing v left wing', and you have to have a default position based on where your own beliefs lie. Political leanings shouldn't affect whether you believe scientists or not.
GH Not my figures and clearly stated that they were unrelated. Of course to counter your negativity these general figures assume current rates of consumption, and you will understand that this is not likely and any new fields will be no match for the increased consumption.1% per year to 2030, according to IEA. As my great mate Eddie, who works for Enterprise Oil (one of the companies hunting the remaining reserves) points out, at best, mining the new fields in places such as the Alaskan SSSI and the Antarctic will at best delay the inevitable. In 2009 there was a 19% reduction in exploration, again according to IEA. BTW next year there will be more exploratory wells in Cuba than Papua, as you claim. But as I said GH, the figures above at least give a rough idea, just to add some perspective to the ill informed.
But its good that your random, inaccurate and irrelevant ideas get an airing. How you can repeatedly debunk scientific evidence by comparing a minor IT scare about a possible problem on one day with climatologists who have studied for decades in every region of the world defies belief. Do you associate all 'boffins' as you call them as the same? Perhaps you equate the blokes who fix your PC with those other blokes who discovered the double helix of DNA?
You contract to major oil companies? In what respect? I'm glad you regurgitate their PR, though some relevant facts might help. Do you not feel they have a vested interest in delaying alternative energies so that we can continue to be dependent on them even to the extent of fighting wars for them?
FYI having spent time in Tacna, southern Peru working for the American company which used to own several copper mines (Yes ACTUAL mines) you may be interested that they pulled out in 2005 having sold the whole shebang, including housing and schools and the port to a Mexican company.Your point about China is a. nothing new and b irrlevant. You may add to your repertoire the Japanese building a railway line across China so they could source their own coal from the Baikal fields, but as they did this 50 years ago it may not stand up to your rigorous argument example selection technique.
see any arguement like the PANIC over YTK or pig Flu or Bird Flu yep yes just throw that out as old and therfore not relevant ooooooooooooooo of course its not relevant as they got it wrong --- yes thats WRONG
I stated several FACTS above but according to you thats just PR. So China`s economy is irrelevant sorry i`ll start laughing now !! can you hear me yep thats laughing. So do tell why the SECOND largest ecomony in the World with the second largest population is not relevant to the climate change arguement? oooooooooooo i see it doesnt fit into your POLITICAL arguement !
China only broght the mountain of copper in 2007 .
As for big oil they are one of the Worlds best hopes of finding an alternative to fossil fuels -- Exxonmobil spent in 2006 $400 million dollars doing that. Yep in their intrests for profit of course, but then again if it wasnt for big Oil we would have already run out of oil as no single economy would RISK their capital by drilling in the places that they go. ------------------------------ not PR fact.
and its total one way bollox with 5 star attitude that makes me believe 60% of climate arguement has another agenda.
Check it out from whatever source you trust. Thing is we wont know until it happens or not but as Boris claimed this morning that his 'green' policies actually cost less, as a London tax payer that is alright by me.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]see any arguement like the PANIC over YTK or pig Flu or Bird Flu yep yes just throw that out as old and therfore not relevant ooooooooooooooo of course its not relevant as they got it wrong --- yes thats WRONGquote]
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]see any arguement like the PANIC over YTK or pig Flu or Bird Flu yep yes just throw that out as old and therfore not relevant ooooooooooooooo of course its not relevant as they got it wrong --- yes thats WRONG
I stated several FACTS above but according to you thats just PR. So China`s economy is irrelevant sorry i`ll start laughing now !! can you hear me yep thats laughing. So do tell why the SECOND largest ecomony in the World with the second largest population is not relevant to the climate change arguement? oooooooooooo i see it doesnt fit into your POLITICAL arguement !
China only broght the mountain of copper in 2007 .
As for big oil they are one of the Worlds best hopes of finding an alternative to fossil fuels -- Exxonmobil spent in 2006 $400 million dollars doing that. Yep in their intrests for profit of course, but then again if it wasnt for big Oil we would have already run out of oil as no single economy would RISK their capital by drilling in the places that they go.
not PR fact.
and its total one way bollox with 5 star attitude that makes me believe 60% of climate arguement has another agenda.
I'm not sure what point you are making here - other than we are going to continue using oil/carbon based fuels, and since our economy and transport system relies on carbon based fuels we are pretty much tied in to using them regardless.
However that doesn't negate the issue of climate change and AGW being caused by our use of oil etc, neither does it mean that we shouldn't be reducing our reliance on them. If nothing else the less pollution chucked into the atmosphere the better, and can only be a good thing for all of us - except for the profits of the big oil firms.
I gave up with this arguement on account of the fact that one or two dodgy Proffesors and the UEA - I say dodgy more to the fact that they and the UEA were pathetically guarding their research against freedom of information requests - hardly refutes all research. I believe in climate change, but I also believe that their predictions will turn out to be wildly innacurate. People bang on about good 'science' as if it is somehow seperate from all the foibles of the human condition. But as all the disciples of 'Bad Science' know everything is swayed by the questions asked, how it is presented and the sample/data sets used by Proffesors or researchers. Nuanced, balanced and less polemical research hardly ever get's as much prestige let alone the much needed media oxygen many lead Proffesors require. I believe what pro-climate change experts say, as to the validity of their predictions for such an infinitely complex problem I have immense doubts.
The Met Office bang on about climate change being irrefutable since the 19th century and that the last decade was the hottest on record. Yet they haven't been recording climate change data since before the twentieth century; a quick scan on their website shows recording started for a globally co-ordinated data set in 1961, though my memory seems to tell me it was first started inbetween the wars. I don't doubt their data-sets and results but they use a classic piece of presentation to add more gravitas and effect to their arguement, whilst attempting to not engage with the immense difficulties of selecting and interpreting historical data. Unlike anti-climate changers I do not see statistical difficulties as a torpedo that sinks the ice berg, theories bandied around by anti-climate changers such as solar activity seem to have no plausible research or statistical analysis. Carbon Dioxide, and the human created emissions of it appear to explain post-industrial temperature rises but I am immediately sceptical of such contrived proof as the hockey-stick. It is an observed theory, with no absolute proof. Climate change is occurring, but the arrogance with which the UEA have shown in freedom of information has created a ridiculous witch-hunt of irrelevant insinuation.
Whatever the cases are I'm not surprised that Science attempts to supplant theology with it's own Great Disaster theory. Unlike theology at least their leaps of faith are small and in-between debated and analysed data - for the most.
On an irrelevant note to the arguement... Floyd when did Japan build a train track to the Baikal coal fields? Having lived in Manchuria and travelled on the Trans-Siberian railway, I was under the impression that the Baikal area was under the strict control of the USSR and within Mongolia/Russia. With Japan having been defeated by Russia in the 38/39 border wars, their whole strategic effort went away from the Baikal coal areas and towards the Dutch East Indies Oil. All the train tracks in Mongolia are Russian gauge and when you cross the border to Outer Mongolia/China, they have to change the bogies to Chinese gauge (no doubt Japanese built). I know you said it with sarcasm in mind but it just seemed a rather peculiar bit of info.
Hi Colin The Japanese have invested since the 1950's but their input was not matched by the Russians (a bit like the British investing in the Calcutta underground in the early 1990's, funding ran out, the Brits left, and all the work was undone as miles of cables and track were stolen until the next year's batch of funding arrived when it all had to start again). I believe the BAM was eventually completed around 1990.
Unrelated but I worked in Dalian on the North Korean border some years ago and have fond memories of taking the Trans Siberian as often and as far as I could, though in those days you couldnt turn off the loud awful muzak.
BTW The Met office have inherited a wealth of data meticulously collected from around the Empire. Though not Met Office and not Climate Change data per se, it is useful for spotting trends.
Oh and the Japanese funded the (part) building of a rail tunnel extension to Sakhalin during Stalin's time, and again in the late 1990's and I believe are currently funding a bridge
Two news stories this week seem to have some bearing on this debate:
In Bolivia, the Chacaltaya glacier looks set to disappear completely year. Scientists had originally predicted that it would last until 2015 but it has melted much more quickly. So far those who argue that scientists are being deliberately pessimistic as part of some worldwide funding conspiracy, there is a worrying counter argument. In this case, at least, it seems that the scientists predictions on climate change were rather too optimistic. Things have gone tits up five years quicker than they said. What if the generally cautious nature of science as a discipline means that all climate change predictions are similarly optimistic? Things could be worse than we think.
In Germany, nearly half of the country's credit cards have not been working this week following a new year bug where the year 2010 is not recognised. For those who were arguing that the YK2 bug was some sort of overhyped fiction and (somewhat inexplicably) linking this to climate change science there is an answer. Such problems can and do occur in the real world and it is only by being vigilant that we can deal with them.
Not much sign of glabal warming at the moment. According to the Global warming theory we are supposed to have mild winters and hot dry summers - not much sign of that in the last couple of years.
[cite]Posted By: ME14addick[/cite]Not much sign of glabal warming at the moment. According to the Global warming theory we are supposed to have mild winters and hot dry summers - not much sign of that in the last couple of years.
Comments
Thought as much :-)
If I was locked in a room with a fire burning, a cow burping, I chopped down the house plants one by one and I didn't look after my water supply properly then I don't think it would do me much good. I might well survive but I wouldn't feel too good.
Perhaps we could look at ways to reduce our demands/meet our demands for power and implement them to improve/look after the health of our planet in the same way that to look after out own health a lot of us realise that going out on the lash every night/smoking/taking drugs/eating poorly/etc isn't going to make us a particularly healthy person in the long run.
In other words I'd like if we stopped having such a massive row about this and actually did some stuff that would help ensure a long term future for life on the planet. It'll be here after we've gone but it might be quite nice if we get to enjoy it a bit longer and in a good way. We're pretty lucky to have what we've got so why not look after it?
You're right, The Guardian isn't necessarily any more reliable, which is why no ones linked to it. I've said several times that you can't use media representations as the basis of any sort of point - if we start using the media to reach scientific conclusions then we're in a very bad state of affairs indeed. Bournemouth Addick has already pointed out the media distorts things, so if we want to keep as much spin as possible out of it we need to go straight to the scientific reports themselves.
By evidence I mean links to scientific bodies that argue against climate change or at the very least non-discredited individual opinions. And once you show those, you then have to show why they outweigh the huge majority that say they are wrong.
I agree, so for you (and Len) here's a good synthesis of studies done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions."
This is not actually using wikipedia as the source, it's just wikipedia summarising all the studies that have been done. If you wish you can look up all the studies it mentions individually.
Here's a few of the 50 or so listed that concur (I'd fill two pages of this forum on my own to even quote one line from each of them, but you can check them out for yourself on the article):
And loads others if you read through the source
They range in their assertiveness, there are a few less strong in their opinion:
But basically:
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions."
Crucially, even the very most skeptical 4 or 5 merely hold a neutral 'non-commital' position and do not directly dispute the fact we are a cause of global warming, only the degree to which we are. The "American Association of Petroleum Geologists" used to say they didn't believe in it, but were so criticised by their own members, they had to change their stance to neutral
I'll emphasis again that I've only provided a snapshot of the list of organisations that concur. Look at the article yourself and the list is overwhelming
Definitely a fascinating area. But there's far better metaphysical explanations for mind than dualism imo. Anyways, don't want to drag out another tangent or this will simply become the 'insert big life questions here' thread of Charlton Life :-)
Missing the Big Picture
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/08/missing-the-big-pictur...
Creating a better world for nothing:
If global warming is a hoax, are we prepared to accept these consequences?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7561&print=1
Brown seems eager to give away as much of OUR money as he can. Wer've got one of the worst performing economies, with one of the biggest National Debts of all the G20 countries and Brown still wants to make our debt bigger. Why should we pay so much? Our Governemant wants to take as much tax from us as it can in the name of being 'green' and then give it all away.
Do you really trust people who act like this to suppress debate?
No longer an argument Len. Apparently Sarah Palin says it is all a sham. With the likes of her in your camp who are we to disagree :-)
Scientists against the corporate (oil) elite
Those who think the scientists are being used as a foil for green taxes (when not needed?!) vs scientists
internationalists against nationalists (please accept small i and small n for these)
Federalists and confederalists against non-EU'er and UKIP'ers
What always interests me is this, why is it predominantly ageing anti european Conservatives (big C/polticians) who are the majority speaking up in the media as climate change being 'an untruth'?
Is this the climate camp :) that they fit into?
So Steve, Len et al now is the time to redeem and see the light. Distance yourself from Sarah and follow Boris!
Unrelated to this, some of you may find this website interesting
http://www.worldometers.info/
At least it may give some people a better idea of how long fossil fuels are likely to remain, 151,000 days more of coal, 15,000 left for oil.
Of course it has to run out some day.
The huge unknown is CHINA its inpact on the Worlds resourses has only just started to filter through.Over a bilion people wanting cars etc and the goods / services we take for granted and then there is its industry. They have already brought up mountians (actual mountains) in Peru that contain copper, they are offering to be single sourse of sale to many smaller countries who have minerals etc----- what makes China so difficult to deal with is our own waste of the worlds resourse-- how can we tell them to use less ?
As for the boffins geting it right well as siad they didnt with Y2K and ooo dear what a surprise pig flu was going to meanmake shift mortuaries and no one to bury the dead -- but now the mortality rate is largley the same as seasonal flu .
Climate change - lets see---- wasting what the world has is the issue--- use less.
I thought this a little bit suspicious, so I looked up the guy, and he was involved in exactly the same thing a couple of months ago, with footage almost identikit in nature. Here's the so called 'armed guard' last time this exact thing happened:
"He accused me and SEJ of censoring a journalist, and observed that we were shielding our speaker from tough questions. I responded that he had been free to ask his question and even got a chance to follow it up, but that he didn't have a right to monopolize the Q&A"
He's not some innocent journalist who is crushed by the UN machine, he's a well known denialist film-maker who probably knew exactly what he was doing to get a sensationalist piece of footage. Why exactly did he bring his cameraman to film him asking questions? So it's his footage to edit how he likes,and this video is on his own youtube channel replete with jagged cuts and 'explanatory' captions. I imagine these press conferences have a certain etiquette to them, and he disrupted that by either going over his allotted number of questions, or being abrasive in his way of questioning. From there it's simple to edit together the first question, and the moment when they tried to make him stop, as if they followed from one another.
Every single journalist there would have asked about the leaked e-mails, as that's the big story at the moment. Do you really think they just cuffed them all?
I'm hoping that this starts to dispel the notion that climate change is 'right wing v left wing', and you have to have a default position based on where your own beliefs lie. Political leanings shouldn't affect whether you believe scientists or not.
Not my figures and clearly stated that they were unrelated. Of course to counter your negativity these general figures assume current rates of consumption, and you will understand that this is not likely and any new fields will be no match for the increased consumption.1% per year to 2030, according to IEA. As my great mate Eddie, who works for Enterprise Oil (one of the companies hunting the remaining reserves) points out, at best, mining the new fields in places such as the Alaskan SSSI and the Antarctic will at best delay the inevitable. In 2009 there was a 19% reduction in exploration, again according to IEA. BTW next year there will be more exploratory wells in Cuba than Papua, as you claim. But as I said GH, the figures above at least give a rough idea, just to add some perspective to the ill informed.
But its good that your random, inaccurate and irrelevant ideas get an airing. How you can repeatedly debunk scientific evidence by comparing a minor IT scare about a possible problem on one day with climatologists who have studied for decades in every region of the world defies belief. Do you associate all 'boffins' as you call them as the same? Perhaps you equate the blokes who fix your PC with those other blokes who discovered the double helix of DNA?
You contract to major oil companies? In what respect? I'm glad you regurgitate their PR, though some relevant facts might help. Do you not feel they have a vested interest in delaying alternative energies so that we can continue to be dependent on them even to the extent of fighting wars for them?
FYI having spent time in Tacna, southern Peru working for the American company which used to own several copper mines (Yes ACTUAL mines) you may be interested that they pulled out in 2005 having sold the whole shebang, including housing and schools and the port to a Mexican company.Your point about China is a. nothing new and b irrlevant. You may add to your repertoire the Japanese building a railway line across China so they could source their own coal from the Baikal fields, but as they did this 50 years ago it may not stand up to your rigorous argument example selection technique.
I stated several FACTS above but according to you thats just PR. So China`s economy is irrelevant sorry i`ll start laughing now !! can you hear me yep thats laughing. So do tell why the SECOND largest ecomony in the World with the second largest population is not relevant to the climate change arguement? oooooooooooo i see it doesnt fit into your POLITICAL arguement !
China only broght the mountain of copper in 2007 .
As for big oil they are one of the Worlds best hopes of finding an alternative to fossil fuels -- Exxonmobil spent in 2006 $400 million dollars doing that. Yep in their intrests for profit of course, but then again if it wasnt for big Oil we would have already run out of oil as no single economy would RISK their capital by drilling in the places that they go. ------------------------------ not PR fact.
and its total one way bollox with 5 star attitude that makes me believe 60% of climate arguement has another agenda.
Check it out from whatever source you trust. Thing is we wont know until it happens or not but as Boris claimed this morning that his 'green' policies actually cost less, as a London tax payer that is alright by me.
I'm not sure what point you are making here - other than we are going to continue using oil/carbon based fuels, and since our economy and transport system relies on carbon based fuels we are pretty much tied in to using them regardless.
However that doesn't negate the issue of climate change and AGW being caused by our use of oil etc, neither does it mean that we shouldn't be reducing our reliance on them. If nothing else the less pollution chucked into the atmosphere the better, and can only be a good thing for all of us - except for the profits of the big oil firms.
You managed not to explain what your link is to Exxon.
Do tell
The Met Office bang on about climate change being irrefutable since the 19th century and that the last decade was the hottest on record. Yet they haven't been recording climate change data since before the twentieth century; a quick scan on their website shows recording started for a globally co-ordinated data set in 1961, though my memory seems to tell me it was first started inbetween the wars. I don't doubt their data-sets and results but they use a classic piece of presentation to add more gravitas and effect to their arguement, whilst attempting to not engage with the immense difficulties of selecting and interpreting historical data. Unlike anti-climate changers I do not see statistical difficulties as a torpedo that sinks the ice berg, theories bandied around by anti-climate changers such as solar activity seem to have no plausible research or statistical analysis. Carbon Dioxide, and the human created emissions of it appear to explain post-industrial temperature rises but I am immediately sceptical of such contrived proof as the hockey-stick. It is an observed theory, with no absolute proof. Climate change is occurring, but the arrogance with which the UEA have shown in freedom of information has created a ridiculous witch-hunt of irrelevant insinuation.
Whatever the cases are I'm not surprised that Science attempts to supplant theology with it's own Great Disaster theory. Unlike theology at least their leaps of faith are small and in-between debated and analysed data - for the most.
On an irrelevant note to the arguement... Floyd when did Japan build a train track to the Baikal coal fields? Having lived in Manchuria and travelled on the Trans-Siberian railway, I was under the impression that the Baikal area was under the strict control of the USSR and within Mongolia/Russia. With Japan having been defeated by Russia in the 38/39 border wars, their whole strategic effort went away from the Baikal coal areas and towards the Dutch East Indies Oil. All the train tracks in Mongolia are Russian gauge and when you cross the border to Outer Mongolia/China, they have to change the bogies to Chinese gauge (no doubt Japanese built). I know you said it with sarcasm in mind but it just seemed a rather peculiar bit of info.
The Japanese have invested since the 1950's but their input was not matched by the Russians (a bit like the British investing in the Calcutta underground in the early 1990's, funding ran out, the Brits left, and all the work was undone as miles of cables and track were stolen until the next year's batch of funding arrived when it all had to start again). I believe the BAM was eventually completed around 1990.
Unrelated but I worked in Dalian on the North Korean border some years ago and have fond memories of taking the Trans Siberian as often and as far as I could, though in those days you couldnt turn off the loud awful muzak.
BTW The Met office have inherited a wealth of data meticulously collected from around the Empire. Though not Met Office and not Climate Change data per se, it is useful for spotting trends.
In Bolivia, the Chacaltaya glacier looks set to disappear completely year. Scientists had originally predicted that it would last until 2015 but it has melted much more quickly. So far those who argue that scientists are being deliberately pessimistic as part of some worldwide funding conspiracy, there is a worrying counter argument. In this case, at least, it seems that the scientists predictions on climate change were rather too optimistic. Things have gone tits up five years quicker than they said. What if the generally cautious nature of science as a discipline means that all climate change predictions are similarly optimistic? Things could be worse than we think.
http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/05/bolivia-on-the-global-warming-frontline/
In Germany, nearly half of the country's credit cards have not been working this week following a new year bug where the year 2010 is not recognised. For those who were arguing that the YK2 bug was some sort of overhyped fiction and (somewhat inexplicably) linking this to climate change science there is an answer. Such problems can and do occur in the real world and it is only by being vigilant that we can deal with them.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00da0e24-fa63-11de-beed-00144feab49a.html