Climate change

[EternalOptimist]

Tarkus, do you post here under any other names ?

I don't, just checking if you do

[RichardCranium]

Is this exciting?

A major story is breaking in climate science, after hackers posted a 61 megabyte data file on a Russian server that appears to be confidential emails and climate data hacked from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.

The data raises major questions about the role of scientists in what appears to be a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public

[gingerjedi]

Scientific fact? How much is that worth?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

Not a lot it seems.

[Spacecadet]

Funny how the climate change deniers are always people who just don't want to be subject to the laws of nature, not if it might affect their pockets?

"Climate change deniers" as you call them don't deny that the climate is changing.
But please don't let facts get in the way of making your point

[Tarquin Farquhar]

One for DimPrawn - Lawson on climate change:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6927598.ece

Climate sceptics 'put world at risk', says leading scientist

Climate change sceptics and fossil fuel companies that have lobbied against action on greenhouse gas emissions have squandered the world's chance to avoid dangerous global warming, a key adviser to the government has said.

Professor Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, said a decade of inaction on climate change meant it was now virtually impossible to limit global temperature rise to 2C.

Still, what does he know? He's only a scientist. Lawson rates much higher in the Tory world because he has acquired more money.

Scientific fact? How much is that worth? Never been a member of Bullingdon reading science, that's for the oiks.

[DimPrawn]

So we have the overwhelming majority of respectable scientific opinion aroud the world, versus a gross decrepit failed Tory chancellor. Hmm, let me think.

Funny how the climate change deniers are always people who just don't want to be subject to the laws of nature, not if it might affect their pockets?

Climate change denial is a bit like evolution denial - plenty of idiots do it, but ye cannae change the aws of nature.

Let the "make science up as we go along" mob try gravity denial for a change. Walk off a cliff..... it's "only a theory".

I don't believe in gravity. It's just leftie glue to make my money stay in my pocket.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

One for DimPrawn - Lawson on climate change:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6927598.ece

So we have the overwhelming majority of respectable scientific opinion aroud the world, versus a gross decrepit failed Tory chancellor. Hmm, let me think.

Funny how the climate change deniers are always people who just don't want to be subject to the laws of nature, not if it might affect their pockets?

Climate change denial is a bit like evolution denial - plenty of idiots do it, but ye cannae change the laws of nature.

Let the "make science up as we go along" mob try gravity denial for a change. Walk off a cliff..... it's "only a theory".

[EternalOptimist]

Perhaps he could, ahem, "shed" some light into the subject.

he might be busy ..er.. 'cleaning his pipe'

[DimPrawn]

As long as you're referring to Sas then I think your sarcasim mojo is running at full force

Perhaps he could, ahem, "shed" some light into the subject.

[EternalOptimist]

As long as you're referring to Sas then I think your sarcasim mojo is running at full force

busted

[Spacecadet]

I wonder if there are any modellers or statistics experts on the forum who would care to comment. It would be an added bonus if they have read any la-di-da, look-at-me-I-am-brainier-than-you poncy books

As long as you're referring to Sas then I think your sarcasim mojo is running at full force

[Tingles]

It will be interesting to see the 'scientists' weasel their way out of this one.

I'm keen to know what the next 'big threat' will be.

My monies on nasty aliens from outer space!

Little green tax?

[EternalOptimist]

I wonder if there are any modellers or statistics experts on the forum who would care to comment. It would be an added bonus if they have read any la-di-da, look-at-me-I-am-brainier-than-you poncy books

[DimPrawn]

I couldn't have put it better myself. This is exactly my thinking.

1. There may not be a warming at all.

In which case, all the trillions wasted on reducing carbon is a travesty, this money could directly benefit humanity.

2. There may be some warming, but it is mostly natural climate change.

In which case, all the trillions wasted on reducing carbon is a travesty, this money could directly benefit humanity.

3. There may be some warming, and it is mostly human activity.

In which case, all the trillions wasted on reducing carbon is a travesty, this money could directly benefit humanity by adapting to a warmer planet. Look at the warming as an opportunity.


And option 3 is looking more and more unlikely, especially given the lack of warming and the collusion of scientists to fake the data.

[PorkPie]

One for DimPrawn - Lawson on climate change:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6927598.ece

...
The greatest error in the current conventional wisdom is that, if you accept the (present) majority scientific view that most of the modest global warming in the last quarter of the last century — about half a degree centigrade — was caused by man-made carbon emissions, then you must also accept that we have to decarbonise our economies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right.

Even if it is, however, that cannot determine the right policy choice. For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation. Moreover, the greatest single attribute of mankind is our capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. By adapting to any warming that may occur over the next century, we can pocket the benefits and greatly reduce the disadvantages, at a cost that is far less than the cost of global decarbonisation — even if that could be achieved.

Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.


...