Thursday, December 03, 2009

Hot Air and Wind

Well, December has crept up behind me and slapped me on the head. Apparently there are a couple of events this coming weekend which had, up to now, escaped me. There is to be some sort of Parade or Procession in Central London on Saturday 5th and a load of people waving flags and scarves and things outside Parliament. Why they just don’t go to a football match like everyone else I don’t know.

Anyway, it seems to have somethng to do with Copenhagen, which is in Denmark, but since they have already qualified for next years World Cup fest in South Africa I was a bit bemused so had to do some more research.

It would appear to have something to do with a load of fat cats and freeloaders exercising their size 12 carbon footprints and descending upon that fair city on Monday 7th for an orgy of indulgance, consumption and self gratification. From what I understand the process is geared to using vast amounts of fossil fuels whilst at the same time urging us ordinary folks not to use EasyJet and turn down our heating control by 1 degree, not forgetting that they encourage people like me to turn it up by giving me a £250 Winter Fuel Allowance. Have they not heard of Damart and Cocoa?

Ah, more news. It now seems to have something to do with a chain email hoax about Global Warming. But the exposure of a bunch of unscrupulous scientists at the University of East Anglia, who have been cooking the books as well as the planet, now appears to have settled the argument and Global Warming has stopped. At least according to the Daily Mash.

Right, now I’m getting it. Those fat cats and their entourages of security, consultants and advisors are worried that the price of the infinite supply of fossil fuels will be driven up by loads of poor people having lots of babies and increasing demand, thereby threatening their cheap summer holidays at Cliff Richard’s villa and their daily trip in the 4x4 to the liquer store to stock up on Champagne and Pate de Foi Gras, not to mention the horror of having to raise their fees on the lecture circuit to cover the cost of petrol.

Or perhaps not? To add to the Climate Confusion a leading Green up in Norwich compliments the local Tories for recognising there is a “climate emergency”, while another Green castigates a leading Tory for not liking renewable energy in the form of wind turbines, at the same time that his mate Boris is down at Ilford Fire Station marvelling at the building's carbon-busting measures. Roger gets it: "saving fuel saves money".

Agreement? Action? Don’t hold your breath! But do get yerself a decent pair of Wellies.

34 comments:

  1. With regards to the "unscrupulous scientists", there is a contructive debate going on over at Liberal Conspiracy

    Comment 40 from Mike Thomas was particulaly pertinent..

    ----------------------------------
    Do you understand FORTRAN 77 Sunny?

    I do. I’ve gone through the 15,000 line abomination of CRU’s butchered code and facsimile upon facsimile data.

    If it’s not the remarks like ‘fudge factor’, ‘Hide the decline’, ‘no correlation’, ‘no integrity’ or ‘trick’ that raise eyebrows.

    It’s the actual code and what it is doing.

    It alters the Middle Age Warm Period to make the temperature increases smaller.

    It removes the 1930s blip

    It exaggerates the post 1960 temperatures.

    On the subject of the post 1960 temperatures, it performs a trick which has been formally discredited and discouraged by the IPCC themselves.

    CRU intersliced their paleoclimate data with real temperature observations. That is a massive scientific no-no.

    The result is a temperature curve that is a very, very, very long way from any semblance of the raw data.

    There are other remarks, remarks that discuss at length on how the correlation with the raw data after conversion is non-existent. It is ignored.

    Other remarks on how data is infilled with made up numbers.

    That might be good enough for you Sunny, but equating the need to get the science right, get the right answer is the most fundamental question of our time.

    Calling people deniers will only make those that understand the facts more determined to get to the bottom of this.

    Here’s some facts for you..

    1. Global temperature have not been increasing since 1998 they have been fallen.

    2. More research is show a tighter correlation with solar output. This is not a factor in any of the IPCC climate models.

    CRU admit they do not know why the planet is cooling. They do not understand why.

    Neither can you cannot dismiss this as an isolated incident.

    HADCRUT data is THE global surface temperature data source.

    It is the temperature source that all the Satellite temperature observations is calibrated on.

    There are four major temperature sources, that’s two of them in question. NASA GISS are now withholding their data set from FOI as well.

    So that might make three that are of dubious provenance.

    Also, it would seem that Al Gore has cancelled giving a lecture at Copenhagen. Clearly too many difficult questions to answer. If the denialists are such a bunch of mis-informed fools, why not face them in debate?
    ----------------------------------

    Seems the sceptics were right to be sceptical.

    The global cooling deniers are on the defensive.

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr T, Worstall is more eloquent in his prose than I could ever be...

    ------------------------------------
    “Let the scientists do the science.”

    Sure. And who are the people who can tell us what we might do about it all? Balancing the costs of mitigation (reducing emissions) adaptation (putting up with the effects) and even remediation (sucking the CO2 back out of the atmosphere)?

    Who are the “scientists” who study resource allocation in a constrained world?

    That would be the economists, wouldn’t it? Not climate scientists like Michael Mann, Peter Jones or James Hansen….certainly not politicians like Al Gore (or eeek! Caroline Lucas….a PhD in Elizabethan sonnets really is a great preparation for discussing the benefits of say trade or localisation and their respective effects upon emissions, isn’t it?). It would be economists ranging from, say, William Nordhaus through Richard Tol (a lead author on the IPCC) even to Lord Stern. Why, we might even suggest that those who would comment on such matters go and read the economic models (it’s alright, they’re in English, not jargon) which the entire IPCC series of studies is based on. Those models which show that globalisation will always produce better results than non-globalisation.

    Meaning that anyone wibbling about constraining trade as a method of reducing climate change has simply fallen at the first hurdle of being entirely ignorant.

    Or we might ask people why there are differences between, say, Nordhaus and Stern, on what should be done and how quickly (they both in fact propose much the same thing, only different timescales) they should be done? Anyone who hasn’t grasped the importance of the technological cycle, the current capital base and discount rates will of course be barred from said discussion. For we’ve got to restrict it to the scientists, you see?

    And said scientists would be aware of, able to pick apart, the assumptions made by Richard Tol when he states that the current EU plans are too ambitious while those of other countries are not sufficiently so. Someone who cannot is of course not sufficiently educated in “the science” to have a valid opinion now, are they?

    Why, we might even restrict our conversation to those who know that the Spanish dash for wind and solar has destroyed millions of jobs. To those who understand that the German feed in tariffs for solar PV cost $1,075 per tonne CO2 not emmitted: that tonne having a cost, according to Stern, of $80. This being known in the technical economic jargon as ” a huge fucking mistake that makes everyone poorer”.

    Yes, let’s restrict the science to the scientists. Let’s restrict the discussion of what we should do about it all to those who actually have the first clue about what we should in fact do. Something which excludes around 99% of those people currently proferring their advice…..Plane Stupid, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Green Party, the new economics foundation….all barred because they are ignorant.

    Hey, I’m all for it….who is with me on this one then?

    ----------------------------------

    Flawed / Manipulated data, means the whole AGW hypothesis is built on a house of cards.

    The 'new' religion,just got found out, for the scare mongering it really is

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  3. A couple from Hull were interviewed on a news prog this evening, being given advice about insulating their home. They had suffered from the floods in their town 2 yrs ago, and agreed that it was all due to global warming. The interview was cut so as to make the viewer believe that flooding was a new phenomenon.

    Yet the Hull floods were explained by inadequate and unmaintained drainage, plus extra house building. The use of water meadows to take excess river flow has been cut, and homes have been built on flood plains - yet funding for waterways maintenance has been drastically cut in recent years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Newbie,
    I can't find the Worstall passage you refer to via a search, do you have a link?

    "Flawed / Manipulated data, means the whole AGW hypothesis is built on a house of cards."

    You mean like the sub-prime market which has ended up costing us more than the projected cost of dealing with CC?

    As Mrs Thatcher noted when she was our Prime Minister, it is a question of Risk Management.

    I recall a similar debate on data on the subject of smoking tobacco.

    There are always [powerful?] vested interests either way.

    A rational sceptic will recognise this, but I'm not sure you are with me here?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Judith,
    Quite so!
    There are local factors, for which our planners and administrators must take the blame, but that doesn't mean that Regional and Global Factors are something we should ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  6. B21..links?, I already posted in the intial post (Right At The Top)...

    Hey Ho, the discussion continues here

    It's not going to go away, this broke over two weeks ago, the Main Stream Media (MSM) started reporting today...

    I have always been sceptical, hence my new car, big engine, postings in line with Lord Lawson...and surprise surprise, i'm not in the pocket of 'big oil'.

    As far as I can see, it's was all a pretence to slow growth, reduce productivity, and turn the clock back 100 years.

    Green Party = socialists with a green bent...erm, thanks to "make the data match at any means" you have totally made your own coffin, it's all over.

    The internet is awash with what has gone on...'links'...you're the net wizzard, i'm just a newbie...

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, it's another "comment" on the same thread, you didn't say.

    It's just Iain Dale's right wing attack pack grasping at straws. Just the same as the Smoking lobby did years ago.

    You are entitled to your view, Newbie. But just because there are some holes in the hypothesis doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right either.

    We non-scientists have to take a view. I just cannot accept that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels every day for 150 years is not going to have some effect on the environment and climatic conditions. That's why people get muddled between AGW and CC. The theory predicts climate disruption and more extreme and freak weather conditions.

    Meanwhile the glaciers and ice caps continue to recede......

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even the Met office are to re-examine 160 years worth of data.

    Note..

    "The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination,"

    Quelle suprise.

    They can see billions in new 'green taxes' going up in smoke before their very eyes.

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  9. Flipping heck Newbie, you inserted two French words. If this was the official website of our multicultural Borough, you would be deleted on the spot. The same Borough which proudly displays a multi-language mobile library, with some French written on it ( and what they have written is wrong, what a surprise, they probably used a dictionary, ignoring la grammaire, not to be confused with the grand mother!).
    Anyway, I am well impressed by your eclectic knowledge!
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anne, many thanks, (doffs cap).

    The above is just a taster of what is going on, lying / fabricating data to make it fit your chosen buisness model, will ALWAYS be found out.

    I'm just sitting on the side lines, laughing and pointing at those who thought they could get away with this...

    I was told a while back, that I was ignorant, that mine and Lord Lawsons opinion, were not wanted, and that, we're both dinosaurs..

    I am still laughing, and shaking my head...ha ha ha

    *wonders if I will get a rebate on my car tax disc based on (bogus) Co'2 car emmissions..*

    ReplyDelete
  11. B21, I suspect Newbie, like me, does not wish to poison the environment or burn down rainforests.

    Should heavy industry clean up noxious emissions such as happens in China - yes, of course.

    But all manmade emissions pale into virtual insignificance against the amounts pumped into our atmosphere by volcanos, including those underwater.

    Solar emissions affect our planet's weather and always have done. Glaciers accrue and then melt - they have done for aeons. Polar icecaps do the same.

    What we have seen over the past few years amounts to religious hysteria about AGW.

    The kind of language aimed at sceptics used by proponents of AGW is similar to that used by religious fanatics of all persuasions. Trying to pretend that all the scientists involved in CC research are pure as the driven snow is like trying to pretend that the Borgia popes were great Christians.

    The scientific world is just as prone to peer pressure, financial motivation and professional bullying as any other.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fair points Judith, but the believers are equally matched on the other side by the Denialists and Conspiracy Theorists, especially on the internet.

    In my perception both these groups are minorities but get most of the airtime and attention in the media, and also swamp and ruin any reasoned debate or attempts to inform on the blogosphere. The vast majority of us, it seems to me, are just confused, especially when they see the contradictions between rhetoric and action by governments and are not sure whether to trust the opposition.

    It is important to recognise the distinction between rational scepticism [which is healthy and the essence of scientific method] and denialism or conspiracy theories.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Agrees with Judith.

    It's a shame

    "The scientific world is just as prone to peer pressure, financial motivation and professional bullying as any other"

    Had they stuck to the facts, governments and us mere mortals, would have been better informed.

    They only have themselves to blame.

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  14. Came across this, might be relevant, i'll let B21 readers decide...
    ----------------------------------
    This is doing the rounds in Australia and might interest your readers. It seems the opposition has thrown out this latest grab our money scheme to combat global warming.

    The ETS tax (Emission Trading Scheme)

    Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

    ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

    Read the following analogy and you will realise the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

    Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.

    Here's a practical way to understand Mr Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

    Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity.

    Let's go for a walk along it.

    The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

    The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

    That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

    The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

    9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

    A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

    The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.

    97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

    Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

    That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

    And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in 0.18 of a millimetre.

    Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

    As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

    Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

    There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

    It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it’s hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

    After all, the sun controls the climate on our planet, not human beings. Always has, always will. Only the arrogance of human beings over their own importance makes people think otherwise.

    Incidentally, the planet has cooled by nearly one degree Celsius in the past hundred years - and that is a hard statistic, which puts the lie to those who claim that the planet has heated.

    Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.
    ----------------------------------

    Seems those Aussies don't like increased taxes either...

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  15. The above is a classic piece of Denialist propaganda aimed at the gullible. It is telling us that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is very, very small. Well, we already know that. Take a look at the graph, CO2 is measured in Parts Per Million. So if we have 350 ppm of CO2, we have 999,650 ppm or 99.965% that are not CO2. So what?

    Just because something is small does not mean it is insignificant. Viruses are very small but they can still kill you. There is the well established Butterfly Effect, Catastrophe Theory and Chaos Theory. It reminds me of the days when Surgeons refused to wash their hands before operating.

    Anyway, while we are here let’s examine Newbie. He is made up of molecules which are built from a selection of Atoms from the periodic table. These atoms in turn are made up of particles, which include Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. But the thing about an Atom is that the combined size of the particles it is made from is minuscule compared to the size of the atom itself. 99.99% of an atom is empty space. Therefore 99.99% of Newbie is empty space. The part of him that actually exists, about 0.01% of what you see, is so insignificant that he may as well not exist. Ergo we can ignore him.

    Sorry Mate, only joking! :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with Judith too.
    I recently heard a little sentence: C02,... (and other gasses too)! I supposed they meant methane.
    This CO2 is a massive weapon because unless we are plants we are going to create C02. We are not plants but even if we only eat plants, we produce methane as well as CO2. So, we are programmed to kill the planet according to this.
    I don't think we can kill the planet but we can do a lot of damage and wipe out human beings in the process. However, I don't think many of us alive now will see that man-made catastrophy, if the disapperance of mankind does mean catastrophy, that is.
    What to do?
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  17. B21

    My skin is getting thicker by the day.

    Cheers *smiles*

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here's my alternative `Global Warming` theory:
    The planet is getting hotter, because left-wingers and liberals are turning the whole world into Hell.
    Cllr Julian Leppert - BNP

    ReplyDelete
  19. ... Four Horsemen have just ridden past...

    ReplyDelete
  20. When you say left Mr Leppert, that's the Tories as well, compared to you.

    Global Warming is real... If it is not, why are ice caps melting? Sea levels rising? Floods? Droughts? Warnings were issued years ago, mainly the 80's. Are there denials because the government of the time did too little too late. Signing a treaty is one thing, acting on it is completely different.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Technically speaking Benonymous, the BNP are actually quite a way to the “left” of all 3 main UK political parties. For your edification and educashun take a butcher’s hook at the Political Compass. You have to click on the underlined link with your mouse.

    Mr Julian’s use of the term “left” is probably a reaction to him being inaccurately labelled “extreme right”. But he correctly identifies the “Liberals” as opposed to Libertarians as the cause, in his opinion, of our troubles.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon refers to icecaps melting, sea levels rising, floods etc as being due to AGW - could s/he explain the causes of these events in pre-industrial times?

    You know - like Holland wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for dyke-building from the 17th century, wave erosion of the Norfolk and Dorset coasts, and thousands of years ago there were land links between England/France and Alaska/Russia but there aren't now.......

    ReplyDelete
  23. I was going to make the same point to Anon as Judith made about floods etc in the days before industrialisation, aviation, and motor cars, and of course there's also the `inconvenient truth` about global temperatures in medieval times and more recently in the 1930s being above what they are today. Facts which the Global Warming Gestapo, with all of their vested interests and fanatical zeal, are finding increasingly hard to spin their way out of, over in Copenhagen.
    The extent to which the world is being deceived over this issue is truly staggering. I`d also urge Anon and anybody interested to read the brilliant piece by David Rose (Climate change row deepens...) on the Daily Mail website at the moment. Best article I`ve read on this so far, except the ones on the BNP website of course!
    Cllr Julian Leppert - BNP

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh yes, the Daily Mail really is a credible scientific source isn’t it? NOT! But I’m not surprised it’s on your reading list along with the Beano. The medieval warm period and that in the 30s were LOCAL variations. What we are talking here is GLOBAL ambient temperature.

    The problem we’ve got here is that most ordinary people [and the BNP] don’t understand how science works and don’t know how to respond to it.

    Here are a few links to get you started.

    Answer to Iain Dale

    Punk Science on communication

    The arguments explained in language that even you should be able to understand but will probably reject as they do not align with your world view/ conspiracy theory.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Or alternatively there is always Whats Up With That or Bishop Hill highlighting some innacuracies in CC / AGW arguments.

    The mainstream media are a bit late to this particular party, but the The Mail have to be given a hat tip for not letting this story dissapear.

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well yes Newbie, there are counter websites. But there are also the more thoughtful contributions from such as BOM and Dizzy, neither of whom dismiss the theory but want to understand it.

    Let’s take a closer look at that ridiculous article in the Mail, reproduced by Iain Dale in his unthinking unquestioning wisdom.

    The tree ring data is a bit suspect. It’s going down when it should be going up. Well we know that historic and pre-historic data on this subject is a proxy measurement. We weren’t around to take readings with our thermometers. We know they are a bit iffy, but it’s all we’ve got. We have to make a judgement. Now, do please have a look at the other end of that green line on the graph. It starts at year 1400. To be honest I’m surprised it goes back that far. Our own Fairlop Oak has long since gone and it was only 200 years old. How many trees have we got older than that? The fact is that tree ring data is not a significant factor in the historic picture. The attempts by the denialist lobby [the Mail Dale buffoons] to make it so is merely a sign of their increasing desperation.

    Don’t get me wrong here. I welcome these interventions. They make me think and ask questions, which is more than can be said for DM readers.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thje Daily Maybe, can be considered 'light entertainment', some web bunnies even 'mail bait', with counter comments in the comments section of the news articles (just click worst rated)

    Personally, I prefer my news to be a bit more factual

    Seems the jury is still out on CC / AGW

    Newbie

    ReplyDelete
  28. Au contraire Newbie. Your “factual” report is accurate in that it reports the failure of world “leaders” to address the problem, as expected, it does not dispute the science.

    “This would mean that global temperature would rise more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, with the result that large parts of the world would become uninhabitable.”

    That’s what your report says! Did you read it?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I know we could argue about this for ever and the likelihood is that we will never know what the future holds but, for the sake of a 'logical' argument, if 2C means some areas will not be habitable anymore then, perhaps, some areas which are not habitable now could become habitable!
    And any news about the big hole in the ozone layer? (Which was not porky pies but has it been mended or is it still gaping?)
    In the mean time, it's double jumpers for me indoors!
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well excuse me B21, if I don't get my climate science info from sanctimoneous snake-oil salesmen like Al Gore - a man who's champagne socialist lifestyle has been calculated to produce TEN TIMES the Co2 output of the average American. Way to go big Al! Respected environmental experts like David Bellamy meanwhile (and countless other `deniers`) are hounded off our TV screens and denied space in scientific journals because they refuse to tow the politically-correct AGW line. Like most leading Global Warming advocates Gore's commitment to `saving the planet` does not extend to giving up eating meat (as I did 26 years ago), despite the huge percentage chunk of Co2 emmisions meat production accounts for. There's a whole lot more than just AGW motivating the likes of Gore and his liberal elite friends. The science, whatever its merits or otherwise, also facilitates the persuit of their vested interests, hidden agendas (globalisation of government, high taxation, redistribution of wealth etc), as well as the pathological, infantile need of those on the political left to feel good about themselves by parading their compassion and goodness to the world, with vast amounts of other peoples money.
    Cllr Julian Leppert - BNP

    ReplyDelete
  31. [smiles] Sometimes it takes a bit of cage rattling to get people to open up and say what they mean.

    You will note that by publishing your comments here we are sharing a platform, something that most of the “left” are against. However, I have not yet been tested with comments from some of the more virulent anti-Semitic organisations, and individuals who advocate racial murder, whom some on the left *have* shared a platform with.

    Incidentally, since your party policy is opposed to the war in Afganistan, have you received an invite from the Stop the War Coalition, and would you accept it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Loony-left types such as the Respect Party may share my party's opposition to the Iraq/Afghan wars B21, but for different reasons. They probably dont lose too much sleep over our dead and maimed soldiers, but are really really cross about casualties on the other side, and profits for evil American Oil companys. A BNP Government would not put our troops in harms way for anything other than urgent and compelling matters of national self-interest and defence of the realm - in other words, the `for Queen and Country` motivation that virtually all British servicemen/women would cite as their reason for enlisting in the first place.
    Cllr Julian Leppert - BNP

    ReplyDelete
  33. Personally I would not make assumptions about other people's motives. I would only ascribe them when they have been explicity stated or demonstrated, as you have done.

    ReplyDelete