The Great Global Warming Scam

[dave]

BW, you ask if we can afford to be wrong. The answer is 'no' in either direction.

There are as many reports that back up the theory as there are that don't back it up; it's just that the majority of the ones that back up the argument are government funded. It's no wonder people are sceptical, and has nothing to do with people not wanting to change their lifestyle as someone else suggested.

That argument always annoys me - because I have read as much as I am allowing myself to read about the subject and have done my own research (to the point of building a weather station (NOAA satelites receiver) out of an old iMac and setting up my own analytics on it some years ago), and came to a conclusion that differs from that of the media, it must be that I refuse to change my lifestyle.

Nothing to do with my opinion - it's just that I'm lazy apparently.

It's a very poor argument and deserves to be ignored. It's almost like pointing someone in the wrong direction rather than addressing the concerns.

"Oh, your research doesn't agree with the government funded research. You must be lazy then."

Poor argument.

[huggles]

This argument against the consensus is where we started, and I have yet to be shown much evidence that there is as much disagreement on the key issues amongst experts as you claim.

As for the government conspiracy, yes you can argue that increasing agreement amongst scientists is consistent with a global effort to suppress the truth, but I'd apply occam's razor again and say that it's also consistent with more and more research being done and more and more learning and better information being applied to the null hypothesis. This is how science works. See evolution for example. You see more and more agreement as understanding grows.

Furthermore, the scientific community is global. Work is published, peer reviewed and critiqued globally (especially the work of the IPCC - some of its projections and estimates have been criticised for being to optimistic as well as pessimistic). But international governments do not agree on climate change - see the farce over the Kyoto protocol and the lack of anything concrete coming out of Bali and the US's attempts to derail any sort of agreement at Bali. In theory, American government funded research should be showing different results to perhaps european or japanese research, shouldn't it?

Finally, I would ask again, what politicians have to gain from raising taxes? They don't want to tell "middle england" they have to pay more tax or take away things they like, like chelsea tractors - they want middle england to like them and they want to stay in power!

Oh, and have you subjected your work to any peer review?

[dave]

I have indeed published the work, although it was not "scientific" - it's not on the 'web' for scrutiny, as at the time access to the www was not very common - it was posted in nntp newsgroups (the same place where I found the other research - still available no doubt in archives).

You state that the more research, the more agreement. I haven't seen any evidence of this. The one (recent) report that springs to mind that was government funded and DIDN'T give the results that the govt. wanted, was buried pretty bloody quickly - and even now, if you want a copy, you have to pay for it (despite it being our money that paid for it in the first place) - not true of the other 'independent' reports that actually arrived at the figures that they wanted to hear.

I also have to say that I don't think it is an argument against consensus - unless your only source of information is the BBC/CNN/ITV etc...

I also think that this arrogant government will tell "middle England" whatever it likes - in a three tier race with no viable alternative, they have no hope of losing. It also depends where you think it stops. Do you think that any of the parties in this country disagree on the human causes of GW? I think they are all pretty much along the same linear line when it comes to this issue - simply because of the large cash cow that they know it is.

...as to the US, they are not 'against' GW or GW 'deniers' at all - contrary to popular belief. I was in Chicago and the people there was furious about the hike in domestic fuel costs, all in the name of keeping 'emmisions' down. Not corperate emmissions I'll grant you, but just enough to keep the general public paying more and more and creating a divide between the beleivers and non-believers.

Of course, the BBC/ITN etc... would have you believe that the US has said "GW does not exist".

Utter rubbish - just go there and ask a normal person if they think their domestic bills are going up for the reasons that are being touted and you will hear a completely different answer to news at 10 here.

[huggles]

Originally Posted by dave

The one (recent) report that springs to mind that was government funded and DIDN'T give the results that the govt. wanted, was buried pretty bloody quickly - and even now, if you want a copy, you have to pay for it (despite it being our money that paid for it in the first place) - not true of the other 'independent' reports that actually arrived at the figures that they wanted to hear.

what's this report called, please?

Originally Posted by dave

I also think that this arrogant government will tell "middle England" whatever it likes - in a three tier race with no viable alternative, they have no hope of losing. It also depends where you think it stops. Do you think that any of the parties in this country disagree on the human causes of GW? I think they are all pretty much along the same linear line when it comes to this issue - simply because of the large cash cow that they know it is.

This makes no sense. If there was a realistic alternative, there seems to me to be some appetite in the electorate for a political party that takes an anti-climate change position but none will take it up - why? perhaps because it is simply not viable.....
Seriously - you think all the governments in the world got together with the scientists and the media and they all agreed that they'd make up this whole thing so they can tax the middle classes more so they can spend the money on turbines and nuclear power stations?! (edit: sorry, I forgot, industry and environmental groups are in on this too)

Originally Posted by dave

Utter rubbish - just go there and ask a normal person if they think their domestic bills are going up for the reasons that are being touted and you will hear a completely different answer to news at 10 here.

sorry, what does this prove? if I ask someone if they are ****ed off about their gas bills going up (...whilst their shareholders sit pretty...) they will say yes? well duh!

[dave]

You have missed the point. The point is that apparently (according to at least European media), the US deny that GW exists at all (aside from the democrats that is). It simply isn't true. They DO 'acknowledge' GW and are raising domestic fuel taxes as a way of 'containment'. Their own funded reports yeald the sort of results that you would expect. You asked me if I thought that the US reports should be differing from those of a government that acknowledges GW. The US DOES acknowledge it and is taxing people accordingly.

As it happens, and conspiracy theories aside, I do think that they stumbled across the happy side-affects of this by accident. If governments actually wanted people off of the roads to 'hald' the growth of GW do you not think that investment in alternatives would be a good idea? Negative incentives very rarely work. Positive incentives do, yet there are no positive incentives - to think that the 'powers that be' are actually doing something about GW is foolhardy and gullible.

One such report is TRL323. This is not a GW related (not directly at least) report, yet the net result allows for higher fuel taxes etc... and as such would be touted as an anti GW measure.

There are many others, but the fact that you ask me for them, shows that your research is at the very least, shallow. The information is out there for all to read and make their own mind up. What annoys me the most is that people choose to believe every word they are told and then after being brainwashed for so long, actually come to believe it theirselves and actually argue on the same side without seeing a shred of evidence.

Your reply still implies that scientists actually agree with the sh*te that governments are spouting regarding this issue. Please, do a little research. There would be little point in me pointing you at the sources as you would just claim that it's my 'interpretation'. Find it, read it and you will make your own mind up.

Next thing is, you'll be telling me that a bank told you that to charge you a penalty was fair and just and perfectly legal. You challenged that view once, I'm sure you are capable of making your own mind up without listening to yet more propaganda.

[huggles]

mate, you live in conspiracy world. cynicism is one thing, the x-files is another!

I am fully aware of the positions thank you. Europe advocates large and binding emissions cuts now, the US approach is more one of adaptation - i.e. no emissions targets, just to let it happen and the technology will adapt. they are actually quite different and rather different policy responses spring from these positions. The US's seem to me to be more industrial subsidy than anything else! perhaps you should read more about that?

and you can't tell me what any of these reports are? how convenient!

[huggles]

Originally Posted by dave

Next thing is, you'll be telling me that a bank told you that to charge you a penalty was fair and just and perfectly legal. You challenged that view once, I'm sure you are capable of making your own mind up without listening to yet more propaganda.

err. yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at? erm. ok.

edit: I would like to make on thing clear though, as I am not sure I want to post in this thread any more...I see no debate or proof! I very strongly agree that some environmentalists and campaigners and the media and politicians can overstate the case. this is wrong but it is a fact. they think it makes their case appear stronger. however, other sources, understate the case. both sides muddy the waters if taken out of context, that's why I look it out for myself.

[dave]

That's fine with me. You ask for a report name, I give one. You don't even read it and accuse me of not telling you what reports there are. Odd.

I saw no proof or debate the other way. That's why I researched it myself. So many people assume that others should do this for them.

No offence to you, but it was the same thing with the banks. How many times did I hear the phrase "you're wasting your time" or "you can't take a bank on" etc..., simply because the banks said those exact things?

With all due respect, stop being so blinkered and do your own research for a change. Or don't; and just keep believing everything you are told. It's naivety in the extreme to be lazy and to just believe what you are told, simply because someone told you that a 'qualified person' says so.

Wake up. Please.

FYI, the www is not really the place for serious research for ANYTHING, let alone this issue.

[huggles]

TRL323? That report has nothing to do with climate change, you said so yourself. I did not read it because it's about an irrelevant subject that I am not interested in.
What I asked for was the name of the specific report which you referred to which refuted climate change as I would like to have a look at it. You also said there are many more that you know of but you chose not to tell me what those were called either. I have a cynical mind and I am trying to make sure my research is up to date (and if we're offering friendly advice to one another then you might like to make sure your research is relevant).

To come back to your comparison, when I came to this site for consumer advice I was helpfully provided with examples, verifiable laws and cases (i.e. evidence) which I used to make my claim. If I had come here and been provided with irrelevant information and bluster and insulted then I would have walked away. I am still puzzled as to why you think it is a reasonable comparison.

I am a cynic. I have firsthand experience of media fabrication and do not take the mainstream media at its word (nor posters on internet forums). I know that the media either under or oversells what's happening because stories and sensation sell copy. However, as much as it is overblown or underblown by many parties, as far as I can tell the balance of evidence indicates to me that in all likelihood human activity is contributing to climate change. If you can point me in the direction of something relevant that might change my mind then I would be thrilled. I'm getting tired of having my intelligence insulted by you with meaningless comparisons and tangents, if you can't post anything meaningful then I'm walking away, if you can then perhaps we can actually debate.

[dave]

I think if you had read TRL323 (I actually said it was not directly related) you may be able to read between the lines, but if you only want to read spoon fed rubbish, then that's fine. You will form the same opinion as everyone else that is spoon fed the same things.

Subtlety is a tool of government. To ignore subtleties is a foolish thing to do in my opinion.

Be careful you don't fall off of the edge of the world eh? Just imagine what could happen if the sun stops revolving around the Earth.

[huggles]

Nice one, I'll take that as a no then.

[dave]

No offence, but you seem incapable of actually reading anything. Is you argument entirely based on what the media tells you? It seems very much like it.

I did not say that TRL323 has "nothing to do with climate change" I said it was not directly relevant. It is relevant if you care to read it and read between the lines. There is another recent report about the state of the ice shelves in the Artic - I'm sorry, I do not have the name of the report to hand, but a simple piece of research would turn it up no doubt, if you can be bothered. The report stated that contrary to what they expected to find, there was a much deeper ice shield than their instruments had led them to believe. MUCH deeper; in a place where it was assumed to be almost non-existent.

I find it exasperating that you (as most people do) rubbish research made by people simply because you haven't bothered to find, or haven't heard of it on the BBC. Listening to Radio 4 is not research you know.


Collate the global temperature since records began, put them in a database, then collate the information you can glean from the (still operating polar orbit, unencrypted satelites) and map a simple graph in something like MS Excel. You might find that from even such a crude and simple analysis that your views will change.

A lot (not all, I grant you) of this information is still available on the web. If you can't find it there, then trawl the nntp archives. It's there to be found if only you can be bothered.

There are also many readily available reports for you to read. They are NOT published on-line, but can be found in a reasonably sized library.

I'm not sure why you think I should risk infringing the crown copyright and post them here simply because you can't be bothered to look for them yourself. I am simply not allowed to put them here. You seem to view that fact as proof that they don't exist.

Keep taking the tabloids.

[huggles]

hmm *looks up the thread*. no, I have not asked you to breach copyright - did you take lessons from the BBC in sensationalising and spinning, by some chance? I don't think even they would have the brass neck to do it right underneath a post that contradicted what they had said! I asked for the names of reports, although authors and any more details would help - I am well able to get my hands on such material all by myself. What you've given me is a reference for a study on "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents". I'm not interested in road accidents here, I'm interested in climate science.

On ice shelves there are rather a lot of articles to choose from in recent years, do you have a bit more of a pointer than "something about ice shields thickening" such as author or title or research to pin down the one you mean: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=ice+shelves+thi ckening&num=100&hl=en&as_ ylo=2000&as_yhi=2008

Now, I am not sure what you are getting at as regards temperature. Again, you were rather vague. what am I supposed to be looking at on this here temperature record? Or do you mean the longer term one?

Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Finally, you saying something about me does not make it true, in the same way as Timothy Ball's claims to have various qualifications does not make that so..... if it makes you feel better though, go for it.

[dave]

Yawn. Please read what I have previously posted. If you only look in the obvious places, you will only find obvious answers.

My five year old knows that, and would look in less obvious places to find the truth.

As stated above, I cannot post references to some of the reports mentioned - they are not available on the web, and some of them have crown copyright, so I would not be able to copy them here.

Although, despite what I have typed I assume you will read something along the lines of "here's another report you don't want to read as it's not directly about the subject and therefore not worth reading as those that wrote it wouldn't have the same bias, and the reports that do back up your claims you refuse to post."

[huggles]

If posting the names or references of reports or describing their content is breaching copyright then will I get sued by JK Rowling for posting this?:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling, Mass Market Paperback: 608 pages, Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC ( 5 Jul 2008 ), ISB