Safe Speed Forums

Not me...it seems like everyone is suddenly climatic experts and have all been brainwashed by Auntie Beeb again, what with the new climate chaos season rolling out. People are so so gullible

If there is droughts it is our fault, if there is more rain it is our fault, if there is a dust storm or big hurricane it is our fault, in fact anything is out fault, just blame everything on us including the global warming on other planets (one of our rockets flew past Mars a while back and emitted some gasses!) All hail for the new fundamentalist dogma and the 'Thou shalt not' ideology being thrust upon us by the B'liar broadcasting corp.

The only thing that has been EMITTED is proper 2 sided scientific arguments in this whole shambles, and now we have Attenborough on the gravy train? Come on David I thought you were more sensible than to fall for that.

Apparent fact - Because of AGW we will have wetter warmer winters and dryer warmer summers.

Real fact - For the last 2 weeks it has been pissing on and off, and it was so cold the other night I had the heating on and tea cosy hat if I needed to go out, temperatures of -4C were recorded in Scotland last week. We had one of the coldest winters in a long time (Met said it) with a good few snow falls (nearly a foot deep one of them). Ben Lomond also had snow on its peak a few days ago, I have never seen that at this time in the year, mind you the last snow fall only cleared from its peak in Early May.

The South of England is experiencing a drought because of a succession of dry winters. Huh dry winters...I never!

So for the last laugh have a look at this comic strip from Prof. Philip Stott's excellent envirospin website....,

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5633 ... 0Final.jpg

....Which really puts it all in perspective.

Regards

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

FACT! global warming has always been happening. the planets weather and temperature has been changing since the earth began which is partly why evolution happens. nature adapts to a changing climate. animals die off, others begin a new species. we are not the cause.

although that is not to say we are not a contributing factor!

i sometimes wonder why nature created such a destructive species in the first place. is there a reason or have we moved on beyond natures expectations of a single type of mammal?

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

If a beaver chews down 20 trees and makes a water network by flooding certain areas and daming others then that is natural, no one would disagree.

Could the same be said of humans clearing an area and building houses, building a dam or even a city? I sincererly do not think that man doing these things is any less natural than the beaver or any other animal who might use or manipulate their environment for their own benefit.

I think nature always will compensate for any species alterations to the environment. The CO2 we emit isn't really extra, it is just stored from millions of years ago, we are releasing it but I do not think it will ever alter our climate in any serious way it at all.

Regards

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Well we should all know now that fear and sensationalism sells.

Their hardly going to create a series named 'The balanced approach of earths climate'.

No, no, no that’s far too boring, instead we'll wheel out ' CLIMATE CHAOS'.
No doubt we’ll hear the usual propagandist views of how 1998 was the hottest year recoded this millennium and other such extremist points of view without one mention that hottest years recorded were actually back in the Medieval Warm period. The very same warm period that is now being wiped from the history books as though it never happened.

You'll also fail to hear why temperatures have remained steady now for eight years and why this particular 28 year period of 'gentle' warming we have experienced, compared to the countless other similar periods of gentle warming is going to end in catastrophic proportions to the point where Mad max’s future is just around the corner.

No doubt as well they will show pictures of Venus, of how runaway climate warming will hit the earth because as we all know Venus is the perfect example to compare Earth to isn’t it?

Funny thing is though the environmentalists support wholeheartedly the governments findings on climate change but soon enough call the very same government and the same advisers about their findings on the proposed solutions i.e. Nuclear Power.

I mean will the sheer mechanics of any of it be truly explained, I doubt it. I can hear it now 'The polar caps will melt' they will scream, yet for the polar regions to even reach a temperature of 0.cs degrees for them to completely melt and then maintain that temperature the oceans around the world will have had to have virtually evaporated.

It’s pure lunacy.

I'd love to believe that it wasn't a problem and that we had nothing to do with it and it was all going to happen anyway but I can't quite see whose interest it's in to peddle the current (and widely held) view that what we're up to is bad.

Unfortunately, not being in any way, shape or form an expert in these matters, I have to take someone's word for what's happening. I can't quite see what's in it for the politicians to try to force us to cut back on emissions though. If it's not really a problem, why try to tax us off the roads and why moan about cheap flights? If I were in poawer and I really felt it wasn't a problem, I'd be encouraging everyone to get a gas guzzler - just think of all that lovely fuel duty! (and lovely VAT on the lovely fuel duty)!

Do you imagine for one moment that the public would (rather meekly) accept the 300+ percent tax on fuel if they weren't led to believe that they were destroying the planet by selfishly driving their cars?
They know full well that the public have to travel - they have no option - so they'll pay whatever it costs.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

A climate of fear gives those in power more. Look at all the "terrorist" bs being hyped at the moment and what is being done as a result.

The fact that the debate is so politicised and being thrust upon us (like religion is) makes me not believe any of it, I also have a very good instinct for when someone or people are BS'ing and this is one of them!

Regards

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

People will believe whatever they are predisposed to believe. I mean, according to the general consenus within this forum:

SafeSpeed produces a graph showing a deviation in road deaths trend since the introduction of speed cameras and here we have 'proof' that cameras have led to more deaths on the road.

Employing a strikingly similar technique, The Hadley Centre for climate research produces a graph showing world temperature averages with and without CO2 factored in and anyone who believes that is a gullible fool.

Still, its just as well we have the Climate Change denialists to save us from all this nonsense. One day, in front of the world's press, they'll reveal the whole thing to be a consipracy in which climatologists, the government and the BBC are complicit. The sccoby-do masks being worn by David Attenborough and everyone else will be lifted to unveil faceless beaurocrats and Gordon Brown will appear saying "I'd have gotten away with it, if it hadn't have been for you pesky obsessives".

On the other hand, perhaps in 10 years time, climate change denialists will look as silly as the Kennedy assasination, 911, lunar landing conspiracy theorists are today.

I know which version I believe.

You're a great prize, Rigpig, because you provide a kind of reality check that doesn't come from anywhere else.

You probably remember that I'm something of a fence sitter on AGW. I haven't found the time to do sufficient research to have become certain in my own mind, but I'm very deeply suspicious when so called climate scientists come on TV and tell me what their model 'proves'. It's extremely common to hear them say deeply unscientific things. Why do they do that if it's science and not religion?

And that brings us to the core problem. Clearly the human brain is predisposed to believe very deeply things that may not be true. Are we affected? It's hard to say. All we can do is make the greatest effort to sift the evidence with the absolute minimum of preconception and bias, and to draw conclusions based on evidence. Being aware of the risks of bias and false assumption is in itself a strength. And I see FAR less of that in the wider AGW debate than I do around here.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I can show, with a few simple equations and graphs, 'proof' that the earth is round. Does that make me a 'flat-earth denialist'?

Yes, the similarity may be striking, but the differences are astronomical. You cannot even begin to compare the two in terms of complexity.

If global warming is indeed such a cut-and-dried issue then why should they have to resort to lies about it? "Polar bear numbers are declining", say they, when in fact their numbers have increased about fivefold over the last 50 years. "High tides are flooding Tivalu residents", say they. Why then are their (rather old) houses built on stilts, if high tides are a new phenomenon?
"Glaciers are receding", say they. Sure, some are, but other are growing. "Hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more destructive", say they. Wrong again. Hurricanes are, due to their nature, extremely well-documented events, and the records show no such trends. "The Gulf Stream is slowing down". It turns out that this hypothesis is based on the princely total of two measurements, both made since 1992.

Look up Eugenics - you will find a remarkably similar scenario was played out about 100 years ago. And how many people today still believe the scientific 'fact' of Eugenics? How many have even heard of it?

EDIT: I'm just about to go away for the weekend - so don't read anything into my apparent silence

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Just to be sure is that the same acclaimed Climate Change theorists models, when put under past data cannot even predict the known historic climates of yesterday.
Amazingly enough though a startling amount of faith is placed into the same models to predict future climates.

If you think size, money and numbers alone are a safe assertive that the truth is being told think again. One example, what about the hype in the 1970’s by the many scientists, sponsored primarily by Japan and Australian Governments, whom safely asserted that they could sesign a system to predict earthquakes. Over twenty years later, a lot of sensationalism and 2.5 billion pounds spent the whole thing was scrapped.

It couldn’t just be the possibility that they have had to hype up the ‘climate change theory’ to secure grants could it, oh but scientists never do that do they.

A Professor Emritus in bio-geographics from London University said on BBC Radio that part of this dorught was due to lack of investment in reservoirs und a policy of a huge house building prgoramme on any spare land.

He also point out that East ist chalky und by siphoning off some of the river water which feed this natural store - ist why the river sources are drying up.

Mad Doc posted about how ist not possible to be ethically green. If you place wind turbine on home - you have to re-inforce roof to cope und ist not exactly pleasing to the eye - nor does it generate as much power as we would need to heat our homes und light them with electric light bulbs.

Economy ist built on this fact that each human activity carries an opportunity cost - und one man's greens are another man's poison. Und we all want cheap food too.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

And you in turn are great at disarming the loaded gun I had ready on the desk here

I don't mean any offence to anyone by this next piece, its just the way I see things.
Pete317 (if I read him correctly) believes that there is a difference between the two example trend deviations I offered above. Whilst I have no doubt that Pete himself could offer us an explanation as to why he thinks this, I seriously doubt whether the vast majority of those who are disposed into believing the one and not the other could do the same. The depth of anaysis apears to be:
They told us AGW would lead to a drier climate and its pissing down outside, ergo its all bollocks!

I have no inclination to go off and find 'evidence' to disprove anything Pete317 says with respect to climate change, my life is too short , He's obviously got a good few years head start on me and I'm not too concerned with the minutae. Faced with some pretty compelling evidence from experts and supported by prominent people who, after all, have a lot of face to lose if proven wrong, I simply ask myself this question:

Why would they lie about something like this?

I mean c'mon folks, lying about polar bear populations, its too easy to disprove isn't it? Why would whole governments create such a tangled conspiracy, roping in such a diverese cross-section of the community that the whole thing could easily collapse like a house of cards if someone stepped out of line. To offer proof that we need to change the way we live? Pffft, there are easier ways of doing it than setting up such a monstrous charade surely?

On the other hand, the cynic in me asks why do folks want to deny that man-influenced climate change is a reality? Why assert that its just a part of natural cycles?
Because the latter affords us the luxury of doing nothing for the next couple of centuries until the prood becomes irrefutable perhpas?
Because having to face up to the realities of climate change means a change in the way we live our lives, a change to a potentially less convenient and comfortable way perhaps?

(Above slightly edited.)

WMDs in Iraq.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The millenium bug?

Apocalypse now, was just round the corner remember with hoards of leading computer consultants such as the likes of Edward Yourdon supporting the view, I wonder why?

I don't think there's much (if any) 'lying' going on. I don't think heads of religious groups do a whole lot of lying either but since they disagree fairly wildly about god some of them must be comprehensively wrong.

Most science starts with a hypothesis and then tests experimentally to see if the hypothesis fits the facts. It's effectively impossible to test AGW theory experimentally, so it remains no more than a hypothesis.

AGW theory has some key features that will tend to attract supporters:

- It's a 'doomsday risk' and an opportunity to 'save the world'. This will attract some cranky folk and attention seeking folk.

- There's money in AGW theory. It can attract acquisitive types.

- There's the precautionary principle. Even if we're wrong, we'd better do something because if we're right the results could be terrible. This has the potential to attract cautious and caring people who, perhaps, are more concerned with caring than facts or probabilities.

- Once a few papers have been published on the subject, new papers can build upon the findings of earlier papers. Since there's little opportunity for experimental proof, it's easy to see how wrong ideas could develop and propogate. Pretty soon you can end up with a self-supporting network of ideas that doesn't much need to connect with reality.

- and plenty more...

From my perspective as an atheist, AGW theory looks more like religion than science. And I'm basing that, not on the data, but on the people involved and the claims they make.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec 1998

(From the ABD website)

To me the "opportunism" associated with AGW worries me (Opportunism by business for profit, politicians for control, scientists for grants and kudos, eco-evangelists for campaign issues etc etc)

The whole thing is, to me, too obviously "absolutist" - ie "the climate is changing and mankind is responsible".

Surely the truth is that the climate has always changed and the ecology prevailing at the time will have had some influence on that that. So - the climate is changing, and mankind is part of the prevailing ecology so is probably contributing to some extent - BUT BY HOW MUCH? and IN WHAT WAY? - I personally think we are contributing to change to a much lesser extent than the "opportunists" would care to admit, and that CO2 is probably not our most significant contribution.

Very nicely put... You've helped me to understand my own feelings on the matter rather better.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety