Originally Posted by Boggle

The problem I have is that we have a very definite problem, that of energy independence and messing around with abstract ideas like global warming is just stupid.

Whether the climate is changing or not and arguing about whether man made emissions are a driver is pointless frivolity as the science is too young to carry any weight with many people.... what they can understand is that oil prices are rising and we need to ditch that fuel so we can safeguard our future.

That is all the encouragement people need, distracting them with chicken little like fairy tales (well meant ones) is just self defeating as it breeds skeptics.

I have always had this opinion and I am on this thread saying that Kyoto and it's ideals would be ditched and resented as the economy contracted. I am being proven right i believe, which is annoying as we could be far further along towards energy independence by now if we just concentrated our efforts.
Carbon tax my backside... how about an energy independence tax ring fenced into infrastructure and development?

Yeah, "abstract problems" like floods and rising sea levels.



Suggesting that we lie about the climate and the effects of carbon emissions is hardly good science, good politics or good ethics. Kyoto was a start, the fact that it's promise has been betrayed is a tribute to the fossil fuel merchants, their wealthy backers and political puppets. That is the "energy independence" you will get for your pains - dirty oil and gas polluting the atmosphere.

Energy independence for a country as small as Ireland is probably an even more foolish goal. A continental Europe-wide smart grid with French nuclear, Spanish solar, German and Scandanavian wind, as well as our home-produced energy is just as clean, feasible, secure and ultimately cheaper.

Another "abstract" problem. The wet summer.

An old culprit is being blamed. The Jet Stream.

Climate change

On top of this, there is the related question of climate change. Most researchers are extremely reluctant to attribute any single weather event to global warming.

But Dr Peter Stott, a leading climate scientist at the UK Met Office, says that since the 1970s the amount of moisture in the atmosphere over the oceans has risen by 4%, a potentially important factor.

That does not sound like much but it does mean that extreme rain storms may bring more rain than before - with more moisture in the air, what goes up must come down, and the odds are worse.

"That could make the difference between a place getting flooded or not getting flooded," he said.

BBC News - Why, oh why, does it keep raining?

Another good Michael Mann interview, where he discusses climate change with two interviewers and takes questions on the phone.

CapitalClimate: Michael Mann Interview on NewsChannel 8

[QUOTE=owedtojoy;5558464][QUOTE=climate123;5558400][QUOTE=owedtojoy;5552385]
"That about sums up your argument. I say "black", you say "white". "Many people who have studied this phenomenon" ... like who? Can you name a single reputable climate scientist who supports your position? Can you cite any body of evidence beyond unsupported assertions?"

Owed, this is one of the few occasions where you are actually hitting the nail on the head, albeit inadvertently. The whole climate change story to me represents a new kind of science, in which vested interests have moved beyond suppressing unwanted data and informaton to setting up their own institutions dedicated to skewing the data as it is being produced, not the scientific approach but the scientistic one. The "science" of climate has thus been so politicised and polluted by charlatans like Mike Mann and Phil Jones who are driven, not by curiosity, but by ideology that proper scientific debate is almost impossible. You and I could play citation ping-pong here until the cows come home, without ever getting anywhere. That is why I do not provide citations. I have reviewed the evidence on this issue as a scientifically literate non-expert - including reading a good bit of the original literture - and have come to the conclusion that "global warming" is not only completely bogus, but has become the ideological focus of individuals with a disturbing anti-human bias. You come to a different conclusion and feel the need to fill this thread with thousands of "whack-a-mole" posts with a fervour that cannot be healthy for your private life, but that's ok, that is your choice. I just think you are profoundly wrong, both in your interpretation of the data and in the fervour with which you pursue this hollow cause. The zenith of climate change hysteria was in about 2007 and has now passed. If you don't believe me, just look at the number of people reading this thread compared to a few years ago.

[QUOTE=climate123;5562134][QUOTE=owedtojoy;5558464][QUOTE=climate123;5558400]

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

"That about sums up your argument. I say "black", you say "white". "Many people who have studied this phenomenon" ... like who? Can you name a single reputable climate scientist who supports your position? Can you cite any body of evidence beyond unsupported assertions?"

Owed, this is one of the few occasions where you are actually hitting the nail on the head, albeit inadvertently. The whole climate change story to me represents a new kind of science, in which vested interests have moved beyond suppressing unwanted data and informaton to setting up their own institutions dedicated to skewing the data as it is being produced, not the scientific approach but the scientistic one. The "science" of climate has thus been so politicised and polluted by charlatans like Mike Mann and Phil Jones who are driven, not by curiosity, but by ideology that proper scientific debate is almost impossible. You and I could play citation ping-pong here until the cows come home, without ever getting anywhere. That is why I do not provide citations. I have reviewed the evidence on this issue as a scientifically literate non-expert - including reading a good bit of the original literture - and have come to the conclusion that "global warming" is not only completely bogus, but has become the ideological focus of individuals with a disturbing anti-human bias. You come to a different conclusion and feel the need to fill this thread with thousands of "whack-a-mole" posts with a fervour that cannot be healthy for your private life, but that's ok, that is your choice. I just think you are profoundly wrong, both in your interpretation of the data and in the fervour with which you pursue this hollow cause. The zenith of climate change hysteria was in about 2007 and has now passed. If you don't believe me, just look at the number of people reading this thread compared to a few years ago.

I don't check into this site as often as I used too but the first thing I do is check the latest from Owed and co because it is the easiest way to stay current with the science. It's great to be able to take advantage of posters who are prepared to put the work into reading the science. I don't engage much because I just don't have oweds patience for dealing with conspiracy theorists and morons spouting the same old debunked rubbish about brilliant scientists and peer reviewed studies which they are simply too political ideological disposed to read with any thing resembling an open mind.

I mean - for crying out loud, any joe blogs paying attention to the science as opposed to the media has known from at least 2006 that global warming is settled science. The scientists have known it far longer than that. Even the petrochemical science societies accepted that reality years ago and they resisted as long as they could given their bread and butter came from an industry contributing severely to the problem. It's basic chemistry. And frankly where do you get off complaining about Oweds 'fervour' on the subject when you chose to name yourself in accordance with your conspiracy theory!

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Yeah, "abstract problems" like floods and rising sea levels.



Suggesting that we lie about the climate and the effects of carbon emissions is hardly good science, good politics or good ethics. Kyoto was a start, the fact that it's promise has been betrayed is a tribute to the fossil fuel merchants, their wealthy backers and political puppets. That is the "energy independence" you will get for your pains - dirty oil and gas polluting the atmosphere.

Energy independence for a country as small as Ireland is probably an even more foolish goal. A continental Europe-wide smart grid with French nuclear, Spanish solar, German and Scandanavian wind, as well as our home-produced energy is just as clean, feasible, secure and ultimately cheaper.

Owed, you continue into page 1319 of arguing about climate change... does that in itself not prove my point? What you want requires some drastic changes from people but they do not care about floods in some far off distant land, they care about paying their bills.

That is why you will fail. Give them a promise for a better future away from oil inflation and they may follow... tell them and their families to go cold in winter and they'll continue to ignore you and even rally against you.



It's basic sales. Find what people want to buy and sell it to them.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Oh, a mixed bag of "authorities" here ... my god, to what depths will science denialists descend?

Bellamy, a has-been television personality, yearning to get his mojo back, more to be pitied than anything else.

Turn 180 - a fringe group of Irish science deniers. Heavy hitters? - NOT!

... and a silly cartoon!!

Actually, the cartoon isn't that bad. I'd certainly have it before the other two any day!!!

Thanks on the cartoon! I admire your comitted concern for the welfare of the planet and the time and effort you put into your posts. However, I think when the likes of David Bellamy, who highlighted "green" issues long before they were fashionable, speaks up then he deserves to be listened to.

I also find the whole "Green Schools" thing deeply disturbing. On that Turn 180 make valid points. The way in which school kids are fed this stuff in an uncritical fashion is disquieting. Also why was one of the Green Schools recent yearly goals to celebrate "Global Citizenship"?


"This section of the Green-Schools website outlines information on the theme of European & Global Citizenship. This theme is currently in development with funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs under the Communicating Europe Initiative"

"One of the major advantages of our joining the EU was that we received a lot of money from the EU to improve the country and the lives of our citizen."

EU and Global Citizenship

What's the story here? Once again, Green issues are a useful trojan horse to promote political agendas..

Originally Posted by anationoceagain

Thanks on the cartoon! I admire your comitted concern for the welfare of the planet and the time and effort you put into your posts. However, I think when the likes of David Bellamy, who highlighted "green" issues long before they were fashionable, speaks up then he deserves to be listened to.

I also find the whole "Green Schools" thing deeply disturbing. On that Turn 180 make valid points. The way in which school kids are fed this stuff in an uncritical fashion is disquieting. Also why was one of the Green Schools recent yearly goals to celebrate "Global Citizenship"?


"This section of the Green-Schools website outlines information on the theme of European & Global Citizenship. This theme is currently in development with funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs under the Communicating Europe Initiative"

"One of the major advantages of our joining the EU was that we received a lot of money from the EU to improve the country and the lives of our citizen."

EU and Global Citizenship

What's the story here? Once again, Green issues are a useful trojan horse to promote political agendas..

Bellamy is simply an old codger who's wrong. It happens. Among the handful of scientists (and there are only very few- about 2-3% of the relevant disciplines - which Bellamy is not by the way) who still deny the fact of global warming most of them are pretty elderly and it is a sad fact of life that the brain starts ageing much earlier than we like to admit to ourselves. Like it or not by 40 our cognitive abilities are decreasing all the time. By 80 - well we'll all be there some day if we live that long. When cognitive abilities are measured they are normed against others of the same age so we think we are as bright and together as ever but in fact we score lower compared to ourselves when we were younger.

And as for the Green Schools agenda - what is wrong with teaching children to have regard for the environment?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Another "abstract" problem. The wet summer.

An old culprit is being blamed. The Jet Stream.



BBC News - Why, oh why, does it keep raining?

More warming more water vapour. More water vapour more rainfall. Simple as that. But the problem is: Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Means we have triggered a positive feedback. But that's not the only positive feedback triggered by global warming. Enhanced Methane release due to melting permafrost and ocean heating is also a big problem. No wonder that global warming is accelerating. I'm afraid we have already opened Pandora's Box.

Originally Posted by imokyrok

And as for the Green Schools agenda - what is wrong with teaching children to have regard for the environment?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with that.