# global warming again



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

global warming is taking place, I accept that, also it started when the last ice age started to come to its ending (20K years ago?)


Now my comment is this;

If we reduce carbon emissions by 50% (if) it only means that the carbon producing fuels are going to last longer, so that means we are also going to eventually use that 50% spare sometime in the future.

So you have not therefore reduced carbon emissions, you have only delayed there coming, you are going to produce them anyway later.

So if that is what will happen, are they trying to conserve those fossil fuels? and all that means?


----------



## Russell (7 Jan 2010)

Its a balance between how much CO2 we produce and how much the planet can process and remove from the atmosphere by Photosynthesis. If we hadnt destroyed vast amounts of forest across the world. The planet would have been able to cope with some of the increase in CO2. Most new research is looking into artificial photosynthesis and CO2 removal and deep storage technology.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2010)

> global warming is taking place, I accept that, also it started when the last ice age started to come to its ending



Oh god, give me strength.......



OK, there is no god, and I'm pretty strong........but you get my drift.

Mike


----------



## Russell (7 Jan 2010)

In the seventies they said we had 20 years of oil left! I am sure there is only a finite amount of "economic fossil fuels" we can access on the planet. But there are lots including coal in England that are not so economic. Once we master the CO2 problem and develop alternative sources including nuclear for electricity fossil fuels will become less of an issue.

IMO we need to reduce our dependency on gas and oil because at the moment we are at the mercy of Russia and the middle east who control alot of what is used in Europe.


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

My angle is;

Cut fossil fuel use means it lasts longer, and I still think this is the hidden agenda. 

I have seen landscapes where the water must have been 20 miles inland from now, so if water levels are rising it has happened before and perhaps fossils fuels were not the problem the last time. (I dont think it was plate drift that caused the water to recede)


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

You have to try to hold several ideas at the same time.

First of all, separate weather and climate.

Then realise that long-term natural effects are cumulative with short-term man-made effects. That makes any sort of modelling difficult, and means that we should look at long-term trends rather than short-term phenomena.

There are several different mechanisms which change coastlines, and sea level rise is only one of them.

What do you mean by 'plate drift'? Plate Tectonics? How does that affect sea level change?

What do you mean by 'hidden agenda'? Whose agenda? If it is hidden, how come you know about it?
I thought we had all been trying to use less fossil fuels for at least the last 30 years, pretty publicly.


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

Hi. Dick.

Plate drift 
yes Teutonics. the crust rises near a shoreline, would mean land covered in water becomes high and dry. (The south and east coast of Australia had water levels higher than they are today and a geologist friend of mine in Oz. said it was not Teutonics that was the cause of greater landmass that was dry)

Hidden agenda, I still think it would suit some section of the earth community to reduce comsumption of fossil fuel to make it last longer for their own benefit.


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

First of all Plate Teutonics only applies to Germany...

Plate Tectonics does not necessarily mean that coastlines rise and fall - the plate boundaries are not at coastlines (usually). They lead to subduction (where one plate slides beneath another one) or collison, which leads to mountain ranges. 

You need to read up on this. For example, Britain is gradually tipping over to one side as it slowly recovers from the down forces of the last glaciation. Part is rising, part is falling. You have to see all local effects in context.

As to the 'hidden agenda' - I still really don't get what you mean. What is the 'earth community' - surely that is all of us? If we make fossil fuels last longer that is for all our benefits, we have known that for decades. Or do you mean that there is some other organisation or force at work, other than economics?


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":36g9i9s3 said:


> yes Teutonics.Hidden agenda,



What? It's all the Germans' fault? I've not heard this one before.....

Devonwoody, you are getting so much wrong here that it might be worthwhile just withdrawing gracefully before you make a real fool of yourself.

Mike


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

Nice quote from today's Guardian (not aimed at DW, just a general comment)



> Deborah Orr in today's Grauniad:
> 
> Are Some People Really This Stupid?
> I'm usually wary of calling people dowright stupid as well. But sometimes there is no other explanation. The Daily Express is clearly edited by a very stupid person, since he dedicated yesterday's front page to exulting that since it was quite remarkably cold, climate change couldn't exist. Come again? And loads of people, it seems are this loonily counter-intuitive. Why can't people understand that hotter air barrells about the atmosphere like a bull in a gigantic china shop? Or that melted ice in one place is just extra water looking for a new home in another? These are such simple concepts, so basic, so irrefutable, so plainly guaranteed to make the weather more unpredictable and extreme. Didn't these people go to school? Didn't they get physics? So many people cling on to their wilful ignorance, even persuading themselves that this makes them freethinking and clever. The idea seems to be that if you believe the obvious, you're a fool. That idea is not a good one.


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

hidden agenda again

There are people who are running around with Rolls Royces using 5 times more fuel than me, and they are still building this and other motor vehicles with similar fuel consumption, so why should I do less mileage.

There are others who have and are having 7 bedroom properties constructed and only two people in residence, so the cost of building and running of such properties still is continuing and they are using more than their fair share of fuels. So why should I worry about heating a two bedroom property and conserving energy.

Those high users will continue to have heavy consumption as will other nations and also up and coming industralised countries. 

I dont think those people above will stop or reduce their consumption unless legislation is forced upon them, and it doesn't normally happen to that genre. 

That is my meaning of hidden agenda.
.


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

That's not what most people mean by a hidden agenda...


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

Smudger":3bcj7o9m said:


> That's not what most people mean by a hidden agenda...



OK, dare I ask what .............., no I am not going to post that  

A few days ago, hundreds of ministers from over one hundred countries (staff I am sure with higher IQ's than me) could not reach agreement because they know or have ideas that suggestions for a setup were not viable as set out.


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

Right. First of all, Mike's advice was sound.

A hidden agenda is when a person or organisation says that they are doing something for a particular reason, but in fact they are doing it for another reason entirely, which they keep hidden from you. Hence, their real agenda is hidden.

As to your other point - I have no idea what it is. 

Except that if you were to look at what actually happened it wasn't some mysterious inability to reach a conclusion, for reasons of their own the Chinese (followed by some others) would not agree to the majority line, and so a unanimous statement could not be made. It wasn't to do with viability (not sure what you mean by set up) it was to do with global politics.


----------



## kasandrich (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":1lfemzdj said:


> hidden agenda again
> 
> There are people who are running around with Rolls Royces using 5 times more fuel than me, and they are still building this and other motor vehicles with similar fuel consumption, so why should I do less mileage.
> 
> ...



The point you are missing here, is there are at least a thousand of you to everry one in a 7 bed house with a Roller. Therefore if a thousand woody's all reduced their carbon emmissions things may improve, however if the guy with the roller got a more modest car and a 2 bed house, the over all impact would be minimal. So he can continue his oppulent lifestyle as long as we all cut our emmissions :roll:


----------



## Racers (7 Jan 2010)

Hi,

How about the thousand of tons of CO2 that come out of volcanos every day? that never seens to get mentioned, they do include the methane from cows, so its vegie burgers for you all (I don't eat them- can't stand burgers)

Pete


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

Kasandrich, you have got the grift of what I think.

My opinion is that global warming will take place anyway,might be slower if the righteous conserve but will be offset by the greedy and rich.


----------



## BMac (7 Jan 2010)

Plug the volcanoes with cows.

There, I've just saved the World. I hope you all appreciate it!

Brendan


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":ziitzp4z said:


> Kasandrich, you have got the grift of what I think.
> 
> My opinion is that global warming will take place anyway,might be slower if the righteous conserve but will be offset by the greedy and rich.



I think that he was making the opposite point. That it doesn't make sense for the few Roller-rollers to get smaller cars, the masses have to take action...

I still think Mike was right.


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

He might be right but I still think the biggest users have got to bring their consumption down to make me feel be prepared to do my bit.

I'm not worried anyway, better for me if they shut off my fuel allowance at twenty years from now. :wink:


----------



## jlawrence (7 Jan 2010)

The biggest users are the masses - the simple fact that there are a lot more of them means that collectively they use a lot more.
Whoever thought of calling it 'global warming' should be shot. If everyone just referred to 'climate change' then there wouldn't be half the arguments going on that there are.


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

I do like the idea that "I know I need to do this, but until that bloke who's got a bigger car than me does it I won't. Even though I know I should, and it will hurt me more than it hurts him if I don't. Oh, and stuff your grandchildren, I'll be dead."

Classic.


----------



## Dibs-h (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":blnp89fc said:


> hidden agenda again
> 
> There are people who are running around with Rolls Royces using 5 times more fuel than me, and they are still building this and other motor vehicles with similar fuel consumption, so why should I do less mileage.
> 
> ...



Yeah but those 7 bedroom houses are being paid for - to be constructed and run. Same for the Roller - it's not like those people are being issued with coupons and have some sort of fill her up as many times as you want arrangement. As for petrol\diesel - most of the cost is duty, so the cost to them per mile is massively more than someone with a Ford Ka.

The whole point of a free society and a market economy is that these sort of things can and do exist. Whilst I may not agree with some aspects - they have the right to do it.

What about the tradesmen who make their living building these houses and the trickle of money down to others for various things.

We'd be having the same sort of arguments if some folk were riding donkeys and some horses - i.e. horses eat more, dung more, ban 'em.


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

Yeah but if horses eat more they should be shot, there will not be enough food left for the sheep.  

And if there isnt enough work to go round because there are no rich people left you will benefit, you will have more time for your woodwork (using handtools)


----------



## Dibs-h (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":2o0rt7fo said:


> Yeah but if horses eat more they should be shot, there will not be enough food left for the sheep.
> 
> And if there isnt enough work to go round because there are no rich people left you will benefit, you will have more time for your woodwork (using handtools)



But only in the daytime as we don't 'ave enough pennies for any candles!


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

Dibs, I have just returned from running the misses down to the doctors and whilst waiting to run her back home, its suddenly come to me;-

A rich man having is 7 bedroom house does not create more work for you, you could build 3 to 4 two bedroom homes (he can still have one of those) and 2 to 3 other couples would also benefit with getting a new home. 
So that old myth of rich people are necessary is another example of what I call that "hidden agenda". 

global warming problem created with above suggestion of course.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":3e6rjjjs said:


> global warming problem created with above suggestion of course.



I hate to sound too rude, but some of your postings are utterly incomprehensible.

Mike


----------



## big soft moose (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":qpcu63nf said:


> A rich man having is 7 bedroom house does not create more work for you, you could build 3 to 4 two bedroom homes (he can still have one of those) and 2 to 3 other couples would also benefit with getting a new home.
> So that old myth of rich people are necessary is another example of what I call that "hidden agenda".
> 
> .



but without the rich people putting money into companies - and paying taxes etc the other people wont have jobs and thus won't benefit in anyway whatsoever.

its academic anyway in a free society there will always be rich and poor - and even in a less than free society like the old ussr you still have people who have and those that have not.

none of which has anything to do with global warming/ anthropogenic cimate change.


----------



## Dibs-h (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":g4kjdqpx said:


> Dibs, I have just returned from running the misses down to the doctors and whilst waiting to run her back home, its suddenly come to me;-
> 
> A rich man having is 7 bedroom house does not create more work for you, you could build 3 to 4 two bedroom homes (he can still have one of those) and 2 to 3 other couples would also benefit with getting a new home.
> So that old myth of rich people are necessary is another example of what I call that "hidden agenda".
> ...



I disagree. The 7 bed room house will be very well spec'ed as opposed to the tight ar5e spec on a 2 bed (usually). The grounds will be larger. The higher spec will generate work for folk who will make\fit these items, decorators who will be paid well to do up the place, etc. The list does go on.

Not only at build time, but over the yrs with maintenance.

At the end it's a free market economy - whilst I may find it a tad odd for a "rich" man to be living in a 7 bed house, I'll be damned before I go get my Chairman Mao suited fitted and collect my bicycle, etc.

If people can't have better, bigger things than others - WTF is the incentive to go out there and excel? Next it will be everyone has to eat\drink the same and because most won't or can't afford the more expensive things - "lets ban the more expensive (and ususally better) things!"

There is no myth - there are plenty of folk who may well be "deemed" rich by others, who incidentally can't be ar5ed getting off their fat ar5ses to work, or who are lifers in the public sector. But what isn't obvious is the sheer amount of graft they have done to get where they are or were actually from a pineapple poor background and got to where they are by hard work, blood, sweat & tears!

Not everyone who drives past in a "fat" car was born with a spoon up their ar5e!


----------



## jlawrence (7 Jan 2010)

And why do people demand that those who earn more pay horrendous amounts of tax. Bigger incomes generally go hand in hand with bigger levels of debt - not necessarily more money to spend. Most of those earning 100->500K a year worked bloody hard to get there (often at the expense of family life etc etc) they didn't do it to subsidise the lazy t**ts who like to sit on their a4ses and do nowt.

Oh, and you'll probably find that the big 7 bed houses are a shed load more efficient that the poxy 2 bed. People buying 7 bed houses expect good insulation etc etc not that they are expected to add it in afterwards.


----------



## devonwoody (7 Jan 2010)

Rich people dont pay tax, only the poor and those trying to get rich. :wink: 

Me I retired at 32 and decided not to get any richer and have caused less global warming than some.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2010)

Dibs-h":3k25q58m said:


> or who are lifers in the public sector.



Dibs,

I was with you for every word you wrote.........except those few I've quoted here. I have to say that some of the unsung heroes of our society are "lifers in the public sector" such as teachers and nurses and the like, and I would hate to think that your strong words were diluted by a phrase that you might have wished to adjust. 

Mike


----------



## jlawrence (7 Jan 2010)

I think I read dib's comment the way it was intended. There are - or used to be, perhaps not so many nowadays - many people working in the public sector who basically did nowt other than turn up in a morning and go home in the evening. I tend not to think of teachers, nurses etc as public sector workers.

DW, I like the idea of retiring at 32 so as to have less effect on global climate change - unfortunately I'm already past that age. I did give up fulltime work at 33 though to become a house husband - does that count  - though it's offset by driving a bloody big 4x4 :lol:


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":38e6ekmt said:


> Rich people dont pay tax, only the poor and those trying to get rich. :wink:
> 
> Me I retired at 32 and decided not to get any richer and have caused less global warming than some.



Rich people do pay tax.

Now, are you seriously telling us that you gave up on work at 32 and yet are jealous of people who didn't, and who have made a financial success of their lives? Are you really saying that people who work until they drop, whose efforts allow others the opportunity to withdraw from work, shouldn't be allowed to benefit just a little themselves?

Really, Devonwoody, you shouldn't have ignored my earlier advice. Have a little rethink now. 

You just seem to be anti everything. One big lesson I learned early in adulthood is this: *"Surround yourself with positive people"*. The other sort just suck the life out of you.

Mike


----------



## Jake (7 Jan 2010)

I think DW is having one of his trollish moments - sometimes he seems to get the urge for oddball windups.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2010)

My next post, Jake, was going to be "Don't feed the trolls", but I thought I would vent my spleen first!

Mike

Interesting phrase.........to vent the spleen..........I wonder where that came from?


----------



## big soft moose (7 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":2svis0le said:


> I think I read dib's comment the way it was intended. There are - or used to be, perhaps not so many nowadays - many people working in the public sector who basically did nowt other than turn up in a morning and go home in the evening. I tend not to think of teachers, nurses etc as public sector workers.



As a public sector worker i really ought to take exception to that - but as a reasonable guy i'm not going to as i do see what you mean - I and most of my colleagues work our butts off delivering an essential service for comparatively little pay - however there are public sector workers who appear to do nothing but pass paper to each other and achieve very little.

Mind you having also worked in the private sector I can say without doubt that there are also people here who get paid for sitting on their fundament and doing nothing useful.

Bottom line on that is regardless of which sector people work in some are hard working and concientious , and some are lazy morons such is the huiman condition


----------



## big soft moose (7 Jan 2010)

Mike Garnham":1trkjcmj said:


> Interesting phrase.........to vent the spleen..........I wonder where that came from?



from wiki



> When you are removing the innards of a chicken (or larger animal) if you accidentally burst the spleen the bitter secretions inside it will spill out onto part of the carcase and spoil any meat it touches.
> For many thousands of years people thought that animals (and people) kept their bad temper in their spleen - so when your bad temper comes out (in a tantrum for example) and spoils things, you vent your spleen.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2010)

Wunderbar! Where would we be without Wiki? Many thanks.

Mike


----------



## Smudger (7 Jan 2010)

Same with rabbits. As told to me by my mother.


----------



## jlawrence (7 Jan 2010)

LOL @BSM.
Don't ask why, but when people talk of public sector workers I think many people just think of people sat behind desks pushing paper. I dare say that in reality people sat behind desks only form a small percentage of PS workers.


----------



## Digit (7 Jan 2010)

There are public sector workers and public sector workers.
I had to pay a visit to my local council HQ on Tuesday, where I spoke to two female workers, and two nicer and more helpful people it would be hard to find.

Roy.


----------



## Tony Spear (8 Jan 2010)

Smudger":bqufjulp said:


> Same with rabbits.



OHmigawd, let's not go there! One slip with the knife when pouching rabbits in the field and back comes yesterday's dinner! (your's!):shock:


----------



## devonwoody (8 Jan 2010)

I'm back, had a good nights sleep.

I still reckon those multi millionaires contribute more to global warming than I do, and until they cut down their carbon emissions to the same quantity as mine, I'm sticking. 

Thats why the Copenhagen conference the other week would not come to an agreement.


----------



## RogerS (8 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":1knt2qc0 said:


> I'm back, had a good nights sleep.
> 
> I still reckon those multi millionaires contribute more to global warming than I do, and until they cut down their carbon emissions to the same quantity as mine, I'm sticking.
> 
> Thats why the Copenhagen conference the other week would not come to an agreement.



dw, maybe your signature should be 'To Hell in a handbasket' ? Frankly, your attitude sucks. 

You are making so many value-judgements along the way that have little or no relevance. So somebody wishes to drive a car that isn't as economical as another one. Maybe the person who drives the more economical car has a higher carbon footprint in other ways. Whatever. 

The simple fact is that if 1000 people make a small reduction then that has to be the better option for the planet and future generations. You have no way of knowing what mitigating effects your 'gas-guzzling' singleton has taken to compensate for his less-economical car.


----------



## devonwoody (8 Jan 2010)

The rich and very wealthy man next door to me gets prosecuted for fly tipping because that causes polution just the same as the lesser rich man.

The rich man therefore cannot pollute the planet with carbon emissions more than any other man. 
That is what I am trying to say.


----------



## RogerS (8 Jan 2010)

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


----------



## MikeG. (8 Jan 2010)

Devonwoody,

this is looking like serial trolling now, and if you continue with it I will be asking a moderator to lock this thread. Find something new to say, maybe even something interesting, and stop just trying to wind people up with poorly written and illogical posts.

Mike


----------



## Dibs-h (8 Jan 2010)

*MikeG, jlawrence, BSM* - thankfully the sentiment came across relatively correctly. Yes there are countless people in the public sector who go underpaid & under-appreciated - teachers being some of them. And I should know, I had some wonderful teachers, who are responsible for me being where I am. I did mean the paper schufflers. Yes there are some in the public sector, but they also exist in the private sector - I do see them from time to time, but I will try to refrain from stereotyping.

I think DevonWoody's account has been hacked and some nutter is posting. Failing that the snow has prevented the collection and fulfillment of a repeat prescriptionl. :wink:


----------



## BMac (8 Jan 2010)

I drive a huge, thirsty [email protected] of a car but I produce less emissions than my daughter in her little, fuel-efficient car so, using devonwoody's logic, should I increase my daily mileage ten-fold to attain the 'average' emission rate?

Brendan


----------



## wobblycogs (8 Jan 2010)

Just spotted this thread, what a fascinating read so far. Anyway I'll try to avoid commenting directly suffice to say I was intrigued by some of the comments about the rich causing the trickle down of money. I'm not an economist but I read up a bit on a few of the ideas a couple of years ago.

There is an idea called trickle-down economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics which essentially says if you cut tax for the rich money will flow to the poor as they spend more. It is generally considered not to work terribly well and to cause the rich to get richer with minimal benefit to the poor. The accepted reason for the failure of the idea is that as the rich get richer they don't consume proportionally more. The classic example of a country broadly following this model is America.

The UK typically follows something more akin to Keynesian Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics which is more of a combination of public and (mostly) private sector money. The idea here is that if the poor have money they will buy goods and services from business owners making them rich. Money therefore flows up rather than down.


----------



## beech1948 (8 Jan 2010)

Oddly interesting. 

To just take a different view to that of most of you. Teachers are apparently revered by most of you. Perhaps they are these days public servants of the worst PC kind. 

I also wonder if the current statistics show that they are value for money.

That is 24% of pupils aged 12 can not read or write effectively and are basically illiterate. 

Another 21% are so poor at math that they are innumerate. 

So of the population of school kids around 24 to 45% are so poorly educated that many basic functions we look for in the developed world are impossible for them. 

Is that success or failure. If its measurable as a failure then why are teachers so revered.

Alan


----------



## beech1948 (8 Jan 2010)

oddly interesting.

Cars: My very desirable automobile is German and weights about 2.5 imperial tons. Its a 3.2 litre diesel.

On longer trips I get 46 mpg over say 200 miles
On medium trips I get 39 per gallon say 50 miles
Around the village I get 32 per gallon
Driving in London I get 19 per gallon...not been into London by car for 14 years.

Overall I am getting 37 miles per gallon over 10,000 miles. Annual mileage varies between 4000 pa if using train mostly and 14000 if using car mostly.

How does that compare with your vehicles.

I have no idea about how much C02 I make but I would guess that its at least as good as any other car and probably better. Ignition is set to fully burn all fuel and to achieve economy of fuel use. 

I guess a Ford Ka will beat these figures as long as its not driven by a teenager impersonating Ayrton Senna.

Alan


----------



## MikeG. (8 Jan 2010)

beech1948":2gbm7fhw said:


> That is 24% of pupils aged 12 can not read or write effectively and are basically illiterate.
> Another 21% are so poor at math that they are innumerate.
> So of the population of school kids around 24 to 45% are so poorly educated that many basic functions we look for in the developed world are impossible for them.



Firstly, back those figures up, please. "24% are illiterate" is an interesting allegation. Where have you got these figures?

Secondly, your 45% figure is obviously the 21% added to the 24%.........but it is inconceivable that none of the "illiterate" 24% are amongst the "innumerate". So, whilst it is theoretically possible that 45% could be either illiterate or inumerate _*from your figures*_, I suggest that it is most likely to be the same people, and the figure will be nowhere near 45%.

So, ask yourself who these failing students are, and why they are failing? Obviously, some will have special needs. Many pupils who would have previously been educated in special schools are now in mainstream. These kids are included in all figures, including SATS results, and there are lots of them.

Some of the rest will be at huge social disadvantage........their parents are probably seperated, may have drink or drugs problems, may only be 16 or 18 themselves, or may be in prison or working as prostitues. Many may not be able to speak English, or have parents who don't. Some will be physically or sexually abused. Many will never have seen their parents read, nor have access to a single book at home.

Some will come from a background where parents hold the school system in contempt, and will never hear a child read, attend parent evenings, or respond to correspondence from the school. Many parents don't ensure that their children attend school every day, and even take them shopping instead.

So, before you blame teachers for the poor performance of some of the pupils, please ask yourself whose fault it really is.

Mike


----------



## devonwoody (8 Jan 2010)

Thanks to those who posted, I can understand now how difficult it must have been to get agreement at Copenhagen.

I suspect there will be a fudge outcome eventually.

The last man on the planet please turn off the air conditioning.


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

Here's the official answer...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... eague.html

Roy.


----------



## lurker (8 Jan 2010)

Mike,

I really wish you would not get so uptight when someone raises an alternative point of view. DW opinions are as valuable as yours & I ( for one) DO see his point.
I might not agree but............

Regards tax : I believe it is a undesputed fact (but please feel free to correct me :lol: ) that poorer people DO PAY a larger proportion of their income as tax.

The thingy in Copenhagen was always going to be a waste of time and generated a needless carbon footprint.


----------



## jlawrence (8 Jan 2010)

I think teachers are held in high regard because it's a job that most of us could never ever envisage doing. To my mind teachers in the main must have unbelievable amounts of patience.

Looking at mine and swmbo's cars it's a good job I don't do many miles. Around town I average about 250miles on a tank which is roughly 15mpg, on a good run I might 'just' make it to the dizzy heights of 29mpg. SWMBO's RAV4 does about 20mpg around town - no idea what she gets on a run.
It is time to change the RAV4 but there's no way I can afford to change my Surf - equivalents are just two expensive.


----------



## Smudger (8 Jan 2010)

No, that's not 'official', that's a Daily Telegraph article. Politically biased and partial.

Those surveys are pretty well meaningless as they figures are collected differently from country to country and year to year. A lot of figures are partial. Some countries don't even bother (the UK didn't a few years ago).

You also have to try to understand what is meant. If 12% (say) of pupils fail to reach the 'expected' average or mean level, does that mean that they are illiterate (missed the target by 100%) or 'less literate' (missed the target by 5%)? What is the effect of the ability bell curve? Where is the 'expected' level placed on the bell curve - possibly stated as a percentile? Is it expressed as a mean or a median? If you can't answer these questions then you really haven't done enough research to pass judgement.


----------



## Kalimna (8 Jan 2010)

Reading this thread is like watching an intelligent group of people talking to a scientologist.

Depressing that an otherwise excellent forum descends into levels of logical ineptitude not normally found outside of IMDB's fora.

That said, I shall now go and carry on my early spring cleaning and chucking out of much accumulated carbon-producing, tax evading, earth destroying stuff. So if anyone wants any surgical/medical textbooks, please let me now 

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## Mike.C (8 Jan 2010)

Mike Garnham":1k7sjb2e said:


> Devonwoody,
> 
> this is looking like serial trolling now, and if you continue with it I will be asking a moderator to lock this thread. Find something new to say, maybe even something interesting, and stop just trying to wind people up with poorly written and illogical posts.
> 
> Mike



Mike, not that I am calling DW a troll, far from it, but lets just say for a moment that he is. Neither he or any other troll can exist without members like you. If no one bites or even posts on the trolls thread he will soon get fed up and disappear.
I suspect that John is just having a laugh and is probably chuckling away when he reads your replys. The clue is in his posts, where not once has he reacted to your belittling of his opinions. Trolls normally react when you call them an silly person :wink:

As for asking the mods to close the thread, why? He is not being abusive or talking about any of the forum NO NO's. With this sort of reaction you are just playing into a trolls hands, or playing his game. If it upsets you just ignore the thread. Me I think some of the opinions are quite funny :lol: 

Cheers

Mike[/quote]


----------



## Kalimna (8 Jan 2010)

And another thing - blaming teachers for the current state of schooling in youngsters is both crass and grossly unfair. How about ridiculous government edicts? (and I normally try to shy away from jumping on the 'blame the government' bandwagon) The presence of an ever more insidious media? Reduced involvement in family life? Desire for peer acceptance secondary to the media? Just a couple of ideas.

Oooh, I need to calm down. Another chrimbo mince pie methinks!

Adam


----------



## MikeG. (8 Jan 2010)

Kalimna":1kqihjdp said:


> Reading this thread is like watching an intelligent group of people talking to a scientologist.
> Adam



Utterly brilliant analogy!!

....and Mike C........you are dead right, of course. The problem is that it sometimes takes quite a long time to realise that someone who has been a member for a long time is actually winding everyone up, rather than just having a conversation.

Mike


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

> Ministers said the drop in standards among 10-year-olds, who took part in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, was due to a sharp rise in addictive video games coupled with a decline in reading at home.
> 
> Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, called for parents to read to children for 10 minutes every night, ensuring it was "as much a part of kids' routines as brushing their teeth and having a bath".
> 
> However, the Government also admitted that the fall may be because of a decline in the amount of time teachers spent reading directly to classes



So that's all lies then, correct?

So let us see what the Holy Guardian has to say...



> Children’s secretary Ed Balls responded to the results saying he accepted some responsibility for the decline in standards but also blamed parents. Read more Ed Balls' response in the DCSF Pirls press release at www.dcsf.gov.uk.
> 
> (Guardian, 29 November 2007)



Roy.


----------



## wobblycogs (8 Jan 2010)

It's the old saying, lies, damn lies and statistics. If almost half the country was illiterate or innumerate it would go into meltdown. Even taking the lower figure (IIRC it was 21%) would cause us all terrible problems. 

Personally, I don't have much time for teachers but I respect what they do and most are seem to be pretty good. I know there is no way I have the patience to teach (in the modern way). 

I would like to recount a little story though... I was on the train a couple of years ago coming back from a meeting. Sitting at the table next to me were four young soon to be teachers. I was bored so I was listening to them chatting about their up and coming final exams and how hard they were going to be. One of them commented on the fact that the maths questions would be the hardest at which point pulled out an example paper and started testing the others. They were trivially easy questions which could be solved in your head but between them they didn't get a single question right. I was dumbfounded. To top it all one of them said "it's alright I'm not going to be teaching maths anyway". 

I don't expect an English teacher to have a degree in maths but to not be able to, for example, figure out what 10% of a £2.50 is without resorting to a calculator / book is terrible. I think there is an attitude of looking down your nose at all science and maths related subjects in this country and we are as a whole poorer for it.


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

During the exam season last year a group of youngsters were screaming 'foul' about not being able to answer an exam question as nobody had taught them what 'despotic' meant.
One girl screaming that her life had 'been seriously destroyed!' as a result.
Seriously destroyed?

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (8 Jan 2010)

Digit":2n6ohxz8 said:


> During the exam season last year a group of youngsters were screaming 'foul' about not being able to answer an exam question as nobody had taught them what 'despotic' meant.
> One girl screaming that her life had 'been seriously destroyed!' as a result.
> Seriously destroyed?
> 
> Roy.



Source?


----------



## Mike.C (8 Jan 2010)

Mike Garnham":1xslhzvp said:


> Kalimna":1xslhzvp said:
> 
> 
> > Reading this thread is like watching an intelligent group of people talking to a scientologist.
> ...



True :wink: 

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

> Source?



Dandy and Beano and live interview on Welsh TV.

Roy.


----------



## studders (8 Jan 2010)

Well I've finished reading this thread, most enlightening..


Must go now, got to take meself off to the forest in me V12 Jaaaaag an cut down a bunch of trees with ma trusty 3.5 litre V6 chainsaw.


:wink:


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

lurker":2wq3fpz6 said:


> Regards tax : I believe it is a undesputed fact (but please feel free to correct me :lol: ) that poorer people DO PAY a larger proportion of their income as tax.
> 
> .



not really

to start with if you are seriously poor (ie on benefits) you arent paying any income tax

if you earn less than £6035 pa you dont pay any income tax

if you earn more than £6035 but less than £34,800 then you pay 20% on the ammount over £6035

and if you earn over £34,800 you pay 20% on the ammount between £6035 and £34,800 and 40% on the ammount over £34,800

from april this year there will also be a 50% band on income over 150,000

Therefore although it is undoubtedly true that a few rich people avoid or evade income tax it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.


----------



## Jake (8 Jan 2010)

big soft moose":1fgvopjn said:


> it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.



You need to take into account taxes on consumption as well as income tax, which tend to be regressive (as is Council Tax). And NI which has a ceiling, etc.


I don't know what the outcome is but it is nowhere near as clear cut as that.


----------



## Dibs-h (8 Jan 2010)

Kalimna":yaakzp6p said:


> Reading this thread is like watching an intelligent group of people talking to a scientologist.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...



Yep - it does feel like that - or talking to a born again something or a convert with a dose of convertitis\born-again-itis.

(not having a dig at anyone anyone who is a convert\born again something - I must just attract the ones who insist I'm going to hell!)


----------



## wobblycogs (8 Jan 2010)

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I believe what lurker meant was that the percentage of total income taken from the poor as tax is greater than the percentage take from the rich. You are completely right in saying that high earners pay a larger percentage as income tax but over all I believe lurker is right in saying the poor / middle earners are taxed more heavily percentage wise than the high earners. 

This seemingly counterintuative situation arises because of the different ways direct (e.g. income) and indirect (e.g. VAT) taxes work. Direct taxes cause equality because they are always progressive (at least in the UK), the more you earn the more you pay. Indirect taxes don't promote equality though, a rich person using a litre of petrol has the same absolute tax burden as a poor person but as a percentage of income the poor person shoulders a much greater burden. 

Most tax systems have a mix of direct and indirect with the rich fighting for a larger portion of indirect and the poor for a larger portion of direct taxation. I'd favour the slider moving a little towards direct taxation as I think we need to close the rich / poor divide a bit.


----------



## Mike.C (8 Jan 2010)

big soft moose":ipa1nka5 said:


> lurker":ipa1nka5 said:
> 
> 
> > Regards tax : I believe it is a undesputed fact (but please feel free to correct me :lol: ) that poorer people DO PAY a larger proportion of their income as tax.
> ...



I could never at anytime in my life have hoped to earn £2884 a week or 150,000 per annum and so although the 50% tax band does not effect me it still makes me see red to think that anyone though either hard work, knowing the right people, or being in the right place at the right time should be ripped of to this extent. No one will EVER convince me that just because these people have got the get up and go to earn this sort of money they should have to give the goverment 50% of every penny they earn. It simply is not right that any one section of the population should be penalised to such an extent just because they earn more.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

> I must just attract the ones who insist I'm going to hell!)



Well some of 'em make the alternative sound pretty dull don't they?

Roy.


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

Jake":2du6hfe7 said:


> big soft moose":2du6hfe7 said:
> 
> 
> > it is laughable to suggest that the poor are paying a higher proportion of their income as tax than everyone else, when the reverse is demonstrably the case.
> ...



Neither do I , but on those its worth considering that the rich consume more , and consume more luxury goods which are higher rated, and live in larger houses which attract more council tax etc

I agree with you that its a complex subject but its certainly too complex to state as a proven fact that the poor pay more tax proportional to their income than the rich

for example although i wouldnt charecterise myself as poor (or you as rich) I would bet that as a lawyer you pay a damn sight more tax than I do as a rights of way officer


----------



## Mike.C (8 Jan 2010)

Mike.C":dtxbjtd2 said:


> big soft moose":dtxbjtd2 said:
> 
> 
> > lurker":dtxbjtd2 said:
> ...



By way of seeing how they must feel, lets just say that you earn £500 a week, would you be happy if the taxman took £250 of it week in and week out? I know I wouldn't :twisted:

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Jake (8 Jan 2010)

big soft moose":2bo62mf7 said:


> I agree with you that its a complex subject but its certainly too complex to state as a proven fact that the poor pay more tax proportional to their income than the rich
> 
> for example although i wouldnt charecterise myself as poor (or you as rich) I would bet that as a lawyer you pay a damn sight more tax than I do as a rights of way officer



I agree, I don't know what the answer is but I don't think the UK has either a regressive or a progressive tax system anymore (I am sure there are anomalies along the scale where things cut in and out).

I would guess I pay more tax, but the issue is whether I should pay more on every incremental pound I earn. I have a lot less objection to that than Mike C does.


----------



## Mike.C (8 Jan 2010)

Jake":1a8fhcoh said:


> big soft moose":1a8fhcoh said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you that its a complex subject but its certainly too complex to state as a proven fact that the poor pay more tax proportional to their income than the rich
> ...



Hi Jake,

For an obviously intelligent man who probably had many sleepless nights studying for the exams you had to sit on your way to becoming a solicitor I cannot understand why you do not object to paying upto 30% more tax then lower paid workers. So can you enlighten me?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that a partner in one of the bigger law firms earns around £167,000, but this solicitor stated that he had to burn the midnight oil and work many long hours to get to the position and pay grade he had attained, and I suspect that more than a few lawyers have to stay at the office the night before a big case.

I have no idea how much you earn, but if it is anything like this and you have to give 50% to the taxman I cannot see how you could not be upset about it.

Ok if a man earns more he has to pay more, but IMHO at 20% (from £150,000) he would be paying £30,000 which is a much fairer system.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## RogerS (8 Jan 2010)

My neighbour is a QC and earned £1 million reputedly the other year. No idea how much tax he paid. Probably not a lot. At that level you can afford the best in clever accountants.


----------



## Mike.C (8 Jan 2010)

RogerS":1vgyvmhg said:


> My neighbour is a QC and earned £1 million reputedly the other year. No idea how much tax he paid. Probably not a lot. At that level you can afford the best in clever accountants.



And lets just say that his accountant could not find anything to claim for, he would end up paying £500,000 to the goverment. :evil: 

To become a bit of silk/QC you are looking at many years of hard work.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

Mike.C":axw49y1h said:


> To become a bit of silk/QC you are looking at many years of hard work.



much like becoming a rights of way officer then - or a self employed cabinet maker or any other job requiring intellect and skill 

Personally i'm philosophical about the tax i pay so long as the government makes good use of it - what annoys me is when they waste it rather than spending it on things that matter.

I tend to look at my wage packet in net terms anyway so if someone decided rights of way officers should be paid the same as QC lawyers (flying pigs etc) I wouldnt be too bothered about the govt taking half of my million pound salary as £500,000 pa is more cash than i could possible spend anyway. (being roughly 475,000 more than i get at the moment)

(incidentally if someone earns a million they wouldnt be paying 500,000 tax anyway - they would pay nothing on the first 6 k - 20% on the next 28k, then 40% on the next 115k then 50% on the rest)


----------



## jlawrence (8 Jan 2010)

Correct BSM, they wouldn't be paying 500K in tax.
Very roughly (assuming no deductions) they'll pay just under 390K in tax and a further 13.5K in NI. That's rough calculations from http://listentotaxman.com/
At that level you WILL have deductions that you can offset against your tax liability - if not then you need a better accountant.

If you want to earn the big money then you have to put lots of hours in to get there. This 'normally' isn't a problem as it will be a job that a) you're good at, and b) you actually enjoy. If you have a family you also need a very supportive partner at home - trust me being the one at home is definitely stressful at times.
SWMBO earns a pretty good wage - not above 150K though - and she works 12 hr days (in the office) + more hours at home in the evening. She's not at the top of the ladder, but not a million miles away. Holiday - what are they then, at that sort of level you are contactable at almost any time - assuming you actually have the phone switched on.


ADDED: Just to be fair to her employers incase someone happens to be reading. Her work are very good about not contacting during holiday periods etc unless absolutely necessary, and they also put on lots of activities throughout the year for kids. All in all a very nice company to work for.


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/n ... 980016.ece


70000 jobs, or jobs going over seas. Heads or tails?

Roy.


----------



## Mike.C (8 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":hp19dfry said:


> Correct BSM, they wouldn't be paying 500K in tax.
> Very roughly (assuming no deductions) they'll pay just under 390K in tax and a further 13.5K in NI. That's rough calculations from http://listentotaxman.com/
> At that level you WILL have deductions that you can offset against your tax liability - if not then you need a better accountant.
> 
> ...



So I never bothered to work out the EXACT figure, shoot me. And I said LETS JUST SAY that there was no deductions so that I could keep a round figure of £500,000. 

£390,000 is still to much to expect anyone to pay especially when they are working 12plus hour days and more when they get home. And on top of that they are on call at any time.

And before you say it I am not talking about your wife because she does not earn £150.000.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":7fn5qj9d said:


> Correct BSM, they wouldn't be paying 500K in tax.
> Very roughly (assuming no deductions) they'll pay just under 390K in tax and a further 13.5K in NI. That's rough calculations from http://listentotaxman.com/
> At that level you WILL have deductions that you can offset against your tax liability - if not then you need a better accountant.
> 
> ...



I still cant feel that sorry for someone who would still have over £600k per year to spend - unless they have very expensive tastes and a cocaine habit (and if they do more fool them) thats far more than any reasonable person needs - and if the price for taking home in a month more than twice what i earn gross in a year is that tax bill, then so what

so yes they work hard for it but so what - I work hard for my salary and come to that some working stiff pulling down minimum wage in a factory knows a thing about hard graft too


----------



## Streepips (8 Jan 2010)

This is a whole aspect of global warming that I was not aware of.
It has many guises I suppose.


----------



## Smudger (8 Jan 2010)

A good explanation of what seems to be happening.


----------



## jlawrence (8 Jan 2010)

Mike, I doubt very much whether anyone in that salary bracket is strictly PAYE. So I doubt they'd ever be paying that level of tax.

BSM, can't say as I disagree. Tax is what it is and that's that. The high earners new that prior to earning at that level. OK, the 50% is new but I doubt that many are worried about the 50% tax - they'll be advised of ways to lower it.


----------



## Creampuff (8 Jan 2010)

Having just read through this tread with a smile on my face, I must congratulate you all on proving the point that us humans just love a good heated discusion.

And all this from a simple post labeled "Global Warming Again" :lol: 

Just to bring things back to the start, I must say i've seen some beautiful snowy scenes on my way to work this week, wish id had my camera with me!!

How about you lot?


Andy


----------



## Jake (8 Jan 2010)

Mike.C":ow7s9lfu said:


> For an obviously intelligent man who probably had many sleepless nights studying for the exams you had to sit on your way to becoming a solicitor I cannot understand why you do not object to paying upto 30% more tax then lower paid workers. So can you enlighten me?



For avoidance of doubt I am not in the 50% bracket, but it would be a reasonable ambition to be if I was that way inclined. I don't feel awful sympathy for those of my colleagues who will be, they will have plenty of money anyway. No-one needs the extra money that much when you hit that sort of level - its always nice to have more but need doesn't come into it. 

I don't pay any more tax than the person paying (only) 20% tax - on the part of my salary that equates to their pay. It seems fair enough to me to have a higher rate tax which kicks in on earnings over a given level, and equally I have no objection to a slightly higher rate still for earnings over an even higher threshold.



> I seem to remember reading somewhere that a partner in one of the bigger law firms earns around £167,000, but this solicitor stated that he had to burn the midnight oil and work many long hours to get to the position and pay grade he had attained, and I suspect that more than a few lawyers have to stay at the office the night before a big case.



You can times that figure by a large multiple for the people at the top of the profession. Anyway, there are plenty of people who work very hard indeed and never see that kind of money or anything like it. My sympathy is non-existent we are very well rewarded even taking into account all the late night working.



> Ok if a man earns more he has to pay more, but IMHO at 20% (from £150,000) he would be paying £30,000 which is a much fairer system



From the maths of this example I think you misunderstand how the higher rates work - everyone has tax-free earnings up to the exemption, pays 20% tax on their earnings which fall within that band, then 40% on their earnings in that band. When the 50% rate comes in, your man on £167k will only pay 50% on the 17k he earns over the 150k starting threshold. He'll be taxed just the same as anyone else below that.


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

Jake":1o1zabl3 said:


> Anyway, there are plenty of people who work very hard indeed and never see that kind of money or anything like it. My sympathy is non-existent we are very well rewarded even taking into account all the late night working..



my point precicely - some posters seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that only the well paid work hard or long hours

When i was a ranger it was entirely usual to be called out at all times of day and night for emergencies , plus it was common to be at work by 8 and not leave til gone 6 on a day to day basis - in the run up to big events hours could be even longer - I remember one week in the run up to MK4U ( a sort of mini glastonbury) I did 3 14 hour days then followed them with 2 16 hour days for the event itself and then another 14 hour day for the take down 

for this work i got paid a princely £17k pa


----------



## Jake (8 Jan 2010)

Quite - I've been on that side of the fence (as it were) myself. It's all self-justificatory nonsense.


----------



## jlawrence (8 Jan 2010)

I think that there are many factors as to why people at the top of their field earn the amounts that they do - assuming that field can command the high sums of money.
Some get it (possibly very few) simply because they are stunningly brilliant at what they do. Others perhaps because they hold an immense amount of responsibility - or should do. This is one of the issues I had with the banking collapse in that they didn't take that responsibility.
At the top level we're not talking about people working 12,14,16 hour days for 3 or 4 days at a time, we're talking about people who have been working those hours for years.
What drives them to do it is beyond me.
Like Jake, I feel no sympathy as such towards those that are in the highest earning bracket. But equally I know that many of them will never pay anywhere near the amount of tax talked about by the government.

When I was at school I distinctly remember on of our history teachers setting us a question:
"The tax system was setup by the weathly to give the illusion of taxing the rich to help the poor - discuss."
The poor and middle earners pay way more tax than the wealthy simply because there are so many more people in that bracket. The 50% tax won't change that.


Anyway, how the heck did we get this far off topic.


----------



## RogerS (8 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":1dms5jmx said:


> .....
> Anyway, how the heck did we get this far off topic.



Back on Page 1 with a post from dw :wink:


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":216cbhgc said:


> Anyway, how the heck did we get this far off topic.



you mean this thread has a topic :shock:


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

The BBC news is currently blithering on about off shore wind turbines will provide power for up to 17 million homes.
Question, exactly how will this help gas, oil or coal users?

Roy.


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":2cosrwj2 said:


> At the top level we're not talking about people working 12,14,16 hour days for 3 or 4 days at a time, we're talking about people who have been working those hours for years.
> .



bottom line is that its their choice to do so and they are well rewarded for it taxation not withstanding.

also i'd note that i used to work at a golf club and we got loads of well of members (may of whom were ceos etc) who would regularly be on the course by two or three in the afternoon.

while i have no doubt that some well of folk - including your missus and jake -work hard for their salaries it is a falacy to believe that they all do, there are numerous consultants and executives who are handsomley rewarded for doing nine tenths of pipper all, all day


----------



## big soft moose (8 Jan 2010)

Digit":1mgk22tu said:


> The BBC news is currently blithering on about off shore wind turbines will provide power for up to 17 million homes.
> Question, exactly how will this help gas, oil or coal users?
> 
> Roy.



by providing an alternate source of electricity meaning the power stations will need to burn less fossil fuel perchance


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

Yesss, got that BSM. Electricity demand is, so I'm told, expected to rise in the future, so there would still have to be an increase in gas/oil/coal/ nuclear stations to cope, and the 17 mill is full output so other capacity has to be available to cover less than full out put. 
So will we see less gas/coal/oil imported? 
Note that this proposal isn't instead of the planned nuclear and other stations, it's in addition. 

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (8 Jan 2010)

Deleted to save the rest of you the bother of reading such a tedious argument.


----------



## Digit (8 Jan 2010)

Like what you were saying about the BBC earlier.
According to a government report, by 2010 the UK will be importing 50 per cent of its gas requirements, and by 2020 80 percent.
Doesn't look as though 'yes' is too correct.

Roy.


----------



## wobblycogs (8 Jan 2010)

I know quite a few people who work in the insurance world all of whom earn very good money. Some of them are pretty talented and some of them work pretty hard but not one of them is what I would call special and the work they do is no more difficult or complex than mine. 

Most of them got to where they are through a combination of things including hard work, exploiting connections and good old fashioned luck. What is striking though is not one of them comes from what would be called a poor background - everyone without fail has parents that are at least moderately successful. I'm sure that everyone can point to someone that has "made it good" from humble beginnings but it's clear, to me at least, that it is much harder if you start at the bottom. 

I would like to think that the rich pay more tax to help even society out so that everyone starts out with at least a fighting chance of becoming successful. I think I would rather see a rich person complain about tax than a poor person fail to achieve their potential.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

Deleted to save the rest of you the bother of reading such a tedious argument.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

> Assuming you know, of course...



Is there any chance of you learning to be polite?

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

Deleted to save the rest of you the bother of reading such a tedious argument.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

Start what?
The thread was on global warming, I've stuck to it.
As for ignorance, at least I know what blither means.

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

Deleted to save the rest of you the bother of reading such a tedious argument.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

Deleted to save the rest of you the bother of reading such a tedious argument.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

Look it up.

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

Deleted to save the rest of you the bother of reading such a tedious argument.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

Deleted to save the rest of you the bother of reading such a tedious argument.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

Naturally! But meanwhile, back on the Global warming front.
It would seem that our dependence of imported gas will get worse rather than better in the future.

BTW. Collins for you, you can argue with them instead of me for a change..



> blithering [ˈblɪðərɪng]
> adj
> 1. talking foolishly; jabbering
> 2. Informal stupid; foolish you blithering silly person
> ...



Roy.


----------



## RogerS (9 Jan 2010)

big soft moose":39poy109 said:


> jlawrence":39poy109 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



But you're making a value judgement. Unless you follow said individuals for 24/7 for a couple of weeks then you can't tell what their work involvement is or what their working hours are. For all you know they have just got up after an all-night session conference calling with the US and Far East. Even if they haven't, many people at this level are effectively oncall/involved with work 24/7 so who's to deny them a bit of R&R.


----------



## devonwoody (9 Jan 2010)

Ladies and gentlemen.

Could someone please advise me on the opening thread I posted, 

I still think that IF we have used the first 50% of fossil fuels and have global warming in progress (and the planet hasnt been able to resolve ) using the last 50% (over whatever time period) of fossil fuels in the future must surely mean it is going to happen anyway.


----------



## Kalimna (9 Jan 2010)

As I think somebody else replied earlier on (and I kik myself for getting drawn in once more, tho I should know better), it's not the total amount, its the rate that is important. And the planet's ability to absorb the CO2 produced.

Think of a petrol engined car (please don't go off on another 'cars kill the planet/universe/multiverse/tax haven/past/present/future/auntie Williaminas cat') - if it burned a full tank all at once, it wouldn't go very far, and would probably just blow up. If, however, the fuel is drip fed in a controlled fashion, then useful energy is harnessed, even tho the total amount remains the same.

Not a spectacularly coherent analogy, but you should get the drift of the answer to you own question.

Anyway, all the CO2 produced initially came from plants, so we're merely returning things to initial conditionss 

Adam


----------



## devonwoody (9 Jan 2010)

Thanks Kalimna.

So why hasn't the planet absorbed all the emissions so far.

And how does it absorb the next 50% (or whatever), because the next 50% will get used. Perhaps over a longer timespan if a usage system is sorted out globally.

200 years of industrial fossil fuels so far, 400 or 600 more years it is still there and the present rate of absorption cannot cope can it cope with the longer timespan?


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

as has been said, it is the rate of absortion that matters. all the sh1te in the papers about producing co2 is cr4p. we ain't producing (ie making ) anything new, we're releasing it. the problem is that we're releasing it faster than things can absorb it.
I've not seen anything that discusses what the impact of fosil fuels running out will be on the rate of co2 release.


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

wrt the sub thread on success, I think wobblycogs has a good point. Success tends to breed success, I think a lot of it has to do with expectations and belief that are imparted by the parents. The idea that if you want to achieve it you can isn't something that the 'poor' often pass on to their kids.
The successful people who should really be looked up to are those that come initially from the 'ppor' end of society because they've really done something special to break out of that situation.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

The reason you haven't, Jon, is that by the time fossil fuels run out the current emergency situation will either have been fixed, or it will be too late. There are hundreds of years of coal supply left in the ground, and we haven't got hundreds of years to sort the mess out.

Devonwoody, please pay attention to the answers. Carbon dioxide is emitted and absorbed in a natural process. For squillions of years those processes have been roughly in balance. In the last 200 or so years, there has been more carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere than the processes can cope with immediately, so there is a build up. Concentrations of CO2 have gone from around 270ppm pre industrial revolution to around 400ppm now. That is a roughly 50% increase in the concentration.

As well as emitting more CO2, we have also reduced the earth's ability to absorb it, by reducing the area of the planet available for woodland, and by changing the temperature and acidity of the oceans.

If the entire population of the planet buggered off to somewhere else in the universe today, woodlands and forests would regenerated quickly, and the seas would eventually return to "normal", and the excess CO2 would soon be mopped up. We would be back to a natural balance between the amount emitted (by volcanoes, animals etc), and the amount absorbed (by plants, algae and the oceans etc).

So, take your ideas about "it doesn't matter how quickly we use up fossil fuels", stir everything around for a bit and have a good think before you ask the same question again.

Mike


----------



## devonwoody (9 Jan 2010)

Mike, it hasnt absorbed it and I still dont think it will absorb it at lower emissions.

Therefore when the balance of fuel is used it wont have absorbed it even over a longer timespan.
I am saying it can never return to a balanced use and recovery position.


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

It can return to a balanced use/absorb scenario.
The balance might well be at a higher level than previous but it will still be in balance.
Everything in nature is a matter of balance.


----------



## devonwoody (9 Jan 2010)

JLawrence
Thats what I wanted to hear.

Then I went on to imply that only a certain person/country might only get the benefit of using these fuels in the future. 

The hidden agenda implication portion of my posting.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":22cxnt96 said:


> Mike, it hasnt absorbed it and I still dont think it will absorb it at lower emissions.



John,

I have no idea what you mean. What do all those "it"s refer to? I assume the second "it" is excess CO2....in which case, just re-read what I just wrote. CO2 is being constantly absorbed, but just not fast enough to cope with the extraordinary amounts we are churning out at the moment.

There is no hidden agenda. Everything is very much on display. All governments are trying to act in their own self-interest.......financial interest. Bearing in mind that the lifespan of most governments is 5 years, why should any one government do something that may reduce their own competitiveness in the short term to deal with a problem that won't really start killing millions for a decade or two?

To see conspiracy in everything is moronic. There is no hidden agenda here whatsoever. This is just governments unable to do what the science has been demanding we do for the last 20 or 30 years.....

Mike


----------



## RogerS (9 Jan 2010)

Mike Garnham":2o4xiigz said:


> devonwoody":2o4xiigz said:
> 
> 
> > ...// This is just governments unable to do what the science has been demanding we do for the last 20 or 30 years.....
> ...



Maggie, for all the faults she may/may not have had was one of the first politicians to champion the cause of CO2 emissions etc. IIRC she was a trained chemist. So maybe they shouldn't be politicians unless they were scientists? Has to be better than the current lot (of all parties) - ex-lawyers whatever.


----------



## wobblycogs (9 Jan 2010)

DW, the worlds processes can be seen as cycles. One of the simplest is the water or hydrological cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle which shows how water is being constantly moved around the planet. There is also a carbon cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle which shows how carbon is moved around in the environment. The carbon cycle is far more complex than the water cycle and it involves some long term storage of carbon in both fossil fuel deposits and absorption into rocks etc.

If you look at the earths carbon cycle you will see why the rate at which we burn fossil fuels is important. The earths processes can remove upto a certain amount of CO2 per year, lets say it's a 1000 tons maximum. If humans had never existed the earth would still naturally produce CO2 from volcanos, rotting matter, animals etc. Lets say naturally the CO2 production is 998 tons per year. Since the rate of absorption is greater than the rate of production a balence will be found and th CO2 levels will stabilize as they did at around 250ppm.

Now lets put humans into the picture. Lets say we produce 12 tons of CO2 per year. Now the total CO2 produced per year by all processes is 1010 tons per year but the earth is still only able to absorb 1000 tons per year. Since production is out stripping absorption CO2 will build up in the atmosphere as is happening now.

The result of this is that we _could_ burn the fossil fuels we have remaining and not affect the atmosphere but the rate at which we could do that would be much much lower than our current rate of consumption.

As I mentioned at the top the carbon cycle is very complex. The problem is we don't really understand what will happen when the CO2 levels get higher. We know from numerous studies that rapid rises in CO2 levels are associated with extinctions so things probably aren't going to go well. We are also already seeing acidification of the oceans due to CO2 absorption but it's not completely clear what the full effect of that will be. Perhaps alga blooms which remove CO2, perhaps mass extinctions in the oceans. We know that some plants grow faster in high CO2 levels which could help the earth absorb more but that doesn't appear to be a long term effect (plants alter the number of CO2 absorption sites on their leaves and the growth rate returns to normal). 

Essentially we know that what we are doing is going to lead to a screwed up future what we don't know is quite how bad it will be screwed up or when it will happen.[/i]


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

You are obviously referring to the Permian extinctions wc, but it would, I think, be rather relevant to point out that the CO2 source was supposed to be the largest and longest known period of volcanic activity, associated with the break up of Pangea. 

Roy.


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

RogerS":1kech8cu said:


> big soft moose":1kech8cu said:
> 
> 
> > jlawrence":1kech8cu said:
> ...



possibly but it is also a value judgement to assume that they are hugely hard working individuals taking a little R&R - Dont know means dont know.

As jake and I established earlier some people at all levels work hard, and the converse is also true - some people at all levels dont.

None of which has any bearing on the taxation argument - there is no evidence that someone who is on call 24/7 as a CEO works any harder than someone who is on call 24/7 as a park ranger or nature reserve warden, or for that matter someone working a nightshift for minimum wage (having personal experience of the latter two i can vouch for them being flipping hard graft)

as far as the taxation goes I'm happy to admit that some, even most, rich people earn their salaries but I dont see any reason for sympathy for their tax burden given the huge ammount they have left after tax, or for that matter any reason to reduce this level of tax due to their "hard" work


----------



## RogerS (9 Jan 2010)

BSM...reading your reply, I think we are in 100% agreement!

Rog


----------



## devonwoody (9 Jan 2010)

Now that the steam has gone from the tax/rich man section of this thread.

Can I come back to early in the thread and disregard tax this time.

In this country a rich man or a poor man cannot fly tip. (=pollution)

Will a rich man be allowed to pollute (CO2 emissions) more than a poor man when legislation is created in the future?

And will this be global?

I cannot see the new up and coming industrial countries agreeing to any lesser industrial use of fossil fuels if countries like the USA would not sign up last time and not again this time.


----------



## Mike.C (9 Jan 2010)

big soft moose:



> my point precicely - some posters seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that only the well paid work hard or long hours



I presume that as I was the one who mentioned that highly paid workers work hard you are talking about me?????? If so why not say so?????

When did I say or even infer that only the well paid work hard?????? IMHO most low paid workers get such rubbish wages that many of them have to work as much overtime as they can just to take home a decent pay packet. In other words I have not mentioned that any tax or pay grade are lazy morons. 

Oh wait what's this :shock: 

big soft moose wrote:



> however there are public sector workers who appear to do nothing but pass paper to each other and achieve very little.
> 
> Mind you having also worked in the private sector I can say without doubt that there are also people here who get paid for sitting on their fundament and doing nothing useful.
> 
> Bottom line on that is regardless of which sector people work in some are hard working and concientious , and some are lazy morons such is the huiman condition



It's certainly not my post, because the ONLY POINT that I was trying to make is that I do not think anyone should give nearly 50% of their hard earned wages to the goverment. This is my opinion, no one elses, and at no point does it infer that only the well paid work hard.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Argee (9 Jan 2010)

> a) ... by the time fossil fuels run out the current emergency situation will either have been fixed, or it will be too late.
> 
> b) ... we haven't got hundreds of years to sort the mess out.
> 
> ...


Pontificate all you wish, but when I see a) and b), then c) and d) paired in posts, nothing is added to the credibility of the arguments at all. 

I have my own opinions on what may happen, which no-one can verify or disprove over the timespans regularly quoted. No-one making claims now will be around to crow or apologise, yet are quite happy to not only believe that they are unequivocably correct, but also to dismiss those who disagree as somehow lesser beings. 

We clearly cannot know everything, if we did then scientists would have nothing to do. Why, then, does this topic seem to bring out the most un-necessarily scathing and holier-than-thou comments, I wonder? Could it be the latest version of the "King's New Clothes"? The one thing I'm certain of is that* I* don't know!

Ray


----------



## wobblycogs (9 Jan 2010)

Not fully understanding the consequences of your actions and knowing that the consequences will be bad are completely different things. To draw an analogy I don't fully understand what the consequences of drinking 20 pints of lager would be on me but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be good so I don't do it. We know that continued release of CO2 faster than the earth can deal with it is going to result in bad things happening, the debate now is on how bad and how quickly. The consensus seems to be that it will be fairly bad and in a fairly short (even by human standards) period of time.

All the people here discussing global warming can probably bury their heads in the sand. It's looking likely that by the time we turn up our toes it won't have got that bad. Our children and grandchildren will probably know a different world though, one where crops regularly fail, water is in short supply, valuable farming land has been lost to rising sea levels, massive population displacement etc etc.

Have a look at a map of India, note how much land is less than 5m above sea level than find out how many people currently live on that land. If they all need somewhere else to live 100 years from now we have a really big problem.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

> Have a look at a map of India, note how much land is less than 5m above sea level than find out how many people currently live on that land. If they all need somewhere else to live 100 years from now we have a really big problem.



Or a different viewpoint. I've no idea who is/might be right, just a different take.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/s ... spectives/

Roy.


----------



## wobblycogs (9 Jan 2010)

Bummer if you live in Bangladesh though eh? Currently 160 million people according to Google. Lets say that just 10% live in a area that will be affected by sea level rise that's 16 million people the world needs to relocate. According to the UNHCR the world currently has 16 million refugees http://www.alertnet.org/db/crisisprofiles/REFUGEES.htm so Bangladesh on it's would double that. 

Of course this is forgetting the fact that GW will have plenty of other effects such as more tornadoes an move violent weather generally.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

According to Houghton 7 million.

Roy.


----------



## Argee (9 Jan 2010)

wobblycogs":n6c8aq69 said:


> Of course this is forgetting the *fact *that GW will have plenty of other effects such as more tornadoes an move violent weather generally.


That sentence (with my emboldening) proves my point exactly. 

Ray


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

to be fair to wobly it is a *fact* that more energy in the atmosphere leads to more storms/ tornados etc.

of course it doesnt absolutely follow that man made climate change is a fact but by the time there is absolute proof it will be too late to avert.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

> of course it doesnt absolutely follow that man made climate change is a fact but by the time there is absolute proof it will be too late to avert.



True I'm afraid. By the way BSM, have you seen my post about birds? What is your opinion?

Roy.


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

Consensus. Hmmmmm.
From what I can gather the consensus is based on computer modelling which is flawed.
Now yes, that is a big sweeping statement but none the less it is true.

The computer models were ask to take us back 50 years and predict where the climate etc would be now. What did they come up with - nowt like what we've currently got. Unfortunately I can't link to where I read that as I've lost the link. The models are flawed.
I'm not saying climate change ain't happening as I believe it actually is.
What I'm saying is that the scientists really don't have a f'in clue as to what is happening or what will happen. Why don't they say this - well simply because they are believing the computer modelling. The computers spit out data and the scientists analyse it. If that data is wrong then so will the scientists conclusions. Out of all the climatologists there aren't actually that many involved in running the actual computer models. I have a distinct dislike for computer modelling which applies a human fudge factor in order to derive the result that they are expecting to see - this isn't science it's a con.

The problem is we don't really understand what will happen when the CO2 levels get higher.
Correct. But we are believing the scientists (who in turn are believing the models) that it'll be catastrophic.

In the cold light of day we have too many humans on this planet for it to be sustainable. Populations need reducing on e way or another. The various governments are never going to come to an agreement on climate change before it's way too late so it looks likely that we'll get the population reduction that we need to live on into the future.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":1k451ip8 said:


> What I'm saying is that the scientists really don't have a f'in clue as to what is happening or what will happen. Why don't they say this.



Because it isn't anything like true. Remotely. In fact it is disappointingly stupid of you to suggest that they don't have a f'in clue.

All predictions are given within a range. The climate change predictions made over the last 12 to 15 years have all proved to fall within the given ranges, but right at the top, or to exceed the highest predicted figures. In other words, we are facing worst-case scenarios with almost all of the predictions. Now, the fact that the computer modelling can't be perfect (because no modelling can be perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be modelling) is no reason for saying the scientists don't know what they are talking about. They do. And they are scared.

Mike


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

Digit":13avyqpo said:


> > of course it doesnt absolutely follow that man made climate change is a fact but by the time there is absolute proof it will be too late to avert.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Answered on tother thread


----------



## Argee (9 Jan 2010)

big soft moose":1sxtpsws said:


> of course it doesnt absolutely follow that man made climate change is a fact but by the time there is absolute proof it will be too late to avert.


Which assumes, *BSM*, that the_ "absolute proof" _will be that which *you *seek to prove. 

Nothing personal here, I assure you, but facts, to me, are either present or historic. I can't know of any "facts" in the future - I hear _predictions_, but they're not _facts_. 

BTW, I'm not a member of the Flat Earth Society and I'm aware enough to understand (most of) the well-known arguments, but a fact is *only *a fact when it's proved to be so. The vast majority of the current debate relies upon predictions being *accepted *as facts, but surely, by now, there are enough historical reasons for anyone to work out why this singular approach is flawed.

IOW, I may not *know *any of the answers, but I don't *claim *to. 

Ray


----------



## wobblycogs (9 Jan 2010)

I don't necessarily fully believe the models either but there are some pieces of data that are water tight. 

For example it would be damn near impossible to argue that there hasn't been a rise in CO2 levels. We have direct observation, tree rings, ice cores etc etc and all paint the same picture. The conclusion is that the rise has been caused by human activity which while hard to prove conclusively (isotope ratios could probably give some evidence) is pretty much a given unless someone can come up with a good reason why a natural process would suddenly start releaseing a lot of extra carbon. 

The conclusion that CO2 acts as a green house gas is also pretty indisputable, we can see on Venus and Mars what a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere does. Mars is very cold but still warmer than would otherwise be expected due to it's thin CO2 atmostphere. Venus has an atmostphere that is about a thick as earth and it's the hottest planet in the solar system. Plenty of lab studies also show CO2 acting as a green house gas.

Just combining those two pieces of evidence leads us to the conclusion that more CO2 means a generally warmer atmosphere. It's not a huge leap to therefore conclude that the weather will be more severe and that some or all of the frozen places on earth will melt. The models are trying to show us how GW affect us, in what order and over what time scale. 


As an aside and from a really geeky chemistry point of view we need to be really thankful that the CO2 is a linear molecule. If it was bent, like water, we would be totally stuffed as it would act as a much stronger green house gas. The shape also explains why methane is such a strong green house gas but fortunately for us methane doesn't last in the atmostphere for long.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

I have followed this debate for years jl and for every anti I can quote a pro, and for every pro I can quote an anti, so consensus? No! And I fear that the warmist's insistence on that does not help their case. I can even remember the Russian plans to melt the polar ice cap to prevent the 'forthcoming ice age' and the manner in which the idea was embraced with the same enthusuiasm as the current ideas. 
One speaker was denied a platform at Copenhagen because he disagreed with the accepted view, so he published anyway. He has been studying sea currents and Polar Bear pops for thirty years and claims that the warming of the arctic is due to changes in sea currents. a la present flow of the GS. 
Here's more contradictory views from Global reseach CA. I don't know if they are right or wrong, but as you point out, the models are flawed, as suggested here. 

_There is also admission by several intellectually honest climatologists that their predictive models are flawed. Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona, two very prominent climate modellers, recently admitted that the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (as in the fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow) are wrong. In a recent interview Russell said, “It's not ice melt, but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of man-made warming on polar ice melt.” Now that’s very interesting. 
_ 
_When professors Toggweiler and Russell reprogrammed their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator, then back towards it again, the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the recent Arctic warming. 

Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change "a drop in the bucket." His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to "stock up on fur coats." 

Kenneth Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased._

Roy.


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

Argee":1qb8nhhd said:


> Which assumes, *BSM*, that the_ "absolute proof" _will be that which *you *seek to prove.



Absolutely  - but if i'm wrong and anthropogenic climate change doesnt happen then very little harm will have been done, after all fossil fuels are a finite resource s we need to prepare to live without them eventually anyway 

but if those who deny it is happening are wrong the consequences will be catastrophic and by the time the "absolute proof" is available it would be too late to act 

of course no one can absolutely predic the future but we can balance probabilities and risks and take intelligent action based on the risk assement.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

> Absolutely Wink - but if i'm wrong and anthropogenic climate change doesnt happen then very little harm will have been done, after all fossil fuels are a finite resource s we need to prepare to live without them eventually anyway


 
Unless of course the alternative scenario proves to be correct and that an ice age is the next scene, when we might need every bit of CO2 we can conjure up. Even the Met's graph shows temps down every year since 96 

Roy.


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

Digit":hidj4y22 said:


> > Absolutely Wink - but if i'm wrong and anthropogenic climate change doesnt happen then very little harm will have been done, after all fossil fuels are a finite resource s we need to prepare to live without them eventually anyway
> 
> 
> 
> ...



in the unlikely event that that happens we will still have the fossil fuels to burn, in addition to the other forms of energy generation and better insulated houses etc developed in the mean time so its still a win win - tho in a full blown ice age we'll be screwed anyway.


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

BSM - correct they are a finite resource and at the moment we have no 'real' alternative for them. We should be preserving what we've got.

Mike, at least one lot of the scientists don't have a clue what is happening - either those in favour of the current 'consensus' or those against. You can't have it both ways - oh, ain't that exactly what I'm doing though.
Perhaps I'd be more accurate to say some scientists don't have a f'in clue what's happening or will happen. I don't pretend to know the answer, but what I do know is that data which includes a 'human' fudge factor ain't reliable data.

If you want to see weird data take a look at that link which was posted earlier. Take a close look at the graphs and you'll see something a bit odd. The zero point keeps moving. Now it could be that I simply don't understand what the graphs are showing - other than trends - but to my mind deltaMSL is the rate of change of sea level. The zero point cannot move. Is the data accurate ? it's supposed to be measured data - data measured in 2004 is still data measured in 2004 even if we're in 2010, the measurement hasn't changed and nor had the rate of change unless someone moved reference point.

I do believe something is happening. Whether we should try to do anything about it (even if we could) is another matter - I don't know whether we should or not.
If we don't do anything then conditions could be aweful in the future. But there will be a lot less people then (cos many many millions will have died) and then things will begin to improve again.
If we do do something then conditions could be a lot better in the future. But there will be that many people that life will be intolerable.

Which is the best outcome ? I don't know.


----------



## devonwoody (9 Jan 2010)

BSM 
I think we could put enough s. it up there these days to stop an ice age with our industrial capacity?


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

Digit":sjo733qc said:


> I have followed this debate for years jl and for every anti I can quote a pro, and for every pro I can quote an anti,Roy.



You've not followed it objectively though Roy. You have made up your mind then sought opinions that support your viewpoint. There is, in fact concensus. Concensus isn't unanimity, otherwise the implication would be that having just one person like you on the planet means there couldn't be concensus. The *fact* is that the concensus amongst climate scientists is that man-made climate change is reality. There is no longer any great 50/50 debate amongst scientists (that happened 20 to 30 years ago)......the nay-sayers are so small in number as to be negligible. Most of them have connections to oil companies.

The frustrating thing about dealing with anthropomorphic climate change deniers is that it is like talking to holocaust deniers. Whatever the evidence you will get a slippery non-answer and another spurious non-point raised.

You could all stop this immediately, and turn me from my views instantly, if you could explain to me how we could have a 50% increase in the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere *without* it making any difference to our climate.

_For those that want the figures, that is 275ppm pre industrial revolution, 400ppm now._

Mike


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

Digit":37j06011 said:


> Even the Met's graph shows temps down every year since 96 Roy.



Where for Roy? Our little corner of the planet? Do me a favour......go and do some reading. So what if we have had 10 cold years (which we haven't actually, but facts aren't important to you)? Utterly irrelevant. The important thing is what is happening to the temperature of the whole globe. Could you go and find out what has happened to global temperature numbers in the decade, and report back to us? Thanks Roy.

Mike


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":awlsh8kh said:


> BSM
> I think we could put enough s. it up there these days to stop an ice age with our industrial capacity?



we probably couldnt actually even if we burnt all the fossil fuel remaining but even if we could we would have to know 100% that the ice age was coming and that isnt what the majority of climate scientists think.

the point remains that taking measures to use less energy - e.g insulating houses properly in new builds and retro fitting to old builds will benefit us even if the climate does get colder - as will devising new or more efficient ways of generating energy

incidentally your above post appear to indicate that you do believe that our industrial out put is warming the planet - contrary to your earlier postings :duno:


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

Mike Garnham":ll9mo58p said:


> You could all stop this immediately, and turn me from my views instantly, if you could explain to me how we could have a 50% increase in the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere *without* it making any difference to our climate.
> 
> _For those that want the figures, that is 275ppm pre industrial revolution, 400ppm now._
> 
> Mike



my suspicion is that the denier answer is either that your figures are wrong (they arent but who cares about facts) or that the upswing in carbon is nothing to do with industrilisation but just a natural phenonema caused coincidence

the more radical ones will then go on to assasinate your character and suggest you are personally to blame for third world poverty

The other forum I (and roy) are a members of - www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk has had this debate so often (in fact they have a whole board dedicated to climate change) that ive more or less given up trying to convince deniers - its not possible , as someone said higher up its like an inteligent person having a debate with a scientologist


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

Erm how about weather is measured in years, climates in decades.
What has happened in one decade is almost irrelevant to an overall trend.

I do actually believe that things are warming - the question is why ? and are we actually to blame ?

Please don't start quoting the 275ppm pre-revolution and 400ppm co2 levels now at me, unless you're also going to quote the levels prior to that during the 1800's etc - wasn't it somewhere around 420ppm in the early 1800's and supposedly even higher than that way back.
Is our climate the same as it was in the early 1800's - I don't know. If the CO2 levels did indeed drop by 50% in during the 1800's then what were the effects felt then.

Personally, I think if anything it is the rate of increase that matters.

As I said, I believe something is happening.
Is it man made ? - I'm yet to be convinced.
Are we helping it along ? - probably.
Should we attempt to do anything about it ? - I don't think it really matters either way, the earth will live on for a while yet and mankind will either adapt or wither away.

Should we continue burning fossil fuels at the rate that we currently are ? No I don't believe we should. They are a finite resource and I'm far from convinced that we'll have a viable alternative before they run out.

As for the nay-sayers being allied with the oil companies, that may be so but equally the others are allied with the governments. Politics and science don't mix well, but scientists have to be funded from somewhere.

Please don't compare climate change discussions with the holocaust. The holocaust happened, climate change is happening - note the difference in tense. 


Why are we even discussing this ????????
To my mind there is only one reason that this is even up for discussion. That is that the majority of climate scientists are government funded and many people have a great mistrust in anything the governments do - quite rightly imho - so they dubt what is being said by bodies they are funding.
Also climate science (in the terms that know it) is a young science and the outcomes do change over the years - we're not talking about over 100's of years we're talking about changes in position over 10's of years. So some people can actually remember when the talk was of other extremes. I think there is a lot that the various scientists aren't telling us - why, perhaps they've been told by whoever is paying the bill not to tell ? - there are plenty of things out there for which there simply aren't any answers being given ?
It could well be that it is just because it is a 'new' science and they just don't know the answers yet. But the suspicion is that someone isn't telling the whole story - and I believe that suspicion is due to them being government funded. I'm convinced that if politicians and governments weren't involved then the scepticism would be way way less.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

> You've not followed it objectively though Roy. You have made up your mind then sought opinions that support your viewpoint.



That is not so!
I have made up my mind that there is more to it than simply CO2 levels, that it is more complex than that.
I will accept your challenge, with an open mind as I do not claim to know the answer, and give you a challenge in return.
Show me a single post where I have denied global climate change as a personal belief!

Roy.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

Right Mike, I had to look this one up because it was not on my personal data base as i was not looking for anything I had made may mind up on as you suggested.
My data base contains pros and cons, as I pointed out earlier.

http://www.thisobserver.co.uk/2009/07/w ... falls.html

Are you accepting my challenge?

Roy.


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

Roy, I believe you're correct in that there is a lot more to it than just CO2.
I've made my mind up that there is enough data to support 'something is happening' - Things are changing, but in what direction and with what consequence I am far from convinced.
I think the data supports that at the moment things are warming - should we be attempting to change that ?
Are we actually to blame ? or are we merely inconsequential ? I don't pretend to know the answer to that.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter a monkeys what we do or don't do. Humans will either adapt or won't - either way mother Earth doesn't really care.
Humans do believe that they have the ability to change the outcome - whether we do or not I don't know, but if we don't try we'll never know. I'm just not convinced that we should even try.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

> I've made my mind up that there is enough data to support 'something is happening'


 
Despite Mike's comments that is exactly my stance, and the reason my data base contains pros and cons is so that I can study various opinions, and the fact that there are various opinions infers that no consencus exists. 
I'm 70 this year and I don't need the Met the CRU or the IPPC to tell me that the climate has changed. 
But I still doubt that we can blame it on just CO2. 

Roy.


----------



## big soft moose (9 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":12ocm42x said:


> In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter a monkeys what we do or don't do. Humans will either adapt or won't - either way mother Earth doesn't really care.
> Humans do believe that they have the ability to change the outcome - whether we do or not I don't know, but if we don't try we'll never know. I'm just not convinced that we should even try.



from, the point of view of the welfare of the planet as a whole you are right - and the demise of humankind might not be a bad thing in that context

but from the point of view of the welfare of our children and grand children it makes sense to take action now. If you are right then they wont be any worse off, if the deniers are right they wont be any worse off but if both the deniers and people who believe it is "all natural" are wrong then future generations will be significantly worse off if we dont act now.

You are irrefutably right on one point though - it isnt all about CO2 - there is also Methane (CH4) which is 20 times as potent a climate change gas as co2 - there is loads of CH4 locked up in tundra permafrost and if the climate warms it will be released creating a runaway positive feedback effect - which is why we need to act before we get to that point.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

Digit":dz02fuwt said:


> > Show me a single post where I have denied global climate change as a personal belief!Roy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are right Roy!! Hooray, something we can agree on! 
Global temperature depends on two main factors.........the amount of energy we receive from the sun, and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. If insolation levels were increasing rapidly we could blame climate change on that........but whilst the insolation trend is upwards over millenia it is relatively stable and predictable now. When the solar contribution to our global temperature is stable, the global temperature will be entirely dependant on variations in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is the circumstance we are now in, and why it is so important to get a grip of our emissions. 

Mike


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

I'm not convinced that 'in the long term' they will be worse off.
Populations are growing at an unsustainable rate. In the past populations (not by design) were pretty well controlled by wars and diseases, nowadays major wars are unthinkable and there aren't that many disease wiping out masses of people. Perhaps this is mother Earth's way of saying if you won't control your population then I will.
Whether it is good for the planet or not, we should be doing something about the rate that we are using up fossil fuels - it is unsustainable and that in itself is reason enough to do something.

I don't really think that humankind will become extinct. We have (more than any other species) the ability to adapt to our environment and that alone could see us through whatever comes along.

As I read more and more information about climate change, I find myself having more questions than answers which at times makes me think why am I reading about this, why not just sit back in blissful ignorance and believe whatever I'm told ? - I put it down to the fact that I believe less than half of what I read in the papers (or hear on TV) is actually true.
I still find it amazing how little we actually understand about the world we live on - how much we 'think' we know and how much we don't know.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

Mike. I have repeatedly stated that for every pro I could offer a con, and vice versa, as the majority of posts have been pro I have, in line with that statement, offerred the con.
If you care to argue con I will offer pro! simply to demonstrate that there is no consencus, if there were I would not be able to quote 'experts' putting that view.
I have repeatedly stated, have I not, that I do not know the answers. neither do I claim know them?
I will repeat again, my data base contains elements of both views so that I can getter a better idea as to the arguments.
Do you read anti views BTW?

Roy.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

I don't read "views", Roy. 

I studied this at University 35 years ago, and have continued to do so ever since mainly by reading science-based journals & magazines. The raw science is now too complicated for even someone educated in the science, like me, so I follow the latest research and findings in journals such as Nature and the New Scientist, amongst others. Here the raw science is explained.

What I am sick and tired of is the rehashing of the idea that there is no scientific concensus on this subject, when there clearly is. Show me articles in peer reviewed journals that say man-made climate change is not occurring. You can't find more than the occasional paper questioning a small corner of the evidence, because the evidence is overwhelming. Utterly overwhelming. But some people deny the holocaust ever happened even when shown Nazi records of the gassings and photos of the bodies.

Mike


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":2wjqei3e said:


> Why are we even discussing this ????????
> To my mind there is only one reason that this is even up for discussion. That is that the majority of climate scientists are government funded and many people have a great mistrust in anything the governments do - quite rightly imho - so they dubt what is being said by bodies they are funding.



What this ignores, Jon, is that governments are latecomers to the party. It took two decades of pleading from scientists and pressure groups before they would even start talking about climate change. Two decades. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, amongst others, were talking of climate change in the 70's............only to be constantly derided by governments. This is not, not, not a government conspiracy. The tardy response of these leaden footed latecomers is the reason that this situation has actually now become an emergency.

I doubt that most of the climate scientists are directly funded by government. Do you know any figures on this? I do know that most of the scientists trying (successfully) to hold up climate negotiations over the last decade have been financed by oil companies.

Mike


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

Digit":8aveaem5 said:


> If you care to argue con I will offer pro! simply to demonstrate that there is no consencus, if there were I would not be able to quote 'experts' putting that view. Roy.



Roy, 

please show me where you have quoted experts. I don't believe that in any of your postings on this subject over the years you have ever posted anything quoting from an article in a peer reviewed journal......but do please feel free to prove me wrong.

Mike


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of science (of any flavour) that because there are pro- and anti- views ther is not a consensus, or that in some way the debate is between two equally valid arguments. It just isn't so.
Science does not proceed like that. The best available position (usually called a 'theory' although that term has been bastardised by nay sayers to apparently indicate uncertainty) is based upon the quality and quantity of evidence. In the case of apg both are in favour of climate change being due, in large part, to human action. That is the best evidence and the bulk of the evidence supports that position.

But we see doubt sown by a few people who claim that the evidence is weaker than it really is. See the Daily Express last week - or the Daily Mail, which actually claimed that 'global warming' (it doesn't call it climate change) can't possibly be happening because we are having a 2-week cold spell.

You can't formulate an opinion on this based on 'my view' or 'I think' unless you have reached your view by a close and careful study of the evidence, as Mike says. Intuition doesn't help here. It's complex and not easy, it requires study, not the Daily Mail.


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

Fair comment Mike, but I would point out that Einstein was turned down by the peer reviewing set up, didn't make him wrong though.
Not being able to afford those papers any longer I have to rely on second hand accounts. Is it your view that all such accounts are wrong? 

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

Giles Coren (from today's Times):

_"Nobody who understands the science is claiming that global warming (if it happens) is going to make Britain hotter in the long run. You hear me? Nobody is saying that, not the bleeding-heartedest, most climate-credulous ladyboy Yakult drinker in Islington. It will do the opposite. Global warming will in the end interfere with the ocean currents, knock out the Gulf Stream and remove the protection we have from the icy Nordic weather that is our due, as sharers of the same latitude as Siberia. Britain will get colder. So the joke about the weather just isn't there._

He goes on...

_Every bloody spring it's the same. As soon as there's a nice sunny day the climate-sceptic jokemeisters say "If this is global warming, then bring it on!" Ha ha ha. Idiots! Don't you get it? Those sunny days are because Britain is protected by the Gulf Stream, thanks to a finely balanced climatic status quo that will change if, as some people believe will happen, world temperatures rise by a couple of degrees over the next few years. Can you get it into your thick skulls? If global warming turns out to be true, Britain's weather will go bonkers.....Weather might be like this more often; not less. Those unseasonably sunny early springs are exactly what there will be fewer of, not more. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?_

Nicely done, Giles. And his sister's doing OK in the poker in the Caribbean.


----------



## jlawrence (9 Jan 2010)

So what would we have been doing way back in the 70's then had the government got involved. Would we have been trying to warm the planet ? since the consensus then was supposedly global cooling.

I'm sure I'm not the only one around who simply doesn't trust the people giving us the information.
I also don't trust the peer review process one iota. It is a flawed process which is way too easily manipulated.

So what is a layman like me supposed to do.
1) I don't trust the people giving out the information. If it were an open and shut case then it would be placed in the public domain - it ain't, likely because whoever is paying for the research doesn't want it in the public domain for whatever reason. I can actually think of very good reasons why it should be public - people simply won't understand and would easily misinterpret what it means. I can easily draw other conclusions as other probably do.
2) I don't trust the scientists preparing the information - they are relying on a flawed system to review the actual data and conclusions.
3) I don't have the wit to actually understand the data and draw my own conclusions (even if I could get access to the data) - as you've already said Mike the science is now beyond someone who initially studied this area.

So at the end of the day I'll do my little bit for the reasons I can understand and if that's not enough then tough.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

Digit":702tcehg said:


> Fair comment Mike, but I would point out that Einstein was turned down by the peer reviewing set up


Really? Source for this, please?




Digit":702tcehg said:


> Not being able to afford those papers any longer I have to rely on second hand accounts. Is it your view that all such accounts are wrong?


No

Mike


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

> So what is a layman like me supposed to do.



See my post above. The vast majority of us, if we are honest, are in that boat.

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (9 Jan 2010)

> I also don't trust the peer review process one iota. It is a flawed process which is way too easily manipulated.



How? And any evidence?


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

There's quite a few reports on it if you Google Mike. So which second hand reports would you suggest. Pro I already read Moonbat and anti I read Booker amongst others, and two more opposing views you would have difficulty finding I think. 
Plus BBC Science and anything else, pro and anti that I can find.

Roy.


----------



## MikeG. (9 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":2jkhvwzo said:


> So what would we have been doing way back in the 70's then had the government got involved. Would we have been trying to warm the planet ? since the consensus then was supposedly global cooling.
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only one around who simply doesn't trust the people giving us the information.
> I also don't trust the peer review process one iota. It is a flawed process which is way too easily manipulated..



There was no concensus on cooling in the 70's...........see Smudgers/ Giles Coren above. Climate change was first recognised on any sort of scale in the 70's, and, before any real work on it was done, various ideas as to what it might lead to were put forward.......including the idea of a new ice age, and of diversion or destruction of the Gulf Stream. Scientists have now had 30 or 40 years to put some flesh on those bones.

Can you justify claiming that the manipulating peer review system is easy? You know that they (the reviewers) check that the experimental methodologies are correct, and that the conclusions reached as a result of the research are compatible with what is in the research.........they don't manipulate anything. What is wrong with that?

If you don't trust what anybody at all says, but only rely on what you can see for yourself, are you sure that whales exist, or that Papua New Guinea exists?

Mike


----------



## Digit (9 Jan 2010)

I've got a bloody virus, Mike is that you sabotaging me? :lol: 
Everything I Google is coming up as an ad for primark!

Roy.


----------



## Peter T (9 Jan 2010)

Why do eco-mentalists insist on comparing the sensible majority of people who don't believe in man-made climate change to Holocaust deniers?

Are they so insecure that they have to use these riduculous sledge-hammer tactics whenever anyone sugests that they may be wrong and that the blessed MMCC mantra is nothing more than hysteria and the wet dreams of schyster politicians and the IPCC et al?


----------



## Kalimna (10 Jan 2010)

Possibly the comparison is made because there is a considerable similarity between the two groups of climate change deniers and holocaust deniers. Something along the lines of disagreeing with a wealth of independently verifiable *evidence* (i.e. not mere supposition or gut feeling or personal experience) that supports a view contrary to their own.

Notwithstanding the comparison between this discussion and that of scientology, I offer up a further analogy to that between the creationists and those who understand the significance of evidence and consider Darwins theory of evolution an accurate explanation. There are pro/con arguments for both sides, however one 'pro' argument does not necessarily have the same weight as one 'con' argument. This is a basic misunderstanding of scientific process, as to the layman, all points of argument may be considered equal. This is patently not the case, and several authors more eloquent and knowledgeable than I have argued this point clearly and easily.

To all those who accept a mass of evidence (and I include mathematical models, which though less than 100% accurate is still good evidence, and a discussion of modelling physical processes is a whole different discussion), then accelerated climatic warming is happening. It is not a result of solar flares, coming out of an ice age or planetary shift towards Venus. It is, in fact linked to the recent rise in CO2, this rise being caused primarily by increased CO2 output and reduced absorption. I am not a geophysicist or climatologist, so cannot present the exact theory behind this. I do, however, pay attention to those who are.

As a parting shot, not accepting that the peer review process is a generally sound means of deriving the truth to the best of our (i.e. human) knowledge is rather dumb. It is akin to saying that you (or the particular bit of the conspiracy theory prone/alarmist/reactionary etc media you pay attention to) know more about a topic than a bunch of experts who attain their position by collecting evidence, analysing it and reaching a conclusion through experience and learning. 


You might as well try and argue on this forum that end grain glues well with a PrittStick, because you read it in The Daily Mail.

Thats all I have to say, and my brain hurts.

Adam


----------



## MikeG. (10 Jan 2010)

Peter T":2rndon7p said:


> sensible majority of people who don't believe in man-made climate change



Not worth commenting on the rest of your drivel, but you have put "belief" and "sensible" in the same sentence. It is clearly not sensisible to believe, because belief is about holding a position without supporting evidence.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence now. The science is clear and well established........you don't like the message, (or the messengers, more likely), so you just say "I don't believe you".

Mike


----------



## Peter T (10 Jan 2010)

Mike Garnham":2ukn7z71 said:


> Peter T":2ukn7z71 said:
> 
> 
> > sensible majority of people who don't believe in man-made climate change
> ...


 
Suits me! I'm not sure I could cope with being referred to as a Holocaust denier AND a Daily Mail reader twice in one day. 

So, the science is done, the data has been "manipulated", and the results are exactly as we predicted they would be..............and if that doesn't convince anyone we can always resort to semantics.


----------



## MikeG. (10 Jan 2010)

Peter T":3lx6jskh said:


> I'm not sure I could cope with being referred to as a Holocaust denier AND a Daily Mail reader twice in one day.



I didn't do that, and I wouldn't because I have no evidence. Evidence. You struggle with the concept of evidence, and you clearly also struggle with the concept of analogy.



Peter T":3lx6jskh said:


> So, the science is done, the data has been "manipulated", and the results are exactly as we predicted they would be..............and if that doesn't convince anyone we can always resort to semantics.



But you don't struggle with the idea of sarcasm. The science isn't done......because science never is "done". No data has been manipulated. The problem scientists face is that there are some fools on this planet who won't accept anything they say, whatever the evidence, and so some are tempted occasionally to present results in the strongest possible way. This does not, does not, does not mean that any data has been changed or manipulated.

Mike


----------



## jlawrence (10 Jan 2010)

A quick search on google will show flaws in the peer review process. Although it may be a flawed system it is the only one they've got - in that way it's better than nothing.
To be fair the only reports I've ever read about manipulation or falsifying of evidence always seem to relate to the medical field - hmmm, any surprise there with the monstrous sums of money involved.
The peer review process doesn't show that the paper presented shows the 'truth' but rather that it shows a correct conclusion following acceptable methodology from the dataset used. I would assume that the reviewer/s also check that the dataset is accurate - how the heck they can do that I don't know.

Would a reviewer say yes to a paper which came to a differing conclusion to that which they understood to be accurate - I don't know, but I would hope they would.

Why is there no peer review papers giving opposing views (I'll have to take Mike's word that there isn't). Given a data set I've never heard of only one conclusion being drawn - if that were the case then it would become a fact that xyz was happening surely.

The main problem with this climate change debate (imho) is that phrase 'global warming' and the reporting (by the main stream press) that it is down to CO2. People look (if they can be bothered) at data that is openly available which clearly shows that CO2 levels aren't higher than they have been in the past. This isn't something rarely (if ever) reported in the general media. It could well be that the scientist explain this in their various papers - how would we know as we don't see the papers and may well not understand them if we did. I actually think that is a likely scenario, no scientist would look at a data set and draw xyz conclusions without looking to see whether previous records and data support those conclusions. Where they find anomalies I would expect that they would look into them and give reasoned explanations as to why they exist.
The press are alarmist - always have been and always will be because that's what sells papers etc. They don't report on half of what is said at these various conferences and so we rarely (if ever) get the full picture.

I find it stunning (and next to impossible to believe) that the scientists are saying that *climate change* is *man made*. That statement just beggars belief - are they therefore saying that without our influence the climate has been stable all these years. Blatantly this isn't the case.
Again, I believe this is down to misreporting. Various bodies let it carry on because it suits them - they know something needs to be done and it won't be done unless everyone is alarmed enough to make something happen.
My personal belief is:
The global climate does run in cycles. The cycles in the past have been changed by various things - volcano's etc - with horrendous consequences. This time we are altering the cycle and again the consequences are likely to be bad.
The various computer models are attempting to predict what those consequences might be and when. Despite my problem with the models, and the fudge factors involved, that doesn't change my belief that something is happening which is out of the 'normal' cycle and we (mankind) are the one's causing the change to the cycle. Note I'm not saying I believe we're causing climate change but that we're causing a change to the climate cycles - the two are not the same.

What annoys me in this whole debate is that we are being told something which is demonstrably untrue - that global climate change is man made. We are relying on the media to actually report on what is being said - I fail to believe that they are accurately reporting what is being said. If they are accurately reporting things then the various scientific bodies involved are deliberately muddying the waters by using alarmist phrases which aren't true. I don't believe that the actual scientists involved in the research are using the phrase 'man made'.

You'll notice that I'm using the phrase 'I believe' a lot. I see no other way - I don't know the facts involved, just what is reported on websites and in the press. The IPCC (which seems to be what everyone likes reporting) is an intergovernmental body and as such is very politicised and we've all seen reported recently exactly what happens to a scientist who disagrees with his political masters. I'm not for one minute suggesting that things would be any different if it were private industry which setup the body. I doubt that it would be different at all - they would still only report the conclusions in the way that they wanted them presented.


----------



## devonwoody (10 Jan 2010)

Thank you JL. for a balanced reply without any insults thrown at anyone.


----------



## big soft moose (10 Jan 2010)

Peter T":3cs4gu00 said:


> Why do eco-mentalists insist on comparing the sensible majority of people who don't believe in man-made climate change to Holocaust deniers?
> 
> Are they so insecure that they have to use these riduculous sledge-hammer tactics whenever anyone sugests that they may be wrong and that the blessed MMCC mantra is nothing more than hysteria and the wet dreams of schyster politicians and the IPCC et al?



there actually isnt a "sensible majority who dont believe in man made climate change" there is a very small, but vocal minority - largely funded by the american far right and the oilo companies and a larger number of credulous fools who believe what they read on the websites the deniers set up.

The reason mike compares them to the holocaust deniers is because the thought process is the same - however much evidence is presented that they are wrong they just keep on insisting on denying that something happened/is happening

and also like those who deny the holocaust when they cant persuade they rersort to posts like yours which substitute rhetoric for reasoned argument and bring little or nothing to the debate


----------



## big soft moose (10 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":3rs8l65c said:


> I find it stunning (and next to impossible to believe) that the scientists are saying that *climate change* is *man made*. That statement just beggars belief - are they therefore saying that without our influence the climate has been stable all these years. Blatantly this isn't the case.
> 
> .



the thing is that what you are saying here is the fundamental misunderstanding of what the scientists are saying. No reasonable person is going to deny that the climate does alter naturally from time to time when there are millenias of evidence that it does.

what the IPCC etc are saying is that by releasing a lot of sequestered carbon in a comparitively short period of time we are* accelerating *the process, and if we get to the point where this anthropogenic release causes the permafrost to melt we will see a runaway feedback reaction as CH4 is released from the tundra. 

this ch4 release and its effect on the climate will technically be a natural process but we will have caused it to happen. Of course this will not be the end of the planet or of life on earth because species will evolve to deal with the altered climate, and eventually (in several millenia) natural processes will resequster the carbon and cause the planet to cool again - however it is distinctly doubtful that the human species will survive the climatic change or if we do it will not be as a comfortable industrialised society that we have today.


----------



## big soft moose (10 Jan 2010)

with regard to the scientific papers and the peer review process I know a fair bit about this because my sister is a researcher working (broadly) in this feild ( incidentally she's a research fellow on an independent fellowship funded neither by the government or the oil companies - as indeed many scientists are)

her research centres on the analysis of lipid traces in stalactites and what these can tell us about the overlying vegetation and thus the climatic past (because knowing more about past helps with modelling the future)

The bottom line is that most papers are extremly technical and have very specific conclusions which taken individually could probably be interpreted in either pro or anti especially to those who dont understand the technical science. Therefore it is not entirely accurate to say that there are no peer reviewed paper that support the anti argument. No one paper is going to deal with climate change in toto because that is a huge topic not suited to one researcher or even research group (hence the existence of the ipcc)

I suspect what mike meant was that you will not find any papers by the rabidly anti lobby (or for that matter the rabidly pro) surviving the peer review process or being published in credible journals because scientific papers deal in facts, evidence and analysis - not in opinion and rhetoric that have no evidential support.


----------



## Smudger (10 Jan 2010)

JL - Could you sum up the flaws which make the peer-review process so unreliable? Rather than say 'google it' - which is a bit insultingly dismissive. After all, it is a claim _you_ made. If you can't back it up...


----------



## jlawrence (10 Jan 2010)

Firstly define a peer - someone involved in a the same research ? someone in the same field ? or what ?
Now having defined what you class as a peer, now define what you refer to as peer reviewed ? Is it just read by one peer, 2, 3, 4 ,5 or what ? Is it just read by whoever the Editor of the journal decides to send it to ? What level do they review the information to - do they look deeply into the actual research - or just at the paper presented (I suspect the later).
Is a paper only classed as peer reviewed as and when it gets published ?

For an example of what one editor thought of the process take a read of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

At the end of the day a scientific journal is in some ways very similar to any other magazine in that the Editor decides what goes in it - he/she also decides on what he/she will send for peer review and who he/she will send to, and once back from review he/she can still decide not to publish it.


----------



## Smudger (10 Jan 2010)

You found one paper.

Back to looking at the _balance_ of evidence, not cherry picking...


----------



## big soft moose (10 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":11qb9jnf said:


> At the end of the day a scientific journal is in some ways very similar to any other magazine in that the Editor decides what goes in it - he/she also decides on what he/she will send for peer review and who he/she will send to, and once back from review he/she can still decide not to publish it.



thats not technically true - most academic papers are sent for peer review prior to publication by the university or research group concerned- they go to a number of researchers in the same or similar feilds (similar because if you are in a very small feild you may be the only group researching it) - for example my sister who used to be a cambridge (now at the OU) has been part of the peer review process for papers from newcastle, birmingham and UCL.

It is in the universities interest for such review to be rigourous as submitting something with little scientific validity doesnt do a lot for the credibility of the whole institution (vis that muppet who claimed to have performed cold fusion but no one could replicate it and it turned out that the helium ions were from his glassware cleaning process).

Once the peer review is complete and suggested changes have been made (or declined to be made in some cases) the paper is then submitted for publication along with a note that it has been peer reviewed by x, y, and z - at that point the editor may choose to simply print it (if you are an established and credible research group), to contact the peer reviewers to discuss the paper further (this tends to happen if you havent adopted suggested changes as the editor will want to know why not), or he may choose to send it for further review ( if your research is particularly cutting edge or difficult for him to believe in , or if you (stupidly - like cold fusion man) are submitting a paper which has not been peer reviewed) 

no credible journal is going to choose to publish a paper that has not been subject to any review - for the same reason, that their credibility as a scientific journal is at stake - they might however choose to publish soimething with which no reviewer agrees if its particularly cutting edge - but they will say so on a footnote

likewise when publishing a paper that has been reviewed it will normally say somewhere in the footnotes who it has been reviewed by so that other academics can judge the credibility of the review by the reputation of the reviewer.

The only major problem in the review system is politics - If you are (hypothetically speaking) a researcher at birmingham and your research group leader doesnt get on with say the equivalent hypthetical group at bristol but your paper is sent to bristol for review it is possible that it might be unfairly slated for personal resons. However this is why most papers are sent to two or three different groups for review.

the other, more minor , problem occurs as i mentioned above if you are so cutting edge that you are the only group researching a particular topic and you have problems finding someone whos research is similar enough to yours for them to understand and review your research.


----------



## jlawrence (10 Jan 2010)

Smudger":1kdxowxt said:


> You found one paper.
> 
> Back to looking at the _balance_ of evidence, not cherry picking...



Smudger, how about you go take a look in google. I'm not putting up a list of urls for you.

You'll also probably find that there aren't that many editors who are willing to comment at all.


----------



## big soft moose (10 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":32oo7sr4 said:


> Smudger":32oo7sr4 said:
> 
> 
> > You found one paper.
> ...



you'll also find editors with an axe to grind with the review process because they think they no better than the reviewers and reseachers who are annoyed that they're reviewer told them that they were talking out of their fundamental orifice

perhaps the reason mnost editors have know comment to make is because they are happy with the process.

google is great for most things but on topics like this (as with climate change) the trouble comes in picking the hits that kniow what they are talking about frm those that dont.


----------



## Smudger (10 Jan 2010)

jlawrence":26w32au4 said:


> Smudger":26w32au4 said:
> 
> 
> > You found one paper.
> ...




You aren't getting this.
If you make a statement you are expected to be able to back it up, not tell people to Google it. In any sensible discussion, that means you have lost.
'Probably' find 'not many' editors - hardly compelling.


----------



## devonwoody (11 Jan 2010)

Blimey, I didn't know there are such things going on.

I still didn't get my thread intentions aired but still the thread did give me and others by post and viewing numbers a lot of interest.

Please tell me I am not a Troll


----------



## Peter T (11 Jan 2010)

devonwoody":2iiznqde said:


> Blimey, I didn't know there are such things going on.
> 
> I still didn't get my thread intentions aired but still the thread did give me and others by post and viewing numbers a lot of interest.
> 
> Please tell me I am not a Troll



You're not a Troll


----------



## Digit (31 Jan 2010)

I have repeatedly tried to steer a middle line on this, specifically arguing about 'lousy science' etc and have stated in the past that if I found an article that fitted that category from the 'other' side I'd post it. 
From today's Telegraph. 

_Experts claim that the loss of ice climbs is a poor indicator of reduction in mountain ice, as climbers can knock down or damage ice formations with their ice axes and crampons!_ 

I'd say that was a pretty good example!

Roy.


----------



## mr grimsdale (31 Jan 2010)

Ooh climate change!

Nowadays I try to avoid getting drawn in as the debate is always completely dominated by the 'sceptics'.
It's like trying to talk about geography but having to argue with flat-earthers every time, before you can even begin to talk about the interesting stuff.
I've spent many hours trying to talk about it on chat groups, in pubs and other places, but a complete waste of time because of the nay sayers.
Even our local 'Environment Group' can't talk about it because it is supposed to be hypothetical and a sinister plot by the green lobby - so they stick to talking about windfarms and eco light bulbs.
I'm not sure what it will take to get the prats to pull their heads out of the sand, but it will probably be too late.
A massive world wide filibuster by the massed idiots of the world.


----------



## Peter T (31 Jan 2010)

mr grimsdale":3ua6qvjk said:


> Ooh climate change!
> 
> Nowadays I try to avoid getting drawn in as the debate is always completely dominated by the 'sceptics'.
> It's like trying to talk about geography but having to argue with flat-earthers every time, before you can even begin to talk about the interesting stuff.
> ...


 
Oh my, that stupid boy Miliband has "Declared war" on climate change sceptics and now Mr Grimsdale appears to be gearing up for a full fronted confrontation..............................it must be true :shock:


----------



## Smudger (31 Jan 2010)

Why, or in what ways, is Milliband (I presume you mean Ed) 'stupid'? And why should he not argue his case, given that he is right?

He said


> "It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.


----------



## Peter T (1 Feb 2010)

Smudger":w4uec7pj said:


> Why, or in what ways, is Milliband (I presume you mean Ed) 'stupid'?



He's a NuLabor government minister; how else could he be described? 

I suppose worthless parasite also fits the bill.


----------



## MikeG. (1 Feb 2010)

Of course I am no moderator, but if this thread descends into politics then it is sure to be locked or nuked.......them's the rules! Why don't we stick to climate change?

Mike


----------



## Peter T (1 Feb 2010)

Mike Garnham":tqxo10g3 said:


> Of course I am no moderator, but if this thread descends into politics then it is sure to be locked or nuked.......them's the rules! Why don't we stick to climate change?
> 
> Mike



Roger Wilco


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2010)

http://www.theascendingpath.com/images/ice22.jpg

I reckon this guy's got a big job ahead of him! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## didge (23 Feb 2010)

Hi! First poster!

Check out this article for some very important reading!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-for-dummies.html

Regards,
D


----------



## mr grimsdale (23 Feb 2010)

didge":2nd2y3bd said:


> Hi! First poster!
> 
> Check out this article for some very important reading!
> 
> ...


Read it. Complete loony paranoid american nonsense.


----------



## devonwoody (23 Feb 2010)

Me, I'm not writing another word this time, dont need to after that lot. 

Anyway GW is going to stop, my fuel company want anothe 25% increase for next contract, and I see Jet petrol station are not giving petrol away 112p per ltr.


----------



## Argee (23 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":nsvprxnv said:


> Read it. Complete loony paranoid american nonsense.


Well, you can't beat that for useful, constructive, evidenced criticism. 

Ray


----------



## Digit (23 Feb 2010)

I thought it was a thoroughly reasoned series of comments! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (23 Feb 2010)

Hi. Digit I have sent you a pm has the forum system doesnt work anymore, Moderators please note. :wink:


----------



## cambournepete (23 Feb 2010)

Argee":1x2moxjm said:


> mr grimsdale":1x2moxjm said:
> 
> 
> > Read it. Complete loony paranoid american nonsense.
> ...


And all that tautology as well...


----------



## mr grimsdale (23 Feb 2010)

cambournepete":m6j03hbo said:


> Argee":m6j03hbo said:
> 
> 
> > mr grimsdale":m6j03hbo said:
> ...


Yes OK substitute "Completely paranoid american nonsense" if tautology worries you. 
Or does "b****x" say it better?
Who needs "evidenced criticism" when dealing with those whose only argument is to ignore evidence?


----------



## Peter T (23 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":37dl296p said:


> cambournepete":37dl296p said:
> 
> 
> > Argee":37dl296p said:
> ...



The evidence is that the ecomentalist brigade take the available data and "Manipulate" it until it fits their ecomentalist agenda. 

And if that fails, they simply make it up!!


----------



## Smudger (23 Feb 2010)

No it isn't - and if it is, you'd have some proof of that?


----------



## jlawrence (23 Feb 2010)

Mike Garnham":2q65xfo0 said:


> Of course I am no moderator, but if this thread descends into politics then it is sure to be locked or nuked.......them's the rules! Why don't we stick to climate change?



Actually Mike, isn't that a major part of the problem.
We, ie those who don't actually understand the science, have to rely on what we're told about Climate Change. Now we're only really told things by 2 groups of people - the media and the politicians. The media we simply can't trust as at least half of what they say simply ain't true - as evidenced by the number of retractions that they have to print, and the politicians we (I think in the main) simply don't trust as far as we could spit them.
Politics is very much tied into what we understand of CC. Although discussing politics is against forum rules, I don't think we're really discussing people's actual political beliefs - so that shouldn't be a problem.

I personally think that if it weren't for the political spin placed on the information we're getting on CC then there would likely be a lot less skeptics. Politicians (regardless of which party) always seem to have their own agenda, this isn't a dig at any political party, I think it's simply the way life is - whether it's right or wrong is quite another matter.

There's too much about the CC information that we're given that just happens to fit nicely with certain political agendas - I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I think it's just the info we're given is carefully screened. This in turn hints that there is info that isn't being reported on.

Mike, I for one would very happily sit down with you over a few beers to discuss CC - perhaps question you on it would be a better way of putting it. It would be a rare opportunity to actually ask questions of someone who understood some of the science and didn't have to rely totally on the info given out by the media/government and had the understanding to separate some of the BS from the real info.

I could be described as a skeptic. But only because a) I don't have the ability to understand the actual raw science, b) I don't trust the sources that are delivering the information to us (ie media/government). The way the IPCC put things across (or at least how it is reported to us) makes out that all scientists are behind their conclusions, something which I simply don't believe.

Mike, I really do believe it is rare (certainly the first time it's happened to me) to be able to discuss this subject with someone who does understand some of the raw info.

As I said earlier in the thread, I do believe (note the word believe) that Climate Change is happening. The questions really are: a) is it man made (or as I believe man accelerated), b) can we actually do anything about it, and c) if we can, should we.
Item c is the big deal imo. We have (again in my belief) an unsustainable population on this planet. So although life would be sh**ty for many generations, but for those that came afterwards would the planet actually be a better place if we were to allow mother nature to sort things out herself.


----------



## Smudger (23 Feb 2010)

I'm convinced that climate change is happening - you don't have to look hard to see the evidence.
I don't know if it will cause disaster - it seems likely for places like Bangladesh, even for us.
It would be a good idea to be more energy efficient anyway.
So we act now. Or we dont...

The politicisation of the issue is depressing. It has been led (in the UK) by those bastions of good sense and responsible reporting, the Mail and the Express. A large part of their readership has, for reasons that completely escape me, bought the story, so much that it is now a given of right-wing politics, so much that those of us who are convinced it exists are 'insulted' by being called Guardian readers, or that ever-witty 'Guardianistas' (which actually means something else). In a world where being liberal is seen as a character fault akin to kiddy-fiddling, where the deniers chuck insults everywhere, where the most awful bo**ocks is treated as 'scientific proof' - where do we go now?

Have you seen the film 'Idiocracy'?


----------



## big soft moose (23 Feb 2010)

Smudger":yyb50j0i said:


> In a world where being liberal is seen as a character fault akin to kiddy-fiddling, where the deniers chuck insults everywhere, where the most awful bo**ocks is treated as 'scientific proof' - where do we go now?



to houses that are a long way above sea level if we have any sense.

My feeling is if we cant stop it happening - and lets face it it doesnt seem likely while people want to be able to drive to the mailbox (and then wonder why they are getting obese)

the next best thing is to be ready, or as ready as we can be.

Its always the same problem with anything where precautions might impact on lifestyle - while a hazard is potential there are always those who will argue that its not a threat , once its actual even they are convinced but it is too late to avert the consequences of their inaction


----------



## RogerS (23 Feb 2010)

Smudger":3ssx2xln said:


> .....
> Have you seen the film 'Idiocracy'?



One of the most profoundly depressing films I've ever watched...although I have to admit that after the first half I couldn't face any more. Depressing not because it was a bad film but depressing in the context of where humans might be in 500 years time.


----------



## Smudger (23 Feb 2010)

> ecomentalist brigade


----------



## Peter T (23 Feb 2010)

Smudger":mauxg1bt said:


> > ecomentalist brigade



In denial.


----------



## big soft moose (23 Feb 2010)

However a denier is one that denys - therefore if you deny something is happening then you are a denier, QED

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and leaves duck poo everwhere, then its a duck ! and there is no point in calling it a beautiful swan to avoid hurting its feelings because at the end of the day it is still a duck.


----------



## Chris J (23 Feb 2010)

Seems to me that if people can't have a civilized discussion about this sort of thing there is no hope of taking things any further.

Just an observation


----------



## Mike.C (24 Feb 2010)

Chris J":1zbb0hno said:


> Seems to me that if people can't have a civilized discussion about this sort of thing there is no hope of taking things any further.
> 
> Just an observation



Chris that is certainly the truest comment in this whole thread.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Smudger (24 Feb 2010)

Why are my posts being deleted when the original post I objected to is just changed to a milder insult?


----------



## Kalimna (24 Feb 2010)

Hmmm, something similar happened to my posts, and as far as I could see, they werent inflammatory. Perhaps a little off topic, but still, and no explanation...


Adam S


----------



## Mike.C (24 Feb 2010)

Adam, the Mod removed all mention/reference of an inflammatory term, hence the reason mine was removed too.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Jason Pettitt (24 Feb 2010)

big soft moose":2le0fb3t said:


> if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and leaves duck poo everwhere, then its a duck ! and there is no point in calling it a beautiful swan to avoid hurting its feelings because at the end of the day it is still a duck.



Which, by happy circumstance, reminds me of the celebrated Dr Boli's noninflammatory article on 'The Duck.'


----------



## Kalimna (24 Feb 2010)

Mike - thanks for the explanation. I can understand perhaps why that decision was taken, but I think it's a bit of a shame, as it means an intelligent, educated discussion is extremely difficult.

There is a considerable difference between an inflammatory term and a term used in an inflammatory way. Given the reason for post removal, it would necessarily be impossible to discuss such things as Schindlers List or mid 20thcentury european politics. However, I shall not grumble.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## bugbear (24 Feb 2010)

didge":20mq89o3 said:


> Hi! First poster!
> 
> Check out this article for some very important reading!
> 
> ...



That's SHOCKING!

According to the stolen information:

* mathematicians use mathematical tricks

* some climate researchers believe in climate change, and argue their case

* not all data points the same way (but there is a massive preponderance)

If that's the best the skeptics could do with 10 years of nicked email to cherry pick, it's a little thin.

BugBear


----------



## Noel (24 Feb 2010)

Sorry folks, it's padlock time. One person repeatedly keeps referring to a term that was made clear earlier was not welcome here, especially out of context. That particular term was deleted / edited which for most is satisfactory, but obviously for some it's not enough.


----------

