# Filled up with diesel today



## Lons (26 Sep 2013)

Not what you think - my car is actually a diesel :wink: 

I was very happy (*not*) to hand over £70 in the knowledge that I'm not actually paying the highest prices in the world after all, (ONLY 4TH HIGHEST). Ahead of us are Turkey - £1.44, Italy - £1.47 and Norway - £1.50 per litre.
it was also re-assuring to note that at least 10 countries are paying between 1p and 20p (state subsidised)

Oh happy days (hammer) 

Bob


----------



## mailee (26 Sep 2013)

Yep, my lad has just returned from China...60p ltr! Our Government want shooting! :twisted:


----------



## Harbo (26 Sep 2013)

It's gone down 1p since I filled up last week!

Rod


----------



## MIGNAL (26 Sep 2013)

Why? I thought that the tax payer subsidised the average motorist. No?


----------



## Steve Maskery (26 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":2gymsddo said:


> Why? I thought that the tax payer subsidised the average motorist. No?


In what way? I was under the impression that the amount paid in road fund licences, excise and VAT on petrol greatly exceeds what is spend on roads. Am I mistaken?
S


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":2ci2ud9p said:


> Why? I thought that the tax payer subsidised the average motorist. No?



No.

The proportion of the price paid at the pumps by a motorist for fuel that goes to the government in tax is 58%; that's fuel duty, and then VAT on top. When you buy petrol and diesel, you are taxed on the tax you pay.


----------



## Lons (26 Sep 2013)

The whole point of my post really was that I well remember filling up before crossing the channel whereas now all the countries within reach - France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Portugal etc are now cheaper than us.
Fuel is fuel and only transport costs make the cost different - APART FROM THE TAX LEVIED.


----------



## fetteler (27 Sep 2013)

Well, it has nothing to do with anyone related to me returning from China but I have to agree 100 percent with Mailee's observation!

Cheers,
Steve.

Edit:
Having just read my own post, I think in the interests of fairness and all round honesty, I'd have to say that the same sentiment applies to the current opposition too - and to virtually all the rest of the folk in parliament


----------



## RogerS (27 Sep 2013)

Yebbut....if they reduced the tax on fuel, where would the money come from to fund things like hospitals etc?


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

It's too cheap by far. We are living in cloud cuckoo land with climate change well on the way - to which the only solution is to stop using fossil fuels altogether, though it is probably too late.
Boring though!
NB in real terms compared to the cost of other stuff running a vehicle is historically very cheap.


----------



## MIGNAL (27 Sep 2013)

Steve Maskery":1n6tklpc said:


> MIGNAL":1n6tklpc said:
> 
> 
> > Why? I thought that the tax payer subsidised the average motorist. No?
> ...



You are correct, until you factor in the indirect or hidden costs - things like Policing, cost of accidents etc. Then it's not so clear cut but difficult to calculate the true cost.


----------



## Peter T (27 Sep 2013)

The last time I saw any figures they showed that only about 10% of the revenue raised from motorists was spent on the road network.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1g1e7r5p said:


> It's too cheap by far. We are living in cloud cuckoo land with climate change well on the way - to which the only solution is to stop using fossil fuels altogether, though it is probably too late.



I'm going to agree with Jacob. Energy is grossly undervalued. We are currently satisfying our unsustainable demand by consuming the stored reserves of the past (fossil fuels) whilst borrowing from the future (in the form of deferred costs of nuclear decomissioning and long term waste storage). If you disagree, try making a piece of furniture, by human energy only, starting with a tree. Chainsaw fuel and electricity start to look good value quite quickly.


----------



## AndyT (27 Sep 2013)

A question for any industrial chemists who know more about processing crude oil than I can remember from O-level chemistry a long time ago:

We pump crude oil out of the ground, and there is a finite supply of it. Some we refine to make fuel, which we burn. (The cheaper it is, the more casually we burn it.)
Some of it we make into stuff. Pretty much all of the world's plastic is derived from crude oil, isn't it?

So as oil becomes harder to get, we will have to start to do without plastics, won't we? No plastics = no insulators = no electronics! Potentially a far more disruptive change than making transport expensive.

But is there a fixed mix of products that can be refined, or can we (through the market) choose to vary the proportion of crude that gets made into plastic / the proportion that gets burnt as fuel? 

If we can vary the proportions, doesn't it make sense to save as much precious oil as we can to make plastic out of (where there is no substitute) and only burn it as fuel where there is no alternative source of energy?


----------



## mseries (27 Sep 2013)

Steve Maskery":1wi1kp9l said:


> MIGNAL":1wi1kp9l said:
> 
> 
> > Why? I thought that the tax payer subsidised the average motorist. No?
> ...



Maybe more is levied from motorists than is spent on roads but the spenditure on the roads doesn't come just from motorists. VED goes into the central pool of money along with tax from other sources such as income tax, fuel tax which is paid generally by motorists and non motorists alike. This money is used for lots of things, roads it just one. We all pay for the roads, not just the people who drive on them. Perhaps subsidised isn't the right word.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

AndyT":2eb1svof said:


> ....
> So as oil becomes harder to get, we will have to start to do without plastics, won't we? No plastics = no insulators = no electronics! Potentially a far more disruptive change than making transport expensive.....


Only 2 or 3 hundred years ago and the world used virtually zero fossil fuel. Which doesn't mean we have to turn the clock back - more interesting to contemplate how we would take forward the technology we have, into a fossil fuel free future (or FFFF for short!).


----------



## mseries (27 Sep 2013)

AndyT":1cquikgk said:


> So as oil becomes harder to get, we will have to start to do without plastics, won't we? No plastics = no insulators = no electronics! Potentially a far more disruptive change than making transport expensive.



I think we'll get even better at recycling plastic and other things so we'll not do without it. In addition we will almost certainly create substitutes for plastic if we have to - IMO


----------



## Sheffield Tony (27 Sep 2013)

We may also need to scratch our heads over what to do with the ~1/3 of the worlds population that are sustained by food grown using nitrate fertiliser made using natural gas.


----------



## whiskywill (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":194x23lg said:


> Only 2 or 3 hundred years ago and the world used virtually zero fossil fuel.



What did they use? Wood? Burn all the trees and increase atmospheric CO2 levels. No wood, no woodwork, no UK Workshop forum. No Jacob.

Carry on using fossil fuels.


----------



## RogerS (27 Sep 2013)

whiskywill":31ju4iri said:


> Jacob":31ju4iri said:
> 
> 
> > Only 2 or 3 hundred years ago and the world used virtually zero fossil fuel.
> ...



Wot? Jacob's an old fossil?


----------



## Steve Maskery (27 Sep 2013)

Burning wood does not contribute to to CO2 levels in the same way that fossil fuels do. Wood is carbon neutral, overall, and inthe very short term. Fossil fuels are only carbon neutral over geological spans. The problem is that FFs were created over a period of millennia, during which time they were locking up carbon into the ground, but we are releasing that same CO2 into the atmosphere over a period of just a couple of centuries.
The problem with burning wood is not the CO2 issue, it's one of sustainable production. Replacing FF with wood would mean we would very soon run out of forests. We simply use more energy than we can grow. We need to learn how to live using less energy, something few of us really want to embrace in reality.
S


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Sep 2013)

This is worth a thought while we're on roads and fuel - two respected professors brought out a report a few years ago that said that use of road fuel in the UK would fall by an estimated 10% if all pointless obstructions such as pinch points and speed humps were removed and every road was maintained in perfect condition. That is one hell of a lot of fuel.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

whiskywill":2f7lrguz said:


> Jacob":2f7lrguz said:
> 
> 
> > Only 2 or 3 hundred years ago and the world used virtually zero fossil fuel.
> ...


Transport was by wind and animal power. Where wood was used for fuel (e.g. early iron industry) it tended to be conserved (coppicing, planting etc). The big timber users (navy) did the same and owned big areas of forest. As a rule people who find valuable uses for wood tend to conserve it.
Most forest clearance (then and now) is for farming - which brings you to one of the big boring issues - vegetarian diet requires about a tenth of the farmland. We should all go veggie :roll: .


----------



## AndyT (27 Sep 2013)

mseries":2y2nql92 said:


> AndyT":2y2nql92 said:
> 
> 
> > So as oil becomes harder to get, we will have to start to do without plastics, won't we? No plastics = no insulators = no electronics! Potentially a far more disruptive change than making transport expensive.
> ...



Do you have any suggestions on what raw material the subsitutes for plastic will be made out of? I wish I shared your optimism.


----------



## markturner (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2pswj2lw said:


> It's too cheap by far. We are living in cloud cuckoo land with climate change well on the way - to which the only solution is to stop using fossil fuels altogether, though it is probably too late.
> Boring though!
> NB in real terms compared to the cost of other stuff running a vehicle is historically very cheap.



That is such a simplistic and naive view...there are currently little or no _*Practical *_ alternatives to diesel and petrol engines. Putting up the price to levels where ordinary people cant afford it will have a seriously detrimental affect on the economy and normal peoples lives - think of the knock on effect on food prices and everything else that depends on fuel. It's like cigarette duty - has the massive price hikes stopped those who want to smoke buying and using? Of course not. Smoking is still a massive problem with the young and a sizeable segment of the population. It's not us in this country that are the problem with climate change , we at least are doing something about it - the problem is the huge swath of emerging economies like Brazil, India, and China that pay little or no regard to any attempts at limiting output or pollution or consumption. Sometime, pretty soon, the fossil fuels will run out and hopefully by then, we will have got some alternatives in place. Currently we don't.

And your idea of us all reverting to some kind of medieval subsistence existence is just laughable....maybe practical for a few people in the country, what about the 26 million people in London? :roll: #-o 

I know, lets plant over the roads and turn all the rich people out of their houses, and give them to the homeless while we are at it......

Plus, 200 years ago, there was a tiny fraction of the number of people in the world there is now and only us as a industrial nation - situation now simply cannot be compared to then.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (27 Sep 2013)

markturner":1m1qbs8h said:


> That is such a simplistic and naive view...there are currently little or no _*Practical *_ alternatives to diesel and petrol engines. Putting up the price to levels where ordinary people cant afford it will have a seriously detrimental affect on the economy and normal peoples lives


I would say it is not so much simplistic as _fundamental_. That peoples' lives might be worse without fossil fuels, and that the economy would suffer is of course right, but that does not change either the finite amount of reserves, or the impact on the environment of using them.



> It's not us in this country that are the problem with climate change , we at least are doing something about it - the problem is the huge swath of emerging economies like Brazil, India, and China that pay little or no regard to any attempts at limiting output or pollution or consumption


I disagree most vigorously. I am sure Chinese, Brazilians and Indians consume less per capita than we do. They do create a lot of pollution making the goods that WE consume though. We have contracted out our pollution to China along with the manufacturing.


----------



## Peter T (27 Sep 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/9867659/Why-the-world-isnt-running-out-of-oil.html


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

markturner":14cqh9m6 said:


> Jacob":14cqh9m6 said:
> 
> 
> > It's too cheap by far. We are living in cloud cuckoo land with climate change well on the way - to which the only solution is to stop using fossil fuels altogether, though it is probably too late.
> ...


 Not as much as the detrimental effects of climate change where life as we know it is likely to be radically changed


> .....not us in this country that are the problem with climate change , we at least are doing something about it - the problem is the huge swath of emerging economies like Brazil, India, and China that pay little or no regard to any attempts at limiting output or pollution or consumption.


Per capita its USA first, Europe (us) second, who are the worst consumers by far so anything we do is significant


> ...
> And your idea of us all reverting to some kind of medieval subsistence existence is just laughable.........


Not my idea. Where did you get that from? Read what I wrote. :roll: 
The point is - things are changing and it's up to us to decide whether to simply ignore it or attempt to do something.
Personally I don't think anything is likely to be done - we will find ourselves back in the middle ages whether we like it or not.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

Peter T":t7vqp8wu said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/9867659/Why-the-world-isnt-running-out-of-oil.html


Running out of oil isn't the issue. It's be a good thing if we did but it seems unlikely.


----------



## Peter T (27 Sep 2013)

So if the oil and gas is not going to run out, and man made climate change is discredited, what's the problem?


----------



## RogerS (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1zgep1rp said:


> Peter T":1zgep1rp said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/9867659/Why-the-world-isnt-running-out-of-oil.html
> ...



Jeez....I take you off Ignore to see what you're on about and what do I find...

*It's be a good thing if we did but it seems unlikely*

Christ, Jacob, you talk some bollo x from time to time but this statement? It is way off the end of the scale on the Bollockometer.....even for you. 

And you have the nerve to tell Markturner that you never said or implied "And your idea of us all reverting to some kind of medieval subsistence existence".


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans are responsible for climate change, is today's news, unless you read the Mail, Telegraph etc.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":103z98q2 said:


> IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans are responsible for climate change, is today's news, unless you read the Mail, Telegraph etc.



Question - how does the climate work? What drives it's natural changes?


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":vg00h941 said:


> Jacob":vg00h941 said:
> 
> 
> > IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans are responsible for climate change, is today's news, unless you read the Mail, Telegraph etc.
> ...


Good question. I suggest you start googling as the answer is long and complicated. The interesting bit is the physics of water and biosphere where life itself is part of the equation - it is both cause and effect.


----------



## kreed (27 Sep 2013)

Going back to the original point.....
I used to roam around three counties in my pursuit of wildlife to photograph. I pride myself that 99.9% of my printed work is local, something that everyone can see if they open their eyes.
However, as the cost of fuel went up so my mileage came down by creating a 'mountain to Mohammed' situation in my garden. I now do a quarter of the mileage I used to.
My point being, if you make it more restrictive, be more ingenius in your desire to achieve the end result.
I've listened to all the arguments but I'm convinced Joe Public is shafted one way or the other regardless.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":d54j3th7 said:


> Cheshirechappie":d54j3th7 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":d54j3th7 said:
> ...



Actually, the correct answer is, "I don't know".

There's a very simple reason for that - nobody knows. Not even the 'climate scientists'. 

How any governmental or scientific body can come up with statements like those of the IPCC, when they don't know how the climate works, is somewhat baffling. Every piece of 'evidence' they put forward has been (scientifically) demonstrated to be flawed. The computer models on which they place so much emphasis are highly complex, and contain so many assumptions and 'fiddle factors' (as they are known in engineering circles) that they can be made to reach any conclusion those running them care to reach. They predicted accelerated warming - we've had a decade and a half of global cooling.

The problem is the word 'belief' is used too much in the climate debate. 'Belief' should not enter into it. By all means formulate theory - such as the theory that carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increase will accelerate warming - but then test the theories objectively (that particular theory doesn't hold up - Antarctic ice core analysis has shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increases lag warming events, and have never immediately preceded them). That isn't happening - at least, not by the 'official' bodies. Their scientific credibility has not only been questioned, it's been fairly comprehensively demolished. However, careers, reputations and fortunes are at stake, so there's no backing down. Government funding of much climate science is dependent on proving 'man-made global warming' - so the scientists will please their paymasters, won't they? It's also very handy for some in several governments to have a useful tax-raising excuse - again, down to belief rather than demonstrable, unshakeable fact.

By the way - there's another theory. The planet's population is increasing, and they'll all have to eat. The increase in carbon dioxide concentration may even be a good thing - plants need it to grow. A commercial technique used in large glass-houses to vastly accelerate plant growth is to slightly increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the glasshouse (not so much as to be noticable to humans working in them); the same might help to increase plant growth globally. Is the theory correct? Haven't a clue - but it has been put forward as a serious scientific proposition. 

Until we have worked out how the climate works (which may take some time as it's clearly a very complex interaction of many factors), we can't say for sure what the climate will or won't do in the future. However, we know that it has changed constantly for several billion years, and will in all probability continue to do so. It's by no means proven that mankind's activities have a substantial modifying effect on natural climate change, despite what the IPCC might like us to 'believe'.


----------



## markturner (27 Sep 2013)

No one is denying we are responsible to a greater ( or lesser ) degree ( depending on your interpretation & undertstanding of the facts and figures ) for part of the climate changes on earth, which is cyclical and natural in itself. Of course we are, and we do need to do something about it, which as one of the worlds leading economies we are - witness the rafts of legislation on car manufacturers, industry, our housing stock, congestion charge etc etc......its a massive political hot potato. 

But countries like I mentioned DO NOT have any of these measures in place and are polluters on a massive scale. And we have not exported our problem - they imported themselves by undercutting our industries with cheap labour and unregulated industrial expansion, that incidentally was a big part of the decline of manufacturing industry in Britain, with all the attendant social issues that came with it. They are sucking up the worlds resources at a far higher rate than us, to fuel their own economic booms. We have played our part for sure, but when it became apparent what was happening, we at least did the right thing. People will argue that we have done enough of the right thing, but like everything else, that's a matter of opinion, not fact.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":32rko4pw said:


> IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans are responsible for climate change, is today's news, unless you read the Mail, Telegraph etc.



Jacob, you do not occupy the moral high ground just because you read left wing press. It was reported in the Mail, The Times, The Telegraph and probably everywhere else. Anyway, "Scientists are 95% certain" and "Scientist have proved" as any competent scientist will tell you, are not the same thing, whatever any of us do or don't believe.


----------



## graduate_owner (27 Sep 2013)

To come back to the original thread - the cost of road fuel:-
In 1968 I worked as a labourer while on holiday from college, and was paid 6/8 an hour. That's 3 hours work for £1. During that time 3 gallons of petrol cost £1. 
So 1 gallon was roughly equivalent to 1 hour's basic wages, today about £6.30
And today's cost per gallon of petrol at about £1.39 per litre - £6.25

So I reckon road fuel is about the same as it was 45 years ago. I think the comparative price must have dropped in the 90's and has now caught up. Of course it may outstrip the wage comparison once the recession is over and the world demand for crude increases, but at the moment it seems to be about on par with late 60's prices. BUT it does seem very expensive when you fill up - I can't argue with that.

I read a while ago that a number of car manufacturers are now diverting their research away from battery power - seems a shame, and a backward step.

K


----------



## Peter T (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2ofknzo0 said:


> IPCC report: Scientists are 95% certain humans are responsible for climate change, is today's news, unless you read the Mail, Telegraph etc.



More half truth and obfuscation from the IPCC. 

Hardly news!!


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

phil.p":z104kpdk said:


> ... "Scientists are 95% certain" and "Scientist have proved" as any competent scientist will tell you, are not the same thing, ...


Well spotted. 95% probability and absolute proof are not the same thing. The question is how do we react to (authoritative) estimates of 95% probability? Are you saying we should ignore it?
I'm interested to know how people come up with the conclusion that they know better then a large world team of experts in the field.


----------



## Peter T (27 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1fho5gs5 said:


> phil.p":1fho5gs5 said:
> 
> 
> > ... "Scientists are 95% certain" and "Scientist have proved" as any competent scientist will tell you, are not the same thing, ...
> ...



"a large world team of experts in the field" - with a huge vested interested in the answer being what they say it is, or claim to be 95% sure it is!


----------



## MIGNAL (27 Sep 2013)

Scientists with vested interests haven't done too bad. You know - the internal combustion engine, the washing machine, the computer, all manner of heating systems, life support . . . . I could go on. Pretty much everything that makes life a bit more pleasant and comfortable. You can kind of go with their 'beliefs' or with Peter T's. 
Take your pick.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":293l49xc said:


> Scientists with vested interests haven't done too bad. You know - the internal combustion engine, the washing machine, the computer, all manner of heating systems, life support . . . . I could go on. Pretty much everything that makes life a bit more pleasant and comfortable. You can kind of go with their 'beliefs' or with Peter T's.
> Take your pick.



You're confusing 'science' with 'technology', here. The internal combustion engine came about because engineers (Brunel was one of them) fiddled about with means of using fuels directly in a cylinder to create power rather than have to use it in a boiler to generate steam - the 'science' that explained why it worked followed later.

With climate and how it works, a closer analogy would be the scientific 'discovery' of gravity, or the explanation of how rocks formed and were moulded into landscapes, or describing DNA.

Climate science is ongoing. We don't yet know how the climate works. Until we do, all the 'predictions' are fairly meaningless - at best, they're a guess. An informed - more or less, and we don't know how much more or less - guess, but still a guess.


----------



## MIGNAL (27 Sep 2013)

Don't know about yours but the last time I looked my computer was full of electronics, as is my heating boiler and the car. I'm pretty sure they were designed with Ohms law in mind. Engineers or not, they were probably 'doing' science. 
Anyway, I think I'd still rather take my chances with the experts 'best guess' than with the non experts 'best guess'. Kind of makes sense to me.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":3malb47w said:


> ...... An informed - more or less, and we don't know how much more or less - guess, but still a guess.


Substitute "estimate", "forecast" etc for "guess". Still the best information we have and obviously much more credible than the uninformed guess of the climate change sceptic.
What interests me about this whole topic is the obvious fact that a lot of people have absolutely no idea about what is going on around them and even less interest in filling in the gaps.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":1t6dbdl1 said:


> Jacob":1t6dbdl1 said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":1t6dbdl1 said:
> ...


Complete nonsense. Climate has been studied in minute detail for many years. It's not about proof its about probability based on evidence and rational analysis. We do not "know" but we can make very informed forecasts.

PS and what is all this nonsense about vested interest. What is the advantage in being wrong?
If it's all faked then it would be very much in the personal interest of anyone who could show this.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Sep 2013)

Well - I don't mean this in any way offensively - there's still a confusion here between scientific research and applied science - technology.

In the end, you're perfectly entitled to 'believe' anything you like - but it may or may not turn out to be true. After all, for many centuries, the scientific concensus was that the earth was flat. Not many people believe that now.

I repeat - nobody knows how the climate works, yet. Until they do, predicting what the climate will do in the future is just guesswork. The IPCC stated 15 years (or so) ago that the climate would warm, and that warming would accelerate. It didn't - it cooled. They can't explain why - indeed, some of the 'experts' wanted to just ignore the fact that the climate had cooled.

Whatever is going on within the IPCC, it isn't based on rigorous science. Why that should be, I don't know - but there are a lot of political and commercial vested interests riding on what the IPCC says, and nature is making rather a mockery of their past predictions. Make of all that what you will.

Is the climate changing? Yes, and it'll carry on changing. Are the activities of mankind affecting the climate? I don't know, and there is no scientific concensus on that question. Until we know how the climate works, it'll be impossible to answer the question one way or another.

Edit to add - this is a reply to MIGNAL.

A reply to Jacob - you say that climate has been studied in minute detail for many years. So it has. But - we still don't know how it works. How can we therefore make accurate predictions about what it may do in the future? All we can do is guess. The IPCC predictions made about 15 years ago turned out to be wrong - they said climate would warm at an increasing rate, but it cooled instead.

As for 'sceptic' - yes, I'm sceptical about the IPCC's statements, because they've been shown to be wrong in the past. As for the premise that man is changing the climate by his activities, I'm agnostic - I don't know. It seems that the evidence is somewhat thin for this theory, but let's wait and see.


----------



## Jacob (27 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":firw07qm said:


> ....... Are the activities of mankind affecting the climate? I don't know, and there is no scientific concensus on that question. Until we know how the climate works, it'll be impossible to answer the question one way or another.


There definitely is consensus, we do "know" in the sense of being able to make very informed forecasts and we are seeing these forecasts confirmed as time goes by.

_After all, for many centuries, the scientific concensus was that the earth was flat._ No science involved there at all. Just a simplistic guess, not held by everybody either. It was science which revealed the truth.
Read "The Sleepwalkers" Arthur Koestler - very readable and interesting.

Again - what is all this nonsense about vested interest? Where is the advantage in being wrong?


----------



## RogerS (27 Sep 2013)

.....
BB says ..

Again - what is all this nonsense about vested interest? Where is the advantage in being wrong?

Well, if you were a scientist/lobbyist/advocate/whatever and you had nailed your colours to the mast and said 'climate change is down to man' or 'climate change is doing this'...something on which your reputation was at stake...something on which the salary you were paid to feed your family was based...then when your computer models on which you had done this turn out to have been wrong.......the advantage is keeping shtumm and ridiculing or ignoring the fact that your computer models got it wrong.


----------



## Jacob (28 Sep 2013)

RogerS":367djg0u said:


> .....
> BB says ..
> 
> Again - what is all this nonsense about vested interest? Where is the advantage in being wrong?
> ...


If the whole thing is nonsense and you felt your reputation was at stake surely you would unnail your colours from the mast as quickly as possible? This notion of deliberate misinformation by most of the world's scientists is very weird and illogical. Makes no sense at all.
Re probability rather than proof. There is no proof that you _will definitely_ lose a finger if you don't employ safety techniques on your TS. But there is plenty of evidence of it being _more likely_. If you did a survey of a large enough number of woodworkers you could put a figure on it and say there was a something % risk if certain procedures aren't followed. Personally I've no idea what this figure would be - but if it was 95% I would take this as close enough to dead certain!

_climate has been studied in minute detail for many years. So it has. But - we still don't know how it works. _ is simply wrong. We do know how it works and the knowledge base is being expanded all the time.


----------



## MIGNAL (28 Sep 2013)

Here's a guide for what Science is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Note the section on science and certainty.


----------



## DrPhill (28 Sep 2013)

I have hesitated to post here, but I feel strongly about the topic we have drifted to.

There have been so many heated opinions which is good. The topic needs discussing, on BBs, in cafes, in bars, on the bus. If climate change continues as it seems it might, then it will have a huge impact on the earth and humankind. There are all sorts of vested interest - from the sellers of petroleum products to the sellers of wind turbines, from the urban 4x4 user who does not want to relinquish his gas-guzzler to the hippy who wants to justify his basic lifestyle. We all have an angle. For the record, my interest is in bequeathing a world fit to live in - to both the humans and animals that live in the world.

So I thought that I would point out some misconceptions. First, the belief that global warming has stopped, and even reversed in the last fifteen years. That is a very biased view of a dataset that extends for a far longer period. The signal is very noisy - with large ups and downs. If you choose to start measuring at a peak you are molu re likely to see a drop, if you start measuring at a trough you are more likely to see a rise. What we need is a 'winding stick' to allow uus to find the real slope. One such windiing stick is the average of each decade's temperatures. If there was truly a drop in the last fifteen years, then the last decade would be lower than the previous decade. Well here is a decadal average compared with the raw data:





That does not seem to support the assertion that climate change is slowing down.

The other assertion that I would wish to contest is 'there is no scientific consensus'. First, what do we mean by consensus? Would you poll plumbers about chisel sharpening? No you would ask chisel sharpeners, and not just anyone who called tthemselves a tool sharpener, but ones with a succesful record. When talking about climate science you really need to take a concensus of climate scientists (not surgeons, not biochemists). And you would choose those that are recognised by the community for their publiications in peer-reviewed.

Studies of consensus have been done. The results are pretty convincing. Just one example, published in the leading journal Science:
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618



> Essays on Science and Society
> 
> BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER
> The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
> ...



I hope that those points help to steer us towars an informed debate.


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)

DrPhil, your argument is well made but you don't do yourself any favours by using the pejorative term 4x4 gas guzzlers. For many of us living in rural areas a 4x4 is an essential tool to go about our daily activities. If you had said a Chelsea based 4x4 gas guzzler then I'd been all in favour!


----------



## DrPhill (28 Sep 2013)

RogerS":2ffiqljx said:


> DrPhil, your argument is well made but you don't do yourself any favours by using the pejorative term 4x4 gas guzzlers. For many of us living in rural areas a 4x4 is an essential tool to go about our daily activities. If you had said a Chelsea based 4x4 gas guzzler then I'd been all in favour!



Edited.


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2013)

Last year we spent holiday time in Iceland, on one of our numerous probes into the less accessible areas open to tourists (access to the interior is limited for safety reasons) we got talking to a local farmer about the climate and if there were any changes he had noted, (it happened to be one of their hottest summers for some time, warmer than the UK as it happened)

He pointed to the River we were by and said that the flow levels were increasing in the summer and continuing longer into the winter, so much so that he had been worried a couple of years at the amount of open water being held back by the ice dams forming on the rapids just above his farm. 

He also went on to say that due to lack of forestation on the island there was a push to increase the area of woodland as it was now possible to plant species that 10 years ago stood no chance of realistic survival.

I raised the point that it must be difficult to determine which were climate variations and natural volcanic influences in such a volatile country, he said that they looked at Greenland as the marker as to cause, seeing the whole of the Greenland icecap covered in melt water last year was a pretty good indication that something was changing.


----------



## thick_mike (28 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":1r9ndubp said:


> In the end, you're perfectly entitled to 'believe' anything you like - but it may or may not turn out to be true. After all, for many centuries, the scientific concensus was that the earth was flat. Not many people believe that now.



Not since 300BC...Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to within 20%. He was a Scientist.

I think you'll find the consensus that the Earth was flat was between the uninformed...NOT Scientists.

Maybe there is something to learn from the Flat Earth analogy after all?


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)

Malthus hit it on the head, I think.


----------



## nev (28 Sep 2013)

according to scientists the planet is millions of years old. 
in this time it has warmed up and it has cooled down. 
repeatedly.
for the majority of this time there has been no mankind/ industrialisation so logic says that this is a 'natural' and therefore unavoidable cycle. it will happen regardless of what mankind does.
Does what mankind does accelerate this process?
probably.
If the entire planet ceased all pollution would this stop the cycle?
no.
if the answer was yes, is the entire planet capable of or willing to cease all pollution?
no.
will the planet continue to warm and cool?
yes.
can we stop it?
no.
can we slow it?
no.
can we cease to accelerate it?
possibly.
but its still going to happen.
Until a cap is put on the unabated world population explosion which will more rapidly overwhelm the planets finite resources, climate change and its effects and reasons are the least of our worries!
Still, it does give people a reason to argue pointlessly and the governments of the world to put the price of fuel up, so that the less well off can cease to use the finite resources that the rich can continue to burn for a little longer.


----------



## DrPhill (28 Sep 2013)

nev":280kty3q said:


> according to scientists the planet is millions of years old.
> in this time it has warmed up and it has cooled down.
> repeatedly.
> for the majority of this time there has been no mankind/ industrialisation so logic says that this is a 'natural' and therefore unavoidable cycle. it will happen regardless of what mankind does.
> ...



We are getting some good points here, and an excellent opportunity to clear away some of the fog of confusion that is often brought to the argument.

There _have_ been many swings in the climate of the planet, some far more extreme than even the climate doom-sayers are predicting. Unfortunately society as we know it would not be able to survive in some of those extremes. What we need to contemplate is whether we are likely to change the climate sufficiently to make life difficult for ourselves, our grandchildren and the animals that share this planet. The fact that the earth was once much hotter, or colder, or once had higher or lower CO2 concentratiions is not the point if those extremes would not support human life. 

If I read the science right, then we are actually due fo another ice age in a few tens of thousands of years, and so global warming might seem a good thing in some ways. If we had just enough of it to keep temperatures stable and delay the ice age you would probably find fewer worried people. Unfortunately, mankind is not engaged in some carefully controlled climate management scheme to delay an ice age. We are engaged in activities that could have a massive effect on our climate. Our activities have (95% certainty in the scientific community) already had a significant and worrying effect. 



> Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earth’s history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely unusual in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.





> The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years. Higher values than at present have only occurred many millions of years ago


 https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.2.html

Population growth is a popular but misleading argument. Yes the population is growing in parts of the world. But if those extra people produce no greenhouse gasses then they cannot be blamed for our current predicament. China, the USA and the EU together account for over half of global CO2 emissions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions. I am afraid that most of the responsibility for control and restraint lies with the populations of these three countries.


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)

DrPhill":3887rcwr said:


> ......
> Population growth is a popular but misleading argument. ....



But it is still a very important discussion to have in its own right. The planet has too many people.


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)

Professor Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) has a terse commentary on the SPM

_I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with their being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going._


----------



## MIGNAL (28 Sep 2013)

I guess he's one of the 5%. . . or is it 3%?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ndzen.html


----------



## Harbo (28 Sep 2013)

It's gone down 10p/lt down here - luverly jubbley!

Rod


----------



## DrPhill (28 Sep 2013)

Harbo":3lxf3zns said:


> It's gone down 10p/lt down here - luverly jubbley!
> 
> Rod



Yep, prices of fuel have always gone up and down. The fact that the last two price changes were downward disproves the myth of 'ever rising fuel prices'. In reality fuel prices are no higher than they were twenty years ago. :roll:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Sep 2013)

"the fact that the last two price changes were downwards disproves the myth of ever increasing rising fuel prices"
Seventeen years of downward temperature changes prove the globe is warming? Just thinkin'


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":25ho1513 said:


> I guess he's one of the 5%. . . or is it 3%?
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ndzen.html



Or a free-thinker :-"

Here's another thought. If we all decided to go vegan because cattle fart too much into the atmosphere and so contribute towards global warming (allegedly) then presumably we would kill all the sheep, cattle, geese, chickens, ducks and turkeys.


----------



## nev (28 Sep 2013)

RogerS":33n2903a said:


> MIGNAL":33n2903a said:
> 
> 
> > I guess he's one of the 5%. . . or is it 3%?
> ...



but then 
a) there wouldn't be enough land to grow all the required vegetables to feed the still ever growing (and now probably sickly due to poor diet) populace, and 
b) surely all the vegans farting would create just as much gas as the cattle once did, only with the added disadvantage of not being able to get a decent steak anywhere!


----------



## finneyb (28 Sep 2013)

nev":y1dv7u3v said:


> b) surely all the vegans farting would create just as much gas as the cattle once did, ....



Yes, but it can be managed !! The Govt would construct a network of FCSs (fart capture stations). They would have a slight vacuum to ensure a good seal and that gas didn't escape to the atmosphere. The methane captured would be used to generate power, with the potential to pay the individual for his/her methane. 

In fact, I'll work on the design this evening and apply for a patent next week. They will need millions of FCSs across the country, how far can you walk holding a fart in?

Brian


----------



## markturner (28 Sep 2013)

Nev said it right........


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Sep 2013)

finneyb":2fyow1aa said:


> nev":2fyow1aa said:
> 
> 
> > b) surely all the vegans farting would create just as much gas as the cattle once did, ....
> ...


The main problem with this is that it is a get rich quick scheme for politicians. They are more full of shiit than everyone else.


----------



## Fishandchips (28 Sep 2013)

How's this work then? Just come back from holiday in Portugal and the diesel is 10% cheaper than the petrol?

Here the diesel is 5% more expensive.


----------



## Jacob (28 Sep 2013)

RogerS":35gs0242 said:


> Professor Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) has a terse commentary on the SPM
> 
> _I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.
> 
> ...


Lindzen is unusual amongst climate change sceptics in that he is a scientist - an "Atmospheric Physicist". But his peer group (many hundreds of scientists and specialists in the climate field) think he is wrong, and also irresponsible - his claims don't stand up to scrutiny. Most sceptics are just ignorant nutters - Lindzen is seen as an informed nutter.
People like him are rare (scientist _and_ climate change sceptic) so unfortunately he tends to get more publicity then he deserves. There is also a big media bias in that in the interests of "balance" the sceptics get a much bigger proportion exposure than their numbers justify. It's like having the last remaining flat earther on a programme every single time the planetary spheres come up as an issue.

PS the clue to undertanding Lindzen is in the quotation above, supplied by Roger. It is polemical, not scientific. He is appealing to the media. He has not published any detailed refutation of the basic climate change hypothesis. Until he does he should shut up, he has nothing useful to say.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Sep 2013)

Fishandchips":3nmtmrrb said:


> How's this work then? Just come back from holiday in Portugal and the diesel is 10% cheaper than the petrol?
> 
> Here the diesel is 5% more expensive.


It's usually attributed to demand for heating oil - we use more diesel than warmer countries use.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Sep 2013)

"The sceptics get a much bigger proportion exposure than their numbers justify" 

He would say that, wouldn't he!


----------



## DrPhill (28 Sep 2013)

phil.p":1ds2yzs5 said:


> "The sceptics get a much bigger proportion exposure than their numbers justify"
> 
> He would say that, wouldn't he!


from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Sep 2013)

It's amazing what scientists will say when their research grants depend on it, isn't it?


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)

phil.p":1b3z7m4r said:


> Fishandchips":1b3z7m4r said:
> 
> 
> > How's this work then? Just come back from holiday in Portugal and the diesel is 10% cheaper than the petrol?
> ...



I don't buy that. Diesel used to be cheaper than petrol. Now it's more expensive. Tax. Nowt to do with heating oil.


----------



## Lons (28 Sep 2013)

RogerS":6szlk213 said:


> phil.p":6szlk213 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't buy that. Diesel used to be cheaper than petrol. Now it's more expensive. Tax. Nowt to do with heating oil.



Me niether!

Europeans historically bought more diesel cars until a number of years ago when manufacturers developed common rail engines (BMW I think were forerunners), which allowed diesels to equal and outperform petrol derivatives. Sales of diesels compared to petrol rocketed and suddenly there was an additional tax imposed on the fuel supposedly "to offset increased emissions". Political opportunity more like!

Bob


----------



## Jacob (28 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":3mc23k8c said:


> It's amazing what scientists will say when their research grants depend on it, isn't it?


Infantile nonsense. Do you seriously imagine that 95% of the worlds experts are deliberately lying on what could be the major issue of our lifetime , just to get money?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Sep 2013)

Jacob":14gy69nb said:


> Cheshirechappie":14gy69nb said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing what scientists will say when their research grants depend on it, isn't it?
> ...



What would you do if your income and career depended on it?


----------



## MIGNAL (28 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":aqrrklhr said:


> It's amazing what scientists will say when their research grants depend on it, isn't it?




Have you any proof that they are supporting their position because of financial interest? You know, something a bit more 'scientific'. 
Or is it just an unfounded accusation? 
Let's have your proof. We are waiting.


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)




----------



## Lons (28 Sep 2013)

Jacob":2yqs10od said:


> infantile nonsense.



Now there's an example of reasoned debate as opposed to screaming pub argument :wink:

Pick your toys up! :lol:


----------



## RogerS (28 Sep 2013)

And Jacob







:lol: :lol:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":ikelrot7 said:


> Cheshirechappie":ikelrot7 said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing what scientists will say when their research grants depend on it, isn't it?
> ...



The University of East Anglia emails scandal, for one.


----------



## MIGNAL (28 Sep 2013)

Is that it? 
:shock:     PMSL. Surely you can do better than that. We are talking about the 'world's climate scientists' you know!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":1yt56bqh said:


> Is that it?
> :shock:     PMSL. Surely you can do better than that. We are talking about the 'world's climate scientists' you know!



I don't need to do better than that. Feel free to research the event - it blew the credibility of both the much-vaunted computer models, and several prominent climate scientists out of the water. It explained why scientists not following the creed of 'man-made global warming' were unable to get their research papers published in the leading journals - because the cabal of 'leading scientists' colluded with the editor of said journal to prevent their publication.

You didn't hear about this on the BBC? Well - there's a surprise....


----------



## MIGNAL (28 Sep 2013)

You don't need to do better than that Cheshirechappy because you know you can't.
If that's all you have on the *WORLDS *climate scientists, it's pathetic. 
Supply us with more proof/ examples please. Surely you have more? We are waiting.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":2jpf85rm said:


> You don't need to do better than that Cheshirechappy because you know you can't.
> If that's all you have on the *WORLDS *climate scientists, it's pathetic.
> Supply us with more proof/ examples please. Surely you have more? We are waiting.




I would respectfully suggest that you read up on the event. It explains much about the world's climate scientists - or at least, some very influential ones.


----------



## Jacob (29 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":286h3iwg said:


> MIGNAL":286h3iwg said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need to do better than that Cheshirechappy because you know you can't.
> ...


You need to read something other than the Mail and the Telegraph. These papers are written by clowns, for clowns.

Difficult for you I see, as you will no doubt dismiss anything you don't want to believe as part of an evil plot by avaricious scientists, but you could have a look at New Scientist or Scientific American and their websites.
A lot of people need to wake up and start taking notice of the world around them. And it's much more interesting than the rubbish media would have you believe.


----------



## RogerS (29 Sep 2013)

It's all here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... ontroversy


----------



## Lons (29 Sep 2013)

Jacob":106bwbtr said:


> Difficult for you I see, as you will no doubt dismiss anything you don't want to believe.


POT - KETTLE - BLACK? :lol: :lol:


----------



## DrPhill (29 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":3ot50o88 said:


> MIGNAL":3ot50o88 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need to do better than that Cheshirechappy because you know you can't.
> ...



OK, I started here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy


> Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.



Where should I research next?


----------



## MIGNAL (29 Sep 2013)

Don't know but this is a great one for Cheshirechappie and RodgerS.    

http://www.divinecaroline.com/entertain ... 9t-go-away

:roll: :roll: :roll: All the worlds climate scientists are bent, on the make. Backhanders. Secret rendezvous, brown paper bags. You know the type of thing. They are all at it. Don't know why it just applies to climate scientists. Why not any other type of scientist? Don't they get paid?
You've got to be one huge gullible fool to even contemplate the thought. :shock:


----------



## RogerS (29 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":p9wbwy63 said:


> Don't know but this is a great one for Cheshirechappie and RodgerS.
> 
> http://www.divinecaroline.com/entertain ... 9t-go-away
> 
> ...




Hang on a minute. I don't think I have said that I don't believe in climate change etc. Devil's Advocate maybe.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Sep 2013)

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... b7df1a0b63


----------



## doorframe (29 Sep 2013)

Jacob":d2ktvl27 said:


> Infantile nonsense. Do you seriously imagine that 95% of the worlds experts are deliberately lying on what could be the major issue of our lifetime , just to get money?



It's not 95% of the worlds experts.

The IPCC are saying that they are 95% sure.

The IPCC are made up of approx 2000 'scientists' (or they were when I last showed an interest subject).

I prefer to listen to the opinions of genuine experts who's grants are not dependent on the new 'industry' called man made global warming.

This is a great example.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0

It blows the con trick out of existence.

Jacob, I suggest you give it a good viewing.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Sep 2013)

Jacob and Mignal - hurling insults will not strengthen your arguments.

Dr Phill - try the link above.

On climate change - we know the climate is changing. It always has, and it (probably) always will. We know from historical temperature data that climate is currently warming. Since thermometers have only been around since the 17th century, actual temperature data (in climate history terms) is very recent. However, we know from historical, environmental, archaelogical and geological research that climate has been both warmer and cooler than it is today - it was warmer during the Roman occupation (they had vineyards in Northumberland), then cooled during the Dark Ages, then warmed during the early Middle Ages, then cooled (regular ice fairs on the Thames in the 17th century - the last was in 1805) and is currently warming. Overlaying this cycle is a thirty-year warm-cool cycle, in which we are currently in a cooling part of the cycle. We also know that, on a more geological timescale, we are in a warm inter-glacial period, and the current one is longer than some others have been. So far, we do not fully understand what drives these overlaying cycles of climate change.

If the cycles above continue (and we don't know whether they will or not) climate will continue to warm for about a century or so, then flatten out and cool to a low in the middle to end of this millenium, and then start warming again. We don't know when we will slip into another ice age, though I remember this being the 'climate scare' of choice when I was a nipper. We may still be heading towards another ice age, for all I know.

How much, if at all, mankind's activities are influencing climate (either locally or globally) is not proven. Evidence is put forward supporting both the 'yes' and 'no' camps, the former receiving the majority of the publicity, research funding and political support at present. Hence the comment about scientists saying the 'right' things to get their funding - I don't believe scientists are telling outright lies, but in order to stay in a job, and hence pay the mortgage, they have to toe the current political line, since that's where the majority of the funding comes from, and it's allocated on the basis of supporting the proposition that the climate is being driven by man's activities. I suspect that will gradually change as the evidence to support that proposition is balanced by evidence that doesn't, but it may take a while.

Some people have called the climate science 'concensus' a scam. I'm not sure this is right - I suspect that early scientific research, imperfect as it was bound to be in the early stages, showed cause for concern. As the science has progressed, the evidence is showing that the depth of concern is less warranted. There have been some notable mistakes along the way - the 'hockey-stick' graph, for example - which arguably shouldn't have happened.

Current climate changes are not outside known historical norms (despite shrill assertions to the contrary from some quarters). We do not know all the factors that drive those changes, or understand their interactions. Consequently, the computer models currently used to predict the climate's future have to viewed with some caution. The predictions they made some years ago have already been shown to be wrong by actual subsequent events (they predicted accelerated warming, but the climate cooled instead), and the scientists cannot explain why. It would be unwise (as Dr Phill poined out in a previous post) to rely on such small time-scales to prove points, but if the models are so spectacularly wrong in the very short term, what confidence can one have in their long-term accuracy?

In summary - climate has always changed, and probably always will. We do not know (yet) what drives these changes. We do know that the changes we are currently noticing are not historically unusual (despite shrill claims from some quarters), and we do not know whether mankind's activities are having an effect. Many people choose to believe various scenarios, but nobody actually knows.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Sep 2013)

Jacob - the Telegraph and the Mail are written by clowns for clowns? That's curious! That's exactly the same as I think of the Grauniad, the Independent (the name itself actually being a joke) and the Observer.


----------



## DrPhill (29 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":en9g4fed said:


> Dr Phill - try the link above.



Did you mean http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... b7df1a0b63? If so, did you even bother to read it? Did you bother to see who it was written by? Or did you just blindly pull it off some sceptics website? 

If you had checked you would have found that it is written by the Republican Party. Follow the link to the online report. 


> Welcome to the EPW Republican Website



Unbiased? More independent than the world of climate scientists? All you do by quoting such biased political hoaxery is undermine your arguments.


----------



## markturner (29 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1ook6qwq said:


> Cheshirechappie":1ook6qwq said:
> 
> 
> > MIGNAL":1ook6qwq said:
> ...




Yet more naive simplistic twoddle....are you so blinkered by your ridiculous left wing views that you cant even accept that any one who does not subscribe to that opinion has no valid opinion. They are just "clowns"....a favourite trick of the left...if they cant smear people as "Racist" or "Facist", they try and make out they are stupid....simply not up there with their university intelligensia crowd.....Just the same as, I imagine, anyone who even questions mass uncontrolled immigration or the slow disintegration of this country's culture is a facist nazi monster.........The mail and the telegraph are not saying that global warming is not happening. they are just presenting other peoples interpretation of the facts. Myself, I am in no doubt that currently , the earths climate is warming ( You cant argue with the figures) and yes, we have played a large part in that in the last 50 years - and I am as right wing as they come. yet strangely, I think you will find I am not some kind of ignorant, uneducated, facist monster - I employ at least 7 muslims, even though I am against the march of Islam in the world and their oppressive religion, ( and any other fanatical extremist religious beliefs, christians included) 50% of my workforce are immigrants and yes, they all earn the same as my native english guys......I also drive a big 4 wheel drive car and own 2 petrol guzzling racing motorbikes - no one is going to stop me exercising my choice in that respect. I however drive perhaps only 3000 miles a year now and run my bikes infrequently. My work vehicles are dual fuel and we promote and install Eco building technology.....make of that what you will. 

So don't bring that kind of nonsense to the table Jacob, this is not about politics, it's about the facts relating to global warming and whether fuel prices would affect this. Not about the political viewpoint of the papers that print it. left wing or right wing, it matters not when the sea level is rising...........


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Sep 2013)

DrPhill":14r4uznw said:


> Cheshirechappie":14r4uznw said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Phill - try the link above.
> ...




If you don't like the conclusion, rubbish the source - a very 'anthropogenic global warming cabal' thing to do.

I'd strongly reccommend that you watch the link that Doorframe posted. It's one of the best summaries of the current position on climate science that I've seen.


----------



## MIGNAL (29 Sep 2013)

Is it really? 

http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/27

It's a bit involved. Pretty much debunks all of that documentary.
It comes in for a lot of flak if you care to do a bit of google searching. Not difficult to find.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Sep 2013)

There's an awful lot of that going on. 

As has been said previously, there are a lot of careers and funding riding on the continued political support for the position of anthropogenic global warming. Consequently, some of the protagonists are perhaps not being as honourable as they might otherwise be.

In a previous post, I said that 'belief' is far too prevalent in this debate. The AGW premise is predicated upon the theory that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating global warming, probably catastrophically. Examination of Antarctic ice cores now shows that climate changes are not caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide - there is close correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, but carbon dioxide concentration increases lag temperature increases by about 800 years. So - carbon dioxide increases do not cause warming, they are an effect of it.

It's frightening how entrenched people become over this matter. Some have called AGW a religion - the followers of which will denounce any who care to question the 'concensus' as heretics. It should be about a calm, measured analysis of data, and assessment of whether or not verified data fits theories, followed by the modification or rejection of theories and the putting forward of new ones. Sadly, that seems to have been lost in the clamour.

I find the phrase, "the science is settled" in connection with this utterly baffling - the science is very far from being settled. There is clearly much that mankind does not understand about the climate and how it works.

I suppose time will tell. It usually does - though it may take a decade or so in this case.


----------



## DrPhill (29 Sep 2013)

OK. Let us have one simple question and one simple answer.

Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists support the anthropogenic climate change theory?


----------



## MIGNAL (29 Sep 2013)

Overwhelming? 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

97% - Avalanche!!!!


----------



## Lons (29 Sep 2013)

Lons":3helk1t7 said:


> Not what you think - my car is actually a diesel :wink:
> 
> I was very happy (*not*) to hand over £70 in the knowledge that I'm not actually paying the highest prices in the world after all, (ONLY 4TH HIGHEST). Ahead of us are Turkey - £1.44, Italy - £1.47 and Norway - £1.50 per litre.
> it was also re-assuring to note that at least 10 countries are paying between 1p and 20p (state subsidised)
> ...




JEEEEZZZZZ!!!!!!

Ever wished you hadn't posted what was a very simple and straightforward fact? :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Bob


----------



## Jacob (29 Sep 2013)

doorframe":2n3jm8a7 said:


> .....
> I prefer to listen to the opinions of genuine experts who's grants are not dependent on the new 'industry' called man made global warming.
> 
> This is a great example.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZepVJ2XMi0
> ...


It's total nonsense. More weird sceptical propaganda flying in the face of masses of evidence.


----------



## Jacob (29 Sep 2013)

phil.p":1w8u5jne said:


> Jacob - the Telegraph and the Mail are written by clowns for clowns? That's curious! That's exactly the same as I think of the Grauniad, the Independent (the name itself actually being a joke) and the Observer.


Try New Scientist or Scientific American if you want to know about climate change. There is plenty of info about, at all levels, schoool kids learn about it - there is no excuse for ignorance


----------



## Peter T (29 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1ejn2w0y said:


> phil.p":1ejn2w0y said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob - the Telegraph and the Mail are written by clowns for clowns? That's curious! That's exactly the same as I think of the Grauniad, the Independent (the name itself actually being a joke) and the Observer.
> ...



Both these periodicals simply trot out, unquestioningly, the latest IPCC propaganda. 

What's the point of reading that discredited nonsense?


----------



## Jacob (29 Sep 2013)

Peter T":2cf06zyj said:


> Jacob":2cf06zyj said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":2cf06zyj said:
> ...


Which mag would you read to get at the truth then? Nothing springs to mind. The Watchtower? Viz? 
How do you _know_ that almost the whole scientific community and the serious magazines too, are conspiring together over a big con trick? What are your sources?
The craziest thing of all about this sort of nonsense is that if anybody _could_ intelligently discredit the IPCC the whole world would be grateful and breathe a sigh of relief - and careers would be promoted, prizes given, etc etc. We could carry on burning oil and gas as if there was no tomorrow. Er, mind you, that's what we are doing!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 Sep 2013)

The three finest publications in Britain - The Times, Viz and Private Eye. :lol:


----------



## Peter T (29 Sep 2013)

> Which mag would you read to get at the truth then? Nothing springs to mind. The Watchtower? Viz?
> How do you _know_ that almost the whole scientific community and the serious magazines too, are conspiring together over a big con trick? What are your sources?
> The craziest thing of all about this sort of nonsense is that if anybody _could_ intelligently discredit the IPCC the whole world would be grateful and breathe a sigh of relief - and careers would be promoted, prizes given, etc etc. We could carry on burning oil and gas as if there was no tomorrow. Er, mind you, that's what we are doing!



If I want to know what the IPCC are saying, I can read their web site. Why would I waste money on magazines?

I find it rather sad that you have to rely on journalists to tell you what to think. Are you incapable of forming your own opinions?


----------



## DrPhill (29 Sep 2013)

Peter T":3e64v0xx said:


> If I want to know what the IPCC are saying, I can read their web site. Why would I waste money on magazines?


Have you read it?



Peter T":3e64v0xx said:


> I find it rather sad that you have to rely on journalists to tell you what to think. Are you incapable of forming your own opinions?


 So how did you reach your opinion? What sources did you use? What evidence convinced you? We are interested. Please share, if the evidence is convincing then we might even come to agree with you.


----------



## Max Power (30 Sep 2013)

GetTurner wrote
"the slow disintegration of this country's culture"
are you joking :shock:
Its happening at a faster pace than the grey squirrels took to oust the reds ( with remarkably similar results)


----------



## Jacob (30 Sep 2013)

Peter T":fjqeldv4 said:


> ...
> I find it rather sad that you have to rely on journalists to tell you what to think. Are you incapable of forming your own opinions?


So your ideas just pop into your head from nowhere? :lol:


----------



## fetteler (10 Oct 2013)

When does opinion become fact? Well I dont know the exact point but I would suggest that when 97 percent of the scientists in the field agree on something, it stops being opinion and turns into fact.

Let's not forget that back in the day, commercial interests attempted to show that the science behind the smoking/lung cancer link was unsound. This delayed acceptence of the fact for a couple of decades and cost untold lives - it did however keep the gravy train running for a good while. Hurrah! #-o 


Cheers,
Steve.


----------

