Leslie

So sorry that your grasp of what has been said not only in my posts but of others just does not seem to be able to cope!

Les

Paul3446

I understand what you are saying, but am pointing out to you that the amount of ice at the North and South Pole, has no relevance to how much snow we get in England!

Canada is currently in the middle of one of it's harshest winters ever, but we haven't had any snow. It's because there are different weather systems accross the world.

Leslie

I did not mean to say that the amount of sea ice affected the amount of snow in this country but purely as an illustration that if the world is getting colder and creating more sea ice, then why have our British winters been getting so much warmer and with less snow over a period of years?

I have travelled the world in fact and I did notice all those different weather systems that you mentioned, and many that are similar to ours too!

I do think also however that it is an error to say that the amount of sea ice at the N Pole is irrelevant to the winter weather that we get here for that matter. In the same way in fact that the Gulf Stream is such a strong influence on our climate.

Les

Klaatu

The Atlantic Ocean is, currently, warmer. Give it time, it will cool, and you will feel it like I did in the 80's in Portsmouth...-40 with windchill.

Leslie

Just cold enough then!

I do remember a morning when it was -10C in Rutland once in the early '80's-could not believe that the car started!

Les

Klaatu

Well, there were cases of oil freezing in the sumps of cars, few, but oh so Ukranian like.

We're on a similar path to a "cool" spell.

Martin2005

So you agree then, he never said he invented the internet, he might well of helped put together the neccessary legislation though.

Nice to see though that your can admit when you're wrong though

Klaatu

Al Gore "created" the internet? Created, invented, semantics? The "internet" was well and truely "created" well before he made that statement. Politicians, claiming "something", they had nothing to do with. Hense, the "so called" righ wing, urban legend, etc etc, when in fact, he did claim the fact.

Sadly, for those in the know, the "internet was much older than Al, and the WWW, as we know it today formed in 1994, thanks to a Brit.

Klaatu

Interesting...

"NZCPR Guest Forum
Opinion piece by Dr Vincent Gray
20 October 07
IPCC Wins the Nobel Prize of Peace

So, I have made it at last! There have been two previous occasions in my life when I was close to a Nobel Prize (thereby hangs a tale), now it has arrived. I expect the cheque in the post any time, plus an invitation to the awards ceremony.
I am one of the 35,000 scientists who contributed to the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report. I wrote no less than 1,878 comments on the Draft for the first Report, many of which were rejected. It is a little puzzling as to what the IPCC can contribute to world peace, since much of its influence encourages unnecessary economic damage, and thus conflict. But at least it is good that the prize is not for Physics as, in my opinion, much of the science is unsound.
The “globe” is simply not “warming”, for all of eight years. This year it will probably cool. Since all of the IPCC's models "project" the "likelihood" of a steady warming over this period, all of them must be wrong, and we can expect similar failures for all the other "projections".
The IPCC was set up by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in 1988 to assess scientific information on climate change and its impacts and mitigation.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined "climate change" as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition. All the signatories to that Convention (which included NZ) accept this definition.
The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with "climate change".
The reports of the IPCC are closely controlled by representatives of the Governments who have signed the FCCC and accepted its definition of "climate change". They have to approve the entire Reports, they choose or approve the Lead Authors and approve line-by-line a "Summary for Policymakers", which is really a "Summary by Policymakers".
No evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate has been found from the extensive studies of the IPCC, but a series of scientific arguments which appear to support it have been assembled. If examined closely, these are found to be based on unsound scientific and mathematical foundations.
The IPCC has always been reluctant to reach firm conclusions, using ambiguous pronouncements such as, "The balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the climate".
A statement such as this is eagerly interpreted by some to imply support for the greenhouse theory, but it does not actually say so.
The IPCC Reports depend crucially on the absurd assumption that the climate is exclusively controlled by atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that this can be successfully simulated and forecast by mathematical models.
None of these models has been subjected to a "validation" process of rigorous testing, which must include evidence of capability of future prediction to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without such testing no model is suitable for future prediction.
The IPCC accept that their models cannot "predict" the future by claiming only that their models provide "projections" not "predictions'. They then violate this principle by estimating the reliability of the "projections" solely on the "expert opinions" of those providing the models. The "projections" and their levels of "likelihood" and even "probability" associated with them, have no scientific basis. They are merely the opinions of so-called "experts" with a conflict of interest, since most of them have a financial interest in continual funding of the work on models.
Much emphasis is placed on the “Annual Global Mean Surface Temperature Record” which is used to claim that the globe has “warmed” by a measly 0.6 ºC between 1978 and 1998 (but not after). No actual average temperature measurements of any place on the earth’s surface are used for this record. Instead they use the average of the maximum and minimum temperature, taken only once a day, which any statistician will tell you is biased, by an amount which could exceed the measly 0.6ºC.
Then, they do not have a representative sample. It is like judging the next election from results in only one town. The temperature measurement is almost always near towns where urban change causes a rise.
When you try to “correct” the errors in this system, as has been done for the USA and for China, “Global Warming” all but disappears. It does also when you make more reliable measurements in the Lower Atmosphere and even when you have a well kept local station.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is supposed to be a constant and “well-mixed”. But this is only because they suppress the results that show it is variable, such as the 90,000 measurements that were made before 1958. This is so that when they calculate the radiation effects of carbon dioxide, using a logarithmic formula, they can get a higher figure by using an “average”, than from a range.
Most people do not realise that a correlation, however convincing, does not prove causation. By adjusting the poorly-known parameters in the models, it is sometimes possible to fit them into certain climate sequences. But this does not prove that the model is right.
We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific Island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it. Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree - there was no evidence of “sinking". So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in twelve Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.
Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the twelve islands for the past 16 years. In 2006 Tuvalu even rose.
But all was not lost. There was a Pacific hurricane in 1998 which depressed the sea level for all of the islands, so you can draw a straight line through the lot which gives a spurious rise; provided you do not start from 1999 after which the sea was level. So it looks like we are safe, so far, for ocean invasion in New Zealand.
There is widespread panic because the globe is not warning, so the phrase “global warming” is no longer used by the scientists, the Governments or the journalists. Instead you must use “Climate Change”. Every last drought, flood, hurricane, ice melt, heat wave, is assailed by hordes of Reporters and scientists asserting that it is “unprecedented", and caused by “Climate Change” - provided you do not look too closely at how often these things have happened in the past.
The entire IPCC process is one of seeking to support a prior foregone conclusion. They do not follow normal accepted scientific procedures as free discussion of their conclusions is not permitted. There are no scientifically established "predictions", so it is inevitable that sooner or later we will know that their models do not work. The absence of "global warming" is just a beginning. The reputation of the IPCC as a promoter of Peace, let alone Science is sure to decline but much harm may have been done to the world economy before this happens."

ChrisGrant

After spending the last 2 days reading this thread i have decided to...........

Geezer

I see Alistair Darling has held back the 2p rise to help the economy.

Surely if AGW is such an issue, it's far more important to tackle that than the economy? Surely they can't just be doing to it raise their popularity and screw climate issues?...........

Geezer

Martin2005

And if he's put the tax up you'd have said 'it's all a conspiracy to raise taxes', you are trying to have it both ways here!

I agree that there is the most stomach churning 'gesture politics' going on right now, the whole carrier bag thing drives me nuts, like that's going to make any difference. It's just designed to look like they are doing something.

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the vacous politics surrounding this issue from all parties. Either this is a big issue that requires big solutions, or it's a red herring and we should all move on.

The debate on GW is stifled in this country by hysteria, distrust and unsound politics.

Paul3446

Quote:
"The debate on GW is stifled in this country by myself and PeteBrant. "


Edited for accuracy!

Martin2005

Hey?

You've lost me there fella

I don't think you or Pete are stifling the debate

Martin2005

Without going round in circles again, that's precisely why we cannot get a proper debate. How can you KNOW this, how do YOU know the effects of burning billions of tonnes of Oil, Gas Coal which has been stored undergound for millions of years. Remember it took millions of years to accumulate, and we've released in in a VERY short period of time, can there be NO concequence to this?

Why do you only ever deal in absolutes, life not like that, politics isn't like that, science isn't and neither is nature.

I don't know the full extent (or not) of the problems we face, but neither do you, so stop acting like you do.

finalzero

Angels Dont Play This HAARP weather manipulation

PeteBrant

But Dave, plenty of climate experts say we can and are doing exactly that.

Klaatu

[QUOTE=Martin2005;7726426]Without going round in circles again, that's precisely why we cannot get a proper debate. How can you KNOW this, how do YOU know the effects of burning billions of tonnes of Oil, Gas Coal which has been stored undergound for millions of years. Remember it took millions of years to accumulate, and we've released in in a VERY short period of time, can there be NO concequence to this?

Why do you only ever deal in absolutes, life not like that, politics isn't like that, science isn't and neither is nature.

I don't know the full extent (or not) of the problems we face, but neither do you, so stop acting like you do.[/QUOTE]

The only problems we face are created by the likes of Al Gore, the IPCC and Govn'ts.

Klaatu

Their comments are based on the results of climate model predictions, and nothing to do with reality.

Klaatu

You're nearly there, keep going, the issue will become clear.

Klaatu

The IPCC, and Govn't, have clearly stated humans are absolutely responsible for GW and subsequent change in climate. We're responsible for katrina. The "scientists" who feed the IPCC clearly state that rising Co2 leads to rising temperatures, and clearly that, absolutely, isn't the case. That exists only in their mathematical climate models.

PeteBrant

You'll only be taxed more if you refuse to live a greener lifestyle - If you adapt, then you won't be.

Geezer

You keep saying that Pete, but as I pointed out earlier, people still have to travel. Sure, you can get taxed less, but the difference between £35 and £400 a year in road tax is not much if you are still paying huge amounts for your fuel. Public transport doesn't get any cheaper, and is ****, so no incentive to use. The govt knows this, they can tax us all they like, they know we are not in a position to do anything about it.

Geezer

PeteBrant

Keep who in power?
Who was threatening said power?

The taxes are in place, if you live a greener lifew stule you pay less - I mean this sort of thing isn't new, you know, discouraging people from doing things through taxation, the same applies to cigarettes, alcohol etc.

Martin2005

Are you suggesting that politicians are pocketing our tax money?

Do you have any proof of this? If so please call the police!

PeteBrant

Well obviously a more economical car, offers are far better deal interms of fuel consumption as well as tax.

I actually agree with you on Public transport (london aside), but that what you get from ridiculous overspend and panic policy from labour and ridiculous underspend and total neglect from the tories in public services.

Rathter than, say, the French model of consistant public service expenditure and commitment regardless of who is in power.

ALso, what does grate is that air travellers get off so lightly - surely they should be being disincentivised even more than the car user.

Leslie

Have you looked at their allowances? Do you really think they are worth it anyway?

Les