'Climategate' takes a new turn ...
10 December 2009, 09:47 PM
#151
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it does. Martin won't believe it though ....
... but earlier I posted ...
In case anyone didn't listen to the, very boring, speech, here is the bit I was alluding to ... "... 2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet ...".
And this from the (non)elected president of the EU ......
Dave
... but earlier I posted ...
In case anyone didn't listen to the, very boring, speech, here is the bit I was alluding to ... "... 2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet ...".
And this from the (non)elected president of the EU ......
Dave
If these opinions where posted somewhere that wasn't so overtly at one side of the debate, they might have some credibility. You should apply the same sceptism to this as you undoubtedly would if a pro-AGW person posted up an opinion piece from savethepolarbears.com and claimed that to be fact.
I really do worry about you and some of the info you claim as useful to the debate, and I really don't get what your real agenda is here, because you sure as hell aint exactly weighing up all the facts are you?
btw the overwhelming majority of conspiracy theories are junk, perpetuated by internet warriors
Last edited by Martin2005; 10 December 2009 at 10:00 PM.
10 December 2009, 09:48 PM
#152
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stern, The Guardian, and Climatico. No agenda there then!
So I take it you don't have the figures then?
10 December 2009, 09:59 PM
#154
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 December 2009, 10:10 PM
#155
Well I'm quite happy to see your point of view. Just need to see evidence that the 3rd runway is a "green" initiative of the Government and not revenue generating, economy boosting initiative showing that the Government has no interest in it reducing the country's CO2 while making us believe that taxing us to make us green is all in our interest.
10 December 2009, 10:42 PM
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Did you see the video? This was the new President of the EU speaking. CAN YOU NOT SEE WHY THAT IS A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT THAN US KEYBOARD WARRIORS TALKING!
Dave
10 December 2009, 11:00 PM
#157
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the way you edited my post btw to make it look like I was talking about this video rather that the Climate Sceptic stuff which as you know full well was what I was refering to.
More examples of the tragic nature of this debate, you really just aint interested in the truth, you're purelyinterested in scoring points
11 December 2009, 08:48 AM
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
11 December 2009, 10:24 AM
#159
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen nothing to hint that this is anything other than an attempt to allow more flights through Heathrow, no mention of any green intitaives like you say.
Of course, have you factored in all the CO2 that will be produced by the actual construction of the runway and how much holding would have to reduce to offest that?
Methinks you are just playing devil's advocate
Geezer
11 December 2009, 10:39 AM
#160
Good speech by Lord Turnbull here...
Lords Hansard text for 8 Dec 200908 Dec 2009 (pt 0010)
Lords Hansard text for 8 Dec 200908 Dec 2009 (pt 0010)
My Lords, on first reading the Committee on Climate Change's latest progress report, I found it an impressive document...
...the more I dug into it the more troubled I became. Below the surface there are serious questions about the foundations on which it has been constructed. ...
I have long been in the camp of what might be called the semi-sceptics. I have taken the science on trust, while becoming increasingly critical of the policy responses being made to achieve a given CO2 or global warming constraint. First, let us look at the Climate Change Act, ... it has serious flaws. It starts by imposing a completely unworkable duty on the Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, ...
In the Act's passage through Parliament, the target was raised from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, with little discussion of its costs or feasibility. It is a simple arithmetic calculation to show that if the UK economy continues to grow at its historic trend rate, we will need, only 40 years from now, to produce each £1,000 of GDP with only 8 per cent of the carbon we use today. That is a cut of 90 per cent. Many observers think that this is implausible. (
) ...
Professor Dieter Helm has pointed out that the measurement system used in the Kyoto framework and in the UK's carbon accounts is a misleading guide to what is really being achieved. The carbon accounts use the territorial method-that is, the emissions from UK territory. In this way, the UK is able to claim that CO2 emissions have been reduced, but that is a misleading way of measuring a nation's carbon footprint and its impact on the world. It should include the carbon in its imports. If this was done it would show that we are going backwards, since we would be forced to take responsibility for the manufacturing that we have outsourced to such countries as China but are still consuming. The current method is, of course, politically very convenient as it allows us to label China as the world's largest emitter. ...
...the more I dug into it the more troubled I became. Below the surface there are serious questions about the foundations on which it has been constructed. ...
I have long been in the camp of what might be called the semi-sceptics. I have taken the science on trust, while becoming increasingly critical of the policy responses being made to achieve a given CO2 or global warming constraint. First, let us look at the Climate Change Act, ... it has serious flaws. It starts by imposing a completely unworkable duty on the Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, ...
In the Act's passage through Parliament, the target was raised from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, with little discussion of its costs or feasibility. It is a simple arithmetic calculation to show that if the UK economy continues to grow at its historic trend rate, we will need, only 40 years from now, to produce each £1,000 of GDP with only 8 per cent of the carbon we use today. That is a cut of 90 per cent. Many observers think that this is implausible. (
) ...Professor Dieter Helm has pointed out that the measurement system used in the Kyoto framework and in the UK's carbon accounts is a misleading guide to what is really being achieved. The carbon accounts use the territorial method-that is, the emissions from UK territory. In this way, the UK is able to claim that CO2 emissions have been reduced, but that is a misleading way of measuring a nation's carbon footprint and its impact on the world. It should include the carbon in its imports. If this was done it would show that we are going backwards, since we would be forced to take responsibility for the manufacturing that we have outsourced to such countries as China but are still consuming. The current method is, of course, politically very convenient as it allows us to label China as the world's largest emitter. ...
11 December 2009, 10:39 AM
#161
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I no longer have a life to live, people to see, things to do, I've satisfied myself that there is no experience I am yet to enjoy, then I'll draw up a list of the 10 things I'd least like to do, then once I've done all those, I'll 'study thermodynamics, and the physics of CO2'
Man you need to get out more.....and fast
Man you need to get out more.....and fast
But you are lazy, beer in the fridge, some crap on the TV no doubt, while your "leaders" stuff carbon taxes, literally taxing air, up your adz!
But that's OK Martin, you are too busy to notice you are a fool.
11 December 2009, 11:18 AM
#162
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I did was cut out the middle of your post - as I do with lots of post that I 'quote'. No other reason than to cut down the amount of previous verbiage in my post, just so the original author is posted.
Seems you're not interested in the debate. Many people have offered up ideas, with facts to back them up, and if they don't agree with your view of the world they're just 'point scoring'. Well if pointing out 'facts' is point scoring then I'll keep on scoring ....
Dave
Seems you're not interested in the debate. Many people have offered up ideas, with facts to back them up, and if they don't agree with your view of the world they're just 'point scoring'. Well if pointing out 'facts' is point scoring then I'll keep on scoring ....
Dave
11 December 2009, 11:33 AM
#163
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you have said "What if?". You haven't actually produced anything to back up this assertion at all. It's a possibility until you produce some hard evidence or reputable references, otherwise it's just you pointing out a possible outcome.
I have seen nothing to hint that this is anything other than an attempt to allow more flights through Heathrow, no mention of any green intitaives like you say.
Of course, have you factored in all the CO2 that will be produced by the actual construction of the runway and how much holding would have to reduce to offest that?
Methinks you are just playing devil's advocate
Geezer
I have seen nothing to hint that this is anything other than an attempt to allow more flights through Heathrow, no mention of any green intitaives like you say.
Of course, have you factored in all the CO2 that will be produced by the actual construction of the runway and how much holding would have to reduce to offest that?
Methinks you are just playing devil's advocate
Geezer
However, nothing happens in aviation now without a full environmental impact assessment. I'm a busy chap at the moment.
As for the comment about concrete, your correct. Of course all building construction should be stopped immediately. I mean, what was wrong with wattle and dawb anyway?
Last edited by FlightMan; 11 December 2009 at 11:56 AM.
11 December 2009, 12:18 PM
#164
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read up on these topics in the late '70's, y'know the coming ice age thanks to CO2, but the real science has not changed since then, only the politics. Doesn't take long to read up on science.
But you are lazy, beer in the fridge, some crap on the TV no doubt, while your "leaders" stuff carbon taxes, literally taxing air, up your adz!
But that's OK Martin, you are too busy to notice you are a fool.
But you are lazy, beer in the fridge, some crap on the TV no doubt, while your "leaders" stuff carbon taxes, literally taxing air, up your adz!
But that's OK Martin, you are too busy to notice you are a fool.
Why not address all your apparent anger and rage towards someone who actually disagrees with your version science?
11 December 2009, 03:07 PM
#165
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It remiains to be seen if that is the way it works out although with the kind of money at stake one way or the other I would be surprised if that was the great plan.
I would not expect them to reduce the airport's handling capability if they are talking about doubling the passenger throughput.
Les
11 December 2009, 03:10 PM
#166
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazed you lot are still squabbling about this - it's a pointless argument. I've said it before and will say it again, the only clear threat to the planet is human population. Thankfully some have spotted it (e.g. Attenborough's programme last night).
Evem assuming that CO2 is an issue, and assuming we could halve the amount of it produced per head (big assumptions both), the population growth alone will quickly negate that, before you add in the impact of the developing world trying to catch up to developed world standards of living. Which it won't, because man will have cheerfully decimated and buggered up the available resources before we get there.
Population control globally is the only answer - but there isn't a clear, socially, economically or politically acceptable way to do it. Ergo we're buggered. Eat, drink and drive fast cars has to be the way forward
Gordo
Evem assuming that CO2 is an issue, and assuming we could halve the amount of it produced per head (big assumptions both), the population growth alone will quickly negate that, before you add in the impact of the developing world trying to catch up to developed world standards of living. Which it won't, because man will have cheerfully decimated and buggered up the available resources before we get there.
Population control globally is the only answer - but there isn't a clear, socially, economically or politically acceptable way to do it. Ergo we're buggered. Eat, drink and drive fast cars has to be the way forward
Gordo
Les
11 December 2009, 03:16 PM
#167
It would "fix" the public sector pensions deficit the Government created in one fail swoop! Though not sure of the CO2 created from decomposition and the cremitoriums.
Last edited by jonc; 11 December 2009 at 03:18 PM.
16 December 2009, 07:40 PM
#168
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh look. The Russians are now saying that their raw weather station data was tampered with by the CRU ..... http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf
"... On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. ..."
Wonder what Flash and Omaha Beach make of that ....??
Dave
"... On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. ..."
Wonder what Flash and Omaha Beach make of that ....??
Dave
17 December 2009, 02:25 AM
#170
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh look. The Russians are now saying that their raw weather station data was tampered with by the CRU ..... http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf
"... On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. ..."
Wonder what Flash and Omaha Beach make of that ....??
Dave
"... On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. ..."
Wonder what Flash and Omaha Beach make of that ....??
Dave
Last edited by Klaatu; 17 December 2009 at 02:30 AM.
17 December 2009, 12:54 PM
#171
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 December 2009, 01:06 PM
#173
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 December 2009, 02:34 PM
#174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wish I'd seen this ... FOXNews.com - Polar Bear Goes Hunting for Climate-Gate Scientist at Copenhagen Summit
"... To a chorus of boos, a man dressed as a polar bear entered Copenhagen's main conference center Tuesday and began paging the discredited climate scientist whose hacked e-mails sparked the Climate-Gate scandal. Using a megaphone to pierce the rumble of hundreds gathered inside the Bella Center, which is hosting the city's global climate summit, the polar bear boomed out:
"PHIL JONES??? HAS ANYONE SEEN PHIL JONES???" ..."
Brilliant!
Dave
"... To a chorus of boos, a man dressed as a polar bear entered Copenhagen's main conference center Tuesday and began paging the discredited climate scientist whose hacked e-mails sparked the Climate-Gate scandal. Using a megaphone to pierce the rumble of hundreds gathered inside the Bella Center, which is hosting the city's global climate summit, the polar bear boomed out:
"PHIL JONES??? HAS ANYONE SEEN PHIL JONES???" ..."
Brilliant!
Dave
Good find Dave!
18 December 2009, 03:10 AM
#177
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd, and eventually Obama, have just sold eveyone down the river.
Climate draft deal agreed
Climate draft deal agreed
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
