Severn Barrage again

[rynnor]

Bunch of C*nts tbh - the proposal for an enormous barrage which will wreck the environment of the Severn estuary, damage tourism and fishing and generate hainously (like that bit ?) expensive electricity just to make some rich bastards a bit richer all dressed up with greenwash should be rejected out of hand.

The group thats behind this was started by John Gummer (the idiot who made his daughter eat a beefburger for the press during the BSE scandal) who has been behind many of the recent climate change acts and is chairman of the Comittee on Climate Change.

Effectively by hyping theoretical effects of climate change he now hopes to profit while the govt underwrites the project when it ends up costing 2-3x as much as is currently stated.

 

[Raven]

It's pretty ironic, destroy a fuck load of wildlife for a tiny amount of "clean energy"

Set of cunts.

 

[rynnor]

Its the same sort of genius that says lets have 5% biofuels in all petrol then sources it from palm oil grown in plantations created by destroying vast tracts of rainforest.

 

[Bodhi]

Might be a bit difficult to get through considering the MET Office announced this week that Global Warming has stopped shirley?

 

[Job]

Well actually tidal energy is the only useful renewable we have..it gibes enormous outputs which is more importantly reliable to the minute.twice a day..365 a year.

 

[Scouse]

Might be a bit difficult to get through considering the MET Office announced this week that Global Warming has stopped shirley?

It revised its predictions down from 0.53 to 0.42 degrees, or something?

 

[rynnor]

Well actually tidal energy is the only useful renewable we have..it gibes enormous outputs which is more importantly reliable to the minute.twice a day..365 a year.

Its a good renewable but barrages are the most environmentally destructive way of harnessing it - not to mention being hellishly expensive to build.

 

[rynnor]

It revised its predictions down from 0.53 to 0.42 degrees, or something?

The problem is it was 0.40 in 1998 and with the uncertainty of the 0.42 prediction its basically saying warming has taken a 20 year break.

Theres some bleating about currents etc. but the reality is that we havent seen any big volcanic eruptions which you would expect to cool the planet and that global warming itself is constructed largely on 30 years of data - when you then get 20 years of no warming it starts to look more and more like the warming was just a blip.

Edit: If this was science and not a political tool then the theory of global warming would now be being set aside while people looked for the real causes - the correlation with CO2 just doesnt seem to explain what we see.

 

[Scouse]

The Met Office has responded to the news stories saying that it doesn't affect their long-term predictions. So, according to the Met Office, global warming's still happening...

I'll wait until the next IPCC report to come out before I jump on the global warming is dead bandwagon rather than deciding, after a single set of interesting results from a single contributor, that all the other science is bunkum and "none of it was real"...

 

[rynnor]

The Met Office has responded to the news stories saying that it doesn't affect their long-term predictions. So, according to the Met Office, global warming's still happening...

Yes - I thought that was hilarious - thats like a weatherman who cant predict tomorrow saying he can still predict the weather months away - its just not credible.

I'll wait until the next IPCC report to come out before I jump on the global warming is dead bandwagon rather than deciding, after a single set of interesting results from a single contributor, that all the other science is bunkum and "none of it was real"...

It never existed tbh - not in the way they said - I have been arguing against the link between CO2 and temperature for a very long time now - it will all unravel in time but it will take years yet due to all the vested interests involved. This hasnt been a good time for science but I believe that eventually the science will win out over politics.

 

[Scouse]

It never existed tbh - not in the way they said - I have been arguing against the link between CO2 and temperature for a very long time now

Oh! I didn't know you were a climate scientist rynnor. What field do you work in? Is your contribution in the new IPCC report?

Good to see that you're not simply a tin-foil hatter who's read a lot of news reports and decided that's the way the world is.


Edit: It's perfectly possible that the IPCC/Global Warming theory is a government-sponsored undermining of trust in science, or a natural subversion of science by powerful interests for profit, but wth eh? You've gotta trust something...

 

[old.Tohtori]

hainously (like that bit ?)

Done.

 

[Raven]

The climate will always change, it would be more worrying if it didn't because we would be living on a dead planet.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Thing is, with all the history that we've done to this planet(harm or not), any waste dumping, tree cutting, or squirrel hunting ain't but a drop in the cesspool anyway

 

[rynnor]

Oh! I didn't know you were a climate scientist rynnor. What field do you work in? Is your contribution in the new IPCC report?

Good to see that you're not simply a tin-foil hatter who's read a lot of news reports and decided that's the way the world is.


Edit: It's perfectly possible that this is a government-sponsored undermining of trust in science, but wth eh?

My interests are in palaeoenvironments and thats where the link between CO2 and temperature looks the most dodgy - CO2 tends to follow temperature rises rather than lead them which kinda scuppers the idea.

I have also been following the Livingstone and Penn sunspots data since the start of solar cycle 24 and their predictions have been dead on so far - they dont propose their observations as a challenger to global warming yet warmists have regarded it as a threat and have thrown up all sorts of barriers to prevent publication.

The mechanism for how solar variability impacts global temperature is not pinned down yet (mostly because its regarded as heresy and thus almost impossible to get funding/publication) but its a good fit and does actually predict the current lack of warming.

If I had to put money on it I would say that the sun is behind recent warming.

 

[Raven]

Well it would take away their funding...which is all they really care about. There is a lot of people making a lot of money from perceived man made climate change. Nothing is changing, regardless of how much we cut back or how much we are taxed.

 

[rynnor]

Well it would take away their funding...which is all they really care about. There is a lot of people making a lot of money from perceived man made climate change. Nothing is changing, regardless of how much we cut back or how much we are taxed.

The reason its so big is that govts realised this was a way to raise taxes that the plebs could be convinced was doing them a favour.

 

[Scouse]

If I had to put money on it I would say that the sun is behind recent warming.

Which is interesting, as those claims don't seem to hold water.

But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scruitny (.pdf document)

...so, all things being equal, I'll take what the IPCC says because there's no other authoritiative source that brings all the science together in one place.

The rest is tin-foil hattery. You may be correct - but the chances are small, so tin-foil away...

 

[Raven]

In a similar sort of way as capitalism is

 

[Scouse]

In a similar sort of way as capitalism is

Don't get it. One is a clearly broken system we're doing little about, the other is uncertain science being slowly progressed?

 

[Raven]

The other is an uncertain science where the research is heavily weighted to produce certain results. Any results that might suggest it is wrong is hushed up by the industry and the media. Both have massive lobbying power.

In both cases we are lied to and in both cases we expected to just put up and shut up.

 

[Scouse]

The other is an uncertain science where the research is heavily weighted to produce certain results.

That is tin-foil-hattery.

There's just as much money to be made in burning fossil fuels as renewable energy, Raven - both sides stand to benefit. That's why science is peer-reviewed - it cuts through the shit.

 

[rynnor]

Which is interesting, as those claims don't seem to hold water.

Actually the mainstream is gradually being dragged in this direction - its even acknowledged in the draft version of the new IPCC report that was leaked recently - your new scientist article is from back in 2007...

...so, all things being equal, I'll take what the IPCC says because there's no other authoritiative source that brings all the science together in one place.

See the above tbh - the thing is the latter half of the 20th century was a record time for solar magnetism/sunspots but we are now in a solar activity slump with predictions of a maunder minimum type event - the global warming supporters have been ignoring this and just concentrating on the suns direct output of heat.

Theres been experiments at CERN to backup a theory that when the solar magnetic field is weak more cosmic rays enter the earths atmosphere and that these have a direct effect on cloud formation (edit - more clouds = lower global surface temp) - its not tin foil hattery to prefer one theory over another when it better maps and predicts the behaviour of our climate.

 

[Scouse]

Actually the mainstream is gradually being dragged in this direction - its even acknowledged in the draft version of the new IPCC report that was leaked recently - your new scientist article is from back in 2007...

The IPCC acknowledges an increased amount of solar influence in climate warming. Not "omgz! global warming isn't happening - it's all just the sun!!1oneeleven"...

the global warming supporters have been ignoring this

People on either side of the argument are ignoring the other side of the argument. That's just retard humans being retards. Denialist or "supporter"...

That's why I prefer to go with the IPCC - because science should cut through bacofoil.

 

[Raven]

It doesn't though does it? It is an industry that exists to prove that climate change is caused by man, not to find the cause. If it was suddenly proved otherwise it would disappear over night, meaning a lot of comfy rich people would have to do something useful for a living and the governments would have to find some other reason to tax us, something not as popular.

Another analogy would be to have a 12 members of the KKK as jurors in a rape case, where the accused is a coloured fella.

 

[rynnor]

The IPCC acknowledges an increased amount of solar influence in climate warming. Not "omgz! global warming isn't happening - it's all just the sun!!1oneeleven"...

Its a big admission for them - they always described it as a negligible effect up until now. Did you really expect they would suddenly derail their whole reason for existence?

People on either side of the argument are ignoring the other side of the argument. That's just retard humans being retards. Denialist or "supporter"...

That's why I prefer to go with the IPCC - because science should cut through bacofoil.

I would believe it if the theory matched the observations but it doesnt - how long with no warming will the current panic survive I always wonder.

 

[Scouse]

Its a big admission for them

No it isn't. It's not even an "admission".

All they do is report on what the science says. Previously the science didn't say that the sun's effect on warming was anything but negligable. Now some science has been done that shows it isn't negligable - so they've included that in the report.

It's a report on the facts. Not a "present a world view" document. If there's no evidence for the facts, then they don't go in.

Simples.

 

[Scouse]

If it was suddenly proved otherwise...

...then GREAT. Fucking WIN

But to find out whether something's "proved" either way you need empricial evidence weighed up by scientists. Or the IPCC...

 

[rynnor]

No it isn't. It's not even an "admission".

All they do is report on what the science says. Previously the science didn't say that the sun's effect on warming was anything but negligable. Now some science has been done that shows it isn't negligable - so they've included that in the report.

It's a report on the facts. Not a "present a world view" document. If there's no evidence for the facts, then they don't go in.

Simples.

Thats how it should work...

The reality is that those who propose a solar cause of warming have faced enormous hurdles getting any funding and then getting through a frankly hostile peer review process which has been weighted against them. Even papers that arent anything about warming but could in theory be used to support a different hypothesis than the Anthropogenic model have had similar problems.

When that is whats going on in the background to say that the IPCC represents some sort of real scientific consensus is a rather bold claim.