Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.
There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched. Any
publication is likely to be biased.

Bill

On Feb 24, 4:15*pm, Bill Wright wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched. Any
publication is likely to be biased.

Bill

Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk! I recently
asked a question about a particular brand of powertool in a
woodworking group, and it turned into a 'friendly discussion' about
the physics of hi-fi speaker wires. I'd like to avoid such situations
as much as possible!

David Paste wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:15 pm, Bill Wright wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,
Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.
Thanks in advance.
There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched. Any
publication is likely to be biased.

Bill

Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk! I recently
asked a question about a particular brand of powertool in a
woodworking group, and it turned into a 'friendly discussion' about
the physics of hi-fi speaker wires. I'd like to avoid such situations
as much as possible!

Dons flameproof suit The truth about man made Global Warming seems to
be, as yet, "We don't know". The precautionary principle says we should
stop adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, as although we don't have
cast iron proof that there is an effect, doing this can't do any harm,
and may minimise any problems we are going to have in the future in any
case.

Some people claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence, others
that the records we have show that AGW is happening and accelerating,
while others point to the same data and deny that there is anything
other than a random fluctuation happening.

Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air is an e-book which is free to
download, and addresses the subject and ways of reducing the effects,
but acknowledges that it may be too late.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Like all publications, though, you should be aware that the writer is
only presenting his point of view.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think there is a reliable source anywhere.


Climate changes, it always has and it always will.

That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.

As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out
of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.


I've done more research than most, and my final conclusion is that no
one has a reliable handle on any of it.

Despite the huge amounts of crap spouted about it.

On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think there is a reliable source anywhere.


Climate changes, it always has and it always will.

That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.

As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out
of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.


I've done more research than most, and my final conclusion is that no
one has a reliable handle on any of it.

Despite the huge amounts of crap spouted about it.

+1.

Nigel Lawson's book isn't a bad place to start, IMHO.

On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think there is a reliable source anywhere.


Climate changes, it always has and it always will.

That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.

As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out
of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.


I've done more research than most, and my final conclusion is that no
one has a reliable handle on any of it.

Despite the huge amounts of crap spouted about it.

That just about sums it up nicely.

Colin Bignell

John Williamson wrote:
David Paste wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:15 pm, Bill Wright wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,
Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.
Thanks in advance.
There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched. Any
publication is likely to be biased.

Bill

Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk! I recently
asked a question about a particular brand of powertool in a
woodworking group, and it turned into a 'friendly discussion' about
the physics of hi-fi speaker wires. I'd like to avoid such situations
as much as possible!

Dons flameproof suit The truth about man made Global Warming seems to
be, as yet, "We don't know". The precautionary principle says we should
stop adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, as although we don't have
cast iron proof that there is an effect, doing this can't do any harm,
and may minimise any problems we are going to have in the future in any
case.

Some people claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence, others
that the records we have show that AGW is happening and accelerating,
while others point to the same data and deny that there is anything
other than a random fluctuation happening.

Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air is an e-book which is free to
download, and addresses the subject and ways of reducing the effects,
but acknowledges that it may be too late.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Like all publications, though, you should be aware that the writer is
only presenting his point of view.


I think that is very unfair. David is not presenting his VIEW - he is
presenting the results of some very painstaking research based on actual
FACTS for the most part, like 'how much power do we use' and 'how
efficient is a steam turbine' and so on.

Nowhere does he say anything about climate change beyond noting that if
it is down to CO2, the purpose of the book is to look rationally at how
we might address the problem.

It is a book about human uses of energy and sources of it.

Not about climate change.

The problem with AGW - as opposed to 'climate change' is that it leaps
from a FACT :"CO2 is a greenhouse gas", adds another FACT: "CO2 is
increasing due to human activity" calculates what effect this would have
IF EVERYTHING ELSE WAS EQUAL and arrives at a figure which is so
pathetically small you wouldn't sell a single wind turbine on the
strength of it. And that's where the fudging and the leaps of faith come
in. Because the last part of the 20th century saw massive increase in
global temperature, the logical leap of faith of the IPCC was that this
was all DRIVEN by CO2 and AMPLIFIED (to make the numbers fit ) by some
*unkown* feedback system.


Despite there being no real evidence of such a system, and despite the
problem that in the historical past we have had similar changes in
temperature that can't be explained, with no CO2 variation, and often
massively bigger ones that CAUSED CO2 variation - not the other way round.

And as we learn more, it seems that climate and weather come in
irregular chaotic cycles, that may be related to instabilities in air
masses and sea currents, passage through spiral arms of the galaxy, and
what the sun is doing at the time as well.

Over my lifetimes a new ice age was predicted..but it just got steadily
warmer, then massive global warming was predicted, and its STOPPED
getting warmer....

Do you REALLY think anyone has more than a biassed guess to offer?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
David Paste wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:15 pm, Bill Wright wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,
Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.
Thanks in advance.
There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched. Any
publication is likely to be biased.

Bill

Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk! I recently
asked a question about a particular brand of powertool in a
woodworking group, and it turned into a 'friendly discussion' about
the physics of hi-fi speaker wires. I'd like to avoid such situations
as much as possible!

Dons flameproof suit The truth about man made Global Warming seems
to be, as yet, "We don't know". The precautionary principle says we
should stop adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, as although we
don't have cast iron proof that there is an effect, doing this can't
do any harm, and may minimise any problems we are going to have in the
future in any case.

Some people claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence,
others that the records we have show that AGW is happening and
accelerating, while others point to the same data and deny that there
is anything other than a random fluctuation happening.

Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air is an e-book which is free to
download, and addresses the subject and ways of reducing the effects,
but acknowledges that it may be too late.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Like all publications, though, you should be aware that the writer is
only presenting his point of view.


I think that is very unfair. David is not presenting his VIEW - he is
presenting the results of some very painstaking research based on actual
FACTS for the most part, like 'how much power do we use' and 'how
efficient is a steam turbine' and so on.

Nowhere does he say anything about climate change beyond noting that if
it is down to CO2, the purpose of the book is to look rationally at how
we might address the problem.

It is a book about human uses of energy and sources of it.

Not about climate change.

The problem with AGW - as opposed to 'climate change' is that it leaps
from a FACT :"CO2 is a greenhouse gas", adds another FACT: "CO2 is
increasing due to human activity" calculates what effect this would have
IF EVERYTHING ELSE WAS EQUAL and arrives at a figure which is so
pathetically small you wouldn't sell a single wind turbine on the
strength of it. And that's where the fudging and the leaps of faith come
in. Because the last part of the 20th century saw massive increase in
global temperature, the logical leap of faith of the IPCC was that this
was all DRIVEN by CO2 and AMPLIFIED (to make the numbers fit ) by some
*unkown* feedback system.


Despite there being no real evidence of such a system, and despite the
problem that in the historical past we have had similar changes in
temperature that can't be explained, with no CO2 variation, and often
massively bigger ones that CAUSED CO2 variation - not the other way round.

And as we learn more, it seems that climate and weather come in
irregular chaotic cycles, that may be related to instabilities in air
masses and sea currents, passage through spiral arms of the galaxy, and
what the sun is doing at the time as well.

Over my lifetimes a new ice age was predicted..but it just got steadily
warmer, then massive global warming was predicted, and its STOPPED
getting warmer....

Do you REALLY think anyone has more than a biassed guess to offer?

No, which is the reason for the flameproof suit.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Before the question can be answered adequately you need to give us some
idea of your level of scientific knowledge. The main IPCC reports are
actually a pretty good summary and well indexed to primary literature,
but they are hard going unless you are a science graduate or researcher.

sci.geo.meteorology would be a better place to ask this question.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think there is a reliable source anywhere.

Although it is much easier to make a list of *UNRELIABLE* sources which
would include Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, Screaming Lord
Monckton et Al. Basically look back to see if they were involved in
denier for hire work on seatbelts, tobacco or the ozone layer and then
draw your own conclusions about how trustworthy they are on AGW.

Of the recent studies I reckon the independent analysis funded by the
Koch brothers (and so expected to refute climate change) Berkley Earth
study of global temperature is about the most accessible:

http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/

Climate changes, it always has and it always will.

True enough, but until recently we were not able to affect the planets
energy balance significantly. That has changed in the past few decades -
even the genuinely sceptical scientists concede this point. GHG forcing
has to be included after about 1970 to balance the books and you cannot
just handwave the sun brighter since there is satellite monitoring of
the total solar irradiance in the relevant period.

That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.

As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out
of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.

Only if you demand absolute certainty as a way of avoiding accepting
that we have evidence that greenhouse gas forcing is now a significant
factor in climate change and that it will become more important as time
progresses. Exxon has paid a lot of money to PR men to spread doubt and
uncertainty about AGW and it has worked astonishingly well (exactly the
same techniques are used to keep the suckers smoking tobacco and even
some of the same practitioners).

These tactics annoyed the Royal Society so much that they wrote an open
letter to Exxon asking them to stop wilfully misrepresenting the
science. It didn't work to any noticeable extent.

I've done more research than most, and my final conclusion is that no
one has a reliable handle on any of it.

Despite the huge amounts of crap spouted about it.

Shame. You are otherwise quite rational about other things.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 24/02/12 16:01, David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

There's no shortage of information. The problem is that it isn't
understandable without advanced knowledge of meteorology and the ability
to process the data on a supercomputer.

So I understand what you want (as opposed to what you asked for) but can
state with reasonable certainty that it doesn't exist.

What you will find is lots of opinions and analyses of the data. You
need to decide whose analyses are most credible.


--
Bernard Peek

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

True enough, but until recently we were not able to affect the planets
energy balance significantly.

We can't affect the energy balance significantly now.
There is heat energy from radioactivity in the core, heat from tidal
effects, heat from the Sun and an miniscule amount from burning fuel and
nuclear reactors.
*All* of which radiates away into space.

On 24/02/2012 18:28, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.

As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out
of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.

Only if you demand absolute certainty as a way of avoiding accepting
that we have evidence that greenhouse gas forcing is now a significant
factor in climate change and that it will become more important as time
progresses....

In the past 15 years, despite rising CO2 levels, the climate has not
warmed in the way that models based upon that assumption predicted.
OTOH, Soviet scientists, who think that the driving factor is sun spot
activity, predicted that by 2012 we would start to see signs of a
cooling cycle and that is not contradicted by what has been happening.

Colin Bignell

Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Before the question can be answered adequately you need to give us some
idea of your level of scientific knowledge. The main IPCC reports are
actually a pretty good summary and well indexed to primary literature,
but they are hard going unless you are a science graduate or researcher.

sci.geo.meteorology would be a better place to ask this question.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think there is a reliable source anywhere.

Although it is much easier to make a list of *UNRELIABLE* sources which
would include Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, Screaming Lord
Monckton et Al. Basically look back to see if they were involved in
denier for hire work on seatbelts, tobacco or the ozone layer and then
draw your own conclusions about how trustworthy they are on AGW.

Of the recent studies I reckon the independent analysis funded by the
Koch brothers (and so expected to refute climate change) Berkley Earth
study of global temperature is about the most accessible:

http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/

Climate changes, it always has and it always will.

True enough, but until recently we were not able to affect the planets
energy balance significantly. That has changed in the past few decades -
even the genuinely sceptical scientists concede this point. GHG forcing
has to be included after about 1970 to balance the books and you cannot
just handwave the sun brighter since there is satellite monitoring of
the total solar irradiance in the relevant period.

That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.

As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out
of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.

Only if you demand absolute certainty as a way of avoiding accepting
that we have evidence that greenhouse gas forcing is now a significant
factor in climate change

No we don't.

Thats the point.

What we have is direct laboratory evidence that CO2 is a green house gas
and completely contradictory evidence that is way *not* enough to
account for last centuries temperature rises.

The slight of hand of the IPPC is to create a circular argument that
fools most scientists.

1/. Assume all the increase is due to CO2
2/. adjust value of a suitable constant - lamda - to make the
temperature rises fit the theory.
3/. Announce that the facts now 'prove' the theory. That all the
increase is due to CO2.

You appear to have swallowed this.

Its false on two counts: first of all facts don't prove theories.
Absence of facts that contradict theories alllw them to survive, that's all.

Secondly, the logic is circular.


http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

shows how this technique can be used to 'prove' a completely different
theory.




and that it will become more important as time
progresses. Exxon has paid a lot of money to PR men to spread doubt and
uncertainty about AGW and it has worked astonishingly well (exactly the
same techniques are used to keep the suckers smoking tobacco and even
some of the same practitioners).

I think you will found that the global spend on promoting AGW is about
200 times higher...one wonders why its necessary to do that.




These tactics annoyed the Royal Society so much that they wrote an open
letter to Exxon asking them to stop wilfully misrepresenting the
science. It didn't work to any noticeable extent.

I've done more research than most, and my final conclusion is that no
one has a reliable handle on any of it.

Despite the huge amounts of crap spouted about it.

Shame. You are otherwise quite rational about other things.

Well you have fallen for the scientific con hook line and sinker.

I don't say AGW is wrong, but it is certainly VERY bad science. In fact
its not science at all. Its first year garduate curve fitting crapola.
..
Just because you can fit a polynomial to set of data points doesn't mean
that the underlying cause of those data points is anything to do with
the polynomial function.

And when you have to massage the data hugely to get anywhere NEAR a fit
its becomes a very very poor example of even that.

CO2 by itself will account for 0.2C or 0.4C over the next century,.
That's what the maths says. The 1,2,3,4C rises are pure conjceture based
on randomly adjusting the lamda constant in the AGW equations to fit
last centuries data.

But of course, we had lots of WEATHER. El Ninos, la Ninas, PDOs
NAOs..at some point they can all sum, at other points they cancel.

NONE of that is ever taken into account EXCEPT when trying to explain
why the weather *doesn't* fit the climate models of the IPCC. ALL of it
is ignored in the making of that model.

It remains a very poor and very incomplete model, and normally no one
would give a damn except its being used as a vehicle for racketeering by
'green' companies - and forget Exxon. They cont care any more. They KNOW
renewable energy doesn't work and they will still be pumping shale come
what may. And Germany will be burning coal....

dennis@home wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

True enough, but until recently we were not able to affect the planets
energy balance significantly.

We can't affect the energy balance significantly now.
There is heat energy from radioactivity in the core, heat from tidal
effects, heat from the Sun and an miniscule amount from burning fuel and
nuclear reactors.
*All* of which radiates away into space.



Yeah,. I think fossil fuel and nuclear fuel is less than 1% of total
incoming solra radiation, and tahst about it.

It does raise the amusing sums done by one person who calculated that if
population kept on growing and everyone had a western lifestyle, within
50 years the required energy budget would exceed all the sunlight
falling on the earth, thus proving that sustainable growth and renewable
energy together made about as much sense as wheels on a balloon.

On Feb 24, 7:07*pm, Bernard Peek wrote:

There's no shortage of information. The problem is that it isn't
understandable without advanced knowledge of meteorology and the ability
to process the data on a supercomputer.

So I understand what you want (as opposed to what you asked for) but can
state with reasonable certainty that it doesn't exist.

What you will find is lots of opinions and analyses of the data. You
need to decide whose analyses are most credible.


OK, so I know I've probably disappointed everyone by opening up this
debate, so I'll state my position and what my 2 questions are. I have
a working knowledge of physics, a bit of biology and next-to-nothing
of chemistry.

1. Carbon Dioxide is often portrayed as the bad man responsible for
the greenhouse effect. I am not sure that this is plausible. Remember,
I have no knowledge of chemistry. Why I think this is that CO2 makes
up 0.039% of the atmosphere, whilst Nitrogen makes up 78.084% (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). This works out (I
think... maths ain't a strong point of mine either, sadly) that in one
cubic metre of air, CO2 comprises roughly the volume of a can of coke,
whilst Nitrogen occupies a wee bit more.

I once read that Nitrogen is more insulative than CO2, rendering the
idea that an increase in CO2 would cause warming on it's own null. Of
course, I cannot find this reference any more, and the only reason it
stuck in my mind is because of its oddity. I am happy to accept it as
cobblers if it is so. I have no idea how the insulative properties of
gasses work, and again, I have no real chemistry knowledge.

My question then: By what mechanism is CO2 supposed to cause warming?


2. This is just an idle thought, and if I could be bothered, I'd try
to work it out myself, but being close to death at the minute (I have
a horrendous condition where I feel weak and woozy and my nose keeps
leaking):

If all energy we use generally ends up as heat in one way or another,
then if we turned off all machines for a week, would we see any
cooling effect of the atmosphere?

So there you go. I am not trying to stir anything, I am just trying to
understand something about CO2 which has been at the back of my mind
for a while. I tried to ask it at a Skeptic's Club meeting once and
got pilloried as a ney-sayer. Great.

I am not trying to argue that anything is wrong. I am pro-nuclear and
pro-parsimonious-for-prudence'-sake (but doesn't mean I'm an
ascetic!). I am just genuinely curious.

On Feb 24, 7:07*pm, Bernard Peek wrote:

There's no shortage of information. The problem is that it isn't
understandable without advanced knowledge of meteorology and the ability
to process the data on a supercomputer.


Also, I'd like to add, as I understand it now, the slight increase in
temp & CO2 would be a benefit to land - crop will like it, etc, but
damaging to oceans - acidification, etc.

David Paste wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:07 pm, Bernard Peek wrote:

There's no shortage of information. The problem is that it isn't
understandable without advanced knowledge of meteorology and the ability
to process the data on a supercomputer.

So I understand what you want (as opposed to what you asked for) but can
state with reasonable certainty that it doesn't exist.

What you will find is lots of opinions and analyses of the data. You
need to decide whose analyses are most credible.


OK, so I know I've probably disappointed everyone by opening up this
debate, so I'll state my position and what my 2 questions are. I have
a working knowledge of physics, a bit of biology and next-to-nothing
of chemistry.

1. Carbon Dioxide is often portrayed as the bad man responsible for
the greenhouse effect. I am not sure that this is plausible. Remember,
I have no knowledge of chemistry. Why I think this is that CO2 makes
up 0.039% of the atmosphere, whilst Nitrogen makes up 78.084% (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). This works out (I
think... maths ain't a strong point of mine either, sadly) that in one
cubic metre of air, CO2 comprises roughly the volume of a can of coke,
whilst Nitrogen occupies a wee bit more.

I once read that Nitrogen is more insulative than CO2, rendering the
idea that an increase in CO2 would cause warming on it's own null. Of
course, I cannot find this reference any more, and the only reason it
stuck in my mind is because of its oddity. I am happy to accept it as
cobblers if it is so. I have no idea how the insulative properties of
gasses work, and again, I have no real chemistry knowledge.

My question then: By what mechanism is CO2 supposed to cause warming?


Let through UV, reflects IR.. sunlight is high value in high freq,
Radiated heat is high value in IR.

Same as aircraft contrails, helps keep you warm at night..



2. This is just an idle thought, and if I could be bothered, I'd try
to work it out myself, but being close to death at the minute (I have
a horrendous condition where I feel weak and woozy and my nose keeps
leaking):

If all energy we use generally ends up as heat in one way or another,
then if we turned off all machines for a week, would we see any
cooling effect of the atmosphere?

Himan energy is less than 1% of total insolatin.
..


So there you go. I am not trying to stir anything, I am just trying to
understand something about CO2 which has been at the back of my mind
for a while. I tried to ask it at a Skeptic's Club meeting once and
got pilloried as a ney-sayer. Great.

I am not trying to argue that anything is wrong. I am pro-nuclear and
pro-parsimonious-for-prudence'-sake (but doesn't mean I'm an
ascetic!). I am just genuinely curious.

Aren't we all? But we get spoon fed the on message guff, never the
actual facts.

David Paste wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:07 pm, Bernard Peek wrote:

There's no shortage of information. The problem is that it isn't
understandable without advanced knowledge of meteorology and the ability
to process the data on a supercomputer.


Also, I'd like to add, as I understand it now, the slight increase in
temp & CO2 would be a benefit to land - crop will like it, etc, but
damaging to oceans - acidification, etc.

yes. No one really knows but conceivably huge algal blooms take surface
CO2 and turn it into..er - probably oceanic sludge that will become oil
one day..

On Feb 24, 5:51*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Over my lifetimes *a new ice age was predicted..but it just got steadily
warmer, then massive global warming was predicted, and its STOPPED
getting warmer....

Except that it hasn't.

There has been a small but statistically significant warming trend in
atmospheric temperatures over the period that most people say warming
has stopped, despite La Nina effects that would tend to cause
cooling.

The recent BEST report by people who started out on the sceptical side
confirmed the atmospheric warming trend.

There has been a much more significant warming of the oceans however
over this period. I fail to see how that can be ignored.

And speaking of the ocean, we should be worried about increased
acidification from increasing CO2 concentration even if the warming
does not happen to concern us.

Bob wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:51 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Over my lifetimes a new ice age was predicted..but it just got steadily
warmer, then massive global warming was predicted, and its STOPPED
getting warmer....

Except that it hasn't.

There has been a small but statistically significant warming trend in
atmospheric temperatures over the period that most people say warming
has stopped, despite La Nina effects that would tend to cause
cooling.

The recent BEST report by people who started out on the sceptical side
confirmed the atmospheric warming trend.


But its entirely within 'normal limits' - not statistically significant.


There has been a much more significant warming of the oceans however
over this period. I fail to see how that can be ignored.

And speaking of the ocean, we should be worried about increased
acidification from increasing CO2 concentration even if the warming
does not happen to concern us.

That is a far more rational position to take.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:27:54 -0800 (PST), David Paste wrote:

There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched.
Any
publication is likely to be biased.

Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk!

I think this sums it up fairly well:

Do nothing, climate change happens:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose big time

Do nothing, climate change doesn't happen:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose

Do something, climate change happens:
- the affects might be reduced
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we win

Do something, climate change doesn't happen:
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we really win

--
Cheers
Dave.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
David Paste wrote:

On Feb 24, 7:07 pm, Bernard Peek wrote:

There's no shortage of information. The problem is that it isn't
understandable without advanced knowledge of meteorology and the
ability
to process the data on a supercomputer.

So I understand what you want (as opposed to what you asked for) but
can
state with reasonable certainty that it doesn't exist.

What you will find is lots of opinions and analyses of the data. You
need to decide whose analyses are most credible.


OK, so I know I've probably disappointed everyone by opening up this
debate, so I'll state my position and what my 2 questions are. I have
a working knowledge of physics, a bit of biology and next-to-nothing
of chemistry.

1. Carbon Dioxide is often portrayed as the bad man responsible for
the greenhouse effect. I am not sure that this is plausible. Remember,
I have no knowledge of chemistry. Why I think this is that CO2 makes
up 0.039% of the atmosphere, whilst Nitrogen makes up 78.084% (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). This works out (I
think... maths ain't a strong point of mine either, sadly) that in one
cubic metre of air, CO2 comprises roughly the volume of a can of coke,
whilst Nitrogen occupies a wee bit more.

I once read that Nitrogen is more insulative than CO2, rendering the
idea that an increase in CO2 would cause warming on it's own null. Of
course, I cannot find this reference any more, and the only reason it
stuck in my mind is because of its oddity. I am happy to accept it as
cobblers if it is so. I have no idea how the insulative properties of
gasses work, and again, I have no real chemistry knowledge.

My question then: By what mechanism is CO2 supposed to cause warming?

Your volume comparison is irrelevant, unfortunately [1]. IIRC, CO2 is
transparent to IR at the wavelengths we get most of from the Sun. So the
Earth heats up and radiates it back - but at a longer wavelength, to
which CO2 is opaque.

[1] Actually not so unfortunate. If all the CO2 were to vanish from the
atmosphere, Earth would cool down considerably.


Note also that the *average* temperature of a body at our distance from
the Sun is -15C. The Moon has this average. The Earth's average
temperature, OTOH, is +15C. CO2 in the atmos causes this.


And the fact that its big and hasn't cooled down and still has a molten
core and some radioactivity in there as well. CO2, water vapour and the
atmosphere is not that great a contributor IIRC..

On 24/02/12 20:56, David Paste wrote:

OK, so I know I've probably disappointed everyone by opening up this
debate, so I'll state my position and what my 2 questions are. I have
a working knowledge of physics, a bit of biology and next-to-nothing
of chemistry.

1. Carbon Dioxide is often portrayed as the bad man responsible for
the greenhouse effect. I am not sure that this is plausible. Remember,
I have no knowledge of chemistry. Why I think this is that CO2 makes
up 0.039% of the atmosphere, whilst Nitrogen makes up 78.084% (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). This works out (I
think... maths ain't a strong point of mine either, sadly) that in one
cubic metre of air, CO2 comprises roughly the volume of a can of coke,
whilst Nitrogen occupies a wee bit more.

I once read that Nitrogen is more insulative than CO2, rendering the
idea that an increase in CO2 would cause warming on it's own null. Of
course, I cannot find this reference any more, and the only reason it
stuck in my mind is because of its oddity. I am happy to accept it as
cobblers if it is so. I have no idea how the insulative properties of
gasses work, and again, I have no real chemistry knowledge.

It's not the insulation effect that makes a difference. It's a
difference in their transparency to electromagnetic waves of different
wavelengths.

Both are almost transparent to waves in the visible region of the
spectrum and some way into the infrared. The difference is that
greenhouse gases are not as transparent to longer wavelengths, the
far-infrared.

The result of this is that visible light and near-infrared radiation
gets through the atmosphere and hits the ground. It gets absorbed there
and as a result the earth's surface is warmed.

When warmed, the earth emits more infrared. But as the earth isn't as
hot as the sun much more of its heat energy gets radiated in the
far-infrared region of the spectrum. But the greenhouse gases are not
transparent at those wavelengths so they absorb the energy, trapping it
within the lower atmosphere. The heat energy trapped in the atmosphere
gets re-radiated back down to the surface where it contributes to the
surface temperature warming which increases the amount of far-infrared
emitted etc etc.

This is the same principle by which greenhouses work. Glass is
transparent to light and near-infrared. It isn't to far-infrared so heat
gets trapped inside the greenhouse.


My question then: By what mechanism is CO2 supposed to cause warming?

The greenhouse effect, see above.



2. This is just an idle thought, and if I could be bothered, I'd try
to work it out myself, but being close to death at the minute (I have
a horrendous condition where I feel weak and woozy and my nose keeps
leaking):

If all energy we use generally ends up as heat in one way or another,
then if we turned off all machines for a week, would we see any
cooling effect of the atmosphere?

Yes. In addition to the greenhouse effect we are also dumping our waste
heat into the atmosphere. If you watch the weather forecasts you will
see that London is usually 1-2 C warmer than the surroundings.


So there you go. I am not trying to stir anything, I am just trying to
understand something about CO2 which has been at the back of my mind
for a while. I tried to ask it at a Skeptic's Club meeting once and
got pilloried as a ney-sayer. Great.

I am not trying to argue that anything is wrong. I am pro-nuclear and
pro-parsimonious-for-prudence'-sake (but doesn't mean I'm an
ascetic!). I am just genuinely curious.


--
Bernard Peek

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

And according to IIRC WinkyPedia, the energy of the tides amount to a
large number of terrawatts due to friction. This can probably be
calculated exactly, in fact, since this energy loss should match the loss
of the Earth's rotational speed (causing the day to get longer by a small
but measurable amount).

These terrawatts will exceed human energy production, I'd have thought.

If it doesn't we can forget tidal as an energy source.

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

http://climateaudit.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/

All very reliable and truthful

in 1109358 20120224 174005 Newshound wrote:
On 24/02/2012 17:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
David Paste wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think there is a reliable source anywhere.


Climate changes, it always has and it always will.

That's about as close to an accurate statement you will get.

As for 'why?' and 'by how much?' and 'when?',... you have wandered out
of the set called 'reliable' IMHO.


I've done more research than most, and my final conclusion is that no
one has a reliable handle on any of it.

Despite the huge amounts of crap spouted about it.

+1.

Nigel Lawson's book isn't a bad place to start, IMHO.

What would he know about it?
(and anyway, his book shows the answer is "nothing")

In article , David Paste wrote:

My question then: By what mechanism is CO2 supposed to cause warming?

Any basic introduction to the subject will explain that. The controversy
is about how much difference the mechanism makes/has made compared with
other effects, and what we might be able to do about it.

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


If all energy we use generally ends up as heat in one way or another,
then if we turned off all machines for a week, would we see any
cooling effect of the atmosphere?

In a week - no chance. Might we have to worry in the _much_ longer term - yes.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-forever.html

On Feb 24, 10:03*pm, Tim Streater wrote:

Your volume comparison is irrelevant, unfortunately [1]. IIRC, CO2 is
transparent to IR at the wavelengths we get most of from the Sun. So the
Earth heats up and radiates it back - but at a longer wavelength, to
which CO2 is opaque.

I see, I understand now. Thanks you, and others who replied with this.


Note also that the *average* temperature of a body at our distance from
the Sun is -15C. The Moon has this average. The Earth's average
temperature, OTOH, is +15C. CO2 in the atmos causes this.

What about Argon? There's more of that in the atmos. (and they put
that in double glazing!) - or is it another wavelength thing?

Bernard Peek wrote:
On 24/02/12 20:56, David Paste wrote:

OK, so I know I've probably disappointed everyone by opening up this
debate, so I'll state my position and what my 2 questions are. I have
a working knowledge of physics, a bit of biology and next-to-nothing
of chemistry.

1. Carbon Dioxide is often portrayed as the bad man responsible for
the greenhouse effect. I am not sure that this is plausible. Remember,
I have no knowledge of chemistry. Why I think this is that CO2 makes
up 0.039% of the atmosphere, whilst Nitrogen makes up 78.084% (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). This works out (I
think... maths ain't a strong point of mine either, sadly) that in one
cubic metre of air, CO2 comprises roughly the volume of a can of coke,
whilst Nitrogen occupies a wee bit more.

I once read that Nitrogen is more insulative than CO2, rendering the
idea that an increase in CO2 would cause warming on it's own null. Of
course, I cannot find this reference any more, and the only reason it
stuck in my mind is because of its oddity. I am happy to accept it as
cobblers if it is so. I have no idea how the insulative properties of
gasses work, and again, I have no real chemistry knowledge.

It's not the insulation effect that makes a difference. It's a
difference in their transparency to electromagnetic waves of different
wavelengths.


Er, thats what makes it insulative!



2. This is just an idle thought, and if I could be bothered, I'd try
to work it out myself, but being close to death at the minute (I have
a horrendous condition where I feel weak and woozy and my nose keeps
leaking):

If all energy we use generally ends up as heat in one way or another,
then if we turned off all machines for a week, would we see any
cooling effect of the atmosphere?

Yes. In addition to the greenhouse effect we are also dumping our waste
heat into the atmosphere. If you watch the weather forecasts you will
see that London is usually 1-2 C warmer than the surroundings.


Fortunately London is still a very small area of the world.

David Mackay reckons that overall a person 'uses' about 5Kw of energy of
one sort or another . Whilst some of that is 'used' overseas most of it
is 'used' in the countyry and most of that will be 'used' quite locally.

Lets say 3Kw per head (excluding electricity generated outside London)
with 5 million people - so London is burning 3GW of fuel a day. On
average,. In winter considerably more. In fact Londons ELECTRICITY
requirement is about 3GW alone. And that all ends up as heat too. Ho hum.

Anyway in broad terms London generates somewhere between 3GW and 10GW of
heat pollution. That's about what DRAX coal fired power station dumps
into the air, (is it warmer there?)

In terms of a per unit area heat generation, that's 1500 square
kilometers appx, so its running between 2 and 6W /square meter.

Average insolation however is 150W/sq meter annually, so its peanuts
compared with that, but in winter when insolation is much lower, it does
have an effect..

Looking at some charts, in December the insolation is as low as 23W/sq
meter.

So London is sinking at least 10%, maybe as much as 50% of the heat from
the sun as waste heat from being a city, in a December day.

But of course at our latitude, most of the warming we get in winter is
not from the sun, its from warm wet gulf stream air..


But it serves to make the point that thermal pollution is significant.

And of course its a favourite explanation of those who seek to disprove
global warming, by pointing out that most of the weather stations that
measure land temperatures are sited on in or near to big centres of
population whose energy use has gone up enough to make them and the
instruments into heat islands.




So there you go. I am not trying to stir anything, I am just trying to
understand something about CO2 which has been at the back of my mind
for a while. I tried to ask it at a Skeptic's Club meeting once and
got pilloried as a ney-sayer. Great.

I am not trying to argue that anything is wrong. I am pro-nuclear and
pro-parsimonious-for-prudence'-sake (but doesn't mean I'm an
ascetic!). I am just genuinely curious.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:27:54 -0800 (PST), David Paste wrote:

There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched.
Any
publication is likely to be biased.
Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk!

I think this sums it up fairly well:


No. you have it completely wrong. Those are not the choices we face.

Do nothing, climate change happens:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose big time


Do nothing, climnate change happens, we still hacve abn ecionmony to
deal with it and we haven;t wqatsed our time on reneable energy that
doesnt work.

Do nothing, climate change doesn't happen:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose


Do nothing climate change doesn't happen, and we still have a healthy
economy to deal with the eventual demise of fiossil fules,.

Do something, climate change happens:
- the affects might be reduced
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we win


Do something renewable, climate change happens, now we are doubly
****ed. Not only do we have an energy source the depends on fossil fuel
to work, its also extremely expensive, our economy is ruined AND we have
to deal with climate change.


Do something, climate change doesn't happen:
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we really win

Do the renewable thing, and climate change doesn't happen, we bankrupt
the nation and destroy the countryside for absolutely no reason at all.


The thing boils down to as straight choice between nuclear power or
fossil power and the nuclear is only slightly more expensive than
fossil. In other parts of the world is much cheaper - Finland, S Korea -
all have a nuclear policy based on PURE COST ALONE.


whether or not we do anything is almost completely irrelevant anyway -
the real CO2 emitters are India and China and the USA.

Short of bombing them back to the stone age, we don't have much choice
but to live with the consequences of their actions.

Which makes the point that our choices are and should be more about
dealing with climate change that *will* happen, if they are going to
happen as a result of CO2, than trying to bail the titanic with a
teaspoon as it were.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:01:41 -0800 (PST), David Paste wrote:

Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

Have a look at the following blogs....

http://climaterealists.com/index.php
http://notrickszone.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://junkscience.com/

Loads of info...
Rick... (The other Rick)

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

And according to IIRC WinkyPedia, the energy of the tides amount to a
large number of terrawatts due to friction. This can probably be
calculated exactly, in fact, since this energy loss should match the
loss of the Earth's rotational speed (causing the day to get longer by
a small but measurable amount).

These terrawatts will exceed human energy production, I'd have thought.

If it doesn't we can forget tidal as an energy source.

Dennis, dear ,of course there is skads more energy in tides and sunlight
and wind than we as humans use.

That is supremely irrelevant.

using E = mC squared, there is enough energy in a grain of sugar to run
my house for a year. The problem is always one of access, not that the
energy is there or not.

In fact the universe is, one is told, nothing BUT energy. Energy is
literally the stuff of life - matter.

The problem is getting it in a form you want, when you want it, and this
is where solar panels, tidal barriers and windmills are ****ing useless.
because they are very very large compared to conventional power stations
and that makes them both an ecological blot on the landscape and very
very expensive. And they produce when THEY want to, not when YOU need it.

And the cost of dealing with all that downside utterly exceeds by an
order of magnitude the benefit of having 'free' energy.

All fuel used to generate electricity or do mechanical work is 'free' .
That is once again supremely irrelevant. Coal is 'free' - it costs to
get it out of the ground and burn it,.

Wind energy is 'free' it costs to get it out of the air and move it and
store it.


Uranium is 'free' it costs to mine it and turn it into fuel and to build
the power stations to utilise it.

If people used their heads instead of listening to political bull****
they would realise that in the end energy and power generation is about
how we can generate the most power with the least environmental impact
at the lowest cost. Overall there is a huge clear winner.

Nuclear power.

ALL renewable energy has more ecological impact - it has to - the energy
density of renewable sources is so low they need HUGE structures. or
acres of biofuel crops etc.

And all fossil fuel is cheaper than renewables.


Answer me this Dennis, why would you deliberately pick a technology that
is not the cheapest, not the least environmentally damaging, and not
the most energy secure?

Because a bunch of Eurocrats are buying shares in renewable companies
and essentially insider trading those shares into profit?

Yeah, right.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:27:54 -0800 (PST), David Paste wrote:

There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched.
Any
publication is likely to be biased.
Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk!

I think this sums it up fairly well:


No. you have it completely wrong. Those are not the choices we face.

Do nothing, climate change happens:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose big time



Interesting reading from Germany;-(...


http://www.spiegel.de/international/...816669,00.html



Last spring, Chancellor Angela Merkel set Germany on course to eliminate
nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources. Now, though, several
industries are suffering as electricity prices rapidly rise. Many companies
are having to close factories or move abroad.
Info

The red signs are still hanging in front of the gate to the steel mill on
Oberschlesienstrasse. "Hands off!" they read, or "The Krefeld steel mill must
stay!"

But now it's all over. Despite the signs, protests and pickets, ThyssenKrupp,
Germany's largest steelmaker, sold its Krefeld stainless steel mill to Finnish
competitor Outukumpu two weeks ago. The new owner plans to shut down
production by the end of next year, leaving more than 400 workers without a
job. The economic loss to this stricken city on the lower Rhine will be
significant.

The closing of the Krefeld mill cannot be blamed on low-wage competition from
the Far East or mismanagement at ThyssenKrupp's Essen headquarters, but rather
on the misguided policies of the German government. That, at least, is the
view held by those affected by the closing. Since Chancellor Angela Merkel's
government abruptly decided to phase out nuclear energy last spring in the
wake of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, the situation for industries
that consume a lot of electricity has become much more tenuous.

Energy prices are rising and the risk of power outages is growing. But the
urgently needed expansion of the grid, as well as the development of
replacement power plants and renewable energy sources is progressing very
slowly. A growing number of economic experts, business executives and union
leaders are putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of Merkel's coalition,
which pairs her conservatives with the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP).
The government, they say, has expedited de-industrialization.

The energy supply is now "the top risk for Germany as a location for
business," says Hans Heinrich Driftmann, president of the Association of
German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK). "One has to be concerned in
Germany about the cost of electricity," warns European Energy Commissioner
Günther Oettinger. And Bernd Kalwa, a member of the general works council at
ThyssenKrupp, says heatedly: "Some 5,000 jobs are in jeopardy within our
company alone, because an irresponsible energy policy is being pursued in
Düsseldorf and Berlin."

A Lack of Direction

In macroeconomic terms, the impending demise of heavy industry is all the more
worrying, because the job losses will not be offset elsewhere. There is no
sign yet of the green economic miracle that the federal government promised
would accompany Germany's new energy strategy. On the contrary, many
manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels complain that business is bad
and are cutting jobs. Some solar companies have already gone out of business.
The environmental sector faces a number of problems, especially -- and
ironically -- those stemming from high energy prices.

Meanwhile, the federal government is helpless and seems to lack direction.
Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, a member of Merkel's Christian
Democrats (CDU) and Economics Minister Philipp Rösler (FDP) are at odds over
key issues. Röttgen is calling for stricter electricity conservation rules,
which Rösler opposes. Röttgen had long been opposed to Rösler's demand that
solar subsidies be cut prior to this week's agreement to slash such support by
up to 30 percent beginning in March. Because the two ministries have had such
different agendas for so long, German representatives have spent months
abstaining from votes during energy policy meetings in Brussels.

And now, the immediate shutdown of seven nuclear power plants last March is
affecting supply, as the Krefeld example shows. The steel mill requires
massive amounts of electricity to produce stainless steel, used in such
products as sinks and auto bodies. The metal is heated to more than 1,600
degrees Celsius (2,912 degrees Fahrenheit) in giant furnaces. A single smelter
consumes about as much energy in an hour as 10 single-family homes in an
entire year. Electricity makes up a fifth of the mill's total costs, says
Harald Behmenburg, the plant manager.

The price of electricity is moving in only one direction: steeply up. For the
Krefeld plant, the cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity has tripled since
2000.

And there is no end in sight. When Merkel's new energy policy was introduced
last year, says plant manager Behmenburg, planning for the future became
virtually impossible. Behmenburg says that it is impossible now to know what
will happen to the supply situation and the price of electricity in the coming
years. The mill, steeped in tradition, didn't stand a chance of surviving, he
says.

Voltage Fluctuations and Power Outages

Other companies could suffer a similar fate. Berlin's energy policy affects
all classic industrial sectors, from the steel and aluminum industry to paper
and cement manufacturers, as well as the chemical industry. The metal
industry, long an important sector in Germany, is already migrating to
countries with cheaper electricity.

The Düsseldorf-based conglomerate GEA closed its zinc plant in nearby Datteln.
Aurubis, the Hamburg-based company that is Europe's largest copper producer,
is critical of higher energy costs and has announced plans to invest abroad,
especially in Asia and South America. According to a recent survey by the
DIHK, almost one in five industrial companies plans to shift capacities abroad
-- or has already done so. The study also finds that almost 60 percent fear
power outages or voltage fluctuations in the power grid, because wind and
solar power are still too unreliable.

"The promotion of renewable energy has led to substantial displacement effects
on employment in the conventional energy production sectors, as well as in
downstream industries that are particularly energy-intensive," concludes the
report on a conference held at the Federal Ministry of Education and Research
last year. The political opposition has also recognized the importance of the
issue. Some believe that the green economy is everything, warns Sigmar
Gabriel, chairman of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). "But they
forget that they can't make a wind turbine without steel, plastic, mechanical
engineering and electrical engineering."

It is equally important to stabilize the power grid as quickly as possible to
prevent blackouts from occurring. Until now, the reliability of the German
electricity supply was seen as a significant advantage for doing business in
the country. But the loss of several nuclear power plants, coupled with the
unpredictability of electricity from wind and solar sources, has changed the
situation.

1
| 2
Next

Part 1: Rising Energy Prices Endanger German Industry
Part 2: A Lack of Direction in Berlin

--
Tony Sayer

On 24/02/2012 23:07, Road_Hog wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

http://climateaudit.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/

All very reliable and truthful

Bishop Hill is certainly not. These are all biassed AGW denier sites.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 25/02/2012 12:51, Rick... (The other Rick) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:01:41 -0800 (PST), David wrote:

Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

Have a look at the following blogs....

http://climaterealists.com/index.php
http://notrickszone.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://junkscience.com/

Loads of info...
Rick... (The other Rick)

These are classic AGW denier sites with a political slant that is
somewhere on the ultraviolet fringe of the far right free market.

Wattsupwiththat is sometimes interesting but the rest belong to the US
funded trash the planet for fun and profit brigade. They will still be
denying AGW when the sea is lapping at the steps of the Whitehouse.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:27:54 -0800 (PST), David Paste wrote:

There's a major problem in that opinion is divided and entrenched.
Any
publication is likely to be biased.
Indeed, but I'd still like to try to find out the answer to my
question without asking outright because of that risk!
I think this sums it up fairly well:

No. you have it completely wrong. Those are not the choices we face.

Do nothing, climate change happens:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose big time



Interesting reading from Germany;-(...


http://www.spiegel.de/international/...816669,00.html


snip

indeed. the result of all this stuff - just like minimum wage
legislation - is to force business away to countries where the rules
are less stringent.

high income tax, high minium wage, protective employee legislation and
now renewable energy - all these mean that the problem doesnt go way, it
goes abroad.

Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/02/2012 12:51, Rick... (The other Rick) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:01:41 -0800 (PST), David
wrote:

Hello,

Can anyone point me in the direction of a _reliable_ source for
information about climate change please? I have no idea where to look.

Thanks in advance.

Have a look at the following blogs....

http://climaterealists.com/index.php
http://notrickszone.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://junkscience.com/

Loads of info...
Rick... (The other Rick)

These are classic AGW denier sites with a political slant that is
somewhere on the ultraviolet fringe of the far right free market.



Wattsupwiththat is sometimes interesting but the rest belong to the US
funded trash

As opposed to the Brussels and US govt funded trash..

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20...achine-800.gif

the planet for fun and profit brigade. They will still be
denying AGW when the sea is lapping at the steps of the Whitehouse.


As certain people will still be insisting on it when polar bears roam
the sahara.

You response shows how defensive and fragile the AGW position is becoming,.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

I think this sums it up fairly well:

Do nothing, climate change happens:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose big time

Do nothing, climate change doesn't happen:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose

Do something, climate change happens:
- the affects might be reduced
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we win

Do something, climate change doesn't happen:
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we really win

I think you're mixing up reality with the "kindergarten" approach that
politicians seem hellbent on.

Tim

Tim Downie wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

I think this sums it up fairly well:

Do nothing, climate change happens:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose big time

Do nothing, climate change doesn't happen:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose

Do something, climate change happens:
- the affects might be reduced
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we win

Do something, climate change doesn't happen:
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we really win

I think you're mixing up reality with the "kindergarten" approach that
politicians seem hellbent on.


+1.

The greatest risk is we ruin ourselves on a ecotard inspired cul de sac,
global warming happens anyway and we don't have the power stations or
the economic strength to deal with it.

which is probably exactly where the politicians are, in fact, taking us
with the total support of the grünatics.


Tim