The future of UK energy

by Anarchist Sat Dec 08, 2012 13:00

New energy sources like this should come under the con.trol of the UN and shared to peoples as they are needed. Any problems with this are the fault of the US

by Leon Sat Dec 08, 2012 17:53

This is a very important subject that has not had the publicity it deserves. Fracking will enable the USA to be completely energy independent within four years if we don't do something about that NOW. At the same time the UK will have massive incomes for the Exhchequer because we will no longer need to import energy and will again become a net exporter, any opportunity for a real workers revolution in this country will be gone if the country is rich.

The importance of stopping Fracking is vital.

by Mr JJJ Sat Dec 08, 2012 18:46

Except that the article is a load of crap, the fantasies of an industry-funded professional liar who is paid to dismiss the idea of peak oil, ridicule the reality of climate change and talk up the potential of fracking.
Sensible commentators including the UK government agree that the potential for fracking in the UK is very limited. The water usage involved, the climate impact, the landscape impact and the high cost of fracking are strong negatives, and the actual amount of recoverable gas down there is generally agreed to be a great deal less than fantasists like Lawson claim.
The big oil companies who fund Lawson hate people talking about peak oil because it implies that they have a lot less reserves than they have claimed; that in turn would mean that they wouldn't be allowed to sell as much as they want under OPEC rules. Likewise, it goes without saying that the fossil fuel industry hates any mention of climate change.
As for fracking, at the moment in the UK the big companies are not touching it because it might be too damaging and expensive. Caudrilla and the rest are venture capital companies who are talking up the potential of fracking to push up their own share prices; they will then sell out and take the profits before actual production starts.
Here's one little snippet about Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is the vehicle for big money to go from big oil and be turned into big lies by the odious tory twat:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/27/tory-...ktank
and a bit of work with Google will fill you in on the rest...

by Keto Sat Dec 08, 2012 20:58

It is!

Accept it!

No warming for 16 years!

Climategate 1 & 2 showing the spin and the lies and the "hide the decline"

Fracking has lowered the US CO2 emissions and lowered energy costs.

The post and the above comments demonstrate very well what the REAL intentions of the Alarmists are!

You have been rumbled.

It will never be the same again - your lies are out in the open.

Wind farm subsidies that take tax pounds away from benefits for those in need, and the NHS and put those £'s in the hands of greedy developers.

I am very much a Catastrophic Climate Change Sceptic - tho no doubt those who are addicted to "Climate Porn" would call me a denier.

I am not denying that Climate Changes - I do not deny that Human activity has an effect.

But to openly admit that the agenda of the alarmists is to deny a country - any country - energy security so that a hidden agenda can be achieved makes the Alarmists deniers of freedom.

And I am not supported by big oil - wish I was!!!!!!

If you want to see who is really in receipt by governments and big oil - look at the funding of the likes of the CRU at the UoEA.

Now that is revealing.

And now that the wheels are coming off the big lie that is AGW the Alarmists that held sway for so long are angry - VERY angry - they thought they had done it - they thought they had fooled all of the people all of the time.

They hadn't.

and the truth hurts them very much.

No doubt the alarmists will accuse me of all sorts now:-

Funded by big oil !

Racist ! - because as a sceptic I obviously do not "Care"

Capitalist !- because capitalists are destroying the world and anyone who questions the dogma just has to be one.

And yet when cheap energy is available that lowers CO2 - what do the alarmists do?

They want to ban it.

JUST HOW FUNNY IS THAT!

by Did some feeding Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:18

My initial reaction to Fracking was negative but of late and following a train ride with somebody who knew some of the technical details behind it I have started to read the facts.

The possibilities for energy are simply incredible in terms of not just the US and Europe but many other parts of the world as well (for example India). The rewards are so high that the USA is already spending billions to make it happen and they will be independent of the rest of the world within just a few years.

by The Real Adam Smith Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:20

Just a few observations:

1. Where is the Bristol link?

2. The first two comments are so ludicrous that they appear to be black propaganda trying to make anarchists and trots look stupid. Pleeease tell me that they are not for real. Apart from anything else, even if the USA agreed to put their energy resources under a World Government no other state would. Brazils wouldn't, India wouldn't, China wouldn't, Saudi Arabia wouldn't. None of them would. In fact, if you want world war three that's the way to start it. Try bringing energy resources under centralised global control.

3. Mr JJJ, for once I have to agree with you. Never mind the US, it's the major oil producing nations in OPEC that have the most to lose from cutting fossil fuel consumption, and behind the scenes they are the ones lobbying hardest to keep fossil fuels pumping.

4. Don't forget, the Yanks are the original Revolutionary State. They never stop infighting and look to be heading towards another civil war at some point. Maybe all that gas'll come in handy then.

by Sustainable Mon Dec 10, 2012 14:01

Amazing to see such a bizarre peice here at Bindymedia, its like something out of the 1950's!

Every aware and intelligent human I know realised long ago that we need to consume massivley less in every sphere of life, most of all with regards to 'energy'.

Consume LESS is the ONLY way to go, and the true meaning of the word SUSTAINABLE needs to be thought long and hard about!

Anybody that thinks different either needs to educate themselves urgently, or needs to divest himself of his utterly unsustainable neanderthal notions about 'energy' usage generally and its ecocidal effects.

by Keto Mon Dec 10, 2012 16:35

But have you seen what the Chinese for one are doing?

I am not saying we should do nothing - but the extra cost this muppet ConDem government is going to inflict on families energy bills by way of the discredited scare tactic of CAGW so that their mates can get huge subsidies for running wind farms is totally bloody absurd.

Use less makes sense.

But what we do will be totally wiped out by the energy consumption of the likes of China and India.

Far better to embrace Fracking as the US has done, so that families have cheaper fuel and the CO2 emissions are lower!

by Sweetcheeks Mon Dec 10, 2012 16:52

Don't blame the poor old Neanderthals for modern H. sapiens stupidity. It was the H. sapiens ancestors who killed off our H. neanderthalensis ancestors in some way that we don't yet understand.

Those who don't care will be made to care, not by you or me, but only by the terrible circumstances that they bring upon themselves, and then probably only when it's too late.

by Leon Mon Dec 10, 2012 17:31

Sustainability is all related to a date. The sun is not sustainable, it will burn out billions of years from now and the solar system will collapse. Calculating the fossil fuels quantity the planet still holds is not an exact science, the North Sea reserves were supposed to have gone by 1987, then 1999, then 2004 now the next expanded gas technology has shown that the UK will still be pumping crude until 2165. The USA has currently capped some 60% of its crude wells to ensure Middle East oil runs out first and GW Bush is on record as saying they will not need to open them until at least 2095 at the earliest.

You are right to say it will not last for ever but it will last for a lot longer than big oil has been saying.

by Sweetcheeks Mon Dec 10, 2012 18:21

Keto "the discredited scare tactic of CAGW"
Keto "the CO2 emissions are lower!"

Make up your mind Keto. Are you bothered about CO2 emissions or not?

And as for China, they're doing a hell of a lot more than most of the the West and they already implemented one of the most important policies years ago which is to make efforts to prevent humans outbreeding the ecological capacity to support us.

by Sheeeesh! Mon Dec 10, 2012 18:28

Fer fuxxsake... has bindymedia been hijacked by ecociding capitalists and moronic tories while I was away?

by Peon Mon Dec 10, 2012 18:52

yeh right, of course it is, and capitalists are Ecociders and psychopaths that will be dealt with appropriately, end of.

by Keto Mon Dec 10, 2012 20:33

Some confusion there (On your part I presume)

by Sweetcheeks Mon Dec 10, 2012 18:21

Keto "the discredited scare tactic of CAGW"

(Catastrophic AGW requires a positive feedback with CO2 and water vapour - as CO2 on its own is never going to be a Catastrophic single cause - what feedbacks do exist are now shown to be negative feedback)

Keto "the CO2 emissions are lower!"

(this helps those who think Consensus is the stuff of science - it isn't it is the stuff of politics - but if it means we can use a cheaper more effective and efficient energy source and get the Alarmist numpties of our backs - THEN LET'S GO FOR IT!)

Make up your mind Keto. Are you bothered about CO2 emissions or not?

(Not at the levels they are now - nor at the levels they have risen to - even if they doubled - all that would happen is that veg and fruit yields would increase so we could feed more. - so no not bothered)

And as for China, they're doing a hell of a lot more than most of the the West and they already implemented one of the most important policies years ago which is to make efforts to prevent humans outbreeding the ecological capacity to support us.

(Ahhhh! yes the despots answer is to prevent people from having too many kids - the State controlling every aspect of peoples lives - even fornication!

How nice that the Anarchists of Bristol think that such State interference is a jolly good idea.

And you think I am "confused" - have you looked up what the term "Anarchist" actually means?)

by Frack off Mon Dec 10, 2012 20:38

Anybody stupid enough to think Fracking is a good idea watch this:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/Watch/Gasland_2010/

by Keto Mon Dec 10, 2012 22:02

I think one of the best analysis of the fraud perpetrated by Fox in his film Gasland is here:-

http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/untruths-and-co...0698/

I think the best bit is where he is confronted with the fact that people in Pennsylvania had been lighting their water taps for 75 years - well before Fracking started.

That area has methane and other ignitable gases like butane and some propane seeping into the water course by totally natural means.

Fox makes this look like some sort of conspiracy.

The biggest laugh is the fabrication of the money offer.

Totally debunked.

Sorry guys - have to try better - Gasland may be a good example of the sort of "Climate Porn" some get off on- but as a reality? Hardly.

by Engineer Mon Dec 10, 2012 22:40

Watched the video, nearly fell on the floor laughing. Suggest you do some real research and not base your views on crap like that.

In many ways all this is a moot point anyway, the argument for Fracking is made, the debate is over. It will and is happening, simple as that.

by Brack Tue Dec 11, 2012 07:21

With the widespread adoption of Fracking technology we are going to see political and economic control being maintained by the current G20 countries. In particular we will see the US becoming wealthier than at any time since the 1940's because it's major overseas state purchase (energy) will no longer be required. The effect on the UK will lead to a financial bonanza some 30% greater than North Sea oil and it will last longer. At a recent energy industry conference in Doha BP said they expect to see the UK being a net exporter of energy by 2020 as a result of the Fracking technology. Germany's decision to close its nuclear plants which at first seemed inexplicable now makes sense when one understands the quantity of gas under the Bavarian mountains, enough to provide Germany with all it needs for over 300 years.

As was said above, this argument is over, there is not a government minister on the planet who would say no to this. For anybody with a hope of a Socialist or Anarchist society this is simply a disaster, we all recognise that a rich society does not riot or seek political change, does not seek radical solutions to social issues, does not upset the status quo.

As we can't stop Fracking through the political process we must do it via direct action. If we don't the current state of world power will remain.

by Keto Tue Dec 11, 2012 09:29

You mean that the Socialist Anarchist Alarmist alliance is NOT going to be able to take over when the energy runs out - because errrrrrrrr - the energy is not running out and what we have to look forward to is cleaner abundant energy and not an apocalypse ? ? ?

Shit!

I will have to get a job.

Oh! Bugger.

by Keep it up. Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52

I must say this has been one of the most fun threads on BIndy in ages. People saying that we must kept other peoples lives shit because otherwise they will not rise up in the revolution. ! What a laugh.

Fracking offers the world a massive opportunity to have low cost, low carbon fuel and reduces dependency on some fucked up 'Kingdom's in the Middle East. The only people I can see objecting to that are some Sheiks in their diamond covered palaces and the sort of people who last week were selling Socialist Worker outside the Co-Op.

I have yet to see any credible argument against it outside of the usual Luddite, "this is new, I don't understand it so it must be stopped" objectors who were probably complaining that the wheel was a bad idea.

by The Real Mcoy Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:20

Hey mods, why is all this denialist shit staying up?

What happened to the accuracy 'guideline'?

by The original "Real McCoy" Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:29

.......accuracy is not your strong point if you keep stealing peoples identities

But I doubt that would occur to someone who thinks the rules are for other people.

Denialist bullshit Vs accuracy?
by The Real Mcoy Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:20
Hey mods, why is all this denialist shit staying up?

What happened to the accuracy 'guideline'?

....................!!!

by Griss Tue Dec 11, 2012 14:26

"Hey mods, why is all this denialist shit staying up?"

You mean views you don't agree with should be hidden ?

by Bored by capitalist idiots Wed Dec 12, 2012 07:04

Denialists have got to be the most stupid of the tiny-minded retarded immoral unprincipled heartless capitalist bunch.

Wannabe leaders of the consumers-lemmings, driven ever onward towards the illusion of never-ending economic growth, driven also by the combination of their own greed and ignorance, pushed hard by the mega-momentum and pressure building behind them from millions of consumer-lemmings marching themselves towards their own destruction, leaving nothing behind them but environmental devastation all around the planet.

It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

When the air is no longer fit to breathe, when the water is no longer fit to drink, and when the land is so spoilt that the food produced is not fit to eat, only then will they realise that they cannot eat, drink or breathe money.

Nor will all the bright and shiney technical and energy fixes that they think they are so clever inventing solve the environmental problems they created.

Greedy arrogant ignorant Ecociding psychopathic capitalists will kill us all... if we let them.

by Keto Wed Dec 12, 2012 08:13

Is control everyone so you can be in charge.

The only way this was going to happen is if the climate porn you peddle was real. Shale gas as an example just blows you away.

Well catastrophic climate change isn't real - it was a manufactured con BY capitalists like Gore and the slimy politicians in this country to get tax £'s to build useless wind farms to get ever more subsidies

Answer me this - with utility bills going up due to "green" taxes to pay for the wind farm follies and Al Gore et al trying to make a new money market out of carbon trading

Just who is the fucking capitalist?

Before you start calling people names you ought to do the research on EXACTLY HOW YOUR CAGW IDEOLOGY IS FUNDED.

Then come back and tell me that any one who questions your petty dogma is a capitalist!

You have been conned - get over it - see the reality.

by LOL Wed Dec 12, 2012 08:24

Capitalists are mentally ill, so too are denialists, only more so.

by Keto Wed Dec 12, 2012 09:33

I suspect you too would consider this a viable option if it meant you could gain the power you also crave.

by Bored by idiots in general Wed Dec 12, 2012 09:53

Once again the old advice still applies - follow the money........

When the view is sought of an individual who has NO FINANCIAL INTEREST the information is very different. Take this quote from a highly respected expert. ..John R. Christy, PhD, M.Div, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, provided the following testimony on Aug. 1, 2012 before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, available at www.epw.senate.gov:

"It is popular again to claim that extreme events, such as the current central US drought, are evidence of human-caused climate change. Actually, the Earth is very large, the weather is very dynamic, and extreme events will continue to occur somewhere, every year, naturally…

New discoveries explain much of the warming found in traditional surface temperature datasets. This partial warming is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the thermometer stations...

Widely publicized consensus reports by 'thousands' of scientists are misrepresentative of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate sensitivity...

...Climate models overestimate the response of temperature to greenhouse gas increases. Also shown was a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they've happened in the past before CO2 levels rose...

It is a simple fact that CO2 is plant food and the world around us evolved when levels of CO2 were five to ten times what they are today. Our green world is a consequence of atmospheric CO2. And, food for plants means food for people. The extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere not only invigorates the biosphere, but also enhances the yields of our food crops. This is a tremendous benefit to nature and us in my view..."

Or The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, in a position statement written by Chairman C.D. Idso, PhD, and Vice President K.E. Idso, PhD, stated the following in its 2008 publication "Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming: Where We Stand on the Issue," available at www.co2science.org:

"There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2...

Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history...

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years...

Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming...

Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century."

by £800 suit Wed Dec 12, 2012 14:23

Started by we all know who

by Keto Wed Dec 12, 2012 16:21

New researchers are coming forward to challenge the old school dogma.

This is an interesting one:-

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L23705, 5 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL054244

On the statistical significance of surface air temperature trends in the Eurasian Arctic region

C. Franzke

British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK

This study investigates the statistical significance of the trends of station temperature time series from the European Climate Assessment & Data archive poleward of 60°N. The trends are identified by different methods and their significance is assessed by three different null models of climate noise. All stations show a warming trend but only 17 out of the 109 considered stations have trends which cannot be explained as arising from intrinsic [natural] climate fluctuations when tested against any of the three null models. Out of those 17, only one station exhibits a warming trend which is significant against all three null models. The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland.

........................

"The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland."

And i suspect the UHI effect accounts for much of these. It certainly needs to be dismissed as a possibility - and even so the findings are significant.

And my prediction as to what the Alarmists will do with this?

Try DESPERATELY to ignore it.

But the REAL science is now overwhelming the "consensuscience" which should have no place in real science whatsoever.

by actionlines whistle-blower Wed Dec 12, 2012 17:37

why wont anyone engage with you here, why does nobody care about anything you say, why does nobody respect you or anything about you?
maybe it has to do with your years of dis-respecting every other user here, maybe its to do with your arrogant and patronising manner, maybe its got something to do with your total ignorance around everything that really matters to the aware perceptive intelligent caring people that contribute to this space?
...or maybe its just because you are an insensitive capitalist denialist oaf?

by Rick O' Shea Thu Dec 13, 2012 08:28

This debate is between those who have researched the subject and those who just .... believe.

by keto Thu Dec 13, 2012 08:34

One reason why US reserves are better known is because the owner of the land owns the gas. Whereas here in the UK - the government owns the rights. So in the USA the world and his wife have been drilling to find out if they are sitting on a proverbial gold mine.

Here in the UK there is no point in doing that

But the powers that be are waking up to the potential because the numbers are also about to be updated. The BGS has been commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to make a thorough assessment of the onshore shale gas resource across the whole of the UK. It's due to be launched in the New Year, but last Saturday the Times announced - presumably on the basis of a leaked copy - that the report will:

"...estimate that the 1,000 square kilometres covered by the Bowland Basin to the east of Blackpool contains 300 trillion cubic feet of gas, equivalent to 17 times the remaining known reserves in the North Sea."

And that is just the Bowland Basin!

But it does make that Golden Mile look even more "Golden".

by Clives mate Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:13

I'm in!

'Gonna make loadsa money!

Fuck the greenies!

Fuck the planet!

Fuck future generations!

I'm gonna get RICH!

by LT Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:24

The Kent field is estimated to be about 400 trillion cubic feet of gas with a further 150 trillion off shore. During the Doha debate on future energy the Abu Dhabi goverment stated that their expectation of gas sales to Europe after 2020 is "zero".

by Clives mum Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:41

SO proud of my capitalist pig son, I bought you up good didnt I :)

I'll have some of that 'Shale-Gas' action son, I'm thinking maybe a six figure investment to kick off with, you know how I just love to frolic around in an XXL tee shirt in the middle of the winter!

Dont worry about those greeny types Clive, when the environmental shit hits the natural fan, I've still got your daddys Browning Hi-power automatic pistol AND his old double barrelled shotgun here to defend myself with :)

by Sweetcheeks Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:59

"After the Norman Conquest all land belonged to the King and despite changes since then, there is still a presumption that land is owned by the Crown unless there is evidence to prove otherwise."

HMG merely grants licenses, as far as I understand.

As for China:

"Ahhhh! yes the despots answer is to prevent people from having too many kids - the State controlling every aspect of peoples lives - even fornication!"

You must be on towards Religious Right and Falangism if you think that fornication is about having children. it's not. Fornication is about fun and the Chinese have no problem with that.

The Chinese government, unlike our own shower of Public School spoilt brats, thinks about the overall good of all their people in the long-term. They understand perfectly well that a recklessly multiplying human population will lead to much greater suffering in the long run.

What makes you think that everyone here is an "Anarchist"? Are you an Anarchist?

by Clives brother Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:33

I want a new BMW 4X4 so count me in too bro!

I want it for two reasons, one cuz as you know small pricks run in the family so a big BMW 4X4 will get me some much needed respect at last, and two cuz I like to look down on other people as I drive along, its great for the ego what what!

I've got £65k to invest in shale-gasfields bro, seems like a winner to me, sort me out OK?

by Clives daughter Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:15

I want a new horse daddy, buy me one when you make all that lovely dosh green-washing for those shale-gas clients of yours wont you daddy waddy?

By the way, at college I keep on getting teachers warning us about 'the state of the environment' the bloody idiots!

They prattle on about how deforestation and massive global die-back of trees all around the world and the dangers of excess CO2, and how less trees means more CO2 and less Oxygen and the acidification of the oceans which means that Phytoplankton are producing less Oxygen etc etc etc does my head in daddy, but thank god you have all those shares in Virgin Space program which means that we can all fly off and live on Mars.

Thank you daddy for being ever such a clever daddy xxx

by LOL Thu Dec 13, 2012 13:29

Looks like being presented with the facts has unhinged some of the Climate Change gang. I suppose it is upsetting to discover that what you thought was a radical position that had you "putting it to the man" was in fact part of a PR operation by big oil to support their pricing by inventing the 'Peak Oil' story. Must be even worse to discover that much of the mankind driven climate change theory has been promoted by big business and governments who have been manipulating your thinking - how very embarrising !

by Doug Thu Dec 13, 2012 16:07

What a fascinatingly funny thread, you really ought to start a Cosmic Denialism blog Mr whoever you are, we earthlings are very interested in life(?) on other planets, wherever they are :)

Not that we would ever want to visit you understand...

by Realist Thu Dec 13, 2012 16:17

Parasitic ignorant Ecociding morons 'Clives' family is!

by User Thu Dec 13, 2012 16:35

Was Bristol-Indymedia really set up for stupid zombie-consumers like Clives family members to boast about their excessive and unsustainable planet-killing consumerism?

by . Thu Dec 13, 2012 16:55

clives family - what a fukked up load of sad wannabes!!!!!!

by £800 suit Thu Dec 13, 2012 17:37

What kind of fukkwit capitalist produces a family like this clives lot?

by Birdy Thu Dec 13, 2012 17:51

Have much in common with the Dodo

by Keto Thu Dec 13, 2012 18:02

Instead we have someone who for reasons best known to them are attacking an individual with childish and very silly language.

Ignore the troll - clearly has reality issues.

Whatever Fracking is - it is a way of getting cheaper energy bills and this can only help those struggling to pay energy bills. And lets face it there are plenty of those in Bristol at the moment.

If every new technology was treated to the Luddite mentality so ably set out before us via the silly posts then none of us would be conversing via the medium of BIM!.

One thing i will say to all - is don't respond to the emotional retard - one thing I suspect they are fishing for via THIER disrespect is to trigger a disrespectful response from others.

Best to ignore and carry on in a mature and adult way and so teach them the value of communication rather than dummy spitting.

by Angie Thu Dec 13, 2012 19:05

It was before you capitalists and denialists blew in...

by Bindy girl Thu Dec 13, 2012 19:13

"Bristol indymedia is intended to represent the world we are striving to create, rather than the world we live in."

Do you understand this simple statement?

We do not want your capitalism, nor your climate change, nor your excuses, nor your lies, nor your spin.

Read the guidelines!

by ha ha ha ha Thu Dec 13, 2012 20:04

Not possible with 'business as usual capitalists' or Climate Change denialists like you, duhhh!

Whatever you think or assume this space is for, it is not and it never will be.

by Sensible Sue Thu Dec 13, 2012 20:16

Research exercise #1:

EPA Data image

by Keto Thu Dec 13, 2012 20:25

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20707574

Time will tell just how much is there, how much the savings will be - and how much better the UK economy will be for NOT being totally dependent on foreign gas.

But the point is - the REAL point.

Until the data is in - I suggest the overly emotional responses by some are hardly helpful.

And yes - I have read the guidelines - YOU are breaking them - I am not.

by Clives daughter Fri Dec 14, 2012 08:46

That is one hell of a scary set of graphs Sensible Sue, I had NO IDEA!

My daddy has been lying to me, he told me that all was well in the world and that it is getting better!

But Sue, do not expect my daddy to even acknowledge your graphs, his head is full of concrete and he is incapable of assimilating information which goes against his rigidly held beliefs!

Thanks again Sue, and I will make sure the rest of my daddys family takes a look at your graphs / image :)

by JH Fri Dec 14, 2012 09:01

Here from the BBC (for once!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20595228

by keto Fri Dec 14, 2012 09:47

The Science is Settled! – The Scientists have spoken! – Remember those clichés? – how very twee those words sound now.

We are still told this by those in the bubble world of Climate alarmism. The evidence of their anger at their agenda not being followed by real events is a palpable thing and is demonstrated extremely well by the frankly ridiculous posts by some above.

The word “Denialist” is used (with all its holocaust associations) by those on a mission, eager to silence skepticism about their PlayStation Climatology.

The incessant drumbeat from climate alarmists was mind-numbing, mindless, and inescapable. The news media reported every unusual weather phenomenon as if it were a result of climate change.

Alarmists pointed at any event (even Spring!) as proof that CAGW exists. At one time every nature show wrung its hands with anxious worries about what climate change will do.

Textbooks propagandised school children without mercy. In the USA - without consulting a single botanist, the benighted Supreme Court said that the EPA can treat CO2, which is necessary for all plant life, as a pollutant. The EPA has issued an endangerment finding based on no EPA research whatsoever.

The CO2 from our fossil-fuel fires, you see, will make the earth hotter and hotter, and eventually uninhabitable. It cannot do this on its own though, the models only manage to say so if there is a positive feed back loop with water vapour.

Sadly for the climate alarmists the actual data disagrees, but that is no barrier for the multi-billion climate-scare industry.

It is telling that the IPCC has never made a cause-effect graph showing forcing from CO2 on one axis and the resulting temperature rise on the other. Had they done so, using real data instead of computer models that include absurd and discredited assumptions, they would have discovered the equal absurdity of their predictions.

Doha was a non-event. The Alarmists are labeled the Green Taliban and the hand wringing tales of woe in the MSM is all but gone.

CO2 has increased – no doubt about it – but the temperature has staid flat for 16 years now – even Phil Jones of the UoEA CRU states that.

And talking of the CRU, Scientists around the world were staggered at what was revealed by the Climategate emails. As were many non-scientists. The truth genie was out of the bottle and the house of cards fell apart.

We should take better care of our planet and all life on it. But we will not do that if one group of individuals with an agenda based on ideology not science manage to hijack the political process. But listening to a Greenpeace spokesperson this morning saying that renewables should be the focus not fracking, I find myself agreeing with this BUT if renewables means wind farms where rich boys get richer from subsidies paid for by "green taxes" on utility bills and these wind farms need gas fired pawer stations running constantly on idle for when the wind is too strong or does not blow at all?

Where the hell is the sense in that?

Thank goodness, like all dogma, Climate Alarmism is self limiting as the rhetoric gets ever more extreme and bizarre the more the dogma comes under sensible scrutiny.

The silliness exemplified by some in the above posts is the proof of the last gasp of extreme climate alarmism.

by Clives brother Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:51

Hey Bro... those graphs from Sensible Sue, should we ignore them?

If they are accurate, we are all in very deep shit are'nt we?

by Skeptic Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:02

Hang on a minute, we cannot claim to want 'sensible discussion' if we refuse to look at all the evidence.

Sues data must be looked at or we risk being seen for denialists, or worse even.

by Acco Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:51

Trying to give a sensible response the graphs posted by "sensible sue" above.

Dr Herbert West wrote:-

"The phrase 'correlation does not imply causation' goes back to 1880 (according to Google Books). However, use of the phrase took off in the 1990s and 2000s, and is becoming a quick way to short-circuit certain kinds of arguments.

In the late 19th century, British statistician Karl Pearson introduced a powerful idea in math: that a relationship between two variables could be characterized according to its strength and expressed in numbers.

An exciting concept, but it raised a new issue: how to interpret the data in a way that is helpful, rather than misleading.

When we mistake correlation for causation, we find a cause that isn't there, which is a problem. However, as science grows more powerful and government more technocratic, the stakes of correlation — of counterfeit relationships and bogus findings — grow larger."

And the truth is now out. If there was a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature then why has there been no warming for the past 16 years despite the fact that CO2 is rising.

Correlation does not equal causation. And whilst 16 years is not long enough to be statistically significant – but what is also statistically insignificant is the actual warming. It is enough for many many real scientists to look at the data in a questioning sceptical way and ask questions. The result is a rapid backtracking by those initially fooled by the hype and spin. Cue “The Who” – “Won’t get fooled again!”

Latest research indicates that far from there being the positive feedback loop re CO2 and Water Vapour – there is actually a neutral to negative feedback. Simplistically this could be because whereas the Alarmist Models assume that water vapour is always a gas, in reality water vapour forms clouds and these clouds act as shades cooling the atmosphere below them.

Much work needs to be done because of the uncertainty. Dogma, certainty and consensus has no place in REAL science. The world is waking up to that fact.

I think a post above sums this up very well:-

“This debate is between those who have researched the subject and those who just .... believe.”

And my oh my! – challenge that belief and there is no further debate allowed! – just name calling, silly posts and abuse.

And they think that makes their beliefs more “attractive” to the average person?

Make your own mind up.

by Keto Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:14

But they actually say nothing new. They look like they are EPA sourced and the EPA is hardly a organisation known for is scientific independence - the EPA lobbied for and actually got CO2 to be labelled a pollutant. This despite the fact that any botanist will tell you that CO2 is THE vital part of the Krebbs Cycle and is required by plants to convert to carbohydrates and Oxygen via photosynthesis.

It looks to me as if these graphs are taken out of context from a very old EPA publication.

If someone could supply the reference I will happily have a look at it.

But the graphs are themselves nothing to get excited about - unless you want to that is.

by @work Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:29

"Climate Denialism is self limiting as the rhetoric gets ever more extreme and bizarre"

Well said mate :)

by 'Skeptical' about denialists Fri Dec 14, 2012 13:00

He does not know what it means, and nobody yet can tell him how to respond to it!

He has to wait for the Denialist blogs etc to process those graphs, then he will simply cut and paste in their responses lol

Denialists are an endangered species, and they are fighting hard to remain relevant in a fast changing world... pity the poor denialist...

by Another skeptic Fri Dec 14, 2012 13:05

Have you heard about all that Methane venting into the atmosphere (its showed in those graphs that Sensible Sue posted) apparently its due to the ice and tundra melting in the northern hemisphere.

Methane is gushing out of the northern oceans like nobodys business, but then if the world is not getting warmer it is not a problem, right?

by mwahhh Fri Dec 14, 2012 13:32

he is a denialist troll here only to waste your time and wind you up, hes been trolling here for years, best to ignore him otherwise he will spam us with his denialist pro capitalist bullshit till the end of time, we have better stuff and more important work to do than argue with one demented denialist troll!!!!

by Keto Fri Dec 14, 2012 13:43

Oh dear!

Another example of spin and manipulation.

Rhetoric, classic example, thanks Keto.
by @work Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:29
"Climate Denialism is self limiting as the rhetoric gets ever more extreme and bizarre"

Well said mate :)

Why do you do it?

I clearly wrote about Climate Alarmism being self limiting.

And all you do is change a word.

No discussion - no debate - just another oh so obvious falsehood.

You really do know how to shoot yourselves in he foot! ;0)

by Blowhard watch Fri Dec 14, 2012 13:56

Do you even read the shit you write?

You posted:

Dr Herbert West wrote:-

"The phrase 'correlation does not imply causation' goes back to 1880 (according to Google Books). However, use of the phrase took off in the 1990s and 2000s, and is becoming a quick way to short-circuit certain kinds of arguments.

The operative words being: "is becoming a quick way to short-circuit certain kinds of arguments."

Which is exactly what denialists do all the time.

The Internet Blowhard’s Favorite Phrase: Why do people love to say that correlation does not imply causation?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/scienc....html

by JH Fri Dec 14, 2012 14:36

Methane
by Another skeptic Fri Dec 14, 2012 13:05
Have you heard about all that Methane venting into the atmosphere (its showed in those graphs that Sensible Sue posted) apparently its due to the ice and tundra melting in the northern hemisphere.

Methane is gushing out of the northern oceans like nobodys business, but then if the world is not getting warmer it is not a problem, right?

Just another scare story - methane hydrate regularly blows and usually in cycles. The bubbles of methane can be so great in some areas that it has an adverse affect on the buoyancy of ships and has been postulated as a possible reason for the disappearance of even large cargo carriers.

Methane Hydrate - sometimes known as "ice that burns" is another energy source that is being looked at. The Japanese and Chinese lead the field in this area.

Methane from animal waste is a far bigger source of methane in the atmosphere.

by JH Fri Dec 14, 2012 15:19

Why do some on here want to make a sensible discussion personal and some kind of pissing contest?

Your article is typical blowhard in itself. Accepting that the two are not intrinsically linked but then adding that one is a good indicator of the other!

Jeez! I would stop digging if I were you.

"One of the most common errors we find in the press is the confusion between correlation and causation in scientific and health-related studies. In theory, these are easy to distinguish — an action or occurrence can cause another (such as smoking causes lung cancer), or it can correlate with another (such as smoking is correlated with alcoholism). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated. But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other, even if it seems to make sense.

Unfortunately, our intuition can lead us astray when it comes to distinguishing between causality and correlation. For example, eating breakfast has long been correlated with success in school for elementary school children. It would be easy to conclude that eating breakfast causes students to be better learners. It turns out, however, that those who don’t eat breakfast are also more likely to be absent or tardy — and it is absenteeism that is playing a significant role in their poor performance. When researchers retested the breakfast theory, they found that, independent of other factors, breakfast only helps undernourished children perform better.

Many many studies are actually designed to test a correlation, but are suggestive of “reasons” for the correlation. People learn of a study showing that “girls who watch soap operas are more likely to have eating disorders” — a correlation between soap opera watching and eating disorders — but then they incorrectly conclude that watching soap operas gives girls eating disorders."

I would research this a bit more and try again mate.

by Sue Fri Dec 14, 2012 15:54

You are obviously years behind the climate awareness curve, therefore you are clearly unable to partake in 'Sensible discussion'... come back in five years, but do some proper research while you are away.

by Acco Fri Dec 14, 2012 16:30

The falshood is almost totally the alarmist one of attributing warming with CO2.

If this were true - then why as CO2 levels have risen are the models predicting a temperature increase but Mother Nature confounds the Alarmists and does nothing of the sort.

Correlation exists up to about 16 years ago - after the models are increasingly wrong such that reality does something else.

Even those who have a vested interest in the bandwagon continuing talk about the "missing heat" and that it is a "tragedy" that the models say one thing but the actual data says something quite different.

Time for a hard reassessment of priorities.

Which is a difficult concept for some to contemplate when their whole lives have been geared up to a falsehood.

Bizarrely rather than celebrating that things are not as bad as they tried to make out - they actually seem to WANT what has been termed "Climate Porn" to continue to scare kids and impressionable adults.

by JH Fri Dec 14, 2012 17:52

You may well be ahead of the game - but frankly - based on what has been posted here by those of the "Alarmist" view including yourself - I see precious little evidence of knowledge or a questioning mind. Just argumentative and bullying which is par for the course, sadly, when dealing with what is no longer science but a belief.

Simply stating that someone does not know enough and then demonstrating little but anger at someone daring to challenge you is hardly sensible. Ask any true scientist "do you know enough" and they will laugh at you and say "No of course not!"

The reason why Climatescience is now seen as a bit of a joke is because some within it tried to make out they knew everything. "The Science is settled" "The scientists have spoken" "The time for debate is over."

Climate Alarmists are what they are because they feel they know "enough". Those of a sceptical standpoint are still asking questions and that really upsets those that want the "science" all nicely packaged up and in its little box so they can run with their agenda - which in my view has NOTHING to do with true science at all.

Whereas those of a sceptical viewpoint seem balanced and open and above all knowledgable but with a questioning mind - not one that is already made up.

So no Sue - you are right - i do not know enough. And if you think you do, I feel sorry for you.

by Another Troll Sat Dec 15, 2012 05:24

Will you denialist guys please try to understand something.

All the facts, evidence and common sense in the world matter not one iota to anarchists.

It could be raining outside at this very moment but if this doesn't fit in with the anarchists' beliefs they will insist it is sunny and call you a troll for suggesting otherwise.

They live in their own cosy little fantasy world where reality rarely enters.

Please stop trying to shatter their delusions, one day they'll hopefully realise that they are pointless, irrelevant dreamers and may actually end up contributing something positive to society, until then just let them get on with and use them for entertainment.

by Keto Sat Dec 15, 2012 08:39

Polarising the debate is never helpful. I prefer to try to put across a sensible argument against "Alarmism" - and I think the latest AR5 report from the IPCC is very illuminating in this regard.

The IPCC’s AR5 report has been leaked early and is all over the internet. Some very interesting data in it that I wonder if it will stay as to include it seems to underscore almost everything those sceptical of the IPCC’s Alarmism have been saying for years.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/Statement_WGI_AR5_...D.pdf

There is a reference to Solar forcing which is very surprising given the mantra from all Alarmists that the sun has nothing to do with Climate. Hopefully this is a ‘welcome to the real world moment’ for the IPCC and we should all congratulate it on scrapping the nonsensical head in the sand concept they had that Solar forcing was somehow “constant” and so could be dismissed.

There is another graph that is very thought provoking, Fig 1.4 from the draft report shows the standard deviation probability projections for the models, past and present used to predict climate change, FAR, SAR, TAR and AR4.

A couple of things stand out, one is that when you see experimental data error bars larger than the error bars in the models, then you know that something is wrong.

And secondly the actual observed data is now falling below the lower probability array of the models.

In other words the actual observed temperature data is flat as we all know it has been for the past 16 years or so. Fig 1.4 graph from the leaked AR5 report shows that the models the IPCC used and their updates are now above and outside of the observed data.

Any other scientific enterprise would start to ask questions of the validity of those models. It is my understanding that most scientists and governments are asking those questions – it remains to be seen if the IPCC will do the same.

If it does not do the honorable thing then it has all been a terrible waste of time effort and money given the data/model schism. Because as the world has been warming for 300 years, and if the IPCC had ruled a line through the last 140 years it would have run smack through the middle of the observations.

Instead it took millions of dollars GBP Yen and Euro, hundreds of man-hours and the largest computers in the world to make a prediction of a new higher trend that didn’t happen.

We should be grateful to the people that leaked the report. The rumor is that there is a groundswell of real science within the IPCC that wanted the data “outthere” so that it could be seen and discussed before the politicos ‘summarise’ the reality of the report to fit a pre determined agenda. Which is what has happened before and done so much damage to the credibility of the IPCC.

by Sue Sun Dec 16, 2012 17:07

Seems like nobody else here wants to enlighten our pet Climate Change denier, so I'll do it.

You were a bit late to the party with your AR5 fuckup article Mr Denialist, the 'story' was out there for at least 24hrs before you cottoned on to it.

Unlike you and deniers generally, some of us would prefer to read the whole IPCC AR5 thing before jumping onto the latest denial-sphere band-wagon.

There is rather more to this than the one sentence that your hero Alec Rawls, the Republican blogger and 'Friend of EXXON' (among other fossil fuel corporations) singled out, but hey, thats what you denialists do innit.

A quick scan of UK Newspapers gives at least two good articles on this latest Climate Denier fuckups:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change....html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/globa...eport

I suggest that you read both articles, and then the whole of IPCC AR5, then you might, just might be qualified to have an 'opinion' not formed for you by Planet Denialism.

The IPCC AR5 draft consists of:

Summary for Policymakers... 26 pages.
Chapter 1: Introduction... 55 pages.
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface... 190 pages.
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean... 89 pages.
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere... 98 pages.
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives... 131 pages.
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles... 166 pages.
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols... 139 pages.
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing... 124 pages.
Chapter 8 Supplement... 13 pages.
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models... 218 pages.
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional... 131 pages.
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability... 129 pages.
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility... 158 pages.
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change... 110 pages.
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change... 206 pages.
Chapter 14 Supplement... 21 pages.
Technical Summary... 99 pages.

Download IPCC AR5 via this link: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

by Did some reading Mon Dec 17, 2012 16:00

Frankly this is not something that is going to be solved by presenting facts to those who just soooo want to believe that humankind has changed the weather through industrial and social activity that they will ignore even the fact that politicians and energy industry PR people have fooled them. If I had discovered that some prat at Exxon had conned me into changing my life so that Exxon profits could be higher I would be really pissed off but it seems the Climate Change movement is prepared to bend over and take it because the lie fits their view of how the world should be.

So be it. You live an unplesant life and make a rich American even richer, I will live a pleasant life where the abundunt resources of Mother Earth are available to me to enjoy.

Have a nice time.

by Doug Mon Dec 17, 2012 21:29

Don't have the faintest idea what the fuck is going on outside the tiny little bubble that is your reactionary mini-mind.

by denialist watch Mon Dec 17, 2012 21:41

Mr Denialist fukked it up BIG TIME what what LOL

No wonder he gone all quiet LOL

by wrong'un watch Tue Dec 18, 2012 06:05

wheres your usual 'Blizzard of Bullshit' now eh?
caught with your pants down yet again eh?
been playing with yerself all over your keyboard eh?
keyboard a bit sticky now is it?
need some tissues do you?
feeling a tad humiliated?
realizing at last what a dishonest lying hypocrite you are eh?
we knew all along exactly what you are!
and now mister denialist is covered in the denialist shit of his own making, and even he cant stand the smell it!

by Bindy girl Tue Dec 18, 2012 06:23

Ha Ha Ha Ha"

That is SO funny coming from you Clive!

You are usually obscenely keen to ram your 'denialist science' (sic) down everybodys throats!

Wossup mate, have you been caught out in your dirty denialist deeds messing with the science... AGAIN?

by Liking it Tue Dec 18, 2012 06:47

Caught the mood exactly. The Climate Change lobby has the problem that for its theories to be accepted we all have to buy in and adopt the lifestyle they think we must. However as a growing number of people do the research, realise the stupidity and inaccuracy of their argument and reject their ideas the number of people living the 'hairshirt' existence they want for us continues to fall. In time they will be like a cult with the rest of the world enjoying a normal fruitful life while they stare from the windows of their 'church' unable to understand why the rest of the world does not join them.

Like the followers of a religious faith they 'just know the truth' and like cultists the world over they are increasingly ridiculed for their 'views without truth'

by LOL Tue Dec 18, 2012 08:01

Hilarious!... how do YOU spell... 'game-changer' ?

Denialists will never recover from their latest fuck-up over IPCC AR5, thanks for the laughs tho!

by Allen (Bristol) Tue Dec 18, 2012 08:33

The science supporting the theory of anthropogenic interference with the climate system is unproven and this is a key point that is often avoided by those supporters of the theory. In fact the scientifc voices of opposition are growing with scientists that once supported the theory rethinking their views. The are four main bodies:

++ Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this group have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

++ Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Scientists in this group have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this group have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairban
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

It is noticable that the scientific community most commited to promoting the theory of anthropogenic interference is that with a substantial financial interest in it.

Also true is that politicians favour the theiry being accepted because of the taxation opportunities it offers. In December 2009 the then Dutch finance minister Wouter Bos said,

"The current European political situation is such that any party running on a platform of rising income tax will lose, this is a political reality. There is however one exception, that of 'Green' taxes. If the idea of mankind caused climate change can be made believed then taxation to 'fix' the problem is considered acceptable by the public. The opportunities for 'Green Taxes' are endless and for the time being do not cost votes. It is therefore important people believe mankind is responsible."

by tut tut Tue Dec 18, 2012 09:43

Are you serious "Allen of Bristol"?

Your list of 'names' is from 2007... this is 2012, almost 2013.

Are you able to produce something thing a little more recent?

by Skeptic Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:04

Allen, yours is Climate Change Denialism of the most superficial variety, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, you do human-kind a serious disservice.

Your post is a straight lift from Wikipedia, or did you find it on the EXXON website?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposin...rming

by Allen Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:46

So I took the convenience of an old list to illustrate my point.

DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS.

If the theory of climate change is so proven why do all these leading, learned individuals and many others dispute it ? Are they all in the pay of Exxon ?

I am illustrating that this is a theory and nothing more. It is not proven science. We are basing an economy and our future energy plans on an unproven theory. That may not worry you but it sure does me.

by tut tut Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:52

Allen, five years in Climate science is a VERY long time, has your list of deniers grown or shrunk, what percentage of Climate scientists are deniers today, and what percentage are the other thing?

Do you have any views on the latest IPCC AR5 report?

by Skeptic Tue Dec 18, 2012 13:04

What kind of response do you expect to your exceedingly superficial post Allen?

You have blatantly cut'n'pasted a 5 or 6 year old list of climate deniers names from Wikipedia or similar, my 13 year old could do considerably better than that, if she was asked to do so.

Have you considered enrolling yourself onto an Environmental Science course young man?

In case you are unaware of the fact, let me assure you that a great deal of data has come into play since your 'list' was compiled, that list no doubt drawn up by somebody other than your self.

by Christina Penelope Tue Dec 18, 2012 13:14

@Allen, you obviously have learned nothing in the past five years about the 'Climate'......... but everyone else has.

by Life liver Tue Dec 18, 2012 13:21

Allen, save your breath, these people will never answer serious questions about the issue they will just keep repeating their mantra and insulting those who disagree with them.

Ask them about the lack of falsifiability of their predictions and the fact that all models failed to predict that there has been no further warming between 2001 and 2007. Many experts in the field now question if indeed the sole cause of the warming is man-made CO2 and how great that contribution is. These views and inconvinient facts however are never dealt with by the 'believers' whose commitment to the cult is absolute.

by keto Tue Dec 18, 2012 14:14

Thank goodness for a weekend away! - same old same old still here still, the same old bitter religious bible thumping and the same old reasoned debate tried by a few who want to ask questions.

Still seems to me that the debate is polarised along the lines that another poster stated earlier.

On the one hand you have those that ask questions and want answers and on the other side you have those that "believe".

Any deviation fromn the mantra of belief gives rise to the silly term "denialist" which only goes to demonstrate that those who dish out the term "denialist" are those that truly "believe".

Or how else would someone who simply asks inconvenient questions be termed a "denier"

They have to be deniers of the truth according the the gospel according to the believers.

Trouble is - it is all falling apart for them.

The laugh at the moment is the truism going round re CAGW models ' Garbage in - Gospel out '

What is so sad in the anger by the believers at things like Shale extraction is that the gospel according to the believers is going to cause more and more families to go into fuel poverty due to the renewable con perpetrated by capitalists to get subsidies conned out of us all so that they can get tax breaks and profit via subsidies that we all have to pay for.

So called "green taxes" are going to cause more poverty but because this does not fit well with those that believe - they ignore this and try to make out it is not happening.

Strange that those in favour of renewable energy are in bed with those very same capitalists that are ripping us all off by way of fuel taxes that will increase poverty so that they can pocket more subsidy money.

What is also very strange is that wind power not only kills bats and birds but requires a constant back up by way of gas fired power stations running on idle producing nothing just so the wind turbines can so their bit when the wind actually blows (as long as it does not blow to hard because then they have to be shut down and the gas fired power stations fired up)

Talk about self delusional!

by Allen Tue Dec 18, 2012 14:21

Indeed it is, in the last five years the list of people who have moved their position on climate change has moved a great deal.

According to Gallup's most recent surveys on the matter.

In the USA, 53% said climate change is a serious personal threat down from 63% in 2007.

In Europe 56% down from 66%

In the Middle East 36% down from 45%

Amongst the scientific community the figures are even more startling. Among Meteorologists whose income was not related to the theory of anthropogenic interference with the climate system the fall in the rate of those who view the issue as a "serious threat to the planet and humankind" the rate has falled by 22%

by Christina Penelope Tue Dec 18, 2012 14:51

Why don't you both do a bit of research, you could start with the IPCC AR5 report, please ead it and get back to us with your thoughts, then we could have a serious discussion about the whole thing.

I look forward to hearing your views on IPCC AR5 just as soon as you have studied it.

Thank you very much.

by Skeptic Tue Dec 18, 2012 14:58

Lets get right up to date shall we, instead of discussing people who five years ago were Climate Skectics / Deniers, why dont we have a reasoned debate on, say... the latest IPCC AR5 report.

And you never know, some of those deniers of five years ago may well have contributed to AR5!

What fun!

by Sensible Sue Tue Dec 18, 2012 15:22

On the off-chance that any of the 'skeptics / Denialists' might genuinely want to have a serious and reasoned discussion, take a look at the latest data:

The IPCC AR5 draft consists of:

Summary for Policymakers... 26 pages.
Chapter 1: Introduction... 55 pages.
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface... 190 pages.
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean... 89 pages.
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere... 98 pages.
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives... 131 pages.
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles... 166 pages.
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols... 139 pages.
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing... 124 pages.
Chapter 8 Supplement... 13 pages.
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models... 218 pages.
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional... 131 pages.
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability... 129 pages.
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility... 158 pages.
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change... 110 pages.
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change... 206 pages.
Chapter 14 Supplement... 21 pages.
Technical Summary... 99 pages.

Download IPCC AR5 via this link: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

Then maybe we can all get serious about this Athropogenic Climate Change thingy :)

by Christina Penelope Tue Dec 18, 2012 15:28

You have neglected to offer a link or source for your figures / percentages / statistics / numbers.

Please do so ASAP, or must we scour Wikipedia again?

Thanks in advance.

Christina Penelope.

by Keto Tue Dec 18, 2012 15:36

Allen is correct in my view in that to ask questions is sensible - to accept dogma as gospel truth is not.

What has happened over the last five years?

Well it has not warmed by anything like that which the models predicted. That should be concern enough!

But on top of that we have had the IPCC being found guilty of using grey liturature as if it were proper peer reviewed science.

We have had climategate 1 & 2 that really took the lid of what drives some within Climate "Science".

We had Glaciergate where Pachurri (head of the IPCC) called scientists who were proved to be correct re Glaciers NOT melting by 2035 "Voodoo Scientists" !

We had very recently the BBC spending hundreds of thousands of £'s trying to keep covered up the 28 people they consulted in order to overturn their legal requirement for impartiality so that the BBC can come down on the side of the Alarmists. Thankfully the info was there all along and the 28 were shown to be virtually all Alarmists - NOT the great scientific experts the BBC tried to make out they were.

We then have the acceptance by mainstream science that the UHI effect is real and that the US data is skewed by this effect. Take that out of the equation and the USA shows the same non-warming trend that the rest of the world shows.

So apart from the steady dismantling of the dogma of Catastrophic Climate Change and the ever more rabid responses as a consequence from those that "believe", tell me, what has happened in the last 5 years???????

Because "warming" it hasn't.

But the truth has made considerable inroads into what is fast being seen as a scam of quite staggering proportions.

by Skeptic Tue Dec 18, 2012 15:41

Why aren't any of the deniers - skeptics here willing to read the latest data in IPCC AR5?

How do any of you expect to be qualified to engage in a sensible and reasoned debate if you refuse to read the latest data?

by Christina Penelope Tue Dec 18, 2012 15:58

Have you read the IPCC AR5 report?

by rick Tue Dec 18, 2012 16:02

would that be the same report written by people whose salaries are dependent on this flawed theory being accepted by as many people as possible ?

Yes or No is fine as an answer.

by Mike Tue Dec 18, 2012 16:14

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, told about 70 Sandia researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.

“Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect,” he said. “Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change.

In an effort to shed light on the wide spectrum of thought regarding the causes and extent of changes in Earth’s climate, Sandia National Laboratories has invited experts from a wide variety of perspectives to present their views in the Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series. Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandia’s Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said. For major climates of the past, other factors were more important than carbon dioxide. Orbital variations have been shown to quantitatively account for the cycles of glaciations of the past 700,000 years, he said, and the elimination of the arctic inversion, when the polar caps were ice-free, “is likely to have been more important than CO2 for the warm episode during the Eocene 50 million years ago.” There is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events, he said. “Even the IPCC says there is little if any evidence of this. In fact, there are important physical reasons for doubting such anticipations.”

by Yawn Tue Dec 18, 2012 16:59

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wcCmTvt_o&feature=share

Look at this:

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-ha...chart

And this:

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc161212B.htm

by Keto Tue Dec 18, 2012 17:10

Are you aware that the leaked report is a draft only?

Not only has it only been released to the internet relatively recently but even those sceptical as to its content state that as a draft it should be treated as such.

What is interesting is that "sensible Sue" tried to make out that methane is pouring out of the Arctic and this was huge issue.

When in fact the DRAFT AR5 report shows that the levels of methane in the atmosphere is lower than any of the previous model predictions.

In fact the graph is spookily similar to the one i cited previously that shows an amazing lack of scientific credibility re the error bars and also that the observed global temperature data is lower than any of the predicted IPCC models.

What has happened before with IPCC reports is that the politicos's summarise them and their summaries are often way of beam of the real science.

What seems to be happening here with AR5 is that someone has leaked the science so that it CAN BE discussed before the politicos get to apply their alarmist spin.

As for your asking for "deniers" to read the report, well i cannot speak for any "deniers" because I think deniers are a figment of a "believers" imagination. But I can confirm that as a sceptical scientist - I am reading this report, and it will take me for one, a while to get to grips with all of its content.

For the likes of Skeptic and Christina Penelope to keep repeating the same old mantra re how a group of people cannot discuss it when it is a report that is substantial and only just been made available is frankly, childishly bizarre.

If you look at the real situation you will see that rather than your silly notion, those with a genuine interest are doing just that - reading it. When it has been fully digested and discussed no doubt many will indeed make comments.

I have made some comments re the observed temperature data being flat and the draft AR5 report
showing a graph (more than one in fact - see Chap 9) that clearly shows the observed temperature being level and way below the projected trends the IPCC would have had us believe was join to happen.

Similarly, the section on Methane levels shows a graph of level methane concentrations but the predictions from the IPCC models going up such that they leave the real data (and some would say reality!!!) behind.

I would suggest we can either have a sensible debate or we can have the believers call any one that dares to question what they see as a "truth" (remember the dogma "the time for debate is over", "the scientists have spoken") a "denialist".

To me, any one that can look at the draft AR5 report and NOT have questions as to the validity of those models that are increasingly inaccurate as each year goes by is the person who is really DENYING reality!

My thanks to the real scientist in the IPCC that saw fit to release the report in draft form. Excellent job mate!

by Realist Tue Dec 18, 2012 17:19

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-...nline

It has only been available online for about 5 days! How stupid do people have to be to think that others have been able to read it fully and debrief it in that time. But I suspect they have done no such thing themselves. Pure bullshirt from the AGW cultists.

by keto Tue Dec 18, 2012 17:39

Christina - The final copy of the AR5 report is not due out till next year.

What we have now is a draft copy released by an insider.

It has only been available for a few days.

Please see my previous email.

Sorry but to me what you are asking simply underlines the genuine problem here. You and others are trying to be clever in asking such a question - but all it really does is to tell everyone the low level of knowledge and expertise you have in this area.

It is a shame that lack of real knowledge and absolute belief go hand in hand.

by Social workist Tue Dec 18, 2012 17:44

Be very careful with that Mike, their are lots of 'clever' peeps out there, they could be paedophiles, psychopaths, sociopaths, ecociders, torturers, murderers, wife-beaters, child-abusers, but worst of all they could be capitalists and denialists.

You really need to be a bit more discerning about who you listen to mate :)

by Sensible Sue Tue Dec 18, 2012 18:06

Great post, your 3 links do it for me, my new years resolution for 2013 will be: Never ever waste my time again on another denialist!

by Christina Penelope Tue Dec 18, 2012 18:15

I think youv'e just saved us a lot of time best used for more productive and constructive stuff than debating with denialists, thank you kindly from the bottom of my heart :)

by Observer not a particpant. Tue Dec 18, 2012 19:06

Keto, I have to ask a couple questions.
Firstly, are you responsible for all the posts by the username 'Keto' on this thread?
Secondly, have you read every comment to this thread?

by Emma Tue Dec 18, 2012 19:38

If there is one?

by Father Chrsitmas Tue Dec 18, 2012 19:46

Oh that does it for you does it Sue?

You think that is a viable addition to the debate Christina?

This is going to influence people to your "cause"??? :0)

The first link to an American politician so in bed and getting kick backs from the environmental lobby that he tried to dismiss Climategate saying “Climategate should properly be known as climategate-gate because it was the scandal that was phony.

And yet the whole world and his wife now know the emails were genuine and were the turning point against the spin! He is a denialist of reality!!

Then we have a link to one of the more alarmist websites desmogblog – who get it wrong more than they get it right. The link will confirm to any sane person looking at it that they treat Catastrophic Climate Change as a belief system and they get off on the Climate “porn”. Sensible advocates of true science these are NOT.

Then we have “Counter Currents”

Another Alarmist site that calls any one with a differing view “contrarian” and “deniers”.

In contrast to this meaningless blast of ineptitude, others have cited IPCC lead authors who now criticise the over politicisation of the IPCC and the conclusions that come out in the summaries.

If people are influenced by the likes of the three links given above and that you seem to indicate are somehow the "final word" – then little wonder the level of knowledge by the Alarmists is demonstrated by their one an only response to a question or a disagreeing statement, is “YOU’RE A DENIER!!!!!!!”

Like that means anything after all that has happened of late?

Scepticism and Science go hand in hand

Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmism is a religion with believers who call non-believers "deniers".

It is THAT funny!

by Skeptic Tue Dec 18, 2012 19:48

Best post I've seen on BIM for a while... reposting!

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wcCmTvt_o&feature=share

Look at this:

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-ha...chart

And this:

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc161212B.htm

by keto Tue Dec 18, 2012 19:50

"Bluddy hell Yawn!
by Christina Penelope Tue Dec 18, 2012 18:15
I think youv'e just saved us a lot of time best used for more productive and constructive stuff than debating with denialists, thank you kindly from the bottom of my heart :)"

Trouble is you were never debating - you asked silly questions and called people denialists.

That is not debating.

That is making an arse of yourself in front of an audience.

by Baker Boy Tue Dec 18, 2012 20:08

The Washington Times reports another nail in the alarmist coffin.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/sea-lev...ence/

oooops!

by keto Tue Dec 18, 2012 20:44

@ 'Keto'
by Observer not a particpant. Tue Dec 18, 2012 19:06
Keto, I have to ask a couple questions.
Firstly, are you responsible for all the posts by the username 'Keto' on this thread?
Secondly, have you read every comment to this thread?

a) yes as far as I can see.

b) pretty much - and I scanned all of them as I have been away for the weekend and so did catch up - but to be honest the more obvious "your a denialist" bollox gets not even scanned.

I am more interested in sensible debate on exactly what is happening to the planet by mans actions. I think the Alarmists are doing great harm in that by focussing on just one trace gas essential to all life on this planet they cost us time and money that could be spent on the REAL issues.

The one that galls me most is the fuel poverty to be inflicted on many so that we can have wind farms all over the country, built with taxpayer subsidies and utility bill surcharges so that rich land owners get richer whilst those already struggling to pay their fuel bills get to subsidise the increased profit of the landowners by way of a fuel surcharge they cannot afford.

Is this really the way to look after the environment?

Surely, (to get back on topic) we should look at Fracking and what it has done for CO2 levels (not that this bothers me that much - but its does some ;0) ) and the fact that the UK could be self sufficient in energy and costs could come down?

The current "Green" strategy by way of wind farms, seems to me to want to put ever more money into the pockets pf exactly the sort of people that BIM is very much against by taking it from those very people BIM is supposedly "for".

by Keto Tue Dec 18, 2012 20:50

I would think there is :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-13748284

I would rather see a few well hidden fracking extraction plants here rather than miles and miles of wind farm follies.

And I suspect many would rather see neither.

So Fracking should be of interest to many here in the SW.

by reader Tue Dec 18, 2012 22:56

totally a thread by deniers for deniers dodgy purposes.
if the mods are not gonna enforce the accuracy guideline they should delete the thread.
good to see eco-socialists-anarchists fighting back and giving the deniers a good slapping hey.

by greeny Tue Dec 18, 2012 22:58

Luv this post ~ classic!

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wcCmTvt_o&feature=share

Look at this:

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-ha...chart

And this:

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc161212B.htm

by JH Wed Dec 19, 2012 06:50

One of the interesting revelations about Climategate was where the money comes from. The accusation against Sceptics is always that they are in the pay of Big Oil.

But what is more interesting is what industries support the notion of catastrophic climate change. There is a huge incestuous big business that makes profit out of government decrees that enable them to squeeze money out of that taxpayer and business.

It seems that while scientists who accept funding from oil companies are branded as bought-and-paid-for shills, those financed by renewable energy interests remain unchallenged authorities in their fields.

Amid the thousands of files now available via Climategate 1 & 2 lifted from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief P.D. Jones has received since 1990.

It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547.

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of "energy agencies" they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust, all U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting "new energy" technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU "potential funding sources" have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU was and still is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of Catastrophic AGW despite any appearance of conflict.

And yet, no such latitude has ever been extended to scientists in the skeptical camp.

For instance, when MIT’s Richard Lindzen delivers one of his trademark brilliant presentations leading to the conclusion that climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.5°C, not the 1.5°-5°C predicted by IPCC models, all we hear from alarmists and complicit media types is that the professor once charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services and is therefore an unreliable big-oil hack.

Or when S. Fred Singer challenges the IPCC to explain whether water vapor and clouds represent positive or negative feedback, or stands before a graph depicting temperatures decreasing over the past ten years while CO2 climbed and declares that “the relationship is meaningless,” his words are similarly dismissed based solely on the fact that he has received funding from ExxonMobil.

Let’s set aside the fact that Lindzen had actually accepted a total of $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from such interests on the day he ceased such activities two decades ago.

And that Singer has received only $20,000 from ExxonMobil.

And perhaps we could set aside the fact that alarmists outperform sceptics by several orders of magnitude when it comes to big business funding, which leads to the artificial expansion of the number of scientists who appear to support alarmist views.

And do Alamists even want to go anywhere near carbon-millionaire Al Gore? He who tried to set up carbon Trading schemes as a new currency that would have netted him $billions if the wheels had not come off the gravy train that was CAGW.

The issue is this: Just how is it that funding from renewable energy interests somehow evades charges of bias by Gores poodles.

As with all things AGW, the alarmist quick-draw canard that the science is settled but for a few outliers in the fossil fuel industry's pockets has now lost whatever civic support it may have had. And the scientific subterfuge exposed by the CRU emails and documents and the various other climate related “gates” of late represents only the latest of many recent outrages sure to accelerate the ongoing public awakening to the hoax that has been perpetrated upon them.

So much so that the resident Alarmist on BIM is reduced to citing three very dubious "sources", not once , not twice, but no less than three times!

Oh dear, times must be bad in the Alarmist camp, or should that be singular?

by 'Alarmist' girl Wed Dec 19, 2012 08:12

Ta muchly Yawn, totall respect to ya man!

Loved this part "Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart"

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-ha...chart

Thanx again Yawn x

by keto Wed Dec 19, 2012 08:16

When we have the prospect of gas extraction in the Mendip hills this debate does have local interest as well as national. How typical that some try to get the debate shut down by asking for it to be "hidden".

This sort of devious tactics is a regular occurrence and goes hand in hand with the abuse levelled at anyone daring to ask questions in the AGW debate.

We all know from our playground days that some kids when losing an argument would want to pick up the ball and go home, or revert to verbally assaulting their adversary personally.

In the AGW debate we sadly, repeatedly, see those who employ this rhetorical tactic attacking individuals who ask probing scientific questions.

The attacks indicate that they know how inadequate their science is. It often works because of a deliberate campaign to exploit basic sensitivities: fear the sky is falling, guilt about not protecting the environment, guilt about the damage already done, fear and embarrassment of showing ignorance.

People who challenge the dogma of the Alarmists are often labeled “denialists” which is a term that sort of worked when the terminology of the Alarmists was Global Warming because the evidence was clear that despite rising CO2 levels the “Globe” was not showing any significant “Warming” at all. In fact the UK Met Office data confirms this.

Which, of course is another indicator of just how the Alarmists fear their lack of scientific evidence of real warming. Because having accepted that “Global Warming” is not a viable scare story, the alarmists moved to “Climate Change” - which played right into the Sceptics hands because it is my belief that there is not a true scientist in the world that is NOT skeptical!

Skeptics do not deny that Climate Change occurs and indeed occurred in modern times, but, sensibly, questioned the cause. The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science. The IPCC and Alarmists generally stated that a “consensus” existed. Which was another mistake because a consensus is the stuff of politics, not science or scientific method.

But this consensus was claimed before the research even began. The IPCC tried to prove the hypothesis, putting them in the untenable position of eliminating, ignoring, or manipulating anything that showed the hypothesis was wrong.

So it is clear why we have the alarmists acting so badly on even BIM. They have to “shoot down” the skeptics, who they term “denialists” because they are the messengers of the problems and all despots like t shoot the messenger when they don’t like the message.

When someone calls a person a global warming skeptic or climate change denier, informed observers now see it as indicative that the abuser knows very little about climate or scientific method.

And the sad thing about this is that those very alarmists are marginalising the real science and environmental issues in the eyes of the public by their silly behaviour.

by Viral Wed Dec 19, 2012 08:20

Thank you @Yawn...

Lets send this VIRAL!!!

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wcCmTvt_o&feature=share

Look at this:

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-ha...chart

And this:

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc161212B.htm

by Sue Wed Dec 19, 2012 08:37

The FACT is that humans have changed the planet's weather.

Posts like this that muddy the waters with opposing views simply make it harder to get the renewable energy sources in place for the future. It is important the mods deal with this sort of post quickly before, like here the voices of opposition (probably oil industry paid shrills) are able to get a foothold.

Thanks

by Shocked Wed Dec 19, 2012 08:44

Previously I was pretty ignorant about Climate Dewnialists and there dirty tricks, but not any more, thanx Yawn :)

'Very-recently a denier distorted UN climate science panel's AR5 report and claimed the sun is causing global warming. But the dishonesty got exposed within a very short time. The incident should be referred as wide as possible to keep people updated and them aware of the deniers’ dirty hands. The dirty trick is a part being played by a section of capital bent on making profit at the cost of people’s sufferings.'

Capitalism is doomed, and denialists-Ecociders are the worst scum on the planet, what Saddam got was too good for these greedy immoral bastards!

by Anti Capitalist Wed Dec 19, 2012 09:08

Reactionary capitalists are 99.9999999% of deniers, they realized years ago that capitalism causes Anthropogenic Global Warming, and that when we rise up in anger, they will be left dangling from the lamp-posts.

Watch Yawns vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wcCmTvt_o&feature=share

Doubt no more.

by Noobie Wed Dec 19, 2012 09:19

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Liz Wed Dec 19, 2012 09:49

sorry mods, that was just to get your attention :)

do you not realise whats been done here?

good activists-anarchists time is being wasted confronting climate change deniers while you mods are ........... not doing your jobs.

c'mon mods, RISE UP!

by class war Wed Dec 19, 2012 09:53

feed em to the pigs!

by Ben Wed Dec 19, 2012 09:57

Hosting Daily Mail articles as a vehicle for fossil-fuel proponents and climate change denialists is not what BIM was created for.

by Local Wed Dec 19, 2012 09:58

Why is this thread here... WHY?

by Bored by capitalist idiots Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:04

WTF is this doing on Bindy???

Capitalists, denialists and ecociders taking the piss is what!!!

by Truth lover Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:18

They are liars, nothing more, nothing less.

Simples.

by Clives mum Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:24

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Clives mum Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:34

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Bullshit watch Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:42

Bullshit post by bullshit capitalist & bullshit deniers

by Clives brother Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:52

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Under bridge dweller Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:06

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by I am an 'Alarmist' Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:12

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Keto Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:15

How typical that the Alarmist is so true to form. Drown sensible debate with useless comments

Sadly for them such antics are the death knell of their cult.

If someone wants to post a sensible question i will happily respond but for now it seems the lunatics are determined to make this site an asylum.

One thing does make me laugh - and that is the request to hide the thread on the grounds that it has no local interest. With the possibility of a Fracking plant in the Mendips how can this subject NOT be local?

by Sensible Sue Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:33

... on the IPCC AR5 thingy?

by Player Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:40

Says it all innit :)

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Bystander Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:55

I have read this thread with a great deal of interest and it seems clear that on one side we have had what have been called here 'Denialists' who have presented facts and quotes from the scientific community while the other side sometimes called the 'Alarmists' have repeated the same discredited information over and over and insulted when they are pushed for details.

Now they are calling for the thread to be hidden because they have lost the argument.

That tells me all I need to know about the respective merits of both sides of this debate.

by actionlines anarchist Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:00

looks like those pesky alarmists have got your number init
oh, and by the way, your network security is SO lame, but dont worry, we'll fix it for you

by Occasional reader Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:06

Alarmed by what capitalist-Ecociders are doing to my planet!

by Christina Penelope Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:09

I've been reading up on the Law of Ecocide... can't wait for it to happen!

by Clive Scummond Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:25

Reformed now that I've seen the true light!

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Clive Piles Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:30

I'm alarmed and OUTRAGED, by the deniers and their lies!!!!!

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by The Real Mcoy Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:35

Sensible discussion?

With Climate Denialists?

Dont make me laugh!

All they do is lies, deceit and deception to create doubt and division so that 'business as usual' can continue to make the one percent richer while destroying the future for the rest of us, you A$$HOLE!

by Ben Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:37

No, what about Keto and IPCC-AR5 Sue?

by JH Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:47

Seems to me that the Alarmists are acting more Troll like by the minute!

Demanding this and demanding that!

And all the time trying to silence sensible debate.

Bu then what have we learnt to expect?

by I am Alarmist! Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:47

Says it all dunnit :)

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by CHamp Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:48

Tell us what he did please :)

by APH Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:00

'Sensibly' discuss this if you are able:

Rapid rise in Arctic methane shocks scientists.

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

In an exclusive interview with the Independent, Dr Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he had never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier, we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1000m in diameter. It's amazing," Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100 but, over a wider area, there should be thousands."

Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere, leading to rapid and severe climate change.

Semiletov's team published a study last year estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about 8 million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.

In late northern summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 25,900sq km of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" - or plumes - of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.

"In a very small area, less than [25,900sq km], we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Semiletov said.

"We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale - I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were 1km or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere - the concentration was 100 times higher than normal."

Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

By Steve Connor.

by sleepy Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:16

so what did "Keto" do on AR5 earlier then Sue?

whatever it was I'm sure is was dishonest...

by Rarely read but Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:29

Showing up climate deniers or denialists is a supremely sensible thing to do in my opinion, they are a menace to all life on earth.

I am proud to be with the 'Alarmists'.

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

Lets run the charlatans out of Bristol Indymedia, and everywhere else forthwith!

by tut tut Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:46

Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics:
Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

by sapiosexual Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:56

On a personal note, I find the deniers of man-mad climate warming and destabilisation to be the least attractive men I have ever met.

I dont like sociopaths, ecociders or psychopaths either.

by Jezebel Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:58

Sue, tell us all sister :)

by Alarmed as fukk me Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:01

Says it all innit :)

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Denier-watch Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:15

Ok, you have GOT to see this.
This takes the cake for denialist tricks.
Check out this graph of various sea level measurements over time.
Notice that almost all the lines are straight across, and one even ticks down a bit, which at first glance, indicates NO rise in sea level, right?
Now look at the entire graph.
Yup, it's been tilted to make the lines, which actually trend very strongly upward, appear to be horizontal.
This graph was ACTUALLY PRESENTED at a climate hearing in the House of Lords, as well as other places. What will they think of next????

by keto Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:16

My word!

If it is in the New Zealand Herald then it MUST be true! ;0)

You will be quoting from Desmogblog next (Oh yes! silly me - you have already tried that!!)

Meanwhile back on earth, the IPCC's AR5 draft report shows that methane has remained steady and level as progressively the predictions rise above reality.

Do you guys ever think to actually READ the IPCC reports and look at the models and the assumptions therein? The draft AR5 is a real eyeopener!

Instead what we get is an article from the NZ equivalent of the Daily Mirror.

Sorry guys you really do need to raise your game a whole heap in the order of magnitude stakes.

Can we please get of this silly merrygoround and start talking again about the likely impact of Fracking to the SW region?

Is that really too much to ask?

by a Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:20

What did he do wrong with the latest IPCC report?

by a Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:21

What did he do wrong with the latest IPCC report?

by \/egan Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:41

Wossup Sue, dish the dirt already girl!!
Are you still coming to ours to eat tonight?
Fone me or the dog gets yours!!

by WTC Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:00

The world should be alarmed at what ecociding captalists and AGW denialists are doing to our future

Climate change denialists are criminals and need locking up

by JH Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:16

Your link reverts to a 404 error.

How basic a mistake is that!

Any chance of someone answering the question as to how the poor (in Bristol in particular and the UK in general) are to be prevented from slipping into fuel poverty due to "Green taxes" to fund the rich boys tax subsidies?

Or are you going to simply try to swamp the discussion with your peculiar, but rather particular, detritus?

by Sensible Sue Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:27

If you scroll back to Keto's very first post on IPCC AR5 (ignore his previous posts they are irrelevant) and read them all in Chronological order.

I'm talking of his post which starts with: "Polarising the debate is never helpful. I prefer to try to put across a sensible argument against "Alarmism" - and I think the latest AR5 report from the IPCC is very illuminating in this regard."

Read VERY carefully Keto's first post on IPCC AR5... do a little counting even :)

Notice the time & date-stamp: Sat Dec 15, 2012 08:39...

The next post on this thread was mine: Sun Dec 16, 2012 17:07... more than 33 hours later.

(Bear with me, it will all be worth it I promise)

The next 'connecting the dots' post was by: denialist watch on Mon Dec 17, 2012 21:41

"Mr Denialist fukked it up BIG TIME what what LOL... No wonder he gone all quiet LOL"

After those posts, if you continue reading the rest of his (Ketos) posts on AR5, and exclude the usual denialist-droppings... you will understand how Keto fucked up as badly as I have ever seen anybody fuck up online ever.

I'm not going to spell it out for you though, its better if you work it out for yourselves, but when you realise exactly what he did, I guarantee you will piss yourselves laughing, enjoy :)

x

by anarcho-alarmist Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:01

Im wiv the anti-capitalist-anti-global-warming Alarmists - Peace to my brothers and sisters.

by Needs to know Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:03

@Sue, I dont get it....... help!!!!

Alarmist me too :)

by APH Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:09

This not for Keto - its for the 'Alarmists' lol

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said.

"I was most impressed by the sheer scale and the high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them," he said.

Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire Arctic region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.

Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were in the region of 8 million tons a year but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the true scale of the phenomenon.

In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast, in cooperating with the University of Georgia Athens. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.

"In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Dr Semiletov said.

"We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale - I think on a scale not seen before. Some of the plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere - the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal," he said.

Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. He is now preparing the study for publication in a scientific journal.

The total amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is calculated to be greater than the overall quantity of carbon locked up in global coal reserves so there is intense interest in the stability of these deposits as the polar region warms at a faster rate than other places on earth.

Natalia Shakhova, a colleague at the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said that the Arctic is becoming a major source of atmospheric methane and the concentrations of the powerful greenhouse gas have risen dramatically since pre-industrial times, largely due to agriculture.

However, with the melting of Arctic sea ice and permafrost, the huge stores of methane that have been locked away underground for many thousands of years might be released over a relatively short period of time, Dr Shakhova said.

"I am concerned about this process, I am really concerned. But no-one can tell the timescale of catastrophic releases. There is a probability of future massive releases might occur within the decadal scale, but to be more accurate about how high that probability is, we just don't know," Dr Shakova said.

"Methane released from the Arctic shelf deposits contributes to global increase and the best evidence for that is the higher concentration of atmospheric methane above the Arctic Ocean," she said.

"The concentration of atmospheric methane increased unto three times in the past two centuries from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7ppm, and in the Arctic to 1.9ppm. That's a huge increase, between two and three times, and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she added.

Each methane molecule is about 70 times more potent in terms of trapping heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide. However, because methane it broken down more rapidly in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, scientist calculate that methane is about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a hundred-year cycle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-....html

by student Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:18

My Science teacher told us last week that out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.

by Me to Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:21

Deniers are all insane lol...... they need help.... pity the poor dimwits

by Student Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:26

This was meant to go with my comment, sorry !

by Bill Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:40

I see that having failed in their attempts to have this thread taken down by the mods the Alarmists are now flooding it with little more than spam.

I suppose it must have really hurt to realise that they had been proven wrong and were looking very stupid.

As a poster above says, lets get back to fracking in the SW. Do we want low cost fuel for all or subsidies for rich people ?

by 'Alarmist' Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:58

But I'm still not getting it lol

by Fartist Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:17

from the article:

"Some of the plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere - the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal." WTF!!!!

by another Alarmist Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:28

WTF are you on about Sue
Give us a clue whydoncha

by I am Alarmist Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:33

13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991 – 2012.

24 reject global warming.

That is a brilliant post student, thanks

by Not an 'ist' Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:39

I do not understand, you should spell it out for us thickos

by Skeptic tank flusher Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:43

Great to see the fuckwitted denialists receiving their come-uppance here at Bindy-Media LOL

by Miel Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:47

O dear this is getting rather embarrassing for the Alarmist here. Let me make clear once last time to them.

PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE THEORY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN IT.

PEOPLE WHO WANT TO QUESTION THE "SCIENCE" AND GET FACTS BEFORE MAKING A DECISION DO NOT.

Got it now ? It's really very simple

by Sensible Sue Wed Dec 19, 2012 18:08

Count the number of times that 'Keto' used the word 'draft' in his first post about IPCC-AR5... then all should be revealed :)

by I'll be an "ALARMIST" Wed Dec 19, 2012 18:10

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Paxwoman Wed Dec 19, 2012 18:16

This is you - all you do - spot on:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Emma Wed Dec 19, 2012 18:36

Only silly deniers are not alarmed at the state of the planet right now, especially with AGW - Global Climate destabilisation, even that arch capitalist mayor of New York Bloomberg realised that Hurricane Sandy was caused by AGW duhhh!

I guess that English deniers must be a few years behind the curve. - or just plain stupid.

by Vejjy Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:00

Is a crime against humanity, and a crime against all other life-forms.
Climate Change denialists are a sensitivity and compassion black hole.
I wish they had at least one braincell then there would be at least an off-chance that they might evolve into something more intelligent, like an Amoeba.

by Alarm clock Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:04

Tattoo this message backwards onto denialists foreheads so that they know what they are when they look in the mirror.

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by Rising tide Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:05

That would be an oxyMORON lol

by LOL Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:23

hahahaha!!!

You deniers would not know what a climate fact was unless it strung you up by the neck and you were gasping for breath, fuck off and get a life loser!!!

by Cuckoo watch Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:28

He's got a piggy bank where his mind should be...

by Granny Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:32

I like this,

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

now if only the folks with the massive blind-spot about global warming could understand, oh well, but they dont really matter any more these days, thankfully.

by Ian Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:51

Nothing but noise from Climate denialism idiots, as per usual.

by Alarmist blonde Wed Dec 19, 2012 19:57

Thats really funny what Keto did ha ha, I'd never of sussed it unless you showed me tho, I switch off normally every time I see a climate denying posting.

Talk about self inflicted headshot lol, well done Keto, did it hurt lol, I hope it did ha ha ha ha!

by alarmist Wed Dec 19, 2012 20:12

Keto, i know what you did you sleezy slimy immoral denialist asshole!!!

by I am an 'Alarmist' Wed Dec 19, 2012 20:25

Fuck me sideways, I know denialists were the lowest of low but Keto has taken 'low' to a whole new sub-level.

You cant be a catholic cuz you'd need to be in the confession box forever after what you did on this thread.

I always knew that capitalists denialists were sneeky devious lying bastards but you take the stinking rotten biscuit.

What a fucking hypocrite!!!!

by Disgusted of Dundry Wed Dec 19, 2012 20:31

Did you really think nobody would notice?

King of the shit-pile you.

(thanks for the heads up SS)

by me too Wed Dec 19, 2012 20:36

No morals, no scruples, no thinking ability, utter arrogance, Keto, you need to get a mind before its too late.

by Christina Penelope Wed Dec 19, 2012 20:43

Thanks Sue for opening our eyes to the worst example of two faced deceit and sly deception by a Denialist (Keto) that I have ever experienced.

As for Keto, I think feel and believe that you are one above average sick soul, I dont believe in evil as a concept, but after the trick you pulled on the AR5 thingy, I'm thinking that maybe I should have a re-think.

by gobsmaked Wed Dec 19, 2012 20:47

You must be a very desperately ill man, get some help soon, please

by LOL at the denier-troll Wed Dec 19, 2012 21:20

We know what you did Keto, denialists have never had a shred of credibility here, but you have single-handedly managed to show up denialism.corp for the lying inhuman immoral stinking shitpile it really is.

Well done asshole, you will never be able to fool anybody here with your lies, spin and bullshit ever again, no matter what name you adopt in the future, we know you for what you are now.

by keto Wed Dec 19, 2012 21:26

If you had anything - I doubt you could stop yourself.

by keto Wed Dec 19, 2012 22:19

I posted:-

IPCC AR5 leak - and @ another troll
by Keto Sat Dec 15, 2012 08:39
Polarising the debate is never helpful. I prefer to try to put across a sensible argument against "Alarmism" - and I think the latest AR5 report from the IPCC is very illuminating in this regard.

The IPCC’s AR5 report has been leaked early and is all over the internet. Some very interesting data in it that I wonder if it will stay as to include it seems to underscore almost everything those sceptical of the IPCC’s Alarmism have been saying for years.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/Statement_WGI_AR5_...D.pdf

There is a reference to Solar forcing which is very surprising given the mantra from all Alarmists that the sun has nothing to do with Climate. Hopefully this is a ‘welcome to the real world moment’ for the IPCC and we should all congratulate it on scrapping the nonsensical head in the sand concept they had that Solar forcing was somehow “constant” and so could be dismissed.

There is another graph that is very thought provoking, Fig 1.4 from the draft report shows the standard deviation probability projections for the models, past and present used to predict climate change, FAR, SAR, TAR and AR4.

A couple of things stand out, one is that when you see experimental data error bars larger than the error bars in the models, then you know that something is wrong.

And secondly the actual observed data is now falling below the lower probability array of the models.

In other words the actual observed temperature data is flat as we all know it has been for the past 16 years or so. Fig 1.4 graph from the leaked AR5 report shows that the models the IPCC used and their updates are now above and outside of the observed data.

Any other scientific enterprise would start to ask questions of the validity of those models. It is my understanding that most scientists and governments are asking those questions – it remains to be seen if the IPCC will do the same.

If it does not do the honorable thing then it has all been a terrible waste of time effort and money given the data/model schism. Because as the world has been warming for 300 years, and if the IPCC had ruled a line through the last 140 years it would have run smack through the middle of the observations.

Instead it took millions of dollars GBP Yen and Euro, hundreds of man-hours and the largest computers in the world to make a prediction of a new higher trend that didn’t happen.

We should be grateful to the people that leaked the report. The rumor is that there is a groundswell of real science within the IPCC that wanted the data “outthere” so that it could be seen and discussed before the politicos ‘summarise’ the reality of the report to fit a pre determined agenda. Which is what has happened before and done so much damage to the credibility of the IPCC."

I count i used the word draft just once.

And you infer exactly what from this?

Come on - i can't wait.

Yawn!

;0)

by Alarmist### Thu Dec 20, 2012 07:55

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/22/climate-denialism-for...mies/

by keto Thu Dec 20, 2012 09:07

Very convincing. Not.

Forgive me for saying this - but as you accuse anyone that disagrees with you of manufacturing data, arguments etc etc.

Do you not feel even the slightest pang of conscience when you do exactly that to others?

Just curious - not really expecting a response.

At least not one that is actually part of the debate.

Anyway - has anyone any thoughts on gas extraction via Fracking in the Mendips?

by Brian Thomas Thu Dec 20, 2012 09:48

'Keto'

I suggest you stop engaging with these people, this is not about science or facts for them. This is about faith, a willingness to believe what they want to believe despite the ever increasing amount of contrary information. They will ridicule and then insult those who disagree with them and block their ears to the voices of reason that are suggesting an examination of the figures.

This thread has been the clearest example I have seen of their increasing desperation as the broader public opinion moves away from their position. The entire climate change industry is now based around a number of industry financed 'experts' repeating the message and politically motivated groups who are happy to turn a blind eye to the scientific facts to ensure their dogma is adopted.

The good news is that outside of a small element of the activist community, people whose income depends on the theory and tax raising politics the support is pretty much gone.

As an Anarchist I find it incredible that people I have worked with for many years on other projects and campaigns are standing shoulder to shoulder with 'Big Oil' and major political parties but as my mother would say, "It's a funny old world".

by JH Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:18

Just look at the construct

"Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."

A made up construct that the writer thinks makes a point - but in reality by saying "....when in actuality there is none" all that is achieved is an example of how the writer denies another persons point of view.

by ha ha ha ha Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:36

Assume whatever you like Keto, thats what deniers like you do all the time init

by keto Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:02

I feel very much as you do.

What staggers me is that those writing the surreal nonsense exemplified by that above have such incredible double standards.

They accuse others of doing exactly what is there normal modus operandi. The evidence in the above posts is undeniable.

Can they really NOT see how such actions are perceived by others?

by Bristol Anarchist Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:44

"As an Anarchist I find it incredible that people I have worked with for many years on other projects and campaigns are standing shoulder to shoulder with 'Big Oil' and major political parties "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could not agree more. This is a situation where Anarchists should have the guts to stand up and be at the forefront of the fight. We have been manipulated, lied to and conned by the forces who in other circumstances we would be happy to see hanging from lampposts. I am sick to death of hearing people of the political Left talking about this as though it is done and decided and who look at me like I am from Mars when I suggest the theory is flawed. When I presented detailed information to a group earlier this year showing the extent of funding by Shell of Peak Oil campaign groups I was told my information was "not wanted or relevant"

We are used to being lied to by the State, why are people still accepting this lie ?

by keto Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:18

LOL @ Keto
by ha ha ha ha Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:36
Assume whatever you like Keto, thats what deniers like you do all the time init

No it isn't - and you know it.

The reason why you resort to such tactics is because you are incapable of proper debate.

The posts above are a sadly typical of Alarmist lies and spin.

But I should thank you for making it so clear for all to see - but the reality is i am saddened that people are prepared to commit to such tactics whilst at the same time accusing others of what they themselves are demonstrably guilty of.

Sad.

Merry Christmas!

by JH Thu Dec 20, 2012 16:54

This report is an interesting one, looks like the efficiency of wind turbiles falls by about a third over 12 to 15 years. Which has a dramatic negative effect on the cost benefit analysis.

Looks like the case for looking at Fracking has just got another boost.

http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/281/ref%20pr%...2.pdf

by the convenience of an old list Fri Dec 21, 2012 08:56

Who gives a flying fart.

Either AGW is correct - in which case we are now too late to do much.
===========> We are screwed.

Or AGW is incorrect - in which case we have a dozen other life-threatening issues to deal with and
===========> We are still screwed.

Both 'sides' are wasting their time.

by keto Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:16

We can be sensible and accept that man has an effect on the environment and deal with it. What the CO2 Alarmists are guilty of is focussing on just one thing.

Reality is different to the bubble world they live in.

Deforestation, stupid biofuel crops etc are all issues that have spun off from the ridiculous focus on CO2 being the one and only culprit.

The £billions already spent is a remarkable folly.

The leaked draft AR5 report shows that the previous model predictions that cost huge amounts to produce show predicted trends of temperature increase that simply are not happening.

Time for a reality check.

by David Fri Dec 21, 2012 13:56

This is simply a scientific argument verses an ideological argument.

All scientific theories start as ideas, these ideas are tested in the crucible of experimentation and are either proven or unproven. The theory of climate change and CO2 was a theory that proved useful to a number of people and the money they could make from it so it become accepted without the experimental proof. The last few years have shown the theory to be wrong but the 'need' for it for some has remained so there is still support for it among those who either do understand the science but choose to ignore it or those who do not understand the science.

Reading the comments here I think a number of those who have commented know full well the science proof does not exist but it fits a political agenda they support so they are prepared to ignore that. This is most clearly illustrated by how quickly they began to ridicule and insult as soon as the discussion started down the road of science.