Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

I read something interesting tonight. It was saying that certain countries have been relatively successful in reducing their emissions, or holding them steady. UK is apparently one of them.

And the reason, in UK's case is......

...wait for it......



because Thatcher faced down the Coal unions, and brought about the conversion of the UK from a coal based, to a gas-based, energy system.


Margaret Thatcher: environmental hero.:)
Thatcher managed to destroy most of the UK's manufacturing industry, so the things we consume that are made in ways that produce pollution are now made mostly in China. Nasty Chinese, fucking up the planet so that we can have our toys.:rolleyes:
 
Thatcher managed to destroy most of the UK's manufacturing industry, so the things we consume that are made in ways that produce pollution are now made mostly in China. Nasty Chinese, fucking up the planet so that we can have our toys.:rolleyes:

Maybe, but UK still needs to create electricity/energy, and it sounds like you can thank Thatcher for switching it from coal to gas.

Thatcher: environmental hero.:)
 
Margaret Thatcher: environmental hero.:)

Thatcher was also instrumental in providing backing for the Hadley Centre for Cimate Prediction and Research. iirc she was Britain's only Prime Minister ever to have held a science degree.

I wish Britain had had more Prime Ministers with science degrees. But most politicians are only sufficiently intelligent to be verbally facile and get law degrees.
 
Thatcher was also instrumental in providing backing for the Hadley Centre for Cimate Prediction and Research. iirc she was Britain's only Prime Minister ever to have held a science degree.
So the Hadley center is backed by a right winger. :eek:

Better ignore all it has to say then. :p
 
Not surprisingly, we still have no answers:

me said:
04-07-2008, 03:00
Bigfish is the one pissing around with usernames putting ' "Dr" ' in front of them.

Bigfish is the one demanding to know posters' qualifications.
...

If you're going to play that game, then you're going to play it.

Please list all your relevant qualifications and professional experience before posting a single word more.
 
I guess before the trivialisers get stuck in, it'd be useful to summarise the basic picture described in the high probability impacts above.

If you live in a rich country in a temperate zone, the highly predictable impacts are not going to be too horrible at least short-medium term. Somewhat warmer wetter weather, a few more Katrina type events, some unpleasant knock-on effects from the bad stuff happening elsewhere, but probably nothing we can't deal with, at least during our lifetimes.

If you live in a poor country and/or near the equator and/or in a low-lying area you are probably in the shit due to loss of arable land, drought, famine, pest invasions, floods, refugee problems on a massive scale (and most likely also from being victimised by rich countries trying to make some money off your predicament as advised in our own dear government's Stern Report, although the IPCC doesn't mention this explicitly)

Note that here I'm talking about fairly short term impacts that can be predicted with high confidence. Much of the really scary stuff, sea-level rises of many meters due to ice sheets melting, the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation switching off, major natural carbon sinks turning into carbon sources and setting in train runaway climate change and other nightmares like that aren't so predictable. The models say these things happen if we overheat enough, but the phenomena aren't, unlike the 'high probability' stuff above, predictable enough to say exactly at what point.

A potential analogy here for the second class of event is with smoking. We know smoking causes lung cancer, but we can't say how many cigarettes a given person would have to smoke to get cancer.
 
So.

Bigfish is still harping about others' supposed qualifications.

But not a peep on his own.

We may, clearly, conclude that bigfish's highly original work is ungrounded and unfounded.
 
So.

Bigfish is still harping about others' supposed qualifications.

But not a peep on his own.

We may, clearly, conclude that bigfish's highly original work is ungrounded and unfounded.

He's got a first class certified genuine degree from rense (source of foto), silly ;)
You know of rense - it's where Mark Weber and Ernst Zundel can run free and unencumbered by we mere mortals (although watch out for the alien sightings!).
I believe he also has a Postgraduate qualification in PrisonPlanetology and made his fortune by selling headwear made from aluminum-foil.
 
Shame about the plummetting gas supplies!

Sorry to be the one to break the news, but world gas reserves are rising.

Picture1-2.jpg


BP Statistical Review 2008
 
I mean british gas. That was cheap. Importing gas. Not so cheap.

PS: Your graph makes much more sense when you include gas demand figures too.
 
Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.

World Meteorological Organization [parent organization of the IPCC] 2006a,b.
 
The last point may be the most important: ie, there is more hurricane damage because more people live near the shore, and keep more, and more expensive, assets there.

Researchers have looked at hurricanes making landfall in the continental US over the past century, adjusting the stats to see what would have happened, had they hit the US as it is today.

Looked at that way, the most destructive hurricane would have been the 1926 Great Miami Hurricane. Second, the Galveston hurricane of 1900; third, Katrina; fourth, Galveston hurricane of 1915; fifth, Hurricane Andrew.

Pielke & Landsea http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf
 
Of course no individual tropical cyclone can be attributed to global warming. :confused:

Of course not, which makes Al Gore look like a total ass for including 26 pages of pictures of the Katrina damage in his book.

Also, you have to wonder about Robert Kennedy blaming Katrina on the US derailing Kyoto, saying that "now we are all learning what it's like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence."

Couple a dummies.:)
 
There's melting going on at the poles, but in Antarctica at least, the increased precipitation also means that ice continues to form at a greater rate.

This is something that even an alien can understand.
Would you care to source your restatement, just to double-check you're reporting the facts accurately.

I sure will, but it will have to wait till after supper.

Thank you. Please don't forget.

It will go some way to proving whether you understood what is happening in the Antartic, at the very least.

You said 'I sure will', but since my request, you have not provided a source for your claim that "increased precipitation in the Antartic means that ice is forming at a greater rate"
Also, please clarify the meaning of 'at a greater rate' (at a greater rate than what?)
 
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ca+accumulation+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

The ice growth in the southern Antarctic Peninsula and parts of EA may be due to increasing precipitation
during the last century.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...arctica+accumulation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca

Over the period 1972-98 the height of the snow surface at eight Antarctic sites in Palmer Land and on Alexander Island has been measured with respect to fixed points on local nunataks. From these data an empirical relation between height changes over a given period and three key variables has been derived. These variables are (i) the local mean annual surface air temperature, (ii) a regional estimate of energy available for melt over the period (derived from the nearby Rothera air-temperature record) and (iii) a regional estimate of accumulation over the period (derived from the nearby Gomez Nunatak ice-core accumulation record). Using this relation, the contribution of the Antarctic Peninsula to sea-level rise for warming from climatic conditions (averaged over the last 30 years) is estimated to be −0.006 ± 0.002 mm a−1 K−1. If recent warm condi- tions persist, however, and meltwater can run off to the sea, the contribution to sea-level rise from ablation is calculated to be −0.07 ± 0.02 mm a−1 K−1.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2004/00000050/00000169/art00011
 
By way of clarification:

Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s. Those densely-populated and low-lying areas where adaptive capacity is relatively low, and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence, are especially at risk. The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable. *** D [6.4]

The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are generally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources, and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially where rapid urbanisation is occurring. ** D [7.1, 7.3 to 7.5]

Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas. They tend to have more limited adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies. ** N [7.2, 7.4, 5.4]

Where extreme weather events become more intense and/or more frequent, the economic and social costs of those events will increase, and these increases will be substantial in the areas most directly affected. Climate change impacts spread from directly impacted areas and sectors to other areas and sectors through extensive and complex linkages. ** N [7.4, 7.5]
source above
 
Back
Top Bottom