I'm not going to live as a hermit in a cave and scavenge which would eliminate all but "absolutely necessary" consumption. A reasonable goal is a sustainable level of energy/esource consumption. You can do that and still live very well. It's striking a balance between the selfish "what I do won't make a jot of difference" and the community spirited "if everyone does what I do there won't be a problem".
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8486440.stm ]climate change science 'sound' according to chief UK scientist[/url]
Of course he does, he's on the take from the Government 😉
And in the wise words of Junkyards et al, he's not exactly qualified in cllimatology!!
you cannot pluralise my log in name and say et al - et al means you have cited the study before and it is has more than one author - your science creditentials are superb.
As a qualified and respected scientist he is in a good position to speak about the soundness/legitiamacy/robustness of the science, which he did, he is not publishing his own research on the area is he? Subtle difference lost on you.
Also in your previous dig at me when you said I had an
you really should have said inability....another schoolboy errorabillity not to
Shall we meet at the bike sheds after school and see whose dad is the biggest after that?
If you want to expound on your argument do so but continually having digs at me is pretty pointless and makes you look petty.
As a qualified and respected scientist he is in a good position
😆
You contradict yourself so much i don't think you know where you stand. What about all the other scientists out there who are qualified and respected but disagree with climate change theories that you were so quick to dismiss?
Petty digs? I'm sorry, I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter. 😉
Oh, and et al mean and others. 🙄
Z11 sounds the sort of person who would need to see a peer-reviewed study before he started breathing.
As the earth is so complex shouldn't the onus be on car manufacturers etc. to prove they DON'T affect the climate? The Industrial Revolution is more like The Industrial Experiment isn't it?
"Inability" and "abilitly to not" are both fine, however, "If you want to expound on your argument" bothers me. I'd have written "If you want to expound your argument".
I suggest you're more likely to convince hainey that man is provoking climatic change than beat him in a grammar war Rightplace. I don't have a spell checker or read through my posts so there are pages of material should you wish to have a pop at me.
Going full circle, it was the study of other planets that made us aware that the mixture of gases we live in is critical to life on Earth as it is at present. The biosphere of which we are a part has had a major influence on the composition of the atmosphere since photothesising plants converted the reducing atmophere to the oxygen rich one we know today. Man has flaourished because the conditions on Earth have been favourable to our species. In reducing the continental photosynthesising biomass and releasing CO2 we are changing the composition of the atmosphere. An atmophere with a different composition will behave in a different way - climatic change. No need to measure anything, the logic is sufficient.
suggest you're more likely to convince hainey that man is provoking climatic change than beat him in a grammar war [b]Rightplace[/b].
Shurely shome mishtake?
Petty digs? I'm sorry, I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter
How many years are there then 1998-2008? I dont think someone who fails to count to ten and the challenges someone on what special maths they are using is really in a position to try and take the intelectual high ground do you? My three year old managed it when I checked.
How many years are there then betwen 1998 - 2008 - the period you refer to as the last ten years ? 😳
(wind up deleted)
RPRT - regards your point about comparing models, the problem there of course is that you cannot extrapolate forward that just because you've been right for a short period, that the inbuilt aggregate errors and chaos theory means the reliability of your model will progressively deteriorate - you're falling for reverse gamblers fallacy!
Interetingly - heres a nice development on the reliability of the current models from the latest issue of Nature (yes, Phil Jones [i]et al[i]'s pet publication)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
Our results are incompatibly lower (P?<?0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40?p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest [b]~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming.[/b]
So, even the climate researchers are now accepting that the IPCC models are wildly overstated!
How many years are there then betwen 1998 - 2008 - the period you refer to as the last ten years ?
98-99 - 1
99-00 - 2
00-01 - 3
01-02 - 4
02-03 - 5
03-04 - 6
04-05 - 7
05-06 - 8
06-07 - 9
07-08 - 10
Junkyard, I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid. 😉
"How many years are there then betwen 1998 - 2008 - the period you refer to as the last ten years ?" the word between is interesting i'm sure it means something?
99 - 1
00 - 2
01 - 3
02 - 4
03 - 5
04 - 6
05 - 7
06 - 8
07 - 9
I'm not sure if that helps any one? Hainey in your answer you apear to count 1998 as in the group but ignore 2008 you really ought to be consistant the boundry years are either in the count in which case the answer is 11 or out in which case the answer is 9 .
Funny how data can be interpreted in different ways!!!!!
So the nature letter suggests we should have more confidence in the more conservative amplification levels. Even at the lowest amplification levels predicted we're heading for several degrees and worryingly higher levels of energy in weather systems. If you accept the nature letter is anywhere near the truth you have accepted CO2 emmisions will cause significant (catastrophic) climatic change as we head towards 500ppm.
Z11 said:
RPRT - regards your point about comparing models, the problem there of course is that you cannot extrapolate forward that just because you've been right for a short period, that the inbuilt aggregate errors and chaos theory means the reliability of your model will progressively deteriorate - you're falling for reverse gamblers fallacy!
Should we stop using this model then?
[img] 
[/img]
It has been "right" for a short period, but everyone accepts that it's not perfect. Maybe we shouldn't "extrapolate forward"?
well indeed Hainey there are two ways to interpret the data the right way and the wrong way.
Three quick points
1. You posted up a graph claiming the last ten years were not warming i challenged you saying that 1988 was more than 10 years BP = before present.
2. I pointed out that 1988-2008 was 11 years - 11 data points
3. your response
hainey - Member
[QUOTING ME ]
Ok let me try what year is it ? is it 2008? ok now then is 1998 more than 10 years BP[before present? hard innit. 98 -08 is also 11 YEARS YOU IDIOT
[Hainey]
sorry, 11 years, and your point is.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/20
Junkyard, debating with you is about as appealing as playing leapfrog with unicorns.
'cos he has your measure hainey?
zzz is this still rattling on. To save reading it all can we summarise who are the looney climate change worshippers & who realises its all a load of old tosh?
'cos he has your measure hainey?
Hardly!
Constant contradictions and diversions away from the topic just become boring as i think everyone would agree!
BP means before 1/1/1950. 10 BP is 1940.
Constant contradictions and diversions away from the topic
You have counted the same dates twice and come up with two different numbers whilst doing ad hominem attacks on me and then you accuse me of diversions and contradictions 😯
I think Hainey is the red queen and zulu is humpty dumpty
The Red Queen shook her head, "You may call it "nonsense" if you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
TJ we're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view, however i imagine your teeth are brighter than you are.
Junky, as i said before any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Nice line in insults 🙂 I shall remember that for future use
Junky, as i said before any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
However Junkyard appears to share a reality with the rest of the world whereas your reality appears to be an alternative one - thru the looking glass perhaps?
thru the looking glass perhaps
I could have eaten alphabet spaghetti and crapped better comebacks than that.
I have no idea where yours or junkyards reality is to be honest, somewhere between extreme and fanatical. One day you may be able to better yourselves and look at the worlds problems with the blinkers well and truelly removed.
Have you anything constructive to say or do you wish to just insult me? You are just coming over as a little bit bitter and attacking me adds nothing to your view no matter how many times you do it.
My view of reality is grounded in a scienctific approach I can explain, an ability to evidence what I say and even post evidence that supports my argument. You are unable to be consistent about something as simple as counting the years 1998 - 2008 [inclusive], and claim others are irrational whilst saying this about the Noble pize winning IPCC
An organisation which lets be honest makes all the data up themselves, declares themselves as the world experts, then tells the world that they are correct
Yes it is clearly me who has a blinkered view about the world and suffers from an extreme, irrational view 🙄
Yes it is clearly me who has a blinkered view about the world and suffers from an extreme, irrational view
Well i'm glad we agree on something at last.
Well, theres a turn up for the books for you RPRT
Looks like someones joined onside with some of my wacky denialist concerns - the evil philanthropist Bill Gates:
Governments will also be increasing the money they spend to help reduce global warming. The final communiqué of the Copenhagen Summit, held last December, talks about mobilizing $10 billion per year in the next three years and $100 billion per year by 2020 for developing countries, which is over three quarters of all foreign aid now given by the richest countries.
I am concerned that some of this money will come from reducing other categories of foreign aid, especially health. If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases. In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment.
Dont worry though, someone else has joined onside in supporting your world view:
😆
Z11,
I notice that once again, as soon as I ask a tricky question you change the subject. Maybe you could have a look back a page and respond?
BTW, I didn't say that spending money on global warming wouldn't be used as an [b]EXCUSE [/b]to cut back in other areas. But it is a political decision, not a question of resources. As I said the first time you put this forward, we could have put money into tackling malaria long before global warming got to the top of the agenda, [b]but we didn't[/b]. And I already made one suggestion as to how money could better be prioritised. Scrapping trident would free up a few billion to tackle climate change and/or malaria and/or other foreign aid.
RP - look up, I did!
If you're referring to "maybe we shouldn't extrapolate forward" on [i]this[/i] page - you fail to understand the difference between aggregated errors in a model and a an approximation of a physical law 😯
Are you denying that a minor miscalculation of a variable in a model means that the further forward your model forecasts, the more inaccurate your prediction will be?
I mean, you could compare your model to see how it works in the future, but since you cannot compress time, you cannot predict forward the reliability - Anyway, the nature report linked to above already shows that the reliable computer modelling you've been telling us about is [b]already[/b] going off track by as much as eighty percent - the global records are not matching the models predictions!
Regardless - back in the box with your terrorist mates, just like the Taliban you'd rather see us back in the stone age! I suppose like them and greenpeace you think the only way to "make" people stop producing carbon is going to be direct action, better get your place in flight school booked!
[img] 
[/img]
I suppose your terrorist mates would love to see us get rid of trident too!
🙄
There was a dire warning in chapter 13 of the report of IPCC Working Group II:"Up to 40% of Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation," it observed.
"It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."
Closer inspection reveals that the authors referenced for this work are, in fact, an expert linked to environmental group WWF and a green journalist.
"The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rainforests, referenced to a non-peer reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF.
"This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication,"
How does Bill Gates in any, way shape or form deny climate change in that quote?
oh dear anagallis_arvensis, are you tripping over your own straw men as well now?
Where did [b]I[/b] say he did? I said:
ofsome
wacky denialist concernsmy
nice try, next!
denialist being the keyword, he's not denying anything he's just saying he thinks money could be better spent elswhere...you'll have to explain to me how I'm being so thick.
[b][u]When[/u][/b] we've made serious inroads into famine, war, disease, genocide and inequality, lets [b]start worrying about tomorrow.[/b]Nearly a million people die every year from malaria, last year up to half a million kids were subjected to blindness through Vitamin A deficiency -the financial cost of dealing with this would pale into insignificance against the amount of money being bandied around in cap and trade CO2 credits.
again, how is that related to your use of the word denialist?
Carbon taxes will raise all you need to pay for any other good deeds you have in mind. £3/l petrol should raise enough cash to fund most anything you want.
[b]My[/b]|m?|
possessive adjective
1 belonging to or associated with the speaker : my name is John | my friend.
Who did I call a denialist? Myself
Who were the concerns pertaining to? Me
Did I refer to Mr Gates sharing a number of concerns with me? Yes
Did I refer to the concerns as being denialist in themselves? No
Did I refer to Mr Gates as a Denialist? No
"The concerns which pertain to me, the denialist" 😉
Don't you understand simple English A_A?
Would you like me to arrange a referral to the "Derek Zoolander Institute For Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too"?
You tried to set up a straw man, and you failed, poor you, diddums... 😆
As I said - next!
Has Zulu completely lost the plot? does any of his last few posts make any sort of sense?
You really take the biscuit for distorting things to fit your frankly deranged view.
I refer you to the looking glass quotes above
As you'll have no doubt gathered I'm quite happy with the basic "more CO2 equals more energy in the atmosphere and this is not a good thing" but I find the IPPC quite irritating. They spend a lot of money coming up with detailed predictions they shouldn't be making and have very little to contribute to what we could be doing.
Trading carbon credits and anything else agreed on won't do any good and no-one is prepared to sign anything that would do any good as they are convinced it will result in economic meltdown. It wouldn't, it's just a matter of diverting resources.
If you buy a smaller car next time you can buy a solar hot water heater with the saving. How much of what you spend your cash on is simply for bragging rights? How much of what your aquaintainces spend is on bragging rights. Those rights are generally polluting vehicles, homes and holidays. Among my circle of friends that's changing, even in wider society the Range Rover Sport is becoming a sign of selfish arrogant ignorance and stupidity.
How foolish are you prepared to look?
Regardless - back in the box with your terrorist mates, just like the Taliban you'd rather see us back in the stone age! I suppose like them and greenpeace you think the only way to "make" people stop producing carbon is going to be direct action, better get your place in flight school booked!
It's quite late and I can only imagine you've been drinking. What are you on about? My "terrorist mates" ????????
It's pretty bloody obvious that humans are screwing up the climate. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.
[i]It's pretty bloody obvious that humans are screwing up the climate. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.[/i] or paid to.
They didn't have solar panels, wind turbines, hydro power or birth control in the stone age.
hainey - Member
Yes it is clearly me who has a blinkered view about the world and suffers from an extreme, irrational view
Well i'm glad we agree on something at last.
Ok sarcasm added to list of things you do not understand
Z-11 can I ask if it was meths you were drinking? That it is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read let alone on this thread - truly bizzare RPRT amazing restraint well done.
