But climate scientists know that temp records haven’t been broken Mike. That’s what alarmists and deniers do.. they cherry pick data and research.

So which ones haven’t been broken, what’s your take on the Australian ones then?

But climate scientists know that temp records haven’t been broken Mike. That’s what alarmists and deniers do.. they cherry pick data and research.

You still realize that the trends mean that a lot of the planet will be unequivocally **** in terms of economic output though?

Even if it was technically hotter 60 million or whatever years ago.

But climate scientists know that temp records haven’t been broken Mike.

So doesn’t the Bureau of Meteorology (from Mike’s links) count as “climate scientists”?

Because they were the ones saying that 2013 was the hottest year on record for Australia.

Or are you making the technical point that the Earth was hotter than that before the continents drifted apart?

I assume you state ‘unscientific opinions’ to try to place a scientist above an ‘ordinary’ human

You assume wrongly. Anyone employed as a scientist may also have ‘unscientific opinions’, scientists are human after all. Bad science is bad science wherever it comes from, and I don’t think many (any) of us would claim not to be arguing from our existing prejudices/political beliefs to some degree or another. That was kind of my point. Admittedly I’m not the most effective writer. Like many of us I too have been following the climate debate for over 20 years and observe that it is of course like so many debates – ie immigration, economics etc in that we humans are emotional and tribal and fit the facts to suit our inclinations and comfort levels. Not saying emotions are bad per se as empathy is often all that stands between us being ruthlessly ‘efficient’ and horribly shortsighted – yet emotionalism and tribalism can destroy debate – from half-cogent cherry-picking down through ‘us vs them’ – bolstered by dishonesty via denial and propaganda. We seem to be more invested in being ‘right’ – which in itself is egotistical along with any opinions arising from such a mindset. That is what I mean by ‘unscientific opinion’. I’m sure there is a more suitable phrase available but I’m coming up short.

the climate change debate

It isn’t really a debate. There is scientific consensus and there are shouty people who want to not listen for whatever reason.

a lot of the planet will be unequivocally **** in terms of economic output though?

a lot of it will be enhanced too (crops grow better for example, or different crops can be grown instead) and other pieces of land which currently have very poor economic activity will come into use, cereal crops will grow further north for example, warmer water may see changes in plankton growth and more fish

though if we talk about plants growing better in warmer climes or raised levels of CO2, they we’re in danger of getting into feedback cycles and their moderating effect on warming 😉

Had to find out more about that CNN screen grab.

Only in America Rolling Coal

Rolling coal is a form of conspicuous pollution. Targets of rolling coal often include owners of hybrid vehicles as well as bicyclists and pedestrians

don’t sea levels rise on a warmer globe if so a lot of northern agricultural land is going to be a tad aquatic?

Ninfan, see my previous post. What your talking about will happen, it will just cause widespread emigration whilst the North/West get’s richer at the expense of everyone else….again.

don’t sea levels rise on a warmer globe if so a lot of northern agricultural land is going to be a tad aquatic?

I doubt Russia and Canada are going to be swamped any time soon.

a lot of it will be enhanced too

a lot is a strange way of saying the minority. Imagine a sceptic cherry picking the data to make a terrible point

warmer water may see changes in plankton growth and more fish

Apart from all the ones who die form the acidity it will indeed be brilliant for example.

I do so love the it wont really be bad argument.
Why not mention vineyards in Bristol or something ?

FWIW the cost of preventing climate change are less than the costs of dealing with it
Few if any economic benefits have been shown to occur.

plants growing better in warmer climes or raised levels of CO2

Let’s hope so because currently we’re not exactly doing very well on that front either:

So perhaps we ought to put our efforts into mitigation and robustness to deal with the problems of climate change (whatever the cause) instead of hoping that a few windmills might make it go away?

So perhaps we ought to put our efforts into mitigation and robustness to deal with the problems of climate change (whatever the cause) instead of hoping that a few windmills might make it go away?

+1

so continue with fossil fuels until they run out then knock up an alternate energy solution overnight or put some effort in early doors and get it sorted before it’s £15/l for petrol.

I guess if you keep your head in the sand it’s probably OK.

Only in America Rolling Coal

Rolling coal is a form of conspicuous pollution. Targets of rolling coal often include owners of hybrid vehicles as well as bicyclists and pedestrians

there was a well known bike magic forum member IIRC from the lake district who claimed to do this to cyclists in his landrover if he felt they had slowed him down (riding 2 abreast).

bike magic forum member IIRC from the lake district who claimed to do this to cyclists in his landrover

I bet he didn’t spend $5000 modifying his LR to do this, remove the particle filter, or post videos on You Tube or start a Facebook page.

Like I said only in America.

or boast about it on a cycling forum 🙄

Consensus that the climate is changing. I’m not sure there is any unanimity on the extent of the change, how the driving mechanisms work, what we should do about it, or whether we should just do what we can to cope with the changes. Sure there’s a debate.

Copenhagen: The world must stop almost all greenhouse gas emissions through a phased elimination of fossil fuels by 2100 if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a new United Nations report says. And the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged companies to disinvest from fossil fuel-based industries.
There are “multiple pathways” that will keep global warming below 2 degrees, according to the IPCC’s “synthesis report” released on Sunday.
However, all of these pathways require “substantial” cuts to greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades, and “near zero” emissions by the end of the century, the report’s authors concluded.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-panel-warns-opportunity-to-stop-climate-change-fading-fast-20141102-11fmmq.html#ixzz3I6yIgq3X
Do you mean among the scientists and experts in the field or politicians, big business and the public?

Don’t be silly. We already have vineyards further North than that http://www.three-choirs-vineyards.co.uk/

instead of hoping that a few windmills might make it go away?

Such a sound byte (taken in isolation) has more than just a whiff of tilting at both windmills and a strawman. Care to elaborate?

so continue with fossil fuels until they run out then knock up an alternate energy solution overnight or put some effort in early doors and get it sorted before it’s £15/l for petrol.

There is enough evidence that the big oil companies buy up any patents or licenses that have potential, and then sit on them to prevent competition. BP is well known for hoovering up any solar ideas.

I often wonder on these threads why some are so passionate about this subject.
Why do we care about looking after the planet?

Not trolling, it’s just that I feel a bit conflicted with whether I do or should care about whether we continue to exist in the long term.
I can see the idea of improving things for the near future, but selfish instincts lead me to not care too much what happens in the long term.

We can try to make a better world for our children and their children etc., but how far in the future do I logically or emotionally care about?
I find it hard to have feelings about people that don’t yet exist.

None of this means I live in an anti-social, anti-enironmentalist way, but as I said I do question myself about it.
Just me? I doubt it.

For me, a lot of it is about not breaking things that are beautiful and wonderful.

Especially not through sheer laziness or greed.

FeeFoo – Member

Why do we care about looking after the planet?

It’s where I keep my stuff

For me, a lot of it is about not breaking things that are beautiful and wonderful.

Especially not through sheer laziness or greed.

This

Driving (ironically) through Cornwall at the weekend, it was so heartwarming to see all the windmills and a solar farm or two.. and then very quickly it became heartbreaking as we considered that there are a great many seemingly sensible human beings that will argue white is black in opposition to these sorts of technologies

so much vested interest
but
I was reading about the Dunning Kruger effect today and had a bit of a revelation as to how this relates to climate change and the environment.

Sorry to go back a page.
Mike. The australian records began in the early 1900’s, since then we have new data which is peer reviewed and accepted scientific climate temp data. You would then need to update any climate temp recordings to include the new data. This is the correct scientific approach. No records have been smashed. If a denier uses info from 1997 people mock him but it’s okay for alarmists to cherry pick the data and research.
A couple of people on here are suggesting it has only been warmer millions of years ago which would seem to me that alarmist guff is fooling many.

Climate change is not ‘bad’ it is perfectly natural (regardless of whether we are driving it.) The idea that climate change is a negative is ridiculous and unscientific.

so, Yay! for climate change?

all the windmills and a solar farm or two.. and then very quickly it became heartbreaking as we considered that there are a great many seemingly sensible human beings that will argue white is black in opposition to these sorts of technologies

The problem with windfarms and solar farms is that they could never produce enough power to fulfill modern requirements.

I have no issue with reducing carbon emissions but the only existing solution to effectively do so and to fulfill power requirements is to invest in new nuclear.

In addition to this, the UK has one of the largest tidal ranges in the World, this is completely predictable, unlike wind, wave and solar. Why are we not using this?

Climate change is not ‘bad’ it is perfectly natural (regardless of whether we are driving it.) The idea that climate change is a negative is ridiculous and unscientific.

Natural climate change is natural.

I’m sure the “scientists” refer to the topic as anthropogenic climate change, but that is just too much information for the media and many other people to grasp. 🙄

theocb – Member
Climate change is not ‘bad’ it is perfectly natural (regardless of whether we are driving it.) The idea that climate change is a negative is ridiculous and unscientific.

😆

In addition to this, the UK has one of the largest tidal ranges in the World, this is completely predictable, unlike wind, wave and solar. Why are we not using this?

Currently the only way to stop machines in water from fouling up is to cover them in highly toxic coatings that then poison the environment.

As posted earlier, Shell and BP both have large collections of solar patents that are kept under lock and key for a later date. If development was allowed and financed we could be much further ahead on solar, but that does not make enough profit now.

Surface area required to power the world by solar!

http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf

Currently the only way to stop machines in water from fouling up is to cover them in highly toxic coatings that then poison the environment.

Complete and utter bollocks. 🙄

Care to elaborate?

modern requirements

I think you should talk about “current requirements” and leave “modern requirements” for what we would consume if every building were built to modern standards of efficiency, every vehicle performed to the best modern standards, the public transport system made owning a car unnecessary and every road had a safe walk/bike path near or alongside.

gobuchul – Member

Complete and utter bollocks.

no, it’s true.

or, if you know of a solution, then you stand to become staggeringly wealthy – the US Navy will happily give you a few billion dollars/year to stop mussels/molluscs/etc sticking to their boats.

(and of course, there’s all the new adhesive technology you’ll no doubt be able to develop)

gobuchul – Member

I have no issue with reducing carbon emissions but the only existing solution to effectively do so and to fulfill power requirements is to invest in new nuclear.

Meanwhile in Scotland, 40% of electricity used comes from renewables- it’ll overtake nuclear soon and has already outstripped coal (give it a couple of years and it’ll be more than all fossil fuel combined)