Piers Corbyn runs the Weather Action, weather prediction site. See how he dismembers the UN IPCC Vth Assessment Report - Discussion at Royal Society 2-3 Oct 2013 the Royal societies position on man made global warming.
I admit he’s not the most dynamic of speakers, but he is a true scientist. And of course his predictions regularly shame the UK Met Office.
Mitigate the effects of Climate change or bankrupt the world defending against it? The vid below gives the case for mitigation. If at all it’s needed?
What do you think?
Just under a month ago I read a letter in the comments to an article in the financial times. The letter was addressed to our prime minister.
It’s produced on my site HERE. It's about climate change and energy supplies.
Anyway I thought the author wouldn’t mind if I used it. After a bit of adjustment I sent it to my MP. The reply received today is reproduced (Badly) below. My apologies for the poor quality, but I had to scan it and then snip the content.
It seems he is somewhere on the same planet as me.
It seems that The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are a bit miffed that their message about AGW is not getting across to us plebs. Or if it is, and we’re just ignoring it for the fuckwittery that it is.
So they’ve decided that they need a bit of outside help to cajole the general public to accept their idiocy.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (“the Department”) is inviting tenders for the development of a public engagement plan to generate greater popular acceptance of the need to move to a low-carbon energy system, preparing the public for the scale of the investment and change required in the UK’s energy system – The British Energy Challenge.
Alright it’s only a three month contrick contract paying £20,000, but it’s money that shouldn’t be frittered away.
When the whole global warming debacle is finally exposed in the public eye to be the hoax that it is. I would hope that they will be forced to keep the name DECC just to remind us what Tossers they are.
And no it’s not my niece.
Me: (Gingerly picks up the phone as it is a number I don’t recognise) Hello?
Caller: Is that Mr FE?
Me: Speaking.
Caller: I hope you are well today (Why that should be any concern of there’s I don’t know).
Me: Well I’m suffering from the winter lurgy and hope this doesn’t get passed down the phone line to you (Smiles).
Caller: (Pause) Sorry to hear that but I’m interested if you'd be interested in our home energy improvements.
Next follows a pre-prepared script about the energy savings that could be obtained.
Me: Ok. Tell me more.
Caller: We can get a grant to help you install our loft installation.
Me: Great. Can you supply me with a loft to go with it? (I have a three story house which has no loft)
Caller: (Long pause). You have no loft?
Me: Nope.
Caller: Ok. Can we interest you in cavity wall insulation?
Me: So you want to destroy the integrity of the structure of my house?
Caller: Not at all Sir.
Me: Explain why I should inject a substance that will negate the whole idea that a cavity wall is there to prevent damp passing from the exterior to the inside.?
Caller: (Longer pause).
Me: Don’t worry, I haven’t any cavity walls anyway..
Caller: (Now realising is he’s lost, tries one last gambit), Can we interest you in solar panels?.
Me: (By now I’ve lost the will to live) No. Unless you can guarantee me free power for twenty years with no expense to me.
Caller: Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, (Rings off)
Donna Laframboise pens an interesting article about how the sceptical Blogger will eventually defeat the the vastly wealthy big guns of AGW proponents.
Of course the AGW’s spread disinformation about us sceptical bloggers because they think that we are the same as them.
Another day, another smarmy accusation that [click each word for a separate example] people who are skeptical of climate change are being funded by a shadowy conspiracy connected in one manner or another to big oil, big coal, big tobacco or – horror of horrors – right-wing think tanks.
However she rightly points out that your humble bloggers against the premise of AGW, are mostly self funded. operating without any outside support.
Compare and contrast to how independent individuals of utterly modest means from all over the world currently behave. They sign up to a service like Blogger.com (which is owned by Google) and, within a few hours at most, for no cost whatsoever, have launched themselves as a blogger. Alternatively, for well under $10 in hosting fees a month, they can publish their own website.
For no money, therefore, climate skeptics in the early 21st century are in a position to theoretically communicate online with as many people as is Greenpeace. From their basements and their attics, in often non-trendy geographical locations, it isn’t their funding that matters – it’s their skill sets.
In that last sentence she sums up with who these dastardly bloggers are.
In my case I was a marine engineer for 43 years. Over that time as an engineer I learnt to deal in hard facts. If I repaired machinery, I had to make sure I did it correctly. If someone had observed my work practise and computer modelled it, with the result that I had carried out the work with a 90% chance of the machinery working I would probably have hit him.
If you’re on a ship, you have to get it right, not 90% right. People die with that sort of reasoning.
Us sceptical bloggers are I think like a swarm of bees with no queen. You can swat one but the others will sting you.
Go on read her http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/22/independent-bloggers-vs-corporate-environmentalists/whole article.
I’ve just downloaded a copy of the “Delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world's top climate expert”, by Donna Laframboise.
If you, like me, are a climate change sceptic (and if you do believe in AGW you’ll be shocked, and maybe slightly worried and may question your beliefs), then her book is well worth a read. She doesn’t go into long technical discussions. That isn’t the purpose of the book. Instead she takes the IPCC decision making process apart, and tears it to shreds. This is a book you should send to your Member of Parliament so they might see how the wool has been pulled over their eyes.
Just to wet your appetite, follow the link below for a free sample
The full PDF version can be found HERE. Priced at $4.99.
Founder
cuttingthecarbon was set up by Alexis Rowell after he discovered that man-made climate change meant the North Pole was going to disappear in his lifetime. Alexis's first career was as a BBC journalist from 1989 to 1998, mostly reporting on the consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall. After completing an MBA at INSEAD in 1999, and spending seven years working in business development for technology companies, his concern about climate change led him to seek election in 2006 as a councillor in the London Borough of Camden. He was appointed Camden Eco Champion and Chair of the council's all-party Sustainability Task Force.
Excuse me Alexis. How the fuck can climate change eradicate the North Pole? And of course, surprise, surprise, he was moulded by the BBC. And he’s a fucking ECO champion! Hang him.
Republicans kill global warming committee
The kick-off of the 112th Congress on Wednesday also marked the end of an era in the House – the demise of a committee devoted solely to climate change and energy issues. The Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, created by Nancy Pelosi in 2006, has been shuttered under the new Republican leadership.
It’s about time some of our useless politicians came to their senses and questioned this whole quackery of AGW.
The only problem is that I found this in the Guardian. I feel unclean.
If you look at my emphasis you’ll note how he manages to squirrel in a plethora of emotive words in his comment. Pretty good Huh.
12 Nov 2010 12:50:20pm
Oliver W:
If the doctor who told you to manage the pain was taking money from the drug company from whom you need to buy your pain killers, would you still trust them?
You need to wake up, and look at the serious conflict of interest being shown by the anti-global warming factions. Big Mining, Big Oil, Big Cars, MORE GROWTH....We know what these people want, and it MORE MONEY AND POWER.
The same tactics of delay and deny, were used by the big tobacco companies, so that they could continue to make massive profits while knowing full well that the medical evidence was correct, and that they were killing people.
We need a change of direction here, because people, if you are under 40, this issue will come home to roost during your lifetime. For those old enough to miss the fun, think about your children cause they will cop it instead......
Well done to get the Cheeeldren in.
I despair. I really do.
There’s a competition in the Metro in which you can send in your photo shopped postcard depicting London in the grip of climate change.
Paddy fields in London, Don’t make me laugh.
This is what I’ll send in
Just a sample pic, as I’ll need lots more mobile cranes to hang Greens, Politicians, AGWs’, carbon credit consortia, and all others who are peddling this travesty of science.
Remind me tomorrow to buy shares in caterpillar and other crane manufacturers.
I do have futures in piano wire.
No. This post is not about smoking, although I’m puffing away while I write this.
I’ve just been delving around on the internet, to see if I could see the benefits of fitting a photovoltaic solar panel to my roof. You know saving the planet etc, etc, Bollocks, etc.
And here’s what I’ve come up with:
Initial fitting would be £12,000 for the fitting of the panel, wiring, and installing an inverter. Ok, fine.
Expected overall saving per year is calculated at £839. Calculated for the South of the country. If you live in Scotland, then the figure drops to £716.
Looks jolly good I hear myself think. (All figures calculated for me by The Energy saving trust).
Now for the twist.
The panels are expected to last for 20 years, but at the end of their life will only be capable of delivering 80% performance. (The calculations are based on 100% through life output).
The panel will require cleaning on a regular basis. in my case I’ve based it as every two years due to the Oak trees across the road, and the numerous pigeons we have here for some strange reason.
Now seeing that I have a three story house, H & S decree that work on the roof requires scaffolding in my area.
Lets throw in £200 for that (Most likely double). Therefore after 20 years the cost in total will be £2,000.
Inverters burn out in time. Well the good chaps at MugsRyou, installed a top of the range model that lasts 10 years. So I’ll only need two of those. £1000 a throw.
The upshot of this long rambling story is that it will take me 19.07 years to break even. That’s if the panels deliver that 100% for the whole period and we actually get some sun.
Mind you I expect I’ll have long died from a smoking related disease by then.
Did I mention smoking? Oh dear.
Wind turbines anyone?
F.E Mansion is having a much needed upgrade to the central heating after this year's extreme cold spell. In consequence the floor boards are up, the cats have hidden away, and FE has become Tea boy in Chief.
I suppose now that I'm having it done, we'll have mild winters for the next ten years. Damn Global warming.
It looks like us AGW skeptics are spreading disinformation according to an article in the Guardian. I would say to Joss Garman that it is more like trying to get people to think about the science and the politics of the subject.
It seems that we've struck a raw nerve:
There's an incredibly powerful movement opposed to action on climate change. Without doubt it had more influence on the outcome of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen than many of the world's countries combined.
Of course he knows best:
Over the last few years as climate campaigners such as myself have tried to mount a good rational argument.
And then we have the Ad Hominem attack:
Gold
digging-standard scientific reporting from the IPCC , and indeed the value of scientific inquiry itself, is now under sustained assault from a motley assortment of cranks, ideologues and special interest voices intent on stopping the transition to a clean energy economy.
And from Greenfellow in the comments, a thinly veiled threat:
The deniers are never going to give in no matter how much science there is. Therefore, unless the government intervenes in a much stronger way than its doing at the moment, its ecowar pure and simple. Deniers are the enemy, and if we don't beat them then its endgame for all of us.
If they can prove the science then let them do so. For the moment I'm staying a skeptic.
A former NASA contractor whose theory demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is constant and self-regulating and that increases in human CO2 emissions are not the source of global warming is fighting an uphill battle to publish his controversial work.
Developed by prominent atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, the new theory is enormously significant because it demolishes the prevailing doctrine of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), which blames humans for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and triggering runaway global warming that could eventually lead to catastrophic climate change.
I must admit that I hadn't heard of this man before today. However the story makes interesting and disturbing reading.
Miskolczi’s research was greeted less than cordially by his bosses. After submitting his results to Applied Optics, a respected peer-review journal, he was told to withdraw the paper by his employer, Analytical Services and Materials, a NASA contractor. When he protested (the paper was midway through the review process), his boss withdrew it. He later confronted his NASA supervisor, Dr. Martin Mlynczak, and was simply ignored, he says.
The full study is reproduced here.
It really takes the biscuit.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
It makes you wonder what else he hasn't been telling us.
And the article ends with this bit of bluster.
“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”
Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Bring it on.
Full article in The Times
Oh, sod it. It'll do. I don't think I can justify spending any longer on a dataset, the previous version of which was completely wrong (misnamed) and nobody noticed for five years.
Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape
archives at UEA) and never recreated it. This hasn't mattered too much, because
the synthetic cloud grids had not been discarded for 1901-95, and after 1995
sunshine data is used instead of cloud data anyway."
Wrong again! The saga continues.. actually I'm beginning to wonder if it'll still be going when I JOIN SAGA
Hmmm.. still some problems. In several areas, including a swathe of Russia, the mean values drop around 1991 - just when MCDW comes in.
Back.. think.. even more complicated. My head hurts. No, it actually does.
I really thought I was cracking this project. But every time, it ends up worse than before.
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.Oh well, shit happens. Mind you I don't understand much of what he was doing except it seemed to be messing with incomplete data
