climate change

[Reynard]

The whole thing about Scargill v Thatcher was simple. Two head strong leaders clashing and prepared to see others suffer just to prove a point. Thatcher was happy with her lot and making a huge profit on her Dulwich house and Scargill didn't give a shit about miners, so long as he was in his £100,000 house and London flat.

What helped Thatcher to beat the miners was getting them, socialists and long-time union members, to buy their council houses. That is what broke the strike. Years ago you could get into massive rent arrears, mortgages don't work like that. Miners weren't prepared to see their families tossed out onto the streets and so the trickle back started then in stepped the UDM.

I do believe coal has been the fastest growing fuel consumed globally since 2000. 5 countries use 77% of the coal produced(6 billion tonnes last year), but with open cast mining, it's unlikely that it will be as huge an employer in Britain as it used to be.

Scargill was a Marxist. He thought he would be able to bring down a government and destabilise the country as a result. The union members were pawns in his game, as you rightly point out, he didn't give a f**k about them and he still doesn't. That was the way the unions were operating back then, led by bitter little Marxist pr1cks with too much power. Thankfully thats gone now. Unions are a little bit more democratic now. Their leaders are still thick lefties and they still get over involved in politics rather than trying to help the members but that will change in due course.

What helped Thatcher was the utter predictability of Scargill. She knew fine he was spoiling for a fight, she stockpiled coal, fucking masses of it. And Scargill brought the men out in the summer. He then kept them out for far too long and wrecked the industry completely. There were a lot of men that wanted to go back to work but were afraid to do it thanks to the attitude of the likes of thick f**k socialists like Motownclic. So the pits all flooded. The equipment couldn't be salvaged and Scargill went back to his mansion to live off the proceeds of his union while his men lost their jobs. Thatcher won their little spat, the unions lost the power they once had and that was pretty much that as far as flying pickets, walk outs and idiots like Scargill were concerned.

The strike next week was at least balloted properly and while its a tiny minority of members that bothered to vote to walk out, they have the right to do it. It was all done properly and thats their affair.

As for coal, there is loads of it under the ground in my part of the world. Absolutely masses of the cleanest burning stuff in the world. It is the highest grade of coal around but it will stay under the ground. Health and safety would be all over deep mining like a rash nowadays and it would become too expensive to bring it out. So we will build shit, innefficiant windmills (I mean we will install the ones we buy from abroad ). We are being conned by a bunch of fucking liars about climate change.

Anyway. Climate change science is a load of bollocks peddled by utter c***s.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Reynard

[Hedgecutter]

Most of Scotland's coal reserves (of those originally in place) are still there. It's not unrealistic to think that your Cowdenbeaths, Auchinlecks etc might be busy again whenever cheap coal imports from Poland are a thing of the past and our coal reserves become economic again. Additionally, if Scotland produces all it's required power through renewables by then, Scottish coal would be a pretty nice wee earner if exported

[Reynard]

Here's an open letter from Nigel Lawson and his BFF to Chris Huhne. It challenges Huhne to prove his assertions that global warming has anything whatsoever to do with us and also to drop the moronic green targets which are so damaging to our industrial competitiveness as well as adding unnecessary money to everyones fuel bills. This is a government policy based around the lies and bullshit of the climate change

lobby

consensus and its liar scientists.

Dear Secretary of State,

We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions.

For a start, you make the mistake of connecting the reality of 20th century global warming, which no one doubts, with the various causes for it. You claim that the evidence for man's influence is getting stronger every year, yet you fail to provide any empirical evidence for this statement.

In reality, over the past few years there has been a growing realisation among scientists that other influences (such as solar, stratospheric water vapour, oceanic cycles, to name but the most dominant) are likely to be more significant than previously thought. These factors have seriously impinged on estimates of the magnitude of mankind's influence.

Your faith in the conclusion of Australia's Garnaut Review — that there has been no change in the rate of global warming in recent years — is wholly at odds with the latest scientific work and even the Government's own Met Office: Most research papers published in the last 12 months confirm that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years.

It is true that the fundamental greenhouse effect yields only a 1.2°C increase for a doubling of CO2 (so-called climate sensitivity) and that larger increases depend upon various feedback mechanisms. There is no convincing evidence, however, to support your assertion that the increase of the level of water vapour in the atmosphere (as a result of doubling of CO2) would (other things being equal) raise global average temperature by around 3°C.

In reality, the magnitude of water vapour feedbacks, positive as well as negative (such as increased cloud cover and precipitation) remains a poorly understood subject. Do you seriously believe that only 'one or two people' (sic) have published research that shows moderate rather than catastrophic warming in the next 100 years?

You do not seem to appreciate the incomplete state of scientific knowledge regarding these extremely complex feedbacks. In reality, most scientists will tell you that we do not know all of them; and that most of those we do know, we understand only rudimentary.

What is more, estimates for climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature have been going down. You and your advisers will no doubt take a look at the latest research findings on this very subject by Schmittner et al. published this week in the journal Science. This is yet another study that corroborates a low estimate of climate sensitivity and concludes that "these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climate change than previously thought."

Your faith in the integrity of the IPCC process is no less ill-advised. There have been three reports on the IPCC — by the InterAcademy Council in 2010; the recent book by Donna Laframboise; and the report by Professor Ross McKitrick published recently by the GWPF (a copy of which is

attached

). You and your advisers need to study all three as they all identify a common set shortcomings in the IPCC's scientific approach and its working methods.

The IPCC seeks to present itself as embodying the independent, impartial advice of the world's best scientists in the field. All three reports reveal serious flaws in this claim — its lack of transparency in how the so-called experts are chosen, its resistance to views challenging its orthodoxy, its lack of proper governance to deal with conflicts of interest, its excessive use of non-peer reviewed (grey literature), and its infiltration by activists from environmental pressure groups.

We are surprised that you have been so slow to recognise that the IPCC, which has influenced a great deal of UK policy, no longer carries the credibility necessary to persuade society of the massive changes it is advocating. It should be drastically reformed or wound up and replaced.

We note that you appear to be denying the charge on unilateralism in UK policy. This is curious as you and your predecessors were keen to boast that the Climate Change Act made Britain a world leader in decarbonisation. And you personally have been urging the EU to adopt even more ambitious targets, fortunately unsuccessfully.

Admittedly, you limit your claim that Britain has not adopted unilateral policies to "until 2020," but even this ceiling is at odds with the introduction of the carbon floor price which you wish to introduce in the next couple of years. This scheme most certainly is a unilateral folly which is already having a devastating effect on manufacturing and energy-intensive industries — which, of course, are also concerned about what is planned for after 2020.

In reality, the UK stands alone as the only country in the world to impose long-term legally binding CO2 emissions targets. No other country in the world is willing to inflict such unilateral burden on its business sector and economy.

Even within the EU Commission major concerns about its unilateral targets have begun to surface. The EU is now seriously considering to discontinue its unilateral decarbonisation in the absence of a global agreement.

Whether you like it or not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has pledged that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral decarbonisation targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe. We trust that his promise to abandon the path of green unilateralism will be followed, sooner rather than later, by a less extreme and more pragmatic policy.

Lord Lawson

Lord Turnbull

[THE KING]

Global warming much less serious than thought - new science

We're looking at just a couple of degrees with double CO2

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/runaway_warming_unlikely/

[Swampy]

Anyone who thinks 'Climategate', the first one, actually impacted in any way the science behind climate change is a complete fool, and probably just someone putting the conclusion first. No idea about this 'Climategate2' but from Reynard's post the same applies: it shows that some scientists are complacent and not acting in the name of transparency, but it doesn't show scientific fraud or falsify any well-held scientific conclusions.

[Swampy]

Global warming much less serious than thought - new science

We're looking at just a couple of degrees with double CO2

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/runaway_warming_unlikely/

The Australian scientist quote with which they close the piece... he also said:

"Very small changes in temperature cause huge changes in certain regions," Schmittner says. So even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe."

This is largely what the alarm is about: marginal parts of the planet, such as coastal regions and islands. The amount of upheaval that would be caused if coastal cities had to move back, if islands began to submerge, would be incredible. It's not the case that we're all going to boil to death.

[Gaz]

In my opinion, the climateologists made a colossal f**k-up by encouraging the media to report this all as "global warming" a few years ago.

Thus, people take a look at the last two winters and think: "global warming? What a load of pish, these are the two coldest winters we've ever had."

If they'd gotten it described as "climate change" back when all the hoo-hah started, maybe people would have a different view of it.

My own personal take is that it's probably too late to reverse the changes that are happening - but there's no harm in trying. It's really not much hassle to recycle packaging, cut down on fuel and electricity a bit, or do a bit more walking and cycling instead of taking the car everywhere. I try to be as green as possible. Even if it's not going to make much of a difference, it's not exactly a strain.

[Swampy]

In my opinion, the climateologists made a colossal f**k-up by encouraging the media to report this all as "global warming" a few years ago.

Thus, people take a look at the last two winters and think: "global warming? What a load of pish, these are the two coldest winters we've ever had."

If they'd gotten it described as "climate change" back when all the hoo-hah started, maybe people would have a different view of it.

Check Dorlomin's post, number 96. The IPCC was so named in 1988.

[THE KING]

The Australian scientist quote with which they close the piece... he also said:

"Very small changes in temperature cause huge changes in certain regions," Schmittner says. So even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe."

This is largely what the alarm is about: marginal parts of the planet, such as coastal regions and islands. The amount of upheaval that would be caused if coastal cities had to move back, if islands began to submerge, would be incredible. It's not the case that we're all going to boil to death.

i've always found the theory that our climate is linked to the suns cylce to be the most acceptable

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/m-scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

[Reynard]

In my opinion, the climateologists made a colossal f**k-up by encouraging the media to report this all as "global warming" a few years ago.

Thus, people take a look at the last two winters and think: "global warming? What a load of pish, these are the two coldest winters we've ever had."

If they'd gotten it described as "climate change" back when all the hoo-hah started, maybe people would have a different view of it.

My own personal take is that it's probably too late to reverse the changes that are happening - but there's no harm in trying. It's really not much hassle to recycle packaging, cut down on fuel and electricity a bit, or do a bit more walking and cycling instead of taking the car everywhere. I try to be as green as possible. Even if it's not going to make much of a difference, it's not exactly a strain.

I'm quite happy to recycle whatever I'm asked to recycle. No worries. I have woodburners in the house and in my workshop and they cost me f**k all to run. My gas bill so far this year has been for cooking and hot water, so its not been that much. Last year we were paying £220 a month for gas alone. Another £140 a month for electricity. Hefty. So for reasons of sheer survival its best to cut down energy use as much as possible especially as the government seems to be hell bent on punishing us for using any form of energy based on their "consensus" opinion based on shite science.

[THE KING]

I'm quite happy to recycle whatever I'm asked to recycle. No worries. I have woodburners in the house and in my workshop and they cost me f**k all to run. My gas bill so far this year has been for cooking and hot water, so its not been that much. Last year we were paying £220 a month for gas alone. Another £140 a month for electricity. Hefty. So for reasons of sheer survival its best to cut down energy use as much as possible especially as the government seems to be hell bent on punishing us for using any form of energy based on their "consensus" opinion based on shite science.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

[Swampy]

I'm quite happy to recycle whatever I'm asked to recycle. No worries. I have woodburners in the house and in my workshop and they cost me f**k all to run. My gas bill so far this year has been for cooking and hot water, so its not been that much. Last year we were paying £220 a month for gas alone. Another £140 a month for electricity. Hefty. So for reasons of sheer survival its best to cut down energy use as much as possible especially as the government seems to be hell bent on punishing us for using any form of energy based on their "consensus" opinion based on shite science.

In what way is the science shite, Professor?

[Gaz]

Check Dorlomin's post, number 96. The IPCC was so named in 1988.

Ah, fair enough. My mistake.

[dorlomin]

Its all very simple. The sun largely emits in shortwavelengths. This is due to its blackbody temperature. The atmosphere is pretty transparent to shortwavelength light so it quite easily reaches the surface as we can all see, the only exception being ultraviolet wavelengths that are absorbed by O3 in the high stratosphere.

When this light reaches the surface it is partly reflected back into space as shortwave and partly absorbed. The ratio of reflection vs absorbtion is down to the albedo of the surface or how light it is. White like snow reflects almost everything. Black absorbs almost everything, this absorbtion heats up the body and it emits an increased amout of infrared radition. The atmosphere is rather opaque to infrared radiation as several key components H2O, CO2, CH4 and others absorb in those wavelengths. When a molecules electrons absorb light they become excited i.e. warm. They then transmit this energy to their neighbours. Easily done as they will experiance about 1 billion collisions a second. The upward infrared emitted from the surface (called upwelling) rapidly heats the atmosphere by this mechanism.

Increasing the amount of molecules in the atmosphere that can absorb this infrared radiation effectively increase its ability to store 'heat'.

This is the greenhouse effect. The electron states that complex molecules can exist at are complex to calculate as pressure and temperature effect them. But since the late 70s when the master piece by Ramanathan and Coakely was published we have been narrowing down those wavelengths to an increadible scale.

We have a very good idea of what the first order changes (called a forcing) will be from a doubling of CO2. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

The issue emerges with the feedback. The most important by a wide degree is the water vapor feedback. This again is not particularly controversial. Warmer air holds more moiture. We can measure this by measuring the moisture conent of a column of air when the temperature changes through the day. It is really mid 19th century science. Increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect.

The problems come from understanding how much warming will happen how quickly when we raise the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

The biggest uncertainty is the oceans, the slower the oceans are to mix the heat from the surface the quicker the atmosphere will warm. The two main mechanisms for heat to get from the surface of the ocean to the deeps are wind mixing and sea currents. The less wind mixing the quicker the surface layer will warm and so the quicker the atmospehre will warm. The more windmixing the longer it will take as the wind will mix warmer surface water deeper so keep it cool longer slowing the rate of warming in the atmosphere. This is the big problem that you will see quoted out of context.

The next big issue is the carbon cycle. There is a huge amount of science here and its only really for the deperately nerdy. But again the simple explanation is the oceans. The amount of gas a liquid can hold is dependent on the temperature, and the quicker the oceans heat the quicker they will stop being able to absorb CO2 so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise. Today about 40% of the CO2 emitted is absorbed by the oceans. If they warm quicker then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise quicker for the same level of emissions than if they warm slower.

The other area of uncertainty is clouds. Clouds can act as a positive and negative feedback depending on altitude and time of day. There is some uncertainty about how much feedback the clouds will provide, but this uncertainty is sold as a solid fact that it will stop all warming by those who have an agenda to distort the science.

Simply put the huge swings in termperature between glacial and interglacial phases of the ice age show there is a very strong feedback mechanism in the climate system. It is unlikely that clouds will dampen the warming too much as they have not done so previously.

You increase the amount of CO2 in the atmospehre you get a warmer world. That is well understood physics.

Clowns like Monckton yapping away are just a distraction.

who claims to be able to cure aids.

[THE KING]

i've always found the theory that our climate is linked to the suns cylce to be the most acceptable

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/m-scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

Bump...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/John-Casey-solar-hibernation/2015/01/08/id/617299/

[Johnstoun]

That's awesome, but the guy isn't a scientist, he's a climate change denier.

[THE KING]

That's awesome, but the guy isn't a scientist, he's a climate change denier.

Yet was the first to predict the sun was going into hibernation (which NASA has recently confirmed)....

...

Mr. John L. Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. Mr. Casey is the leading advocate in the US for a national and international plan to prepare for the next climate change to one of a dangerous cold climate era. This new cold era is caused by a historic decline in the Sun’s energy output, what he calls a “solar hibernation.”

In the spring of 2007, he became the first researcher to announce this dramatic change in the Sun to the White House and the mainstream media. In addition to correctly predicting the hibernation of the Sun, recently confirmed by NASA and other science organizations, he has correctly predicted the end of global warming, and the long term decline in the Earth’s temperatures.

[Johnstoun]

NASA were first, he just repeated it. That biography is a bag of shite.

[THE KING]

NASA were first, he just repeated it. That biography is a bag of shite.

He advises NASA.

[dorlomin]

He advises NASA.

He has zero published research in climate.

Zero published research in solar physics.

Claims he can predict earth quakes and volcanoes.

Claims to have some "advisory" role to Nasa. Yet there seems to be no proof.

Claims to be a White House advisor, yet offers no proof.

Crank rating 7/10