And what about this? As a layman it smacks of an attempt at manipulating opposition and evidence.
Oh yes I forgot this quote from the polar bear article:
...."Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG"......"
Can one of the scientists tell me why the Manhattan declaration signed by 500 scientists is not "good peer review" when UEA is?
Not since 2006 has the United Kingdom had what I would quantify as a summer. So from where I am I think it's a bit of a con
Greenhouse gases/Green taxes
We can fill our blue/green bins and bags up as much as we want and buy eco-cars, cycle to work, get the train etc until the cows come home. All the while the entire sub-continent and China does not care one jot will it make the slightest nipple tickle of a difference.
I just love the way that the right-wingers always justify their overseas millitarism by claiming that they are "defending freedom" and yet when someone exercises their freedom in their own country by protesting publicly about an issue they want them batoned and beaten by the police.
Why don't you go and live in China if you want state-sponsored brutality? Or maybe Iran or Saudi Arabia?
When the Countryside Alliance people came to London to protest about the Fox hunting ban I certainly did not agree with their stance on the issue but I would never have called for them to beaten up by the police because they have every right to voice their opinions - that's what "freedom" is all about.
People need to think about this issue very carefully.
While I am at it, this nonsense spouted by Steve Dowman about capitalism/socialism/communism has certainly given me a good laugh. If capitalism is so great then how come the biggest capitalist economy in the world, the United States, is currently in trillions of dollars of debt to the "Communist" (there's a laugh) Chinese?
There is so much bollocks on this thread its almost unbelievable
1 - The majority of people who believe that man-made factors are by far the overwhelming contributor to climate change are not communists. Most of them aren't even socialists (since there is basically no 'socialist' party of note in this country any more and hasn't been for about fifteen years). Sadly, most of them are about as educated on the subject of climate change as the vast majority of people who have commented on this thread - i.e. not at all. That doesn't make what they're doing 'wrong', just 'pointless'. Protesting about something you know nothing about is a bit lame, but hey - its a democracy, let people believe in what they want. After all, we let people go to church/mosques/temples.
2 - The 'Manhattan Declaration' came out of a conference paid for by a libertarian/right wing (and I use the term 'right wing' here in its AMERICAN context - yes its considered right wing by AMERICANS) think tank. It was paid for almost entirely by contributions from industries which have a vested interest in ensuring that the climate change 'lobby' is as riduclued as possible. It is as non-partisan as the studies funded by big tobacco in the fifties, sixties and seventies which said there was no link between smopking and lung cancer.
3 - Up until about three years ago, most recycling (other than cardboard, wood, paper, glass and aluminium cans) was not economically or environmentally viable. The net cost in money and energy of recycle other materials was higher than any commercial or environmental gain. This has changed - far more material can now be recycled effectively. However, in order for this to be the case, such recycling (plastics mainly) needs to take place on a large scale - far larger than we are doing at present in the UK. Since the infrastructure is not in place to support it on the scale required to make it viable in the long term, there is a valid argument that recycling of plastics is still actually harmful to the environment. However, since we can't continue to produce non-biodegradable materials for packaging in such enormous quantities and just chuck them in landfill, there is another equally valid argument that we should get people used to recycling plastics so that, when the tipping point between economic viability (through increased efficiency of the recycling processes used) and economy of scale is reached, we can 'hit the ground running'. The jury's still out on this as far as I'm concerned.
4 - Mitchell Taylor isn't allowed his say at a forum to highlight the absolutely overwhelming empirical scientific evidence that mankind is the largest contibuting factor to sudden climate change for the same reason that you wouldn't invite Fred West to address the Women's Institute. Its not exactly his target audience... In addition, his views on the polar bear population are, shall we say 'not widely accepted as fact' by the zoological community. Now, as a Palaeontologist by training, I am fully aware of the danger of simply accepting something as fact because it is the currently accepted dominant theory. For decades it was accepted by rote that dinosaurs were cold-blooded. The first palaeontologists (including a hero of mine, Robert Bakker) were openly mocked and ridiculed for suggesting that this may not be the case. Some thirty years after the idea was first postulated, it is now accepted that the dinosaurs were, in fact, warm-blooded. However, a direct parallel cannot be drawn here, because there was literally oodles of evidence that supported this theory, it just hadn't been looked at because it was just assumed that: Reptiles = Cold-blooded. Once that simple crutch was removed, it became relatively simple to see the mountains of evidence supporting the only sensible conclusion (Dinosaurs were not 'Normal' reptiles, therefore didn't necessarily have to be cold-blooded). But, I digress. In this instance, Taylor's studies contain interesting data, but they are simply not supported by hard zoological evidence - namely that it is absolutely f***ing pointless saying that the polar bears are alright because they aren't going extinct as quickly as was first suggested would be the case twenty years ago - their habitat is being eroded at an absolutely unprecedented rate - and pretty soon there won't BE any f***ing ice floes for them to hunt on - so the only way they'll survive is by encroaching on populated land.
There are, however, two absolutely unassailable points of fact buried in this thread.
Firstly, there are very few truly independent scientific studies conducted any more. These used to be the province of students (oh the irony!) in universities. Now, with so much riding on the outcome of research (grants, lucrative further research opportunities, the chance to make a name for yourself and pimp yourself out to industry) it is all but impossible to see any research conducted by anyone as truly 'independent'. Still, it won't matter in a few years anyway, since most universities will be pwned completely by big business (instead of just the spanking new 'Saatchi art' wing, or the 'Nike sports pitches' it will be the 'Pfizer pharmacological research chair' or the 'McDonalds fellowship in labour management studies')
Secondly, I am 100% in agreement that, whilst the lunatic suggestions of a global conspiracy to promote climate change as a way of getting us to cycle to work are ludicrous, governments across the world (both devloped and developing) are using it as a convenient smokescreen to deflect away from the issues of poverty, the wealth gap, defence budgets and anything else that their populaces might be pissed off about. Sadly, this is not a new thing. Thatcher - Falklands. Mugabe - White Farmers. Bush - Anyone In The Desert.
A very eloquent and thoughtful post Leroy. My original posts were about the lack of independence of those doing peer reviews. I don't believe in a global conspiracy around climate change but I do think that a doubling of the world population every few decades is a bigger threat to the world as all resources diminish and are chased by an ever increasing market. But no one seems to want to address over population, which seems odd when it will cause far more problems than a Cyclical shift in global temperatures.
Well the climate change camp on Blackheath, which packs up today, has had at least one success in as much it has provoked a bit of a debate on here, and thereby raised consciousness a little.
I just read all this again and I am shocked and just a little upset with you all. There is not even one post suggesting that the answer to this problem (or not problem) is Jonjo.
One thing I noticed from looking at the protestors and particularly native-American-Canadian-Ginger-Bollocks. Despite their left leaning, super inclusive, love and peace message it would be harder to find a group less ethnically or socially diverse in the wettest of Hitler's wet dreams. Why is this?
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]I just love the way that the right-wingers always justify their overseas millitarism by claiming that they are "defending freedom" and yet when someone exercises their freedom in their own country by protesting publicly about an issue they want them batoned and beaten by the police.
Why don't you go and live in China if you want state-sponsored brutality? Or maybe Iran or Saudi Arabia?
When the Countryside Alliance people came to London to protest about the Fox hunting ban I certainly did not agree with their stance on the issue but I would never have called for them to beaten up by the police because they have every right to voice their opinions - that's what "freedom" is all about.
People need to think about this issue very carefully.
While I am at it, this nonsense spouted by Steve Dowman about capitalism/socialism/communism has certainly given me a good laugh. If capitalism is so great then how come the biggest capitalist economy in the world, the United States, is currently in trillions of dollars of debt to the "Communist" (there's a laugh) Chinese?
Well said OA. Perhaps they should set up a Charlton Life - Friends of the neo-cons thread where they can rant away to each other :-)
i also find it sooooooooooooo funny that these "right on anti racists not liberal freedom fighters" on here always find it OK to pan the USA at every opertunity, whilst using a PC etc developed and marketed bythe country they just have to hate. A country who if they had not entered WW II would have meant a very differant world that we all now enjoy. Rah rah rah for China -------------- ask Tebbet. Funny i was involved with the first state visit of the Chinese Pm to the Uk some 8/9 years back . Another great example of communism and "all the people equal" he wouldnt speak to any female ( we had 3 female translators).Took over a 5star hotel fully and travels with 300 staff.
Climate change ------------- IMO its natural happens every 100,000 years. The rate of change is the problem ,brought on by billions of us. Should be doing something ---of course.Should we taking this tiny country back to the stone age ? naff off. Poland uses coal in 90% of its power generation , this coal is of low calorific value as well. China has now over taken the USA as the biggest polutor(sic). China / India say they have the right to become a fully developed countries and therefore climate change comes well down on their list of priorities. Soooooooooooooooo what differance does it make what we do here in the UK ? next to nothing.
As for the rabble on Blackheath if its all about Climate Change , why did they plot up to Stockwell tube station ?
We dont play in red because we are "socialists" ----------- clause 4 of the Labour party was defeated as has communism in its many forms. Unless you want to include North Korea.
Well said OA. Perhaps they should set up a Charlton Life - Friends of the neo-cons thread where they can rant away to each other :-)[/quote]
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]i also find it sooooooooooooo funny that these "right on anti racists not liberal freedom fighters" on here always find it OK to pan the USA at every opertunity, whilst using a PC etc developed and marketed bythe country they just have to hate. A country who if they had not entered WW II would have meant a very differant world that we all now enjoy. Rah rah rah for China
ask Tebbet. Funny i was involved with the first state visit of the Chinese Pm to the Uk some 8/9 years back . Another great example of communism and "all the people equal" he wouldnt speak to any female ( we had 3 female translators).Took over a 5star hotel fully and travels with 300 staff.
Climate change
IMO its natural happens every 100,000 years. The rate of change is the problem ,brought on by billions of us. Should be doing something ---of course.Should we taking this tiny country back to the stone age ? naff off. Poland uses coal in 90% of its power generation , this coal is of low calorific value as well. China has now over taken the USA as the biggest polutor(sic). China / India say they have the right to become a fully developed countries and therefore climate change comes well down on their list of priorities. Soooooooooooooooo what differance does it make what we do here in the UK ? next to nothing.
As for the rabble on Blackheath if its all about Climate Change , why did they plot up to Stockwell tube station ?
We dont play in red because we are "socialists"
clause 4 of the Labour party was defeated as has communism in its many forms. Unless you want to include North Korea.
This will be a good one to get the new thread started GH ;-)
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]There is so much bollocks on this thread its almost unbelievable
1 - The majority of people who believe that man-made factors are by far the overwhelming contributor to climate change are not communists. Most of them aren't even socialists (since there is basically no 'socialist' party of note in this country any more and hasn't been for about fifteen years). Sadly, most of them are about as educated on the subject of climate change as the vast majority of people who have commented on this thread - i.e. not at all. That doesn't make what they're doing 'wrong', just 'pointless'. Protesting about something you know nothing about is a bit lame, but hey - its a democracy, let people believe in what they want. After all, we let people go to church/mosques/temples.
2 - The 'Manhattan Declaration' came out of a conference paid for by a libertarian/right wing (and I use the term 'right wing' here in its AMERICAN context - yes its considered right wing by AMERICANS) think tank. It was paid for almost entirely by contributions from industries which have a vested interest in ensuring that the climate change 'lobby' is as riduclued as possible. It is as non-partisan as the studies funded by big tobacco in the fifties, sixties and seventies which said there was no link between smopking and lung cancer.
3 - Up until about three years ago, most recycling (other than cardboard, wood, paper, glass and aluminium cans) was not economically or environmentally viable. The net cost in money and energy of recycle other materials was higher than any commercial or environmental gain. This has changed - far more material can now be recycled effectively. However, in order for this to be the case, such recycling (plastics mainly) needs to take place on a large scale - far larger than we are doing at present in the UK. Since the infrastructure is not in place to support it on the scale required to make it viable in the long term, there is a valid argument that recycling of plastics is still actually harmful to the environment. However, since we can't continue to produce non-biodegradable materials for packaging in such enormous quantities and just chuck them in landfill, there is another equally valid argument that we should get people used to recycling plastics so that, when the tipping point between economic viability (through increased efficiency of the recycling processes used) and economy of scale is reached, we can 'hit the ground running'. The jury's still out on this as far as I'm concerned.
4 - Mitchell Taylor isn't allowed his say at a forum to highlight the absolutely overwhelming empirical scientific evidence that mankind is the largest contibuting factor to sudden climate change for the same reason that you wouldn't invite Fred West to address the Women's Institute. Its not exactly his target audience... In addition, his views on the polar bear population are, shall we say 'not widely accepted as fact' by the zoological community. Now, as a Palaeontologist by training, I am fully aware of the danger of simply accepting something as fact because it is the currently accepted dominant theory. For decades it was accepted by rote that dinosaurs were cold-blooded. The first palaeontologists (including a hero of mine, Robert Bakker) were openly mocked and ridiculed for suggesting that this may not be the case. Some thirty years after the idea was first postulated, it is now accepted that the dinosaurs were, in fact, warm-blooded. However, a direct parallel cannot be drawn here, because there was literally oodles of evidence that supported this theory, it just hadn't been looked at because it was just assumed that: Reptiles = Cold-blooded. Once that simple crutch was removed, it became relatively simple to see the mountains of evidence supporting the only sensible conclusion (Dinosaurs were not 'Normal' reptiles, therefore didn't necessarily have to be cold-blooded). But, I digress. In this instance, Taylor's studies contain interesting data, but they are simply not supported by hard zoological evidence - namely that it is absolutely f***ing pointless saying that the polar bears are alright because they aren't going extinct as quickly as was first suggested would be the case twenty years ago - their habitat is being eroded at an absolutely unprecedented rate - and pretty soon there won't BE any f***ing ice floes for them to hunt on - so the only way they'll survive is by encroaching on populated land.
There are, however, two absolutely unassailable points of fact buried in this thread.
Firstly, there are very few truly independent scientific studies conducted any more. These used to be the province of students (oh the irony!) in universities. Now, with so much riding on the outcome of research (grants, lucrative further research opportunities, the chance to make a name for yourself and pimp yourself out to industry) it is all but impossible to see[i aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]any[/i]research conducted by[i aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]anyone[/i]as truly 'independent'. Still, it won't matter in a few years anyway, since most universities will be pwned completely by big business (instead of just the spanking new 'Saatchi art' wing, or the 'Nike sports pitches' it will be the 'Pfizer pharmacological research chair' or the 'McDonalds fellowship in labour management studies')
Secondly, I am 100% in agreement that, whilst the lunatic suggestions of a global conspiracy to promote climate change as a way of getting us to cycle to work are ludicrous, governments across the world (both devloped and developing) are using it as a convenient smokescreen to deflect away from the issues of poverty, the wealth gap, defence budgets and anything else that their populaces might be pissed off about. Sadly, this is not a new thing. Thatcher - Falklands. Mugabe - White Farmers. Bush - Anyone In The Desert.
Superb piece Leroy. I've found it hard to weigh through the mountains of 'evidence' and opinion, the lines have become very blurred. I've ended up concluding that climate change is a natural phenomenon, but the rate of change has been accelerated to critical point by man made activities, as Gooner said. As Gooner also said, effective change will require international co-operation, which the developing and still to develop countries are not going to want to do. They'll want access to the same goodies that we've already got. We're not going to want to give our goodies up, so I'm finding it hard to see a way out of this mess.
Another favorite tactic of the Wingnuts is that as soon as you mention even the slightest skepticism about the USA to label you an America Hater....
I actually love America a great deal but I do find it absolutely fascinating that the Americans have all but bankrupted their country [mainly under GWB] under an ocean of greed and now are having to beg cap in hand to the Chinese for a bail-out on a daily basis.
Make no mistake about it the Chinese could plunge America into a very dark place anytime they like if they called in their debts - they won't of course because the repercussions would be bad for them - but they still have an incredible hold over the capitalist superpower.
There is not much doubt that we are moving into the Chinese century, you only need spend a few days in Shanghai and Beijing or even Guanzhou to see the astonishing level of development taking place both economically and socially.
What's more, the Chinese are already training and educating tens of millions of highly educated students in the maths, science, IT and engineering fields in which educated talent is in desperately short supply in the west - they are going to have it all over the rest of us make no mistake.
You only need look at how Chinese companies are already dominating certain key industries, like telecoms for example with incredible companies like Huawei and ZTE, to see that the nature of the global market is changing rapidly.
Even the great Warren Buffet is pumping huge amounts of cash into Chinese companies - most notably into battery technology firm BYD - and he is very rarely wrong.
Oh, and by the way, the first computer was built by an Englishman not a Yank.
These oddly-white Canadian native Americans that have popped over to protest about BP's contribution to climate change... I'm presuming they swam over for this little holiday. Can anyone confirm.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Well the climate change camp on Blackheath, which packs up today, has had at least one success in as much it has provoked a bit of a debate on here, and thereby raised consciousness a little.
When I started the thread I was really just drawing attention to the fact that a bunch of smelly trust-funded attention whores were making fools of themselves in the street.
Sadly, I don't think there's been any real debate whatsoever: you've all come on and posted what you think. I'd doubt anybody's actually changed any aspects of their beliefs about anything. Lots of people have posted "evidence" that seems plausible and contradicts the other view. This has probably not been read by anyone who holds the opposite view. Those with vaguely open minds face a bewildering and contradictory range of opinions. And that's the problem. It's like religion. We'll only know when the earth dies screaming or in a few thousand years when it does not. Even then, I suspect the entrenched won't accept it.
The smelly dreadlocked poshos still irritate me though, and that's a FACT.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]
We'll only know when the earth dies screaming or in a few thousand years when it does not. Even then, I suspect the entrenched won't accept it.
.
Will be back in the Prem by then though? That's what I want to know. Be just our luck to be on the verge of winning it and the world will implode!
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]These oddly-white Canadian native Americans that have popped over to protest about BP's contribution to climate change... I'm presuming they swam over for this little holiday. Can anyone confirm.
I believe they attended in order to raise awareness of their plight, which would seem acceptable given their alledged circumstances and the fact that they hold British companies responsible. Their ethnicity is genuine.
......................................................................
My people are dying, and we believe British companies are responsible. My community, Fort Chipewyan in Alberta, Canada, is situated at the heart of the vast toxic moonscape that is the tar sands development. We live in a beautiful area, but unfortunately, we find ourselves upstream from the largest fossil fuel development on earth. UK oil companies like BP, and banks like RBS, are extracting the dirtiest form of oil from our traditional lands, and we fear it is killing us.
We have come to call the tar sands "bloody oil". This is why, this week, I am coming to London to attend the Camp for Climate Action, with the aim of internationalising the campaign for a complete tar sands moratorium.
We believe the extraction of oil from Canada's tar sands is having a devastating impact on our indigenous people. This year, a study confirms that there are elevated levels of rare and other cancers among indigenous residents who live directly downstream from the tar sands activity, and that the contamination of our waters, snow, vegetation, wildlife and fish has grown exponentially in the past five years.
This evidence, however, is never acknowledged by the Albertan or Canadian governments, or the oil companies investing in the tar sands, when they promote it globally as being "environmentally sustainable".
People deserve to know the life and death impacts of the tar sands, especially residents of the UK, because your oil companies and banks are some of the biggest players.
In 2006, our community's physician informed the responsible authorities that he was diagnosing disproportionate levels of unusual cancers. Rather than come to his aid, the provincial and federal health authorities charged him with "causing undue alarm" to our people; a charge that remains outstanding. Furthermore, we have proven that the levels of metals like mercury, arsenic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in our waters and sediment are abnormally high. Combined, these metals are known carcinogens that cause the type of rare cancers found in our community. But the government and oil companies continue to dismiss these claims, despite the rigorous scientific methods employed.
When the cancer study was released in February 2009, it did two things for residents of my community. First, it vindicated us. It proved our fears that we were burying our loved ones all too frequently were valid. Second, it created further anxiety in us because we believed that any one of us living in our community was now much more susceptible to becoming afflicted with cancer in the future.
Despite western scientists proving that there are elevated levels of metals in the water and sediment, vegetation, fish and snow; that the air quality in the region is worse than other geographic regions in Canada; and that the acid rain disposition is greater than other locales; the Alberta and Canadian governments continue to deny any of this evidence.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Well the climate change camp on Blackheath, which packs up today, has had at least one success in as much it has provoked a bit of a debate on here, and thereby raised consciousness a little.
When I started the thread I was really just drawing attention to the fact that a bunch of smelly trust-funded attention whores were making fools of themselves in the street.
Sadly, I don't think there's been any real debate whatsoever: you'veallcome on and posted whatyouthink. I'd doubt anybody's actually changed any aspects of their beliefs about anything. Lots of people have posted "evidence" that seems plausible and contradicts the other view. This has probably not been read by anyone who holds the opposite view. Those with vaguely open minds face a bewildering and contradictory range of opinions. And that's the problem. It's like religion. We'll only know when the earth dies screaming or in a few thousand years when it does not. Even then, I suspect the entrenched won't accept it.
The smelly dreadlocked poshos still irritate me though, and that's a FACT.
Well I for one was educated to the extent that I was reminded that interest groups will obviously promote their point of view, and 'soften', contrary evidence. I have learned about the comparison of Krakatoa CO2, compared with man made C02, I have learned that many people still judge people by their appearance rather than their actions or the 'content of their character'. I have become aware that many posters are informed as to the debate....so McLovin your assumptions don't apply to me, do you expect each contributor to reply one by one as to what degree this thread has affected their consciousness? I repeat, the Climate Change campers have succeeded in as much as they have provoked a kind of debate on here, and very possibly elsewhere. Indeed there is a real possibility that any debate they have provoked elsewhere has not consisted of those with entrenched views lobbing insults at each-other, but the possible shifting and deepening of understanding. All in all the climate camp people have had some success like it or not.
The spokesman on the BBC was a ginge Still, though having looked at some of the pictures there were some proper native Americans there and I further acknowledge that their issues should be addressed. I'd still argue that flying a bunch of people halfway around the world to protest about the activities of a multinational oil company that has offices in Canada, isn't without irony.
funny isnt it its never the lefts fault about any thing is it ? not their fault we have been castrated by pc bullshit ? not their fault that a Government they voted in has leed us into 2 wars, lied to us about mass imigration, lied to us about a vote on Europe and split the UK with develution (ignoring the English of course) -------------- not their fault that we have a deptment on "diversity" or that the first 6 main players employed on the Olympic site where "diversity advisors"at £120,000 a pop --- not their fault. Its not their fault that victims of crime are ignored whilst scum bags have a 100 "self help groups to go to". No matter what the problem is its the fault of someone else.They never miss the chance to slag or dig out this country .
George Orwell a former hero of the left said : " In left wing circles it is alway felt there is something slightly disgracefull in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to SNIGGER at every English institution---------"
as for the Yanks if it wasnt for their free market economy we would have lost the Second World War ., and the dear USSR well they took the opertunity to invade Poland and only helped the fight against the Nazi`s when they where in turn invaded. Read the Katan Masacre or Victims of Yalta.
Hmmmm, when DID the Americans enter World War Two again? Oh, that's right 1941. That would be two years after the war started and they only came in because the Japanese bombed them at Pearl Harbour.
Before that happened they were more than happy to sit on the sidelines and make a fortune from Britain by selling us their weapons, a little business which they did very nicely out of during the war years and which helped fuel much of the US post-war economic dominance.
Of course, their decision to join the war or not was entirely up to them but they did not join the war to simply help Britain out they did it because they were attacked themselves.
Churchill had been begging Roosevelt for months to join the war and was repeatedly refused because the isolationist lobby was very strong in America and he feared an electoral backlash. America also had a very large number of German settlers who were also against its entry into the war against Germany, some of them even formed Pro-Hitler movements.
This is not to say that the American intervention was not critical to the Allied victory, it clearly was, but to say that they entered because of their own self interest not ours.
There's no 'debate' about the magnetic pole reversal - because no-one knows what effect it will have, and even if they did there's f***-all we can do about it. Not much point having a 'debate' about that - it's like 'debating' whether or not we should be concerned about gravity.
Comments
And what about this? As a layman it smacks of an attempt at manipulating opposition and evidence.
Oh yes I forgot this quote from the polar bear article:
...."Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG"......"
Can one of the scientists tell me why the Manhattan declaration signed by 500 scientists is not "good peer review" when UEA is?
Not since 2006 has the United Kingdom had what I would quantify as a summer. So from where I am I think it's a bit of a con
Greenhouse gases/Green taxes
We can fill our blue/green bins and bags up as much as we want and buy eco-cars, cycle to work, get the train etc until the cows come home. All the while the entire sub-continent and China does not care one jot will it make the slightest nipple tickle of a difference.
Why don't you go and live in China if you want state-sponsored brutality? Or maybe Iran or Saudi Arabia?
When the Countryside Alliance people came to London to protest about the Fox hunting ban I certainly did not agree with their stance on the issue but I would never have called for them to beaten up by the police because they have every right to voice their opinions - that's what "freedom" is all about.
People need to think about this issue very carefully.
While I am at it, this nonsense spouted by Steve Dowman about capitalism/socialism/communism has certainly given me a good laugh. If capitalism is so great then how come the biggest capitalist economy in the world, the United States, is currently in trillions of dollars of debt to the "Communist" (there's a laugh) Chinese?
1 - The majority of people who believe that man-made factors are by far the overwhelming contributor to climate change are not communists. Most of them aren't even socialists (since there is basically no 'socialist' party of note in this country any more and hasn't been for about fifteen years). Sadly, most of them are about as educated on the subject of climate change as the vast majority of people who have commented on this thread - i.e. not at all. That doesn't make what they're doing 'wrong', just 'pointless'. Protesting about something you know nothing about is a bit lame, but hey - its a democracy, let people believe in what they want. After all, we let people go to church/mosques/temples.
2 - The 'Manhattan Declaration' came out of a conference paid for by a libertarian/right wing (and I use the term 'right wing' here in its AMERICAN context - yes its considered right wing by AMERICANS) think tank. It was paid for almost entirely by contributions from industries which have a vested interest in ensuring that the climate change 'lobby' is as riduclued as possible. It is as non-partisan as the studies funded by big tobacco in the fifties, sixties and seventies which said there was no link between smopking and lung cancer.
3 - Up until about three years ago, most recycling (other than cardboard, wood, paper, glass and aluminium cans) was not economically or environmentally viable. The net cost in money and energy of recycle other materials was higher than any commercial or environmental gain. This has changed - far more material can now be recycled effectively. However, in order for this to be the case, such recycling (plastics mainly) needs to take place on a large scale - far larger than we are doing at present in the UK. Since the infrastructure is not in place to support it on the scale required to make it viable in the long term, there is a valid argument that recycling of plastics is still actually harmful to the environment. However, since we can't continue to produce non-biodegradable materials for packaging in such enormous quantities and just chuck them in landfill, there is another equally valid argument that we should get people used to recycling plastics so that, when the tipping point between economic viability (through increased efficiency of the recycling processes used) and economy of scale is reached, we can 'hit the ground running'. The jury's still out on this as far as I'm concerned.
4 - Mitchell Taylor isn't allowed his say at a forum to highlight the absolutely overwhelming empirical scientific evidence that mankind is the largest contibuting factor to sudden climate change for the same reason that you wouldn't invite Fred West to address the Women's Institute. Its not exactly his target audience... In addition, his views on the polar bear population are, shall we say 'not widely accepted as fact' by the zoological community. Now, as a Palaeontologist by training, I am fully aware of the danger of simply accepting something as fact because it is the currently accepted dominant theory. For decades it was accepted by rote that dinosaurs were cold-blooded. The first palaeontologists (including a hero of mine, Robert Bakker) were openly mocked and ridiculed for suggesting that this may not be the case. Some thirty years after the idea was first postulated, it is now accepted that the dinosaurs were, in fact, warm-blooded. However, a direct parallel cannot be drawn here, because there was literally oodles of evidence that supported this theory, it just hadn't been looked at because it was just assumed that: Reptiles = Cold-blooded. Once that simple crutch was removed, it became relatively simple to see the mountains of evidence supporting the only sensible conclusion (Dinosaurs were not 'Normal' reptiles, therefore didn't necessarily have to be cold-blooded). But, I digress. In this instance, Taylor's studies contain interesting data, but they are simply not supported by hard zoological evidence - namely that it is absolutely f***ing pointless saying that the polar bears are alright because they aren't going extinct as quickly as was first suggested would be the case twenty years ago - their habitat is being eroded at an absolutely unprecedented rate - and pretty soon there won't BE any f***ing ice floes for them to hunt on - so the only way they'll survive is by encroaching on populated land.
There are, however, two absolutely unassailable points of fact buried in this thread.
Firstly, there are very few truly independent scientific studies conducted any more. These used to be the province of students (oh the irony!) in universities. Now, with so much riding on the outcome of research (grants, lucrative further research opportunities, the chance to make a name for yourself and pimp yourself out to industry) it is all but impossible to see any research conducted by anyone as truly 'independent'. Still, it won't matter in a few years anyway, since most universities will be pwned completely by big business (instead of just the spanking new 'Saatchi art' wing, or the 'Nike sports pitches' it will be the 'Pfizer pharmacological research chair' or the 'McDonalds fellowship in labour management studies')
Secondly, I am 100% in agreement that, whilst the lunatic suggestions of a global conspiracy to promote climate change as a way of getting us to cycle to work are ludicrous, governments across the world (both devloped and developing) are using it as a convenient smokescreen to deflect away from the issues of poverty, the wealth gap, defence budgets and anything else that their populaces might be pissed off about. Sadly, this is not a new thing. Thatcher - Falklands. Mugabe - White Farmers. Bush - Anyone In The Desert.
Bacon is good for me
Well said OA. Perhaps they should set up a Charlton Life - Friends of the neo-cons thread where they can rant away to each other :-)
Climate change ------------- IMO its natural happens every 100,000 years. The rate of change is the problem ,brought on by billions of us. Should be doing something ---of course.Should we taking this tiny country back to the stone age ? naff off. Poland uses coal in 90% of its power generation , this coal is of low calorific value as well. China has now over taken the USA as the biggest polutor(sic). China / India say they have the right to become a fully developed countries and therefore climate change comes well down on their list of priorities. Soooooooooooooooo what differance does it make what we do here in the UK ? next to nothing.
As for the rabble on Blackheath if its all about Climate Change , why did they plot up to Stockwell tube station ?
We dont play in red because we are "socialists" ----------- clause 4 of the Labour party was defeated as has communism in its many forms. Unless you want to include North Korea.
This will be a good one to get the new thread started GH ;-)
Superb piece Leroy. I've found it hard to weigh through the mountains of 'evidence' and opinion, the lines have become very blurred. I've ended up concluding that climate change is a natural phenomenon, but the rate of change has been accelerated to critical point by man made activities, as Gooner said. As Gooner also said, effective change will require international co-operation, which the developing and still to develop countries are not going to want to do. They'll want access to the same goodies that we've already got. We're not going to want to give our goodies up, so I'm finding it hard to see a way out of this mess.
I actually love America a great deal but I do find it absolutely fascinating that the Americans have all but bankrupted their country [mainly under GWB] under an ocean of greed and now are having to beg cap in hand to the Chinese for a bail-out on a daily basis.
Make no mistake about it the Chinese could plunge America into a very dark place anytime they like if they called in their debts - they won't of course because the repercussions would be bad for them - but they still have an incredible hold over the capitalist superpower.
There is not much doubt that we are moving into the Chinese century, you only need spend a few days in Shanghai and Beijing or even Guanzhou to see the astonishing level of development taking place both economically and socially.
What's more, the Chinese are already training and educating tens of millions of highly educated students in the maths, science, IT and engineering fields in which educated talent is in desperately short supply in the west - they are going to have it all over the rest of us make no mistake.
You only need look at how Chinese companies are already dominating certain key industries, like telecoms for example with incredible companies like Huawei and ZTE, to see that the nature of the global market is changing rapidly.
Even the great Warren Buffet is pumping huge amounts of cash into Chinese companies - most notably into battery technology firm BYD - and he is very rarely wrong.
Oh, and by the way, the first computer was built by an Englishman not a Yank.
Sadly, I don't think there's been any real debate whatsoever: you've all come on and posted what you think. I'd doubt anybody's actually changed any aspects of their beliefs about anything. Lots of people have posted "evidence" that seems plausible and contradicts the other view. This has probably not been read by anyone who holds the opposite view. Those with vaguely open minds face a bewildering and contradictory range of opinions. And that's the problem. It's like religion. We'll only know when the earth dies screaming or in a few thousand years when it does not. Even then, I suspect the entrenched won't accept it.
The smelly dreadlocked poshos still irritate me though, and that's a FACT.
......................................................................
My people are dying, and we believe British companies are responsible. My community, Fort Chipewyan in Alberta, Canada, is situated at the heart of the vast toxic moonscape that is the tar sands development. We live in a beautiful area, but unfortunately, we find ourselves upstream from the largest fossil fuel development on earth. UK oil companies like BP, and banks like RBS, are extracting the dirtiest form of oil from our traditional lands, and we fear it is killing us.
We have come to call the tar sands "bloody oil". This is why, this week, I am coming to London to attend the Camp for Climate Action, with the aim of internationalising the campaign for a complete tar sands moratorium.
We believe the extraction of oil from Canada's tar sands is having a devastating impact on our indigenous people. This year, a study confirms that there are elevated levels of rare and other cancers among indigenous residents who live directly downstream from the tar sands activity, and that the contamination of our waters, snow, vegetation, wildlife and fish has grown exponentially in the past five years.
This evidence, however, is never acknowledged by the Albertan or Canadian governments, or the oil companies investing in the tar sands, when they promote it globally as being "environmentally sustainable".
People deserve to know the life and death impacts of the tar sands, especially residents of the UK, because your oil companies and banks are some of the biggest players.
In 2006, our community's physician informed the responsible authorities that he was diagnosing disproportionate levels of unusual cancers. Rather than come to his aid, the provincial and federal health authorities charged him with "causing undue alarm" to our people; a charge that remains outstanding. Furthermore, we have proven that the levels of metals like mercury, arsenic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in our waters and sediment are abnormally high. Combined, these metals are known carcinogens that cause the type of rare cancers found in our community. But the government and oil companies continue to dismiss these claims, despite the rigorous scientific methods employed.
When the cancer study was released in February 2009, it did two things for residents of my community. First, it vindicated us. It proved our fears that we were burying our loved ones all too frequently were valid. Second, it created further anxiety in us because we believed that any one of us living in our community was now much more susceptible to becoming afflicted with cancer in the future.
Despite western scientists proving that there are elevated levels of metals in the water and sediment, vegetation, fish and snow; that the air quality in the region is worse than other geographic regions in Canada; and that the acid rain disposition is greater than other locales; the Alberta and Canadian governments continue to deny any of this evidence.
Well I for one was educated to the extent that I was reminded that interest groups will obviously promote their point of view, and 'soften', contrary evidence. I have learned about the comparison of Krakatoa CO2, compared with man made C02, I have learned that many people still judge people by their appearance rather than their actions or the 'content of their character'. I have become aware that many posters are informed as to the debate....so McLovin your assumptions don't apply to me, do you expect each contributor to reply one by one as to what degree this thread has affected their consciousness? I repeat, the Climate Change campers have succeeded in as much as they have provoked a kind of debate on here, and very possibly elsewhere. Indeed there is a real possibility that any debate they have provoked elsewhere has not consisted of those with entrenched views lobbing insults at each-other, but the possible shifting and deepening of understanding. All in all the climate camp people have had some success like it or not.
When is the world going to end by the way will i see it will NLJR will NLJR's Jrs and so on is it iminant. or in 10 thouusand years
I aint got a clue what a communist is i aint got a clus what a socialist is
Do they go to work respect eachother look after their elderly relatives love and cloth feed their children
Do they like football, or other sports
If so let each other believe what they want and dont go round telling others one way or the other what is going on and who is right and who is wrong
because to be honest none of you really know the truth you all only believe what others say so youre no better than eachother
we are top of the league and i would be more bothered if we were bottom than climate change
The spokesman on the BBC was a ginge Still, though having looked at some of the pictures there were some proper native Americans there and I further acknowledge that their issues should be addressed. I'd still argue that flying a bunch of people halfway around the world to protest about the activities of a multinational oil company that has offices in Canada, isn't without irony.
Well said.
George Orwell a former hero of the left said :
" In left wing circles it is alway felt there is something slightly disgracefull in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to SNIGGER at every English institution---------"
as for the Yanks if it wasnt for their free market economy we would have lost the Second World War ., and the dear USSR well they took the opertunity to invade Poland and only helped the fight against the Nazi`s when they where in turn invaded. Read the Katan Masacre or Victims of Yalta.
That will really bugger up the first world - wouldn't want to be flying that day.
Before that happened they were more than happy to sit on the sidelines and make a fortune from Britain by selling us their weapons, a little business which they did very nicely out of during the war years and which helped fuel much of the US post-war economic dominance.
Of course, their decision to join the war or not was entirely up to them but they did not join the war to simply help Britain out they did it because they were attacked themselves.
Churchill had been begging Roosevelt for months to join the war and was repeatedly refused because the isolationist lobby was very strong in America and he feared an electoral backlash. America also had a very large number of German settlers who were also against its entry into the war against Germany, some of them even formed Pro-Hitler movements.
This is not to say that the American intervention was not critical to the Allied victory, it clearly was, but to say that they entered because of their own self interest not ours.
cheers Mc Lovin