Man Of Integrity Speaks On Climate Change

[bogbrush]

Good stuff from Prof James Lovelock, particularly that science has been corrupted from vocation to career (and hence the fudged data) and that all this "saving the World" is idiocy. Also, renewables "don't really work".

If more people spoke like this guy and stopped trying to use anything they can to control other people there'd be a rational debate without the emotion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

[Patfig]

Good stuff from Prof James Lovelock, particularly that science has been corrupted from vocation to career (and hence the fudged data) and that all this "saving the World" is idiocy. Also, renewables "don't really work".

If more people spoke like this guy and stopped trying to use anything they can to control other people there'd be a rational debate without the emotion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

unfortunately academia is full of VI's too

[Pick It Down]

unfortunately academia is full of VI's too

Best way to get their grants is fake up a problem and keep saying more research is needed. Kept themselves in work for 2 or 3 decades with this climate fraud nonsense.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Good stuff from Prof James Lovelock, particularly that science has been corrupted from vocation to career (and hence the fudged data) and that all this "saving the World" is idiocy. Also, renewables "don't really work".

If more people spoke like this guy and stopped trying to use anything they can to control other people there'd be a rational debate without the emotion.

http://news.bbc.co.u...000/8594561.stm

You are quite right above Lovelock on one level in that he thinks renewables, at the industrial scale, are rather pointless given our monumental energy needs. However, you appear to be missing his central point. He doesn't believe that AGW is the result of natural geological events on this occasion and he makes the key point that when it has occurred in the past as a result of non-human forces, it has nearly always resulted in a mass extinction event. Instead he makes a direct case for why it is humans who are the primary cause on this occasion. He simply thinks we are too stupid, too ignorant and, for the majority of humanity, too helpless as individuals to be able to do anything about it, even assuming we have not left it too late already. As it happens, Lovelock believes it is already too late, largely as a consequence of the world being mostly populated by people like yourself Mr Bogbrush.

I happen to agree with him.

[Patfig]

Best way to get their grants is fake up a problem and keep saying more research is needed. Kept themselves in work for 2 or 3 decades with this climate fraud nonsense.

but is it nonesense........ here we go again............. I doubt many of them really care, it's a gravy train and people have to find a living. Tie this in with the lack of tenure in the UK then what do you expect

[aa3]

Have to laugh at all the renewables bs.. when we have nuclear reactors. 1000 MW to 1500 MW reactors. We know they work, we know the costs of them, they are baseload electricity.

50-60 Areva EPR reactors would provide all the electricity Britain uses today. That is 15 plants with 4 reactors at each plant to power the whole country.

I've researched energy for years, following the development in most of the big nations. The choice every nation faces is Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas and Hydro. If you want to provide industrial scale levels of power to millions of people those are the options.

[Pick It Down]

You are quite right above Lovelock on one level in that he thinks renewables, at the industrial scale, are rather pointless given our monumental energy needs. However, you appear to be missing his central point. He doesn't believe that AGW is the result of natural geological events on this occasion and he makes the key point that when it has occurred in the past as a result of non-human forces, it has nearly always resulted in a mass extinction event. Instead he makes a direct case for why it is humans who are the primary cause on this occasion. He simply thinks we are too stupid, too ignorant and, for the majority of humanity, too helpless as individuals to be able to do anything about it, even assuming we have not left it too late already. As it happens, Lovelock believes it is already too late, largely as a consequence of the world being mostly populated by people like yourself Mr Bogbrush.

I happen to agree with him.

According to the alarmists we have caused 0.3c of the 0.7c warming seen since the beneficial end of the Little Ice Age. Even assuming they are right about the 0.3c which is in doubt, what makes the 0.3c more dangerous than the natural 0.4c? Extinction events take 10c or so of climatic change, and even the alarmists agree we are not likely to see anywhere near that sort of change. The realists see our contribution to climatic improvement change as capped at around 1c, which is the no-feedback response to doubling CO2 (and the feedbacks are likely to be negative leading to less warming anyway).

[fluffy666]

Good stuff from Prof James Lovelock, particularly that science has been corrupted from vocation to career (and hence the fudged data) and that all this "saving the World" is idiocy. Also, renewables "don't really work".

If more people spoke like this guy and stopped trying to use anything they can to control other people there'd be a rational debate without the emotion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

So let's see..

Anyone who says something you agree with is a person of integrity, even if they are a slightly out of touch 90-year-old.

Anyone who says something you disagree with is a corrupted VI, even if they happen to know much of the science involved from first principals.

[Guest Steve Cook]

According to the alarmists we have caused 0.3c of the 0.7c warming seen since the beneficial end of the Little Ice Age. Even assuming they are right about the 0.3c which is in doubt, what makes the 0.3c more dangerous than the natural 0.4c? Extinction events take 10c or so of climatic change, and even the alarmists agree we are not likely to see anywhere near that sort of change. The realists see our contribution to climatic improvement change as capped at around 1c, which is the no-feedback response to doubling CO2 (and the feedbacks are likely to be negative leading to less warming anyway).

Buried in amongst the cheap rhetoric of "alarmists" and "realists" you quote a lot of numbers there.

Care to cite their source?

[rxe]

and he makes the key point that when it has occurred in the past as a result of non-human forces, it has nearly always resulted in a mass extinction event

It is an easy soundbite, but we are a little bit brighter than the dinosaurs. As a civilisation, we routinely handle conditions that require animals to move location or hibernate, indeed, we do it every year, it's called winter. We're also pretty robust - we can survive at -70 and we can survive at +45. None of the other species that have been wiped out could do that.

Climate change has happened (if you could ask the residents of Doggerland, they would confirm this), will happen, and the only worthwhile question is how much we are influencing it.

Energy security is (IMO) a more pressing problem than climate change and it strikes me that climate change has been manipulated as window dressing for energy security by a bunch of VIs.

[aa3]

Its also part of the non-job world we live in folks. We have to constantly invent problems that don't exist, and spend hundreds of thousands of man years of labour tackling the problem which can't ever be solved.

Those 60 Areva EPR reactors I mentioned to power the whole nation would need a staff of under 20,000 people to man. 20,000 people is nothing in a nation of 60 million.

[aa3]

Energy security is (IMO) a more pressing problem than climate change and it strikes me that climate change has been manipulated as window dressing for energy security by a bunch of VIs.

Even my choice the nuclear industry is jumping on the climate change by MMCO2 bandwagon and using it as a reason to build nuclear plants.

[Guest Steve Cook]

It is an easy soundbite, but we are a little bit brighter than the dinosaurs. As a civilisation, we routinely handle conditions that require animals to move location or hibernate, indeed, we do it every year, it's called winter. We're also pretty robust - we can survive at -70 and we can survive at +45. None of the other species that have been wiped out could do that.

Climate change has happened (if you could ask the residents of Doggerland, they would confirm this), will happen, and the only worthwhile question is how much we are influencing it.

Energy security is (IMO) a more pressing problem than climate change and it strikes me that climate change has been manipulated as window dressing for energy security by a bunch of VIs.

Quite apart from the fact that extensively researched scientific findings showing that significant increases in CO2 over geological history virtually always result in mass extinction events, thus rendering them as near to fact as it is possible to get and as far away from the rhetoric of sound bites as it is possible to get, the rest of your post displays an ignorance of the co-dependency of biological systems that is as breathtaking as it is depressing.

I f*cking give up.

Which is, I suppose, what Lovelock has done.....

[Bloo Loo]

the point I never hear, is that if you convert one thing into another, ie, fuel into energy, something else is always produced...that something is bound to change the environment from what is was moments before.

this applies to what we eat, what we fart and when we move.

[Pick It Down]

Quite apart from the fact that extensively researched scientific findings showing that significant increases in CO2 over geological history virtually always result in mass extinction events, thus rendering them as near to fact as it is possible to get and as far away from the rhetoric of sound bites as it is possible to get, the rest of your post displays an ignorance of the co-dependency of biological systems that is as breathtaking as it is depressing.

I f*cking give up.

Which is, I suppose, what Lovelock has done.....

Geological history actually shows CO2 levels follow temperature. Not the other way round.

Of course if you engage in this debate you ought to have known this already - as you also should have known the numbers I quoted in my earlier post. They are basic climate science.

[Guest Steve Cook]

the point I never hear, is that if you convert one thing into another, ie, fuel into energy, something else is always produced...that something is bound to change the environment from what is was moments before.

this applies to what we eat, what we fart and when we move.

This is of course true, Bloo Loo. The point about AGW is that the inputs are massively exceeding the outputs, such that the system is out of equilibrium. Something has to give. Either the inputs decrease, or the system resets to a new equilibrium. Lovelock's point is that we have already built up a store of outputs such that even if we stopped the inputs tomorrow, there are too many outputs stored up in the system to avoid a re-set. We're going to get it whether we like it or not.

[rxe]

Quite apart from the fact that extensively researched scientific findings showing that significant increases in CO2 over geological history virtually always result in mass extinction events, thus rendering them as near to fact as it is possible to get and as far away from the rhetoric of sound bites as it is possible to get, the rest of your post displays an ignorance of the co-dependency of biological systems that is as breathtaking as it is depressing.

The fact that alterations in the climate have caused extinctions in the past does not mean that they will cause the human race to be extinct in the future. Look at pretty much any period over the last few hundred million years and the planet is perfectly habitable for humans. Clearly if climate changed significantly the world would be different. Whether it would be better or worse, I have no idea, and nor do you.

[Patfig]

Geological history actually shows CO2 levels follow temperature. Not the other way round.

Of course if you engage in this debate you ought to have known this already - as you also should have known the numbers I quoted in my earlier post. They are basic climate science.

So why do many climate scientists ignore this fact

[Guest Steve Cook]

Geological history actually shows CO2 levels follow temperature. Not the other way round.

Of course if you engage in this debate you ought to have known this already - as you also should have known the numbers I quoted in my earlier post. They are basic climate science.

For your information the research shows that CO2 (and other climate changing gases such as methane) initially increase. This then is followed by a significant change in global atmospheric temperatures. This, in turn produces an irreversible feedback mechanism whereby the increased temperature causes even more CO2 to be released. Thus, the geological charts do indeed show an acceleration of CO2 emissions after the warming has begun. Just not in the way and not for the reasons you would like to believe.

Stop reading the stuff that satisfies your own prejudices and have a go at reading the source material. Of course, we both know you're not going to do that, don't we.

[slurms mackenzie]

Good stuff from Prof James Lovelock, particularly that science has been corrupted from vocation to career (and hence the fudged data) and that all this "saving the World" is idiocy. Also, renewables "don't really work".

If more people spoke like this guy and stopped trying to use anything they can to control other people there'd be a rational debate without the emotion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

and whats that got to do with housing? Take your personal agendas to off topic please.

[Pick It Down]

For your information the research shows that CO2 (and other climate changing gases such as methane) initially increase. This then is followed by a significant change in global atmospheric temperatures. This, in turn produces an irreversible feedback mechanism whereby the increased temperature causes even more CO2 to be released. Thus, the geological charts do indeed show an acceleration of CO2 emissions after the warming has begun. Just not in the way and not for the reasons you would like to believe.

Stop reading the stuff that satisfies your own prejudices and have a go at reading the source material. Of course, we both know you're not going to do that, don't we.

Why aren't the oceans boiling?

Negative feedbacks clearly predominate as the vast majority of the time the earth's climate is fairly stable - including at present.

[Pick It Down]

So why do many climate scientists ignore this fact

They don't ignore it, they just don't want to be out of a job.

[Patfig]

They don't ignore it, they just don't want to be out of a job.

Yes I agree, but do they overstate things to stay in one?

[Jadoube]

Good stuff from Prof James Lovelock, particularly that science has been corrupted from vocation to career (and hence the fudged data) and that all this "saving the World" is idiocy. Also, renewables "don't really work".

If more people spoke like this guy and stopped trying to use anything they can to control other people there'd be a rational debate without the emotion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

Is this the man who said he felt saving the world was idiocy because the outcome was inevitable, humans were too stupid to do anything about it, and 7/8ths of the population will die out?

Should I presume from your praise of his integrity that you agree? Or are you merely spinning selectively and out of context (thereby showing a lack of integrity)?

[leicestersq]

Science is all about trying to make theories that predict.

The Met Office said that we would get warmer and warmer winters, and that the last winter just gone would be warm.

Ha Ha. I remember a few years ago, going past a nearby school, that has trees that blossom at the end of winter. They were in full bloom at the end of February.

We are now about to get to April, and no bloom so far. Daffodils too have been late this year, compared with other years at least. I dont recall a winter like this that has been so cold for so long. The plants seem to agree.

So little ability to predict from the science of global warming as far as the weather is concerned.

Oddly enough, the global temperature anomalies issued by climate organisations as a proxy for earths temperature, have shown a sharp rise in recent months. All of the warming is at the artic. This is troubling because there are no weather stations there, and, as some critics have pointed out, ice coverage has increased sharply from previous years.

Why would these warming alarmists put out data saying that the artic is super warm compared to usual, unless it is to put some vim back into their failed theory? Alas for them someone is looking at the ice, and it doesnt match what they say the temperature is.

Nice theory Al Gore and others, but time to consign it to the dustbin.