Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

To me this amounts to child abuse, technically it's terrorism, using fear to push a political agenda..

 

Some parents won't stand for their kids being propagandised.

High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.
Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown. He also said "many of the the claims are not backed by any scientific evidence".

The video had to be supplimented with a 77 PAGE document with corrections

They were targeting 3 to 11 year olds with this tosh, scaring them. That's mental abuse, all for political ideology.
No wonder the last two generations grew up thinking this ****e is real. Brainwashed in school

 

This is just perfect Typifies the climate debate. The dissenter states facts, the "environmentalist" spouts personal attacks and refuses to debate

 

What's Emma Thompson been saying? It's got something to do with this turgid debate

 

Well she said this if they take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable."

This is pure bollocks and not actually backed by any scientific findings. The IPCC don't even claim this.

We will be at 20% of current oil prodcution by 2045. There is not enough oil to raise the temp 2 degrees, IF AGW was correct. Which is certainly is not as proven by actual observartion.

Remember the claim 2014 hottest year. What you weren't told was there was 5 data sets and only 2 of them showed this hundredths of a degree increase (after adjustments due to epic gaps in station coverage of the globe), an amount so small as to be buried in margin of error easily. It was a political statement not a scientific one.
NASA only admitted this after being pressed on it by a journalist. 38% Certainty.. 2 in 5 change of being right, again not science at all.


She said this
Our refugee crisis – which, let me tell you, if we allow climate change to go on as it’s going, the refugee crisis we have at the moment will look like a tea party, compared to what’s going to happen in a few years’ time. Because if we allow climate change to continue, there are going to be entire swathes of the Earth that will become uninhabitable, and where are those people going to go? Where do we think they’re going to go? We’re looking at a humanitarian disaster of proportions we simply can’t imagine.


There has as of yet to be 1 single case of "climate refugees". The current IPCC report AR15 states that the IPCC have only a 21% certainty that AGW is linked to extreme weather, that's 1 in 5 chance, not scientific argument.

The IPCC have actually distanced themselves from linking AGW to extreme weather and let the media do it for free without any supporting science.
In 2007 the IPCC report stated 50% certainty, that has since dropped to 21% in AR15. Lets not forget 21% is as optimistic as they can possibly be, the truth is there is actually no scientifically detectable human signal in extreme weather or even climate for that matter.


So if she is making these unsupported nonsense claims she was obviously talking bollocks

She's a greenpeace activist after all, which are a political movement not an environmental one, it's why the original founders fled greenpeace, because it was infested by neomarxist lefties who took it over and changed it from an environmental movement to a political one.

Those are the words of the Greenpeace founders

 

Thanks for that.

 

You pointed out the biggest problem though, you have greenpeace actress with clout coming out and calling people in a scientific debate "deniers" and "loons".
Then she pretends to know about the science, and proves she doesn't by making such ridiculous scientifically unsupported claims.

Heck she's using the Syrian refugee crisis to try make her point, which is sentimental mush not scientific debate.

You can spot the clima loons a mile off, they say "talk about the science" and when you do, they don't know **** about the science

 

Do you actually think that the greenhouse gas effect simply doesn't exist, and there's been no man made impact on our climate due to burning fossil fuels?

Or are you merely pointing out that the Green lobby / Govts have over egged the custard in terms of it's impact?

 

at Guaridan.co.uk

Someone was gushing about the arctic ice in the comments so I posted the Denmark Met Institutes ice measurements from Euro satellites. Empirical data like from an excellent source that shows arctic summer sea ice at 2006 level.

Guardian deleted my post

 

Of course greenhouse gasses have an effect mate. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and makes up 90%+ of greenhouse gas.

Lets put our contribution into context. Lets say CO2 is currently 500ppm/
Human contribution at most is 5%. 5% of 500ppm is 25ppm. This is 8\1000ths of 1% of the atmosphere.
At least half of what we produce is almsot immediately consumed by nature. meaning if we produce 5% of all CO2 and nature eats half we are looking at 4\1000ths of 1% of contribution to the atmosphere. around 12ppm.

Now the IPCC do not model water vapour, which makes up the vast majority. and trying to model climate without modelling clouds and water vapour is like trying to model the financial markets without including financial institutions in your models

The IPCC also totally ignore natural sources of CO2, the oceans ect are not monitored, no one monitor's natural CO2 sinks. So no one is monitoring the sources of 95% of Co2 emission, yet claim it's steady and all the extra CO2 is purely us

 

Is the 5% fact or guesswork?

Surely de-forestation around the globe exacerbates the issue?

I'm no scientist and my view on this issue is simplistic, but if we're producing more Co2 globally and then removing the 'lungs' of the World that can consume it, at the same time - then the net effect is surely going to be an ever increasing amount of Co2 in the atmosphere?

Your argument is seemingly either that the human effect is only a small %age of the total and therefore the rate of increase will be far slower than predicted? Or are you saying there simply isn't an issue at all and there'll be no impact on global temperature?

 

5% is a result of scientific and matematical work. Amounts very depending on which paper you look at, it ranges from 11% to 2% so I picked somewhere in the middle to be fair like.

My argument is the dissonance between what the general public and media are saying and the actual IPCC reports themselves and the papers that made up the report. Up to 2007 there was a lot of dissent within the IPCC, their leading author for the 2007 report defected to the other side because of what he was seeing and admitted that his own grad students had an understanding that anything that threw doubt on global warming was to be played down. It's political not scientific. Look up Lysenkoism and see the similarities, science that suits politics and "any science that does not suit the politics is not science". This is exactly what we are seeing now. With NASA scientists called "fringe" scientists by AL Gore who is no scientist.

Re your logical assumption to ever increasing CO2.
Yes obviously CO2 going to 5000+ ppm (at gound level) starts to have a detrimental effect, 4000ppm and below are quite safe, heck the room you are in now has much higher CO2 content than outside. Probably 1000 ppm. It's why house plants do so well.
We certainly should manage emissions, then that's what we do, not send propaganda to 3 year olds in school to scare them, not spout lie after sensational lie in the media. The third world is set to burn coal ect for the next god knows how long. So, develop the thrid world ASAP. Once developed they like us will be more efficient with energy, less polluting and birthrates drop and as in Europe, have declined. IF we achieved this by 2100 it would do more for emissions than a million years of IPCC tosh.

What folks need to actually realise that in Paris this year the UN are looking to set up a governing body and this is a one way deal, once a current government signs up it is binding to future governments, this is totally undemocratic as no government should be able to bind future governments to agreements. This is not theory, this is fact. Look it up.

This opens a pandora's box. Carbon is life and this pretty much gives an unelected body unaccountable to anyone control over economics and society. Heck this could possibly lead to dictating how much you can drive, fly, eat, and what you can buy. It will almost certainly mean the illegalisation of all non energy efficient equipment. For example, in future it may be totally illegal for you to drive your restored Ford Cortina in years to come. You may have to turn off your lights by law. The UK energy sectrtary said and I quote "The public will have to get used to not having 27x7 electricty" and "The time of cheap energy bills is over" but really the bills have doubled in price to subsidise wind farms aready, someone has to pay people for hosting those things on their land.

This is about intellectual bean counters tellling us all we cannot manage ourselves and that we need them to prevent us for destroying the planet.

 

@Tobes

You mentioned did I work for an Oil company a while back This obviously is reference to the oil money backing the dissenting side.

Michael Mann who was a co fraudster, a nobody with no PhD initailly but politically connected, a physics student and then eventually physics PhD(not a climate qualification) is now worth 75 MILLION because of man made global warming.

Al Gore his net worth is now 200 million. He even sold a TV network he owned to Al Jazeera for 100m, who are funded by Qatari oil. No issues with putting 100m of oil omoney in his bank account.

As far as I know those two total more than all of the oil money in climate sceince which is about 200 million.

Taxpayer funding for the fraudsters.. currently running at 30+ BILLION

 

Al Gore worth 50 times what he was as a Vice president.

Well thankyou global warming. I should have gotten into that lark
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/al-gores-net-worth-green-energy_n_1961299.html

Far more lucrative than taking oil money for research.

 

I think it's wrong to lump all of the scientists who argue that climate change is real and damaging into a basket that labels them as self serving fraudsters.

Of course you'll always get people with financial agendas latching on to an issue if there's the chance they can leverage some profit out of it. That's human nature and is seen in full view on both sides of this particular debate.

Green taxation serves a purpose in the political arena too, I get that, it's an opportunity for stealth taxation dressed up as being for the greater good. Same as it ever was.....

But I think both of those issues are side shows to the reality of what IS actually happening. My view as a layman who's picked over bits and pieces of the debate for years now, is that the truth probably lies somehwere in between the scientific (and I use that word loosely) extremes.

The outright deniers and equally the 2050 we'll all be scrambling for high ground and living on insects, are either ****ing bonkers, or they're grinding an agenda of some sort.

Somewhere in the middle lies the reality imo, I just wonder where exactly that sits, hence my questions, is it more towards the lower end and therefore a can that we can afford to kick down the road, or nearer the centre and of genuine concern that has a definite requirement for immediacy.

 

Weather In My Head Lyrics
The air is boiling, sun on my back
Inside I'm frozen girl, I'm about to crack

They may fix the weather in the world
Just like Mr. Gore said
But tell me what's to be done
Lord 'bout the weather in my head

Girl when you hurt me, when you told those lies
It's like a typhoon exploded behind my eyes

They may fix the weather in the world
Just like Mr. Gore said
But tell me what's to be done
Lord 'bout the weather in my head

Here comes my own Katrina, the levee comes apart
There's an ocean of misery floodin' my heart

They may fix the weather in the world
Just like Mr. Gore said
But tell me what's to be done
Lord 'bout the weather in my head

Sea quake by morning says Quake-TV
Rogue wave comes high and it breaks all over me

They may fix the weather in the world
Just like Mr. Gore said
But tell me what's to be done
Lord 'bout the weather in my head

Four old hippies drivin' in the rain
I asked for a lift they said: get used to the pain

They may fix the weather in the world
Just like Mr. Gore said
But tell me what's to be done
Lord 'bout the weather in my head

I said what's to be done
Lord 'bout the weather in my head

He's singing your song, BBF

 

It made me smile too

 

In summary - the earth's heating up, probably more due to the sun than anything else? Does it make sense to continue pumping more co2 into the atmosphere? petrol and fires spring to mind. Me and my dog really enjoyed the snow a couple of years back, though.

 

I actually agree about lumping them all together, things is I am not. There was real dissent in previous reports of the IPCC up to 2007 but you needed you read the papers to see it.

Once a report is written, then the politicians at the IPCC meet up and argue and bicker over what they want the report summery and public announcements to say, driven by serving political need not scienfitic truth, so all the work of post grads and scientists was boiled down to political expedience. So it can't be helped that the IPCC authors get lunped in wuith the bullshit politics.


I agree on the moderate outlook you mention, that is where I am at. It's the sensationalism and fraudulent science that pisses me off mate.

Take coal stations, CO - carbon momoxide which is very toxic or Carbon Dioxide - CO2 which is not, will be created depending on how much oxygen is present in the combustion process, less oxygen means CO is produced, ore oxygen means CO2 will be produced.
The fact they emit CO is bad, yet this distinction is never made in the alarmist hysteria about coal.

I mean lets call it what it is, pollution by Carbon momoxide, but they dont because that doesn't fit the CO2 is bad Pseudo science.

There is very real and valid science on this in mathematical chemical and psysics sciences and none of it enters mainstream media. It's all about the IPCC and everyone else that does not agree is either "paid by oil" or "funded by the Koch brother", hardly scientific argument.

The fraud the CRU have been caught perpetrating is another matter.

Essentially a few fraudsters who have made of millions from this, with full political backing, bully everyone else into line.

This is shown when one IPCC scientist Briffa did a reconstruction of historical temps that showed a decline inglobal temp after 1960. This was inconvenient, his data after 1960 was deleted and the rest included in the IPCC reports and the famous hockeystick, and he said nothing.. for his career's sake. I know it's not good to go and take a **** on your own career. That's how people are brought into line, that and endless funding if you tow the line.

It took years for the truth to come out that the CRU in East Anglia were deleting data that did not fit. #science


The answer as you say is somewhere in between, yes we are polluting the **** out of everything, land air sea and continue to do so, not with CO2.
Nothing wrong with sustainability and nothing wrong with being energy efficient and less polluting. Haivng an unelected political body unaccountable to anyone acting as global bean counter to tell you what you can and cannot do, gives a small group of people a lot of power and it's beyond any debate that power corrupts, when you learn of the extreme ideology behind this it's pretty alarming.
You have some of thise people who are writing these policies coming out and saying "deniers need to be drigged" "should face capital punishment" "should be sent for re education", these are not fringe comments on the internet, these are scientists and professors making these statements.

The bottom line is if you wish to prevent CO2.. you need to dismantle 80%+ of the global economy mate, there is no other way, 97% of transport globally produces CO2. Everything economics wise depends on carbon products.

With a growing population and an economic model that demands population growth, literally the only way for the IPCC to actually achieve low carbon, and therefor low agriculture is to turn the world into a collection of agrerian hippy communes. Looking at the numbers, that is the ONLY way. It requires at least a halving of the global population.
This is not about stealth taxes mate, they are quite open about the costs to you and I, it's about micromanaging society by intellectual bean couners who all think we humans are an infection on the planet

Currently the plans require 20 trillion per degree prevented, IF their science is valid and really, it's anything but




.