njc wrote:Are they using the numbers that the Climate Institute in London made up? (Their computer programs have comments explaining that computations were arbitrary, made to produce the results required.) Or do they come from numbers supposedly adjusted for the heat island effects of cities, that somehow are more extreme than the raw data rather than less? Do they account for or ignore the long-observed correlations of global weather with solar activity? Were any of the authors scientists who lost their jobs for disagreeing, on scientific grounds, with the AGW orthodoxy?
You do realize that the earth is still cooler than it was during the Medieval Warm Period? When the Vikings had colonies in Greenland--when Greenland really was green?
Then also:
Do these scientists drive cars? Heaven forbid, driving cars on bitumen roads, but I'll give them some slack today. Do they use air transportation to attend seminars and give speeches all over the world? Do they use electricity? Do they own/use any items that's made from crude oil refining? Pretty much, if they have a house and got up this morning and brushed their teeth, the answer is yes. And they haven't gotten into their cars yet. Those bad, bad, evil cars, but don't get me started on electrical cars with zero (apparent) emissions (because I want to start smacking people over their heads when they talk crap like that - repeat after me, electrical cars are not zero emissions because until the total power grid is supplied by so-called green sources, they use coal fired electricity to charge those babies, not mentioning all the coal burned to MAKE the car - total life cycle, apparently a difficult concept to grasp for some, so no, it's not #%*%# zero emissions). And don't get me started on the total life cycle impact of 'green' technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels and battery packs (inefficiency is the biggest problem, ignoring cost) yet do not f#cking dare mention the elephant in the room - uranium.
When they start to lead by example because this shit is going down, I might change my behaviour (and job) instead of thinking this is just another way to re-dististribute wealth - do. not. mention. uranium.. If not for this suspicion, I actually might have been on board with a united, global effort to reduce CO2 emmissions. Because, you know, this is a global problem, if someone gets modeling of the global climate right by the way - i.e. when the model within acceptable accuracy predicts what's coming that is. But this is me.
On the other hand, I am all for using natural resources responsibly, don't get me wrong. I just have issues with hypocrites in general, like Al Gore especially. He has lots to answer for, but man did his PR team do overtime to keep the hard questions away from him on his video and some of the shit he sprouted. Which is a shame, because it wasn't a bad idea, it was just really badly done. But then, we're not supposed to ask questions. Or think. The government will do that for us. How nice of them.
I also have no (dis)illusions of the impact of lifting the living standards of billions of people to that of the developed world which, by the way, had (only) millions of people when they started to industrialise their countries. It takes a special kind of hypocrite to sit in his/her living room in the UK, US or Aus and now cry foul. Because, trust me, we can not raise the living standards of billions of people and not leave an environmental footprint. But yeah, do not get me started on how the whole world economy is based on consumption and population growth. The question is, who gets and who doesn't and who is making that decision?
Just to mention a few of the issues I have with global warming (oh, sorry, the globe isn't warming? We changed it? Sorry, my bad) climate change scientists.
Funny thing is, climate is variable. Talk to the really old people and they will tell you, oh these record hot days, had them 60 years ago too, they come and go all the time. Oh these floods, happened all the time, that's why we didn't build a #%*%# thousand houses over there, but over here on the f#cking hill in my days. Look at the records being broken, they're old records, so why is it only a problem now? And then look at when record keeping started. We don't know shit, not really.
Oh, these oldies will also tell you how their fridge/washing machine/whatever lasted for 25 years. But yeah, do not mention the C words, consumption, China.
I can go on, but we have bad bad crude oil to refine. Don't get me started on this either.
*end of rant*
Nothing personal Dirk, this is just my thoughts on a highly emotional and controversial subject. Also one of the reasons I avoid social media. It's a good thing, otherwise NS will never get written. But it's also part of the problem, because things being sprouted as gospel need to be challenged, questioned, tested. Which brings me to another issue, the unwillingness of these scientists to be open and making raw data available. If this is really this serious, their behavior isn't exactly helping either. So sorry, I'm not on-board yet.
