- Location
- Northumberland
Your reply is completely over the top!
The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.
- Thread starter banjo
- Start date
Old McDonald
Member
- Location
- Harray, Orkney
I doubt if it was colder than January 1979. I mentioned John Lynn of West Woodburn to you once upon a time. He had a weather station and reported some exceptionally low numbes then. Check him out.
I cannot get earlier records from Redesdale Camp, but here are their figures for 1981-2010 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gcy6s0k6r
The minimum figures seem unusually high to me, but I preseume they are accurate. Must be global warming I suppose. I would put in a "tongue in cheek" little picture here but I do not use them.
- Location
- Northumberland
I was asking you the question.I did not know and had never thought of it in that way before.The world as a whole can therefore produce many times more food than now.
Old McDonald
Member
- Location
- Harray, Orkney
Why add the word anthropological? You cannot know for certain that we are causing the rising tempertures. We are, as I have posted several times, the likely cause, but not yet proven guilty.
I cannot answer your question, although suspect it is not.
- Location
- Northumberland
I can remember Jan/Feb/Mar 1979 well.We got 3 very deep dollops of snow in each month,probably the most depth i have experienced.Feet,rather than inches.One of the few times the milk tanker was unable to get to our farm.But Dec81/Jan82 was definitely colder.-20C at night for several weeks,most unusual for us.Many villages water supply froze,the frost getting down 2 to 3 feet.That was the coldest i have lived through.Allthough 63 was cold,i cant remember it,i was only 4 at the time.The cold spell ended suddenly later in January with very mild weather,which resulted in many burst water pipes.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
I know many think a werp sheep farmer is wrong on this, but I ain't.
This chap actually worked for NASA, in fact all of the main climate temp providers and was a global warming guru troubleshooter until he was asked to go through origional data measured in archive for the whole of the USA before 1997 ( this was when the problems started ) he realised during 1987 the data mysteriously changed from what it was?
He had recorded evidence ( shown here at about 13 min in if you don't want to watch it all ) against new and the 1930 hot spells of 120deg had dissapeared, it was miles hotter than the 1990s in reality.
It's a hell of a job to get archive temp that hasn't been meddled with and he has origional data. Please watch, I'm not mad it's true.
This chap actually worked for NASA, in fact all of the main climate temp providers and was a global warming guru troubleshooter until he was asked to go through origional data measured in archive for the whole of the USA before 1997 ( this was when the problems started ) he realised during 1987 the data mysteriously changed from what it was?
He had recorded evidence ( shown here at about 13 min in if you don't want to watch it all ) against new and the 1930 hot spells of 120deg had dissapeared, it was miles hotter than the 1990s in reality.
It's a hell of a job to get archive temp that hasn't been meddled with and he has origional data. Please watch, I'm not mad it's true.
Last edited:
T Bourne
Member
- Location
- Tasmania, Australia
I'm all for using more environmentally friendly energy sources, being more efficient and halting the total degradation of forests and expansion of deserts. The problem lies not in the goal but the means. Simply bunging a tax on energy or creating an emissions trading scheme and saying that it will save the world is short sighted and daft. All that these things will do is make the rich market manipulators even richer and everyday people and farmers poorer. The mentality is this, if we make energy and fuel so expensive that people can't afford it they will use less of it, job done. But as with everything it all flows down the line, EVERYTHING will be more expensive. Those countrys daft enough to implement such measures, Europe and the West, will get poorer and poorer, and those who couldn't care less, certain Asian countries, will get richer. In the meantime the earth will continue on its merry way, blow off a few volcanoes putting more CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere in a week than we could in half a century and the environmentalists, politicians and carbon credit traders will clap and cheer and say "Isn't it all wonderful"!!
T Bourne
Member
- Location
- Tasmania, Australia
Taxes and debt, the countrys that used to be the richest are now saddled in debt for many different reasons and the big push is now climate change. It will cost our nations billions of dollars which will all be borrowed, adding to our ever increasing interest bill to the IMF. I don't know about the UK but Australia can't even pay back the interest let alone the principal. The current monetary system is evil, they say follow the money, it always ends up in the pocket of a banking billionaire who controls fictitious numbers on a screen. Man it makes me wild!!
Rant over.
It has been an interesting thread, I would like to say that what ever the out come of globle warming, by that I mean if it's natural or man made or both, is actually not the only issue, the issue is, is the high levels of co2 going to trigger a jump in world wide temperatures? and will we all survive it?
Putting that aside, we have the fossil fuels issues, which are inevitable, so I agree 100% with current policy, carbon trading is not as crazy as it sounds, it helps poor counrties make smart choices. They can see the advantage of being able to offset another counties co2.
So the best way to force change is money once we reach the set goals that pressure can be reduced, so I can agree that the system in place is increasing the cost of things in the relative short term say the next 20 years but after that energy costs for the counties that have adopted renewables, to meet or exceed targets they get to trade with the countries that didn't.
If I could see a better way to have implemented a world wide policy shift on the magnitude we require without it costing money to use bad practices we are encouraged to move away from to help fund the good practices we wish to encourage. The money to make the changes has to come from somewhere.
For the counties that decide not to play ball, stronger methods will eventually be used trade tariffs things like that, they will not get the last laugh
Unless you can come up with a better system for change, the current system will have to stay, I agree that renewables are the way forward as is forcing a cut to fossil fuels usages it forces me to agree that current current policy is a wise precaution, for a possible globle warming problem, and the inevitable fossil fuels problems. So wether you believe it's man made or not, that current policy is the best way, which I think money is the only way to force change. The ifs and buts of globle warming are just a side bar issue, that in time will be resolved. The one plus to it possibly being a man made event is, that it gives us a greater chance to avert globle warming if it turned out to be true, and it's man made.
Change is always expensive and moving away from fossil fuels is and will be until we can get a good portion of our needs covered by renewables.
The one good thing about renewables and insulation schemes is they lead to long term cost savings and actual reductions in energy needs and costs. And co2 trading feeds money into poor countries so they can more easily afford so avoid going down the fossil fuels route and see a negative effects if they do. Without these policy's they would without doubt put cheap and cheer full coal fired power plants in, now they still may but not as readily as they would have. They see the benafits of co2 trading. Over building coal fired power stations.
We would be better off long term if we forced the policy world wide and used other methods to bring the stragglers into line than pulling out of them, the fact that America looks like they may do just that and pull out. It's just that they know taxing of fuel has been un popular with the public, and it's an easy election win to remove it, is it the right thing to do in my opinion no, but will it make them popular yes......so from a political position to say globle warming is a scam so we can drop the policy's is short sighted, and will no doubt come back and bite them even harder later down the road..... with fossil fuel prices rise past currents taxed prices, if America chooses to put there head in the sand, it doesn't make the problems go away. They just may find when they do pull it out, it cost them far more in the way of fuel poverty. Only time will tell what will happen, I just hope they don't take the easy short term road and only find it gets much steeper and harder later it just makes it harder on their citizens long term. If they do nothing to prepare for it.
Putting that aside, we have the fossil fuels issues, which are inevitable, so I agree 100% with current policy, carbon trading is not as crazy as it sounds, it helps poor counrties make smart choices. They can see the advantage of being able to offset another counties co2.
Your right it's made things more expensive, and it's helped some poor countries and some rich poorer countries, actually the system of motivation you talk about is actually really the only motivation that works on this planet money, if they had asked nicely for every member of the public to do their bit, it would have had next to no effect, but because it started costing the public money, like road tax on vehicles zero for small car expensive for big, we have seen the public move away from big cars. As did rising fuel prices, it made people look at how well their house are insulated and do things about it with help for the most vulnerable from the government, these are all changes that are needed, that money helped force, it's called discomfort as a motivator. The more you do to minimise your exposure to rising fuel costs the less discomfort you feel, this is why Germany are world leaders because they can see the large advantage it will give them long term.
So the best way to force change is money once we reach the set goals that pressure can be reduced, so I can agree that the system in place is increasing the cost of things in the relative short term say the next 20 years but after that energy costs for the counties that have adopted renewables, to meet or exceed targets they get to trade with the countries that didn't.
If I could see a better way to have implemented a world wide policy shift on the magnitude we require without it costing money to use bad practices we are encouraged to move away from to help fund the good practices we wish to encourage. The money to make the changes has to come from somewhere.
For the counties that decide not to play ball, stronger methods will eventually be used trade tariffs things like that, they will not get the last laugh
Unless you can come up with a better system for change, the current system will have to stay, I agree that renewables are the way forward as is forcing a cut to fossil fuels usages it forces me to agree that current current policy is a wise precaution, for a possible globle warming problem, and the inevitable fossil fuels problems. So wether you believe it's man made or not, that current policy is the best way, which I think money is the only way to force change. The ifs and buts of globle warming are just a side bar issue, that in time will be resolved. The one plus to it possibly being a man made event is, that it gives us a greater chance to avert globle warming if it turned out to be true, and it's man made.
Change is always expensive and moving away from fossil fuels is and will be until we can get a good portion of our needs covered by renewables.
The one good thing about renewables and insulation schemes is they lead to long term cost savings and actual reductions in energy needs and costs. And co2 trading feeds money into poor countries so they can more easily afford so avoid going down the fossil fuels route and see a negative effects if they do. Without these policy's they would without doubt put cheap and cheer full coal fired power plants in, now they still may but not as readily as they would have. They see the benafits of co2 trading. Over building coal fired power stations.
We would be better off long term if we forced the policy world wide and used other methods to bring the stragglers into line than pulling out of them, the fact that America looks like they may do just that and pull out. It's just that they know taxing of fuel has been un popular with the public, and it's an easy election win to remove it, is it the right thing to do in my opinion no, but will it make them popular yes......so from a political position to say globle warming is a scam so we can drop the policy's is short sighted, and will no doubt come back and bite them even harder later down the road..... with fossil fuel prices rise past currents taxed prices, if America chooses to put there head in the sand, it doesn't make the problems go away. They just may find when they do pull it out, it cost them far more in the way of fuel poverty. Only time will tell what will happen, I just hope they don't take the easy short term road and only find it gets much steeper and harder later it just makes it harder on their citizens long term. If they do nothing to prepare for it.
Last edited:
For the tv show "allo allo" fans out there, i vill say vthis only wonce.
I can see why govermants many have wanted to have had a scam, to cover up what's really scaring them the worlds position of fossil fuels and our long term reliance on them having to be reduced before escalating prices, created huge fuel poverty problem.
If it is a scam I will be more worried about the reasons they would create a quite scary scam.
And if it is a scam it's most defiantly government run.
I can see why govermants many have wanted to have had a scam, to cover up what's really scaring them the worlds position of fossil fuels and our long term reliance on them having to be reduced before escalating prices, created huge fuel poverty problem.
If it is a scam I will be more worried about the reasons they would create a quite scary scam.
And if it is a scam it's most defiantly government run.
Last edited:
How many cars are on the road now compared with when the government started charging more for climate change?
To be honest I haven't a clue, but the important numbers are the type, or what numbers are in what road tax band. The government actually took a pro active stance, giving a sliding scale from free to a rip off. So over time, people who can least afford it, get vehicles that offer free road tax and often give the highest mileage per litre of fuel. Again move people out of old comfort zones, into ones that reduce the requirements for fossil fuels. I have friends and family living in city's, they used to own cars but dropped them, I asked why. One they could manage without, second insurance and running costs, for something that was only a convenience not a requirement.
The free road tax part had a greater roll to play, than the higher charges.....
Let's not forget we have just gone through a banking made crisis. That has put more stress on our money than, the govermants charges for climate change. We haven't just been dealing with taxes around climate changes we have been dealing with incompetent banks.
Causing defaulting loans and stifling business investments. And pushing some businesses under due to defaulting on debts.
You cannot lay all our problems at the feet of climate change taxation.
The fact the uk is still in deficit, and increasing national debt on a daily basis has as much to do with current tax as anything else.
But I would be worse of now if personally if I had done nothing to reduce my fossil fuel use. (Which is the idea)
I personaly think if nothing had been done up to this point fuel prices would actually be higher now, than they are with tax currently. If we were all still running big cars had done nothing about our old boilers and insulated our houses, and we were not adding things to fuel, which is around 10% you total that all up world wide, you would see that consumption and production push further out of balance which leads to one thing increases in prices. So unless you can show me fuel prices would be lower if we used more, then complaining about taxes that are doing good long term is not logical.....
It's one thing I had noticed, the fact that all the good work so far is excluded for the extreme positions people are taking, they talk about the negatives of taxes, but not what they have already delivered. So no where do they try to show what things would be like if we had not made the changes we already have. As this may under mine there negative attitudes, about short term pain for long term benefits, these polices are delivering.
So show me numbers that exclude any changes made so far by these new polices then compare energy cost on both routes, and then put your argument forward. For dropping climate change policy. (secret hidden fossil fuel policy).
I don't think it will be as clear cut as you think, or that current climate change policy's are creating as much harm as you think. When you stop looking at them in isolation. The worlds finances are just as complex as climate change......
Last edited:
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
People really should watch the whole of that video. It confirms what I implied and said about data manipulation a few posts ago. They've been at it again in the last few weeks, changing measured data to eliminate the lack of warming over the last 18 years to create results that they actually want.
I had not realised that they had done so consistently and so blatantly over the last 25 years though. It doesn't surprise me, but it is still shocking.
- Location
- Leicester/England
Just put the link there for edification. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Old McDonald
Member
- Location
- Harray, Orkney
Do not answer this by telling me to watch yet another of your hour long videos. I doubt whether many posters on here have time to watch them all. I have watched some, but they do not answer the questions you have been asked, which in general are phrase around "give us some numbers" to back up your claim that things are "fact". If you want to persuade us then you have to do some work yourself and not just pump out "watch the video".
As previously pointed out, you are utterly andcompletely wrong about the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. Tell me (as you have already been asked twice by others) how much CO2 was emitted by St.Helens. Then tell me the global emissions from that year. There was no "spike".
Your remarks about papers no longer being available is absolute nonsense. Tell me which papers you mean and I am sure I can find at least some of them for you.
- Location
- Northumberland
What i would like to know is,which scientists are right,and which ones are wrong.They cant all be both at the same time.The guy in the last video seemed to be no mug,and had nothing to do with any energy company,nor was relying on any funding either way. The only thing i would question about the last video is the satelite images of Arctic sea ice.I think it shows it is getting less(although nothing like as much as the warmists say) Surely they cant "doctor" this,or can they?
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
No co2 will be going down over the next 30 years because co2 follows temperature of the earth and we are now into a cooling period.
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
Co2 levels follow earth temperature thermodynamics laws tell you this and it doesn't work the other way around. This is why they try to rise co2 levels fraudulently to mask that the temp is lower than it is shown. The sat data was correct about co2 being lower and the actual measured earth temp was in reality being followed by co2
I know you don't like people not agreeing with you on this subject, cos you have made your mind up already. But some don't realise the Amount of info the net about the subject and are interested in hearing it and make their win minds up.
You don't want to listen don't listen, no skin off my nose, I don't realy care if anyone does, but if you do you will learn so thing from experts in the field, not politicians.
Just for you and student I've found the 37.000 scientists who think man made climate change is not proven, here's the survey founder explaining it, listen if you want to, or not.
Last edited:
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
Yes they doctor everything, thanks for listening to the chap
banjo
Member
- Location
- Back of beyond
Ok find the origional temp data before 1987 ( if it's been doctored I will tell straight away)