Tuesday, 8 September 2009

PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS AND THE LAW

I just read the following post on EU Referendum

The spectre of a 4°C warmer world, with alligators basking off the coast of Sweden, a vast desert surrounding the Mediterranean and a largely uninhabitable mainland Europe, is to be presented to EU member states by foreign secretary David Milliband.

This is part of a "diplomatic push" by Britain to persuade rich countries to put climate change at the top of their agendas. Thus Milliband will address French, Swedish and Danish foreign ministries in the next 48 hours.

Then, heedless of the carbon footprint, he travels to New York where he will meet foreign ministers from other rich countries next week to hammer out details of a major treaty on global warming ahead of UN talks in Thailand, which will conclude at a crucial summit in December in Copenhagen.

A Foreign Office spokesman said using powerful climate change imagery to concentrate official minds was justifiable because the worldwide geopolitical implications of profound climate change were so enormous.

Meanwhile, a senior executive of Newcastle-based Grainger plc, Tim Nicholson, has claimed he was unfairly dismissed because his views on the environment conflicted with other managers' "contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions".

In the first case of its kind, an employment tribunal decided that Nicholson had views amounting to a "philosophical belief in climate change", allowing him the same legal protection against discrimination as religious beliefs.

We are told that Judge David Sneath said at the employment tribunal: "[Nicholson] has certain views about climate change and acts upon those views in the way in which he leads his life. In my judgment his belief goes beyond a mere opinion."

The decision comes two years after the law on religious discrimination was changed so that beliefs no longer had to be "similar" to religious faith to receive protection in the workplace. Under the new law "philosophical belief" is protected by the law alongside religious belief if it passes a legal test requiring it to be cogent, serious and "worthy of respect in a democratic society".

Nicholson's lawyer said that the case reflected a necessary clarification of the law that would affect large numbers of employees.

"This is a case that will clarify the law for the ever-increasing numbers of people who take a philosophical stance on the environment and climate change, and who lead their lives according to those principles", said Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at solicitors Bindmans.

"These are often deeply held views based on the premise that without change humanity will suffer … people should be able to express such views without fear of retribution or discrimination."

Now then, I have this "philosophical belief" that warmists are the spawn of the devil, that their atheist creed is deeply offensive, that they should be banned from speaking in public about their religion, and that the sinister rituals which accompany their religion should be practiced only in private and then only between consenting adults.

Can I have a job please?

In response I made the following comment:


by Morgan » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:59 am
"In the first case of its kind, an employment tribunal decided that Nicholson had views amounting to a "philosophical belief in climate change", allowing him the same legal protection against discrimination as religious beliefs."

[ ... ]

"… people should be able to express such views without fear of retribution or discrimination."

So now, about that British Nationalist cop who got sacked ... ?
Morgan 



Go read it all and check out the links.


Morg
.

33 comments:

Anti-gag said...

There is a big difference between a belief that requires faith (ie there is little or no evidence to support it) and a knowledge that arises from an understanding of good scientific research.

Religious beliefs have no supporting evidence what so ever, and therefore require blind faith. An acceptance of overwhelming scientific evidence requires no faith, just a brain and some logical thinking. To group people who have examined the evidence and come to a rational conclusion, based on that evidence, with people who think everything is going to be OK because their God is a nice guy and will look after us all, is totally ridicules. I'm sorry I respect a persons right to believe what ever nonsense they want to (including all religious nonsense), but I'll be dammed if I'm going to respect those beliefs simply because they come under the heading of being religious.

Climate change is supported by evidence, masses of it in fact, from many different sources with no common agenda except to inform the world about a potential disaster for all the human races (and many other species of animals as well). The issue of whether it's a man made phenomenon or occurs naturally, is only relevant to how we deal with the problem. Or perhaps people think; that if it is natural we should just accept it, regardless of the consequences (even possibly the extinction of all the human races)?

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris - most of the 'evidence' is tainted, and most of the people who signed the UN document are not scientists. Those many scientists who asked for their names to be removed from the list after finding out the tainted nature of the 'evidence' have not had their wishes complied with.

You're old enough to remember the seventies - the big 'scientific' climate scare then was that we were moving into a new ice age.

Personally, I really wouldn't mind if it did warm up three or four degrees - crop growth would be vastly improved in this country. And if the past four summers are anything to go by ...

No, I only care about my own country and my own people.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Extinction of the human race? I doubt it - but I would welcome a huge reduction.

Anyway - do you suppose the human race is going to be here forever? Just about every creature that has ever evolved has eventually become extinct; and for those few that haven't (mostly insects - oh, and the crocodile has been around a long time, along with the ceolocanth)it's only a matter of time. What makes you suppose humans will be any different?

Andy said...

If wrecking the Earth to get rid of mankind is needed before it heals. Bring it on.

We are like no other animal. We're the failed experiment. the snake that eats its own tale.

The only worthwhile way to save everything, including humans is to limit the number by vast amounts.

All this green talk.. forget it. Why do they not mention the unmentionable? Stop making (and importing) kids.

They are too busy making us get into our 70KW (100hp) engined cars to buy some curly light bulbs before we whip off on holiday in a jet that burns tens of thousands of pounds of fuel in a day.

Sure we have temperature fluctuations. From before six months ago the prior 18 months had seen a net cooling. Must be all that dark skin avoiding the Sun.

Back to the part of the subject that was music to my ears. "philosophical belief"..."allowing the same legal protection against discrimination as religious beliefs."

After the unions congress endorsed their bigotry of the BNP by calling on, "banning, sacking,censorship, monitoring,control and totalitarianism. A psychiatrist would quite literally have a field day amongst these liberal fundamentalists who seem to have morphed into their very own nemesis." - Simon Darby.

While I'm ranting, can anyone help me why everyone calls these others, things like:
"liberal" (because they are not!).
"elite" (because they are not!) etc.etc.?

Anti-gag said...

Dear Morg & Andy,

Well there is a lot to cover in your combined posts, so please forgive me if I miss some of the points that either of you have made.

I'll address Andy's comments first if I may:
You said:

"f wrecking the Earth to get rid of mankind is needed before it heals. Bring it on. We are like no other animal. We're the failed experiment. The snake that eats its own tale."

&

"Why do they not mention the unmentionable? Stop making (and importing) kids."


I say:
No the human races are not an experiment gone wrong, we are a product of evolution that is, without a doubt, messing things up for most intelligent life on the planet. And yes population (the human population that is) control is paramount in saving the planet. People in excessive numbers are pollution, and most intelligent life on this planet would be better off if the human races didn't exist. But we do, and personally I want to continue that existence for as long as possible (this is not absolutely my view, but I'll expand on it in my response to Morg's post below).

Now I'll move on to Morg's Posting:

I'm sorry climate change is a fact (there is overwhelming evidence to support it), and your contention that a temperature rise of a few degrees will make life more pleasant for us here in the British Isles is, I'm afraid, totally incorrect.

Yes other parts of the world will (at first at least) be harder hit than we are, but that in itself will result in an uncontrolled influx of immigrants to our Islands (remember if the UN says take these people our politically correct government will jump to it). But that is only the initial impact of climate change, a sea level rise of 200 feet will put large parts of our land underwater. See the Newsweek article "Climate denial"

Or for a full analysis see the British Met office web site: "Met office: true picture"

OK so that's climate change dealt with (good at this aint I!).
Now for Morg's question about how long I expect the human race (that should be races by the way) will survive. I hope the human races will continue to evolve (eventually into totally separate species), all being as recognisable then as present humans are to our small furry mammals ancestors of 40-50 million years ago.

Will the world last for ever, NO of course not. The Sun will die in about 10 Billion years, which will end all earth originating life forms. Moving to a different star system is totally pie in the sky: When our Sun burns out life disappears (life will of course continue elsewhere in the universe unaffected by the loss of one small insignificant life form: ie us!).

Finally I'd like to include a link to a good series of YouTube videos on the subject of Climate denial. "A series of videos on Climate denial"

Watch them all they really are informative.

Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Anti-gag said...

Hi again Morg:

You said:
"Chris - most of the 'evidence' is tainted, and most of the people who signed the UN document are not scientists. Those many scientists who asked for their names to be removed from the list after finding out the tainted nature of the 'evidence' have not had their wishes complied with"

I Say:
Which of the many documents on climate change are you referring to, and who exactly has asked to have their name removed from it?

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris

There's no point in our doing anything at all about this, and there's certainly no point in arguing about it - as long as human numbers are increasing exponentially.

In the approximately 100,000 years since the human race came into existence to the time I was born, human numbers had grown to just a little over 2 billion. In the 57 years since then those numbers have grown by a further 5 billion (just a little under) to now total almost 7 billion. Every single one of those eats, carps, produces other pollution, and has a carbon footprint of its own.

So what the hell is the point of me reducing my carbon footprint if there's going to be several million more carbon footprint producers by this time tomorrow?

The single biggest problem facing mankind is population numbers. Until we sort that out there's no point doing anything else at all about anything.

There were already too many people in this country in 1941 (Hitler nearly starved us into submission because we couldn't feed ourselves from our own resources) and we've (well - They've) imported at least another 15 million (and probably more like 25 million) since then. We have to get our numbers DOWN.

What applies to this country, applies to the world as a whole.

When there is a famine somewhere in the world, do you think the rest of the world should send food aid? I don't. Famine is just nature's way of telling us there are too many people on that particular patch of the Earth and numbers need to be reduced. Let nature get on with it.

In 1984, that moron Geldof raised a couple of hundred million pounds to send food to the famine in Ethiopia. Successfully accccording to his aims. But that was in defiance of nature which was saying there were already too many people there. So what have the Ethiopians done since then? - They've increased their population by at least another 25 million. Are we bloody idiots????

What on Earth has made an apparently clever species go for quantity rather than quality? We seem to have a nuclear age technology under the control of a stone age psychology.

So tell me again - what is the point of reducing our carbon output given current human breeding habits?

I'm rather angry.

Anti-gag said...

Dear Morg:

You said:
"The single biggest problem facing mankind is population numbers. Until we sort that out there's no point doing anything else at all about anything."

I say:
But that's just it, reducing the human population is (in part at least) the solution to climate change. Now a reduction in the numbers of people would not mean a reduction in lives. Reducing our own numbers would give many other species (including other members of our own Great Ape family)a look in. And reducing our number now, could in fact mean eventually that more people will exist (albeit spread over many hundreds of thousands of years)than if we simply let the human population spiral out of control until it wipes itself out.

Climate change is indeed only one manifestation (although admittedly a big one) of the damage the human races are inflicting on the planet. We need an all encompassing solution to both stop and reverse this which most include: population reduction; reduced dependence on oil: fisheries protection; country side preservation; and respect for the rights of other species etc. etc..

How that is to be achieved is simply too important to leave to corrupt politicians. Voters (like ourselves) must insist that governments listen to the scientist, when they produce the evidence, and then act upon a reasoned analysis of that evidence.

Anyway I have to get off my soap box now and go and get my dinner.

Keep well
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

Chris, I wish you would take more notice of reputable scientists and less of politicians media people and people who have much to gain by "carbon trading" scams.


We all agree the Earth has warmed since our childhood and that we are wasting our resources and there are too many people.
But is a big jump from that to say climate change is man made.


The book I quoted earlier to you by Ian Plimer Professor of Environmental Studies at Adelaid University and TWICE winner of Australia's highest scientific honour "The Eureka Prize". In it he gives a mass of scientific detail to counter your arguments and coming from Adelaide should know something about warming.


Last week I read the aptly titled "Global Warming and other Bollocks" by Professor Stanley Feldman which is an easier read for non scientists (perhaps even politicians or media people could understand it but I won't hold my breath)

Basically the points in these SCIENTIFIC books is that there are many influences on global weather patterns, cosmic rays, the Earth's orbit, cloud cover etc and to put it all down to the slight increase in CO2 is to put it mildly unscientific BOLLOCKS.


Any warming now happening is already being countered by increased cloud cover and more snow in Antarctica a feed back mechanism which keeps the world climate stable.

BTW in the news today --we must cut CO2 emissions by 90%.
It seems we will have to stop breathing.

Anti-gag said...

Dear Charles,

I checked out Ian Plimer, and yes he is indeed a scientist who has written about global warming. But he's not a climatologist he's a geologist, that's a totally different academic discipline. As for the Eureka Prize; yes that is a prestigious award, but he didn't win that for his writing on the subject of climate change, he seems to have won it for his work combating creationism.

Now OK that's one scientist (in an unrelated discipline) who has his doubts about climate change, but there are hundreds of good scientists (many of whom are climatologist) who regard climate change as a proven fact "Met office: true picture"

Personally I'm not sure to what extent (if any) CO2 is playing, although a basic knowledge of the science of radiation suggests to me strongly that if there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, it must be playing a major part in Global warming. How much of any CO2 build up is down to man I don't know, but personally I suspect a great deal of it will be.

There are many powerful people and organizations who want us (for their own selfish reasons) to continue ignoring the problem, and some unscrupulous scientists may well be accepting money from them (although I'm not including Ian Palmer in that group), so once again I would ask you to look at the Met office site I linked to above, and the series of videos I linked to on 'YouTube' in my previous posting.

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Anti-gag said...

My mistake,
Ian Plimer won the Eureka Science Book Prize for his writing on history of the world, not for his work combating creationism

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

I'm sorry Chris, you really will have to get a scientific view on this.
The first part is to verify your FACTS.

Professor Plimer is professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences which I am sure you can see has climate study as one of its fields.

I'm sure he has written about other things includung the other delusion of creationalism (one which was "the perceived wisdom" for 2000 years)much like man made global warming is now, but that is irrlevant in the present discussion.

We all accept climate change and that in the last 30 years it has become warmer. What we don't accept is that it is necessarily man made.

I agree there are many unscrupulous people who have a vested interest in promoting the CO2 idea including the arch polluter Al Gore whose carbon footprint equals that of a small town.

Also people involved in meterology have a lot to gain by this as they need more money for grants to study this, and of course the bankers and stockbrokers who make millions by carbon trading.

There are many unscrupulous people involved in this but these are not people like Plimer who go against the orthodox publicly promoted view.

It takes guts and integrity to challenge the orthodox.

Gallileo found that hundreds of years ago and so does the BNP now.

That does not mean we are wrong.
Past history teaches us that those who challenge orthodoxy are more often proved right in the end in spite of their persecution.

Anti-gag said...

Hi Charles,

OK let's look at the science.

1. Are levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing (if so just for the moment let's ignore the cause). Well yes I don't think this is in doubt.

2. Does CO2 trap heat (the greenhouse effect) by preventing infrared radiation. Again without a doubt yes.

3. Is the ice cap receding? Once again yes (see the British Met office's report).

4. Does the reduction of the Ice cap mean that less heat (as visible light) is reflected back into space? Of course.

5. Will an increase in cloud cover balance out this reduction of the heat reflected from the Ice Cap? I'm not at all sure it will. Clouds do indeed reflect some sunlight, but allow much of it through and also absorbed some there-selves as heat.

6. As both of us accept that the Earth is warming, so can I ask you: if it's not down to an increase of CO2 what is the cause?



If I'm driving down the M6 at 70 mph and hit a bank of fog, would it be sensible to continue driving at that speed because I have no absolute proof that there is a line of cars stopped ahead of me, or do I brake and drive at 15 mph until the fog clears? The bank of fog is the uncertainty of the cause of Global warming, and the line of stopped cars is the possible result of it. Full speed ahead or apply the brakes, you decide.

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris

Dip into this. Also root through the archives.

Incidentally, the global temperature has gone DOWN 0.2 deegrees over the past seven years.

1000 years ago the vikings were growing grapes in Greenland. Is it that warm yet?

400 years ago, the Thames froze over every winter. Is it that cold yet?

Both could be considered points on the normal curve. However, 1000 years ago the people of this country were well-nourished. 400 years ago food was a problem for most. Which would we prefer?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Sorry - forgot to add the link to dip into. Here it is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Sir Henry Morgan said...

What did I say in my first comment?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html

Anti-gag said...

Hi Morg,

Yes that's a good article,
"Link to that Daily Telegraph article"

But the very fact that effective birth control would reduce levels of CO2, in the atmosphere, shows that humans cause CO2 in the atmosphere.

As for your ideas on other periods of warmer and colder periods: yes of course these have occurred, but they have been regional variations making little difference to the overall world temperature. The current warming is Global, and potentially catastrophic.

But in-order to take this very important discussion further I need to know:

1. Do you accept that the world is warming?
2. Do you accept that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average Earth temperature?
3. Do you accept the humans produce CO2.
4. If global warming is real, but is proved to be unrelated to human activity (although still potentially disastrous), should we ignore it because it’s a natural phenomenon?

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Anti-gag said...

Hi Morg,

Taken directly from the British Met office web site:
..........................
"over the past century there has been an underlying increase in average temperatures which is continuing.
Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all been since 1997."


AND:

"If emissions continue to grow at present rates, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is likely to reach twice pre-industrial levels by around 2050. Unless we limit emissions, global temperature could rise as much as 7 °C above pre-industrial temperature by the end of the century and push many of the world’s great ecosystems (such as coral reefs"

..............................

Both the above are direct quotes from that Met office web site. Although of course I could have found the almost same information on the NASA site, and on hundreds of other well respected scientific site around the world.


From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

Chris, this is too big a topic to sensibly discuss this way.
You quote the met office saying global co2 "could" double and temperatures could rise by 7 degrees. All these ifs and buts.


What I quote are facts.
An increase in co2 does NOT corelate with a temperature increase.
Temperatures WERE warmer 1000 years ago as shown by agriculture.
Sea levels are NOT rising greatly( measuring stations in many cases are sinking. Satellite measurements show very little rise if any.


Global temperatures on average have fallen in the last 10 years.
Many weather stations are now surrounded by development which give rise to "heat islands" which were not there before.


Much of the Antarctic is gaining snow thickness.
More co2 comes out of underwater volcanoes than all man made emissions.

Plants grow quicker when co2 is more abundant.

One thing that should be done is to plant more trees to stop deserts and gfet rid of goats and many of the sheep which overgraze, but any global warming that now exists will be unaffected by anything we can do.


The only effect British action to try and prevent it will be to impoverish us while other countries prosper by carrying on pumping out co2.

But go on read those books and stop being duped by the global warming scam and believing we can solve it.
We will run out of oil long before co2 does any damage and then there will be starvation.

We must make sure it does not happen here by developing alternative energy and returning to coal which we have enpough to last us for 300 years.

Anti-gag said...

Hi Charles,

I'm sorry but most of the facts you quote wrong.

1.
You said:
"Global temperatures on average have fallen in the last 10 years."
I say:
This is simply not true, and is refuted by all the major organisations and institutions which monitor it (NASA, the British Met Office etc.). See my quote above taken directly from the Met office site.

2.
You said:
"Plants grow quicker when co2 is more abundant."

I say:
How many plants grow in the upper atmosphere where the CO2 does the damage?

3.
You said:
An increase in co2 does NOT correlate with a temperature increase.

I say:
Sorry but it all the data shows it does, and must do (it's simply the appliance of science as they say).

4.
You say:
Much of the Antarctic is gaining snow thickness.

I say:
This I haven't heard before, I'll check it out. Although, even if it is true, the snow thickness in Antarctica (a land mass) is unlikely to match the volume of Ice in the Artic (an Ocean) which can be over a mile thick.

5.
You say:
More co2 comes out of underwater volcanoes than all man made emissions.

I say:
No it doesn't that has been shown to be totally wrong (again see the NASA site or any other accredited source for climate change information).


Now I must agree that our own coal resources (used in power stations fitted with electrostatic filters to remove soot and other undesirable contaminates such as CO2) is the way forward. At least until nuclear fusion becomes a reality, which in the mid term (25-50 years) it may.

Global warming is not a scam, there is simply too much evidence from too many independent sources for that to be true. What is a scam is the climate deniers who (for their own selfish reasons) want to delay any actions to correct it in-order to continue making profits from oil and car manufacturing etc.

A relatively few lone scientists (most in unrelated disciplines) cannot overturn the vast majority of scientist (and almost all climatologists) who know climate change is a fact, and also know we must act now if we are to avoid a catastrophic disaster.

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

CO2 emissions? No I don 't worry about it.

When our numbers start shrinking, then I'll put some serious thought to it. Until then, whst's the point?

And if our numbers are undoubtedly shrinking - what's the point? CO2 emissions are also subject to number of emitters.

Lanky Patriot said...

Read the books Chris.

Carbon capture has not been proved to work on a commercial scale. If it were feasable there would be so much there would be nowhere to store it.
There is little co2 in the upper atmosphere as it is heavier than air and the plants in the lower atmosphere use it up.

Read unbiased science, think about it and always ignore arty farty media people and politicians.

Some scientists do believe in co2 induced Global Warming I accept.
One James Lovelock the originator of the Gaia theory says there is nothing we can do about it so why incur all these costs?

You see there are differences of opinion among people who believe it but true science is built on FACT and the mark of a scientist is to challenge orthodox THEORIES.

You will I think notice today it will be warm as there are no clouds to reflect the sun's heat.

Water vapour is far more important than co2 but again read the books.

Anti-gag said...

Hi Charles,

You keep quoting one book, I'm afraid I find the numerous fully accreditation sources (such as the Met Office and NASA etc. etc.) far more compelling than a few lone scientists.

In science scepticism is good, there can be no doubt about that. But once the evidence becomes overwhelming, to continue being sceptical isn't any-longer justified and that then becomes blind denial.

While Morg's point of: "if it's happening why should I care", seems to me just to be another case of a view we have all heard while out canvassing: "yes I know that we're becoming a minority in our own land, but I'll be dead by then so I don't care." or words to that effect. The very reason I joined the British National Party is that I do care! I simply can't put out of my mind a portending disaster simply because I won't be here to see it.

All the objections you site are covered on that Met Office web site, and that was written by climatologists. While the Youtube series of videos I linked to are not in themselves a reference-able source they are informative and do give authoritative sources for the information presented.

Lastly as for your point about clouds absorbing heat, what do you think happens to that energy eventually? It drops to earth with the rain of course, and therefore warms the planet. Yes clouds do reflect sunlight as well but ( at least according to the climatologist) not enough to compensate for the increase in CO2.

Keep well
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

PS.
When I read over some of my previous postings, I realise just how important proof reading is. Please forgive my spelling and grammatical errors.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris

You're not going to convince us and we are not going to convince you. So why are we bothering to try?

You are speaking as if you believe "The science is settled". Well, you must surely know that if it's settled it's not science, and if it's science it's not settled.

All the future scenarios you talk about is based on computer models, not scientific theory. In other words, what you get out is based on the assumptions and "data" you program in. In other words GIGO.

There is no scientific theory of climate change - only computer models of climate change. You can make a computer model say anything you want it to say. If you programmed the bible into a computer then fed it suitable data, it could come up with proof that God exists. GIGO

Sir Henry Morgan said...

And the Met Office can't even guarantee a prediction of what the weather is going to be like next week. What on Earth makes you think it can prdict the world's climate 100 years from now?

And NASA's data has been proven to be tainted.

Anti-gag said...

Hi Morg:

You said:
"You are speaking as if you believe "The science is settled". Well, you must surely know that if it's settled it's not science, and if it's science it's not settled."

I say:
In some ways that's correct, science must always be willing to fine tune (or even totally reject) its theories if new evidence (or observations) conflict with current ideas. But that does not mean we don't act on those current ideas simply because we may (at some later date) have to correct some of them. Smoking causes lung cancer, and we all accept that, but science has to be open to the idea that we are wrong and that smoking is better than a balanced diet and exercise for a healthy life. Now all the evidence shows we are right to accept current ideas on smoking, and we are quite right to act in the sure knowledge that it's harmful. Science gives us this knowledge.

The overwhelming scientific consensus (based on good research) is that climate change is now a proven fact (at least beyond any reasonable doubt), and we must act on this knowledge. We also know why a small number of scientist deny the truth of that knowledge, (they are a load of greedy selfish bastards) see the section taken directly from a Newsweek article below:

…………………………………………………….
A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."
………………………………………………………
I have linked to the full article in my previous posts on this comment page:



As for computer models, yes they are indeed the only way of predicting the results of climate change (apart from tea leaves or the entrails of goats of course), but the algorithms used are based on mathematical models which can be (and are) tested. We use computers to design planes, we trust them in every walk of our lives (admittedly not always justifiably) and we must accept that they are giving us correct results about the dangers of Global Warming. Remember we can use old climate data to check the outcome of these models as we know what resulted from that data. This it is not guess work, but the appliance of good science. GIGO is easy to solve, don't put garbage in.

As for your dismissal of the Met Office as a reliable source of data, that is very unfair indeed. Predicting the weather is almost impossible over anything other that 4 or 5 days, there are just too many variables. Predicting both climate change and the results of that change is less problematic, and is already producing confirmable short term results.

Finally I would also like to know what basis you have for claiming NASA is using tainted data? And please explain why the hundreds of other well respected scientific institutions, and organisations, around the world don't know about this, but you do.

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Regards your final question - because I'm not one of Gore's stooges trying to make billions out of it.

Do you believe ANYTHING as long as it's in the papers or on the beeb?

I already gave you the link to Watts up with that, which is a good starting point for getting at original research. You obviously ignored it or you wouldn't be asking such questions.

So what's the point in telling you how I know things that you don't? I just gave you the starting point but you've ignored it.

Want to know what the most dangerous thing in the world is? ... The man who knows the TRUTH in capital letters. Wont be long before you are burning we doubters at the stake. But a scientific approach to any topic is always a doubtful approach. If you have certainty then you are not taking a scientific approach: you're taking a religious approach.

Anti-gag said...

Hi Morg,

I did, as you suggest, miss the link to 'Wattsupwiththat' blog, and I'm sorry (although I did read your more prominent link to the DT page). But can I ask you have you looked at the links I put to NASA the British Met Office or that series of Youtube video? The first two are extremely well respected scientific institutions, while the videos (obviously not in themselves directly referencable as a source) do give reference for all the information presented in them.


But back to your 'Wattsupwiththat' blog, I will read this (probably this evening), but a quick look over it shows it is edited by a former TV weather man (Anthony Watts) who admits to being a meteorologist (climatology and meteorology are of course very much related, but they are not the same academic disciplines). And are you really suggesting that we should regard the views of a TV weatherman as being equal in importance with those of institution like NASA and the Met Office, with their thousands of scientists and proven unsurpassed record of research?

As I say; I will read the blog you have asked me to, so I think its only fair that you look over one of my sources. Now I suppose that the most sensible thing for me to ask you to do is to read the Met office reports on climate change and its affects, but that is long and a bit boring. So can I ask you to watch two or three of the Youtube video series called "Climate denial Crook of the week" any of the information you think is erroneous you'll be able to check out for yourself as they have give accredited links for all the data presented. Fair enough that what?

"One of a series of videos on Climate denial"

The rest of the series is in the side bar of the Youtube account.

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
PS.
Neither blogs nor Youtubes videos are impressive sources for information on scientific research, but that should not mean we reject them altogether, just that we make an effort to check the validity of the claims they make.

Anti-gag said...

I said:
...................................
"you'll be able to check out for yourself as they have give accredited links for all the data presented. Fair enough that what?"
...................................

And I've not had a drink for a week!

Anti-gag said...

RE:
Notes on the "Wattsupwiththat" blog.


Hi Morg,

I have now read 3 of the articles on this blog in full, and looked over a good few more. My comments on the 3 I read in full are posted below after the title of the article itself. :

1.
NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
Says that the 48 contiguous US states had slightly below average temperatures for June –August 2009, and gave a link to the Natioanal Climate Data Centre as a reference. However when I checked that site (which is a very creditable US government scientific agency) I found no mention of that at all, only a map showing what they said was initial (and as yet uninterrupted) data for the last 3 months. The site did have results for the average summer temperatures (48 Contiguous states) showing that summer 2008 temperatures were over half a degree (0.6F) above the average of that of the 20th Century. That site does however make it clear that Global warming is a fact and that the results (if not reversed) over the next 50 years could be very damaging to many of the earth's eco systems.


2.
Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

This article seems to be very informative and from a very respected source, but it seems to put a lot of importance on Solar activity and its part in the system (greater than I think most other scientist would agree with) rather attributing Global warming to CO2 build up. However the important point is that it doesn't deny Global Warming it simply questions the cause, and says that we shouldn't try to predict changes over such long periods (ie. 50 years) because solar activity isn't itself predictable that far ahead. OK, but most scientists don't agree with him that an increase in solar activity is driving Global Warming to any significant extent, making his conclusions invalid in the view of most scientists.


3.
More oxygen – colder climate

Once again a very good article from an accredited source, which includes the following two sections:

"Everybody talks about CO2 and other greenhouse gases as causes of global warming and the large climate changes we are currently experiencing. But what about the atmospheric and oceanic oxygen content? Which role does oxygen content play in global warming?"

&

"I don’t believe that humans have a lot of influence on the major process of oxygen formation on a large scale or on the inevitable ice ages or variations in temperature that the Earth’s history is full of. But that doesn’t mean that we cannot do anything to slow down the current global warming trend. For example by increased forestry and other initiatives that help to increase atmospheric and oceanic oxygen levels,” explains Professor Robert Frei, who, along with his research team, has worked on the project for three years so far."

Anti-gag said...

(Continued from above)

So OK, other factors play a part, but the point is this scientist accept global warming as a fact! And suggest humans can play a part in reducing it. In fact his suggestion of increasing forestry and stimulating Oxygen levels in the seas seems extremely sensible, at least to me as a layman it does.


Now back to this blog.
It seems to be no more than a collection of published articles and cherry picked data, which it attempts to put forward as supporting their contention that Global Warming is a myth, while in reality most do no such thing. As for the other people listed as contributing to this blog: we are given no indication what-so-ever as to what their areas of expertise are (if any).

The original reason for my reviewing this blog (if you remember) was your claim that it supported your contention that NASA was producing tainted data, I'm sorry Morg I found no such claim on this blog. But of course I didn't read every story, so if you can pin the actual article down (where that claim is made) just post a link and I'll read it. Until you do that, I'm afraid most of this site seems at best to be misrepresenting the conclusions of the articles it reprints.

Now did you keep your part of our bargain, and view two or three of the Youtube videos I linker to? (Remember, although Youtube videos may not seem a very credible source, all the data and information they present are fully referenced.)

Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Andy said...

Wow!
Scientists findings always relate to who has paid them.

I have a long term Co2/world av temp. graph in one of my computers somewhere. I'm afraid the data does not match well at all.

"Carbon Capture" What is this animal when its at home? Carbon and oxygen have a similar atomic weight. One part carbon with 2 parts of 1/5 of the atmosphere, which is a very low density. Freeze it and bury it. If milliband thinks its a good idea then its got to be stupid.

The only way is the Chinese way: Less kids!

If this gubmint wants us to stop using 90% of our energy then let them discover now. Are they idiots or what?

We use pifling lightbulbs while the council burn thousands of 250Watters outside.

People:
Quality over quantity.. Good one.

I've already fitted solar panels on my roof to spite the taxman, gubmint and foreign power companies. I add a dab of acetone to my fuel to get more mpg. Next is the electric...

Anti-gag said...

Hi Andy (16:35 hrs),

I was hoping for a reply from Morg after my last comment here. But while I'm waiting I'll address your posting if I may. Taking each point you make in turn:

1.
You said:
"Scientists findings always relate to who has paid them."

I say:
This is exactly what most scientists don't do, in science "he who pays the pipe does not get to call the tune". Now that does not mean to say that there are no greedy scientist of course there are, but in general they are quickly identified by the scientific community and sidelined.

2.
You said:
"I have a long term Co2/world av temp. graph in one of my computers somewhere. I'm afraid the data does not match well at all."

I say:
Then you're simply not analysing the data correctly. Basic science shows us that CO2 traps heat (that is emitted in the infrared spectrum) in the earth's atmosphere, and therefore an atmospheric increase in that gas must tend to increase global temperatures.

3.
You said:
" "Carbon Capture" What is this animal when its at home? Carbon and oxygen have a similar atomic weight. One part carbon with 2 parts of 1/5 of the atmosphere, which is a very low density. "

I say:
Yes I was out drinking last night as well. But I'm sober this morning so can point out that: Carbon on its own does not form a gas (at least below 4000K it doesn’t). And Oxygen has an atomic weight of 16 while that of Carbon is 12 (ie. mono atomic Oxygen is 33% heavier than Carbon), but as neither form monatomic gasses that really has no relevance at all.

4.
You said:
" The only way is the Chinese way: Less kids!"

I say:
That may not be the only way, but it must be a very major part of any solution to our planet's problems. People in excessive numbers are pollution, and most higher life forms on earth would be better off if the Human races didn't exist.

5.
You said:
If this gubmint wants us to stop using 90% of our energy then let them discover now. Are they idiots or what?
We use pifling lightbulbs while the council burn thousands of 250Watters outside.

I say:
We do need to reduce our energy consumption drastically, or we (not you and I because both of us will be dead by then) will run out before we find a solution for the dwindling energy reserves. Britain may well have 300 years of coal reserves (which if used effectively by a population of 25-30 million that could well become 1000 or more years), even so it is a finite resource. And I hope that the British people continue to exist, and flourish, for many thousands of years to come. Your point about outside lighting is a very legitimate one.


6.
You said:
"People: Quality over quantity"

I say:
I totally agree, quality of life for all life on earth not just our own specific brand of Great Ape.


7.
You said:
" Next is the electric.."

I say:
Good man, but have you thought about a bicycle for short trips? Helps keep you fit as well.


From.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

yaz