Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 05 April 2009, 14:32:07
-
Did anybody see the Al Gore documentary last night........"An Inconvenient truth".......
Do we need to worry............or is it all hype and green agenda propaganda?.
Interesting and thought provoking stuff. :y :y :y :y
-
I watched it while missus in the other room was bored with the tone of his voice lol. I don't buy in to all what he said...
And don't you worry green taxes are in place soon and our beloved government will take care of it!!!
-
Nickbat thinks Al Gore is a great guy and is always telling people that they should listen to him. :y ;D
-
Failed politician,got himself a lucrative new career,good luck to him.
There have always been snake oil salesmen and always will be. ;)
-
There is also a documentary called "The Convenient Truth" it gives you the other side of the story.
Yes climate change is happening, did humans cause it ? no.
Governments have just latched on to the idea as, brilliant way to raise taxes, nothing more.
Mike
-
it was proven that there were 8 "inaccurate" details in that film [or lies in english ;)], & dont forget folks this is the same con artist that is involved in a company selling carbon credits, perhaps thats an inconvenient truth he didnt want known >:(
-
There is also a documentary called "The Convenient Truth" it gives you the other side of the story.
Yes climate change is happening, did humans cause it ? no.
Governments have just latched on to the idea as, brilliant way to raise taxes, nothing more.
Mike
Agreed (haven't seen this documentary though) :y :y :y
-
Nickbat thinks Al Gore is a great guy and is always telling people that they should listen to him. :y ;D
Grrrr! ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)
He's a con artist of the worst kind. I could post hundreds of links debunking the crap in his film, but I'll just suggest reading The Skeptics Handbook from Joanne Nova's site. That'll tell you all you need to know. :y
http://joannenova.com.au/
-
or perhaps going to www.junkscience.com & have a read on there :y
-
or perhaps going to www.junkscience.com & have a read on there :y
Yep, good link, Alf, been there often! :y
Just a few salient points on Al Gore's claims:
We'll be swamped by seas rising by 18-20 feet.
Er, no, I don't think so, Al. (Incidentally, if you believe it, why did you buy that beach-front property a couple of years back?)
The University of Colorado has updated the sea-level data from the JASON satellite to the end of 2008. Though James Hansen of NASA says sea level will rise 246 feet, sea level has not risen since the beginning of 2006. Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 ft/century since 1993.
The planet has a fever. No, Al, you got it wrong again.
Since Al Gore’s climate movie An Inconvenient Truth was launched in January 2005, global cooling has occurred at the equivalent of 10F (5.5C) per century. If this rapid cooling were to continue, the Earth would be in an Ice Age by 2100.
The poles are melting.! They'll be ice free within a decade or two. No, Al, they won't.
Sea ice extent in the Arctic recovered to the 30-year average during the early winter of 2008. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high late in 2007, and has remained plentiful since. Global sea ice extent shows no trend for 30 years.
Hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent. No, Al, they aren't.
The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index is a 24-month running sum of monthly energy levels in all hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index hit a 30-year low in October 2008.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/march_co2_report.html
-
isnt it amazing what scientists can conjure up when their government backing is in jeopardy isnt it >:( >:(
-
The thing is it is now a global business,a lot of money is being made out of it,it appeals to the 60,s hippy generation and well meaning but gullible youth.
-
The thing is it is now a global business,a lot of money is being made out of it,it appeals to the 60,s hippy generation and well meaning but gullible youth.
Most people seem to carry on without even noticing this:
Last October the House of Commons passed, by 463 votes to three, the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. The only MP to question the cost of the Climate Change Act, requiring Britain to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years, was Peter Lilley. It was also Mr Lilley who, just before the MPs voted to stop runaway global warming, drew the House’s attention to the fact that, outside, London was experiencing its first October snow for 74 years.
What made the MPs’ lack of interest in the cost of this Act even more curious was that the Government’s own “impact assessment” showed that, whereas its benefits were estimated at £110 billion, its costs were £205 billion. The MPs thus happily voted for something that would be twice as costly as any benefit.
But these figures were based on the Government’s original plan to cut CO2 emissions by only 60 per cent. A last-minute amendment had this to 80 per cent (a target which can only be achieved by closing down most of Britain’s economy), so our “climate change minister”, Ed Miliband, was obliged to produce new figures. These he has now belatedly slipped out via the Department of Energy and Climate Change website – no thought of reporting them to Parliament – and truly mind-boggling they are. The cost of the Act has nearly doubled, to £404 billion, or £18.3 billion for every year between now and 2050. However, the supposed benefits are given, astonishingly, as £1,024 billion, an increase of 1,000 per cent.
How on earth were such unbelievable figures calculated? Peter Lilley has written a trenchant letter to Mr Miliband, asking this and a series of other highly pertinent questions. But pending any reply, last week I posed this question to DECC myself. I was assured that the new figures had been worked out by “a method used by the independent Committee on Climate Change, and peer-reviewed by Simon Deitz, an expert in carbon pricing from the London School of Economics”. Dr Deitz’s website shows that last year he carried out “research for the UK Committee on Climate Change”.
So this independent expert was asked to peer review the method used by an “independent” committee (which he had already been working for) to produce figures that seem rather to have been plucked from the thin air of which only 0.04 per cent – one 2,500th – consists of the self-same carbon dioxide which we are now expected to believe we will benefit by £1 trillion from not emitting. Truly we are governed these days by stark, raving lunacy – and no one is meant to notice.
by Christopher Booker
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5105923/Yet-more-mind-boggling-figures-on-global-warming.html
Is it just me that picks up on these things? Why isn't the country up in arms about this? :(
-
they cant see the wood for (hugging)the trees. :)
-
.
.
.
How on earth were such unbelievable figures calculated? Peter Lilley has written a trenchant letter to Mr Miliband, asking this and a series of other highly pertinent questions. But pending any reply, last week I posed this question to DECC myself. I was assured that the new figures had been worked out by “a method used by the independent Committee on Climate Change, and peer-reviewed by Simon Deitz, an expert in carbon pricing from the London School of Economics”. Dr Deitz’s website shows that last year he carried out “research for the UK Committee on Climate Change”.
.
.
.
Oh my... what the hell is that then? Wonder what he was doing before he became Carbon rather Pricing Expert!!! A failed economist??
(http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/deleket/scrap/Smiley-Angry-icon.jpg)
-
The thing is it is now a global business,a lot of money is being made out of it,it appeals to the 60,s hippy generation and well meaning but gullible youth.
Most people seem to carry on without even noticing this:
Last October the House of Commons passed, by 463 votes to three, the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. The only MP to question the cost of the Climate Change Act, requiring Britain to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years, was Peter Lilley. It was also Mr Lilley who, just before the MPs voted to stop runaway global warming, drew the House’s attention to the fact that, outside, London was experiencing its first October snow for 74 years.
What made the MPs’ lack of interest in the cost of this Act even more curious was that the Government’s own “impact assessment” showed that, whereas its benefits were estimated at £110 billion, its costs were £205 billion. The MPs thus happily voted for something that would be twice as costly as any benefit.
But these figures were based on the Government’s original plan to cut CO2 emissions by only 60 per cent. A last-minute amendment had this to 80 per cent (a target which can only be achieved by closing down most of Britain’s economy), so our “climate change minister”, Ed Miliband, was obliged to produce new figures. These he has now belatedly slipped out via the Department of Energy and Climate Change website – no thought of reporting them to Parliament – and truly mind-boggling they are. The cost of the Act has nearly doubled, to £404 billion, or £18.3 billion for every year between now and 2050. However, the supposed benefits are given, astonishingly, as £1,024 billion, an increase of 1,000 per cent.
How on earth were such unbelievable figures calculated? Peter Lilley has written a trenchant letter to Mr Miliband, asking this and a series of other highly pertinent questions. But pending any reply, last week I posed this question to DECC myself. I was assured that the new figures had been worked out by “a method used by the independent Committee on Climate Change, and peer-reviewed by Simon Deitz, an expert in carbon pricing from the London School of Economics”. Dr Deitz’s website shows that last year he carried out “research for the UK Committee on Climate Change”.
So this independent expert was asked to peer review the method used by an “independent” committee (which he had already been working for) to produce figures that seem rather to have been plucked from the thin air of which only 0.04 per cent – one 2,500th – consists of the self-same carbon dioxide which we are now expected to believe we will benefit by £1 trillion from not emitting. Truly we are governed these days by stark, raving lunacy – and no one is meant to notice.
by Christopher Booker
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5105923/Yet-more-mind-boggling-figures-on-global-warming.html
Is it just me that picks up on these things? Why isn't the country up in arms about this? :(
I think the simple truth is Nickbat that the majority of people just want to get on with their lives! Long ago they ceased to believe or trust the politicians, so say to themselves, "what the break" and just try and live their lives to the full as they believe there is little they can do to change the situation. :( :( :(
We simply need a new world order! 8-) 8-) To achieve that we need a revolution in thought, mind and action! ::) ::) 8-)
-
I am sure i read somewhere that he has a large house with servants and a fleet of cars. I can't stand the man, full of lies >:(
-
I think the simple truth is Nickbat that the majority of people just want to get on with their lives! Long ago they ceased to believe or trust the politicians, so say to themselves, "what the break" and just try and live their lives to the full as they believe there is little they can do to change the situation. :( :( :(
We simply need a new world order! 8-) 8-) To achieve that we need a revolution in thought, mind and action! ::) ::) 8-)
Nnnnooooooooo, please!
Not the dreaded "New World Order". That means having a single suprantaional body like the UN running everything...and they are worse than national governments, plus they are not even elected. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
You boys all seem to be in denial . :-/ :-/
Global waming is real and it is happening as I write this. :-/ :-/
It is not just a few "crackpots" who think that we will have significant problems in the future.There is a general consensus from all over the world that we are heading for problems. :-/ :-/
I hope that I 'am wrong on this one ,I really do . :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
-
You boys all seem to be in denial . :-/ :-/
Global waming is real and it is happening as I write this. :-/ :-/
It is not just a few "crackpots" who think that we will have significant problems in the future.There is a general consensus from all over the world that we are heading for problems. :-/ :-/
I hope that I 'am wrong on this one ,I really do . :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
You are so right Dusty, but it is not all man-made, if at all, and the politicians seem to be making political capital out of it instead of making some very tough decisions on carbon emissions >:( >:(.
If they were that serious globally about what is happening, then no more coal fired power stations would be built and car production would be reduced to producing only technically advanced, zero emission models NOW!! But no, the extra tax is too enjoyable, the extra power is wonderful, and they are all scared about the future of their economies and social orders! ::) ::)
Politicians so often take the easy, limited vote damaging action! >:( >:(
-
I think the simple truth is Nickbat that the majority of people just want to get on with their lives! Long ago they ceased to believe or trust the politicians, so say to themselves, "what the break" and just try and live their lives to the full as they believe there is little they can do to change the situation. :( :( :(
We simply need a new world order! 8-) 8-) To achieve that we need a revolution in thought, mind and action! ::) ::) 8-)
Nnnnooooooooo, please!
Not the dreaded "New World Order". That means having a single suprantaional body like the UN running everything...and they are worse than national governments, plus they are not even elected. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Who is talking about an existing institution? :-? :-? :-?
-
You boys all seem to be in denial . :-/ :-/
Global waming is real and it is happening as I write this. :-/ :-/
It is not just a few "crackpots" who think that we will have significant problems in the future.There is a general consensus from all over the world that we are heading for problems. :-/ :-/
I hope that I 'am wrong on this one ,I really do . :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
You are so right Dusty, but it is not all man-made, if at all, and the politicians seem to be making political capital out of it instead of making some very tough decisions on carbon emissions >:( >:(.
If they were that serious globally about what is happening, then no more coal fired power stations would be built and car production would be reduced to producing only technically advanced, zero emission models NOW!! But no, the extra tax is too enjoyable, the extra power is wonderful, and they are all scared about the future of their economies and social orders! ::) ::)
Politicians so often take the easy, limited vote damaging action! >:( >:(
I believe that China is the worst offender for this Lizzie. :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
Trying to get global agreement with regard to global warming may well prove to be an insurmountable problem.Let's hope not. :-/ :-* :-* :-*
-
You boys all seem to be in denial . :-/ :-/
Global waming is real and it is happening as I write this. :-/ :-/
It is not just a few "crackpots" who think that we will have significant problems in the future.There is a general consensus from all over the world that we are heading for problems. :-/ :-/
I hope that I 'am wrong on this one ,I really do . :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
Don't think so, Dusty.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/v6nick/uah.jpg)
Also, you can only be in denial of something which is a fact, and anthropogenic global warming by CO2 (i.e. excluding urbanisation and land-use change) is unproven and, at best, only slight. Certainly not catastrophic as some portray.
Consensus is not science. There are many, many, highly-qualified scientists who disagree with the AGW tenet. Furthermore, only around 20% of 2,500 scientists often cited by the IPCC actually had any qualifictions in climate/meteorology.
A good quote here:
"In 1632 Galileo Galilei was accused of heresy for questioning the Aristotelian "consensus model" of the universe which held that the sun and all other heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. He was threatened by the Inquisition with torture for holding these views, despite the fact that he - and anyone who troubled to do so - could see through a telescope that moons orbit the planet Jupiter.
An old man, Galileo was forced to recant and confess his error; he thereby escaped being burnt at the stake and was instead sentenced to house-arrest for the rest of his life. Science and history have of course proven him right. Ever since, the notion of enforced "consensus" has been anathema to scientists."
-
You boys all seem to be in denial . :-/ :-/
Global waming is real and it is happening as I write this. :-/ :-/
It is not just a few "crackpots" who think that we will have significant problems in the future.There is a general consensus from all over the world that we are heading for problems. :-/ :-/
I hope that I 'am wrong on this one ,I really do . :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
I am not saying climate change is not happening, in fact I believe it is happening. However I question wether it is man made. And if it is man made, why do experts and governments believe the only way to tackle it is through taxation ?
Surely the only way is stop producing co2. When you try to control it by added taxes to something, all you do is make it acceptable to someone, by them saying "I pay for my carbon footprint" It it where real, is this an acceptable way for governments to deal with it ?
Mike
-
Global warming is a very complex subject, but I would recommend one book in particular that is widely recognised and academically regarded in detailing the issue, confirming that change is taking place:
Houghton, J. (2004) Global Warming The Complete Briefing Third Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
In addition Nickbat, perhaps if that book does not persuade you that global warming is very real (forget for a minute how caused) then are these various reputable (apart from the final one, but even that is in favour!) web sites and their contributors all wrong? :-? :-?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/global_warming/202408.stm
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-21/global-warming-facts-article.htm
:y :y
-
You boys all seem to be in denial . :-/ :-/
Global waming is real and it is happening as I write this. :-/ :-/
It is not just a few "crackpots" who think that we will have significant problems in the future.There is a general consensus from all over the world that we are heading for problems. :-/ :-/
I hope that I 'am wrong on this one ,I really do . :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
Don't think so, Dusty.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/v6nick/uah.jpg)
Also, you can only be in denial of something which is a fact, and anthropogenic global warming by CO2 (i.e. excluding urbanisation and land-use change) is unproven and, at best, only slight. Certainly not catastrophic as some portray.
Consensus is not science. There are many, many, highly-qualified scientists who disagree with the AGW tenet. Furthermore, only around 20% of 2,500 scientists often cited by the IPCC actually had any qualifictions in climate/meteorology.
A good quote here:
"In 1632 Galileo Galilei was accused of heresy for questioning the Aristotelian "consensus model" of the universe which held that the sun and all other heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. He was threatened by the Inquisition with torture for holding these views, despite the fact that he - and anyone who troubled to do so - could see through a telescope that moons orbit the planet Jupiter.
An old man, Galileo was forced to recant and confess his error; he thereby escaped being burnt at the stake and was instead sentenced to house-arrest for the rest of his life. Science and history have of course proven him right. Ever since, the notion of enforced "consensus" has been anathema to scientists."
Ah Ha....Nobody expects the Inquisition!! ;D ;D
-
You boys all seem to be in denial . :-/ :-/
Global waming is real and it is happening as I write this. :-/ :-/
It is not just a few "crackpots" who think that we will have significant problems in the future.There is a general consensus from all over the world that we are heading for problems. :-/ :-/
I hope that I 'am wrong on this one ,I really do . :-/ :-/ :-* :-*
Don't think so, Dusty.
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/v6nick/uah.jpg)
Also, you can only be in denial of something which is a fact, and anthropogenic global warming by CO2 (i.e. excluding urbanisation and land-use change) is unproven and, at best, only slight. Certainly not catastrophic as some portray.
Consensus is not science. There are many, many, highly-qualified scientists who disagree with the AGW tenet. Furthermore, only around 20% of 2,500 scientists often cited by the IPCC actually had any qualifictions in climate/meteorology.
A good quote here:
"In 1632 Galileo Galilei was accused of heresy for questioning the Aristotelian "consensus model" of the universe which held that the sun and all other heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. He was threatened by the Inquisition with torture for holding these views, despite the fact that he - and anyone who troubled to do so - could see through a telescope that moons orbit the planet Jupiter.
An old man, Galileo was forced to recant and confess his error; he thereby escaped being burnt at the stake and was instead sentenced to house-arrest for the rest of his life. Science and history have of course proven him right. Ever since, the notion of enforced "consensus" has been anathema to scientists."
Hi Nickbat.I always enjoy your informed postings. However on this occasion we will have to agree to disagree :-/
I'am certainly no authority on global warming ,so I may well be wrong about it all.But then so may you . :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
Global warming is a very complex subject, but I would recommend one book in particular that is widely recognised and academically regarded in detailing the issue, confirming that change is taking place:
Houghton, J. (2004) Global Warming The Complete Briefing Third Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
In addition Nickbat, perhaps if that book does not persuade you that global warming is very real (forget for a minute how caused) then are these various reputable (apart from the final one, but even that is in favour!) web sites and their contributors all wrong? :-? :-?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/global_warming/202408.stm
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-21/global-warming-facts-article.htm
:y :y
I've been studying the issues for about 4 years now and, everyday I look at the latest scientific arguments. It is complex, I grant you, but that does not automatically mean the alarmists are right. Indeed, I believe they are not. Furthermore, I believe that the measures proposed to decarbonise our economies in a short timescale are not only doomed to expensive failure but will, in themselves, increase poverty and hunger throughout the world...affording upon it much more misery than could occur from future climate changes. With two young children, I am much, much, more worried about the future in terms of carbon rationing and a "new world order", than anything to do climate itself. :(
Thanks for the links, Lizzie, but...
John Houghton is a well-known alarmist. He's the guy that said the impacts of global warming are such that "I have no hesitation in describing it as a 'weapon of mass destruction'". I also note that the corner-stone of Sir John Houghton's book is the now-debunked hockey stick temperature graph. ::)
The BBC? "...the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago." (quote from Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight Homepage 02/02/2007). They held a seminar to ensure they were biased, but won't release any information about despite FOI requests (see http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109).
::)
-
Global warming is a very complex subject, but I would recommend one book in particular that is widely recognised and academically regarded in detailing the issue, confirming that change is taking place:
Houghton, J. (2004) Global Warming The Complete Briefing Third Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
In addition Nickbat, perhaps if that book does not persuade you that global warming is very real (forget for a minute how caused) then are these various reputable (apart from the final one, but even that is in favour!) web sites and their contributors all wrong? :-? :-?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/global_warming/202408.stm
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-21/global-warming-facts-article.htm
:y :y
I've been studying the issues for about 4 years now and, everyday I look at the latest scientific arguments. It is complex, I grant you, but that does not automatically mean the alarmists are right. Indeed, I believe they are not. Furthermore, I believe that the measures proposed to decarbonise our economies in a short timescale are not only doomed to expensive failure but will, in themselves, increase poverty and hunger throughout the world...affording upon it much more misery than could occur from future climate changes. With two young children, I am much, much, more worried about the future in terms of carbon rationing and a "new world order", than anything to do climate itself. :(
Thanks for the links, Lizzie, but...
John Houghton is a well-known alarmist. He's the guy that said the impacts of global warming are such that "I have no hesitation in describing it as a 'weapon of mass destruction'". I also note that the corner-stone of Sir John Houghton's book is the now-debunked hockey stick temperature graph. ::)
The BBC? "...the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago." (quote from Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight Homepage 02/02/2007). They held a seminar to ensure they were biased, but won't release any information about despite FOI requests (see http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109).
::)
Ok thanks Nick! :y :y :y
Like Dusty I think I will have to agree to disagree Nick on this one, as both sides of the argument will not be finally proved or disproved until sometime later. ::) ::) ::) If my argument is right, it will be too late, but if yours is that will be great! 8-) 8-) 8-)