are there still any climate sceptics out there??? It's only 5mins...

[silverfox]

Belching cows can help to rescue our planet

The prodigious methane output of cattle is bad for the environment. But grazing on grass will soak up carbon.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6974621.ece

Funny isn't it how many of the climate scare myths start to fall one by one

[Huguenot]

Justin you're simply deliberately confusing the issue, as denialists are wont.

The fact that people such as yourself have proposed that CO2 is not contributing to climate change and that the earth is about to cool does NOT mean it hasn't been addressed.

'Sceptics' have comprehesively failed to find any evidence for these theories, and all available evidence points exactly the opposite diretion.

Hence 'sceptics' are described as 'denialists' because their only position is to deny all the available evidence.

Antartica is describing exactly the path that climate change scientists have predicted with uneven warming. You'd have to be a categorical arse to deny that the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf collapse took place, or that it wasn't down to climate change.

The 'hundreds'of scientists out there who disagree withn the IPCC report are notable by the fact that they are not specialists in climate (and often not in geosciences at all), and that they still represent a tiny minority (less than 2%) of the scientific community.

Put it this way, there's 40,000 geosicentists backing the IPCC report, and 200 retired outdoor adventure and philosophy postgraduates denying it. And a few disenfranchised nutters like Davids Icke and Bellamy

I do not talk down to you because I think you are stupid, but because you have some vengeful psychological block that makes you deny every piece of available evidence because it doesn't suit your purpose.

To do so when so much is at stake makes you at best criminally neligent, and at worst a misanthropist. Neither deserve any respect.

[Huguenot]

Silverfox - you've done it again!!!

Graham Harvey provides no evidence of any kind to justify this specious argument.

Why do you claim to be 'confused' when you listen to PR agents spout unsubstantiated bullshit, and then ignore research and evidence from the scientific community?

The real answer is this: the grass - cow - CO2 / methane / excrement balance is a 'closed' system. All the carbon in grass comes out in one of the latter formats.

Once in the grass it's locked in with no greenhouse effect. Once through the cow it either comes out as CO2 or methane gases. The CO2 and excrement could be taken up once again by a plant, but the methane will not be: it remains in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas twenty times more effective than CO2.

Hence cows are a net greenhouse contributor and a more aggressive one than simply a CO2 contributor.

What this PR agent wrote is bullshit.

It's not confusing, it's rubbish. Don't listen to idiots.

[Huguenot]

Quids:

'Mentally ill' UK citizen Tracey Housel executed in US, denied access to UK consul - protest against capital punishment

"Mentally ill' UK citizen Akmal Shaikh executed in China - protest against liars and cheats (who are inscrutable) trying to destroy the planet making petty decisions based on trivial snubs at conferences

Yes mate, that's racism.

[silverfox]

Thanks Huguenot, what you say makes perfect sense and yes, I realise Graham Harvey's article was of dubious scientific merit. I thought I'd include it though because I feel (I don't know for a fact) that such woolly thinking exists on both sides of the debate.

You see, my problem isn't with incontrovertible science - it's more to do with the save the planet brigade and the way they preach and dictate to the rest of us as if they're on some quasi-religious crusade. Eg, there were 65,000 people who turned up at Copenhagen with all sorts of sub-groups with their own political agenda. 99% of those present were simply hangers-on. They had no useful purpose there, were never going to contribute anything and simply proved to be a burden on resources. However, in the way the facebook generation is gullible enough to turn up to a mass sing-a-long at Liverpool Street Station or Trafalgar Square to become unwitting free extras in a television commercial, the great unwashed masses descended on Copenhagen.

It was obvious they were not going to achieve anything. These self-appointed guardians of the planet wasted the world's time. They had no right to try to represent me. They would have contributed more to the health of the planet if they'd spent their time fishing old bikes and supermarket trolleys out of canals or scraping the tons of chewing gum off the pavements of Lordship Lane.

That aside, you raise an interesting point Huguenot. If methane cannot be 'recycled' and it remains in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas twenty times more effective than CO2, then maybe the issue shouldn't be so much about our carbon footprint but more about our methane footprint. A few sums on the back of a fag packet show me that collectively humans produce far more methane than ruminant beasts, especially after a night on the beer and a curry.

Maybe the new mantra should be 'Ban Curry and save the Planet'.

Happy New Year everyone.

[Timster]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This rthread's about climate change, not the

> Chinese.

>

> I take it you're joking Timster - any state that

> authorises either the death penalty or warfare is

> by your definition murderous including our own.

> Check out the expenses claims before you start

> tossing accusations of corruption about.

>

I know this is straying back off-topic but I really did want to correct this. I was NOT joking and to compare the fate of the thousands of Chinese citizens who are locked up or executed for expressing views that are contrary to their government to British MPs lying about their expenses is, frankly, insulting. The irony is that the one thing that might have saved Akmal Shaikh is if he had been accused of a political crime. Political criminals are put on death row and kept there until they repent of their ways. Does no one remember Tianmen Square? Very little has changed.

Back to the subject of the day, I don't know if Copenhagen and the fate of Akmal Shaikh are linked but it's perfectly feasible that China wanted to make a diplomatic point to the UK. But this has nothing to do with whether climate change is mad-made or what we should do about it.

This is the Royal Society's page on climate change controversies - http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/ - as a non-scientist it explains how a consensus has been reached and why the arguments against man-made climate change are far less convincing than those in favour.

Can anyone identify any credible scientists (not Johnny Ball! or Jeremy Paxman! or that Quentin bloke from the Mail!) in the UK who have raised substantive arguments against the contents of this document? Or is the entire UK scientific community, as represented by the Royal Society, in cahoots.

[JustinSmith]

"Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6921281/Britain-facing-one-of-the-coldest-winters-in-100-years-experts-predict.html

"A spokesman for the Met Office said: ?It is certainly a while since we had cold weather like this and there isn?t any sign of any milder weather on the way.?"

Considerable amounts of ?showery snow? is expected over Scotland and eastern England over the coming days, he said, whilst the rest of the United Kingdom would remains dry but very cold.

He added that temperatures in the Scottish highlands could dip to minus 16 degrees while even southern areas of England could see lows of minus 7.

The cold weather comes despite the Met Office?s long range forecast, published, in October, of a mild winter. That followed its earlier inaccurate prediction of a ?barbecue summer?, which then saw heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years."

Predicting the weather and temperature has its hazards and difficulties does it not?

[JustinSmith]

I'll add... If we cannot accurately predict the weather or temperature for the next few weeks, can we really rely on the models used to predict the next few decades? With this in mind, should those who raise valid questions about a so called 'consensus' be insulted or cast out as 'denialists'?

Oh sorry, according to 'huguenot' its because of a "vengeful psychological block that makes you deny every piece of available evidence because it doesn't suit your purpose"

ummmmmm

[????]

Long term trends are easier to model and give more robust data than short term fluctuations...surely a serious scientists such as yourself is aware of that as a basic truth of research?

[JustinSmith]

No, I strongly disagree with you that this is a fundamental principle of research - it very much depends on what you are trying to predict, what models you are using, and if the models have been verified to be accurate.

I have seen your exact comment before on random websites that try to dismiss scientific argument about climate change.

"Seasonal forecasts attempt to predict what the weather is likely to bring in terms of temperatures and precipitation over a three-month period. They are inherently less reliable than the short and medium-range weather forecasts that cover two to three days and three to 15 days respectively."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/met-office-admits-weve-got-it-wrong-1570694.html

Your assumption that longer-term modelling is always easier is utter nonsense.

[vinceayre]

We are three years into a decade long "cold spell" due to the sun being quiet at the moment, but when it does warm up we will actually get even colder as the warm conveyor belt of air that comes up from the south Atlantic will stop once the icecaps melt and de-salinate the water.

After ten years of cold winters I wonder how the climate change debate/ global warming debate will fair then?

The point I can agree with you on is ,How can we trust the Met Office with any data when they keep getting it so wrong, barbecue summer and a mild winter wasn't it.

[????]

Justin - 3 months!!!! laughable,you know zilch about the principles of modelling clearly! The data I'm talking about is long term ie since records began on global warming not todays weather! The more robust data you have the better as most statisticians or ecometricians will tell you...of course predicting tomorrow's weather based on today's is usually more accurate thn predicting the weather on Jan the 5th 2011 based on all the previous recordings of weather on 5th of January...but that's a different debate to measuring global temperatures using REAL long term global data...ie not last Wednesday's weather in East Dulwich. Are you confused or trying to alter arguments to suit yours.

I haven't been on any other websites quoting on this as you claim nor do I work for a Pharma or the CIA etc etc - That you are are a conspiracy loon is now confirmed in my mind. Anyone who disagress or even questions is working for 'the man'...conspiracy nuts the world over.

How much is your book and seminar by the way?

[JustinSmith]

????,

My book and seminar that you refer to relate as you know to a totally different subject and a different thread - I have already stated that any profit from that is going to be donated to charity.

The fact that you mention that here can only mean that you are short on scientific debate.

[JustinSmith]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nor do I work for a Pharma or

> the CIA etc etc - That you are are a conspiracy

> loon is now confirmed in my mind. Anyone who

> disagress or even questions is working for 'the

> man'...conspiracy nuts the world over.

Please stop cut and pasting your favourite standard comments that do not apply to anything I have said - it shows a distinct lack of imagination -lets be grown up and sensible here or are you afraid of a mature scientific conversation?

[HAL9000]

JustinSmith Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have seen your exact comment before on random websites

> that try to dismiss scientific argument about climate change

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... I haven't been on any other websites quoting on

> this as you claim ...

I think Justin is referring to the same argument rather than particular comments made by you on other websites.

[JustinSmith]

Exactly HAL9000, thank you!

[????]

Justin this is all my own work, I'm capable of free thought and putting some words together...once again what are you on? It's hardly a mega bit of english, I'm just saying what I think and I suspect regular posters will recognise it's pretty much in my own style???

Seriously, you really think I've been off to other websites to cut and paste my responses to you?? Really? I find that laughably odd...you are a weird mixture of delusional and paranoid.

[Mick Mac]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I had to sit at the Bloomsbury Theatre this week

> and watch Johnny Ball (Johnny f***ing Ball!!) lost

> the plot and rant (not argue or outline) but rant

> at how C02 emmissions were as nothing compared to

> beetle farts (or some such) FFS

>

I think the Bloomsbury Theatre is nice though.

[????]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JustinSmith Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have seen your exact comment before on random

> websites

> > that try to dismiss scientific argument about

> climate change

>

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ... I haven't been on any other websites quoting

> on

> > this as you claim ...

>

> I think Justin is referring to the same argument

> rather than particular comments made by you on

> other websites.

er...."Exact Comment" Hal? Nothing about the same argument

[????]

Come on Hal, you know about predictive modelling. Assuming you trust the data - the longer time series and the more the data the better the model is likely to be..yes or No?

[????]

Still I'm not holding my breath for answers from a man like Justin

(C&P from ???? is incapable of free thought website)

[HAL9000]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Come on Hal, you know about predictive modelling.

> Assuming you trust the data - the longer time

> series and the more the data the better the model

> is likely to be..yes or No?

Yes, but only for linear systems. No when one is dealing with a chaotic system with unknown tipping points and cusps - you know that, I'm sure.

[????]

The climate...is it really that chaotic? Small swings in average global temperature have had chaotic effects but the swings are still small in terms of the average. Linear models would still put the strong probabilty on being that global temperatures are going to rise and continue to do so whatever we do for a while and that will in have some serious effects on the planet. Most global temperature models suggest this. We have nothing else predictive really do we - but the more data we get the stronger the model becomes....and this winter won't make much difference to the trend data in all likelihood, if we get 10 years of temperature stability then perhaps we can all maybe relax a little and ...I'm not sure we will.

[JustinSmith]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Justin this is all my own work, I'm capable of

> free thought and putting some words

> together...once again what are you on? It's hardly

> a mega bit of english, I'm just saying what I

> think and I suspect regular posters will recognise

> it's pretty much in my own style???

>

> Seriously, you really think I've been off to other

> websites to cut and paste my responses to you??

> Really? I find that laughably odd...you are a

> weird mixture of delusional and paranoid.

If you actually read my post, I asked you to stop cut and pasting your favourite standard comments that do not apply" I did not say anything about you taking them from anywhere else.

In the same way as your approach to other threads you are letting your imagination run wild.

There is so much entertainment from you - its fantastic! :-)

[????]

Oh so now I have a Word document of my favourite comments to C&P do I? Yup, I see. Is that your MO or something? Odd bloke all round you are.

Basically you don't like what I say on here so insult me , haven't responded unless pushed on the other thread and accused me of lacking in original thought. You've accused me of 'Fabrication' for daring to challenge your slightly disingenous approach in the lounge and now of cutting and pasting my responses in here...I absolutely know who the fabricator is. Criticism and questioning of your work is not really your thing is it? What's your favourite place in SE22 by the way?