Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

How many scientists fabricate and falsify research?

 

One of the people commenting on the article[/size]"]Dishonesty in science has been elevated to an art form by the man-made global warming crowd. Their successes in getting tax dollars, and even a Nobel Peace Prize (go figure - what a ridiculous stretch) has taught unscrupulous scientists in other disciplines how the game is played today. How else can one explain the fact that the vast majority of self-annointed global warming experts' only credentials in climatology is that they have watched Al Gore's intellectually dishonest and deliberately error-filled video. If the biggest hoax of our lifetime not only goes unchallenged by so many in the scientific world, but is actually admired and emulated as the new way to financial and career success, then a growing culture of fraud in science should surprise nobody.

There, I've fixed it for you.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

The point remains though; that trusting the science may not always be the same thing as trusting the scientist, for whom the practicalities of gaining funding may well be strongly related to the results they give.

[Carlos]

Whereas we could go with one of the other alternatives, and trust politicians or multinational CEOs instead?

[ArabiaTerra]

The point remains though; that trusting the science may not always be the same thing as trusting the scientist, for whom the practicalities of gaining funding may well be strongly related to the results they give.

True, but in the case of medical and drug research, the research is conducted in the lab, usually on specific things such as particular drugs, therapies or techniques where, if no-one else is working on said thing, results can be skewed, distorted or even falsified without anyone noticing. It's also well known that drug companies, in the past, have suppressed negative results about profitable drugs. The risk of suicide in teenagers taking Seroxat is one case that springs to mind.

 

However, the few bad apples uncovered do not invalidate the results of the entire canon of medical research and no-one is suggesting that it should.

 

So why should the possibility of a few falsified results in climate research falsify the entire canon of climate science?

 

It should also be noted that the article linked to doesn't even mention climate science, and where a possible motive for the deception is mentioned, that motive is "industrial sponsorship".

 

As I've said before, there was only ever one conspiracy surrounding climate science: The conspiracy by fossil fuel producers and users, supported by the Bush regime, to discredit the results of the scientists. I'm surprised you've never cottoned on to that one Koy. The one real, verifiable, documented conspiracy theory in recent years, and you missed it.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Whereas we could go with one of the other alternatives, and trust politicians or multinational CEOs instead?

 

TRUST NO ONE.

 

there was only ever one conspiracy surrounding climate science: The conspiracy by fossil fuel producers and users, supported by the Bush regime, to discredit the results of the scientists.

 

I don't doubt that oil lust and those who profit from it have their own agenda for nay saying on global warming but I doubt all non believers in AGW have come from the same camp.

We were always going to have to ween ourselves off oil at some point; it wont run forever, but to blame us for something like climate change by unproven science, is just the current lots lie, putting the squeeze on us for their own ever grasping little fingers, at our expense.

[Carlos]

Whereas we could go with one of the other alternatives, and trust politicians or multinational CEOs instead?

TRUST NO ONE.

Yup, but whether you trust people or not, decisions will carry on being made, whether they are based on scientific study with evidence, or economic projections, or just what will go down well with the voters.....

 

What I see at the moment is more towards politicians using an oversimplified and dramatic interpretation of science to push forward things that would not be popular. Not the best of all worlds, but it could be worse, and as you say, it'll have to happen in some form soon enough anyhow.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Its a fine warm day eenoo , but surely going tae get colder at da weekend....

[north]

From a letter to the Shetland News;

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/June%202009/letters_06_2009/Planet%20Earth%20likes%20vegans.htm

 

World Environment Day was established by the United Nations, which estimated, in a recent report, that animal farming is responsible for more global greenhouse gas emissions than the entire worldwide transport system combined, including planes, cars and all other forms of transport.

 

In fact, a vegan driving a 4x4 actually does less damage to the planet than a meat-eater on a bicycle. This is because animal farming is the main source of methane - one of the major and most potent greenhouse gases.

 

More paranoia. I'm a meat eating 4x4 driver!

 

My days must be numbered.

[OriginalUsername]

It is actually true that vegans have a much smaller carbon footprint than we meat eaters. Still, I think there are bigger issues when it comes to CO2. We're not going to save the world if we all switch to veganism. Major renewable and nuclear projects though... now there's a different story!

 

Plus, I like eating all the lovely little animals. And all the lovely big ones too. Yum yum.

[sheepshagger]

AT go and find a graph that shows the methane concentrations in the atmosphere over time and see how it fits with your other graph with co2 and temp, if you find one it might be quite interesting and if you don't then it will be very telling.

 

go on take up the challenge

[north]

Call it whatever you want, this is simply another means of taxing everbody. You will get additional tax on every product and service you use, seeing as the public sector is such a bad producer, you'll see it in your rates and in every service. Maybe once they have got everyone in the 90%+ tax bracket and we all have to work for the Government, then they will quit, beacause they will simply run out of revenue generators.

 

This is the ultimate display of Government madness. There is too much bloody Government anyway today, with layer upon layer of ineffective micro-management because they have run out of productive things to do

 

 

Firms brace for looming carbon bill

By Kabir Chibber

Business reporter, BBC News

 

 

 

Retailers are by far the largest polluters and could face the highest bills

 

 

Carbon trading is all the rage now.

 

The European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been around since 2005 and accounts for most of the carbon dioxide (CO2) allowances issued to businesses in the world.

 

In the US, President Barack Obama has also thrown his weight behind a cap-and-trade scheme.

 

But few realise the UK will soon adopt a carbon trading scheme of its own in less than two years - the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) that was announced back in 2007.

 

And carbon consultancy IMServ believes that up to 6,000 businesses in the UK will be liable to join the mandatory scheme.

 

UK scheme

 

Businesses are facing huge bills if they remain unprepared.

 

Datamonitor estimates that UK businesses could face a £1.4bn bill for the carbon credits they need by April 2011, when the CRC permits are first sold.

 

If the finance director of a company has to write cheques for carbon allowances, they're going to start asking why those costs are so high

 

Henry Garthwaite, Carbon Trust

The CRC scheme will begin next April when the large businesses and public sector organisations, including the NHS and state schools, begin monitoring their emissions and reporting them to the government.

 

A league table of the participants will be published by October 2011 showing the targets, reductions in emissions and so on.

 

Based on volumes of electricity and gas emissions, retail businesses will be hit the hardest with over 30% of total CO2 emissions, according to Datamonitor.

 

The next largest polluters are manufacturers, at 15%, followed by the public sector.

 

"We're seeing a far greater awareness of the CRC within the business community, but organisations need to start budgeting for these allowances and formulating their carbon strategies now, particularly in light of the recession," Datamonitor's Jon Lane said.

 

"Those that sit on their hands and complain will end up paying more in the long term."

 

Cutting bills

 

Several businesses gathered at a carbon and energy summit on Thursday at the Royal Society of Arts in London to discuss how best to deal with the carbon trading scheme.

 

 

The UK wants to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050

A power cut meant much of the event was held in darkness. One presenter quipped this at least meant that event had a smaller carbon footprint.

 

Much of the talk was about how the government's scheme was an opportunity for businesses to reduce their CO2 emissions now ahead of the CRC.

 

"There's a significant upside to helping to reduce climate change," said Henry Garthwaite, a business development manager at the Carbon Trust, a government-sponsored agency that helps businesses lower their footprint. It also helped develop the CRC scheme.

 

"If the finance director of a company has to write cheques for carbon allowances, they're going to start asking why those costs are so high."

 

Mr Garthwaite said that one business the Carbon Trust had worked with had saved £1m a year off its energy bill just by switching off the screensavers on the computers in their offices.

 

It was these sort of seemingly small gestures, rather than complete overhauls, that were suggested to make companies more energy efficient, lowering their fuel costs and their eventual CRC bill.

 

That includes installing smart meters, which show exactly how much gas and electricity is being used.

 

"You can't do anything in terms of reducing your footprint of you don't know what it is," Mr Garthwaite said.

 

The government already plans to put one in every home by 2020.

 

'Some difficulties'

 

Some in the press have labelled the CRC scheme as another stealth tax on businesses. But few at the conference were keen to do the same.

 

"It is essentially a very good piece of legislation," said Donna Young, head of climate change at telecoms giant BT. "It just has some difficulties."

 

For example, it calculates your allowance based purely on electricity and gas bills in the UK, not taking into account other items such as car fleets or its international businesses.

 

This leads to filing reports separately for each scheme, such as the UK and the EU's ETS scheme, and the obvious problem of a company possibly being penalised for the same carbon footprint twice.

 

There are also the issue of how useful the scheme will be when it actually happens.

 

Unlike the EU scheme, the participants to carbon trading in the UK can set their own targets and their certify their carbon emissions themselves, rather than the third-party verification that is done on the Continent.

 

But surprisingly, there was little grumbling about the CRC scheme itself. It seems most businesses are happy to accept that they will be a critical part of fighting climate change.

 

And there is rare unity among the world's politicians that carbon trading is the way to do it.

[ArabiaTerra]

AT go and find a graph that shows the methane concentrations in the atmosphere over time and see how it fits with your other graph with co2 and temp, if you find one it might be quite interesting and if you don't then it will be very telling.

 

go on take up the challenge

No graph, but I did find this:

The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase.

and this:

Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 25 kg CO2 over a 100-year period. This means that a methane emission will have 21 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 72. The Earth's methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases. Usually, excess methane from landfills and other natural producers of methane are burned so CO2 is released into the atmosphere instead of methane because methane is such a more effective greenhouse gas.

[paulb]

Wiki wrote:

The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase.

 

you need to remember that 1750 was still in a cool period (the little ice age) so methane would be lower. with warmer temps the methane level rise not always mans fault.

[justlookin]

Check this link out http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/. How convenient that the AGM preaching bar stewards have lost the data. The very idea that we humans are responsible is just plain ludicrous.

 

I cant believe the scientist didn't want to release the data he did have because it might be proved wrong. He has obviously forgotten what science is all about. Personal agenda me thinks.

[DamnSaxon]

More bad news for the Anthropogenic Global Warming cause, in the Register again - Thermageddon postponed.