Excuses not good enough

tberry6686

thor wrote: »

If you want to see what CO2 can do to a planet's climate then maybe you should check out the one nearest to us. There is no 'gaining the ability' about it, it is a global warming gas. Are you denying this?
It is truly amazing how much the oil and gas plcs with their vested interests have managed to delude the public with such loon ideas.

If this applies to this planet then please show me the data that supports the assumption that increased CO2 means increased temperatures.

The fact is the CO2 increase follows the temperature increase and so cannot possibly be the cause. As one commentator puts it "it's like saying lung cancer causes smoking".

So far no data has supported man made global warming without being manipulated until it is unrecognisable. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour but there are no studies (that I am aware of) that show whether cloud cover will increase or decrease in a warmer climate or whether it will give a positive or negative feedback.

The largest source of CO2 emissions are the oceans. The amount of CO2 they hold is governed by their temperature which takes anything from 200 to 1000 years to vary to any significant degree, this is the main reason why CO2 is rising now- temperatures about 1000 years ago were warmer than they are now.

The science behind climate change is at best dubious, at worst it is fraud on a massive scale.

DragonQ

tberry6686 wrote: »

If this applies to this planet then please show me the data that supports the assumption that increased CO2 means increased temperatures.

The fact is the CO2 increase follows the temperature increase and so cannot possibly be the cause. As one commentator puts it "it's like saying lung cancer causes smoking".

This is a huge myth. Try this video for starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A&hd=1

That guy has a lot of nice videos about good and bad science, and the media's role in "informing" the public. If you can, I would suggest accessing the papers referenced also.

tberry6686

DragonQ wrote: »

This is a huge myth. Try this video for starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A&hd=1

That guy has a lot of nice videos about good and bad science, and the media's role in "informing" the public. If you can, I would suggest accessing the papers referenced also.

Not sure what you are referring to as the myth.

If it is that CO2 rises after warming occurs then I'm afraid that it is no myth and has been shown conclusively through Ice cores and other proxies.

I've now looked at that video and, sadly like almost everyone involved in this debate, he is a bit selective in his data. There are some cores from the Northern hemisphere that show the same temperature rise followed by CO2 rise that the Antarctic cores show.

The truth of the matter is that both camps are almost certainly wrong due to how little is known and understood about the earths climate (indeed the same can be said for almost every natural process) for example there is still no compelling explanation for the beginning and ends of Ice ages, in fact there is good evidence that ice ages don't really exist but that is a whole other argument.

DragonQ

I was referring to your line "it cannot possibly be the cause", which is nonsense.

tberry6686 wrote: »

I've now looked at that video and, sadly like almost everyone involved in this debate, he is a bit selective in his data. There are some cores from the Northern hemisphere that show the same temperature rise followed by CO2 rise that the Antarctic cores show.

A few of his videos address a specific point but there are some more general ones also. If you are genuinely interested, I'd suggest watching his whole playlist on climate change. I got a friend of mine, who was himself very sceptical of the scientific consensus, to watch it and he said it made him think a lot. That is all one can ask for, after all.

vassa

ValHaller wrote: »

Calling people goons and addressing them as pal' must sound very credible and learned. But it hardly makes for a convincing argument.

Well i'll take more notice of this if you can manage to put it into a proper sentence.

Btw, what someone else said about data manipulation is right - I went to UEA, and there was a scandal there where their computers were hacked and emails were found which threatened the pulling of funding unless results showed certain things. Everyone on campus knew it. Everyone in Environmental Science knew it. Then the press got slight wind of it, even though a lot of the details were changed.

Anyone making statements eluding to ignorance for not believing something because 'the vast majority' of scientists say something, needs to understand that just because it's mostly what you've heard doesn't mean they're a majority, and also need to realise that going against the grain often means you won't be allowed to be heard.

'Peer review' is usually carried out by people that are in the same pocket as you. Using these things as beacons of truth is laughable because you clearly don't understand that pointing to the very evil that someone's trying to discredit, for proof that that person is wrong, just compounds your ignorance. It's like people who can think freely are stood there watching you consistently walk into intellectual brick walls.

jrawle

50Twuncle wrote: »

When I heard the governments answer to energy price rises - it made me sick...
"USE PRICE COMPARISON SITES - THIS WILL SAVE YOU MONEY"
Don't they know that this is pointless ? Once one energy company raises its prices - they all follow like sheep ?
Why can't the government impose no price rises ?
Sorry - but it is about time that one company stood up against the bullying big boys and said "NO MORE PRICE RISES"

Red Ed suggested the same thing a couple of weeks ago, and look what happened. All the companies are now increasing prices by around 10%. They need to do this now in case Labour win the election and freeze prices. Then the Big Six won't care as they will already have had the increases to cover the higher wholesale prices. The losers will be the consumers who paid higher prices in the couple of years before the election thanks to Ed's policy announcement.

DragonQ

I do wonder...what would happen if EDF, Scottish Power or E.On announced today they wouldn't put prices up for a year? In a real competitive market, everyone would flock to them and they'd make up the lost profits by means of having more customers.

Do they dare not do this because most people don't switch energy providers?

MillicentBystander

jrawle wrote: »

Red Ed suggested the same thing a couple of weeks ago, and look what happened. All the companies are now increasing prices by around 10%. They need to do this now in case Labour win the election and freeze prices. Then the Big Six won't care as they will already have had the increases to cover the higher wholesale prices. The losers will be the consumers who paid higher prices in the couple of years before the election thanks to Ed's policy announcement.

Whose fault was last year's energy price increases then? These companies raise their prices every year but it just so happens the Tories are now trying to blame Milliband this time. In order to divert attention away from their non-regulation of the industry (to be fair Govts of either hue have been historically guilty of this since privatisation).

spot1034

jrawle wrote: »

Red Ed suggested the same thing a couple of weeks ago, and look what happened. All the companies are now increasing prices by around 10%. They need to do this now in case Labour win the election and freeze prices. Then the Big Six won't care as they will already have had the increases to cover the higher wholesale prices. The losers will be the consumers who paid higher prices in the couple of years before the election thanks to Ed's policy announcement.

Whilst that might well happen nearer to the time, I think it was generally known that a round of price rises were on the way this autumn long before party conference season. British Gas said as much in the spring.

MillicentBystander

DragonQ wrote: »

I do wonder...what would happen if EDF, Scottish Power or E.On announced today they wouldn't put prices up for a year? In a real competitive market, everyone would flock to them and they'd make up the lost profits by means of having more customers.

Do they dare not do this because most people don't switch energy providers?

But none of the Big 6 actually WANT a really competitive energy market because their current cushy businesses would be turned upside down and there would be casualties. Keep it like it is and they can share the 25 million households between them - lots to go round, don't rock the boat, just pick up your £50 per household profit guaranteed, no need to reduce operating costs at all and everyone's happy. Cushty.