# Climate Camp 2008 - Will You Be Going?



## Bakunin (May 11, 2008)

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

Alright folks, it's taken as a given that this year's Climate Camp will be one the they year's most high-profile direct action and protest events and I'll almost certainly be going this year.

This year the camp will be at Kingsnorth coal/oil power station in Kent, just south of Ashford. If the new station planned for the site is built, it could apparently be one of the most polluting sites in Europe.

So, fellow Urbanites, seeing as climate chnage is a global issue that there's no hiding from and affects us all, will you be going or supporting the camp at solidarity events?

And if not, why not?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (May 21, 2008)

yeah, actually. The first one looked pretty gash, but i popped down to the last one and it was really cracking.

It could go 2 ways now: fall on its arse after leaving the airport issue behind a bit, or, get a huge new influx of kiddies from all the publicity and continue to grow.


----------



## Squatticus (May 21, 2008)

Get in!


----------



## max_freakout (May 21, 2008)

lol go to a camp and the weather will get cooler


----------



## Taxamo Welf (May 21, 2008)

Thing is, much as i am decided on the climate change issue (complete overhaul of industry/production, and also significant changes to personas lifestyle neccessary) i'm not sure about coal.

I've heard arguments both ways.

Even so, i have to be completely honest here, it will be a laugh and that a big reason why i am going 

At the most base, people will be kicking off at the powers that be over the issue of climate change - turning the issue into a 'them' - 'us' situation in the public perception, briefly.


----------



## Thora (May 21, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> yeah, actually. The first one looked pretty gash, but i popped down to the last one and it was really cracking.
> 
> It could go 2 ways now: fall on its arse after leaving the airport issue behind a bit, or, get a huge new influx of kiddies from all the publicity and continue to grow.



Gash


----------



## Taxamo Welf (May 21, 2008)

Thora said:


> Gash



you're gash.

PS i think i just got banned from libcom for swearing


----------



## Thora (May 21, 2008)

Good.


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2008)

I thought about it but I'm doing so much else this summer I couldn't fit it in.

And anyway, I heard it would be full of people swearing their heads off so I decided to stay away


----------



## bluestreak (May 21, 2008)

i haven't been to one before.  Will there be poi?


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2008)

no, I think fish are banned


----------



## The Black Hand (May 21, 2008)

Where's the poll option for "more southern centred shite"?


----------



## The Black Hand (May 21, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> you're gash.
> 
> PS i think i just got banned from libcom for swearing



Fuk em. We don't need the bureaucrats, ultra left or nay sayers. You and everybody else is better cutting new political paths. Ignore them jus like Class War did in the early days. Before somebody thought he'd/we'd play footsy with them to see if he could recruit them, when he couldn't he fucked them off


----------



## The Black Hand (May 21, 2008)

Thora said:


> Good.



Is that an ironic good?


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2008)

Thora doesn't do irony I'm afraid. She's entirely humourless


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 21, 2008)

Attica said:


> Where's the poll option for "more southern centred shite"?



I didn't go last year because I felt the choice of venue (Heathrow) was a deeply shit one. It wasn't possible to keep journalists and the plod off the camp for a start, which puts a huge dent in what sort of thing people can do there/plan to do elsewhere. There's also the fact that one of the stated aims of the climate camp is to demonstrate a sustainable way of living, and to attempt that inside the M25 is to lose that particular battle before you've even started.

This year's site makes more sense to me, as it's the site of a power station that is being built, rather than somewhere that's already up and running that lots of people depend on. I reckon that's a better choice of target in terms of winning arguments and getting people on our side. I'm sure picking the site is a very contentious process, and it is a bit lame that this one and last year's one are both in the south east, but I have high hopes for this year's climate camp.

Should we set up an urban75 neighbourhood i wonder?


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's also the fact that one of the stated aims of the climate camp is to demonstrate a sustainable way of living, and to attempt that inside the M25 is to lose that particular battle before you've even started.



Huh? I don't understand this at all. You may as well say that to attempt sustainable living in the UK is a waste of time as well.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (May 30, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> I didn't go last year because I felt the choice of venue (Heathrow) was a deeply shit one.



FAIL


----------



## Taxamo Welf (May 30, 2008)

sorry (puts diplomatic hat on) spokkyfrank i completely disagree. The protest was not just about the airport but the PLANNED airport through sipson village which was getting the axe cos its a working class place (which it would be sat under a fucking airport lol). So the proceedings had community and class riven through them, as opposed to some shambolic spectacle in the abstract which is what i feel the first one and the coming one will be. Its not, and never will be, about the 'direct action' itself but whether the general public can sympathise with the concerns and enter into the debate. I feel the could do that more than ever with the sipson issue.

As for sustainability - what do you mean by 'inside the m25'? I simply don't get that. And yes, as little as it really matters, the site was sustainable. I was pretty amazed but a selection of DIY wind turbines and solar panels did the trick.


----------



## Lost Zoot (May 30, 2008)

last year was a very weird atmosphere, being surrounded by (mostly) rude pigs, flood lights, and everyone* was suspious and on edge. 
we got followed by a hellicoptor when we went to buy some chips.  

It was horrible some of the time, although we found the kids trampoline. 
So yeah, more music, and colour and mark tompson. 


I think this year they need to get more 'normies' on side, so it cant be made into a them and thing at least from the middle class parents who buy veg boxes/ crustie's front. 


I dont know if i'll go again, i did realise i should have gone to a local group meeting before going though, i went with a copal of friends and we felt like outsiders especially when it was time to get into groups for the protest - no one wanted us in theirs 

Having said that, im mildly irrtated by crusties and they'll never get good press.


----------



## mk12 (May 31, 2008)

No. Because, like most people, i'll be at work.


----------



## biff curtains (May 31, 2008)

mk12 said:


> No. Because, like most people, i'll be at work.



You fucking weirdo!


----------



## Fullyplumped (May 31, 2008)

Lost Zoot said:


> lI think this year they need to get more 'normies' on side, so it cant be made into a them and thing at least from the middle class parents who buy veg boxes/ crustie's front.


If you persist in calling normal people (e.g. those who bathe frequently) "normies" you can certainly expect to do very well!


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2008)

Are you going FP?


----------



## durruti02 (May 31, 2008)

mk12 said:


> No. Because, like most people, i'll be at work.


if i go which i might ( climate change is pretty fundamental to us all) and i was impressed with teh organisation last year, i will take time off work  . 

yes it is very important they are linked in with local people. this was very important at heathrow camp .. it made all the differrence that they were lots of locals on camp at all times .. it is the easier thing for the anti's/media to pick up on opposition or lack of support from locals to dismiss a protest like this.


----------



## bi0boy (May 31, 2008)

I might go dressed as King Canute.


----------



## Lost Zoot (May 31, 2008)

Fullyplumped said:


> If you persist in calling normal people (e.g. those who bathe frequently) "normies" you can certainly expect to do very well!



er hence the quote marks... 

Asked the people i wenrt with last year, and they said no way it was too depressing, the police are one thing but they said the people who went were crap.


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 1, 2008)

Eh, it looks like this one is going to be a replay of the first camp and considering what a towering pillar of fail that was, I think I'll give it a miss.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 1, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> if i go which i might ( climate change is pretty fundamental to us all) and i was impressed with teh organisation last year, i will take time off work  .
> 
> yes it is very important they are linked in with local people. this was very important at heathrow camp .. it made all the differrence that they were lots of locals on camp at all times .. it is the easier thing for the anti's/media to pick up on opposition or lack of support from locals to dismiss a protest like this.



wow. Unexpected but pleasant surprise to hear you say that mate!


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 1, 2008)

In Bloom said:


> Eh, it looks like this one is going to be a replay of the first camp and considering what a towering pillar of fail that was, I think I'll give it a miss.



yep, i've aired that opinion many a time - to the organisers too.

it all depends on last years momentum - if it picks up even further then the location might not totally fuck things up.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 1, 2008)

mk12 said:


> No. Because, like most people, i'll be at work.



1) even at the weekend?

2) holiday, people can book them, even if they have these 'job' things you speak of.



Lost Zoot said:


> last year was a very weird atmosphere, being surrounded by (mostly) rude pigs, flood lights, and everyone* was suspious and on edge.
> we got followed by a hellicoptor when we went to buy some chips.



angabout: you were surprised or upset that there was a helicopter and that the police weren't polite 

did you miss the bit with the riot horses, batons and so forth?


----------



## Steve Booth (Jun 12, 2008)

*Good on whoever is organising it*



Attica said:


> Where's the poll option for "more southern centred shite"?


 If it starts to get successful then the state will attack it. In this it feels a bit like a replay of the 1980s build up to the peace camps at Molesworth and Greenham Common, with the Stonehenge Festival thrown in.

Attica has a good point about it being in the South and therefore not that accesible to people north of the Watford Gap. I've got some sympathy with the poster who complained about the London centred M25 ring problem too.

On the other hand, climate change is a serious problem, and at least the organisers of this series of climate camps are trying to do something positive...


----------



## Cobbles (Jun 13, 2008)

If it wasn't so far, I'd take the Hummer - where's the nearest airport with flights to Edinburgh?


----------



## Steve Booth (Jun 13, 2008)

Looks like some other folks in the same vein have decided to blockade the Drax power station in Yorkshire (=7% UK generating capacity) by stopping a train, getting on top of the coal waggons and tipping coal on to the railway line. It said on the evening radio news. Interesting times, when you run this one alongside the shell petrol tanker drivers' strike.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 14, 2008)

Steve Booth said:


> Looks like some other folks in the same vein have decided to blockade the Drax power station in Yorkshire (=7% UK generating capacity) by stopping a train, getting on top of the coal waggons and tipping coal on to the railway line. It said on the evening radio news. Interesting times, when you run this one alongside the shell petrol tanker drivers' strike.


link


----------



## The Black Hand (Jun 14, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> link



It's all over the shop tax.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jun 14, 2008)

Steve Booth said:


> If it starts to get successful then the state will attack it. In this it feels a bit like a replay of the 1980s build up to the peace camps at Molesworth and Greenham Common, with the Stonehenge Festival thrown in.
> 
> Attica has a good point about it being in the South and therefore not that accesible to people north of the Watford Gap. I've got some sympathy with the poster who complained about the London centred M25 ring problem too.
> 
> On the other hand, climate change is a serious problem, and at least the organisers of this series of climate camps are trying to do something positive...



Yes I agree, it is positive per se, but the London/Southern centred nature of it all does no favours...


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 15, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> wow. Unexpected but pleasant surprise to hear you say that mate!


 how so?


----------



## october_lost (Jun 16, 2008)

I wont be in attendance. I havent got strong feelings against this, but I just think its not offering anything that will challenge climate change, go figure.


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 16, 2008)

october_lost said:


> I wont be in attendance. I havent got strong feelings against this, but I just think its not offering anything that will challenge climate change, go figure.


what else is?


----------



## october_lost (Jun 18, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> what else is?



I think George Monbiot is going to save the world


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 18, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> how so?



i dunno actually,i was gonna say it was cool that someone who was so involved in community class struggle could see the good in such an activist-ist event, but then agaib you'll join any gang of nutters these days!


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 20, 2008)

october_lost said:


> I think George Monbiot is going to save the world


 really!  such a lovely man


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 20, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> i dunno actually,i was gonna say it was cool that someone who was so involved in community class struggle could see the good in such an activist-ist event, but then agaib you'll join any gang of nutters these days!


 Long Live the platform! 

seriously though and i guess where i differ from the IWCA is that i think that politics still needs to be on differrent levels .. hence i am still an active shop steward, and also believe in the use of DA and activism. due to the nature of society including age, work or lack of, and the break down of community NOT everyone can and will become a community activist. however i still DO see the limits of activism, which is usually aimed at trying to persuade the authorities,  in a middle class elitist kind of way, of a pov. i see activism as highlighting issues that the authorities want us to ignore .. fundamentally it needs to be about empowerment


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 21, 2008)

I went last year and the most positive thing was the very strong support from local people towards the camp. Having the protest at hethrow built  strong links between the activists and the local people who face having their communtiy detroyed by  an unsustainable  economic model.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 24, 2008)

Kaka Tim said:


> I went last year and the most positive thing was the very strong support from local people towards the camp. Having the protest at hethrow built  strong links between the activists and the local people who face having their communtiy detroyed by  an unsustainable  economic model.



he's right. Well said.

wish the organisers had agreed with you this year


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 24, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> Long Live the platform!
> 
> seriously.



fix'd


----------



## The Black Hand (Jun 24, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> if i go which i might ( climate change is pretty fundamental to us all) and i was impressed with teh organisation last year, i will take time off work  .
> 
> yes it is very important they are linked in with local people. this was very important at heathrow camp .. it made all the differrence that they were lots of locals on camp at all times .. it is the easier thing for the anti's/media to pick up on opposition or lack of support from locals to dismiss a protest like this.



Excellent thoughts.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 25, 2008)

I went to the one last year and it was pretty good (well, at least a lot better than I thought it was going to be).  Yes, one of the things that was good was the links with local people a chance to take take action with them against their enemy (BAA) - a definite struggle with a specific group of people in a specific place.  And though the camp did have its hair shirt moralists it also saw some attempts to link climate change to class and class politics.  In particular there was a well attended AF meeting.

Of course - to make an obvious point - its not always easy to tie the complexities of climate change into one geographical place or to 'camp' next to one particular struggle.  Its about global processes and the people most suffering are often in distant locations and poor countries.  There's then the issue of western activists acting 'for' other people rather than joining thier struggles.  

Okay, in practice not too much of a problem.  If you want to have an annual 'camp' somewhere, there's no shortage of local issues to work around and nasty firms to attack.  Its equally possible to find ways of linking all this to the actual struggles that people in distant places are waging against logging, biofuels and the like.  Suppose I'm just saying its messy and there's a need to think about what a class perspective on climate change actually looks like as a _strategy_.


----------



## theCIA (Jun 25, 2008)

what do they hope to achieve by putting up a camp? will they be discussing methods of population control? 

climate camp FFS!


----------



## e19896 (Jun 25, 2008)

Some working class folk are pissed off at the continued attack of our class, your direct action is not changeing this world for the better, it is a direct attack upon the working class.

We would love to have the time for self indulgent politics, we would love to be soap dodgers (as in the television kind) not just the chemical kind.

Would not life be grate if we could all be bisto kids?

If you to are fucked off with The Middle Class, then rumours are there is going to be a counter demo to all the bullshit and lies, indeed are not The Bisto Kids just stormtroopers and propagandist of the government?

Have you not noticed we are not in a Police State? They allow you dissent as it fit in with there program, continues the lie of climate change. No we will say it loud IT IS A LIE, if you desire real social change then stop listening to government propaganda and join underclassrising on the counter demo.

Taking back our streets, Our Earth for our future and the future of our children not for the future of the middle class is not time we make them history?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 25, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Some working class folk are pissed off at the continued attack of our class, your direct action is not changeing this world for the better, it is a direct attack upon the working class.
> 
> We would love to have the time for self indulgent politics, we would love to be soap dodgers (as in the television kind) not just the chemical kind.
> 
> ...



Suggesting that the Climate Camp is nothing more than a middle class attack on working class lives and consumption (as I _think _you are doing) is a pretty broad brush attack.  There's an element of that in it, something that virtually everyone on this thread is opposed to - and there's a lot more that has real possibilities.  Suggesting that Climatecamp are government propagandists is just odd.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jun 25, 2008)

Fucking hell, that's mozaz innit?

crikey.


----------



## october_lost (Jun 25, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Some working class folk are pissed off at the continued attack of our class, your direct action is not changeing this world for the better, it is a direct attack upon the working class.
> 
> We would love to have the time for self indulgent politics, we would love to be soap dodgers (as in the television kind) not just the chemical kind.
> 
> ...


I get where your coming from and I share your disdain for the m/c but I think this rant is aimed at the wrong event, we do need explicitly w/c campaigns though.


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 25, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Some working class folk are pissed off at the continued attack of our class, your direct action is not changeing this world for the better, it is a direct attack upon the working class.
> 
> We would love to have the time for self indulgent politics, we would love to be soap dodgers (as in the television kind) not just the chemical kind.
> 
> ...



sorry but what a lot of shit .. so the environment is not a w/c issue?? LOL the w/c always get to live in the most dirty polluted areas .. and with climate change that will get worse .. though i think you are saying you do not even accept climate change?? really?? whatever

aah so you are saying that ( underclassrising ) .. so you support Nigel Lawsons reactionary conservative apologist shit .. incredible how you mesh that with being pro w/c LOL .. why not put up a thread on that article and we can er discuss it and why you support it


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 25, 2008)

interestingly i was chatting to a life long DA'er the w/c and he said he will NOT be going CC cos of the middle class who run it .. i do not know enough of the internal politics of CC and he undoubtedly would .. not sure where that leaves me .. i always ASSUMED it was kinda middle class!!


----------



## Wilf (Jun 25, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> interestingly i was chatting to a life long DA'er the w/c and he said he will NOT be going CC cos of the middle class who run it .. i do not know enough of the internal politics of CC and he undoubtedly would .. not sure where that leaves me .. i always ASSUMED it was kinda middle class!!



Plane Stupid are (well, _sound_) very middle class.

Climate Camp - lot of them seem to be the same people from Dissent who did the 2005 g8 camp.  Mixture of long term anarchos, a bit 'scenish' etc.  No more, no worse than anything anarchoish (perhaps a _little _bit more middle class).  At the same time its not a self pronounced anarcho or working class grouping, so its gonna have the middle classes in there.

To me its not really a question of where CC _camps_, more a case of what it does inbetween the annual camps.  Whether it makes real links with communities, unions, actual people.  Bits and pieces, some positve signs, but no sign its really happening as far as i can see - but certainly not so bad as to warrant the crude attacks that are being made on it.


----------



## e19896 (Jun 26, 2008)

Shall we begin then?

The premise of the lie that is climate change is that we have come to this stage due to the over consumption and lifestyle, and often we are told it is the lifestyle of the working class that is put as the problem.

The premise of the argument from N Lawson stands as a sound counter argument, and when people disagree it is the past and social history that is brought into play, i feel to undermine the person counter disagreement, this is been done here regards my disagreement on climate change..

Ill make it clear CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIE, it forms part of the new world order to pass the blaim onto the poor for the over consumption of The Middle Class, to make the working class feel guilty for the lifestyle choices they make.

Of course this earth is suffering, that is due to over population, the fact we have lost contact with the earth, perhaps if we began to



> 'Guerrilla' farming is another option, especially if you resent renting land or vacant allotments are hard to come by in your area. Apply a little vision to the land around you, railway embankments, back gardens, golf courses, car parks, overgrown bits of land at your work-place and so on. Then give a little thought to clandestine cultivations- the only limits are those of your imagination; herbs that thrive on poor soils could be grown amongst the thistles, rose-bay willow herb and buddlea on 'desolate' bomb-sites; a little known hole in a fence remembered from childhood explorations could give access to your local rich bastard's grounds-sew your seeds here amongst the undergrowth or venture further and indulge in some scrumping from his orchard Graham Burnett



Now this is hard one agreed, but how about some population control, the outright banning of cars? The removell of lorys on the roads back to the canals that so many working class people lost the life in building.

How about instead of getting our basic life needs from abroad, we began to manufacture what we need and look towards more green solutions in that manufacture, go local with that  manufacture this then create local jobs.

Instead of cars we re open the railways to there full extent, such as the wood head rail line closed under thatcher, left to go derelict.

You see it was not just a rant..


----------



## steve0223 (Jun 26, 2008)

yes it was a rant. Blaming the state of the planets ecology on overpopulation is a fundamental mistake and is a larger attack on the global working class than anything else. Overpopulation is a problem for sure, but to position this as one of the main causes of this crises really means that you then need to take responsibility for the 'solutions'.  Do you have any idea how population demographics works? have a look at Iain Boals article 'Feast and Famine' on how overpopulation has historically been used against w/class


----------



## Wilf (Jun 26, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Shall we begin then?
> 
> The premise of the lie that is climate change is that we have come to this stage due to the over consumption and lifestyle, and often we are told it is the lifestyle of the working class that is put as the problem.
> 
> ...



Saying its all down to population growth doesn't add up, even matematically.  Okay, of course, 6 billion will consume more stuff than 3 bilion - clearly.  However its also about how much those people consume and the kind of systems that lead to higher levels of societal consumption.  Anyway, population growth doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Your claim that Climate Change is a lie, just seems odd.  It puts you in the camp of the oil companies and their tame academics - its an ideological line used to justify the continuation of unregulated free markets and overproduction.  I'll admit that the opposite argument - that climate change is real and happens because of human activity - can be used by those who want to greenwash their products and sell us different stuff (but keep selling).  However its not an anti-working class message at all.  For every middle class moralist who says its happening because the working classes can now afford Easyjet, there's many more recognising that the rich have always consumed more and still do so.  That was definitely the case at last year's climate camp.  The argument that Climate Change is real might well be taken up by all kinds of loons and liberals, but is essentially a left/radical argument - and in many guises merges into an anti-capitalist critique.  The rich make their money out of capitalism as a mode of production - and are also priveliged as consumers.


----------



## e19896 (Jun 26, 2008)

steve0223 said:


> yes it was a rant. Blaming the state of the planets ecology on overpopulation is a fundamental mistake and is a larger attack on the global working class than anything else. Overpopulation is a problem for sure, but to position this as one of the main causes of this crises really means that you then need to take responsibility for the 'solutions'.  Do you have any idea how population demographics works? have a look at Iain Boals article 'Feast and Famine' on how overpopulation has historically been used against w/class



Yes i have read this, and would agree in context but not as a whole, i feel part of the problem and why we are here is overpopulation and at long last a dialog on this of which i welcome and i will make every effort to be educated and read other points of view (i accept some of premise of the lie that is climate change) but i do not feel it is climate change just mother earth acting to the problems we as humans have created by our actions, that is working class middle class and so forth.



> 4thwrite Your claim that Climate Change is a lie, just seems odd. It puts you in the camp of the oil companies and their tame academics - its an ideological line used to justify the continuation of unregulated free markets and overproduction. I'll admit that the opposite argument - that climate change is real and happens because of human activity - can be used by those who want to greenwash their products and sell us different stuff (but keep selling). However its not an anti-working class message at all. For every middle class moralist who says its happening because the working classes can now afford Easyjet, there's many more recognising that the rich have always consumed more and still do so. That was definitely the case at last year's climate camp. The argument that Climate Change is real might well be taken up by all kinds of loons and liberals, but is essentially a left/radical argument - and in many guises merges into an anti-capitalist critique. The rich make their money out of capitalism as a mode of production - and are also priveliged as consumers.



Green wash is a good means of explanation on the lie of climate change, all i feel that is going on here is just that, here in the uk work has become less of how they control the masses, lesure has become the social control and to ease the burden of the over consumption we are told if go green all will be well.

No i feel if we begin to grow our own, start to manufacture on a local basis what we need (as said) we start to precess of local democracy as in trade unions at work, as in collectives when we grow our own, we simply remove the power from government and become our dictatorship of the proletariat (karl mark) this for me is socialism in action. This can only lead to real social change, asking the big company's in the form of green wash is simply giving them power of of every day lives.

We need to take that back, and i feel that direct action against the workers of coal fired plants is not going to win over the working class just move them further from social change and into the far right, it has happened and is happening.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 26, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Green wash is a good means of explanation on the lie of climate change


No it isn't. The possible motives of third parties have no bearing on the science of climate change.


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 27, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Yes i have read this, and would agree in context but not as a whole, i feel part of the problem and why we are here is overpopulation and at long last a dialog on this of which i welcome and i will make every effort to be educated and read other points of view (i accept some of premise of the lie that is climate change) but i do not feel it is climate change just mother earth acting to the problems we as humans have created by our actions, that is working class middle class and so forth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it seems to me you are get a load of differeent stuff confused 

1 yes greenwash is a big issue]
2 yes THEY use greenwas ( and smoking and all sorts) to attack the w/c
3 yes Climate Camp is middle class

but then you attack climate change which is odd as the human cause of climate chnage is now almost universally accepted .. the science is pretty irrefutable 

i toattly agree ther is an issue of how environmental issues are played but the fact remains it is w/c people who are always screwed first .. climate change is a w/c issue

so is Climate camp reactionary as you suggest??? .. maybe maybe .. i am not sure .. at heathrow the local w/c people ( it is a generally w/c area and noisy and polluted ) supportted  the camp .. 

but more generally how then DOES a w/c movement get across fundamental ideas like this?? .. don't forget until this year the US govt was STILL denying CC!!!  big business and the oil still want us to burn oil etc etc etc ..

 yes the ideas will be recooperated .. but that does not make them wrong

while i totally agree with the way you argue we should be working locally, are you saying there is NO room for any propganda on top of that, (actually like the IWCA would argue i think )??


----------



## The Black Hand (Jun 28, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> 3 yes Climate Camp is middle class
> 
> i toattly agree ther is an issue of how environmental issues are played but the fact remains it is w/c people who are always screwed first .. climate change is a w/c issue
> 
> ...



Is 3 in terms of class composition (i doubt it is purely middle class) or in terms of political anlaysis you have made? Or something else?


----------



## Raw SslaC (Jun 28, 2008)

The climate camp draws a mixture of people - from all backgrounds. There are definetly tensions based on those backgrounds and their are often hierarchies based on class within the organisation and politics of the event. However, conflict is what we like isn't it? We don't like to see things in suspended animation, we see things as a process that lead on to other processes . The point is not whether the camp is "middle class" but to what extent can it spark the imagination and define a context where real material  struggle can take place. It can be the worst place in the world with all sorts of moronic Malthusians but thats not the point - the point is can it induce a circulation of ideas that can lead us to progressive action. Already this is happening with some elements of NUM interested in a debate(and their critique) at the climate camp - this is a key moment in this process, missing it will be a mistake - whatever the fucking class the organisers are from.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2008)

Raw SslaC said:


> The climate camp draws a mixture of people - from all backgrounds. There are definetly tensions based on those backgrounds and their are often hierarchies based on class within the organisation and politics of the event. However, conflict is what we like isn't it? We don't like to see things in suspended animation, we see things as a process that lead on to other processes . The point is not whether the camp is "middle class" but to what extent can it spark the imagination and define a context where real material  struggle can take place. It can be the worst place in the world with all sorts of moronic Malthusians but thats not the point - the point is can it induce a circulation of ideas that can lead us to progressive action. Already this is happening with some elements of NUM interested in a debate(and their critique) at the climate camp - this is a key moment in this process, missing it will be a mistake - whatever the fucking class the organisers are from.



<nods vigorously>


----------



## Greebo (Jun 28, 2008)

I won't be going.  Even though IMHO trying to slow down or reduce climate change is important.  There's a total lack of miraculous recovery or free respite cover enabling me to take the time off.

And I doubt it's disabled accessible so wouldn't be able to take my caree with me.


----------



## e19896 (Jun 29, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> it seems to me you are get a load of differeent stuff confused
> 
> 1 yes greenwash is a big issue]
> 2 yes THEY use greenwas ( and smoking and all sorts) to attack the w/c
> ...



like the iwca, well i support them, is less to do with the fact these fools are middle class and ask yourself here you have to middle class and gulibal to believe the lie of climate change..

if we say the evidence is beyond doubt, then how did we get here? not the actions of the working class was it it?

of course we need to go more local, it not only ease the burden on mother earth but in the meantime creates local community's as when i was a kid.

look at the fucking mess we are in, i totally agree with the iwca and one reason we are active in getting underclassrising active again in South Yorkshires.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

e19896 said:


> like the iwca, well i support them, is less to do with the fact these fools are middle class and ask yourself here you have to middle class and gulibal to believe the lie of climate change..



Calling something a lie does not make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it. What specific reasons do you have for disbelieving in climate change? Please address the actual facts, not what you think other people's motives might be.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 29, 2008)

e19896 said:


> like the iwca, well i support them, is less to do with the fact these fools are middle class and ask yourself here you have to middle class and gulibal to believe the lie of climate change..
> 
> if we say the evidence is beyond doubt, then *how did we get here? not the actions of the working class was it it?*
> of course we need to go more local, it not only ease the burden on mother earth but in the meantime creates local community's as when i was a kid.
> ...



But who is claiming that it is the actions of the working class (that have brought us to where we are)?


----------



## e19896 (Jun 30, 2008)

when i say class we not talking cultural stuff here like if someone wears a flat cap, or has a northern access. What one is talking about is the foundations of the current economic system - where profits come from, and how it is able to grow. basically the crossovers between red and green recognises that the same forces cause:

1 - That the average person is exploited in their everyday life by work, and that capitalist profits are the surplus value extracted from this work, these are the same forces that cause these profits to be accumulated and reinvested.

2- There is no sense to it, and it means that the system HAS to grow, endlessly, which is destroying our ecologies.

If this is the case then challenging both of these forces is cool. Anything else is divide and rule.


> Global ecology and the common good:
> 
> We must find a way of putting people first in order to protect the environment. There are many ways of reducing the economic stakes in environmental destruction on the part of those who have little direct stake in the treadmill itself. But this means taking seriously issues of social and economic inequality as well as environmental destruction. Only by committing itself to what is now called "environmental justice" (combining environmental concerns and social justice) can the environmental movement avoid being cut off from those classes of individuals who are most resistant to the treadmill on social grounds. the alternative is to promote an environmental movement that is very successful in creating parks with Keep Out! signs, and yet which is complicit with the larger treadmill of production. By recognizing that it is not people (as individuals and in aggregate) that are enemies of the environment but the historically specific economic and social order in which we live, we can, I believe, find sufficient common ground for a true moral revolution to save the earth.
> 
> http://clogic.eserver.org/3-1&2/foster.html


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

^ Have you now abandoned your claim that climate change is a "lie", or are you going to defend it?


----------



## e19896 (Jul 1, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> ^ Have you now abandoned your claim that climate change is a "lie", or are you going to defend it?



do you just take a swipe? or did you read my last post? no i will not change on this, ive had no real hard facts given to me, and when i put radio 4 on and sometimes read inbtween the lines of the captalist press i find an uter difront perspective.

Who are the people telling us this erm let me think The Middle class, now i come to this if the premise of the lie is true.

Then bring it on, i can not mourn the death of the innocent, but will celebrate the death of the guilty, i hold that the people fucking up this earth are the privileged class ie The Middle Class, i live on 80 pounds a week (yes a choice) therefor in my poverty i can not participate in the rape of this earth, i have to consider how and what i spend my weekly income on, as do many in the poverty trap as me (though to some extent it is my own choice) not that i desire to be down with the poor, that would patronising and condescending.

No i follow through my thoughts by action, and when my children ask what did i do to save the earth, i hope i can reply i helped Make The Middle Class History and there lies that was the problem.

Do not come to me, informing me of Climate Change and then say it is my actions or the lack of debate with those who inform us of this lie, ill put the question back where is the fucking evidence of climate change?


----------



## winjer (Jul 1, 2008)

Greebo said:


> And I doubt it's disabled accessible so wouldn't be able to take my caree with me.


It was accessible last year, I'd expect it to be this year too.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 1, 2008)

e19896 said:


> ill put the question back where is the fucking evidence of climate change?



The burning of fossil fuels at the current rate leads to an increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect on the climate, due to the greenhouse effect.

Now, you have accused a great number of honest people of being liars. *Provide evidence to support your accusation or withdraw it.*


----------



## october_lost (Jul 1, 2008)

Raw SslaC said:


> The point is not whether the camp is "middle class" but to what extent can it spark the imagination and define a context where real material  struggle can take place.



m/c have an origin and direction which is contray to the w/c. If the camp is m/c then surely it follows whatever solution they come up with will actually be counter-productive to the interests of our class. I mean I hear about the hassle some holiday goers had in the previous camp and it screams lifestylism/middle class bollocks. The idea that humanity as a whole is responisble for the mess the earth currently finds itself in is typical of the muddled thinking of m/c people.

As the saying goes theres but one soultion....


----------



## Raw SslaC (Jul 1, 2008)

october_lost said:


> m/c have an origin and direction which is contray to the w/c. If the camp is m/c then surely it follows whatever solution they come up with will actually be counter-productive to the interests of our class. I mean I hear about the hassle some holiday goers had in the previous camp and it screams lifestylism/middle class bollocks. The idea that humanity as a whole is responisble for the mess the earth currently finds itself in is typical of the muddled thinking of m/c people.
> 
> As the saying goes theres but one soultion....



I would say it's not completely black and white as you put it. There is a big discussion going on about the possibility of the NUM staging a demonstration against the climate camp because it is attacking the coal industry. 

I take your point though, but I would say that it is m/c people do not neccesary make m/c politics, the same of w/c people.


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 1, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Do not come to me, informing me of Climate Change and then say it is my actions or the lack of debate with those who inform us of this lie, ill put the question back where is the fucking evidence of climate change?



i have a problem here .. i agree with you about the middle class .. but i think it unbelievable you appear to deny the theory of the human influence on  climate change  .. it really is pretty well 100% accepted among scientists nowadays .. this from the Royal society 

http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2008)

e19896 said:


> .
> *Do not come to me, informing me of Climate Change and then say it is my action*s or the lack of debate with those who inform us of this lie, ill put the question back where is the fucking evidence of climate change?



FFS!  _Who _is saying that it is down to the working class??  You are raging against a case that isn't being made.

Science demonstrates that climate change is real - and is caused by human activity.

In parallel, our politics should show that this about the nature of industrial society, specifically capitalism and the way it constantly seeks growith and expansion without regard for the human and ecological consequences.  Capitalist and industrial societies have been and continue to be class socities - societies in which the middles classes own more, consume more and fly more.  The case against climate change is implicitly - and should be explicitly* - both anti-capitalist and pro-working class.

* There's a real need to make this _explicit _and to engage with what is often flabby thinking in the green movement.  That's why dismissing the whole thing as 'hippy wank' or whatever is so counter productive.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2008)

october_lost said:


> m/c have an origin and direction which is contray to the w/c. If the camp is m/c then surely it follows whatever solution they come up with will actually be counter-productive to the interests of our class. I mean I hear about the hassle some holiday goers had in the previous camp and it screams lifestylism/middle class bollocks. The idea that humanity as a whole is responisble for the mess the earth currently finds itself in is typical of the muddled thinking of m/c people.
> 
> As the saying goes theres but one soultion....



Well, perhaps, but its a bit deterministic to suggest you can read off the politics directly from the class make up.  And to call it middle class needs pinning down a bit.  My impressions from going last year were that it certainly wasn't the 'classical' middle class i.e. people in senior white collar, mamagerial jobs, the 'professions' etc.  Probably were a fair number of public sector professionals, but the rest were young, students, 'professional activists/festival attenders/campers', people out of the labour force etc.  Pretty much the same people you'd get at any anarcho-lite event (not exactly a recommendation, I'd agree ).  Not saying that's any _better _than if you had the classical bourgeoisie in attendance, but a better label would be 'lifestylist' than middle class (okay, I know the 2 overlap).

On the hassling holiday makers thing, yeah, I vaguely remeber Plane Stupid doing something like that - turning up in some departure hall and slowing down the check in with a lock on.   Yep, naff, embarrassing and counter productive - and any kind of green stuff is equally rubbish when it gets aimed at ordinary people doing their day to day stuff.  However that really wasn't typical from the meetings and discussions in the camp itself.  I was pleasantly surpised that a constant theme throughout the week was that the focus should be on capitalism per se, polluting firms, CEOs and the like - and *not *working class consumption.

Edit: just seen that you used the word lifestylist anyway, which makes half of my first paragraph redundant...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 1, 2008)

dp


----------



## Kenny Vermouth (Jul 2, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> This year the camp will be at Kingsnorth coal/oil power station in Kent, just south of Ashford.


It's not by Ashford. It's on the Hoo Peninsula.

Perhaps, I shouldn't have told you that. 

Would have been funny if a couple of hundred skegs on benefits had turned up in the wrong part of Kent.


----------



## qwertz00 (Jul 2, 2008)

http://www.shiftmag.co.uk/climatecamphijacked.html

Here is a critique of last year's camp from an anarchist perspective. Might help you make your minds up about going this year.


----------



## steve0223 (Jul 3, 2008)

and this:
http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-1/a-new-weather-front/


----------



## Matt S (Jul 3, 2008)

october_lost,

Are you saying that any solution for any problem that is suggested by someone who is middle-class will *automatically* be bad for the working class? If so, that is a remarkably generalised statement, surely?

Matt


----------



## e19896 (Jul 4, 2008)

4thwrite said:


> FFS!  _Who _is saying that it is down to the working class??  You are raging against a case that isn't being made.
> 
> Science demonstrates that climate change is real - and is caused by human activity.
> 
> ...



i would agree, but nothing has been proven to myself on this and ill stand alone as the stormtroopers of government propaganda march on. At least we get some definition that the consumption of the working class plays a little part in the ongoing changing world.

Of course the Earth is going through some very serious and real change, but this is due to us as humans and as said how we are told growth is good? what if we had all we need? that all we need was just distributed right and fairly, if we did take our sony play stations would we too become a third world nation?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 4, 2008)

e19896 said:


> nothing has been proven to myself


Nothing needs to be proven to you (although I have done so). You have made the claim that climate change is a "lie", therefore you have the burden of proof. *Support your claim or withdraw it*.



e19896 said:


> ill stand alone


You are not standing alone. You are standing with the conspiraloons, randists and the like who deny climate change. No socialist of any kind is going to join you _there_.



e19896 said:


> as the stormtroopers of government propaganda march on.


This is not about "government propaganda". It is about science. If you have anything to dispute the science of climate change, provide it.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 4, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Nothing needs to be proven to you. You have made the claim that climate change is a "lie", therefore you have the burden of proof. *Support your claim or withdraw it*.
> 
> 
> You are not standing alone. You are standing with the conspiraloons, randists and the like who deny climate change. No socialist of any kind is going to join you _there_.



And standing with the fossil fuel companies, by the looks of it.

Rather an odd stance in this day and age.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 4, 2008)

someone seems to be trying to turn in into a free festival 

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402623.html

Im inclined to think it would be a far better idea


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> someone seems to be trying to turn in into a free festival
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402623.html
> 
> Im inclined to think it would be a far better idea




Completely fucking stupid idea as far as I'm concerned.

It's always been meant to be an activist camp for workshops, networking and, most important of all, some direct action.

It's a serious event for serious political activists, not some Brew Crew revival FFS!


----------



## smokedout (Jul 4, 2008)

i know what it is, a bunch of naval-gazing yoghurt weavers talking to themselves

whereas a free, sustainable festival would be direct action in itself, would attract people from outside the activist ghetto and show that environmentalism isnt just about dour austerity


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> i know what it is, a bunch of naval-gazing yoghurt weavers talking to themselves
> 
> whereas a free, sustainable festival would be direct action in itself, would attract people from outside the activist ghetto and show that environmentalism isnt just about dour austerity



It'll hardly be that. I'll be there and so will many others, and as I've done a fair few activist camps in my time I'll be going for the activism, not so some idiot can impress everyone by switching on their 50 megawatt 'Krakatoa' sound system when I and many others will be hoping for some much-needed rest.

I've nothing against free festivals at all, but the Climate Camp was never intended to be one as it's always been for serious activists to do some decent direct actions, not for the Brew Crew to turn up and turn it into some drunken free-for-all.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 4, 2008)

> serious activists



says it all

a well organised free festival doesnt have to be a drunken free for all, in fact it shouldnt be because that would piss off local people

but a well run event, with agreed shut down times, lots of things for families and some quality entertainment, all run on a sustainable site, with all the usual workshops, discussions etc and culminating in a day/two days of direct action - now that might be something that would attract local support, help build a movement and offer something to people outside of the activist ghetto

it would of course be completely illegal but the climate camp may have the momentum behind it to be able to pull it off, and its then something that could be replicated elsewhere

don't forget that in many, many ways the environmental movement was born out of the free festival scene

but tbh the thought of spending ten days in a field with the four year old listening to the likes of monbiot and plane stupid telling us all off really leaves me cold


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> says it all
> 
> a well organised free festival doesnt have to be a drunken free for all, in fact it shouldnt be because that would piss off local people
> 
> ...



Don't go then, leave it for the serious activists to do the job and do something else instead, simple really.

And I hardly think, with the Big Green Gathering (which sadly isn't on this year) the Northern Green Gathering, the Earth First! Summer Gathering and various other Green events of that kind going on, that yet another Green festival or gathering is really needed.


----------



## winjer (Jul 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> someone seems to be trying to turn in into a free festival


That someone is steelgate, late of this parish.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 4, 2008)

i cant afford a ticket for the green gathering and the earth first gathering is hardly a free festival

but you serious activists keep on doing the job eh, dont let plebs like me get in your way

is this serious activism?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 4, 2008)

winjer said:


> That someone is steelgate, late of this parish.



really, is that speculation or a confirmed fact?


----------



## winjer (Jul 4, 2008)

I just made it up.

"http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v223/1524/8/t1271299942_4450.jpg Angus wrote at 12:38pm on May 30th, 2008
Why don't we turn this event into a giant free festival like the one at Castlemorton back in 1992. It would be great if we could do that. Spread the word on the underground party scene. Lets get bands and sound systems along and party like its 1999!"

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...13788209740+festival&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

"stonecastle: This is an offshoot of the Big Green Gathering Festival and has been going for a couple of years now at different locations around the country. There will be loads of entertainment on every evening from live bands, stand up comedians to raves. Entrance is free but people attending will be expected to help with the running of the place during the day before the entertainment starts in the evening. Food will also be provided on site for the cost of a small donation for each meal. Full details of the event are at http://www.climatecamp.org.uk"

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...php?showtopic=101683&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

"Far more people would come if it were a free festival! 
02.07.2008 19:32 The revolution will not be hijacked by boring party haters
Far more people would come to the climate camp if it were a free festival. As it is if it is billed as a camp for climate action then only a few hundred people will come and it will be an insignificant event that will achieve absolutly nothing! Also there has not be a big several day free festival since Castlemorton in 1992. That is 16 years ago. And the more reasons to party the better! Sod the leadership, if they want to turn every political event into a boring sombre Soviet style event then thats their leadership. Come on lets network for this on myspace, bebo and facebook as a giant free party. After all who wants a revolution where you can't party?"

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402357.html?c=all#c198952

"The Climate camp was great for picking up women! 06.10.2007 12:32 stonecastle
By the way the climate camp was great for picking up women as there were so many good looking women there, especially at the parties in the evening in the giant marquee. I managed to get three womens phone numbers and several hugs and kisses from many of the women there. By the way there is tons of information on picking up women here:  http://www.bristollair.com/"

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382908.html?c=all#c182193


----------



## Wilf (Jul 4, 2008)

Suspect the reality is neither of these.  Last year there was at least one band on and an 'anarcho hoe down'.   I'd guess this is something similar - one or two nights where bands are on, nothing more.  Last year there was also a _fairly _well observed 'no noise after midnight thing'.  Presume it will be something similar this year.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 4, 2008)

4thwrite said:


> Suspect the reality is neither of these.  Last year there was at least one band on and an 'anarcho hoe down'.   I'd guess this is something similar - one or two nights where bands are on, nothing more.  Last year there was also a _fairly _well observed 'no noise after midnight thing'.  Presume it will be something similar this year.



That's fine with me. I'm not suggesting that there be nothing but serial activism, no entertainment and no fun, that would be incredibly po-faced and would certainly put people off. But I'm concerned about the activities of this idiot on indymedia who seems obsessed with turning a predominantly-activism based event into a Brew Crew revival free-for-all instead.

I don't know whether this imbecile on Indymedia is a State asset or just a random muppet, but the last thing the organisers of Climate Camp will need or want is the camp being overrun with people smashed out of their minds on Special Brew and ketamine which will give the plod a perfect excuse to wreck the place and may very well turn off new people and many more experienced activists.


----------



## winjer (Jul 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> but a well run event, with agreed shut down times, lots of things for families and some quality entertainment, all run on a sustainable site, with all the usual workshops, discussions etc and culminating in a day/two days of direct action - now that might be something that would attract local support, help build a movement and offer something to people outside of the activist ghetto


I don't see how that would be vastly different to last year's camp.

Of course, opinions may differ as the quality of the entertainment, didn't see it so couldn't possibly comment.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 4, 2008)

winjer said:


> I just made it up.
> 
> http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...13788209740+festival&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
> http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...php?showtopic=101683&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382908.html?c=on#c182193



fair enough, thats pretty conclusive



> That's fine with me. I'm not suggesting that there be nothing but serial activism, no entertainment and no fun, that would be incredibly po-faced and would certainly put people off. But I'm concerned about the activities of this idiot on indymedia who seems obsessed with turning a predominantly-activism based event into a Brew Crew revival free-for-all instead.



I'm not saying im supporting what he's doing btw, its way too late in the day to organise the kind of event im talking about

but to build any kind of mass movement we have to step out of the ghetto and it seems to me that we're further away from that than ever


----------



## e19896 (Jul 14, 2008)

*Dear Camp for Climate Action,*

Dear Camp for Climate Action,

Firstly thank you for contacting me. I'm hopping mad about what I've
heard, but I may not have been told the whole story. I can tell you too
the mining community whats left of us feel utterly betrayed by rumours
about you swinging all your efforts to close down what remains of the coal
industry. There are debates about counter-demonstrations etc and press
statements from the power workers and miners. So its vital we do not take
up cudgels over this unless and until and at least that we know where each
other stand. I was a matter of interest with the National General
secretary of the NUM and the Yorkshire Area Leadership last weekend and
they are spitting feathers about the Drax demonstration. The slogans on
the demonstration and the statements made to the press by the protestsrs
demonstrated no concern for the miners, railway workers or power workers.
There was no consultation with us, no debate with us, no seeing what we
wanted or how we see the world or how we can see if there is anything is
common. 'Leave It In The Ground' was the banner which was unfurled at
Drax, 'it' being the coal, and the miners ? where do we leave them ? that
bit wasn't answered. We know where John Major and Maggie Thatcher and
Harold Wilson left us, on the dung heap, and most of us are still there.

Our own demands would be two fold, firstly we want to see the opening of
'clean coal technology stations'. Yes the technology exists and had done
since the 50s but nobody was interested in applying it. There are at least
two methods, but the latest one is carbon capture, thats not the end of
the story but here isn't the place to elaborate. Enough to say its not a
con, it does produce massive savings in CO2 emissions, plus the bi product
of the Hatfield Main system is hydrogen and energy conservation. Which are
added bonuses on the carbon capture.

Secondly we want to see international ('fair trade' if you like )
standards applied to all imported coal and a level playing field in terms
of health and safety, conditions, hours and union recognition . Countries
with mass slaughter in the collieries should not be allowed to dump coal
here at the expense of workers in their countries and unemployment for
miners here.

65 million Tonnes of coal is burned in Britain each year only about 18
million of it is mined here, despite the fact that British coal is the
cheapest deep mined coal in the world. It is brought here in part because
rather than fit wipers and efficient filters to all power stations, they
import coal which produces less sulphur and ash and carbon when burned.
Instead they burn the miners at source.

There is about 500 years of coal in Britain, it can provide a breathing
space, to develop renewable sources, certainly solar, yes tidal, though
not destructive wind estates which are laying siege to the bits of free
land and crags and moorland we have left.

The governments main plan is and always been to make Britain Nuclear
dependant. That is why they closed down the mines in the first place.
Climate Camp must be very careful not to cross on the wrong side of the
barricade on this issue. Not to be used to promote Nuclear energy by
making the biggest focus coal .

The spokesperson at Drax this month said there was NO PLACE for coal in
Britain's energy supply ! Thats fairly final. The impact of that
statement, coming as it does with a middle class voice and total
indifference to the situation in the coal communities, is unlikely to
strike any cords this side of the tracks.

I understand you intend to shut down Kingsnorth Power Station in August. I
don't know this station in particular but I was informed this was a
station which was using clean coal technology ? Is that not right ?
whether it is or not we have to ask why coal ?.

Coal is not the biggest producer of CO2 its about the fourth and thats
with unfettered uncontrolled emissions from the third world in particular.
It could be massively reduced by demanding all coal which comes here meets
minimum standards of health and safety and union rights. That the
exporting countries themselves adopt clean coal technologies. Such a
tighter focus would be entirely more credible and principled than simply
saying 'close down all coal power stations, don't build new ones, and
exterminate the last of the miners and their communities'.

I cant say I'm keen on entering the lions den of the Climate Camp as a
former miners leader and life long coal miner. I'm tempted to say I think
we speak differant languages. However I shall pencil this is my calender
and see if I can attend along with any of the NUM leadership in order that
we can put our point view across and hopefully get you to adopt a more
balanced approach to the question of power generation and working class
expectations and demands.

You have my permission to put this letter on the website.

The World For The Workers

David Douglass
NUM

David Douglass


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 14, 2008)

*e19896*, are you going to address the responses that have been put to you on this thread?


----------



## e19896 (Jul 14, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> *e19896*, are you going to address the responses that have been put to you on this thread?



http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403441.html?c=all

see below also..


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 14, 2008)

That does not address the responses I have addressed to you. Please do so.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 14, 2008)

In particular...


Signal 11 said:


> e19896 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## october_lost (Jul 14, 2008)

((Signal 11)) Do you not think thats an important letter that needs to be addressed?


----------



## october_lost (Jul 14, 2008)

> Many of us work. Some workers are in highly-paid manual work (drivers of fuel lorries averaging £40,000/year, plumbers etc etc) or are in poorly-paid jobs that used to be considered middle-class, like teaching & nursing (£20,000/year). I know a carpenter who drives a fuck-off HUGE car, and regularly flies abroad on holiday, but that's ok cos he's 'working class'.
> So what is class nowadays? Most of the real 'working class' are in other countries, doing the manufacturing jobs for our so-called needs. They are the truly exploited.
> I live on less than £8,000/year and still live a luxurious existence compared to my exploited brothers and sisters abroad.
> The thing is, climate change is affecting people in other countries - the poor and oppressed that make our stuff. So in that case, I agree that climate change is also a class issue, but not class in the traditional sense anymore.
> I read on here that Coltan miners earn about £10/week. Don't know what UK miners earn but I expect it's a little more. I don't see why one section of UK workers should call a halt to protests at climate chaos. Adapt. We're all going to have to, sooner or later.


I happen to got a whiff of the climate camp on the weekend, and again reading this confirms to me how impractical and mad (read m/c) some of the climate camp people are. You either put a workable w/c agenda in there or its basically a callout for m/c people to have their political existence justified.


----------



## winjer (Jul 14, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Dear Camp for Climate Action,



Seems only fair to quote the response too, no?



> As you may be aware the Camp for Climate Action will be happening near Kingsnorth in Kent, august 3 -11th 2008.
> 
> The camp is an open event to which all are welcome to attend and debate issues about how we can stop climate change. We will also explore practical examples of how we can live, work and take decisions together, in truly democratic and sustainable ways.
> 
> ...


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403666.html


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 14, 2008)

october_lost said:


> ((Signal 11))


Thanks for the hug. You do realise I'm middle class don't you? 



october_lost said:


> Do you not think thats an important letter that needs to be addressed?


TBH, I'm more concerned about *e19896* trying to spread far-right disinformation at the moment. The letter itself does not at all support his position and there is not much in it that I don't agree with. You can assume I agree with the parts I don't quote.

I don't know much about the various carbon capture schemes and was planning to look into them before replying. They may well turn out to be a useful stop-gap measure. I'd certainly prefer that to nuclear fission reactors.




			
				The Letter said:
			
		

> I understand you intend to shut down Kingsnorth Power Station in August. I don't know this station in particular but I was informed this was a station which was using clean coal technology ? Is that not right ?


It doesn't appear to be using any kind of carbon capture scheme. Their website says:


> Located on the Medway Estuary in Kent, Kingsnorth has a port facility which enables the importation of coal. This is particularly useful as it means *we can import* low sulphur coal easily to this site.
> [...]
> Other actions taken to minimise our environmental impact at Kingsnorth include low NOx Burners and SO3 injection to improve precipitator performance.


That doesn't sound very promising for the miners.




			
				The Letter said:
			
		

> though not destructive wind estates which are laying siege to the bits of free land and crags and moorland we have left.


I'm not sure if that's intended as a blanket opposition to wind farms. If it is I disagree. But if it's just a recognition that they are inappropriate in some places, then fine.




			
				The Letter said:
			
		

> firstly we want to see the opening of 'clean coal technology stations'.


As I think *free spirit* pointed out elsewhere (I can't find it now), it would be nice if this could be extended to opposition to new plants without carbon capture. And again there seems to be some confusion between "clean coal" meaning low sulphur as opposed to carbon capture.

BTW, I'd be interested to see your replies to the responses put to you earlier by 4thwrite and by Matt S.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 14, 2008)

october_lost said:


> reading this confirms to me how impractical and mad (read m/c) some of the climate camp people are.



Didn't you think the same about some sections of the anti-war protests? I certainly did, but I didn't consider that a good reason to abandon those protests to them.


----------



## october_lost (Jul 14, 2008)

I have not the patience to wade through the nonsense that I would find within an event like this. I take my hat off to Dave Douglass, hes started an important dialogue.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2008)

> TBH, I'm more concerned about e19896 trying to spread far-right disinformation at the moment. The letter itself does not at all support his position and there is not much in it that I don't agree with. You can assume I agree with the parts I don't quote.



no he's not, he made a careless comment that youve jumped on to avoid the more difficult issue at hand

and even if he does question man-made global warming, that is hardly a far right position, its not even a political position but a scientific one

the letter could be seen as lip service to class struggle imo, bottem line is they havent talked to the miners and all of their literature and sorry to be vague but the general vibe of this event has never engaged in class struggle


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 15, 2008)

smokedout said:


> no he's not, he made a careless comment


He didn't just make a careless comment. He clearly stated the same thing in three different posts before I said anything, and has since refused to withdraw it.




			
				e19896 said:
			
		

> the lie of climate change. No we will say it loud IT IS A LIE -- Post 51
> Ill make it clear CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIE, it forms part of the new world order -- Post 58
> the lie of climate change -- Post 61



As I've already explained, that is calling many honest people liars. I am entirely justified in asking him to withdraw the accusation, when he can't even come up with a single argument to support it.



smokedout said:


> that youve jumped on to avoid the more difficult issue at hand


What more difficult issue? There weren't any issues addressed to me on this thread before I posted, so the idea that I posted to avoid one doesn't make any sense.



smokedout said:


> and even if he does question man-made global warming, that is hardly a far right position


To be clearer by "far right" I meant extreme free market types (like I said earlier), which seem to be the most common ones. Followed by CT nuts and creationists.



smokedout said:


> its not even a political position but a scientific one


It's an anti-scientific one.

The idea that you can just alter _facts_ because you don't like them is fucking stupid, and should be stamped out in any movement that wants to achieve anything.



smokedout said:


> the letter could be seen as lip service to class struggle imo


It sounded genuine enough to me.



smokedout said:


> bottem line is they havent talked to the miners


I agree they should have done. Hopefully there will be some dialogue now they've written to each other.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 15, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/
> 
> Alright folks, it's taken as a given that this year's Climate Camp will be one the they year's most high-profile direct action and protest events and I'll almost certainly be going this year.
> 
> ...




Climate Camp! Where do I sign up?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2008)

october_lost said:


> I have not the patience to wade through the nonsense that I would find within an event like this. *I take my hat off to Dave Douglass, hes started an important dialogue*.



Yes, he has (and I've seen a slightly less polite version that he wrote on the same subject ). However, in a sense his emphasis is on the specific - and in this sense a pretty important specific: the future of coal and the lack of dialogue with the miners.  However there also needs to be a wider discussion around class, climate change and anti-capitalism - a need to embed climate struggles within wider social struggle.  

I don't share the view of the critics on this thread (that those involved in climate camp are totally divorced from such struggles/perspectives) - though there is an element of that.  I do though have a feeling that 'camping in fields' adds to the process of abstracting from everyday life - though there are also lots of positives in running a mini-village for a week.

Its going to be interesting to see if 'climate justice' is successfully merged with social struggle, there isn't really a blueprint for people to follow.  That process hasn't been helped by those organisers who have failed to work with the unions and others - but is equally damaged by those who respond by simply calling them 'hippy cunts' etc.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Dear Camp for Climate Action,
> 
> <snip>
> The World For The Workers
> ...



my response

*please note, this is a personal opinion and should not be taken as a response from climate camp as I'm not involved, or as a response from the wider environmental movement, though I am an environmentalist with a 10 year history in the 'environmental movement'*
I fully understand the concerns outlined in Dave Douglass's open letter, and think that he is right to raise them in the way that he has done.
I think it would be a massive mistake if the Climate Camp took action at Kingsnorth in such a way that it drove a wedge between the miners and the environmental movement.
The kingsnorth Climate Camp could actually be an incredible opportunity for the environmental movement to forge a powerful alliance with the miners to form a united front to campaign for Carbon Capture and Storage on new Coal fired power plants, as well as potentially to be retrofitted to existing coal fired power plants where this is possible.
While you're correct that coal isn't the biggest source of CO2 emissions, building a new generation of coal fired power stations without incorporating Carbon Capture and Storage essentially makes a mockery of any claims the UK might have to be doing it's bit to combat climate change, and it's essentially for this reason that the Climate Camp protestors chose to target Kings North this year, using the same logic that they used to target Heathrows 3rd runway plans last year.
There is no future in building non carbon capture and storage coal fired power plants, this is old, outdated technology that will almost inevitably need to be retro fitted with CCS, probably in a matter of years as the realities of the climate change situation start to hit home properly. The driver for this is likely to be European legislation, and while there is nothing on the table at the moment for this, history shows that it will almost inevitably follow soon after CCS has become a proven technology.
The UK has the opportunity at Kings North to become world leaders in CCS technology by building the first full scale commercial plant incorporating CCS. This would not only help to secure UK mining jobs, but also put the UK at the forefront of a new highly exportable sustainable technology field. We missed the boat on wind power, which could have saved the UK's shipyards, and harnessed the UK's offshore oil platform skills and experience and instead allowed the Danes to corner 60% of the world market for wind turbines, let's not miss the boat on CCS when the UK has been at the forefront of the research and development of the technology for decades.
It is no use environmental organisations continuing to use the fact that CCS is as yet an untested technology as a reason not to support a commercial scale trial. The research and development has been done to the necessary level to move onto full scale commercial testing now. The only thing stopping this happening is economics and lack of political will. Until a commercial scale trial has been completed CCS will continue forever to be an untested technology. The world can not wait for further dithering on this issue, once tested CCS technology could (providing it is proven to be successful) spread rapidly throughout the world, and make tackling climate change a realistic proposition. It will also safeguard miners jobs and mining communities for at least the transitional phase of this generation, and probably the next as we move to a low carbon future.
Kingsnorth has the potential to be the right commercial trial facility at the right time to fully trial this technology. I'm almost 100% certain that it was originally planned to incorporate CCS at Kingsnorth, but E-on changed their plans because the low price of carbon, and lack of government support meant that it was not commercially viable for them to develop the plant as a CCS plant, and there was no regulatory reason for them to do so.
A concerted joined up campaign uniting the miners unions and the environmental movement behind a banner of 'Carbon Capture and Storage NOW' or something similiar, with an agreement from both sides to campaign for urgent priority to be given to the rapid development and implementation of a commercial scale Carbon Capture and Storage Coal Fired Power Station trial, as well as a moritorium on building new coal fired power stations without CCS. Essentially this is an incredibly weak government who's environmental record is in tatters, as is it's energy policy. A pincer movement by the mining unions on one side, and the environmental movement on the other should easily be able to force the governments hand on this issue - at least to fund a commercial scale trial at Kingsnorth.
This will require compromise on both sides - the environmental movement needs to compromise to at least allow for the building of a commercial scale trial facility, then base it's future stance on the issue on the results of that trial, and the miners will also need to place their faith in the CCS technology as being the future of coal to the extent of actually opposing the building of new coal power stations without CCS.
The potential gains for both sides however far outweigh any potential losses from this stategy.
From an environmental perspective, providing the trial is successful, the technology can be rolled out worldwide in a matter of years, and applied to China and India (where a huge expansion of coal fired power stations is taking place) as easily as it can to developed countries - it has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emission worldwide faster than any other measure or technology bar none (providing it works), so not at least giving a commercial test facility a chance is chopping off our nose to spite our face territory. IF we're serious about tackling climate change then we have to campaign for a commercial scale trial asap. The other side to this is that if the trial shows that CCS can't work at all, or that there are flaws which mean the technology isn't ready to be rolled out for another 10-20 years, then we'd really better find out about it sooner rather than later as that would seriously effect our ability to reduce CO2 emissions, and would mean far more development of other technologies would need to be done far more urgently.
From a coal industry point of view, if the trial proved successful, then this should remove any real barrier to a serious scale new generation of CCS coal fired power stations - potentially even co-firing biomass at the same time*, which would guarantee the future of the coal industry for at least the next couple of generations. If the UK get's there first with a commercial scale trial of the technology, then this should also lead to the potential for a massive new export industry as we license and export the technology around the world. If we wait, then we will miss this boat, and we will end up importing the technology instead. If the trial is unsuccessful, then at least we'll know that, and the coal unions would have to make a decision at that point about their future strategy.
There needs to be agreement about the terms to be used. While clean coal technology is an umbrella term that can be used to cover CCS, it doesn't usually mean this, so possibly the phrase 'clean coal technology incorporating carbon capture and storage' (or similar) should be used so that it's clear what is meant.
The environmental movement should as quid pro quo for this agreement / alliance actively support the NUM's campaign on international 'fair trade' standards for imported coal to level the playing field and reduce imports. There are environmental benefits from a move back to UK produced coal, in reduction in carbon emissions from transport of the coal around the world, and much higher environmental standards in terms of the actual mining of the coal in this country as opposed to much of the world. So this again is a win win situation for both sides. It also fits with the governments stated energy security agenda, so really it should be like pushing at an open door if done right.
Bottom line, the action at drax was (in my opinion) an ill thought out publicity stunt that meant well, but has had unintended consequences in terms of provoking a potential backlash from miners and power workers. We could allow this to force a permanent split between the miners and the environmental movement that would place us in direct opposition and basically lead to stalemate from which both sides would lose, or we could use it as a catalyst to bring both sides together to campaign together and forge a movement that has serious potential to change national and international policy to achieve both sides goals. The choice is there, and the time to make that choice is now for both sides - now or never, make your choices, 20 years open warfare between the environmental movement and coal miners / power workers (who would probably swing the opinions of much of the working class behind them)... or a concerted joint campaign with high chances of successfully achieving both sides aims in a relatively short amount of time, as well as hopefully building a strong base of support within working class communities for wider environmental concerns.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2008)

The proposal outlined here would involve a concerted (and rapid) re-appraisal of both climate camp and the wider environmental movements position in regard to Carbon Capture and Storage, from it's current position of skepticism to a position of guarded support for a commercial scale trial, with a tacit commitment to support the roll out of this technology if the trial is successful. In my opinion this need not be seen as a massive change in position, and I can't see how the environmental movements position on this issue can be viewed as being a credible thought out position without this change. Opposing a commercial trial of a technology essentially on the basis that the technology is unproven is an obvious catch 22 position, and to me looks like the environmental movement hasn't seriously thought through this position logically, which in turn seriously dents the credibility of the movement.
To move this forward I'd think the best way given the timescales would be firstly for discussion among the various local climate camp groupings in advance of the climate camp, with feedback from each group either to a national strategy meeting (possibly as part of any national planning meeting if there is another one before the camp), with the aim of getting a concensus to support the broad strategy outlined in this proposal - or at least for their to be real open discussions at the camp about these ideas prior to any actions taking pace that could jeopardise this potential alliance.
If a consensus can be reached to proceed along these lines, or at least to open discussions with the miners unions and power unions, then potentially representatives of local climate camp groups could ask to attend meetings with local NUM branches, or invite NUM branch delegates to a meeting to discuss this at a local level. If a broad agreement on these principles can be reached quickly enough, then maybe a joint action can be called as part of the climate camp with NUM members marching alongside climate camp protestors - this doesn't need to impact on the direct action aspect of the camp, it could be done on different days. Timescales are short however, so a more likely scenario could be for the NUM and Power Unions to be invited to send delegates to attend the camp as speakers (actually rereading Dave Douglass's letter, it would seem that it would be more accepting his offer to attend), or part of a panel discussion, or working group or something similar to try to reach some kind of agreement which could then be taken back to the branches for ratification (or however the process would work). I'd suggest this would be best done initially in a smaller working group that could try to hammer out any differences and fine tune a proposal to take to a full camp open meeting, probably following discussion in the camps barrio's hopefully to gain a consensus agreement at the camp.
I'd also suggest that as this is an issue that has the potential to seriously resonate across the wider environmental movement, that representatives of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and People and Planet (at least) be invited to attend and speak at these discussions,
I think it would also be helpful to invite some expert opinion to present information about the actual state of readiness of Carbon Capture and Storage to these meetings to make sure this is a properly informed debate / process.
This is presented as a basic suggestion of a possible process that could take this forward in the brief time remaining, not as an attempt to dictate the process, I fully acknowledge that I've not been involved with the camp, and am not upto speed with how the decision making process works within the climate camp organisation.
*as an aside, I could be wrong, but presumably co-firing of biomass and coal in a carbon capture and storage power station that captured and stored 100% of the CO2 could theoretically actually reduce atmospheric CO2 levels as CO2 produced from burning the biomass proportion will have been absorbed out of the atmopshere and will then be being sequestered deep underground out of the active carbon cycle.


 any thoughts?

 If anyone involved thinks this is useful, feel free to proof read it, edit it, search out sources to back up some of the points made / take out any bits that I'm speculating too much in and can't be backed up by sourcable research.... or use it as is (if by some miracle I've managed to come up with something vaguely coherant and useful). I'm going to be offline for the next week or so, and times pressing on if anything constructive is to be done about this, so feel free to distribute any amended or unamended versions of this anywhere you think would be useful, definately no need to wait for me to be back online or anything.


 ps. to extend on the disclaimer at the top, I'm making no claims to have any major personal influence within the environmental movement, however I reckon I've been involved long enough, and have a good enough understanding of the issues and technologies involved to be able to provide some hopefully constructive criticism and suggestions for how to move this situation forward in a positive way.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2008)

bugger, you obviously can't continue using the numbered bullet points over 2 posts... that second post is a continuation of the first in case anyone was wondering.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2008)

I've now copied this stuff across to the separate thread Enumbers started, so probably best to carry on any discussion on that thread and leave this one for other climate camp stuff.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 15, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> He didn't just make a careless comment. He clearly stated the same thing in three different posts before I said anything, and has since refused to withdraw it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i will make it clear i feel climate change is a lie, i have no need to remove any comments i have made, me and dave are not the best of mates but i simply put on a thinking hat and got some clear perspectives on this, i know not the background to daves intervention but i do welcome it and if the climate movement has any shit about so should they.

as free spirit said the debate moves on and i welcome this debate, on a lie the stormtroopers of government propaganda are so willing to take as read, me i have never trust governments or the lies of the middle class, therefor there is nothing i need to remove or say sorry for i owe nothing to those who keep me under occupation, but i do owe the working class a lot more..


----------



## e19896 (Jul 15, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Thanks for the hug. You do realise I'm middle class don't you?
> 
> 
> TBH, I'm more concerned about *e19896* trying to spread far-right disinformation at the moment. The letter itself does not at all support his position and there is not much in it that I don't agree with. You can assume I agree with the parts I don't quote.
> ...



far right propaganda so we disagree with you and we are the far right fucking lefty bullshit, once again the working class do not accept you argument and we are called far right and you wonder why there is a rise in the far right? simple because you and people like you simply throw this one at us each time we disagree with you..


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 15, 2008)

e19896 said:


> i will make it clear i feel climate change is a lie


I've asked you to make it clear _why_ you feel that way. Why are you calling people liars without providing a shred of evidence that they are lying? You have asked people to join with you in that position. You are not going to convince anyone if you don't provide any arguments in favour of it.



e19896 said:


> i have no need to remove any comments i have made


So you think it's fine to just make baseless accusations without justifying them.



e19896 said:


> on a lie the stormtroopers of government propaganda


This is nothing to do with government propaganda, it is to do with science, as I have already explained.



e19896 said:


> me i have never trust governments or the lies of the middle class


Straw man. Nobody asked you to trust either. And your implied accusation that I trust them is entirely false. Again, this is a typical CT argument.



e19896 said:


> far right propaganda so we disagree with you and we are the far right


Who's we? I haven't seen anyone agree with you. _Except_ for the far right and CT nuts etc.



e19896 said:


> once again the working class do not accept you argument


No, _you_ don't accept it. You haven't provided any evidence to show that "the working class" don't accept it, as if they all had one single opinion.


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 15, 2008)

e - numbers - ok i really do not understand your insistance that CC is a lie and you have alos not backed up that arguement .. 

and p.s. i am broadly sympathetic to Openly Classist line on the m/c but utterly fail to undetrstand how a clear scientific theory is being accused of being a m/c / govt lie .. in the US the state is STILL covering up CC at the behest of big oil


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jul 16, 2008)

october_lost said:


> I have not the patience to wade through the nonsense that I would find within an event like this. I take my hat off to Dave Douglass, hes started an important dialogue.



read the response OL....

Please.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jul 16, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> ]and p.s. i am broadly sympathetic to Openly Classist line on the m/c but utterly fail to undetrstand how a clear scientific theory is being accused of being a m/c / govt lie .. in the US the state is STILL covering up CC at the behest of big oil



thank you, JESUS! Someone with some sense. 

apart from the openly classist bit, remind me not to hang around with you any more!


----------



## e19896 (Jul 16, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> e - numbers - ok i really do not understand your insistance that CC is a lie and you have alos not backed up that arguement ..
> 
> and p.s. i am broadly sympathetic to Openly Classist line on the m/c but utterly fail to undetrstand how a clear scientific theory is being accused of being a m/c / govt lie .. in the US the state is STILL covering up CC at the behest of big oil



Ha openly Classit now we are talking.. I agree i have not back up my disagreement with what i call the lie of climate change and fact is there is not much that can back up this feeling i have, except the c4 program the far right and other off the fringe conspiracy loons, but because i disagree with the premise of climate change dose this make me far right? a conspiracy loon and in the camp of all the other nutters who disagree with climate change of course not..

durruti02 i could not agree more, along with free spirit you have both moved me along a little on this and Signal 11 because i disagree with you dose not make far right or any of the other absurd aligations you make check out some facts here pretentiousartist.com go look and you will find out that myself is openly classit, class strugle anarchist and militant anti fascist long term sqauter that lives through respect to my earth substanably on 80 pounds a week and only takes what i need for a very basic life, i reckon my carbon footprint is fucking low, i live like i do out of respect to the working class of the world and the earth i live upon not due to propaganda and lies we as working class are told but because i respect the working class and this earth.

So in conclusion Signal 11 because i have not entered into your delusion dose not make me who you proclaim me to be, i work hard and play hard and evryday is an ongoing part of the class struggle..


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 16, 2008)

e19896 said:


> I agree i have not back up my disagreement with what i call the lie of climate change and fact is there is not much that can back up this feeling i have


So you're calling people liars and asking us to take a far right position based on a "feeling" you have. 



e19896 said:


> except the c4 program


That program was hogwash produced by far right propagandists. Its claims have been refuted by MediaLens and RealClimate and here on urban. Earlier you said you don't believe the lies of the middle class, but you certainly seem to have swallowed these.



e19896 said:


> durruti02 i could not agree more


You don't agree with him. You think climate change is a "lie" and he doesn't.



e19896 said:


> along with free spirit you have both moved me along a little on this


In what way has your position changed?



e19896 said:


> Signal 11 because i disagree with you dose not make [me] far right


I didn't say it does. But you are taking a far right position on this issue, and asking others to do so, without  providing any reason. Like I said, I doubt if anyone will join you.



e19896 said:


> So in conclusion Signal 11 because i have not entered into your delusion


State precisely to what "delusion" you refer and provide evidence of it, or withdraw the allegation.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2008)

Signal, questioning man-made climate change is NOT a far right psition, get over yourself

and you are a liar if you are saying that man made climate change is a fact, its a theory around which many scientists have agreed consensus

some scientists disagree

i dont think you know much about science


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 16, 2008)

smokedout said:


> Signal, questioning man-made climate change is NOT a far right psition


The vast majority of climate change deniers are on the far right.



smokedout said:


> and you are a liar if you are saying that man made climate change is a fact


There is a margin of error on predictions of temperature levels etc, but there is no doubt on the basic facts, which I summarised here. If you have anything to dispute them, provide it.



smokedout said:


> some scientists disagree


No climate scientists dispute the basic facts.



smokedout said:


> i dont think you know much about science


You have certainly showed yourself to know nothing about it.


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 16, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Ha openly Classit now we are talking.. I agree i have not back up my disagreement with what i call the lie of climate change and fact is there is not much that can back up this feeling i have, except the c4 program the far right and other off the fringe conspiracy loons, but because i disagree with the premise of climate change dose this make me far right? a conspiracy loon and in the camp of all the other nutters who disagree with climate change of course not..
> 
> durruti02 i could not agree more, along with free spirit you have both moved me along a little on this and Signal 11 because i disagree with you dose not make far right or any of the other absurd aligations you make check out some facts here pretentiousartist.com go look and you will find out that myself is openly classit, class strugle anarchist and militant anti fascist long term sqauter that lives through respect to my earth substanably on 80 pounds a week and only takes what i need for a very basic life, i reckon my carbon footprint is fucking low, i live like i do out of respect to the working class of the world and the earth i live upon not due to propaganda and lies we as working class are told but because i respect the working class and this earth.
> 
> So in conclusion Signal 11 because i have not entered into your delusion dose not make me who you proclaim me to be, i work hard and play hard and evryday is an ongoing part of the class struggle..



ok you know what .. sometimes i TOO have a feeling the human cause of Climate Change MAY be a con .. but i am always suspicious of all things .. ( as we all should be ) 


.. but there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest it is a con and absolutly TONS of evidence to say it is NOT a con .. for links check the Climate Camp website 

p.s. imho it is also important that while it is ok despising those m/c who seek to always control and acknowledging the key role the m/c PLAY in controling people, it should not not spill over into refusing to accept anything that is repeated by the mouths of the m/c .. it constantly winds me up to hear everytime an environmentalist speaks that they are m/c .. but what they say is often right


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2008)

> The vast majority of climate change deniers are on the far right.



that does not mean that its a far right position

interestingly if this graph you posted contained data from the last 18 months or so then the red line would be sitting at around -0.4


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 16, 2008)

smokedout said:


> interestingly if this graph you posted contained data from the last 18 months or so then the red line would be sitting at around -0.4


And your source is? e2a: The climate research unit isn't showing any such thing: graph - data

Of course there _are_ short term fluctuations in the temperature. Nobody has claimed that CO2 is the only factor affecting it. This is about the long term trend.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2008)

source

that graphs further revealing though, from 1880 to 1910 the temperature fell about .4, which is about the same as the growth between 1970 and 2000

the temperature slump from 1880 onwards which bottems out at a temperature fall below the mean almost exactly the same as the temperature peak of the last 30 years stands above the mean

do you presume that the temperature slump from 1880 onwards was man made as well?

and now the temperature has slumped again, we'll have to see if the early part of this century was a temperature peak or whether the downward trend will continue


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 16, 2008)

smokedout said:


> source


A news report about cold weather. Which talks about a drop in *air* temperature, and a smaller one than you claimed. To make a valid comparison you have to measure the same thing. The data I linked above does that and shows the value 0.8 higher than you said. Your article also makes clear that the cold weather it is talking about is not evidence against climate change.



> Even so, global warming skeptics such as Arizona State University climatologist Robert Balling aren't seizing on this weird season as proof that climate change isn't happening.
> 
> "I doubt the trend is statistically significant at this time," Balling said.





smokedout said:


> that graphs further revealing though, from 1880 to 1910 the temperature fell about .4


Do you really think that the climate scientists are not aware of what is on their own graphs, and if only they had you to point it out to them, all their theories would be overturned?



smokedout said:


> and now the temperature has slumped again


No, it decreased slightly from the previous high level which is not at all unexpected, as your article explains. It is still well above the standard 1961-1990 average.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2008)

i never said it was significant, just interesting

as is the fact that global temperature has remained pretty much constant prior to that for the last ten years

except of course there isn't actually any such thing as 'global temperature'


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2008)

btw in the graph you linked to it does seem to suggest a drop in the last year it plots.

it also shows that the temperature peaked in the late nineties and then fell slightly and has remained pretty constant ever since.  in fact looking at the graph the last ten years or so seem to have been the most stable ever recorded.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 17, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> ok you know what .. sometimes i TOO have a feeling the human cause of Climate Change MAY be a con .. but i am always suspicious of all things .. ( as we all should be )
> 
> 
> .. but there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest it is a con and absolutly TONS of evidence to say it is NOT a con .. for links check the Climate Camp website
> ...



Signal 11  is now on ignore, can they not read? or do they just desire to a storm trooper of the middle class who cares and who knows. i agree with much of what is said here durruti02 and instead of taking snipes at the middle class we are thinking of doing a reprint of the enemy is middle class and i found this little gem..



> thought these workshops at climate camp looked good.
> 1.
> " burn the rich, not the planet; or why diy biofuel molotovs are not the answer: - a critique by anarcho-permaculturalists against the meat-speculation-swf-industrial-complex, with a video conference with a paraguayan farmer powered by 1000 bicycle critical mass alt fuel generation. In this workshop Jose will also critique fair trade"
> 
> ...


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 17, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Signal 11  is now on ignore, can they not read? or do they just desire to a storm trooper of the middle class who cares and who knows. i agree with much of what is said here durruti02 and instead of taking snipes at the middle class we are thinking of doing a reprint of the enemy is middle class and i found this little gem..



Looks to me as though you're losing the argument and getting angry about it.

And stop acting as though you speak for the entire working class while you're at it, it makes you look foolish.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 17, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Looks to me as though you're losing the argument and getting angry about it.
> 
> And stop acting as though you speak for the entire working class while you're at it, it makes you look foolish.


*
did i say i was there voice? losing what argument it seems some people only read what they desire and ignore the rest and do fuck of with patronising's condescending tone angry indeed, no i just find wankers tiresome *


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 17, 2008)

smokedout said:


> btw in the graph you linked to it does seem to suggest a drop in the last year it plots.


Yes, due to La Nina as the article you linked to above said.



smokedout said:


> it also shows that the temperature peaked in the late nineties and then fell slightly and has remained pretty constant ever since.


The peak in 1998 was due to the strong El Nino at that time.

I've already told you that nobody is claiming that CO2 is the only factor that affects the climate. You are simply making a straw man argument here.

Maybe we could save a bit of time if we consider this in a more general sense. You seem to have looked at the graph and thought what you saw proved the scientists wrong. As far as I can see there are three possibilities in this case:

1) The scientists are all too stupid to notice what you noticed.
2) They _did_ notice, but are all conspiring to cover it up. By publishing it on the internet.
3) They _did_ notice, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I'll leave it to you to work out which one is correct.

Anyway if you're just saying you're skeptical and giving reasons why you don't support the climate camp, I don't have a problem with that. I only posted on this thread because of e19896 accusing the scientists of lying and trying to encourage others to join him in his irrational position. Now he's put me on ignore I'll probably go back to lurking.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 25, 2008)

Bumped as the Climate Camp starts next Sunday.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 25, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Bumped as the Climate Camp starts next Sunday.



Cool.

I assume with all this global warming, you won't be needing a tent.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 25, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Cool.
> 
> I assume with all this global warming, you won't be needing a tent.



It's the British summer, lol.

A tent is very much on my list of things I'll be taking.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 27, 2008)

Im probably, mostly cos I missed the other 2. Last time I was at somthing anything like was Stirling for the G8.

I know there are huge macro and micro political issues but I know I will be in a better position to positively criticise if I go.

Also its about the process of consensus and sustainable living rather than just the action.

If I go I will be doing a workshop on an anti-ID tip. All activistism is under threat from the database state.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 27, 2008)

Am really looking forward to this event now. 

Transport arrangements are more or less finalised so it's a definite goer for me now. As I haven't done a Climate Camp before it'll be something new for me to get my teeth into.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 27, 2008)

here's one of them far right scientists who appears to have changed his mind about global warming

"I  DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector."

No smoking hot spot


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 27, 2008)

Evans is not a climate scientist. He is associated with right wing think tanks. (see: http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228). The false claims in his article are debunked here.


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 28, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Evans is not a climate scientist. He is associated with right wing think tanks. (see: http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228). The false claims in his article are debunked here.



smkoked???? any reply? 

btw you will find this for pretty well all the so called sceptics .. maybe they ARE right .. but they are NOT showing any decent science while those who SUGGEST a human link to climate change have a significant scientific basis of their claim


----------



## e19896 (Jul 28, 2008)

*The New Consensus*

On March 4th 2007 Channel 4 aired The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The programme was a lone voice. Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, the documentary was a little bit of free speech, arguing against a consensus. Surely free speech means that even people who are wrong are allowed to have their say.

One documentary that stands against a tide of opposing opinion leads to Channel 4 being taken to court. Surely this only reinforces the contents of the offending documentary. We are not allowed to question the new consensus on global warming.

When it comes to global warming, people are divided into two groups: believers and deniers!

Belief and denial have very little to do with science, and far more to do with religion. Looks like we got a new religion on our hands: Global Warming.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 28, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> He is associated with right wing think tanks. (see: http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228).



no, apart from being an ad hominem thats also a smear, he's published one article for a neo-liberal group, previously he was associated with what could be described as a left wing think tank

if you read through the comments in the linked debunking it seems thats its not as cut and dried as you make out either


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 28, 2008)

None of the experts in climate science think he's right. Do you think he's so clever that his views outweigh those of the experts in a field in which he is not qualified? Or do you think they secretly agree with him, but are all in on a massive conspiracy to cover it up?

If you think he is right, I challenge you to submit his claims to a relevant peer-reviewed journal, which he himself has not done, doubtless because he knows they are false.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 28, 2008)

e19896 said:


> Surely free speech means that even people who are wrong are allowed to have their say.


They are wrong and they were allowed to have their say.



e19896 said:


> One documentary that stands against a tide of opposing opinion leads to Channel 4 being taken to court.


They were not taken to court. Complaints were submitted to OFCOM by scientists whose views had been misrepresented by the program. Those complaints were upheld.



e19896 said:


> Surely this only reinforces the contents of the offending documentary.


Of course it doesn't -- it shows how dishonest it was.



e19896 said:


> When it comes to global warming, people are divided into two groups: believers and deniers!


No, on one side there are the climate scientists and those of us who accept their expert opinion, and on the other side are the big business leaders who find the science inconvenient, along with assorted far-right ideologues, conspiraloons etc, and the people who have been taken in by their propaganda.

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 28, 2008)

smokedout said:


> he's published one article for a neo-liberal group, previously he was associated with what could be described as a left wing think tank


Which one is the "left wing" one? is it the Ludwig von Mises Institute?


> The Mises Institute "works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."



Or is it the Lavoisier Group?


> The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society ("a small but well-connected organisation dedicated to reducing the power of unions and promoting industrial relations changes that benefit employers.") and the Bennelong Society ("a small organisation formed to promote a conservative view of 'Aboriginal policy' in Australia.")





smokedout said:


> if you read through the comments in the linked debunking it seems thats its not as cut and dried as you make out either


I don't see any comments addressing the substance of the article. The only denialist comments I see there are people posting up the same ignorant misconceptions about the temperature record that you posted earlier on this thread.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 28, 2008)

no, the left one is the Australian Greenhouse Office

its no real surprise that he wrote a report for the Lavoisier Group given that they are an organisation sceptical towards climate change, he doesnt appear to be a member of the group - its a bit like saying if a pro-climate change scientist wrote a study for friends of the earth then their science is somewho corrupted by it



> No, on one side there are the climate scientists and those of us who accept their expert opinion, and on the other side are the big business leaders who find the science inconvenient, along with assorted far-right ideologues, conspiraloons etc, and the people who have been taken in by their propaganda.



no on one side there are the various Green Partys, the nuclear power industry, the carbon offset companies and a whole loads of middle class types attempting to launch a political fear on the back of alarmism about climate change alongside the groups you mention

on the other side are also the groups you mentioned as well as a few climate scientists, a whole load of other scientists and those of us who question the accuracy of climate scientists who in 1998 wouldn't have been able to predict that global warming over the next ten years would stop and possibly slightly drop and in the 70s were telling us to prepare for a new ice age

they cant even tell us what the weather is going to be tomorrow with any real degree of accuracy ffs


----------



## smokedout (Jul 28, 2008)

> Continued safe, effective use of nuclear electricity and further development of advanced nuclear power plant technology are an integral part of the international effort to manage risk from global warming. We encourage you to support policies that give every country engaged in greenhouse gas control programs the right to access all technologies as needed, including nuclear electricity.
> 
> Nuclear is a necessary and uniquely effective part of the solution. Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change should acknowledge nuclear electricity as an acceptable energy and environmental resource that successfully avoids greenhouse gas emissions. This will ensure that global emission control programs are flexible and preserve the right of individual countries to make their own energy and development choices.
> 
> ...



http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/sigdoc.pdf


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 28, 2008)

smokedout said:


> no, the left one is the Australian Greenhouse Office


That is not a think tank. Neither is it left wing. Evans was employed by it as a contractor to write software to account for carbon emissions in order to monitor compliance with the Kyoto Treaty.



smokedout said:


> its a bit like saying if a pro-climate change scientist wrote a study for friends of the earth then their science is somewho corrupted by it


Scientists submit their papers to peer reviewed journals. Have you submitted your paper yet? Please keep us informed of its progress. I want to be the first to congratulate you when you get your Nobel Prize. 



smokedout said:


> climate scientists who in 1998 wouldn't have been able to predict that global warming over the next ten years would stop and possibly slightly drop


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329



smokedout said:


> and in the 70s were telling us to prepare for a new ice age


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643



smokedout said:


> they cant even tell us what the weather is going to be tomorrow with any real degree of accuracy ffs


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/221636/43

You don't seem to have taken any notice of what Bernie said to you last time:



			
				Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Yep. I don't propose to take smokedout seriously until he comes up with some sort of substantive argument. I've always thought he was an inoffensive sort, but I'm beginning to think he's indulging in some sort of humourous wind-up here.
> 
> If you're going to argue stuff like this, at least have the basic fucking respect for the people who have made an effort to inform themselves to do likewise yourself.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 28, 2008)

BTW, smokedout, last time you raised the 1998 issue I asked you a question. This time I want you to answer it.




			
				Signal 11 said:
			
		

> You seem to have looked at the graph and thought what you saw proved the scientists wrong. As far as I can see there are three possibilities in this case:
> 
> 1) The scientists are all too stupid to notice what you noticed.
> 2) They did notice, but are all conspiring to cover it up. By publishing it on the internet.
> 3) They did notice, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.



Which one are you claiming, or what alternative do you propose?

e2a: You didn't answer this one about Evans either. Please do so.



			
				Signal 11 said:
			
		

> None of the experts in climate science think he's right. Do you think he's so clever that his views outweigh those of the experts in a field in which he is not qualified? Or do you think they secretly agree with him, but are all in on a massive conspiracy to cover it up?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 28, 2008)

signal, firstly thanks for pointing me to such an obviously unbiased site like gristmill 

your first link doesn't address my point which was that climatologists in 1998 did not predict that warming would stop, it will be another 10-20 years before we know whether it is likely to have stopped completely, reversed or increased

the second link confirms in the first sentence that in the 70s several climatologists were warning of a new ice age

and the third conatins this statement: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different. 

Climate and weather are different, but up until climatologists predictions have proved to e as inaccurate as the average weather forecast, because there isnt yet a model created which comes even close to being an effective tool to measure all the variables

and theres the rub and leads me to my answer to your first question;

climatologists use climate models to study the climate.  the most damning criticism of global warming is that these models are completely ineffective and are seen by some scientists as a bit of a joke

therefore its no surprise that they speak with one voice, they are not just defending global warming but their entire dicipline

man made climate change remains just a theory and one most climatologists have signed up to , but it wouldnt be the first time that scientific consensus has been wrong

and its very difficult now theyve told us were all doomed for them to back down from that position, but they may yet be forced to 

i dont know how clever evans is, i just found it interesting that he was someone who used to support the global warming hypothesis but now appears to have changed his mind

myself, ive got an open mind, the scientists have failed to convince me, but im open to being convinced - i read all the links bernie posted on the other thread and remained unconvinced

youre claim that anyone who remains unconvinced is far-right or a conspiarcy theory further adds weight to that, the fact its now deemed heresy to even question some of the conclusions reached

you ask me to write a peer reviewed study, unfortunately as you know im not qualified to do so - but the onus of proof is not on the sceptics, theyre not the ones saying the sky is falling down

can you point me to a peer reviewed study that proves beyond doubt that man made climate change was responsible for the global warming between 1980 and 1998?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 28, 2008)

smokedout said:


> signal, firstly thanks for pointing me to such an obviously unbiased site like gristmill


Poisoning the well.



smokedout said:


> your first link doesn't address my point which was that climatologists in 1998 did not predict that warming would stop


It did not stop, as the article explained.



smokedout said:


> the second link confirms in the first sentence that in the 70s several climatologists were warning of a new ice age


A small minority considered it a possibility. There was nothing like the massive consensus there is on climate change now, as the article explained.



smokedout said:


> but up until climatologists predictions have proved to e as inaccurate as the average weather forecast, because there isnt yet a model created which comes even close to being an effective tool to measure all the variables


Actually the models predict very well the observed changes over the past 150 years (source).



smokedout said:


> the most damning criticism of global warming is that these models are completely ineffective and are seen by some scientists as a bit of a joke


By which scientists?



smokedout said:


> therefore its no surprise that they speak with one voice, they are not just defending global warming but their entire dicipline


Appeal to conspiracy.



smokedout said:


> man made climate change remains just a theory


You might want to find out what a theory is.



smokedout said:


> it wouldnt be the first time that scientific consensus has been wrong


What other times has the scientific consensus been wrong and what is the connection to this issue?



smokedout said:


> and its very difficult now theyve told us were all doomed for them to back down from that position


Appeal to conspiracy.



smokedout said:


> [Evans] was someone who used to support the global warming hypothesis


I've not seen any evidence that he was. However, that is irrelevant since the article I linked above showed that his claims were false.



smokedout said:


> youre claim that anyone who remains unconvinced is far-right or a conspiarcy theory


Provide a citation where I said that.



smokedout said:


> you ask me to write a peer reviewed study, unfortunately as you know im not qualified to do so


AIUI, Anyone can submit a paper. All you need to do is copy the claims from the article you linked if you think they are correct. Let us know how you get on.



smokedout said:


> the onus of proof is not on the sceptics


If you wish to challenge mainstream science, you have the burden of proof.



smokedout said:


> can you point me to a peer reviewed study that proves beyond doubt that man made climate change was responsible for the global warming between 1980 and 1998?


Jones & Mann, 2004 (PDF!)


> Assessment of the empirical evidence provided by proxies of climate change over the past two millennia, combined with climate modeling efforts to explain the changes that have occurred during the period, indicates that solar and volcanic forcing have likely played the dominant roles among the potential natural causes of climate variability. Neither can explain, however, the dramatic warming of the late 20th century; indeed, natural factors would favor a slight cooling over this period. *Only anthropogenic influences (principally, the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations) are able to explain, from a causal point of view, the recent record high level of global temperatures during the late 20th century*.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 28, 2008)

> It did not stop, as the article explained.



well no it did.  the long term trend may still indicate a warming but the simple fact is that the planet hasnt got any warmer in the last ten years, even the IPCC ackowledge that



> A small minority considered it a possibility. There was nothing like the massive consensus there is on climate change now, as the article explained.



where does it say a small minority? don't forget that climatology was an emergent science back then so it could well have been a majority



> Actually the models predict very well the observed changes over the past 150 years (source).



sorry youve got to give me more than that.  all that shows is that in retrospect the scientific models hold up, very convenient - does that graph represent all the different models, some of them or or just the one that fits best

something that we havent discussed is also that what the earths current temperature actually is now is open to some speculation, prior to satelllite records even more so - no-one really knows what the planets temperature was 150 years ago



> By which scientists?



heres one


> #
> # Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."



link



> Appeal to conspiracy.



no, appeal to common sense



> You might want to find out what a theory is.



thanks i know, but from your link



> A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.



the only real theory is that the planet is getting warmer, CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas, and is undoubtly rising due to human activity

whether this has any meaningful impact on the the planets temperature could be open to question



> What other times has the scientific consensus been wrong and what is the connection to this issue?



eugenics, and its connection to this issue is that scientific consensus has been wrong before, are you being deliberately obtuse?



> I've not seen any evidence that he was. However, that is irrelevant since the article I linked above showed that his claims were false.





> When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
> 
> The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
> 
> But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.





> Provide a citation where I said that.



youve said it repeatedly on this thread

as for the paper ill read it when ive got time and comment


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 28, 2008)

smokedout said:


> man made climate change remains just a theory and one most climatologists have signed up to , but it wouldnt be the first time that scientific consensus has been wrong



 you show your total lack of understanding of this subject by this sentance 

ALL science is simply theory and consensus .. and yes, always, of course, it MAY be wrong .. only a fool would disagree would that possibility 

BUT, equally, only a fool would ignore a consensus like that we have now, and remember this consensus was created in opposition to the most powerful state and most powerful corporations in the world who pumped millions of dollars into anti CC lies and disinfo and deliberaterly covered up facts about aspects of CC 

and btw it is CC not GW that is important 

there is one other possibility .. that the whole thing is a nuclear industry hype .. but why then do virtually all CC activists rejct the nuclear option? and tell me this .. is james lovelock who DOES support nuclear, a dupe for the nuclear industry?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 28, 2008)

smokedout said:


> the long term trend may still indicate a warming


The long term trend is precisely what this issue is about.



smokedout said:


> where does it say a small minority?





> a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future
> [...]
> The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny





smokedout said:


> all that shows is that in retrospect the scientific models hold up


Therefore your claim that they are "completely ineffective" was false.



smokedout said:


> something that we havent discussed is also that what the earths current temperature actually is now is open to some speculation, prior to satelllite records even more so - no-one really knows what the planets temperature was 150 years ago


Maybe you could add that to your paper too. You might even get two Nobel Prizes.



smokedout said:


> Hendrik Tennekes


So, now the opinion of a retired meteorologist / aerospace engineer outweighs the consensus of climate scientists in their own field, and the evidence already presented that the models do in fact work?



smokedout said:


> the only real theory is that the planet is getting warmer, CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas, and is undoubtly rising due to human activity
> 
> whether this has any meaningful impact on the the planets temperature could be open to question


What mechanism do you propose to prevent it having the expected, and observed, effect?



smokedout said:


> eugenics, and its connection to this issue is that scientific consensus has been wrong before, are you being deliberately obtuse?


No, I'm trying to get you to understand that that is a fallacious argument.



smokedout said:


> youve said it repeatedly on this thread


Either cite it or stop putting words in my mouth.



smokedout said:


> as for the paper ill read it when ive got time and comment


If you're claiming to have sufficient expertise to judge it, provide evidence of that expertise.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 28, 2008)

> The long term trend is precisely what this issue is about.



yes but if the line on the graph keeps going down then what will you be saying in ten years, climate fluctutions are normal, it may be that it peaked in 1998 and is now set to fall again, we'll have to wait and see



> Therefore your claim that they are "completely ineffective" was false.



i notice you completely ignore my requests for more information about what exactly that graph represents



> So, now the opinion of a retired meteorologist / aerospace engineer outweighs the consensus of climate scientists in their own field, and the evidence already presented that the models do in fact work?



oh look heres another climate scientist who agree the models are flawed



> Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.


 link



> What mechanism do you propose to prevent it having the expected, and observed, effect?



theres many reasons it may not and if you read up on it with an open mind youll find them out soon enough.  more importantly it seems to me unlikely that given all the other factors, methane, water vapour etc that the tiny contribution human activity makes to the tiny conecntration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make any real difference at all


> If you're claiming to have sufficient expertise to judge it, provide evidence of that expertise.



tell you what, ill pass it on to the the bloke i do some work for, hes a mathematician who spent nearly 20 years studying climate models with a team at one of the most prestigious academic organisations in the country.  hes published several peer reveiwed papers in his career and now peer reviews himself - will his comments do for you (it might take him some time but i just spoke to him and hes up for it)

he thinks man made climate change is a load of bollocks btw, as do the people who worked on the project with him


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 29, 2008)

smokedout said:


> yes but if the line on the graph keeps going down then what will you be saying in ten years, climate fluctutions are normal


Yes, they are but the current long term warming trend is not normal, as the paper I cited in the last post said.



smokedout said:


> it may be that it peaked in 1998 and is now set to fall again, we'll have to wait and see


I've already explained that the spike in 1998 was due to the strong El Nino at that time, and that there are other factors involved. If you look at the graph it's clear that you could have made this same argument several other times over the years, and you would have been equally wrong.



smokedout said:


> i notice you completely ignore my requests for more information about what exactly that graph represents


Sorry I missed that earlier. It shows a range of simulations. That's why the simulations are represented as a band rather than a line. (e2a: I could be wrong about that, it may be one model showing a margin of error. There's a bit more information about it here.) If you want more than that you'll have to ask the IPCC.



> oh look heres another climate scientist who agree the models are flawed [...] Dr. Roy Spencer


The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with him. He has also been exposed as being dishonest with the data. That might be due to his political bias, being associated with the Heartland Institute and Marshall Institute. He is also on record as stating that creationism is "scientific".



smokedout said:


> more importantly *it seems to me*


So, you're an expert again for this paragraph.



smokedout said:


> unlikely that given all the other factors, methane, water vapour etc


http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm



smokedout said:


> that the tiny contribution human activity makes to the tiny conecntration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make any real difference at all


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

If you're just going to keep posting up these common misconceptions I've got better things to do with my time than continue this.



smokedout said:


> tell you what, ill pass it on to the the bloke i do some work for, hes a mathematician who spent nearly 20 years studying climate models with a team at one of the most prestigious academic organisations in the country. hes published several peer reveiwed papers in his career and now peer reviews himself - will his comments do for you


If he thinks he has anything to challenge the scientific consensus, the appropriate thing to do is write up a paper and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## 888 (Jul 29, 2008)

Somkedout, go to the science forum to be completely destroyed.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 29, 2008)

> Sorry I missed that earlier. It shows a range of simulations. That's why the simulations are represented as a band rather than a line. (e2a: I could be wrong about that, it may be one model showing a margin of error. There's a bit more information about it here.) If you want more than that you'll have to ask the IPCC.



i asked because the pre-1980 temeratures on that graph dont appear to match those on the one you posted earler in the thread - also you are aware that the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past so its hardly unexpected 



> The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with him. He has also been exposed as being dishonest with the data. That might be due to his political bias, being associated with the Heartland Institute and Marshall Institute.



something he himself denies

why the constant stream of ad hominems against anyone who questions the supposed consensus - its not very scientific

bit like your suggestion that anyone who disagrees is far right or a conspiarcist (or has been taken in by them)

heres another left wing commentator backed by a scientist who is sceptical of the party line





> http://www.skepticalscience.com/meth...al-warming.htm
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm



all those links do is further emphasise the complexities of climate modelling, in the second it says



> When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C



problem with that statement is that globally the ice isnt melting



> If he thinks he has anything to challenge the scientific consensus, the appropriate thing to do is write up a paper and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.



perhaps he cont be bothered because he realises that anything challenging the alleged consensus is verboten

American physicists warned not to debate global warming


----------



## october_lost (Jul 29, 2008)

Not too pleased this thread as been hijacked for some partisan bit of science...


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 29, 2008)

october_lost said:


> Not too pleased this thread as been hijacked for some partisan bit of science...



Nor am I, to be honest. All the science stuff belongs in the relevent forum and this isn't it.


----------



## biff curtains (Jul 29, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Nor am I, to be honest. All the science stuff belongs in the relevent forum and this isn't it.



Er yeah science has no bearing on political action at all.

As it happens I think it does belong on here.

And it's good to know the shameless self publicist smokedout won't be at Climate Camp


----------



## Random (Jul 29, 2008)

i won't be attending, but climate change does matter.  Was this poll designed by youGov?


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 29, 2008)

Random said:


> i won't be attending, but climate change does matter.  Was this poll designed by youGov?



No, this poll wasn't designed by YouGov.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 29, 2008)

biff curtains said:


> And it's good to know the shameless self publicist smokedout won't be at Climate Camp



yeah absolutely shameless, thats why ive never once in my life appeared on tv, radio or any other form of media other than online and i use a pseodonym


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 29, 2008)

smokedout said:


> you are aware that the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past so its hardly unexpected


State precisely what you mean by "the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past" and provide evidence.

If you'd bothered to read the article you would have seen that the models also predicted correctly from 1988 onwards:


> Way back in 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show remarkable agreement with observation right to present day (Hansen 2006).
> [...]
> Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and in hindsight, the one that most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.
> [...]
> ...





smokedout said:


> [Re: Spencers association with Marshall and Heartland Institutes] something he himself denies


I pointed out that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with him, and that he has been shown to be dishonest with the data.

It is not an Ad Hominem to then suggest that this may be due to his demonstrated political bias, such as his association with the Heartland Institute and his association with the Marshall Institute, both of which are funded by Exxon, or his loony views on creationism:



			
				Roy Spencer said:
			
		

> intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism




You're always going to find the odd crank who disputes the consensus, whether for political reasons or otherwise, just as you can for AIDS, evolution, cosmology or any other subject. If any of them turn out to be correct, their view will _become_ the consensus. Until then it's absurd to ask people to ignore the consensus and instead follow the cranks.



smokedout said:


> heres another left wing commentator backed by a scientist who is sceptical of the party line


Neither Cockburn nor Hertzberg are climate scientists.



smokedout said:


> problem with that statement is that globally the ice isnt melting


Straw man. The article didn't claim that it is melting globally.



smokedout said:


> perhaps he cont be bothered because he realises that anything challenging the alleged consensus is verboten


Appeal to conspiracy.



smokedout said:


> American physicists warned not to debate global warming


Lord Monckton is not a climate scientist, nor any kind of scientist. He "is a British politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit" (source). His article was published in a non peer-reviewed newsletter of the APS and was then touted on all the usual far-right blogs as being the view of the APS, which it most certainly is not. It is debunked by a real climate scientist here.

BTW, have you submitted your paper yet?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 29, 2008)

> State precisely what you mean by "the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past" and provide evidence.



its getting late ill provide evidence tomorrow.  but  i'm not alleging dishonesty, part of the way the models work is to look at the past and the conditions of the past and then make predictions about the future - so they are constantly tweaked in an attempt to ensure greater accuracy


> It is not an Ad Hominem to then suggest that this may be due to his demonstrated political bias, such as his association with the Heartland Institute and his association with the Marshall Institute, both of which are funded by Exxon



err, yes it is, play the ball, not the man



> Neither Cockburn nor Hertzberg are climate scientists.



no and neither is monckton - but as ive already pointed out, climatology, even now could be regarded as an emergent science, you only need to look at both psychiatry and psychology in its infancy to see how dramatic mistakes can be made

mathematicians, computer scientists, meteorologists, physicists and more all have diciplines which qualify them to challenge the conclusions of a new science based on computerised models which many, many scientists outside of the field believe to be inadequate 

its not about the sciences of climatology but the science of computer modelling, ill look tomorrow for a quote from a computer scientistist who flays the climatlogists, not on their interpretation of the data but how they got the data, the programming language used and the flaws in it 



> Straw man. The article didn't claim that it is melting globally.



no, its not, but according the models it should be

(disclaimer, need to check that, but certainly according to the most shrill commentators it not only should be but it is, when in fact its not)

neither are the sea levels rising


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 30, 2008)

smokedout said:


> i'm not alleging dishonesty


Fair enough then.



smokedout said:


> you only need to look at both psychiatry and psychology in its infancy to see how dramatic mistakes can be made


Same "wrong before" fallacy you used earlier.



smokedout said:


> no, its not, but according the models it should be [melting globally]





> Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.


IPCC 2007



smokedout said:


> neither are the sea levels rising





> Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003.


Source as above.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> If any of them turn out to be correct, their view will _become_ the consensus. Until then it's absurd to ask people to ignore the consensus and instead follow the cranks.



Do you have any comment on what might be the best strategy for the left on this issue? I think it would be best to go with the scientific consensus, even if we were not sure about the science.

Like I said earlier, if this is just your personal view and reason not to support the climate camp, I don't have a problem with that and I can stop derailing this thread. But if you're advocating it as a strategy I think it needs to be challenged.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 30, 2008)

Well, I'll definitely be going. Almost all my kit is ready and transport is all but arranged, so it's a definite goer for me.

I'll be doing a daily report from the camp on my blog which I've started specially for this year's event.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Do you have any comment on what might be the best strategy for the left on this issue? I think it would be best to go with the scientific consensus, even if we were not sure about the science.
> 
> Like I said earlier, if this is just your personal view and reason not to support the climate camp, I don't have a problem with that and I can stop derailing this thread. But if you're advocating it as a strategy I think it needs to be challenged.



its obvious to me that the current dependence on oil is unsustainable and has also got us into the financial fucking mess were in, but for 2 years out of 3 the climate camp has chosen to highlight coal

given the history of the coal industry in this country i think that is a costly mistake and is already creating a fracture within the left to the point where we now have different sections of the left marching against each other  

i also think we should make the point that any tinkering around the edges will not make a blind jot of difference whilst the world maintains a capitalist economic system and that the people who will suffer the most from global warming if it does exist or from the reformist measures being put in place to deal with it are the people who already have least

compost toilets and grey water systems are all well and good, but theyre a middle class indulgence that just isnt relevent to the majority of people in this country

if the effort that had gone into the climate camp had gone into class struggle then we might actually be moving forward instead of being further driven into the political ghetto 

im not saying we should ignore the science, although i do think it should be challenged constantly because of the implications and the fact that its now become big business - the electricity firms are already making billions from trading in carbon credits, the nuclear power industry is set to make billions more

so on one hand we have exxon, on the other a different bunch of global corporations, capitalists competing, its what they do and until the science is absolutely unequivocal then we should at least remain open minded

and recognise that hassling the working class to turn the heating down will only entrench class divisions and not make any difference to the environment

a sustained attack on the oil companies who are responsible for global misery in so many different ways would imo be a far better strategy

winding up miners in a field in the middle of nowehere wont get us anywhere

(by the way the ice may be melting at the north pole, in the southern hemisphere its thickening  )


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 30, 2008)

Does that mean you are advocating climate change denial as a strategy for the left or not? Which is what I actually asked you.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 30, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Well, I'll definitely be going. Almost all my kit is ready and transport is all but arranged, so it's a definite goer for me.
> 
> I'll be doing a daily report from the camp on my blog which I've started specially for this year's event.




http://bakuninsblog.blogspot.com/

I don't think this'll break the rules on spam, seeing as it's protest-related and could be called independent media if you like.

Pretty mundane stuff so far, just my preparations for leaving at the moment., but it will spice up pretty rapidly from Sunday's entry onwards, I'm sure of that.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Does that mean you are advocating climate change denial as a strategy for the left or not? Which is what I actually asked you.



you're confusing science and politics yet again

believing in man made global warming does not imply a political position, plenty of people on the right and far right are happy to support the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis

sure it could be a weapon in our armory against capitalism, a what if scenerio if mass production and rampant capitalism goes unchecked, fill your boots

but to make it the cornerstone of the movement as many seem to be trying to do is entirely counter-productive - and if in 10 years the prophecies of doom havent happened or the planet has got even cooler then some people are going to look very, very stupid

people can analyse the evidence and make up their own mind as they see fit without it denoting a political position

in the meantime some of us are more concerned with class struggle, because as ive said before without the end of a global capitalist economy then all this cod environmentalism is just, well, hot air


----------



## moon23 (Jul 31, 2008)

I won't be going becuase i'm a wage slave and can't get the time off. I'm also busy with the NO2ID campaign and can only dedicate so much of my life to politics. I'll be writing about it on my blog and supporting it where I get the chance in the local media etc.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> n the meantime some of us are more concerned with class struggle, because as ive said before without the end of a global capitalist economy then all this cod environmentalism is just, well, hot air


I used to have a reasonable level of respect for you and your views, but your input to various climate change related debates on here over the last couple of years has really shown you up to have fuck all clue what you're talking about.

a few conversations down the pub with your mate who's done some work on climate modelling doesn't really qualify you to give opinions on this subject, particularly when the opinions you then go on to give are often as easily disproved as your statement about sea levels not rising.

you really ought to stop using your mate as your fall back to rebut anything anyone says about climate change on here, as I get the distinct impression that your mate if he came on here would be telling an entirely different story. Yes the models themselves aren't that accurate due to the huge complexities involved, which is why there is such a big range of possible temperature predictions, but I very much doubt your mate would back you up on this quote





> he thinks man made climate change is a load of bollocks btw, as do the people who worked on the project with him



many climate scientists in different areas of the field have differing opinions about the precise global, and regional temperature and climatic changes we can expect from various different concentrations of the different anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, aerosols etc but I've not come across any who think there will be no effect at all. I doubt your mate will prove to be an exception to this.

bottom line, learn something about the subject or stfu, this subject is too important for attention seeking know nothings like yourself to muddy the waters continually.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> problem with that statement is that globally the ice isnt melting


what do you mean by this statement?

if you mean that the ice melt isn't happening equally all over the globe, and that in some places ice extent is even increasing, then you're correct.

however you've phrased it in such a way that a casual observer would think you meant that the total area covered by ice globally isn't decreasing. Is that what you meant? if it is then you'll presumably be able to find a source to back up your statement?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> you're confusing science and politics yet again


No, I'm not. I'm asking you whether _you_ are advocating climate change denial as a strategy for the left, since you've spent the last several pages of this thread posting up denialist bullshit.



smokedout said:


> believing in man made global warming does not imply a political position


Straw man. I never said it did.



smokedout said:


> but to make it the cornerstone of the movement as many seem to be trying to do


Straw man. I've never advocated that and I haven't seen anyone else do so.



smokedout said:


> and if in 10 years the prophecies of doom havent happened


Provide a citation of any "prophecies of doom" climate scientists have predicted for the next 10 years.



smokedout said:


> or the planet has got even cooler


"even cooler"! Your ignorance is breathtaking. Explain precisely how you determined that 10 years would be a significant departure from the long term trend. I have told you several times already that CO2 is not the only factor. Explain which other factors you have taken into account.



smokedout said:


> then some people are going to look very, very stupid


No one is going to look stupid by accepting the scientific consensus. If it turns out that there is some as yet unknown factor that limits the warming, the scientists will discover it and people will be able to change their position accordingly. But that is an extremely remote possibility, not something we should gamble on.

In contrast, by siding with the cranks we would look stupid now, as you have amply demonstrated on this thread and the earlier one. And we would almost certainly look much stupider as time went on.



smokedout said:


> people can analyse the evidence and make up their own mind


You haven't taken any notice of any of the evidence you have been shown. You haven't even bothered to read the IPCC summary report, but you are still happy to make false claims about the science it summarises.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

free spirit said:


> what do you mean by this statement?
> 
> if you mean that the ice melt isn't happening equally all over the globe, and that in some places ice extent is even increasing, then you're correct.
> 
> however you've phrased it in such a way that a casual observer would think you meant that the total area covered by ice globally isn't decreasing. Is that what you meant? if it is then you'll presumably be able to find a source to back up your statement?



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

> Explain precisely how you determined that 10 years would be a significant departure from the long term trend.



according to the graph you posted the long term trend has only been happening for about 20 years


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

> particularly when the opinions you then go on to give are often as easily disproved as your statement about sea levels not rising.



one of the worlds leading experts on sea levels seems to think that the IPCC report is wrong in this area


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> one of the worlds leading experts on sea levels seems to think that the IPCC report is wrong in this area


you've just proven my point.



> Morner asserts that satellite altimetry data indicate a mean rise in the order of *1.0 mm/yr from 1986 to 1996*,[4] whereas most studies find a value around 3 mm/yr.
> *Morner argues that sea level rise will not exceed 200 mm*, within a range of either +100±100 mm or +50±150 mm depending on assumptions.[5]



even the one person you find to back up your statement doesn't actually agree with you - he's saying sea level is rising, just not as much as the IPCC are saying, which is significantly different to your statement....





> neither are the sea levels rising



like I say, making factually obviously factually inaccurate statements such as this immediately marks you out as being someone who doesn't understand the basics of the issue, and therefore has nothing valuable to add to the debate other than noise.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



that is sea ice, not global ice coverage.

also that graph doesn't actually back up your statement as while there's a big jump in sea ice coverage over the last year or so caused by a strong la nina period, the underlying trend is very obviously downwards - if you don't see this, then I'd suggest you learn to interpret and analise graphs a bit better.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

he's a little bit stronger than that


> Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. ... we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure.
> 
> That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970 ... There's no trend, absolutely no trend.... and then we go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that.





> Now, back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
> 
> Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in [the IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
> 
> That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set.



interviewed here


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 31, 2008)

Signal 11 said:
			
		

> Explain precisely how you determined that 10 years would be a significant departure from the long term trend.





smokedout said:


> according to the graph you posted the long term trend has only been happening for about 20 years


So, it was nothing other than your ignorant guess after a quick look at the graph, apparantly with your eyes closed.



smokedout said:


> one of the worlds leading experts on sea levels seems to think that the IPCC report is wrong in this area


He is not one of the "worlds leading experts". He's a nutjob who claims that "water-witching" and "dowsing" are scientific, but refuses to submit them to any tests.

Here is what his former employer said about him:


> It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research).
> 
> *I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA*. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. *Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner's position on climate change*. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth's climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner's point of view.
> 
> ...


So, again, you're asking us to take the word of a crank against the scientific consensus.


----------



## Sadken (Jul 31, 2008)

Considering this.

A) What goes on all day?

B) How many drugs are knocking about?


----------



## Matt S (Jul 31, 2008)

Sadken:

(a) Workshops, seminars, film showings, music, socialising, networking, action planning....a whole bunch of stuff.

(b) Some - from my limited experience, not much 'serious' stuff, but people will indulge in a few spliffs and so on. If they want to try to get it past the police of course, which in my opinion would be a bit foolish. But people manage it somehow, like anywhere.

Matt


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> www.iceagenow.com


PMSL, that's really in bigfish territory. 

"arctic volcano" (debunked), "global warming on other planets" (debunked), the "SSRC" (debunked).






			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> it is a falsification of the data set.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2008)

I'd like to go but I'm low on funds, is there anyone driving down from Devon at any point who wouldn't mind giving me a lift?


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2008)

Matt S said:


> Sadken:
> 
> (a) Workshops, seminars, film showings, music, socialising, networking, action planning....a whole bunch of stuff.
> 
> ...



It should be stressed, especially for the benefit of any journalists reading this thread, that while there may be some fun and entertainment at this event, it will be mainly an event for activists and not some drug and alcohol fuelled free for all. The site will be left as it was found as much as is possible and will be cleared of any rubbish and litter.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

free spirit said:


> that is sea ice, not global ice coverage.
> 
> also that graph doesn't actually back up your statement as while there's a big jump in sea ice coverage over the last year or so caused by a strong la nina period, the underlying trend is very obviously downwards - if you don't see this, then I'd suggest you learn to interpret and analise graphs a bit better.



only over the last 6 years or so, which i thought wasn't long for any meaningful interpretation, or perhaps it just is when it suits your argument



> He is not one of the "worlds leading experts". He's a nutjob who claims that "water-witching" and "dowsing" are scientific, but refuses to submit them to any tests.



well the IPCC thought he was, yet more ad moninem's, play the ball signal, you do your argument no favours



> I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year.



are you saying the IPCC employ cranks?



> I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003,



and yet in the interview he is introduced as:



> Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.






> PMSL, that's really in bigfish territory.



that interview was actually taken from the EIR, which admittedly is Larouche's lot, but that doesn't detract from what he said or his past credentials

play the ball signal


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> only over the last 6 years or so, which i thought wasn't long for any meaningful interpretation, or perhaps it just is when it suits your argument


erm - that's a 30 year long graph, the first few 10 years are predominantly slightly above the mid point, the middle decade are spread fairly evenly around the mid point, and the last decade is predominantly under the line.

that means the trend over the 30 years we have satellite data for is for a decrease in sea ice coverage that's spread fairly evenly over those 30 years, though possible a slight increase in the rate of change over the last 10 years.

as I say, learn to interpret graphs or you will make yourself look foolish.


----------



## aurora green (Jul 31, 2008)

Smokedout, I think you should come along!!


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

without doing calculations do you really think that the difference between the first two decades is actually that significant, I'd say the years 92-97 its slightly above the midpoint and the years 98-01, its only in the last ten years that anything interesting has happened, which isnt long enough as you know


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

aurora green said:


> Smokedout, I think you should come along!!



hi greeny, good to hear from you 

hows the SUV running


----------



## aurora green (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> hi greeny, good to hear from you
> 
> hows the SUV running



Ha Ha! 
..Actually I just bought a tent and discovered a note inside that says, this tent is "shower proof" not "waterproof". I really hope it's not going to rain.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2008)

aurora green said:


> Ha Ha!
> ..Actually I just bought a tent and discovered a note inside that says, this tent is "shower proof" not "waterproof". I really hope it's not going to rain.




Two words for you:

British summer.

I'll be taking my rain gear for definite.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2008)

They're having a lot of trouble with plod down at the site apparently.

If as many folk as possible can get down there ASAP then they really need the extra bodies to make the site secure.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/405069.html?c=on#comments

They seem to be making life as difficult as possible for those trying to set up the site this year, so any help would be needed and needed now.


----------



## aurora green (Jul 31, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> Two words for you:
> 
> British summer.
> 
> I'll be taking my rain gear for definite.



I know. Think I'd better get me some sort of tarp pretty darn quick. Gotta be really light weight though, 'cos I'll be taking the train with my small boy and I'm already horifically overloaded. And even though they say no need to bring food....I can't quite trust 'em, will have to take my own cheese supply


----------



## aurora green (Jul 31, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> They're having a lot of trouble with plod down at the site apparently.
> 
> If as many folk as possible can get down there ASAP then they really need the extra bodies to make the site secure.
> 
> ...




Shit.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2008)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/405063.html

Latest update on the situation is now online.

Can as many folk as can make it, get down there ASAP please. Thanks.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> without doing calculations do you really think that the difference between the first two decades is actually that significant, I'd say the years 92-97 its slightly above the midpoint and the years 98-01, its only in the last ten years that anything interesting has happened, which isnt long enough as you know


it's not conclusive by any means as the record is only 30 years long, but the data definately doesn't support your original contention, and is consistant with predictions for Sea Ice reduction from anthropogenic climate change.

the scale on that graph is too small to really see what's going on, but I'm certain there's a trend from above average anomolies overall for the first decade, near average anomolies for the second decade, and below average anomolies for the 3rd decade other than the occasional blip due mainly to la nina / el nino cycles, volcanoes etc.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2008)

Bakunin said:


> They're having a lot of trouble with plod down at the site apparently.
> 
> If as many folk as possible can get down there ASAP then they really need the extra bodies to make the site secure.
> 
> ...


oops.

presumably there are contingency plans in place for this situation?


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2008)

free spirit said:


> oops.
> 
> presumably there are contingency plans in place for this situation?



I'm not sure what plans are in place regarding this sort of problem, but the plod seem to be stealing as much construction material as they can lay their paws on and being aggressive when folk try to stand up to them. Their using the excuse of wanting to confiscate articles that might be used for criminal damage, so quite why they're stealing construction materials I don't know.

I'm sure the organisers will have contingency plans in place though, they were expecting a certain amount of hassle after the success of last year's camp.

E2A: The wood pile has apparently been saved by people sitting on it and refusing to be moved.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

aurora green said:


> I know. Think I'd better get me some sort of tarp pretty darn quick. Gotta be really light weight though, 'cos I'll be taking the train with my small boy and I'm already horifically overloaded. And even though they say no need to bring food....I can't quite trust 'em, will have to take my own cheese supply



ive got the boy, so might come down for the day

watch out for the vegan police


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> ive got the boy, so might come down for the day
> 
> watch out for the vegan police



I'm more concerned about the real plod at the moment.


----------



## october_lost (Jul 31, 2008)

Did anyone see the caravan from yesterday?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

free spirit said:


> it's not conclusive by any means as the record is only 30 years long, but the data definately doesn't support your original contention, and is consistant with predictions for Sea Ice reduction from anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> the scale on that graph is too small to really see what's going on, but I'm certain there's a trend from above average anomolies overall for the first decade, near average anomolies for the second decade, and below average anomolies for the 3rd decade other than the occasional blip due mainly to la nina / el nino cycles, volcanoes etc.



cool, now youve simmered down a bit

im not doing this to attention seek, stir up trouble etc, i have read the IPCC reports and i agree ive made mistakes on some of the threads and ive learnt a lot

maybe im biased, but i dont know why, im hardly the biggest supporter of some of the sources ive read and used

ive also always said im sceptical rather than a 'denier'

maybe im stupid, but the more ive read, the more ive discussed it then the less i buy it.  i cant help it, i can pretend to believe if you like, but i dont, sorry

as for my friend hes more than someone i meet down the pub, i was sceptical before i discussed this with him and have spent hours talking to him about it.  my comment that he thinks its all bollocks is an understatement btw, he can barely talk about anything else and becomes far more heated than me

his argument doesnt follow some of the ones ive looked into, his argument is that the models are flawed full stop, and given that hes used the Tiger (i think its called) which i believe is the main model used by the IPCC then im inclined to listen, 

especially as his former colleagues who were also studying climate modelling say the same thing, but no-one wants to put their heads above the parapet such is the vitriol they know they will receive

they are not the only reason im sceptical, and they are also not the only sceptics as is becoming obvious and not all of them are on the payroll of exxon these days

i want to believe, honest, i just dont


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> yet more ad moninem's, play the ball signal, you do your argument no favours


You were making an argument from authority. You asked us to ignore the scientific consensus and believe what he said instead. In those circumstances his credentials and his character are precisely what is important, and the fact that he is demonstrably both dishonest and a new age nutjob tells us all we need to know.

If what he said was true, he would be submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal, not to some CT site on the internet. If _you_ think it is true, I challenge you to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. BTW, have you submitted your other paper yet?

He alleges that the IPCC conspired to falsify the data. That is false. The IPCC is quoting the sea level rise from the peer-reviewed papers that their report cites.




			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> Numerous papers on the altimetry results (see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over 1993 to 2003


IPCC, 2007: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level (PDF, 15MB)
Cazenave and Nerem, 2004
data @ University of Colorado

Really, which do you think is more likely, a massive conspiracy between all those people, or that the dishonest nutjob you quoted is lying about this as well?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> You were making an argument from authority. You asked us to ignore the scientific consensus and believe what he said instead. In those circumstances his credentials and his character are precisely what is important, and the fact that he is demonstrably both dishonest and a new age nutjob tells us all we need to know.



so what you're actually saying is ad hominems are fine if they disagree with what you say is a scientific consensus

and as for that consensus

Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In

his credentials are actually fairly impressive, im mean im sure you know best what with you not having been the president of the main authoritive body on sea levels, or having a phd in the subject and or having been repeatedly used by the IPCC as an expert

do you want to say anything about the scientific claims he makes or just continue slurring him

you highlight exactly whats wrong with the climate change lobby, when you cant challenge the science you resort to personal abuse and thats one of the reasons i remain so sceptical


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2008)

I think this woman should be guest speaker at next year's climate camp.




> A Vancouver woman is among five finalists for a contest seeking the world's greenest person.
> 
> Emily Jubenvill, 22, is the Canadian finalist of the contest sponsored by website 3rdwhale.com. The website's founder, Simon Fraser University professor Boyd Cohen, said Jubenvill's passion for community gardens may have given her the edge over other entrants.
> 
> ...






She's from North Vancouver.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> so what you're actually saying is ad hominems are fine if they disagree with what you say is a scientific consensus


No, that's not what I said. I said they are an appropriate response to an argument from authority.



smokedout said:


> do you want to say anything about the scientific claims he makes or just continue slurring him


WTF are you talking about? I just gave you links to all the peer-reviewed papers and the data.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

incidentally signal the link you posted which you think discredits Mörner is on the site of the environmental defense fund, run by one Fred Krupp who picked up a cool $400,000 dollars salary last year for his trouble

nice work if you can get it

seems its not just exxon making a few quid out of global warming

do you really think Morner deliberately lied and said he was still in a job hed left a year earlier (an easily checkable deception) or do you think it more likely that a mistake was made somewhere down the line by the organisers of the events that billed him as such

you accuse me of conspiracy theory ffs


----------



## smokedout (Jul 31, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> WTF are you talking about? I just gave you links to all the peer-reviewed papers and the data.



the data that he's challenged, do you want to address his criticisms



> I said they are an appropriate response to an argument from authority.



do you want to repeat that so it makes sense


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> the data that he's challenged, do you want to address his criticisms


He said the IPCC falsified it. I showed that they quoted it from peer-reviewed papers.



smokedout said:


> do you want to repeat that so it makes sense





> An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
> 
> 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
> 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
> ...


http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

i was hoping that wasnt what you thought

are you honestly saying that a man who has been used repeatedly by the IPCC isnt an expert and therefore doesnt have legitimate authority

(beyond his phd and former position as the president of the worlds leading body on sea levels)

as to the paper you quoted he wasnt addressing that but a graph in an IPCC report that he claims entered a "correction factor," 

now i guess we need to find that graph and find out the correction factor used and why, but please address the criticism he made and not the one you wanted him to make

perhaps he was lying, who knows, but if you look as his resume his credentials are very impressive, although you know best of course


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

oh look, the source you gave earlier counts wal-mart and du pont as its corporate partners 

its easy this smear hunting when you get into it


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> are you honestly saying that a man who has been used repeatedly by the IPCC isnt an expert and therefore doesnt have legitimate authority


As usual you didn't read the article I linked to:


> If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will be fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
> [...]
> If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his area of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious.



Besides which, when it is one person alleging a conspiracy among many, his honesty or lack of it is quite pertinent. As are his nutty views in other areas.

BTW, I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers he has published on sea level changes in general or satellite altimetry in particular. Please provide links. Otherwise section 2 also applies:


> If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.





smokedout said:


> as to the paper you quoted he wasnt addressing that but a graph in an IPCC report that he claims entered a "correction factor,"


You quoted it to challenge the sea level rise figures.




			
				Morner said:
			
		

> Now, back to satellite altimetry


Precisely what my links addressed.

And with reference to the above about dispute, the link you posted about him shows that he is a lone nut, not "one of the worlds leading experts" as you described him.


> *Morner disagrees with the widely held view of past and future sea level change*. A recent *booklet* The Greatest Lie Ever Told, *published by Morner*, refers to observational records of sea levels for the past 300 years that show variations - ups and downs, but no significant trend.[2] This contrasts with the usual view that sea level rise has been occurring at 2-3 mm/yr over the last century.[3] Morner asserts that satellite altimetry data indicate a mean rise in the order of 1.0 mm/yr from 1986 to 1996,[4] whereas most studies find a value around 3 mm/yr.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> incidentally signal the link you posted which you think discredits Mörner is on the site of the environmental defense fund


Fail. The President of INQUA is entitled to write on behalf of INQUA. Criticising a website that hosts a copy of his letter does not change that.



smokedout said:


> do you really think Morner deliberately lied and said he was still in a job hed left a year earlier


The President of INQUA alleges so and has made his allegation public. I'm inclined to believe him. He has made a specific allegation that would be actionable if it were false.

In contrast, Morner makes a vague accusation about what "they" said and did, so that he cannot be held to account for his claims, even though they can easily be shown to be false. If he were telling the truth, he would be able to name the specific individual(s).



smokedout said:


> you accuse me of conspiracy theory ffs


One person lying about his credentials is not a conspiracy. It is a dishonest individual. Morner is the one alleging a conspiracy and by bringing his claims here, so are you.


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In



Only three specific claims amongst all the handwaving as far as I can see. 



> It was cooler from 1883 to 1928 when there was low solar activity, he said, and it has been warmer since 1947 with increased solar activity.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm



> Man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is negligible, he said, compared to the amount of CO2 Mother Nature makes and disposes of each day or century.


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638



> Finally, climate scientist Melita spoke of a new phase in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm


----------



## ska invita (Aug 1, 2008)

*In case you didnt notice this, the police repression of the camp as begun!

Police Raid Climate Camp Site
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/405104.html


> Yesterday evening police on the Hoo peninsular invaded the camp site at Deansgate ridge. They brought with them a warrant enabling them to search for anything that could be used for criminal damage.
> After the silver commander for operation oasis having said at an open police meeting "we have a duty under law to protect peoples right to peaceful demonstration", last nights violent raid is a disgrace.
> Apparently their warrant meant that they could try to take plumbing supplies that are to be used to provide water and sanitation to the site, also timber that is destined for making compost toilets to get the camp ready for the bulk of people arriving over the weekend.
> 
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Fail. The President of INQUA is entitled to write on behalf of INQUA. Criticising a website that hosts a copy of his letter does not change that.



now you're getting it


> Besides which, when it is one person alleging a conspiracy among many, his honesty or lack of it is quite pertinent. As are his nutty views in other areas.
> 
> BTW, I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers he has published on sea level changes in general or satellite altimetry in particular. Please provide links. Otherwise section 2 also applies:



are you really alleging that a former president of INQUA and expert employed by the IPCC to examine sea levels is not qualified to comment 

heres a few peer reviewed papers hes published

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nils-Axel+M%C3%B6rner&hl=en&lr=



> http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm



interesting that youre prepared to use as a source a claimed ex-physicist who doesnt appear to have anything more than a physics degree over the claims of a climatologist


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> interesting that youre prepared to use as a source a claimed ex-physicist who doesnt appear to have anything more than a physics degree over the claims of a climatologist


He is not claiming expertise of his own. He is referencing peer-reviewed papers by people who do have expertise. If you dispute any of the specific information provided, state precisely which information and provide expert testimony to dispute it.

You quoted the link about the sun's output that shows the claim in your article to be false. This was provided from the Max Planck Institute: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

If you dispute it, I challenge you to submit your claims to a relevant peer-reviewed journal. BTW, How are your other two papers coming on?



smokedout said:


> are you really alleging that a former president of INQUA


He was never President of INQUA itself.



smokedout said:


> and expert employed by the IPCC to examine sea levels is not qualified to comment


He is entitled to comment, but he cannot be used for an Appeal to Authority, as you are using him, for the reasons I have given.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

> He was never President of INQUA itself.



i said a president, not the president

no, it shows it may be false



> You quoted the link about the sun's output that shows the claim in your article to be false. This was provided from the Max Planck Institute: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/



that brief article also claims



> but establishing both how the output of the Sun varies and how such variations influence Earth's climate have proved tricky.



which is quite correct

in any event i mentioned the four most recent none exxon funded scientists, as all the rest on this thread, in an effort to show that the scientific consensus is nowhere near as strong as is being alleged



> He is entitled to comment, but he cannot be used for an Appeal to Authority, as you are using him, for the reasons I have given.



well, thats tenuous, but judge it on the basis of the evidence then, youve yet to criticise his findings, instead choosing to attempt to smear and discredit an IPCC expert


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

but perhaps hes wrong, then again perhaps the IPCC are wrong

it wouldnt be the first time


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> in any event i mentioned the four most recent none exxon funded scientists, as all the rest on this thread, in an effort to show that the scientific consensus is nowhere near as strong as is being alleged


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm


> A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that *not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused*





smokedout said:


> youve yet to criticise his findings


I've shown that his claim was false. He claimed that the IPCC falsified the data. I showed that they *quoted* it from the peer-reviewed papers.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 1, 2008)

This "what causes global warming" thing really gets on my tits.

Both sides act like their arguments are mutually exclusive, a total logical non starter.

The evidence that post industrial revolution emissions have shot up is overwhelming.

There is also more and more evidence that global warming is a phenomena affecting the whole solar system.

Both "sides" will treat you like a fuckwit heretic for mentioning a fact supporting the other.

The likely truth: Climate change is human and non-human caused. It has been hijacked by governments and corporations. We should respect our planet home and one another regardless. I aint going because Im  a prophet of doom, Im going to participate in a more mature process of organising than is on offer from the establishment. Im also going to recruit DA for the anti-ID cause.

I keep saying it, we will have a planet 10 years from now but we may well not have our freedom.


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There is also more and more evidence that global warming is a phenomena affecting the whole solar system.


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

> It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge.



now how youve got any idea that hes talking about that particular paper is beyond me, but even if he is that paper doesnt mention the correction factor so his remarks stand - unless you're calling him a liar

as for your link to a biased website run by a layman



> The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus



a whole 19 countries, coincidentally including all the G8 nations, out of hundreds of countries

staggering


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> now how youve got any idea that hes talking about that particular paper is beyond me


Because he stated that he's talking about the satellite altimetry data in the article that you quoted.



smokedout said:


> that paper doesnt mention the correction factor


He claimed that the IPCC had applied a "correction factor" to get to the figure stated in their report. The links I provided show that they did not. The figure in their report is the same as in the peer-reviewed papers. I've explained this to you at least three times already.



smokedout said:


> "The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus"
> a whole 19 countries, coincidentally including all the G8 nations, out of hundreds of countries


Provide a list of the countries whose Academies of Science oppose the consensus, with supporting evidence.

I already quoted the important part of the article and provided a link to the paper in question -- this is actually about the peer-reviewed science, not peoples reaction to it:


> A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that *not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused*


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> He claimed that the IPCC had applied a "correction factor" to get to the figure stated in their report. The links I provided show that they did not. The figure in their report is the same as in the peer-reviewed papers. I've explained this to you at least three times already.



but that paper is an IPCC paper that made up part of the fourth report, written by IPCC connected scietists which is entirely consistant with what he was saying

but i assume youve taken it upon yourself to call him a liar, even though the IPCC themselves havent disputed the allegation



> Provide a list of the countries whose Academies of Science oppose the consensus, with supporting evidence.



but if they dont accept the hyposthesis, or the fact there is a consensus then why would they actively oppose something that doesnt exist



> I already quoted the important part of the article and provided a link to the paper in question -- this is actually about the peer-reviewed science, not peoples reaction to it:



there is a consensus amongst the articles which have received peer review

that is not the same as there being a consensus amongst scientists in general is it?

and if the models really are flawed then all those peer reviewed articles dont mean jack


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> but that paper is an IPCC paper


No it isn't. Here are the details:


> REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 42, RG3001, doi:10.1029/2003RG000139, 2004
> 
> Present-day sea level change: Observations and causes
> 
> ...



That paper reviews all the other papers on the satellite altimetry data. They are not IPCC papers. The IPCC does not do the research, it summarises the research done by the relevant experts. You can see the data for youself at the University of Colorado. And if you look at the Wikipedia article about Morner that you posted, it tells the same story. I quoted it at the end of this post.



smokedout said:


> there is a consensus amongst the articles which have received peer review that is not the same as there being a consensus amongst scientists in general is it?


You're right it isn't. There is indeed a difference between "scientists in general" and experts in the field publishing peer-reviewed papers. Guess which is actually relevant.



smokedout said:


> and if the models really are flawed


Which I have already shown that they are not.



smokedout said:


> then all those peer reviewed articles dont mean jack


State how many of those articles depend on the models, with supporting evidence.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

> That paper reviews all the other papers on the satellite altimetry data. They are not IPCC papers. The IPCC does not do the research, it summarises the research done by the relevant experts. You can see the data for youself at the University of Colorado. And if you look at the Wikipedia article about Morner that you posted, it tells the same story. I quoted it at the end of this post.



yes it does, and it was published in 2004, Morner made the claims that the falsification occurred from 2003 onwards so we can assume that that was around the time the above paper was being written given the time it takes for the peer review process

we're talking about Morner's allegation of falsification specifically arent we.  Im not qualified to comment on Morner's disagreement with sea levels changes in general, although it does seem to me that given the sea levels vary by up to 20 feet depending on where on the planet you are then a millimetre here or there (which is an average based on inexact measuring techniques) doesnt strike me as particularly significant



> Which I have already shown that they are not.



no you havent, Ive already explained why those graphs are in alignment, because the models are tweaked based on data from the past in order to attempt future predictions

the rest of that piece is based on Hansen, a man who has made a tidy sum from climate change

Hansen has continually revised his figures, this is the guy who was forced to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest years of the 20th century were not in the 1990s, as he had claimed, but in the 1930s - more

you might be interested to read Tennekes' view on the clmate models


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> yes it does, and it was published in 2004, Morner made the claims that the falsification occurred from 2003 onwards so we can assume that that was around the time the above paper was being written given the time it takes for the peer review process


That paper simply reviews the findings of all the other papers. The IPCC's figure takes them all into account. Your conspiracy theory, if you want to continue with it, would have to include all of them. Morner's CT is busted already -- he claimed the IPCC falsified the figures.



smokedout said:


> Ive already explained why those graphs are in alignment


If you are claiming to have expertise in climate modeling, provide evidence of it. Otherwise provide proper sources for your claims.



smokedout said:


> Hansen has continually revised his figures


List all the other times he has "revised his figures", with supporting evidence.



smokedout said:


> this is the guy who was forced to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures





> The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C
> [...]
> The effect on global temperature (the left side of the figure; see larger GIF) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html



smokedout said:


> telegraph.co.uk/opinion/


That article is all the usual denialist shite that has been debunked here many times.



smokedout said:


> you might be interested to read Tennekes' view on the clmate models


Summarize his argument in your own words, so I can see if it will be worth the effort.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 1, 2008)

> That paper simply reviews the findings of all the other papers. The IPCC's figure takes them all into account. Your conspiracy theory, if you want to continue with it, would have to include all of them. Morner's CT is busted already -- he claimed the IPCC falsified the figures.




ffs, thats the paper you pointed me too, which was based on data collected before Morner alleges the figures were falsified, so is entirely irrelevent

the other paper you pointed me to (the IPCC one) only contains one reference to a paper published after 2004

youve accused me of not reading your links, are you sure youve read them?

Hansens only revised his figures twice in fairness, and ill find a source later if i can be bothered because frankly this is getting boring, you repeatedly fail to address any of the claims ive made, instead just posting up link after link to some shonky site with no scientific crenditials



> That article is all the usual denialist shite that has been debunked here many times.



so are you now denying that the position was changed and that its now generally accepted that the 90s did not contain the hottest years on record - im not endorsing the rest of the piece, can you try and stay on the point please



> Summarize his argument in your own words, so I can see if it will be worth the effort.



why the fuck should i, read it and see you what think, its not very long, or dont, i dont fucking care

i dont think i can be bothered anymore


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> ffs, thats the paper you pointed me too, which was based on data collected before Morner alleges the figures were falsified, so is entirely irrelevent


That paper reviews the other papers from which the IPCC actually got the value that is in their report, so it is absolutely relevant. If you want to look up the other papers, that is the place to look. That is why I linked to it.



smokedout said:


> you repeatedly fail to address any of the claims ive made, instead just posting up link after link


I've posted up links when you have used claims that are common misconceptions that have been debunked many times before.



smokedout said:


> to some shonky site with no scientific crenditials


Which references all its claims to expert sources.



smokedout said:


> so are you now denying that the position was changed


I'm not denying there was a change, I'm denying it was significant, as the link I posted showed:


> The effect on global temperature was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.





smokedout said:


> and that its now generally accepted that the 90s did not contain the hottest years on record


Again, from the link I posted:


> Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature.



Most of the warmest years have been in the current decade, not the 90s. The Met Office shows 1998 as the warmest single year and NASA shows 2005 as the warmest single year. Both show the 8 warmest years from 1998 onwards.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2008)

> Originally Posted by smokedout
> and that its now generally accepted that the 90s did not contain the hottest years on record



ok, i should have said in the US as i had in the previous post given your tendency to being disengenuous - the point was that Hansen got the figures wrong, the warmest years in the US of the last century were in the 30s, not the 90s as Hansen had previously claimed, as NASA themselves will confirm


> That paper reviews the other papers from which the IPCC actually got the value that is in their report, so it is absolutely relevant. If you want to look up the other papers, that is the place to look. That is why I linked to it.



no it isnt, Morner claims that the falsification happened after any of the studies referenced in those papers were published

is that so difficult for you to understand?


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2008)

i notice that you have failed to address my main contention which is that the models themselves are flawed

to answer your earlier question about how many papers used computer models - well all of them that predict a definable global temperature rise are presumably using computer models 

or guessing

not that theres much difference


----------



## soam (Aug 2, 2008)

Internet blogger, and coppers hero Inspector Gadget will be there!!!!...

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> ok, i should have said in the US as i had in the previous post


Again, you still haven't read the article I linked to:


> Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.





smokedout said:


> given your tendency to being disengenuous


You are the one being disingenuous. I've already shown that it made no difference, but even if it had made the difference you claimed, it would have no bearing on the case for climate change.



smokedout said:


> Morner claims that the falsification happened after any of the studies referenced in those papers were published


For at least the fifth time now, Morner claims that the IPCC falsified the figures. I have showed that they *quoted* them from the peer-reviewed papers to which I linked.



smokedout said:


> i notice that you have failed to address my main contention which is that the models themselves are flawed


I've addressed it several times already, despite the fact that your ignorant opinion of climate modeling is worth nothing. Here it is again: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm



smokedout said:


> to answer your earlier question about how many papers used computer models - well all of them that predict a definable global temperature rise are presumably using computer models


Circular argument. If you are claiming any of them are invalid, state precisely which ones and provide specific reasons for each, backed by expert sources.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2008)

> You are the one being disingenuous. I've already shown that it made no difference, but even if it had made the difference you claimed, it would have no bearing on the case for climate change.



thats not what we were discussing, again.  We were discussing Hansen and whether he got it wrong, he did, end of.



> For at least the fifth time now, Morner claims that the IPCC falsified the figures. I have showed that they quoted them from the peer-reviewed papers to which I linked.



are you thick?

Morner claims the figures were falsified from 2003 onwards.  The figures in those reports do not cover that time period.

It's like if Morner claimed figures were falsified in the 50's and you point me to a set of figures from the 90's to disprove.  That report is irrelevent to Morner's claims.


> I've addressed it several times already, despite the fact that your ignorant opinion of climate modeling is worth nothing. Here it is again: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm



you havent addressed, youve just kept on posting up the same link without presumably even reading the piece I suggested you read from an expert in climate modelling.

I don't agree with the conclusions of that link, which even itself admits that the climate models are not 100%

you might want to read the comment by Poptech (no 21).  Now I'm not a computer scientist and its entirely possible that neither is he, but if what he says is even remotely true then its pretty fucking damning.

Though I doubt youll bother to read it as you only appear to be prepared to read things that support your position

Failing that how about this peer reviewed article:

On the credibility of climate predictions

from the abstract:

"Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported."


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> thats not what we were discussing, again.  We were discussing Hansen and whether he got it wrong, he did, end of.


State precisely what you are claiming he got wrong and precisely how you think it affects the case for climate change.



smokedout said:


> are you thick?


No, you are.



smokedout said:


> Morner claims the figures were falsified from 2003 onwards.  The figures in those reports do not cover that time period.


I quoted the sea level rise figures from the IPCC's *2007* report. You quoted Morner's claim to dispute those figures. He said that the IPCC had falsified them. I showed that they had quoted them from peer-reviewed papers, which you can see do indeed contain the same figures that the IPCC quotes:




			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> *Numerous papers* on the altimetry results (*see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review*) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over 1993 to 2003



If you are now claiming that someone else's figures were falsified, that does not have any bearing on the IPCC figures that I quoted, which are correct. However, if you are claiming that, state precisely who falsified which figures and provide supporting evidence.



smokedout said:


> without presumably even reading the piece I suggested you read from an expert in climate modelling.


I have read his article and it was nothing but handwaving. If he actually had a case he would be providing examples with real world data and/or code, and he would be addressing it to scientists, not to the public in order to muddy the waters. His target audience is people like you who are desperate to believe that there is an "expert" who disagrees with the consensus, and do not have the ability to evaluate whether his claims have any merit, or the inclination to do any research.



smokedout said:


> I don't agree with the conclusions of that link


Your ignorant opinion is worth nothing.



smokedout said:


> which even itself admits that the climate models are not 100%


And explains why they do not need to be, and that the case for climate change does not depend on the models anyway:



> There is a clear empirical evidence that CO2 is rising, CO2 causes warming and the expected warming is observed. This poses two problems for those who deny anthropogenic warming:
> 
> 1. What is causing the warming if not CO2?
> 2. Why isn't rising CO2 causing the warming?





smokedout said:


> you might want to read the comment by Poptech


Summarise his argument in your own words, so that I can see if it will be worth the effort.



smokedout said:


> The results show that models perform poorly


Handwaving. State precisely what you mean by "poorly" and provide the data to support your claim. I have already shown that the models perform adequately for the purpose to which they are put. That is the consensus opinion among the relevant experts.

e2a, having looked at the paper: Again, these are not experts in climate modeling. "Department of Water Resources, Faculty of Civil Engineering". They are trying to match values from the models to a small number of specific geographical locations, not at all what climate modeling is about. Again, this is the same "weather vs climate" fallacy as before.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2008)

> State precisely what you are claiming he got wrong and precisely how you think it affects the case for climate change.



again?

ok, he got it wrong that 1998 was the hottest recorded US temperature and that the 90's recorded 8 of the hottest years on record in the last century

it affects the case for climate change by showing that even one of the most famous climitologist in the world has made mistakes


> Originally Posted by IPCC, 2007
> Numerous papers on the altimetry results (see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over 1993 to 2003
> If you are now claiming that someone else's figures were falsified, that does not have any bearing on the IPCC figures that I quoted, which are correct. However, if you are claiming that, state precisely who falsified which figures and provide supporting evidence.



you're too funny.  Morner doesn't say which report or paper he is referring to, he just says a graph on the IPCC website as part of an anecdote, so I've no idea how you seem to know which set of figures he's referring to

and then after I point out that Morner says the figures from 2003 showed a strong uplift

and once again you point me to a set of figures that end in 2003 to disprove him 

i bet the IPCC are really glad they have such a keen intellect as yourself promoting their cause



> I have read his article and it was nothing but handwaving. If he actually had a case he would be providing examples with real world data and/or code, and he would be addressing it to scientists, not to the public in order to muddy the waters. His target audience is people like you who are desperate to believe that there is an "expert" who disagrees with the consensus, and do not have the ability to evaluate whether his claims have any merit, or the inclination to do any research.



of course, the former Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute is targetting people like me as part of some mysterious plot the motive of which can only be guessed at

and youve accused me of conspiracy theory



> Summarise his argument in your own words, so that I can see if it will be worth the effort.



no, read it, why the fuck should i



> Handwaving. State precisely what you mean by "poorly" and provide the data to support your claim. I have already shown that the models perform adequately for the purpose to which they are put. That is the consensus opinion among the relevant experts.



why thanks you for linking to the same page on an amateur scientists website for possibly the fifth time

and a peer reviewed study can be dismissed as handwaving now can it 



> e2a, having looked at the paper: Again, these are not experts in climate modeling. "Department of Water Resources, Faculty of Civil Engineering". They are trying to match values from the models to a small number of specific geographical locations, not at all what climate modeling is about. Again, this is the same "weather vs climate" fallacy as before.



well its good to know that lil old signal 11 is more qualified and competent to review a paper after a quick skim read than the peer review process which up until now you've held as sacrosant

i think you should stop now because i for one cant be bothered with your nonsense and hypocrisy anymore


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> he got it wrong that 1998 was the hottest recorded US temperature


Liar.


> Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html



smokedout said:


> and that the 90's recorded 8 of the hottest years on record in the last century


Liar.


> Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html



smokedout said:


> it affects the case for climate change by showing that even one of the most famous climitologist in the world has made mistakes


You've already used this fallacy several times before.



smokedout said:


> Morner doesn't say which report or paper he is referring to


State precisely which report _you_ are referring to, or withdraw your claim. *You were the one who linked his comments to this report by quoting them to challenge the figures I quoted from the report*.



smokedout said:


> I've no idea how you seem to know which set of figures he's referring to


Because, as I've already explained, he says he is talking about the satellite altimetry data, which is precisely what the IPCC and the papers I linked to are talking about.



smokedout said:


> and once again you point me to a set of figures that end in 2003 to disprove him


I quoted the IPCC's sea level rise figures in response to your lie that they were not rising. You used Morner's CT to dispute those figures. I have demonstrated several times that those figures are quoted from the peer reviewed papers, so your use of Morner to challenge them is entirely without merit.



smokedout said:


> no, read it, why the fuck should i


Because it's clear that you keep asking me to read things that you either have not read or have not understood. So far every one of them has been worthless.



smokedout said:


> why thanks you for linking to the same page on an amateur scientists website for possibly the fifth time


Which, as I've already explained, references all its claims to expert sources.



smokedout said:


> well its good to know that lil old signal 11 is more qualified and competent to review a paper after a quick skim read than the peer review process which up until now you've held as sacrosant


It was not peer-reviewed in a relevant journal, but in the "Hydrological Sciences Journal". Besides which, the peer-review process does not guarantee that a paper is correct -- merely that it doesn't contain obvious errors. It certainly does not guarantee that the conclusions people draw from the paper are correct. In this case, the paper was correct in what it said -- climate models do not predict the weather. But that is entirely irrelevant to the case you are trying to make from it.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2008)

> Liar.
> Quote:
> Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature.



the key word there being global, when ive pointed out several times that I was referring to US temperatures

you just love calling people liars dont you



> You've already used this fallacy several times before.



i wasnt saying that science has been wrong, I was pointing out that climatologists have been wrong before (without even mentioning the impending ice age reported in the 70s)


> State precisely which report you are referring to, or withdraw your claim. You were the one who linked his comments to this report by quoting them to challenge the figures I quoted from the report.



I.don't. know. which. report. Morner. is. referring. to.

as Ive repeatedly pointed out, you made an assumption, I pointed out that it was unlikely to be the one you quoted because that wasnt even in the same time scale as the period during which Morner made his allegations and you 5 times persisted to tell me that your report refuted Morners claims



> I quoted the IPCC's sea level rise figures in response to your lie that they were not rising. You used Morner's CT to dispute those figures. I have demonstrated several times that those figures are quoted from the peer reviewed papers, so your use of Morner to challenge them is entirely without merit.



yes of cousre because a former President of INQUA is a crank and a liar

just like the former director of research at the Netherlands Meteorogical Centre is involved in some shadowy conspiracy to discredit global warming



> It was not peer-reviewed in a relevant journal, but in the "Hydrological Sciences Journal".



oh dear, now youre really reaching



> Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability.



Id say that was pretty relevent wouldn't you

its entirely proper for other diciplines to criticise models that are not used exclusively for climatology - youve said with much bluster that no peer reviewed paper has appeared which disputes man made climate change

now one has, coincidentally published two days ago on the exact same point of attack I was proposing

which I understand must have narked you off a bit and now you seems to be saying they are wrong

why not write a paper then and prove it


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> the key word there being global, when ive pointed out several times that I was referring to US temperatures


It didn't make any difference to the US temperature rankings either, as I've already shown. Not that it would have had the slightest relevance to the question of climate change anyway, as I've already explained.


> Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html



smokedout said:


> i wasnt saying that science has been wrong, I was pointing out that climatologists have been wrong before


The fact that they had to make an insignificant correction to some of the US temperature figures does not have any bearing on the case for climate change.



smokedout said:


> (without even mentioning the impending ice age reported in the 70s)


Which has already been debunked.



smokedout said:


> I.don't. know. which. report. Morner. is. referring. to.


You used his quote to dispute the sea level rise figures from the IPCC's 2007 report. If he was not referring to that report, then his comments were irrelevant. If he was referring to that report, then he is wrong, as I have repeatedly shown, because the IPCC sourced those figures from the peer-reviewed papers.



smokedout said:


> Id say that was pretty relevent wouldn't you


No, it says that climate models do not predict the weather. That is irrelevant, since climate scientists do not use them to predict the weather.



smokedout said:


> why not write a paper then and prove it


I don't see any need to. My assessment of it is that it won't make any difference to the scientific consensus. However, if it does I will be happy to accept it.



smokedout said:


> youve said with much bluster that no peer reviewed paper has appeared which disputes man made climate change


I quoted a paper which stated that none of the papers on global climate change in its review period of 1993-2003 rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. This latest paper you have linked to does not dispute that either.

As I've already said, the case for climate change does not depend on the models anyway:
_There is a clear empirical evidence that CO2 is rising, CO2 causes warming and the expected warming is observed. This poses two problems for those who deny anthropogenic warming:

1. What is causing the warming if not CO2?
2. Why isn't rising CO2 causing the warming?_


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2008)

> You used his quote to dispute the sea level rise figures from the IPCC's 2007 report. If he was not referring to that report, then his comments were irrelevant. If he was referring to that report, then he is wrong, as I have repeatedly shown, because the IPCC sourced those figures from the peer-reviewed papers.



that report contains data up until 2003 - he claims the data was falsified from 2003 onwards - which makes it pretty clear hes not referring to that report and why that report is irrelevent

this is my last statement on this topic because if you cant grasp that very simple fact then i see no real point in debating with you

just to clarify, he didnt claim the data was falsified in that report, he claimed the data was falsified *after that report was published *

i really dont know how to explain it to you any simpler than that, perhaps you could ask a trusted friend to read it out loud for you and maybe then it will make more sense



> The fact that they had to make an insignificant correction to some of the US temperature figures does not have any bearing on the case for climate change.



when did i say it did, it does however have some bearing on the case for the models being flawed



> Which has already been debunked.



no it hasnt, several of the handful of climatologists who were around in the 70's predicted a new ice age as that link makes clear



> No, it says that climate models do not predict the weather. That is irrelevant, since climate scientists do not use them to predict the weather.



from the abstract:



> The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale.



ill address your two later points tomorrow because im bored of this and tired

interesting though that you now say the models which you have previously defended are no longer important


----------



## smokedout (Aug 2, 2008)

> 1. What is causing the warming if not CO2?



i will answer that though, prefectly normal climatic variations as have been observed since records began and prior to that as best as we can tell from ice core samples for millions of years


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> that report contains data up until 2003 - he claims the data was falsified from 2003 onwards - which makes it pretty clear hes not referring to that report


You quoted Morner as saying:


> Now, back to *satellite altimetry*. *From 1992 to 2002*, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
> 
> Then, in 2003, *the same data set*, which in [the IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed


That appears to be the same data the IPCC report is talking about:


> Numerous papers on the *altimetry* results (see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over *1993 to 2003*





smokedout said:


> and why that report is irrelevent



The report was relevant because *I quoted the figures from it in response to your claim that the sea levels are not rising*. You quoted Morner _after that_ to dispute those figures. If you are now saying that Morner was not referring to that report, then you no longer have anything to dispute those figures. State unambiguously whether you now accept the sea level rise figures from that report, or alternatively, whether you still maintain that Morner's quote disputes them -- and if so state precisely how it disputes them, including precisely whom you are accusing of falsifying the data and precisely which data.



smokedout said:


> just to clarify, he didnt claim the data was falsified in that report, he claimed the data was falsified *after that report was published *


That report was published in 2007. And if anyone had falsified the data _after_ the report was published, then the data would no longer agree with the report, but in fact it does agree, as you can see.



smokedout said:


> when did i say it did, it does however have some bearing on the case for the models being flawed


It didn't have anything to do with the models, it was about the temperature readings. Maybe you'd like to actually read it this time:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html



smokedout said:


> no it hasnt, several of the handful of climatologists who were around in the 70's predicted a new ice age as that link makes clear


The point being that they were in the minority. So there is no analogy to the current consensus on climate change.



smokedout said:


> from the abstract: The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale.


That is still talking about predicting the temperatures of specific locations, not a global average.



smokedout said:


> interesting though that you now say the models which you have previously defended are no longer important


They are an important tool for climate scientists and they've been quite successful, but they are not important to the case for climate change.


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> i will answer that though, prefectly normal climatic variations as have been observed since records began and prior to that as best as we can tell from ice core samples for millions of years



Jones & Mann, 2004 (PDF!)


> Assessment of the empirical evidence provided by proxies of climate change over the past two millennia, combined with climate modeling efforts to explain the changes that have occurred during the period, indicates that solar and volcanic forcing have likely played the dominant roles among the potential natural causes of climate variability. Neither can explain, however, the dramatic warming of the late 20th century; indeed, *natural factors would favor a slight cooling over this period*. Only anthropogenic influences (principally, the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations) are able to explain, from a causal point of view, the recent record high level of global temperatures during the late 20th century.



And again, I didn't ask you to just wave your hands, I asked for the specific cause(s). And I want to see proper sources, not just your opinion unless you've suddenly become an expert again.

Here is the solar data -- Max Planck Institute reconstruction and direct satellite measurements -- which does not show anything that could explain the recent warming trend.


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 3, 2008)

smoked you ignored my last post to you .. what about this .. why do you think there is there a consensus of scientists in favour of a human cause of climate change?


----------



## smokedout (Aug 3, 2008)

im not convinced there is a consensus


----------



## moon23 (Aug 7, 2008)

I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to goto the climate camp. In part becuase I spend a lot of my time campaigning against ID cards and I like to stay focused one campaign. Now though i'm watching it unfold I have a strong desire to hop on a train after work tomorrow and head on down. Who else who has stayed at home feels a simlair pull!


----------



## free spirit (Aug 7, 2008)

moon23 said:


> I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to goto the climate camp. In part becuase I spend a lot of my time campaigning against ID cards and I like to stay focused one campaign. Now though i'm watching it unfold I have a strong desire to hop on a train after work tomorrow and head on down. Who else who has stayed at home feels a simlair pull!


yep... seriously considering hitching down, got a fucked back though so probably not sensible.

I'd got totally mixed up and thought it was my mates wedding this weekend, so had given up on the idea... was only last week I realised the wedding was the weekend after, but was a bit late by then - plus to be honest I seriously disagree with their line on carbon capture and storage, but maybe I should have been there to argue the case.


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 7, 2008)

moon23 said:


> I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to goto the climate camp. In part becuase I spend a lot of my time campaigning against ID cards and I like to stay focused one campaign. Now though i'm watching it unfold I have a strong desire to hop on a train after work tomorrow and head on down. Who else who has stayed at home feels a simlair pull!


 me very much so .. cept i've had a bug so off work so couldn't have gone


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 7, 2008)

free spirit said:


> yep... seriously considering hitching down, got a fucked back though so probably not sensible.
> 
> I'd got totally mixed up and thought it was my mates wedding this weekend, so had given up on the idea... was only last week I realised the wedding was the weekend after, but was a bit late by then - plus to be honest I seriously disagree with their line on carbon capture and storage, but maybe I should have been there to argue the case.



fair play .. but i do not think we have to agree on all the bits to accept that a new generation on CONVENTIONAL stations is nuts .. i agree with scargill on using some coal as part of a transition .. the new station at kingsnorth is just wrong


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 7, 2008)

smokedout said:


> im not convinced there is a consensus


there is a consensus whether you agree with it or like it or not .. royal society IPCC etc etc etc THAT is a consensus 

so i ask again why???


----------



## moon23 (Aug 7, 2008)

Well i'm anti new coal but with Lovelock in the pro-nuclear green camp. I think i'd have a hard time arguing that! Looked at train times and I couldn't get there untill 21:30 tomorrow so walking to the camp in the dark and getting stoped and searched whilst on my own doesn't sound too appealling. Maybe I could go stuff some leaflets about ID cards through some letter boxes so I felt I was doing something usefull lol


----------



## schmoo (Aug 7, 2008)

I went last year and will not be wasting my time again. If the 'climate camp' is meant to be an example of a sustainable future then humanity is doomed for sure. More seriously the main thing that is wrong is they are selling the idea that climate change can be stopped which is a bit like believing in reincarnation when you have terminal cancer. Why can't we concentrate on stuff that is actually possible like stopping toxic pollution, promoting recycling, ending poverty, cutting meat consumption and growing our own food? This climate change bandwaggoning is a total red herring, mostly hysteria and a waste of everyone's energy. In a few years time we will look back and say 'How could so many intelligent people, especially self proclaimed 'green' nature lovers, believe that humanity is more powerful than nature? The answer is that they are mostly urban dwellers who have a highly sentimental and romantic view of nature. In other words they have no idea of how nature actually functions. Even if climate change is just caused by human activity, which is very unlikely, the idea that we can halt the melting of the ice caps etc is laughable (if it was not so serious). We can hardly tell what the weather is going to be like tomorrow much less change it. We should be preparing for the inevitable disasters to come, not kidding ourselves we can stop it. So far every 'green' solution has been a total con (ie bio fuels, carbon offsetting) and now George Mombidiot recons nuclear power is the solution!!!! The only people to profit from all this phoney but toxic 'green' baloney are the big corporations - so if you go to support the climate change camp, just remember you are helping the likes of Shell Oil company make millions from carbon trading while they go on polluting the planet unchallenged.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 7, 2008)

durruti02 said:


> fair play .. but i do not think we have to agree on all the bits to accept that a new generation on CONVENTIONAL stations is nuts .. i agree with scargill on using some coal as part of a transition .. the new station at kingsnorth is just wrong


no arguement from me about building new coal fired power stations without CCS being wrong, I just spent an afternoon last week reading the paper put together to support climate camp, and as far as I'm concerned their stance on carbon capture and storage is at least as wrongheaded.

I've done my time being harrassed by police in fields in support of groups of well meaning, but not very well researched protestors who's naive PR tactics mean that the wrong message get's out, and consensus decision making means that the views of those who've just gone along for the ride are as important as someone who's studied the subject closely for over a decade, when it comes to deciding policy / banner messages etc.

hope it goes well and all that, and it's good that you're all raising a decent level of awareness about the new build coal programme, but you're doing yourselves and the cause generally no favours by taking an anti technology stance in regards to CCS. 

as I've previously pointed out, if the climate camp was to be pushing the message of no new coal without CCS, then you'd have the support of pretty much every serious energy analyst, fuel policy researcher, climate scientist etc. in the country behind you, and public opinion would also be easy to swing fully behind this cause to the point where the government would be forced to fund a pilot commercial scale CCS plant, and place a moratorium on any new coal fired plants until the success or otherwise of the pilot CCS plant could be established.

as things stand though you have a whole series of serious people lining up to agree with you on the insanity of building new conventional coal plants, but then going on to disagree with you seriously, and quite frankly make you all look like naive idiots, for your stance on CCS.

never mind getting the miners offside, which was a serious tactical error IMO.


----------



## moon23 (Aug 8, 2008)

schmoo said:


> I went last year and will not be wasting my time again. If the 'climate camp' is meant to be an example of a sustainable future then humanity is doomed for sure. More seriously the main thing that is wrong is they are selling the idea that climate change can be stopped which is a bit like believing in reincarnation when you have terminal cancer. Why can't we concentrate on stuff that is actually possible like stopping toxic pollution, promoting recycling, ending poverty, cutting meat consumption and growing our own food? This climate change bandwaggoning is a total red herring, mostly hysteria and a waste of everyone's energy. In a few years time we will look back and say 'How could so many intelligent people, especially self proclaimed 'green' nature lovers, believe that humanity is more powerful than nature? The answer is that they are mostly urban dwellers who have a highly sentimental and romantic view of nature. In other words they have no idea of how nature actually functions. Even if climate change is just caused by human activity, which is very unlikely, the idea that we can halt the melting of the ice caps etc is laughable (if it was not so serious). We can hardly tell what the weather is going to be like tomorrow much less change it. We should be preparing for the inevitable disasters to come, not kidding ourselves we can stop it. So far every 'green' solution has been a total con (ie bio fuels, carbon offsetting) and now George Mombidiot recons nuclear power is the solution!!!! The only people to profit from all this phoney but toxic 'green' baloney are the big corporations - so if you go to support the climate change camp, just remember you are helping the likes of Shell Oil company make millions from carbon trading while they go on polluting the planet unchallenged.



Total muddled thinking here. How can you accuse the Climate Camp for helping Shell make money from carbon trading? 

Sorry but Humans are part of nature too, why wouldn't we have an infulence on it/us? 

I'm sorry but it's hard to swallow and advice from someone who equates our scientific abilitly to predict short term weather patterns with our abililty to detact long terms trends.


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 8, 2008)

free spirit said:


> no arguement from me about building new coal fired power stations without CCS being wrong, I just spent an afternoon last week reading the paper put together to support climate camp, and as far as I'm concerned their stance on carbon capture and storage is at least as wrongheaded.
> 
> I've done my time being harrassed by police in fields in support of groups of well meaning, but not very well researched protestors who's naive PR tactics mean that the wrong message get's out, and consensus decision making means that the views of those who've just gone along for the ride are as important as someone who's studied the subject closely for over a decade, when it comes to deciding policy / banner messages etc.
> 
> ...



as i said i do not neccessaryly disagree with you .. the key issue is to make this a major debate .. then it will come out in the wash


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 15, 2008)

What a shit poll, just because I won't be going it doesn't mean I don't think climate change matters.  I won't be going because a bunch of people camping in a field isn't going to do a great deal, unfortunately.


----------

