What do the climate enthusiasts make of this? [Archive]

Rheghead

23-Nov-13, 15:31

http://www.caithness-business.co.uk/article.php?id=4512

What puzzles me is why this piece from an anti-wind organisation is posted on the Caithness Business website?

Wait a while and there will be a "ah but" for sure.
The graph has been generated by software on the Woodfortrees.org, a site that allows the ordinary person to have access to and view climate data easily and add trends if they so wish.

So.......

Ah but, has the author of the article read the guidance notes on the woodfortrees.org website, especially with respect to cherry picking?

Beware sharp tools
However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

And yes, I do agree with The Scottish Climate and Energy Forum in that I do think that anyone who seriously misrepresents data on Climate Change should be thrown in jail. But I rather feel that it is Mike Haseler et al. from the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum who should be packing a few things for a long stay at Her Majesty's pleasure....

tonkatojo

23-Nov-13, 16:54

It took longer than I thought. :roll:

Bill Fernie

23-Nov-13, 19:13

What puzzles me is why this piece from an anti-wind organisation is posted on the Caithness Business website?

Yes I did wonder where I should place the item if at all. It is controversial and I thought where would it cause more controversy and perhaps in the business index might provoke some debate from the businesses who are now paying high prices to alleviate climate change in green energy charges on bills and the chase to reduce carbon. I agree it is not directly a business item. I have been receiving more items from the group as press releases. In fact several groups seem to be increasing their press release numbers. I would be interested if you are interested ins seing more like that or are they too biased with not enough back up.

ywindythesecond

23-Nov-13, 19:39

Yes I did wonder where I should place the item if at all. It is controversial and I thought where would it cause more controversy and perhaps in the business index might provoke some debate from the businesses who are now paying high prices to alleviate climate change in green energy charges on bills and the chase to reduce carbon. I agree it is not directly a business item. I have been receiving more items from the group as press releases. In fact several groups seem to be increasing their press release numbers. I would be interested if you are interested ins seing more like that or are they too biased with not enough back up.

Difficult one Bill. How will you know if they are indeed too biased with not enough backup unless you are going to rely on Reggy to tell you? However, I welcome your recognition that all of us are facing increases in our bills through the green agenda and that is worth having a debate upon, hopefully a measured one.

Rheghead

23-Nov-13, 20:05

Yes I did wonder where I should place the item if at all. It is controversial and I thought where would it cause more controversy and perhaps in the business index might provoke some debate from the businesses who are now paying high prices to alleviate climate change in green energy charges on bills and the chase to reduce carbon. I agree it is not directly a business item. I have been receiving more items from the group as press releases. In fact several groups seem to be increasing their press release numbers. I would be interested if you are interested ins seing more like that or are they too biased with not enough back up.

Yes Bill, crack on with posting those anti-wind websites, I love pulling all that propaganda to bits, it just makes them look silly in the end.

If you want to put the business section at ease with all the scaremongering about green taxes etc then can suggest a totally impartial source of information? Fullfact.org perhaps?

There is a refreshing piece last month about exactly the costs of green energy policies.

http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/energy%20bills.PNG

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/energy_bills_green_taxes-29250

As you can see, 'green taxes' amount to just 9% of the average bill, of which only 2% are direct carbon taxes.

Phill

23-Nov-13, 20:23

9% wipes out the recent rise though.
#justsayin

Rheghead

23-Nov-13, 22:11

9% wipes out the recent rise though.
#justsayin

Yes but that green 9% is the bit that is actually reducing the overall bill. The recent increases are in line with wholesale fuel increases.

As a result, household dual fuel bills are estimated to rise by less than in the absence of policies–in 2020 households are estimated on average to save around 11% (or £166)on their energy bills compared to what they would have paid in that year in the absence of policies

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/172923/130326_-_Price_and_Bill_Impacts_Report_Final.pdf#page=11

wavy davy

23-Nov-13, 23:22

If you want to put the business section at ease with all the scaremongering about green taxes etc then can suggest a totally impartial source of information? Fullfact.org perhaps?

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/faux-facts-disturbing-truth-about-fullfactorg

There is no such thing as a totally impartial source of information.

Rheghead

23-Nov-13, 23:26

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/faux-facts-disturbing-truth-about-fullfactorg

There is no such thing as a totally impartial source of information.

The data is actually from DEFRA but I suppose if your lies have been exposed then you're bound to gather enemies along the way.

wavy davy

24-Nov-13, 00:27

The data is actually from DEFRA but I suppose if your lies have been exposed then you're bound to gather enemies along the way.

Sorry Rheggie, being a bit dense here, what do you mean?

Rheghead

24-Nov-13, 00:39

Sorry Rheggie, being a bit dense here, what do you mean?

I'm a great believer in getting my facts right and that trusted sources should be the basis for my beliefs. Who shouldn't?

Try googling Brian Gerrish, do what he preaches and dig a little deeper and tell me if you think linking a source that was written by him was really a good idea?

wavy davy

24-Nov-13, 00:58

I'm a great believer in getting my facts right and that trusted sources should be the basis for my beliefs. Who shouldn't?

Try googling Brian Gerrish, do what he preaches and dig a little deeper and tell me if you think linking a source that was written by him was really a good idea?

That's my point. You have your trusted sources and so do others with different views. Dig into any 'trusted source' deeply enough and you'll find hidden agendas, dubious characters. Not that I can be bothered but if I spent an hour or two googling the people behind fullfactorg I'm sure I could unearth enough crap to keep this thread going for a week. All I trying to say is that there is no such thing as a 'totally impartial source of information.

Rheghead

24-Nov-13, 01:05

That's my point. You have your trusted sources and so do others with different views. Dig into any 'trusted source' deeply enough and you'll find hidden agendas, dubious characters. Not that I can be bothered but if I spent an hour or two googling the people behind fullfactorg I'm sure I could unearth enough crap to keep this thread going for a week. All I trying to say is that there is no such thing as a 'totally impartial source of information.

You are trying to impose parity when there is none. Your link was written by a crank who was fuelled by sour grapes when my link was written by an organisation which does source its info from the best available sources and presents them in a way that can be understood.

wavy davy

24-Nov-13, 01:17

You are trying to impose parity when there is none. Your link was written by a crank who was fuelled by sour grapes when my link was written by an organisation which does source its info from the best available sources and presents them in a way that can be understood.

Every word you say reinforces what I am saying. As I said, if I could be bothered to research fullfact.org I'm sure that I could unearth enough cranks and sour grapesto keep us going for a week. I repeat, all I am saying is that to believe that any entity is a 'totally impartial source of information' is ludicrous and dangerous.

ducati

24-Nov-13, 09:14

Every word you say reinforces what I am saying. As I said, if I could be bothered to research fullfact.org I'm sure that I could unearth enough cranks and sour grapesto keep us going for a week. I repeat, all I am saying is that to believe that any entity is a 'totally impartial source of information' is ludicrous and dangerous.

You will also latch on to the sources that best reflect your own beliefs.

Personally :D I believe climate change is due entirely to human activity. We should do everything we can afford and get a consensus on to combat it. We have no consensus on much of what is being imposed by a minority and there is way too much vested interest involved in much of the half baked and short term "solutions".

Phill

24-Nov-13, 10:59

Lies, damn lies & statistics. As pointed out, whichever viewpoint you hold you will find evidence to support it, and evidence to debunk the counter view.

What I have always maintained, and what is not happening, is a concerted global effort to reduce our energy use. This in turn would reduce our footprint, Co2 etc. etc.
But there is too much money to be made by the corporates selling us either man made global warming or selling us situation normal use more resources / energy / fuel!

How much the changing climate can be attributed to man is the difficult one to calculate. We just don't have enough evidence nor enough records / information.
What we do know, is we are royally screwing up our environment. And we continue to do so without any real regard to our future nor that of our environment.

If the govt was serious about reducing our usage and going green, why don't they give households solar & micro turbines?

orkneycadian

24-Nov-13, 12:42

Ah but, has the author of the article read the guidance notes on the woodfortrees.org website, especially with respect to cherry picking?

Is this the kind of thing you mean by Cherry Picking Rheghead?

Where you can make the data show what you want it to be by being selective about the dates?

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1840/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend

Rheghead

24-Nov-13, 19:54

Is this the kind of thing you mean by Cherry Picking Rheghead?

Where you can make the data show what you want it to be by being selective about the dates?

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1840/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend

That is exactly my point orkneycadian. If I was to frame the point that man-made gases were having a substantial effect on global temperatures then I need to take data from over a longer time frame so you can see how temperatures have gone up since the industrial revolution.

And I have just the thing to show you.

http://www.realclimate.org/Oerlemans.jpg

Phill

24-Nov-13, 22:33

Nice graphs peeps!

I really love the computer graph from 1400, was that late lunch today or yesterday??

So 8PM is peak time for.... After Eights??

RagnarRocks

25-Nov-13, 16:47

“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion…draws all things else to support and agree with it.” Francis Bacon

Neil Howie

25-Nov-13, 22:16

Ten years is a terribly small time to measure climate change imho.

A similar Met Office / climate change debate (over an even shorter period of time!) was covered in a podcast on the BBC for More or Less that I can wholeheartedly recommend whatever your opinion,

at http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/all

scroll down to:

Climate bet; Africa Cup of Nations 20 Jan 2012 Fri, 20 Jan 12
Duration:
10 mins
A four-year bet about global warming between two scientists is settled. In 2008, after there had been no new record for the global average temperature set since 1998, David Whitehouse and James Annan disagreed over whether there would be a new record by 2011. As the UK Meteorological Office publishes the figures for the past year, presenter Tim Harford brings the two scientists together. Who has won, and does the victory tell us anything about global warming? Plus, Peter Stott from the Met Office tells us how the world’s temperature is measured. Also in the programme: sports statistician Robert Mastrodomenico attempts to predict the results of the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations football tournament. Will his numerical analysis impress the BBC’s African football expert Farayi Mungazi? This programme was originally broadcast on the BBC World Service.

ywindythesecond

25-Nov-13, 22:51

Strange. I believe I responded to Bill's post #5, but I don't see it nor the rest of the posts on page 1 now. Anyone got an explanation?

Rheghead

26-Nov-13, 00:48

Strange. I believe I responded to Bill's post #5, but I don't see it nor the rest of the posts on page 1 now. Anyone got an explanation?

I believe that Bill has his own mind to assess any complaints about the forum's moderation policy wrt wind farms but I'm sure it must have some genuine basis in fact and reason. I'm happy to impartially assist Bill in any objection that you have, in fact I'm enthusiastically motivated that Bill has all the facts about your complaint at his disposal.

Big Gaz

26-Nov-13, 00:56

I like the bottom graph in post #20 showing recorded temperature levels from as far back as the 1400's...not bad at all considering Galileo didn't even think of making a temperature recording instrument until nigh on 1600...the 200 odd years prior to that seem to be typical of the governments policies, not just on climate change. If it doesn't exist, make it up..if it doesn't work out, fabricate it and if it doesn't cost the population, drop it!

Alrock

26-Nov-13, 01:39

ywindythesecond

26-Nov-13, 11:00

I believe that Bill has his own mind to assess any complaints about the forum's moderation policy wrt wind farms but I'm sure it must have some genuine basis in fact and reason. I'm happy to impartially assist Bill in any objection that you have, in fact I'm enthusiastically motivated that Bill has all the facts about your complaint at his disposal.
My original post and the subsequent ones on page one have now been restored, perhaps it was just a glitch. But I am intrigued by what you refer to as "Bill has all the facts about your complaint at his disposal". I have not made any recent complaint, what are you talking about?

Big Gaz

26-Nov-13, 11:46

There are other ways of determining temperature without man-made instruments & recording, eg. Tree rings...

hmm, can't say i've seen many 600 year old trees around...maybe they've all been cut down to check what temperature it was back then [lol]

Then again, there's plenty of old dinosaurs and fossils in the government, can we chop these down to check the hot air temperature? :)

RagnarRocks

26-Nov-13, 13:04

Mind if global warming is real just wait a while and those friendly wee lizards will grow a bit and be chasing you around as a snacklet :0))

orkneycadian

26-Nov-13, 20:39

That is exactly my point orkneycadian. If I was to frame the point that man-made gases were having a substantial effect on global temperatures then I need to take data from over a longer time frame so you can see how temperatures have gone up since the industrial revolution.

Thats a bit rude of the anti-wind brigade to go doing that to try and distort the facts. Is this a common tactic of theirs Rheghead?