A rudderless ship

The Met office's prediction on Global warming, on which the Climate Change Act 2008 hinged, was revised last Christmas and quietly 'dumbed down'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9...uldnt-see.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ce-menace.html

Having spent £ billions in reducing carbon emissions where is the Government going to steer the good ship SS GT Britain now?

Scientist? I despair!!!

Re: A rudderless ship

Like a lot of subjects, argument, counter argument, net result, people apathy, and faceless people in nondescript jobs producing worthless reports.
Doubtless something is afoot, just depends where one sits on the gravytrain how it is journaled.

Re: A rudderless ship

The problems happen when people state things as fact when they are actually not facts at all. And trusting the met office when they can't predict the weather 7 days ahead always seemed a little barmy to me.

Re: A rudderless ship

All very confusing

Re: A rudderless ship

Maybe the Met Bureau doesn't know its elbow from its arse

According to The Australian (Murdoch paper - climate change sceptic)

HEAT-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 1.2C as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures show.

Scientists say the rise in CO2 reflects the world's economy revving up and burning more fossil fuels, especially in China.

Carbon dioxide levels jumped by 2.67 parts per million since 2011 to total just under 395 parts per million, says Pieter Tans, who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226591456420

Re: A rudderless ship

It appears that many of the anthropogenic global warming scientists are not qualified in that area and that many of the IPCC appointees are political and not scientific. Furthermore, political activits from Greenpeace, WW Life Fund and The Environmentalist Defence are involved in the writing of articles about this. To me, that says vested interest - many people have built a career around this so it is in their own interests to keep it going.

Chris Folland, from the UK Hadley Centre (Met Office) made the following statement when talking about global warming: 'The data doesn't matter, we're not basing our recommendations for reductions in CO2 emissions on the data, we basing them on climate models'. Kind of says it all really.

Even The New Scientist was giving out inaccurate data http://www.newscientist.com/commenti...dn11638&page=2 - it's more the comments made after the main article (especially from page 2 onwards where the New Scientist starts to struggle to maintain its stance).

Now, a cynical person might make a connection between all this and the recent introduction of Green Taxes ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet...orey-dean-hall

Re: A rudderless ship

More than likely down to underwater volcanic activity and warmer oceans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans, I believe, contribute about 4% of total emissions. To me, that makes our contribution as about as effective as turning up to an earthquake zone to help out but only bringing a dustpan and brush with you.