Petition to the President
Feb 27, 2017 Guest Post by David Holland
Dick Lindzen has sent to President Trump a letter and petition signed by some 300 scientists and experts (H/T Anthony Watts). The petition is for the US to withdraw from the UNFCCC. I had some difficulty accessing it but eventually located a pdf of the letter and the petition itself here.
I'm sure Dick speaks for many BH readers as well some of our MPs. Even at the high water mark in 2008 only a little over half of British voters thought humans were responsible for most global warming and less than half thought it a pressing problem. Recent opinion polls now show that barely 10% of the public regard climate change as a serious concern. Few can now dispute the global agricultural benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentration, but in the UK and elsewhere we are seeing the chronic health damage resulting from the dash to diesel subsidised by foolish governments.
Hopefully when Parliament debates the Grand Repeal Bill some of our smarter MPs will push to dump any directives requiring reductions in carbon dioxide emissions or support for the UNFCCC.
Reader Comments (404)
Phil:
Your original post about the Paris Agreement (Feb 28 at 2:15 PM) and your first response to me were written in the context of there being, in your view, many examples of unanimity about the need for ‘action on climate change’ - as Mark Hodgson has just noted. I’m no scientist but, as I understand it, the view of many Western scientists is that the only action that will fix the problem is reduction – many say substantial reduction – of greenhouse gas emissions. So, when you said ‘it will still mean action is taken by, um every other country in the world’, I think it reasonable to assume you meant action to reduce GHG emissions – indeed your subsequent references to India’s and China’s NDCs confirm that. It’s that to which I referred – so no goalpost movement.
That’s all. Talk about most CO2 being put in the atmosphere by the West (probably untrue BTW) and about per capita emissions and natural justice may be interesting but are irrelevant to our present exchange.
Bah, Phil, no need for climate reparations. AnthroCO2 will give mild warming that is net beneficial and AnthroCO2 will feed many extra billions of bellies, cumulatively.
This is another Big Lie, that AnthroCO2 is harmful.
===============
@David Holland said
"In Britain alone, known NO2 emissions have been *estimated* to kill 23,500 people every year, according to aerosol science professor Ian Colbeck of the University of Essex, southeastern England."
David be careful of reading "could" in the newspapers and letting your brain register "DOES"
You see your quote contains the word estimated ..You can check towards the back of the studies you'll find a caveats page
The studies are correlation studies rather than causation studies, it's not like you take 200 doses of NOx and get a respiratory infection and your friend takes 10 units and doesn't.
In the original US studies the correlation was so strong with so many more people getting respiratory infections in a very polluted city than people in another less polluted city 1,000 miles away ..it's thought there surely must be some connection but the actual mechanism isn't understood.
AFAIK for particulates the argument is that particles scar your respiratory system and provide a better host for the bacteria which do bring the infection.
However for NOx it seems impossible to separate out the effect of particulates.
NOx certainly doesn't appear on the death certificates of any people, never mind 23,500
You could ask Professor Colbeck if he'll take any bets with his pension fund.
In the real world it' not as if you banned diesel cars in London now , then by 2040 that alone would be saving 23,550 lives/year
All other things are not equal ie the detection and antibiotic treatment of respiratory infections gets better year by year
And BTW London pollution is not as high as it was 20 years ago (according to Matt Ridley's latest blog)
We have a discussion thread about this.
Phil Clarke, despite William Connolly's claim CAGW was not "invented" by sceptics, but is the theory originally proposed by the climate science consensus. I have previously given examples of this but here goes again:
UK Government Chief Scientist, Professor Sir David King stated that the world was entering its first hot period for 60 million years when "No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life" .... "we will reach that level by 2100" unless we curb the burning of "fossil" fuels. (Independent 01-05-2004).
If, as you maintain, CAGW will not happen, we clearly have far less to worry about, at the very least. It will now be reasonable to relegate problems associated with climate change (without CAGW) behind other more pressing problems such as war, and the provision of potable water, food, affordable energy, etc. Indeed it may turn out that climate change associated with a slight increase in CO2 is predominantly beneficial, as it appears to be so far.
So William Connolly's aphorism may seem clever to you, but it is a false characterisation based on false assertions.
David Holland, thank you for posting this thread. Getting back to your original post .....
It does seem that within a fortnight, the bottom is going to fall out of Climate Science funding in the USA. IF the EPA is throttled back, the economics of the USA as a manufacturing economy will stop declining. US/UK/EU labour costs will still exceed those in the Far East, but the US playing field will no longer be quite so tilted.
The UK will still have the Climate Change Act, AND EU Legislation. 2017 sees some interesting General Elections within the EU. Nigel Farage did not win anything, but triggered BREXIT. EU EXITEERS do not have to win an election to trigger further unrest. The UK might just aswell pursue its own destiny, on the assumption that the EU is a spent force.
As someone who did originally trust Mann's Hockey Stick, I am sceptical about the sudden panic about Diesel engines, and tend to agree with stewgreen above at 11:07. My gut reaction is that the Green Blob saw diesel engines as a way of having vehicles fuelled by vegetable oils, a task that is very straight forward to achieve. It is not something I have ever carried out personally, but once the engine and fuel is warmed up, 100% vegetable oil fuel, is practical. A diesel/veg oil mix, or pure diesel is easier to use to start a cold engine.
So clear were these benefits, that the US went veg oil crazy, causing world food prices to rise, surpluses to shrink, and the poorest went the hungriest. Famine relief agencies had no source of cheap food to buy and distribute. All of this resulted from Green Blob policies, so diesels became Public Enemy No 1.
The EU had help drawing up Diesel emissions control legislation from major European manufacturers, and, surprise surprise, these same manufacturers have been caught out lying.
I do not know whether veg oil causes the same levels of NOx etc as pure diesel fuel, or whether electronic engine management systems can be programmed to recognise different fuel mixes, and adjust automatically to minimise emissions.
stewgreen refers to other recent discussion threads. I am curious about why London's Bus and Taxi drivers have not previously identified diesel fumes as the biggest cause of death within their own professions. They do spend 8 hours a day, stuck behind the one in front.
So William Connolly's aphorism may seem clever to you, but it is a false characterisation based on false assertions.
Mar 2, 2017 at 12:49 AM | Budgie
Budgie, Phil Clarke remains in Denial about William M Connolley's deceitful approach to adjusting history. It is considered normal practice in Climate Science, as Hockey Teamsters keep demonstrating.
RR:
"Call me a sceptic, call me a cynic, call me a denier… but I have been involved with liquid level measurements in large tanks, and can say that even in those tanks that appear to be immobile, there can be large ranges in readings, whatever means is used in the measurement. How do satellites obtain their readings of the oceans? However it may be, do consider that they are reading an incredibly vertically-mobile surface, with its levels potentially influenced by more than one factor. Are the satellites getting sufficient readings from any one site to be able to approximate the most likely level? Or do they just skim over, and hope that the averages will all work out?"
Er, actually, we build and orbit constellations of gravity gradiometers .
Russell
Er, do YOU build and orbit those constellations, or is that fake news?
I don't think you've countered RR's concerns at all, and we haven't even mentioned the calibration problems.
I have my own concerns. I have watched successive groups of geophysics students unsuccessfully attempt to locate a buried WW2 tank on a south Devon beach using a gravity gradiometer, whereas there is a magnetic anomaly.
Budgie,
That's a distortion of what Sir David King actually said in testimony to the House of Commons. You can find his actual words here.
If, as you maintain, CAGW will not happen,
Rarely have I encountered a site where people are so willing to put words in my mouth. I've never used the phrase CAGW, as it involves making a value judgement, when does AGW become catastrophic? At what temperature increase? The scenarios are what they are, they need no embellishment.
Thank you, Russell. Now, tell us how these constellations of gravity gradiometers actually measure sea levels, and what are these levels actually being measured against (distance from the ocean floor? Distance from the centre of the Earth? How high up the pier leg? How high up the side of the boat?) . Also, please tell us to what accuracy these measurements are, and how they are calibrated and monitored. While you are at it, you could also explain what they are comparing their new, super-duper accurate measurements with, to give us such degrees of accuracy that they can declare the rise since… whenever. Finally, given that the surface of the oceans is rarely still, capriciously bouncing around in its determination to confound any means to categorically determine its level, how can any method measure to the accuracy that we are being so confidently assured it is being? As I have said before, try to measure the level of your bath-water to the nearest millimetre by whatever means you consider to be the most accurate, while you are in it.
As Supertroll intimates, I feel you are feeding us fake news.
In the 80's I worked in Sarawak and luckily lived close to a wonderful boat club on the beach that I used to sail at whenever I had free time. In 1981 there was a king tide that flooded the local town as it did on 10 year cycles and over time we put in piling and earth walls to protect the front of the club. It was a very hot and humid climate. Over the last 4 weeks I've had the pleasure to visit the area again and spend time at the old club and could see the piling we did still there so glad to see it was effective. The sea at high and low tide is exactly where it used to be relative to the piling, the logs washed up at the high tide level are very old wood and the climate is exactly as it was those 35 plus years ago and I even slept in a long house with no fan or AC and the night temperature was as it was. It's in the rainy season now so it rained exactly like it used to with great thunderstorms tempering the hot afternoon temperature.
I deduce from these real observations (no sea level rise or climate change in what has been a very long period of time) that the CAGW science is simply wrong and significant warming isn't happening let alone caused by man. The tide is turning now in the climate debate and useful idiot propagandists for the cause such as Phil Clarke are becoming to look more and more ridiculous as time goes on.
Mr Clarke, as you are a tacit supporter of the many who have warned of the impending catastrophe of global warming/climate change/call it what you will, it is a fair assumption to be made that you also hold the opinion that no good will come of it. You also strongly give us the impression that what warming we have had is anthropogenic and needs to be stopped. If such warming is NOT going to cause more harm than good then why the concern? There is a reason why those who are determined to “stop” (or “fight”, if you prefer) global warming/climate change/call it what you will at any cost are called “alarmists”, you know, and you have aligned yourself strongly with them. A frequent call of the alarmist often goes along the lines of: “Floods will be more extreme! Droughts will last, like… forever! Storms will be more common and more violent! Sea levels are rising dangerously! Cities will be inundated! Nations will be lost! We are all going to DIE!” (It is only in that last point that there is some accuracy, but I doubt that they will mean it that way.) How catastrophic does it have to be to be…erm… catastrophic? While you may never have used the words, you certainly give the impression that an impending catastrophe is going be the result.
Clarke has argued that desalination plants in Australia were a good idea, Biomass in Drax is a good idea , the Greens had nothing to do with DDT. That alone is enough to place him in the prime-time-wazzock box
When does AGW become catastrophic ? when it is 'The greatest threat facing the planet' you pillock
In summary, no Global Warming, Catastrophic/Mann Made or otherwise. No change in the rate of Sea Level rise. No weather events any more severe than previous.
Why did anyone listen to Climate Scientists, evah!?
EternalOptimist: a more succinct observation than mine, there, dagnam it!
EternalOptimist (Mar 2, 2017 at 11:53 AM), more importantly: when does mitigation (i.e. decarbonise the world's economy) become more cost effective than adaptation (i.e. fix problems only if/when they arise)?
EO continues the tradition ....
Radical Rodent & EternalOptimist
actually AGW became Catastrophic when Mann fabricated his Hockey Stick. Much has been destroyed since, including lives, jobs, careers, opportunities for developing countries, and the odd $trillion or two.
Lying Phil Clarke has never quite come to terms with the level of dishonesty that he supports.
Climate Science communication skills now include reversing into a dead end, without hope of ever going forward again. Lying Phil Clarke has passed with great distinction.
Phil continues the tradition of unnecessary alarm, stampeding the villagers into chasing an imaginary wolf, while their village burns.
==================================
The Oscar for Best Award Ceremony Disaster of all time, goes to .... Al Gore, for An Inconvenient Truth
stewgreen, 11:07 PM 1 March and golf charlie 1:10 AM today,
Re diesels, I have not seen tobacco, radon, dust or for that matter poverty on any death certificate but there is little doubt that they cause, contribute to, or exacerbate medical conditions that lead to premature deaths. Until 2005 I would not touch diesels, but gave in when it became a no brainier if you have a caravan, and can pay just £30 a year car tax for diesel Fiesta runabout that has gocart performance for the wife.
However, no matter how well maintained an older turbo diesel is, each time you start them they chuck out a load of PM10. NO2 is a by product high cylinder temperature and the EGR system used to minimise it, at least on the older cars, reduces performance and soon clogs resulting a dirty exhaust.
I agree that hard proof of deaths may be as scarce as it is for CAGW, but after two car trips to central London last year I believe its air quality is worse than when I regularly did similar trips a couple of decades ago. However, WHO is convinced:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/
Mar 2, 2017 at 2:11 PM | kim
kim, but now Lying Phil is claiming that the villagers made up the bit about the wolf. It was only ever a toothless chihuahua, with mild halitosis and flatulence, easily cured with a change in diet.
Martin Mason:
Indeed, the headline alarmist predictions after 2001 with the release of the IPCC Third Assessment Report were that sea level would rise about 6 m (approx. 20 ft) in a 100 years, a startling acceleration.
Such a rate of sea level rise would be so significant that you wouldn't need special measuring equipment, if you simply went on holiday to the seaside a couple of years apart you would notice it.
Although the 6 m was the upper end, the mid-case shown in Houghton's Global Warming Tome (revised edition 2009) shows sea level rise of 3 m by 2100. So even on the more sensible mid case, we might expect to have seen 1 - 1.5 ft sea level rise since 2001.
Of course it hasn't happened. But that's what happens when fanciful theories about future events meet the reality of actuality. In the meantime real people have had their health actually compromised by policies promoting diesel over petrol, but of course the justification is that this is offset against imaginary future harm from unproven and fanciful predictions.
In other words, real lives have been sacrificed on the altar of climate change in order to save imaginary lives in the future.
Indeed, the headline alarmist predictions after 2001 with the release of the IPCC Third Assessment Report were that sea level would rise about 6 m (approx. 20 ft) in a 100 years, a startling acceleration.
Given that the actual report gave a worse case of around 0.9m, you must have been reading the wrong newspapers.
gc @ 2:29. Nice variation on the metaphor. In the past I've extended the metaphor to show that the 'wolf' is actually a lost friendly shepherd dog only interested in improving the herd. But this is clearly a case of 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' and continues to cry ravaging wolf in the face of increasing evidence of a helpful dog.
What happened to the boy? This is an old story.
============
TS, lest I imagined the reality I observed in Sarawak, I've been sailing from the same place on the South Coast for maybe 25 years and again there has been no observable rise in seal level at the location. Where are all of these massive sea level rises happening?
I once accepted the nonsense given out by the warmist industry unconditionally but it needed not more than a superficial review to see that the science of warming is incorrect. It doesn't need anybody qualified in Climatology to see this or anybody who has peer reviewed papers on climate published. Any intelligent person would come to this conclusion unless they were tied to the grants and subsidies that sustain the warming industry.
I'm sure that even Phil Clark knows at heart that he's on the wrong side of the debate now.
Mar 2, 2017 at 2:25 PM | David Holland
Thank you for your response. I used to drive regularly within the M25, but normally not much further in than a few miles past the North/South Circular Roads. Central London (whatever the definition is) I am not too familiar with as a driver.
As a Country Bumpkin, I find little about London that attracts me anyway, and I don't doubt that with so many people crammed in, "pollution" levels will be higher. I witnessed the yellowy smoggy haze over Athens in late summer 15 years ago.
How have WHO built up their medical evidence? Thanks to the antics of Mann, Green Blob, EU etc, I find it surprising that diesel exhausts can now be singled for causing more deaths than previously, especially in Central London.
Diesel engines on modern yachts are derivatives of 1960s designs. Apart from starter motors and alternators, they have no electrics or electronics to go wrong, enhance performance or reduce emissions. Modern diesel engines work on the same principle but do have gizmos and electrickery to improve things (or not as Volkswagon proved)
On roads or in carparks I can see modern diesel cars with abnormal/inefficient exhaust emissions, the rear of the car is covered in black dust, just like ALL diesel vehicles used to be
What happened to the boy? This is an old story
Mar 2, 2017 at 2:54 PM | kim
Last I heard, the little boy still had his finger stuffed in a fragile Dutch dike, justifying his actions on the risk of imminent flooding due to Global Warming. Or something like that.
Mar 2, 2017 at 2:42 PM | Phil Clarke
Is there any reason to worry at all, about anything warned about by Climate Scientists, or in the name of Climate Science? You seem to be Denying everything ever claimed.
Does all this recent and furious back-pedalling constitute a warning of a catastrophic U-Turn?
Er , yes Supertroll.
Orbital gravity gradiometers were first developed , built, and used to accurately define the Earth's geoid a generatin ago, by the MIT Instrumentatiom Laboratory ,and its successor the CS Draper Laboratory , where I was a staff scientist in the Geophysics division,lead by Philip Bowditch and the head of the group that designeed and buot the prototypes was Milt Tragiser. Orbiting them was left to our pals at NASA, albeit I did go down to Cape Canaveral a few times to wave bon voyage to our handiwork.
It is clear from the rodent's question that he evidently does not understand what they are, what they do, or why contemporary space navigation would be impossible without them and the inertial instruments they serve to calibrate.
The waste on the green blob is already catastrophic; lost opportunity costs compound. We have already damaged our grandchildren with this delusional narrative of climate catastrophe.
===================
Mar 2, 2017 at 3:26 PM | Martin Mason
I have sailed a bit too, mainly English Channel/Sothern England and in the Mediterranean.
It is clear that both sea AND land levels have changed, are changing, and always will.
The ancient Greeks, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans etc have left behind various bits of construction around the Med coast, that were linked to sea level, but would now be unusable.
The Romans, Normans and subsequent builders and engineers have done the same around the UK.
During WW2, first the British, then the Germans built extensively either side of the Channel to defend the coast. Both used reinforced concrete, the Germans on a more substantial scale. Those that survive, would still be usable.
I have accessed a U-Boat Pen/Bunker in Croatia from the sea. I have never visited any of the U-Boat Pens/Bunkers on the Atlantic Coast of France, but would be interested to know whether they show evidence of accelerated sea level rise.
GC, for sure. What I mean is that there has been no significant difference over the timescale that I mentioned. Not a sufficient change that you'd notice that is. The location in Malaysia was very clear in that sea level rise has been very low when even at 3mm a year it would have been observable.
Do Phil and Russel do Troll shifts?
Martin. I don't consider Russell or Phil to be Trolls (not like me anyway). Think of them more as a necessary challenge that keeps our climate immune system up to scratch. We appear to have lost Entropic Man, so we should cherish those that remain.
Phil Clarke, From your link is this excerpt from Prof Sir David King:
"Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It is estimated that it was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of this century. So it seems to me that it is clear on a global and geological scale that climate change is the most serious problem we are faced with this century."
That quote above from your link actually backs up what the Independent (01-05-2004) wrote. Sir David calls it "climate change" when he really means global warming. Just the same as you do. That is inaccurate, not to say dodgy. He calls it "the most serious problem" which you may accept depending whether you have your "catastrophe" or "non-catastrophe" hat on. Calling the entire rest of the planet, apart from Antarctica, "rather inhabitable" given the inevitable billions of human and animal deaths, and the severe curtailment of food production, certainly lines up with my idea of climate catastrophe. Evidently Sir David thinks so too, otherwise he wouldn't be warning Parliament.
You evidently accept AGW. The acronym CAGW merely adds the word "Catastrophe" to "Anthropogenic Global Warming". You are not entitled to censor what terms I use, provided I am not abusive. CAGW is not so. Nor can you re-write history. You deny that AGW will result in the sort of climate catastrophe outlined by Sir David above. His description can reasonably be summed up as CAGW. You may well not want to face up to the fact that you deny CAGW, or accept that the climate science consensus sold us the theory of CAGW in the past. That is your problem, not mine. My problem is that most UK politicians still believe in CAGW - because the climate science consensus told them to.
Do Phil and Russel do Troll shifts?
Mar 2, 2017 at 5:51 PM | Martin Mason
One is US, the other UK, but they do have shared interests and sources.
At school in the 1970s, I was taught in Geography about Raised Sea Beaches, with examples from Scotland. Meanwhile I was taught in History, and learned from TV etc, that the reason many Roman/Saxon/Norman/Medieval/Tudor etc ports around the South Coast were abandoned, or inland, was that they had "silted up".
The original "Cinque Ports" and the added two of Winchelsea and Rye are interesting.
Then there is Harlech Castle, which does not fit with rebound after an ice age.
Professionally, I have at times, had reason to consider why buildings and structures go down, and sometimes up, so compression, compaction, subsidence, heave, landslip etc are not events I am completely naive about. Climate scientists assume the public are though.
While Martin Mason must surely have noticed Saarawak has just one tide a day, Borneo's main claim to isostatic fame seems to have escaped his attention:
The low density Kinbalu massif is rising at a rate in excess of half a centimenter a year, lifting much of the Sabah and Sarawak coast with it..
As this may equal or exceed the 3mm/yr rate of thermal expansion driven sea level rise on his club's doorstep, its secretary should seek local geophysical intelligence as to what the near future may bring.
Budgie: as an addendum to your comment at 6:20 PM, Prof. King does himself no favours when he demonstrates his lack of knowledge of his own language. Like flammable and inflammable, habitable and inhabitable are not opposites of each other; thus, he should have said: “… the rest of the earth was rather UNinhabitable because it was so hot.” Then, again, perhaps he does know English, and was hoping that most of his listeners did not know the nuances of the language quite as well as they should – perhaps he wanted to give the impression that world was NOT habitable, but gave himself the option that he gave the completely correct phrasing, should anyone call him out for it, that the rest of the Earth was completely habitable – what a pity so many mistook him, eh?
Of course, to manipulate the language in such a way requires a certain amount of intellect; should Mr King actually believe that his hypothesis is correct suggests that he may be lacking the intelligence to see its flaws. However, should he have the intellect, then he would surely understand the flaws, which would make one wonder quite what his intentions are in maintaining the lie.
Not sure where you get the idea Sarawak only has one tide a day, Russell. The Kuching tide table clearly shows that there are the regular two tides per day:
Perhaps you are mistaking it for Southampton... but that has twice as many tides as normal, not half as many.As this may equal or exceed the 3mm/yr rate of thermal expansion driven sea level rise on his club's doorstep, its secretary should seek local geophysical intelligence as to what the near future may bring.
Mar 2, 2017 at 9:25 PM | Russell
How long has this 3mm/yr rate been going on for, where is it measured, and who by? Has there been a pause or hiatus in sea level rise, that correlates with global temperatures?
It just seems that Climate Scientists always forget geophysical evidence when the truth is inconvenient.
@RadicalR you can wave truth at them
but the trolls don't care whether what they write is true or not
..they are just here to disrupt and waste our time
..and are probably paid whereas we are not.
@Martin Mason For most of 2015 I lived in Borneo : KK, Kuching, Kalimantan Barat, before moving to Batam.
So I got to see at first hand the massive ecological destruction WWF, Greenpeace and the EU are complicit in with their biofuel madness and forestry corruption.
Don't talk to me about London when I saw the 20th year of seasonal hazes so strong I wore a dusk mask for 20 whole days and schools all over the sub-continent were closed.
All over the development areas multimillion $ Chinese funded real estate developments are built not massively higher than the high tide mark..
Outside Batam the sea is always so calm it serves as a giant carpark for unused container ship and massive tankers.
Locals tend to often build Kampung Air over the water . ..They could easily extend the the height of their houses if they needed (doesn't happen in their lifetime)
Mar 2, 2017 at 10:30 PM | stewgreen
It is an amazing coincedence! The Chinese have ignored Climate Scientists and their productivity has prospered, whilst the US, EU, and UK have listened to Climate Scientists and seen their abilities to produce anything destroyed.
I wonder what Trump will do about it. The first one way rocket trip to put a Mann on Mars?
Rodent, you should try workig tow tides -that's a semiduiurnal tide chart -
As I've only sailed East of Borneo - Pulau Laut, which is indeed famously diurnal, and got me interested in its proximity to the nearby indopacific isodromal point, I suggested seeking local inteligence
Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the commonplace fact that Kota Kinbak is outclimbing the waters surrounding Borneo
vvussell, as usual, you continue to ignore the simple fact that Climate Science advocates such as yourself, always concentrate on the risk of flooding in those areas, where the level of the land is dropping, relative to the level of the sea.
This is why Climate Science, and all of it's associated failures, are not trusted, and considered unreliable.
Russell, I am ignoring nothing – I am only questioning your sources. Oh… and your spelling… but – hey! – who cares about accuracy in spelling (though there are others who consider sloppiness in spelling could indicate sloppiness elsewhere).
Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 PM | golf charlie
I am no expert on diesels, but one of my family was a Ford engineer doing engine mapping. My understanding on which I am happy to be corrected is that low revving normally aspirated diesels produced less NOX. With turbo charged direct injection engine mapping can improve combustion and thereby lower some unwanted pollution but NOX ends up higher.
The problem is one of traffic density. Diesels are no problem in my village nor apparently in well ventilated tunnels. However in the last three decades nearly all commercial vehicles and company cars have gone to diesel and the air in the afternoon traffic on the Marylebone Road on a hot muggy summers day is awful.
As to WHO it's a UN body and, like the IPCC, I assume it has some appearance of rigor. But if you talk to an asthmatics, and we have one or two in our family, they will swear diesels make their condition worse.
Radical Rodent, vvussell's post indicates a surplus of academic pomposity, rather than practical tidal knowledge, and experience.
It is a bit like Climate Scientists making pronouncements with calculated confidence levels, based on computer models, using carefully modelled data, to fit in with their own personalised financial modelled income forecasts. Or bollox, as Phil Clarke would say.
Still not too sure where you get the idea of one tide a day, Russell. The Banjarmasin tide table (the closest tidal station to Pulau Laut) also clearly shows that there are the regular two tides per day.
At least you are admitting your acceptance that there can be causes of apparent sea-levelrisechange other than by the demonic global warming/climate change/call it what you will.