Man Made Global Warming / hype (merged)

Mike repeats the same fiction above.

Where is your source?

Moggy

Sorry mate I can’t access Teletext details from about 3 years ago

Well, I can tell you as a pilot, who’s job VERY much depends on the weather forecasters getting things right, that they are wrong an astounding amount of the time on some detail somewhere. They sometimes get the big picture right, but not aways that either. I enjoy studying the weather patterns that affect me, and appreciate their efforts, but honest folks, I don’t care about peer review or any of that, they could still be wrong, and I’m more inclined that way by the politicians interpretations and conclusions based on their “data.” I still want to know what they say to tropical fossils in the polar regions, ancient maps that relatively accurately show the land contours of Antarctica covered by ice in recent times, etc…

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080722-antarctic-warmer.html

Ryan

Global change is happening, it aint man’s fault.
2 years worth of Volcano activity puts more “Bad stuff” in the air than mankind has since the industrial revolution.

The goddam Ozone hole is now mended, do you really think that’s because a few G8 countries banned CFC’s? The Planet does what it likes as necessary.

David Bellamy wrote books in the 70’s about the new ice age coming in 25 years. Well?

It is an excuse to tax you once again, both directly and indirectly. The direct is obvious from the thieving scum in Downing street, the indirect is the fact that as we all (Are forced) to use less, Mr Electric Company is not going to take a loss of income is he….no, he will put his prices up to recover the losses. For those who think he will lay-off, shut down power plants etc. to balance costs, get real……he will do both.

We now have light bulbs that are as much use as a pork pie in a synagogue.
I DO NOT WANT a 7 watt bulb with the power of 40 watt. I NEVER used a 40 watt! Gimme a 35 watt bulb with the power of 150 watt please, and don’t make me wait 6 mins for “White light”.
In fact, for those of you just leaving school, learn to be an Optician, the future is bright for that game! Our eyes will be sha66ed within 3 years.

Yes, the scientists which are against this present bandwaggon are indeed silenced or sacked. Like the drug expert sacked because he went against the quivver-lipped idiot in #10 and his so called experts.

Yes, the advert on the telly is a disgusting piece of propaganda. Even Goebbels would be so proud of such a masterly lie. I tell my son why and how it is a lie.

My carbon footprint is as big as it needs to be for my family to be warm at home, safe in a 4 litre saloon car. And sometimes I drive the 700 yards to work.
Life goes on, if people think mankind can change the behavior of the planet, they need to re-think.
(We can change the weather, as the USSR did for the big parades. They dropped raw cement dust into the oncoming clouds to make them heavy and rain outside of Moscow. Stuff the poor people it fell on, the parade was always sunny)

There’s precious little evidence of any sort in this debate so far here – certainly not of the peer-reviewed type that the scientific community demands.

It is fascinating that the sceptics’ arguments have an almost religious fervour, talking of belief more than quoting evidence and sources. I’ve kept an open mind on the subject but it is clear that the arguments put about by sceptics are so superficial. Conversely the Climatologists views have taken many, many years to investigate and prove, backed up with rafts of data.

So why is it that the UK has lost respect for the scientific community who have spent many years learning their trade?

I have a lot of time for Burt Rutan as an aircraft designer but as a hobby climatologist I found his arguments sounded like little more than those of a conspiracy theorist. Imagine discussing the future of a planet based on the type of arguments used to discus whether Prince Philip killed his daughter-in-law!

Well we are clearly never going to find common ground because I totally dispute your statement – indeed it is simply untrue. there are many climate scientists who do not accept any link at all between man’s production of CO2 and warming.

Mike repeats the same fiction above.

Where is your source?

Moggy

Who is talking about the IPCC?

I am talking the global scientific community. And amongst that part of it who are climate specialists you will not find any who don’t believe that climate change is human activity driven.

But anyway. Are you so certain of your belief that you are happy to go on chopping down rain forests and pumping out CO2 regardless? Because even if the ratios were reversed and the vast majority of scientists believed man’s activity had nothing to do with climate change, and there was just a small dissenting lobby, would you take the chance?

Because if you answer ‘yes’ to that you stand condemned as foolish in the extreme.

Moggy

I’m afraid you’re mistaken Moggy, for as long as there have been climatologists claiming that Global Warming is a man made thing there have been almost the same number of them saying that it is down to normal climactic fluctuation in fact there are even cases of some changing their stance and admitting that they were wrong and agreeing that it is natural variation.

Isn’t it funny how the UN flag resembles the Flat Earth Society’s model of the Earth?:D

Why Worry ??

Note: at last report, about 140 private jets were being used to transport attendees to the big shindig in Copenhagen.

That’s a good start in reducing emissions, isn’t it?:rolleyes:

Who is talking about the IPCC?

I am talking the global scientific community. And amongst that part of it who are climate specialists you will not find any who don’t believe that climate change is human activity driven.

But anyway. Are you so certain of your belief that you are happy to go on chopping down rain forests and pumping out CO2 regardless? Because even if the ratios were reversed and the vast majority of scientists believed man’s activity had nothing to do with climate change, and there was just a small dissenting lobby, would you take the chance?

Because if you answer ‘yes’ to that you stand condemned as foolish in the extreme.

Moggy

Well we are clearly never going to find common ground because I totally dispute your statement – indeed it is simply untrue. there are many climate scientists who do not accept any link at all between man’s production of CO2 and warming. Indeed the evidence of the opposite is accepted by many that the increase in CO2 follows climatic warming.

Who talked about chopping down rainforests – I haven’t mentioned them.

What chance? There is no chance in this. It is as inevitable as night follows day that the earth will warm and cool until it dies, either when the sun does, or before. Even if man’s activities had some effect they would be eclipsed by the natural variations and changes, which are of far greater intensity than anything man could achieve.

Man’s time on earth, Moggy, will be for a few thousands of years in the perhaps 7 or 8 billion years of its life. One of the things lacking in this debate, globally, is perspective. Politicians are in danger of destroying much of what has been achieved by man simply because they think” they can do something”. Well that is just what some of us do not want them to do.

Take a look at this! http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

Your analogy has one crucial flaw, Moggy. The majority of the actual signatories to the IPCC reports have nothing to do with climatology, meteorology or any other science offering specialist knowledge. The Chairman of the panel is a medical doctor and the really interesting fact is that the majority of those scientists who dissenting from signing the last protocol are specialists.

Who is talking about the IPCC?

I am talking the global scientific community. And amongst that part of it who are climate specialists you will not find any who don’t believe that climate change is human activity driven.

But anyway. Are you so certain of your belief that you are happy to go on chopping down rain forests and pumping out CO2 regardless? Because even if the ratios were reversed and the vast majority of scientists believed man’s activity had nothing to do with climate change, and there was just a small dissenting lobby, would you take the chance?

Because if you answer ‘yes’ to that you stand condemned as foolish in the extreme.

Moggy

I think the real issue here is that neither side can predict with any certaintly what is going to happen… in the meantime some scientists seem to be carving out very lucrative careers in the field (very useful for buying the catamarans they’ll need when they evolve gills and become ocean nomads no doubt).

Sure, I remember having real winters when I was a kid where, now, there is barely a flake of snow… I’m pretty sure I remember the scientists talking about the next ice age too…

One poster from the UK wildlife trust mentions micro-changes in the environment that are of concern. I’ve noticed a few changes too – it seemed to me, when I was a kid, that the world was populated with millions of sparrows and starlings and then, quite suddenly, they all seemed to disappear. Now they’re back again – bleeding great swarms of them. The point is, that I think global warming may well be, like the birdies, a natural fluctuation.

Funny thing extinction. When it comes to wildlife – my God don’t we just have to save all those endangered species… as far as I can tell, extinctions have been going on since the dawn of life on earth. Humans are also animals and therefore part of the equation – adapt and survive baby – some species are doing very well out of us (rats, cockroachs, pigeons etc… all those animals at the cuddly end of the spectrum).

Plenty of other things are killing species – habitat destruction because we all want an Ikea and somewhere to park the family truck within slouching distance for one.

ps: I’m not advocating reclassifying pandas as vermin and hunting them with dogs – just making a point that species do have to adapt and evolve and we’re part of that too…

I’m not saying global warming isnt a reality (it may well be – the melting polar ice-caps look scary to my un-informed eye) but I’m not convinced the human race is entirely to blame.

That said, turning off the plugs at night is common bl**ding sense pure and simple and always has been – any tube who doesn’t is simply swelling the coffers of the gas companies.

As mentioned above the argument is polarised and nothing one side can say will convince the other.

I don’t care. A few years and I’ll be out of here with no offspring left behind to cope with whatever happens, so I am the genuine disinterested observer.

I know I prefer to believe the overwhelming mass of scientific opinion over the vague, unsupported protestations of the deniers. But then I oddly believe that those who specialise in the field and submit their findings for peer review might just have a better chance of being right.

But let me ask the deniers this question. It’s an analogy.

You stand in a hall, in front of a table. On the table is a glass of liquid.

The audience consists of 200 scientists specialising in poisons and another 200 that includes a few scientists whose fields are metallurgy, quantum physics, aerodynamics, whatever, and a lot of people who have read stuff on the internet about poisons.

199 of the scientists in the first group believe that to drink from the glass will lead to a slow lingering death

One of that group and some of the others are not certain and think that to drink the liquid will probably do you no harm. Most of the other non specialists are not convinced either way, but there is a vociferous handful, including a metallurgist and a couple of other science specialists who post on every bulletin board and forum that they can find saying there is no way that the stuff in the glass is poisonous and it is all just a conspiracy by (fill in your own candidates here) to stop you drinking the delicious liquid. Nobody is clear why this conspiracy exists , who benefits from it, or how it has managed to assemble virtually all the poison experts in the world behind it. But they know it isn’t poison and suggest you fill your boots.

What would you do?

Moggy

Your analogy has one crucial flaw, Moggy. The majority of the actual signatories to the IPCC reports have nothing to do with climatology, meteorology or any other science offering specialist knowledge. The Chairman of the panel is a medical doctor and the really interesting fact is that the majority of those scientists who dissenting from signing the last protocol are specialists.

The entire MMGW edifice is based on constructed computer modelling designed to produce the required results and which has no historical bias, so that the crucial input of the previous 500,000 years, say, is excluded.

I think read another poster who was trying to claim that global warming is the phrase used by the “deniers”, when of course, it is the phrase which describes what the proponents have been claiming for the last 20 years. The deniers claim the exact opposite – that man made global warming is a myth whereas climate change is a reality and has been for millenia.

The devil is in the details as they say. Having been a member of the UK Wildlife Trusts for over a decade, they have reported all manner of changes happening on a micro level around the world that are of concern – its the domino effect of small things happening that affect the larger things which a lot of critics don’t seem to be able to grasp – the kind of evidence they are looking for seems more rooted in a Roland Emmerich film than reality.

However, this whole carbon thingy is a scam of the highest order. Taxpayers are sponsoring a bunch of industries who can now make new ‘green’ technology and force their sale to create an artificial market worth billions.

I’ve told this few times when I’ve camed agross this issue. I’ve worked 5 years now in two biggest energy firms up here and based on how these companies react to the climate change pretty much varifies my stand.

Money…yeas as it was mentioned by several posters here dictates the western world. Indeed there is alot of money in question with both sides advocating this whole thing, but energyfirms are pretty much have their whole existence dependable on which one was right? Does carbondioxide cause greenhouse effect and does it cause globalwarning? Based on how the two companies conduct business I say yeas it does. Why? Beocuse of the billions of investments to renwing the whole infrastructure of energyproducing. I mean wouldn’t it be alot of cheaper to just launch a major lobbying and say the climate change is BS?? Instead companies like Vattenfall (my former employer) actually spends millions (at least) on lobbying that climate change is actually a real proplem…are there just idiots? Or is there something actually behind all this? Add the billions invested on actual means speaks very much in favour that at least they think it’s real. As we are talking BIG money here, I bet my ass they have studied the matter and picked their side…the side to which it’s best to put the money on..

Personally I’ve knew the greenhouse effect since I was a elementary kid back int he 90’s so it’s actually quite hilarious to see how the big world and the masses have only now in last couple 5 years realized that hey should we do something?

Yes it’s a finite sourse of energy but why, particularly in the case of oil, is it that every time the scientists tell us how many years worth of fossil fuels we have left they quote 30 yeas? The same figure they’ve been quoting sincwe the 1950s when I was a lad.

‘Global Warming’ is a misnomer in any case, as what seems to be happening is more accurrately discribed as ‘climate change’. Global warming is an outdated terminology used by skeptics of the science.

Another arguement that is oft trotted out is that the climate has changed before without man’s influence. Yes, it has.

That does not mean that our industrialised activities cannot or are not having an influence.

I’m all ears for scientific evidence that can be brought to the table, from either side, but what I cannot stand is the arguement from incredulity and emotion that I see all around me. Just because your own armchair analysis does not agree with the science does not mean the science is wrong; many things, such as atomic weapons, heavier than air vehicles and germ theory could be considered counter-intuitive, and yet are demonstrably true.

Goverment using climate change as an excuse for gaining more tax revenue/power is another issue and has no influence on the voracity of the scientific claims. And in any case, what is wrong with adopting more energy efficient, clean technologies and moving away from an oil based economy?

We currently use a finite resource and are highly, highly dependent on it; has to change. Nations can be held to ransom by their energy producers, and so if we can have clean renewable energy that will give us energy security, price stablility and much greater efficiency I say we should grab the chance with both hands.

Have a read of James Lovelock’s latest book.

As mentioned above the argument is polarised and nothing one side can say will convince the other.

I don’t care. A few years and I’ll be out of here with no offspring left behind to cope with whatever happens, so I am the genuine disinterested observer.

I know I prefer to believe the overwhelming mass of scientific opinion over the vague, unsupported protestations of the deniers. But then I oddly believe that those who specialise in the field and submit their findings for peer review might just have a better chance of being right.

But let me ask the deniers this question. It’s an analogy.

You stand in a hall, in front of a table. On the table is a glass of liquid.

The audience consists of 200 scientists specialising in poisons and another 200 that includes a few scientists whose fields are metallurgy, quantum physics, aerodynamics, whatever, and a lot of people who have read stuff on the internet about poisons.

199 of the scientists in the first group believe that to drink from the glass will lead to a slow lingering death

One of that group and some of the others are not certain and think that to drink the liquid will probably do you no harm. Most of the other non specialists are not convinced either way, but there is a vociferous handful, including a metallurgist and a couple of other science specialists who post on every bulletin board and forum that they can find saying there is no way that the stuff in the glass is poisonous and it is all just a conspiracy by (fill in your own candidates here) to stop you drinking the delicious liquid. Nobody is clear why this conspiracy exists , who benefits from it, or how it has managed to assemble virtually all the poison experts in the world behind it. But they know it isn’t poison and suggest you fill your boots.

What would you do?

Moggy