The yogurt knitters will hate me now!

#45

It’s not debatable whether or not the IPCC were wrong. They were wrong – period. They were not just wrong they were fraudulent – they cooked the books. It was reported that they falsified information including computer modelling programs – how much verifiable evidence do you need ?

The very people appointed and financially supported by the world’s governments – that’s you and me, to investigate the substance or lack of it of global warming, cooked the books. There is no gentle way of putting it.

Yet you persist in giving them the benefit of the doubt. I suppose you still believe in Father Xmas !

Fortunately you’re in a minority. The broad mass of commonsensical people are dismissive of these crazy notions and are content to accept that somethings are outside of human control.

The pity is that before we regain some balance in these and other related matters it will cost all of us a shed load of treasure to pay for the stupidity of our politicians.

John Green

Your inability to actually read what I wrote and indulge in any sort of proper debate without resorting to insults means I will leave you to your “belief system”. I hope it works out for you.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

I.M.H.O. It’s just Mother Natures loop, which changes the weather every so many thousands of years, we may be able to slow her down a bit, but she will win in the end.I can remember in my younger days, in the Summer holidays, we kids spent most of our 6 weeks off school in the river, it was so hot. I have, noticed a decline in those Oh, so long and hot sunny days.

Jim.

Lincoln .7

#45

It’s not debatable whether or not the IPCC were wrong. They were wrong – period. They were not just wrong they were fraudulent – they cooked the books. It was reported that they falsified information including computer modelling programs – how much verifiable evidence do you need ?

The very people appointed and financially supported by the world’s governments – that’s you and me, to investigate the substance or lack of it of global warming, cooked the books. There is no gentle way of putting it.

Yet you persist in giving them the benefit of the doubt. I suppose you still believe in Father Xmas !

Fortunately you’re in a minority. The broad mass of commonsensical people are dismissive of these crazy notions and are content to accept that somethings are outside of human control.

The pity is that before we regain some balance in these and other related matters it will cost all of us a shed load of treasure to pay for the stupidity of our politicians.

John Green

Ah, OK.
I just like to think they put their brains into going to the Moon and beyond instead. I do not go for the belief that the Brits (OK and the French dammit) did something that the Americans could not.

You’re free to believe what you wish. But it wasn’t a question of technology or brains. After all, the US had been flying the B-58 since the late 50s. So the technology was out there for a large supersonic aircraft…not unlike the XB-70.

The simple fact is the the program required government funding.
The government cancelled it.
(Now, where have we seen that before?)

One of the reasons for the govenment deciding not to get into the civil aircraft business were the efforts from the environmental lobby.

I think some people are mixing drinks here.
IMO: –
“Environment” can be / has been affected by Humans.
Global warming is definately happening but is nothing to do with human activity.
It is the latter point which is referenced when people rant on about gas guzzler cars and jet travel. They are talking out of their jet-pipe.

I didn’t say that SSTs actually caused holes in the Ozone, but that was the argument made by the US environmentalists.
As with many issues, they may have overstated their case in an attempt to get government and public support.

Ah, OK.

I just like to think they put their brains into going to the Moon and beyond instead. I do not go for the belief that the Brits (OK and the French dammit) did something that the Americans could not.

Only 1/2 correct. The drought was not caused by humans, or the wind.
Bad farming practices combined with those two nature events caused the dustbowl.

Likewise the London fog. Because of its location, London has always had fog.
The man made pollution made it a killer in the famous 50s event.

So in both cases, you can say man-caused events made a natural situation worse, but they were not completely man-caused.

A slight understatement I would suggest; or put another way, humans turned normal weather events into catastrophes.

Moggy has it in a nutshell.

The parallel I always use is:

You are not actually dying of thirst, but on the table is an attractive looking glass of something.

Standing behind it are ten scientists who have had a chance to examine the drink

You ask, is it safe to drink. Nine of them, experts in the safety of drinks, say – “You will probably die in a couple of years if you drink that now”.

The other, from an unrelated field says, “Nah… you’ll be just fine. Buy the book I have just published and you can read all about how the other nine are mistaken”

I wouldn’t drink it.

Moggy

1930s US dustbowl – caused by humans – FACT

Only 1/2 correct. The drought was not caused by humans, or the wind.
Bad farming practices combined with those two nature events caused the dustbowl.

Likewise the London fog. Because of its location, London has always had fog.
The man made pollution made it a killer in the famous 50s event.

So in both cases, you can say man-caused events made a natural situation worse, but they were not completely man-caused.

So we are discussing different things? Ah OK…..

You said that humans could not change the environment – I have shown that they can. Local or global it doesn’t matter to those affected does it? The dust bowl affected millions of people over half a continent – a little bigger than “local”

Climate Change is something global whose effects will be local in nature.

Who can say that Krakatoa had no effect in the long term. How can you possibly know what would have happened to the climate if it hadn’t happened? Same as now – we don’t know what effect we might have in the future so why take the chance?

What you are discussing and what I am discussing are not ‘two sides of the same coin’. I am discussing Global changes and you are referring to Local changes.

The American Mid West dust bowls of the 1920s, the London smogs of the 1950s, de-forestation are local events and not global.

Nuclear contamination ? Small stuff ! When, in the latter part of the 19th Century the volcanic island of Krakotoa exploded, apart from the tidal wave generated, the effect of which was observed as far North as the latitude of the British Isles, It is estimated that the atmospheric pollution and contamination released by the explosion was roughly eight times greater than all the contaminants released by all the nuclear tests carried out to this date.

Such was the power of the Krakotoa explosion that the contaminants were carried around the globe very quickly resulting in – due to restrictions of solar radiation penetrating the atmosphere – modest but measurable reductions in surface temperatures arouind the globe.

The sequel to this event was that within about three to four years, the effects of this cataclysmic event had subsided, the pollution had vanished
and the natural equilibrium was restored.

The Krakotoa event was a truly global event with a global effect but very quickly dealt with by Mother Nature unlike, the local events that you offer as an example of human intervention climate change.

I sometimes think that human ego is of such a size that we flatter to deceive. It makes us think that we are more important than we are and that by our behaviour we can affect matters on a global scale much more than reality would suggest.

John Green

A belief system? That is very probably the funniest statement I have ever read on here.

Deforestation – caused by humans – FACT
Acid Rain – caused by humans – FACT
London smog of the 1950s – caused by humans – FACT
1930s US dustbowl – caused by humans – FACT

I could go on.

There many many more examples that go to build up my “belief system”.

You’ll be telling me next that the contamination caused by nuclear detonation was some natural event.

Humans ARE capable of destroying in the environment. Whether the current climate change is down to humans is debatable but should we take the chance that the IPCC might be wrong? What if they are right and we did nothing?

#43

Maybe. In fact we will never know. Yours is a belief system – mine is subject to something I referred to in an earlier contribution – verifiable evidence. That’s the important bit.

John Green

Fascinating history lesson, not sure what is has to do with the rest of the thread but fascinating nonetheless.
Still doesn’t explain away the fact that humans can have a devastating effect on the environment if allowed to.

#34

Hallelujah indeed ! There’s nothing like preaching to the newly converted. I salute your good sense.

#32

Short natural history lesson: Way back in the 70s, it was discovered that Britain and much more of Northern Europe was floating on a subterranean sea of liquid gold and gas. Whoopee!

That oil and gas was laid down hundreds of thousands of years ago when there were no people on the planet and the whole of Northern Europe was a vast tropical rainforest stocked with elephant, rhino, croc and hippos.

Thousands and thousands of years passed during which there were no people or at best sub humans on the planet, Gradually the climate changed, totally without the help of gas guzzling automobiles, wasteful consumer practices or surprisingly any of the sundry excuses trotted out by the human intervention warmist lobby. The climate of Northern Europe became colder and colder until lo and behold, yet another ice age dawned.

Thousands and thousands of years went by and very gradually the climate became warmer and once again the land was covered with tropical rain forest. Thousands and thousands of years came and went and the climate started to cool. After a very, very long time, grassland and savannah predominated and were populated by nomadic herds of animals and then the first hunter gatherers appeared.

Thousands and thousands of…………………And that is how the world proceeds. Endlessly cyclical, natural fluctuations that are the root cause of climate change. Don’t be fooled into believing anything else.

John Green

Got to go along with Blue 2 on thread 38, Ahh, Victors, I like the noise they make, my kids call me Victor…..Meldrew, that is.
Keep em turning Graham.;)

Jim.

Lincoln .7

In what way is my user name apt? You do know what it means don’t you?

Do you (or did) have a “ravishing” wife Mr Pewtey? 😉

Anyway…

Almost bought a Lexus a while back, but elected to soldier on with my beat up old Mondeo, looking back, I appear to have lost the election 😮

In the who can wreck the environment the quickest sweepstake, I would like to forward my efforts in dispensing many thousands of litres of AVTUR to thirsty Helicopters & Jets, during my time on the ASMT flight. Got to say, I still love the smell of the stuff.

So mining materials,… bla… bla … etc… more environmentally concious than buying and recycling an older car for £1000.
!

Did anyone say that?

I certainly didn’t. We were discussing progress in I.C.E. efficiency. But don’t let that stop you making your irrelevant point.

And finance for a Micra? You have to be joking!

Moggy

Before Arthur Pewtey drags yet another GD thread into an arguement that will inevitably go round and round in circles and eventually disappear up its own plughole :rolleyes:, does making quite a bit of noise with the Victor’s Conways on Sunday count as (not) doing my bit for the environment? Even though we only throttled up to 80%(ish!)?

Arthur Pewty, it seems like your only remit here is to contradict someone elses points, certainly going off all your posts in GA, therefore you have pretty well devalued your own opinions as far as I can see – you picked an apt user name!

I thought we had a saying about playing the ball not the man?

It appears that there are those on this forum that have a problem with opinions that may differ from their own. Those people should maybe look up what an internet forum is actually for.
Maybe it is the case there are so many ill-informed opinions on here that contradiction is so very easy. :p

In what way is my user name apt? You do know what it means don’t you?