Jap2Scrap

Erm.. there's the 'some' I was referring too.
Peace out my lentil harvesting brother

Geezer

I haven't seen anywhere that says they are growing, but supposing it's true , the increase in snowfall due to higher temp in the inner of the continent would add considerable volume to the outward flowing ice caps.

This is the opposite of what we see in high mountain areas like the Alps because the snowfall is reduced during the summer months, so the glaciers are not only attacked at the bottom by greater temperature, they do not have sufficient snowfall to replenish them.

Geezer

De Warrenne

CO2 is not bad for your health (except in quantities sufficiently large to prevent you breathing oxygen or if you find yourself drowning because of sea level rise).

Other emissions from cars or industrial sites such as SO2, NOx and PM10 do not contribute to climate change - they are a local air quality issue, which can have adverse health effects.

De Warrenne

now now, the original poster asked if it were climate change, it was the suggested that climate change was a fallacy, the argument then developed into one about whether climate change was real or not, not about last night's storm.

have a read of this and let me know what you think:

http://www.thelondonline.co.uk/theli...?articleID=411

make sure you take your blood pressure pills first

boxst

Hello

Thanks for the link, I have read about Carbon Cards before but didn't think they would ever make it in to production.

And I still don't. Although I may go off and register carboncardtrading.com just incase!

Steve

De Warrenne

heh, I've already got it, and .co.uk and mycarbonallowance.com etc etc etc

jasey

We'll just need to Invade a country with loads of ozone in about thirty years time - until then let us all concentrate of invading countries with enough oil.

ps Australia currently in the middle of a 5 year drought - that might have something to do with climate change !

OllyK

Because regardless of the debated affect on climate change, I'd rather breath clean air than dirty, I'd have thought that was pretty self evident?

De Warrenne

see post 33

unclebuck

I'm fully aware of that proposal, so no pills required. People just didn't understand what they were letting themselves in for by re-electing this bunch to a third term. The truth is slowly becoming clear although of course most people in this country are too stupid to realise the consequences.

As for me, my plans to quit this isle before all their crazy plans become law are advancing steadily.

OllyK

Mmm - I mentioned cutting emissions (all of them), the reasons for which I had assumed would be self evident. I didn't mention CO2 in isolation for exactly that reason, it's pretty much harmless (unless you are asthmatic, seems it can have an adverse affect in that case). The plants love it, flourish and convert it various sugars and release oxygen in the process, all good stuff.

There are however, plenty of nasty sulphur, nitrogen and particulate emissions from power stations and motor vehicles that I'd prefer not to breath given the choice.

De Warrenne

ah ok, so in a post about climate change you were actually talking about emissions of pollutants not related to climate change - thats ok then, I understand now.

OllyK

IMO you have failed to make a case for C02 affecting the climate, so what's the issue with discussing other emissions that don't affect the the climate either, but that do have very real heath effects?

De Warrenne

TheBigMan

The scoobynet science community gives it's professional opinions. lol

Let's be honest, seriously for a second. None of us know sweet FA about any of this. If scientists can't agree, what valuable input could we possibly have on this point?? None.

Blind leading the blind. Leave it to the pro's, the informed.

De Warrenne

The scoobynet community is a broad church, why shouldn't a climate change scientist be part of it?

TheBigMan

No reason at all, would be cool in fact - however I doubt very much there actually are any?

OllyK

And more importantly if you find one here, are they are pro or anti.

IMO, the case has not yet been made, there are suffcient scientists disputing the findings of those claiming climate change is real, for me to question it as reality. I really don't think we have sufficiently good records over a sufficiently long period of time to make a true judgement on the situation.

As I said earlier, there are plenty of other nasties in emissions that are having a more immediate effect on people and the case for emissions reduction would be better made on those grounds (IMO) than trying to do it on something that the "experts" still can't agree on. As a by-product of reducing emissions on a fact based approach, you also reduce the carbon emissions, which may or may not affect the climate.

Jap2Scrap

Getting back to the original post I made that started this heated debate; I didn't say there was no such thing as climate change, I stated that 'Global Warming' was a fallacy.

The single quotation marks around the term Global Warming is my way of saying that what we are led to understand as global warming by the greens and the government is no more than a buzz-word.

Only a fool would take anything they say at face value.

OllyK

Cool - some un-cited graphs with no supporting documentation, that just happen to agree with your POV, how convenient.

gsm1

You will always find scientists that don't agree. What's more important is the background of these scientists and who's paying them.
Money talks. It's the massive corporations who couldn't give a flying **** about anything except to make even more money that have the upper hand here, not 'lentil munchers' or whatever.

OllyK

That's a slightly simplified view IMO. The big problem is there are large holes in all the studies because they are biased and don't take in to account the factors that would result in a more balanced and perhaps acurate report. Both sides are producing material that is taking a battering at peer review, which suggests to me that neither of them have it right.

Much of the debate is over the interpretation of the evidence and even the validity of it source and collection methods.

De Warrenne

heh, nice 'chop - I'd already given you a link to all the evidence you could ever want on the science behind climate change, to remind you, visit www.ipcc.ch

btw the ipcc bit stands for 'intergovernmental panel on climate change', loads of scientists all looking at ice cores and stuff and agreeing that climate change is happening and is a bad thing

evidence against please?

unclebuck

I don't think anyone suggests that climate change isn't happening. The debate should be whether it is caused by man's activities or simply part of a naturally occuring cycle. The problem is that the 'enviromentals' are presenting severe weather events (such as last nights storms in Yorkshire) as apparent proof that global warming is happening and that it is man made, which is clearly flawed.

OllyK

Oh tut-tut, negative evidence? Remember the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Inability to prove the existence of climate change due to human influence, means that so far, there isn't climate change atributable to human actions. That may change, but it is the current position like it or not.

However; some of the counter arguments that have been put forward and issues raised with the quality of data:
The Leipzig Declaration
List of signatories of the Leipzig Declaration
Arguments against
Water vapour feedback cycle

jasey

Yeah - really cool - So who took the readings in 1000 - Was it David Ike ???

OllyK

LOL - I suspect they are trying to do a number of things including:
1) Extrapolation
2) Analysis of plant samples, in particular trees and growth rings
3) Glacier ice core samples and measurement of captured CO2.

All of these (and others) are far from being an exact science, there is quite a lot of speculation about what the measurements mean. Collecting evidence is easy, interpretting is somewhat harder.

jasey

Olly - you're being over generous.

They're justifying their inflated egos to make it sound like they know what the **** they are going on about.

At least Ike came clean and told us all he knew what was going on because he was Jesus and saw it all happening .

We're due another life ending Meteor just now - so all this academic bollox is, well, academic .

De Warrenne

ah well, i'm nearing the end of my day as Tony's top environmental advisor, better recommend he ban scoobs for all but the party faithful

laters all