global warming. help
Guest
Posts: n/a
As for my earlier posts regarding politicians on the take you must see that donars concealing their identities to donate money for favours is rather illegal/unjust/immoral/whatever. If you can see nothing wrong with the characters in the stories I've posted then you really are blind. But that's not surprising considering the faith you put in opinion polls!
Dave
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
But we are keeping an open mind. It's just that on the balance of evidence that we have seen there is none that says, with NO doubt, that there is such a thing a MMGW. In fact is says the opposite. If you disagree that's fine. Just argue on the science/facts and not on public opinion in any one (or many) countries as that is what the sheep do ....
As for my earlier posts regarding politicians on the take you must see that donars concealing their identities to donate money for favours is rather illegal/unjust/immoral/whatever. If you can see nothing wrong with the characters in the stories I've posted then you really are blind. But that's not surprising considering the faith you put in opinion polls!
Dave
As for my earlier posts regarding politicians on the take you must see that donars concealing their identities to donate money for favours is rather illegal/unjust/immoral/whatever. If you can see nothing wrong with the characters in the stories I've posted then you really are blind. But that's not surprising considering the faith you put in opinion polls!
Dave
I have an open mind on this and I am in the mushy middle with most people.
The truth is that a very large percentage of people on here clearly state that it isn't happening, no one can be that certain. Just as people that state with certainty that it is happening cannot know for sure.
As for opinion polls, I dont place any faith at all in them, so where you get that impression from I know not.
My points on this thread have all been about peoples motives for utterly rejecting MMGW as real, and using completely baseless conspiracy theories to justify their position... which leads me on to politicians.
To believe that all politicians are corrupt is frankly a tragic point of view. Sure there are some bad apples as there are in all walks of life. I know it sounds corny but I'm sure most people enter politics for noble reasons, because they want to make the world a better place, and they have a philosophy that they believe in.
The stories you posted up to justify how criminally corrupt politicians are, largely about how political party's are funded, now I dont want our politicians to be funded by any shady characters, who may want something back in return for their donations. The answer to this problem though is public funding of political party's, now I can't see that one going down too well can you?
Historically there have been very few instances of genuine corruption by politicians in this country, so to say they are ALL corrupt is just more hubris.
We aren't going to agree I know, but at least accept that my views are genuine, they are just views and I do not state them as fact. The problem with this debate (and society in general) is that facts and the truth appear to be less important than opinion (thats probably the subject for another thread though
).
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
From: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Can't read all the way through now, but apparently the ice caps are visibily and notably receding, and have been since 1989.
On Mars.
Where there aren't, or weren't last time I looked, and cars at all. Not even chuffing great 4x4s.
Perhaps, and it's a long shot I know, it's something to do with the increased radiation from the Sun? Apparently it produces more global warming energy in a twenty five thousandth of a second than we have since we got here...
SB
PS Or perhaps it's a cynical (but clever) plot to raise taxes.
On Mars.
Where there aren't, or weren't last time I looked, and cars at all. Not even chuffing great 4x4s.
Perhaps, and it's a long shot I know, it's something to do with the increased radiation from the Sun? Apparently it produces more global warming energy in a twenty five thousandth of a second than we have since we got here...
SB
PS Or perhaps it's a cynical (but clever) plot to raise taxes.
I know I haven't said its not happening - although I truly doubt if mankind alone has had the kind of input into climate change that some would like to suggest we have.
No-one can deny that climate change happens, because it *does* happen; that IS an historical fact. What isn't a fact, historical or otherwise, is the effect that mankind has on the issue; and that is what is being debated here.
What many of us are suggesting is that Governments cynically see it as a easy way to raise revenue - which is, quite frankly, in no-ones interest; rather than do meaningful things to help protect the environment and equip us to be able to deal with a changing climate.
No-one can deny that climate change happens, because it *does* happen; that IS an historical fact. What isn't a fact, historical or otherwise, is the effect that mankind has on the issue; and that is what is being debated here.
What many of us are suggesting is that Governments cynically see it as a easy way to raise revenue - which is, quite frankly, in no-ones interest; rather than do meaningful things to help protect the environment and equip us to be able to deal with a changing climate.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
This will rage on for years and years. Heres my take on GW:
A number of careful studies in of the ice cores in from the Antarctic and Greenland have shown there is an 800 year lag before there is an increase in CO2 during glacial termination caused by warming. Warmings take about 5000 years to complete. The following 4200 years of warming, CO2 *COULD* have caused further warming and therefore could be a factor in determining global temperature. However, what the ice core also showed was that when temperatures started to decrease and the end of the warming cycle, CO2 was still high and took a futher 1000 years before CO2 returned to previous levels. So for me, based on evidence of Earth's history from current scientific analysis, CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming
As we all know global warming is not a new phenomenon and in constant flux as is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with changes taking thousands of years. IPCC's report is based largely on the "hocky stick" study which as it turns out is inaccurate and somewhat exaggerated since it leaves out the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age".
Earth's climate is extremely complex and there are a huge number of factors that can influence it, for example, solar activity, volcanic activity, variations in ocean currents, El Ninos, variations in Earth's orbit, water vapour and even cosmic rays just to name a few. Climatologists cannot accurately project or predict climate and weather pattens 6 months or even a year ahead so how can we believe what they say now is concrete evidence for the next 50 or even 100 years time? Therefore such studies based on predictions and projections are inconclusive. It would be like trying to predict the winning lottery numbers in 10 years time, pick the the 6 numbers that have come up the most often on winning lines and therefore this must give us the best chance to "guarentee" a win. OK, granted it is somewhat a simplified example, but you get the gist. The Earth is warming, but IMO its inconceivable that CO2 alone, especially man made, is the sole contributor that *CAUSES* global warming.
The IPCC, a political body made up from a number of nations setup by politicians where some scientists have take legal action to have their names removed from the report, continue to make revisions to it's climate report that is filled witl lots of if's, probables and may be's are themselves not 100% certain that GW is man made and yet Governent and environmentalists want us to take this as gospel to a point where the Government want indoctrinate our children with this notion by introducing Al Gores An "Inaccurate" Truth into the curriculum.
There are many for's and against's in this arguement, even in the scientific community, but I am gradually seeing more convincing evidence against climate change that is solely caused by human activity, and in the opinion of how any form of human activity that could actually stop the climate from changing. This is not to say that we should squander Earth's resources, I'm all for conservation within reason. Although I'm of the view that offsetting carbon by planting trees so that people can drive in uneconomical cars and fly on privated and charted jets (yes Al Gore, that's you!) is a con, since its takes the trees many years to absorb that amount of CO2 and will just release it again when the tree(s) die. What I do take expection to is the hypocracy of the powers be who are/will be forcing their ill concieved policies on us now and in the future based on an inconclusive report that has many unanswered questions.
A number of careful studies in of the ice cores in from the Antarctic and Greenland have shown there is an 800 year lag before there is an increase in CO2 during glacial termination caused by warming. Warmings take about 5000 years to complete. The following 4200 years of warming, CO2 *COULD* have caused further warming and therefore could be a factor in determining global temperature. However, what the ice core also showed was that when temperatures started to decrease and the end of the warming cycle, CO2 was still high and took a futher 1000 years before CO2 returned to previous levels. So for me, based on evidence of Earth's history from current scientific analysis, CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming
As we all know global warming is not a new phenomenon and in constant flux as is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with changes taking thousands of years. IPCC's report is based largely on the "hocky stick" study which as it turns out is inaccurate and somewhat exaggerated since it leaves out the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age".
Earth's climate is extremely complex and there are a huge number of factors that can influence it, for example, solar activity, volcanic activity, variations in ocean currents, El Ninos, variations in Earth's orbit, water vapour and even cosmic rays just to name a few. Climatologists cannot accurately project or predict climate and weather pattens 6 months or even a year ahead so how can we believe what they say now is concrete evidence for the next 50 or even 100 years time? Therefore such studies based on predictions and projections are inconclusive. It would be like trying to predict the winning lottery numbers in 10 years time, pick the the 6 numbers that have come up the most often on winning lines and therefore this must give us the best chance to "guarentee" a win. OK, granted it is somewhat a simplified example, but you get the gist. The Earth is warming, but IMO its inconceivable that CO2 alone, especially man made, is the sole contributor that *CAUSES* global warming.
The IPCC, a political body made up from a number of nations setup by politicians where some scientists have take legal action to have their names removed from the report, continue to make revisions to it's climate report that is filled witl lots of if's, probables and may be's are themselves not 100% certain that GW is man made and yet Governent and environmentalists want us to take this as gospel to a point where the Government want indoctrinate our children with this notion by introducing Al Gores An "Inaccurate" Truth into the curriculum.
There are many for's and against's in this arguement, even in the scientific community, but I am gradually seeing more convincing evidence against climate change that is solely caused by human activity, and in the opinion of how any form of human activity that could actually stop the climate from changing. This is not to say that we should squander Earth's resources, I'm all for conservation within reason. Although I'm of the view that offsetting carbon by planting trees so that people can drive in uneconomical cars and fly on privated and charted jets (yes Al Gore, that's you!) is a con, since its takes the trees many years to absorb that amount of CO2 and will just release it again when the tree(s) die. What I do take expection to is the hypocracy of the powers be who are/will be forcing their ill concieved policies on us now and in the future based on an inconclusive report that has many unanswered questions.
Politics is the art of deception. Hitler was a great politician, he convinced Chamberlin he would not go to war, even declaring it on paper. The rest is history.
If anyone beileves cutting 30% of the 0.03% CO2 attributable to human activity will do anything to stop "dangerous climate change" (Which is the term being used now) is a fool.
So many "climatologists" stated as a fact that the 2006 hurricane season would be worse than 2005 after Katrina, and 2007 would be worse still. Tosh!
Allow these politicians to continue their hypocracy at your peril.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
From: Derbyshire
This is an extract from one of the polls you mentioned, the pollster also says the 'very few people reject'
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Scepticism' over climate claims
It's also interesting to read some of the US polls, now you could hardly say that the US Administration has been peddling the MMGW issue, and yet it would appear that American people are more likely to at least believe that it's happening than not...interesting
I still maintain this is about moderation versus extremism, scepticism versus rejectionist, those with open minds and those who simply close their minds because they may not like the implications of at least listening to the debate - and this cuts both ways
I simply cannot understand how anyone on here can reject this issue, I implore people not to just reject, but to listen and keep an open mind
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Scepticism' over climate claims
It's also interesting to read some of the US polls, now you could hardly say that the US Administration has been peddling the MMGW issue, and yet it would appear that American people are more likely to at least believe that it's happening than not...interesting
I still maintain this is about moderation versus extremism, scepticism versus rejectionist, those with open minds and those who simply close their minds because they may not like the implications of at least listening to the debate - and this cuts both ways
I simply cannot understand how anyone on here can reject this issue, I implore people not to just reject, but to listen and keep an open mind
1) Nothing is happening
2) Something is happening but it's natural
3) Something is happening and it's anthropogenic
I don't see too many people here or elsewhere in group 1, lots on here are in group 2, as it would seem are the general public and some are in group 3.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
From: Derbyshire
OK, created a poll here to see what opinion is like on SN. We should excpect, if Martin is right, that most people on here vote for option 1. If Martin is wrong and SN isn't too far away from the public, then most should be voting for option 2 and if we get more than 25% voting 3 or 4, then SN is greener than the general public!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
OK, created a poll here to see what opinion is like on SN. We should excpect, if Martin is right, that most people on here vote for option 1. If Martin is wrong and SN isn't too far away from the public, then most should be voting for option 2 and if we get more than 25% voting 3 or 4, then SN is greener than the general public!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
From: Derbyshire
There is no global warming at all
and
Global warming is real but a natural occurence
Be the same thing?
Generally there seem to be very few people in group 1 and in the poll on the other thread there is only 1.
The poll I put earlier shows 75% of the UK think GW is a reality, just not anthropegenic. In SN, 63% sit in that group however 25% think humans have at least something to do with it. Looks to me that SN has a pretty good match or is possibly slightly more green than the UK public as a whole.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
How can:
There is no global warming at all
and
Global warming is real but a natural occurence
Be the same thing?
Generally there seem to be very few people in group 1 and in the poll on the other thread there is only 1.
The poll I put earlier shows 75% of the UK think GW is a reality, just not anthropegenic. In SN, 63% sit in that group however 25% think humans have at least something to do with it. Looks to me that SN has a pretty good match or is possibly slightly more green than the UK public as a whole.
There is no global warming at all
and
Global warming is real but a natural occurence
Be the same thing?
Generally there seem to be very few people in group 1 and in the poll on the other thread there is only 1.
The poll I put earlier shows 75% of the UK think GW is a reality, just not anthropegenic. In SN, 63% sit in that group however 25% think humans have at least something to do with it. Looks to me that SN has a pretty good match or is possibly slightly more green than the UK public as a whole.
I have to say you've done a really good job of twisting my arguement here.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
From: Derbyshire
I have to say you've done a really good job of twisting my arguement her
Originally Posted by Martin2005
Therefore blaming the government becomes and easy get out, the truth is the only conspirators are the people who wont listen to the argument, deny then blame everyone and everything apart from the one thing that might impact on them.
I would like just one person to explain to me why the majority of the public accept the problem and yet the vast majority of petrol thirsty Subaru drivers don't, we all know the answer but are not honest enough to admit it.
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...ml#post7478421
I would like just one person to explain to me why the majority of the public accept the problem and yet the vast majority of petrol thirsty Subaru drivers don't, we all know the answer but are not honest enough to admit it.
https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...ml#post7478421
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good Lord, more scientists who don't *conform* .....
Don't fight, adapt
One extract:
"Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg...2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated"
Enjoy!
Dave
Don't fight, adapt
One extract:
"Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg...2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated"
Enjoy!
Dave
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
From: a more anarchic place
Ooh, look.
Expert reviewer for the IPCC accuses them of falsifying data and destroying records which disagree with their 'findings'.
DailyTech - Noted Sea Level Expert Accuses IPCC of Falsifying Data
Why did the IPCC produce a 'summary for policy makers' several months before releasing IPCC AR4? It was because they were applying 'correction factors' to the data in the report (in other words, cooking the books).
Expert reviewer for the IPCC accuses them of falsifying data and destroying records which disagree with their 'findings'.
DailyTech - Noted Sea Level Expert Accuses IPCC of Falsifying Data
Why did the IPCC produce a 'summary for policy makers' several months before releasing IPCC AR4? It was because they were applying 'correction factors' to the data in the report (in other words, cooking the books).
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Ooh, look.
Expert reviewer for the IPCC accuses them of falsifying data and destroying records which disagree with their 'findings'.
DailyTech - Noted Sea Level Expert Accuses IPCC of Falsifying Data
Why did the IPCC produce a 'summary for policy makers' several months before releasing IPCC AR4? It was because they were applying 'correction factors' to the data in the report (in other words, cooking the books).
Expert reviewer for the IPCC accuses them of falsifying data and destroying records which disagree with their 'findings'.
DailyTech - Noted Sea Level Expert Accuses IPCC of Falsifying Data
Why did the IPCC produce a 'summary for policy makers' several months before releasing IPCC AR4? It was because they were applying 'correction factors' to the data in the report (in other words, cooking the books).
(or only posts when he is at work, bored to ****)Are you American by any chance DJ ? You sound like it. Friend of GWB eh ? Or is it just that some people base their arguments on "assumptions" and "ignorance" and above all, a lack of reading (or memory
)? Big hail to self proclaimed "scientists"'.
Oh well.
PS: Olly: there's always PM to apologise. Or, I should really say, "apologize".
Wheres our global warming then
-2 this morning had to spend 15 mins de icing the car.
mildest winter yet they say the earth will explode into a ball of flames blah blah blah it would freeze the gonads off a brass monkey the last few weeks down here.
-2 this morning had to spend 15 mins de icing the car.mildest winter yet they say the earth will explode into a ball of flames blah blah blah it would freeze the gonads off a brass monkey the last few weeks down here.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
From: Derbyshire
Guess Olly didn't want to pick up on this after all. (or only posts when he is at work, bored to ****)
Are you American by any chance DJ ? You sound like it. Friend of GWB eh ? Or is it just that some people base their arguments on "assumptions" and "ignorance" and above all, a lack of reading (or memory )?
Big hail to self proclaimed "scientists"'.
Oh well.
PS: Olly: there's always PM to apologise. Or, I should really say, "apologize".
(or only posts when he is at work, bored to ****)Are you American by any chance DJ ? You sound like it. Friend of GWB eh ? Or is it just that some people base their arguments on "assumptions" and "ignorance" and above all, a lack of reading (or memory
)? Big hail to self proclaimed "scientists"'.
Oh well.
PS: Olly: there's always PM to apologise. Or, I should really say, "apologize".
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 1
From: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Man damage to the planet doesnt stop there - no, our plundering of the planet doesnt even stop on our planet - we're messing up the whole solar system!
SPACE.com -- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon - MIT News Office
Climate change hits Mars - Times Online
See, its clearly man made actions of burning fossil fuels that are screwing up the whole plantary system. People saying that its got something to do with the Sun (which clearly has a constant output and always will) are funded by the evilAmericanpetrosatancorporations.
And dont start me on DHMO
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide
SPACE.com -- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon - MIT News Office
Climate change hits Mars - Times Online
See, its clearly man made actions of burning fossil fuels that are screwing up the whole plantary system. People saying that its got something to do with the Sun (which clearly has a constant output and always will) are funded by the evilAmericanpetrosatancorporations.
And dont start me on DHMO
Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide
Decadel trends since 1998 are flat, or even ever so slightly negative.
Nuff said!
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
At the end of the 'Earth: The Power of the Planet'; the Jock guy was going on about global warming, about how all the stuff we are doing is making the planet heat up etc. I though "here we go, another bloody AGW preacher", but then, in all fairness to him, he simply said that what he had learned making that programme that even if it is us doing it, we simply don't have the power to affect the earth in the long run.
Time again, the earth has recovered from far worse than is happening now, so this cry of "save the planet" is ridiculous, the planet will be just fine, it should be "save ourselves".
OK, I don't agree with him that it's us that's causing it, but he's spot on about how unrealistic it is that the planet is in any danger at all. Even if we are causing it, so what? Everything will just carry on.
They also talked about how evolution becomes stagnant and needs catastrophe to keep going. The current extinction is doing just that, so we are actually helping the planet if you look at it that way
Geezer
Time again, the earth has recovered from far worse than is happening now, so this cry of "save the planet" is ridiculous, the planet will be just fine, it should be "save ourselves".
OK, I don't agree with him that it's us that's causing it, but he's spot on about how unrealistic it is that the planet is in any danger at all. Even if we are causing it, so what? Everything will just carry on.
They also talked about how evolution becomes stagnant and needs catastrophe to keep going. The current extinction is doing just that, so we are actually helping the planet if you look at it that way
Geezer
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
At the end of the 'Earth: The Power of the Planet'; the Jock guy was going on about global warming, about how all the stuff we are doing is making the planet heat up etc. I though "here we go, another bloody AGW preacher", but then, in all fairness to him, he simply said that what he had learned making that programme that even if it is us doing it, we simply don't have the power to affect the earth in the long run.
Time again, the earth has recovered from far worse than is happening now, so this cry of "save the planet" is ridiculous, the planet will be just fine, it should be "save ourselves".
OK, I don't agree with him that it's us that's causing it, but he's spot on about how unrealistic it is that the planet is in any danger at all. Even if we are causing it, so what? Everything will just carry on.
They also talked about how evolution becomes stagnant and needs catastrophe to keep going. The current extinction is doing just that, so we are actually helping the planet if you look at it that way
Geezer
Time again, the earth has recovered from far worse than is happening now, so this cry of "save the planet" is ridiculous, the planet will be just fine, it should be "save ourselves".
OK, I don't agree with him that it's us that's causing it, but he's spot on about how unrealistic it is that the planet is in any danger at all. Even if we are causing it, so what? Everything will just carry on.
They also talked about how evolution becomes stagnant and needs catastrophe to keep going. The current extinction is doing just that, so we are actually helping the planet if you look at it that way
Geezer
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
