Global Cooling?
20 November 2008, 04:23 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not betting on anything, Kieran, i'm just using the same criteria you did, ie the size of the ozone hole. That's my whole point, this subject seems to blinker people like few others, i'm probably just as guilty in some respects. It's the sweeping assumptions about how hapless we are as a race to this whole thing that never cease to astonish me though. As if anyone here actually knows.
20 November 2008, 04:24 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Not reading any more, not when assumptions of this magnitude are being made.
At the end of the day, YOU DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THAT THIS IS TRUE. You just believe the "political scam/taxation" side of the story. Fair enough, but don't start stating "facts" like the above with absolutely zero foundation.
At the end of the day, YOU DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THAT THIS IS TRUE. You just believe the "political scam/taxation" side of the story. Fair enough, but don't start stating "facts" like the above with absolutely zero foundation.
hold that thought -- thats a long time
Africa used to sit next to South America ffs -- are you seriously saying that we can extert that much influence over the path the earth is going to take in the next 100 -200 - 300 thousand years -- still not very long in geological terms
expand your mind -- we are a geological aberation
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 20 November 2008 at 04:26 PM.
20 November 2008, 04:30 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
we ARE ****ing up the planet -- all i,m saying is we are doing to ourselves ultimatley -- the planet will survive
so why dont we start looking after people --- something that we could do rather than expending energy -- excuse the pun on things we ultimatly cant do
20 November 2008, 04:31 PM
#36
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not reading any more, not when assumptions of this magnitude are being made.
At the end of the day, YOU DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THAT THIS IS TRUE. You just believe the "political scam/taxation" side of the story. Fair enough, but don't start stating "facts" like the above with absolutely zero foundation.
At the end of the day, YOU DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THAT THIS IS TRUE. You just believe the "political scam/taxation" side of the story. Fair enough, but don't start stating "facts" like the above with absolutely zero foundation.
So, even if we wipe the earth clean of all large life, it will recover. Saving the planet is bollox.
Humans are so arrogant and think on such a small scale.
Geezer
20 November 2008, 04:33 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah it'll survive, granted, but how much human suffering are we ok to allow, just by assuming we can't do anything about it, rather than changing our behaviour and trying - given what we know - to make a difference out there. I just don't get the resigned attitude of many. Maybe it's at odds with the lifestyle they wish to continue to enjoy, so on a subconscious level it's easier to discard it as a buch of nonsense. Perhaps.
20 November 2008, 04:45 PM
#40
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 November 2008, 04:47 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes - the old BIG NUMBERS argument.
In fact 6 billion human being is a very small number. Those 6 billion people make up about 1/3 of 1 per cent of the total biomass of the planet.
I reckon that looks pretty small scale
20 November 2008, 04:55 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old saying 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough and it becomes the truth' springs to mind.
And Obama would sign up to it 'cos a) he has to some things that Bush didn't just to have clear daylight between policies, b) because of what I said above in that the democrats are into nanny-state and power over the proles (just as NuLab are over here!) and c) he knows that he has to find money from somewhere in the current economic climate and where better than that old fave 'Save the Planet???
Dave
And Obama would sign up to it 'cos a) he has to some things that Bush didn't just to have clear daylight between policies, b) because of what I said above in that the democrats are into nanny-state and power over the proles (just as NuLab are over here!) and c) he knows that he has to find money from somewhere in the current economic climate and where better than that old fave 'Save the Planet???
Dave
It is quite likely that Obama is about to bail-out (hardly a great tax raiser) the US car manufacturing industry, in return he's going to insist they start building more efficient cars....where the conspiracy in that (i'm sure you'll find one)?
I'd love to know what people think governments should be doing when they are given the best scientific advise available ALL OF WHICH tells them they need to take action.
Last edited by Martin2005; 20 November 2008 at 05:02 PM.
20 November 2008, 04:57 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
please any basic knowledge of geograhy will tell that the earth is 4 thousand million years old
hold that thought -- thats a long time
Africa used to sit next to South America ffs -- are you seriously saying that we can extert that much influence over the path the earth is going to take in the next 100 -200 - 300 thousand years -- still not very long in geological terms
expand your mind -- we are a geological aberation
hold that thought -- thats a long time
Africa used to sit next to South America ffs -- are you seriously saying that we can extert that much influence over the path the earth is going to take in the next 100 -200 - 300 thousand years -- still not very long in geological terms
expand your mind -- we are a geological aberation
NOBODY EVER SAID THE PLANET WAS IN DANGER.....EVER
20 November 2008, 05:01 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? Did Obama not win the Presidency? Is he not going to insist on tougher emissions targets for the US? Is there not a serious danger that we are in the process of damaging the environment?
Which bits of those statements of fact can't you take seriously?
Just because you don't want to believe doesn't mean that it's all going to go away
Last edited by Martin2005; 20 November 2008 at 05:13 PM.
20 November 2008, 05:05 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you do have this info I think it's important that you hand it on to the relevant authorities
20 November 2008, 05:51 PM
#46
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to play the numbers game, let's talk about what we should do about mitigating Toba or Yellowstone erupting again (and this is when, not if, unlike AGW).
You'll have far bigger problems then than a few degrees of warming, try 16 degrees of cooling worldwide, 80% of plant life dying, agricultural land made infertile due to the ash. A billion or more people will die within the first few months, who nows how many overall.
Now that's a disaster, all AGW proposes is a bit of desert and a little bit of sea level rise (which is constantly happening anyway). The earth changes environment all the time, there is nothing we can do about it.
Geezer
You'll have far bigger problems then than a few degrees of warming, try 16 degrees of cooling worldwide, 80% of plant life dying, agricultural land made infertile due to the ash. A billion or more people will die within the first few months, who nows how many overall.
Now that's a disaster, all AGW proposes is a bit of desert and a little bit of sea level rise (which is constantly happening anyway). The earth changes environment all the time, there is nothing we can do about it.
Geezer
20 November 2008, 05:54 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Kieran. You seem fairly sure of yourself on this subject, I'd love to know where that certainty comes from, what info do you have that governments and science at large to not have.
And if you do have this info I think it's important that you hand it on to the relevant authorities
And if you do have this info I think it's important that you hand it on to the relevant authorities
Martin, the problem is that the information is freely available but the authorities choose to ignore it.
20 November 2008, 05:59 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: gravesend, kent
Posts: 4,721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(forgive me if this has been around for a while, i don't normally get involved with any billing
)
i saw the electric bill at work and noticed they have a climate change levy, i mean WTF, they charge for some made up nonsense and claim it's not another tax?!
told the boss to send it back minus the levy claiming it infringed his human rights to be forced into paying something he didn't believe in
climate change................or as most people know it, weather
)i saw the electric bill at work and noticed they have a climate change levy, i mean WTF, they charge for some made up nonsense and claim it's not another tax?!
told the boss to send it back minus the levy claiming it infringed his human rights to be forced into paying something he didn't believe in
climate change................or as most people know it, weather
20 November 2008, 06:30 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 November 2008, 06:54 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
my point is -- as seems to be accepted, that the "save the planet" argument is rubbish
its humanity isnt it -- thats whats important
why then in 2008 do most children in the world simply die thru lack of access to clean water -- its not rocket science
why do a three quarters of the worlds population live on a less than a dollar a day
these are the "'An Inconvenient Truths" that Al Gore "et al" should be banging on about not muddying waters with load of crap about "saving the planet"
I would never deny we are f*cking up the planet -- its just we seem to have more pressing problems
and i repeat my earlier statement
"in a world were we can sit by and watch 500 thousand humans get machetted to death in Africa is a world were people are not going to care to much about a glacier retreating 2 feet a year -- especially when it hits them in the pocket -- as we are seeing right now"
20 November 2008, 07:10 PM
#51
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the climate scientists themselves, we have differing opinions, and that's all they are. No one has proved that AGW is true, yet people take it as Gospel.
I do not ignore the evidence for it, but all things considered, IMO it is not a compelling case.
Geezer
20 November 2008, 07:14 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now we are getting somewhere
my point is -- as seems to be accepted, that the "save the planet" argument is rubbish
its humanity isnt it -- thats whats important
why then in 2008 do most children in the world simply die thru lack of access to clean water -- its not rocket science
why do a three quarters of the worlds population live on a less than a dollar a day
these are the "'An Inconvenient Truths" that Al Gore "et al" should be banging on about not muddying waters with load of crap about "saving the planet"
I would never deny we are f*cking up the planet -- its just we seem to have more pressing problems
and i repeat my earlier statement
"in a world were we can sit by and watch 500 thousand humans get machetted to death in Africa is a world were people are not going to care to much about a glacier retreating 2 feet a year -- especially when it hits them in the pocket -- as we are seeing right now"
my point is -- as seems to be accepted, that the "save the planet" argument is rubbish
its humanity isnt it -- thats whats important
why then in 2008 do most children in the world simply die thru lack of access to clean water -- its not rocket science
why do a three quarters of the worlds population live on a less than a dollar a day
these are the "'An Inconvenient Truths" that Al Gore "et al" should be banging on about not muddying waters with load of crap about "saving the planet"
I would never deny we are f*cking up the planet -- its just we seem to have more pressing problems
and i repeat my earlier statement
"in a world were we can sit by and watch 500 thousand humans get machetted to death in Africa is a world were people are not going to care to much about a glacier retreating 2 feet a year -- especially when it hits them in the pocket -- as we are seeing right now"
It should be remembered though that the effects of GW will be most keenly felt by those who already suffer the most.
20 November 2008, 07:16 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather like AGW then. You believe it to be true, I do not. Who is right? Neither you or me are climate scientists, so we can only go on what we can read from others and weigh up the likeliness of who is correct based upon our limited scientific knowledge and our logical reasoning.
Like the climate scientists themselves, we have differing opinions, and that's all they are. No one has proved that AGW is true, yet people take it as Gospel.
I do not ignore the evidence for it, but all things considered, IMO it is not a compelling case.
Geezer
Like the climate scientists themselves, we have differing opinions, and that's all they are. No one has proved that AGW is true, yet people take it as Gospel.
I do not ignore the evidence for it, but all things considered, IMO it is not a compelling case.
Geezer
20 November 2008, 07:25 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
"It should be remembered though that the effects of GW will be most keenly felt by those who already suffer the most."
likewise -- totally agree with you martin and thats the real scandal
I think we both agree its about people
likewise -- totally agree with you martin and thats the real scandal
I think we both agree its about people
20 November 2008, 08:07 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
These are all great conspiracies Dave, but as usual you have to fall back on familiar territory.
It is quite likely that Obama is about to bail-out (hardly a great tax raiser) the US car manufacturing industry, in return he's going to insist they start building more efficient cars....where the conspiracy in that (i'm sure you'll find one)?
I'd love to know what people think governments should be doing when they are given the best scientific advise available ALL OF WHICH tells them they need to take action.
It is quite likely that Obama is about to bail-out (hardly a great tax raiser) the US car manufacturing industry, in return he's going to insist they start building more efficient cars....where the conspiracy in that (i'm sure you'll find one)?
I'd love to know what people think governments should be doing when they are given the best scientific advise available ALL OF WHICH tells them they need to take action.
I've said in these monthly GW threads before that there is NO way that we can measure an *average* temperature for the whole planet. But people like yourself say 'but you're not qualified'. I'll repeat, you only need primary school maths/theory to come to that conclusion.
Let's take 'average'. How is it defined: average is the quotient obtained by dividing the sum total of a set of figures by the number of figures. So some sort of 'middle' number. The 'set of figures' is the temperature record. First problem - how often do you measure the temperature? Every hour? Every minute? etc etc
Go look at Jennifer Marohasy The Absurdity of a Reliable Average Global Surface Temperature
(Oh, it talks about things such as thermodynamics. Before you rush in 'you're not qualified' etc - my degree was Mechanical Engineering, concentrating on Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics ...)
Two paragrapha from that article: " ... You can, of course, put a measurement instrument close to one part and record the apparent transient temperature. If the measurement is continuous you might even derive some sort of average temperature at that point. But there is no way that one could carry out sufficient measurements, distributed in a representative way, so that any sort of global average temperature could be derived. The climate scientists connected with the IPCC do, however, claim not only that they have measured average global temperature, but that this has been carried out with such accuracy that an increase of less than one degree Celsius over 100 years could be confidently related to increased emissions of greenhouse gases over the period, rather than to the errors of the measurement. ... ".
So how can the IPCC blithly ignore basic mathmatical and physical theory?
Just this simple fact (there can be no *average* temperature, certainly not any that we are capable of measuring) throws the whole AGW baby out with the bathwater and show it to be the money-grabbing (governments and individuals such as Al Gore who will profit personally and substantially from so-called 'carbon trading' - set up partially as a results of Gore's alarmist 'assertions' on AGW .. doh ......) and/or social engineering process that it really is.
You want to believe - fine, go ahead. I'll concentrate on living my life as I see fit and not how central stasi, whoops, government want me to live it (whilst they are snouts to the trough at our expense!!). As someone above said, wake up and smell the coffee.
Dave
Last edited by hutton_d; 20 November 2008 at 08:13 PM. Reason: To make more sense ....
20 November 2008, 08:29 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me say that GW *may* or *may not* be happening. But there is NO way that we are able to tell from a *few* years of temperature measurements (few in terms of the age of the earth) the average temperature of the planet. Even if it was possible to measure it anyway. And it is the average temperature that the IPCC are saying (even they couch their conclusions with *possiblys* and *maybes* ...) will 'increase' and 'be detrimental' to life on earth .... etc etc
I've said in these monthly GW threads before that there is NO way that we can measure an *average* temperature for the whole planet. But people like yourself say 'but you're not qualified'. I'll repeat, you only need primary school maths/theory to come to that conclusion.
Let's take 'average'. How is it defined: average is the quotient obtained by dividing the sum total of a set of figures by the number of figures. So some sort of 'middle' number. The 'set of figures' is the temperature record. First problem - how often do you measure the temperature? Every hour? Every minute? etc etc
Go look at Jennifer Marohasy The Absurdity of a Reliable Average Global Surface Temperature
(Oh, it talks about things such as thermodynamics. Before you rush in 'you're not qualified' etc - my degree was Mechanical Engineering, concentrating on Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics ...)
Two paragrapha from that article: " ... You can, of course, put a measurement instrument close to one part and record the apparent transient temperature. If the measurement is continuous you might even derive some sort of average temperature at that point. But there is no way that one could carry out sufficient measurements, distributed in a representative way, so that any sort of global average temperature could be derived. The climate scientists connected with the IPCC do, however, claim not only that they have measured average global temperature, but that this has been carried out with such accuracy that an increase of less than one degree Celsius over 100 years could be confidently related to increased emissions of greenhouse gases over the period, rather than to the errors of the measurement. ... ".
So how can the IPCC blithly ignore basic mathmatical and physical theory?
Just this simple fact (there can be no *average* temperature, certainly not any that we are capable of measuring) throws the whole AGW baby out with the bathwater and show it to be the money-grabbing (governments and individuals such as Al Gore who will profit personally and substantially from so-called 'carbon trading' - set up partially as a results of Gore's alarmist 'assertions' on AGW .. doh ......) and/or social engineering process that it really is.
You want to believe - fine, go ahead. I'll concentrate on living my life as I see fit and not how central stasi, whoops, government want me to live it (whilst they are snouts to the trough at our expense!!). As someone above said, wake up and smell the coffee.
Dave
I've said in these monthly GW threads before that there is NO way that we can measure an *average* temperature for the whole planet. But people like yourself say 'but you're not qualified'. I'll repeat, you only need primary school maths/theory to come to that conclusion.
Let's take 'average'. How is it defined: average is the quotient obtained by dividing the sum total of a set of figures by the number of figures. So some sort of 'middle' number. The 'set of figures' is the temperature record. First problem - how often do you measure the temperature? Every hour? Every minute? etc etc
Go look at Jennifer Marohasy The Absurdity of a Reliable Average Global Surface Temperature
(Oh, it talks about things such as thermodynamics. Before you rush in 'you're not qualified' etc - my degree was Mechanical Engineering, concentrating on Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics ...)
Two paragrapha from that article: " ... You can, of course, put a measurement instrument close to one part and record the apparent transient temperature. If the measurement is continuous you might even derive some sort of average temperature at that point. But there is no way that one could carry out sufficient measurements, distributed in a representative way, so that any sort of global average temperature could be derived. The climate scientists connected with the IPCC do, however, claim not only that they have measured average global temperature, but that this has been carried out with such accuracy that an increase of less than one degree Celsius over 100 years could be confidently related to increased emissions of greenhouse gases over the period, rather than to the errors of the measurement. ... ".
So how can the IPCC blithly ignore basic mathmatical and physical theory?
Just this simple fact (there can be no *average* temperature, certainly not any that we are capable of measuring) throws the whole AGW baby out with the bathwater and show it to be the money-grabbing (governments and individuals such as Al Gore who will profit personally and substantially from so-called 'carbon trading' - set up partially as a results of Gore's alarmist 'assertions' on AGW .. doh ......) and/or social engineering process that it really is.
You want to believe - fine, go ahead. I'll concentrate on living my life as I see fit and not how central stasi, whoops, government want me to live it (whilst they are snouts to the trough at our expense!!). As someone above said, wake up and smell the coffee.
Dave
I agree with the point about read average temps, BUT IT'S THE TREND THAT MATTERS
I have always believe that there are always consequence to actions, and to deny this is to deny a very basic law of nature and science
Last edited by Martin2005; 20 November 2008 at 08:46 PM.
20 November 2008, 10:15 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
When this sucker lets go;
Krakatoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
as it will, and as it's Daddy did 125 or so years ago, and dumps a couple of billion tonnes of dust and ash into the atmosphere, the last thing on any of these eco mentalists minds will be global warming
Krakatoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
as it will, and as it's Daddy did 125 or so years ago, and dumps a couple of billion tonnes of dust and ash into the atmosphere, the last thing on any of these eco mentalists minds will be global warming
Last edited by CrisPDuk; 20 November 2008 at 10:49 PM.
20 November 2008, 10:44 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although this is a favourite hobby horse of yours, it doesn't really change the fact that the earths average temp must of increased over the past 4 decades. Did you not notice the fact that we have glacial melting and a loss of the icecap mass, maybe someone should tell them that average temp measurement is floored.
I agree with the point about read average temps, BUT IT'S THE TREND THAT MATTERS
I have always believe that there are always consequence to actions, and to deny this is to deny a very basic law of nature and science
I agree with the point about read average temps, BUT IT'S THE TREND THAT MATTERS
I have always believe that there are always consequence to actions, and to deny this is to deny a very basic law of nature and science
Hmm. Was it you who said the science was settled??
I'll remind you about smelling the coffee ...
Dave
20 November 2008, 10:46 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave