Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming
15 November 2006, 02:51 PM
#1
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sigma Technical
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming
As ever, who do you believe?
The press etc appear to be putting forward only one point of view and most people take this as gospel.
I found the following article today and think that everyone should be encouraged to read this to balance the argument and then make up their own minds:
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm
It's quite a long document, but has some valid points and makes very interesting reading.
If you enjoy using your car and are tired of being vilified you may want to pass it around before we all tow the line and accept what we're told.
Synical - me
??
The press etc appear to be putting forward only one point of view and most people take this as gospel.
I found the following article today and think that everyone should be encouraged to read this to balance the argument and then make up their own minds:
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm
It's quite a long document, but has some valid points and makes very interesting reading.
If you enjoy using your car and are tired of being vilified you may want to pass it around before we all tow the line and accept what we're told.
Synical - me
??
Last edited by Sigma Sam; 16 November 2006 at 01:16 PM.
15 November 2006, 06:39 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im surprised that you havent been banned with a user-name like that. The fact that you endeavour to help people wont make the slightest difference. You spell cynical with a C, btw.
Simon
Simon
15 November 2006, 07:10 PM
#3
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sigma Technical
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops, quite right Simon...CCCCCC. I'd edit it, but you've got me now!
I can change the name if it offends, although I post as an individual, not a business.
I have always thought it best to be open about my connection to the standard fit alarm system, so people can make up their own minds as to the content of my posts.
I'm not a company selling my wares. I understand the site requirements; no phone numbers, web addresses or product promotion - just advice on the standard UK system and general security where I may be able to help. No ulterior motives.
I wouldnt normally post on anything else, let alone start a thread, but having read this document today, I felt strongly that as many people as possible should be made aware of it and then come to their own conclusions as to the causes of climate change.
Before I toddle back to the security forum... any thoughts on the thread?
I can change the name if it offends, although I post as an individual, not a business.
I have always thought it best to be open about my connection to the standard fit alarm system, so people can make up their own minds as to the content of my posts.
I'm not a company selling my wares. I understand the site requirements; no phone numbers, web addresses or product promotion - just advice on the standard UK system and general security where I may be able to help. No ulterior motives.
I wouldnt normally post on anything else, let alone start a thread, but having read this document today, I felt strongly that as many people as possible should be made aware of it and then come to their own conclusions as to the causes of climate change.
Before I toddle back to the security forum... any thoughts on the thread?
Last edited by Sigma Sam; 15 November 2006 at 08:10 PM.
15 November 2006, 07:51 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am a teacher and am responsible for the "eco" part of the curriculum including recycling, sustainable development etc and i get soooo much **** off them for my car!!!! will show them this and they can all **** off! LOL
15 November 2006, 10:40 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Laura W
i am a teacher and am responsible for the "eco" part of the curriculum including recycling, sustainable development etc and i get soooo much **** off them for my car!!!! will show them this and they can all **** off! LOL
Dave
15 November 2006, 11:01 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Preston, Lancs.
Posts: 2,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hutton_d
I'm sorry but wot's all that b*llux doing being taught at school?
President Tony wants the little ones indoctrinated with the party line from an early age
(Sense of Deja vu here anyone?)
John.
Trending Topics
16 November 2006, 09:53 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Laura W
we have to teach them now about saving resources etc, very hippy-esq but its the law now!
Dave
16 November 2006, 01:15 PM
#10
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sigma Technical
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie
No one should be made to read anything, encouraged is fair enough though.
Les
Les
Poorly worded - now edited!
16 November 2006, 05:47 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: west yorks
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sigma Sam
As ever, who do you believe?
The press etc appear to be putting forward only one point of view and most people take this as gospel.
I found the following article today and think that everyone should be encouraged to read this to balance the argument and then make up their own minds:
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm
It's quite a long document, but has some valid points and makes very interesting reading.
If you enjoy using your car and are tired of being vilified you may want to pass it around before we all tow the line and accept what we're told.
Synical - me ??
The press etc appear to be putting forward only one point of view and most people take this as gospel.
I found the following article today and think that everyone should be encouraged to read this to balance the argument and then make up their own minds:
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm
It's quite a long document, but has some valid points and makes very interesting reading.
If you enjoy using your car and are tired of being vilified you may want to pass it around before we all tow the line and accept what we're told.
Synical - me
??
16 November 2006, 07:29 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sigma Sam
I found the following article today and think that everyone should be encouraged to read this to balance the argument and then make up their own minds:
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being knowledgable about the subject and making few mistakes, and 1 being quite clueless and making tons of mistakes (whether intentional or not), that site gets a 2.
That is it will challenege a level 1 or level 2 believer of global warming. But a level 5 believer in global warming - ie one who has a moderate understanding of the subject will perceive the arguments on that site as being strawmen, and most of the data as being unfactual.
The first thing I noticed when I loaded that link was that the graph for Lower tropospheric temperature is wrong. There is no cooling trend, it's a warming one:
Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I also seriously doubt their IPCC trend is correct either. The IPCC didn't exist until 1988 and the 1st report wasn't until 1990, so how could they have made a prediction starting in 1980? Also the IPCC gives ranges for future temperture projections, not a straight line like that.
Some paragraphs contain more factual errors than you can shake a stick at. The general tone of the article makes it clear they have an agenda which is seriously biasing the content they present.
17 November 2006, 02:41 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oblong
Some paragraphs contain more factual errors than you can shake a stick at. The general tone of the article makes it clear they have an agenda which is seriously biasing the content they present.
Last edited by markGT; 17 November 2006 at 02:46 PM.
17 November 2006, 08:44 PM
#14
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oblong
The first thing I noticed when I loaded that link was that the graph for Lower tropospheric temperature is wrong. There is no cooling trend, it's a warming one:
Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haven't you been reading the Sunday Telegraph for the last couple of weeks (see Scoobynet posts passim)
mb
18 November 2006, 01:25 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by boomer
Wiki, that impartial, peer reviewed, scientifically validated oracle of all knowledge
Haven't you been reading the Sunday Telegraph for the last couple of weeks (see Scoobynet posts passim)
13 December 2006, 08:10 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GC8
Im surprised that you havent been banned with a user-name like that. The fact that you endeavour to help people wont make the slightest difference.
Simon
Simon
13 December 2006, 08:47 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oblong,
have a look at this.
MSU records from NASA show a trend of +0.045 degC/decade. That's >200years for a 1 degree rise.
If that's not insignificant enough, those figures are adjusted (ie, increased) to remove the effect of stratospheric cooling.
Well, WHY??. If the troposhpere is heating less due to cooling from above then that is the number they should use surely ?
Anyway, article on the NASA microwave sounding units... Satellite-based observations of tropospheric temperature
have a look at this.
MSU records from NASA show a trend of +0.045 degC/decade. That's >200years for a 1 degree rise.
If that's not insignificant enough, those figures are adjusted (ie, increased) to remove the effect of stratospheric cooling.
Well, WHY??. If the troposhpere is heating less due to cooling from above then that is the number they should use surely ?
Anyway, article on the NASA microwave sounding units... Satellite-based observations of tropospheric temperature
13 December 2006, 09:00 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this statement is true:
Then proposals for taxing the motorist for green issues cannot be justified surely?
Mankind is responsible for only 3.5% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions, and cars are responsible for only one-seventh of that 3.5%. This amounts to just 0.5% of total emissions. If every car disappeared from the surface of the Earth overnight, there would be no measurable drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and absolutely no impact whatsoever on climate change.
In fact there would probably be an increase in carbon dioxide levels, since it is highly unlikely that all of the journeys undertaken by car are totally pointless and would not need to be made by other means, which translates to public transport for all but the shortest of recreational travel. Since public transport would struggle to cope with any major influx of passengers, there would need to be more buses and trains in use. And since Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany, have shown that public transport consumes 60% more energy per person transported than cars, this lower level of energy efficiency would likely give rise to higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions.
In fact there would probably be an increase in carbon dioxide levels, since it is highly unlikely that all of the journeys undertaken by car are totally pointless and would not need to be made by other means, which translates to public transport for all but the shortest of recreational travel. Since public transport would struggle to cope with any major influx of passengers, there would need to be more buses and trains in use. And since Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany, have shown that public transport consumes 60% more energy per person transported than cars, this lower level of energy efficiency would likely give rise to higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions.
13 December 2006, 10:43 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rhymney Valley
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When all the scientists quote the figures to prove global warming they are using data for a period of less than 200 years.
In global terms this would be equivalent of a milisecond in a human life time.
Ergo anyone who is seen drunk on a Friday or Saturday night out must therefore be a raving alcoholic who are drunk 24/7. Amd need radical treatment.
Stats can be made to prove any point of view that is currently in fashion.
I am still wiating for the destruction of the ozone layer which was promised in the early 90's.
In global terms this would be equivalent of a milisecond in a human life time.
Ergo anyone who is seen drunk on a Friday or Saturday night out must therefore be a raving alcoholic who are drunk 24/7. Amd need radical treatment.
Stats can be made to prove any point of view that is currently in fashion.
I am still wiating for the destruction of the ozone layer which was promised in the early 90's.
03 February 2013, 12:21 PM
#28
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Northampton
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unrelated but help request
Sigma Sam, sorry but the only way I could find to contact you was to reply to this read..I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my sigma related question I posted earlier today, many thanks maggellwin
03 February 2013, 02:30 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the scientists are telling us that there has been no significant increase in GBW for the last 16 years or so,and that neither do they predict any for some years to come.
They say that the percentage content of the atmosphere of CO2 by volume is 0.038%.
That seems so low that it must be virtuall immeasurable.
Never mind, the politicians have made an awful lot of money out of the populace with the GBW scare and are continuing to do so. They must love those scientists, including the ones who came up with the big scare story when the GBW measuring device came up with an artificially high reading after solar heating on the lifting balloon caused the temperature readings to be all wrong!
Les
They say that the percentage content of the atmosphere of CO2 by volume is 0.038%.
That seems so low that it must be virtuall immeasurable.
Never mind, the politicians have made an awful lot of money out of the populace with the GBW scare and are continuing to do so. They must love those scientists, including the ones who came up with the big scare story when the GBW measuring device came up with an artificially high reading after solar heating on the lifting balloon caused the temperature readings to be all wrong!
Les