EARTH-CLIMATE WARS
14 September 2008, 09:07 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EARTH-CLIMATE WARS
On BBC 2 now!
Watch this....no idea what the outcome will be at the moment but the first five minutes had Scientists agreeing that CO2 isn't making ANY effect on climate change and one guy said'
" Children all over the world are being scared to death by un founded, computor simulations that have no scientific background. Governments and the media should be ashamed of themselves!"
Watch this....no idea what the outcome will be at the moment but the first five minutes had Scientists agreeing that CO2 isn't making ANY effect on climate change and one guy said'
" Children all over the world are being scared to death by un founded, computor simulations that have no scientific background. Governments and the media should be ashamed of themselves!"
14 September 2008, 09:49 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
Carbon dioxide only forms a tiny portion of the earth's atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen. From the government misinformation/spin you could be forgiven for thinking that it was taking over. No one ever mentions that without CO2 wed be living on an ice planet, like in Start Wars, but without the rebel base. Oh no, hold on, without carbon dioxide there'd be no carbon-based life!
Methane is a 'bigger' greenhouse gas, but its never mentioned..... I suppose that its easy to flummox 'people', because, for the most part, people are stupid.
Citizen Simon
Methane is a 'bigger' greenhouse gas, but its never mentioned..... I suppose that its easy to flummox 'people', because, for the most part, people are stupid.
Citizen Simon
14 September 2008, 10:26 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Watford
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good, another programme promoting the views of a small minority of scientists in a sensational and highly selective way.
That'll really move the debate and understanding on.
Some people dont seem to understand how the scientific process works. Someone comes up with an idea, writes a paper and publishes it. Everyone wo reads the paper thinks of all the ways they can to prove it wrong and if they can't then it gets accepted and the scientists have their knowledge increased by a little bit. Repeat continuously and you have The Scientific Method.
That's not to say that the majority are ALWAYS right - sometimes they get it wrong but you have to have very good proof. If so, the scientists change their views and the path of progress moves in another direction.
Climate science is VERY difficult and complex. No-one should be posting 'science' in this thread (e.g. methane is a worse gas for climate change than CO2) unless they have a post doctorate in a relevant discipline. If, like me, you can understand the BASIC explanations and chemistry that they give but can't explain in more than 5000 words how to construct a model to predict long term trends in ocean warming (for example) then all you can go on is what you're told by the most qualified and greatest number of scientists in the field.
That view, is that CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING. Anything else is just your own prejudice meaning that you only want to listen to 'scientists' that say things that you want to hear that you can re-post verbatim on the web and then feel smug muttering something like 'damn tree hugging hippies and the government, just an excuse for higher taxes etc etc'.
That'll really move the debate and understanding on.
Some people dont seem to understand how the scientific process works. Someone comes up with an idea, writes a paper and publishes it. Everyone wo reads the paper thinks of all the ways they can to prove it wrong and if they can't then it gets accepted and the scientists have their knowledge increased by a little bit. Repeat continuously and you have The Scientific Method.
That's not to say that the majority are ALWAYS right - sometimes they get it wrong but you have to have very good proof. If so, the scientists change their views and the path of progress moves in another direction.
Climate science is VERY difficult and complex. No-one should be posting 'science' in this thread (e.g. methane is a worse gas for climate change than CO2) unless they have a post doctorate in a relevant discipline. If, like me, you can understand the BASIC explanations and chemistry that they give but can't explain in more than 5000 words how to construct a model to predict long term trends in ocean warming (for example) then all you can go on is what you're told by the most qualified and greatest number of scientists in the field.
That view, is that CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING. Anything else is just your own prejudice meaning that you only want to listen to 'scientists' that say things that you want to hear that you can re-post verbatim on the web and then feel smug muttering something like 'damn tree hugging hippies and the government, just an excuse for higher taxes etc etc'.
Last edited by ahar; 14 September 2008 at 10:29 PM.
14 September 2008, 10:32 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The climate is dynamic. The Romans grew grapes in Northumberland and the Tudors skated on the Thames in winter. Both of these 'extremes' are far far beyond what we would consider to be norm now.
That the climate is changing is beyond doubt. What is far from proven is what is causing the climate to change; how much it will change, whether it can be stopped and whether we need to be concerned one way or another.
That the climate is changing is beyond doubt. What is far from proven is what is causing the climate to change; how much it will change, whether it can be stopped and whether we need to be concerned one way or another.
15 September 2008, 02:50 AM
#5
I cant see how 30/40 years worth of data can be used to predict the goings on of a planet billions of years old, was it not 30 years agao they where saying we where facing the new ice age now where all gonna burn to death 
15 September 2008, 02:55 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
And last summer I sat atop a limestone cliff formed millions of years ago at the bottom of a tropical sea, 1000 feet above sea level in cold and rainy Yorkshire. The earth keeps spinning, we all go about our daily lives and stuff changes, slowly, but inexorably. The Sun continues to heat up, and the 'comfort zone' slowly gets pushed beyond our little planet giving us warmer summers (huh 
) and there's sweet FA any of us can do about any of it.
) and there's sweet FA any of us can do about any of it.
Trending Topics
15 September 2008, 09:50 AM
#11
Climate change = Milankovitch cycles
The government are arrogant enough to presume they know better about a subject that scientists and environMENTALists cannot agree on. Thats why they have increased our road tax based on unfounded research.
I reckon that's what the annual G8 talks are for. World leaders meet each year to tackle global challenges through discussion and action.
They are nothing more that politicians, so why are they allowed to dictate world policies such as ratifying the Kyoto agreement which is based on supposition.
Its all about making money and lining there own pockets. Where does all the money go that they're raking in with these so-called green taxes? Its certainly not exclusively going on funding research.
The government are arrogant enough to presume they know better about a subject that scientists and environMENTALists cannot agree on. Thats why they have increased our road tax based on unfounded research.
I reckon that's what the annual G8 talks are for. World leaders meet each year to tackle global challenges through discussion and action.
They are nothing more that politicians, so why are they allowed to dictate world policies such as ratifying the Kyoto agreement which is based on supposition.
Its all about making money and lining there own pockets. Where does all the money go that they're raking in with these so-called green taxes? Its certainly not exclusively going on funding research.
15 September 2008, 09:57 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genius! 
What do you mean lining thier own pockets? DO you think green taxes go into private bank accounts, then?
What do you mean lining thier own pockets? DO you think green taxes go into private bank accounts, then?
15 September 2008, 10:24 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Watford
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear oh dear of dear. Let me guess - you have a PhD in a climate related science?
Unfounded. Really. 20 years and some of the best minds in this area of science . Unfounded. As to 'scientists unable to agree' - do you know how the scientific method works?
Actually the G8 started (with less countries) as an informal chat away from the cameras and media about serious global political topics. Unfortunately it's now degenerated into nothing more than canned statements agreed before the meeting and a chance for presidents and prime ministers to compare political c**k size
SUPPOSITION IS NOT SCIENCE. Theory, experiment, amend theory, gather data, move on. The Scientific Method. Go and google "The Enlightenment". I can also recommend a book called Counterknowledge by Damien Thompson
Don't mix the politics of taxes and the science of climate change. Politicians are B*stards - always have been and always will be.
Don't mix the politics of taxes and the science of climate change. Politicians are B*stards - always have been and always will be.
15 September 2008, 10:42 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
And you're being extremely arrogant in saying, basically, that the readers of this forum cannot make up their own minds when presented by evidence of *climate change*. You don't need to be able to write an essay on *scientific theory* to be able to weigh up what is available. That's the attitude that says 'the science is settled' when a 'sceptic' pipes up.
Go look at 'green' manifestos and then compare them with 'communist' manifestos .....
Dave
15 September 2008, 10:44 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good, another programme promoting the views of a small minority of scientists in a sensational and highly selective way.
That'll really move the debate and understanding on.
Some people dont seem to understand how the scientific process works. Someone comes up with an idea, writes a paper and publishes it. Everyone wo reads the paper thinks of all the ways they can to prove it wrong and if they can't then it gets accepted and the scientists have their knowledge increased by a little bit. Repeat continuously and you have The Scientific Method.
That's not to say that the majority are ALWAYS right - sometimes they get it wrong but you have to have very good proof. If so, the scientists change their views and the path of progress moves in another direction.
Climate science is VERY difficult and complex. No-one should be posting 'science' in this thread (e.g. methane is a worse gas for climate change than CO2) unless they have a post doctorate in a relevant discipline. If, like me, you can understand the BASIC explanations and chemistry that they give but can't explain in more than 5000 words how to construct a model to predict long term trends in ocean warming (for example) then all you can go on is what you're told by the most qualified and greatest number of scientists in the field.
That view, is that CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING. Anything else is just your own prejudice meaning that you only want to listen to 'scientists' that say things that you want to hear that you can re-post verbatim on the web and then feel smug muttering something like 'damn tree hugging hippies and the government, just an excuse for higher taxes etc etc'.
That'll really move the debate and understanding on.
Some people dont seem to understand how the scientific process works. Someone comes up with an idea, writes a paper and publishes it. Everyone wo reads the paper thinks of all the ways they can to prove it wrong and if they can't then it gets accepted and the scientists have their knowledge increased by a little bit. Repeat continuously and you have The Scientific Method.
That's not to say that the majority are ALWAYS right - sometimes they get it wrong but you have to have very good proof. If so, the scientists change their views and the path of progress moves in another direction.
Climate science is VERY difficult and complex. No-one should be posting 'science' in this thread (e.g. methane is a worse gas for climate change than CO2) unless they have a post doctorate in a relevant discipline. If, like me, you can understand the BASIC explanations and chemistry that they give but can't explain in more than 5000 words how to construct a model to predict long term trends in ocean warming (for example) then all you can go on is what you're told by the most qualified and greatest number of scientists in the field.
That view, is that CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING. Anything else is just your own prejudice meaning that you only want to listen to 'scientists' that say things that you want to hear that you can re-post verbatim on the web and then feel smug muttering something like 'damn tree hugging hippies and the government, just an excuse for higher taxes etc etc'.
Eminent scientists employed by the government have stated that excess CO2 is causing climate change due to it "greenhouse" effect. This has given the government the excuse to lay heavy taxes on us to counteract all this which they then proceed to "****" against the wall!
Other eminent scientists have said that CO2 is not causing global warming and that methane and also water vapour are far more effective at causing a green house effect!
Yet more eminent scientists have reported that global temperatures have not increased over the last 10 years or so and in fact it has even decreased recently.
What should we believe I ask myself? Isn't it really an example of cyclical change as has been reported in the past?
Les
15 September 2008, 10:49 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear oh dear of dear. Let me guess - you have a PhD in a climate related science?
Unfounded. Really. 20 years and some of the best minds in this area of science . Unfounded. As to 'scientists unable to agree' - do you know how the scientific method works?
Actually the G8 started (with less countries) as an informal chat away from the cameras and media about serious global political topics. Unfortunately it's now degenerated into nothing more than canned statements agreed before the meeting and a chance for presidents and prime ministers to compare political c**k size
SUPPOSITION IS NOT SCIENCE. Theory, experiment, amend theory, gather data, move on. The Scientific Method. Go and google "The Enlightenment". I can also recommend a book called Counterknowledge by Damien Thompson
Don't mix the politics of taxes and the science of climate change. Politicians are B*stards - always have been and always will be.
Unfounded. Really. 20 years and some of the best minds in this area of science . Unfounded. As to 'scientists unable to agree' - do you know how the scientific method works?
Actually the G8 started (with less countries) as an informal chat away from the cameras and media about serious global political topics. Unfortunately it's now degenerated into nothing more than canned statements agreed before the meeting and a chance for presidents and prime ministers to compare political c**k size
SUPPOSITION IS NOT SCIENCE. Theory, experiment, amend theory, gather data, move on. The Scientific Method. Go and google "The Enlightenment". I can also recommend a book called Counterknowledge by Damien Thompson
Don't mix the politics of taxes and the science of climate change. Politicians are B*stards - always have been and always will be.
Politicians are B*stards - always have been and always will be
is OK by me!!
15 September 2008, 10:58 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahar (which really sounds like a sockpuppet) - what are YOUR acedemic credentials then? You talk highly of the scientific principle and yet seem to have swallowed the MMGW agenda, despite there being huge documented problems with this agenda. Check out Home for just one example. And you simply cannot deny the predictions of Al Gore (think cherry picker in his mockumentary) et al simply have been proven 100% wrong, because as Les mentioned there has been cooling in the last 10 years. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that if the prediction went wrong so quickly, it has no merit and is not a good basis for taxation policy?!
15 September 2008, 11:07 AM
#19
.
Climate science is VERY difficult and complex. No-one should be posting 'science' in this thread (e.g. methane is a worse gas for climate change than CO2) unless they have a post doctorate in a relevant discipline. If, like me, you can understand the BASIC explanations and chemistry that they give but can't explain in more than 5000 words how to construct a model to predict long term trends in ocean warming (for example) then all you can go on is what you're told by the most qualified and greatest number of scientists in the field.
Climate science is VERY difficult and complex. No-one should be posting 'science' in this thread (e.g. methane is a worse gas for climate change than CO2) unless they have a post doctorate in a relevant discipline. If, like me, you can understand the BASIC explanations and chemistry that they give but can't explain in more than 5000 words how to construct a model to predict long term trends in ocean warming (for example) then all you can go on is what you're told by the most qualified and greatest number of scientists in the field.
We had the same doom sayers, the same programmes about how we'd all die out etc etc. I remember it well.
Well, all I can say is, either it passed VERY quickly, or they were all WRONG!
And if they were wrong then, they are quite likely wrong now.
Don't let's ever forget that these so-called scientist contain that VERY laerge number that can't even tell us what the weather will do TOMORROW with any degree of accuracy, let alone in 25, 50 or 100 years! And that's despite all their technology
Alcazar
15 September 2008, 11:16 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about that man's influence has merely increased the unpredictability of climate change, leading to all these "facts" about being wrong? And that it's this very instability that world government policies are attempting to contain (if it's not too late already).
15 September 2008, 11:37 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice theory - unfortunately unprovable, therefore no basis for increased taxation
15 September 2008, 11:43 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll reply before Klaatu stick his oar in about not having the "*****" to back up my theories or some such ****; what about what you actually SEE around you? Am i the only one who thinks things are getting just a little bit worrying? What would it take for you to concede that the rate of change is spiralling out of control - ten feet of water gushing through your house? What?
15 September 2008, 11:56 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)There is also an underlying assumption that the weather/climate/animal population/diversity now is at "optimum" levels, and any change will be detrimental to said optimum. This is simply not true. If things change they will be different, not better or worse. Some animals will do better, some will do worse, some will die out, some new ones will evolve. When that happens, will the new environment be "worse"? The amazon forests have only been around for 6000 years. Put things in perspective
15 September 2008, 11:57 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about China and, to a lesser degree, India? If we really want to save the planet, then we will need to stop them in their tracks. If we go back to the dark ages immediately, how long will it take the Chinese to take up our slack?
This raises are far more pressing issue, but no one dares speak its name...
This raises are far more pressing issue, but no one dares speak its name...
15 September 2008, 12:04 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, we get the India/China nod every "green" thread. And the answer continues to be; yes you're right, lots of countries are ignoring the issue, but does that give us the moral high-ground to take our ball home and refuse to play until they change? No, i don't think it does. Still.
15 September 2008, 12:06 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also an underlying assumption that the weather/climate/animal population/diversity now is at "optimum" levels, and any change will be detrimental to said optimum. This is simply not true. If things change they will be different, not better or worse. Some animals will do better, some will do worse, some will die out, some new ones will evolve. When that happens, will the new environment be "worse"? The amazon forests have only been around for 6000 years. Put things in perspective
15 September 2008, 12:06 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We get the same arguments from both sides every single time this is covered (i.e. weekly). I'm as guilty as anyone else - Why does anyone think they are goign to convince anyone else? Posting in this thread is an excercise in futility. People here have made up thier minds, end of.