Originally Posted by gsm1
Sorry, Jap2Scrap, but that's total bull. Even those supporting your argument don;t say this. They say that some are growing. Which then gets distorted into statements like yours.
Peace out my lentil harvesting brother ;) |
Originally Posted by Jap2Scrap
That's a very good point to be fair. It's the same as smoking having no health related issues 50 years ago. We grow and learn.
But, if I let that one go ;) tell me how the ice-caps are growing at all if the temperature is increasing in the 'black and white' way we're told it is. This is the opposite of what we see in high mountain areas like the Alps because the snowfall is reduced during the summer months, so the glaciers are not only attacked at the bottom by greater temperature, they do not have sufficient snowfall to replenish them. Geezer |
Originally Posted by homerdog
'Cos they're bad for your health? ;)
Other emissions from cars or industrial sites such as SO2, NOx and PM10 do not contribute to climate change - they are a local air quality issue, which can have adverse health effects. |
Originally Posted by unclebuck
The Green nutmunchers use the mythical spectre of 'climate change' as another stick to beat us with. This suits our current government as they can use these arguments as a justification for further taxing the motorist.
Every natural occurance such as the one that happened last night is now instantly reported to be the direct result of man made 'global wraming' caused by the CO2 emmisions of privately owned motor vehicles. have a read of this and let me know what you think: http://www.thelondonline.co.uk/theli...?articleID=411 make sure you take your blood pressure pills first |
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
now now, the original poster asked if it were climate change, it was the suggested that climate change was a fallacy, the argument then developed into one about whether climate change was real or not, not about last night's storm.
have a read of this and let me know what you think: http://www.thelondonline.co.uk/theli...?articleID=411 make sure you take your blood pressure pills first Thanks for the link, I have read about Carbon Cards before but didn't think they would ever make it in to production. And I still don't. Although I may go off and register carboncardtrading.com just incase! Steve |
Originally Posted by boxst
Hello
Thanks for the link, I have read about Carbon Cards before but didn't think they would ever make it in to production. And I still don't. Although I may go off and register carboncardtrading.com just incase! Steve |
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
now now, the original poster asked if it were climate change, it was the suggested that climate change was a fallacy, the argument then developed into one about whether climate change was real or not, not about last night's storm.
have a read of this and let me know what you think: http://www.thelondonline.co.uk/theli...?articleID=411 make sure you take your blood pressure pills first ps Australia currently in the middle of a 5 year drought - that might have something to do with climate change ! |
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
errr, if man made climate change is not happenning why bother cutting emissions?
|
Originally Posted by OllyK
Because regardless of the debated affect on climate change, I'd rather breath clean air than dirty, I'd have thought that was pretty self evident?
|
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
have a read of this and let me know what you think:
As for me, my plans to quit this isle before all their crazy plans become law are advancing steadily. |
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
see post 33
There are however, plenty of nasty sulphur, nitrogen and particulate emissions from power stations and motor vehicles that I'd prefer not to breath given the choice. |
Originally Posted by OllyK
Mmm - I mentioned cutting emissions (all of them), the reasons for which I had assumed would be self evident. I didn't mention CO2 in isolation for exactly that reason, it's pretty much harmless (unless you are asthmatic, seems it can have an adverse affect in that case). The plants love it, flourish and convert it various sugars and release oxygen in the process, all good stuff.
There are however, plenty of nasty sulphur, nitrogen and particulate emissions from power stations and motor vehicles that I'd prefer not to breath given the choice. |
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
ah ok, so in a post about climate change you were actually talking about emissions of pollutants not related to climate change - thats ok then, I understand now.
|
|
The scoobynet science community gives it's professional opinions. lol
Let's be honest, seriously for a second. None of us know sweet FA about any of this. If scientists can't agree, what valuable input could we possibly have on this point?? None. Blind leading the blind. Leave it to the pro's, the informed. |
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
The scoobynet science community gives it's professional opinions. lol
Let's be honest, seriously for a second. None of us know sweet FA about any of this. If scientists can't agree, what valuable input could we possibly have on this point?? None. Blind leading the blind. Leave it to the pro's, the informed. |
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
The scoobynet community is a broad church, why shouldn't a climate change scientist be part of it? ;)
|
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
No reason at all, would be cool in fact - however I doubt very much there actually are any?
IMO, the case has not yet been made, there are suffcient scientists disputing the findings of those claiming climate change is real, for me to question it as reality. I really don't think we have sufficiently good records over a sufficiently long period of time to make a true judgement on the situation. As I said earlier, there are plenty of other nasties in emissions that are having a more immediate effect on people and the case for emissions reduction would be better made on those grounds (IMO) than trying to do it on something that the "experts" still can't agree on. As a by-product of reducing emissions on a fact based approach, you also reduce the carbon emissions, which may or may not affect the climate. |
Getting back to the original post I made that started this heated debate; I didn't say there was no such thing as climate change, I stated that 'Global Warming' was a fallacy.
The single quotation marks around the term Global Warming is my way of saying that what we are led to understand as global warming by the greens and the government is no more than a buzz-word. Only a fool would take anything they say at face value. |
http://www.keeling-net.co.uk/scooby/images/cc.jpg |
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
The scoobynet science community gives it's professional opinions. lol
Let's be honest, seriously for a second. None of us know sweet FA about any of this. If scientists can't agree, what valuable input could we possibly have on this point?? None. Blind leading the blind. Leave it to the pro's, the informed. Money talks. It's the massive corporations who couldn't give a flying feck about anything except to make even more money that have the upper hand here, not 'lentil munchers' or whatever. |
Originally Posted by gsm1
You will always find scientists that don't agree. What's more important is the background of these scientists and who's paying them.
Money talks. It's the massive corporations who couldn't give a flying feck about anything except to make even more money that have the upper hand here, not 'lentil munchers' or whatever. Much of the debate is over the interpretation of the evidence and even the validity of it source and collection methods. |
Originally Posted by OllyK
Cool - some un-cited graphs with no supporting documentation, that just happen to agree with your POV, how convenient.
http://www.keeling-net.co.uk/scooby/images/cc.jpg btw the ipcc bit stands for 'intergovernmental panel on climate change', loads of scientists all looking at ice cores and stuff and agreeing that climate change is happening and is a bad thing evidence against please? |
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
heh, nice 'chop - I'd already given you a link to all the evidence you could ever want on the science behind climate change, to remind you, visit www.ipcc.ch
btw the ipcc bit stands for 'intergovernmental panel on climate change', loads of scientists all looking at ice cores and stuff and agreeing that climate change is happening and is a bad thing evidence against please? |
Mr
Originally Posted by De Warrenne
heh, nice 'chop - I'd already given you a link to all the evidence you could ever want on the science behind climate change, to remind you, visit www.ipcc.ch
btw the ipcc bit stands for 'intergovernmental panel on climate change', loads of scientists all looking at ice cores and stuff and agreeing that climate change is happening and is a bad thing evidence against please? However; some of the counter arguments that have been put forward and issues raised with the quality of data: The Leipzig Declaration List of signatories of the Leipzig Declaration Arguments against Water vapour feedback cycle |
Originally Posted by OllyK
Cool - some un-cited graphs with no supporting documentation, that just happen to agree with your POV, how convenient.
http://www.keeling-net.co.uk/scooby/images/cc.jpg |
Originally Posted by jasey
Yeah - really cool - So who took the readings in 1000 - Was it David Ike ???
1) Extrapolation 2) Analysis of plant samples, in particular trees and growth rings 3) Glacier ice core samples and measurement of captured CO2. All of these (and others) are far from being an exact science, there is quite a lot of speculation about what the measurements mean. Collecting evidence is easy, interpretting is somewhat harder. |
Originally Posted by OllyK
LOL - I suspect they are trying to do a number of things including:
1) Extrapolation 2) Analysis of plant samples, in particular trees and growth rings 3) Glacier ice core samples and measurement of captured CO2. All of these (and others) are far from being an exact science, there is quite a lot of speculation about what the measurements mean. Collecting evidence is easy, interpretting is somewhat harder. They're justifying their inflated egos to make it sound like they know what the fcuk they are going on about. At least Ike came clean and told us all he knew what was going on because he was Jesus and saw it all happening ;). We're due another life ending Meteor just now - so all this academic bollox is, well, academic :D. |
ah well, i'm nearing the end of my day as Tony's top environmental advisor, better recommend he ban scoobs for all but the party faithful
laters all |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands