Climate change

24 Nov 2009

Quote by neilinleeds
I think the main problem is that while it's clear that global warming is happening for one reason or another, and the recent revelations about the alleged methods used by a particular scientist, or group of scientists does not detract from the wealth of evidence to support that as a whole, it's almost impossible to prove beyond doubt that warming is at least in part driven by man's activities. It's equally difficult to prove that it's not. Seems then we have two options . . . we can either decide that it is man made to an extent, and attempt do something about it, or we can decide that man's activities have nothing to do with it, and do nothing.
If we're wrong in the first instance, all that will have happened is that we'll have spent a whole load of time, energy and money forcing industry to reduce their output of atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gases, and be a bit more circumspect in their use of finite natural resources, and forcing individual people in the developed world to be a bit more considered with their life-syle choices, and develop more sustainable habits, none of which is a bad thing in itself. Maybe we'll have come up with a few new technologies that might otherwise have taken longer to develop were it not for the urgency of the project. If we're wrong in the second instance, well, we just better not be wrong if we choose to do nothing, eh, cos we will quite literally reap the whirlwind? I'm not a betting man, but I think I know which bet I'd sooner take.
Neil x x x ;)

Neil
The whole point of this debate is that it ISN'T clear that global warming is happening.......hence why you never hear that terminology any longer. Check out the link I used in my earlier post and you will see that the hottest year globally was 1998 and that global temperatures have not increased since.
I am in complete agreement with you regarding everyone becoming more circumspect in their use of finite natural resources but that is really a different issue. My point is that the whole climate change issue has been hijacked by politicians as another means of taxation. If any of the revenues raised via so called green taxes were actually being used to try and combat the problems of climate change, it may be acceptable but they are not...it's just more money into the Governments coffers.

24 Nov 2009

You don't even have to bet. The climate is GOING to change and NOTHING homo-sapiens can do will stop it.
95% of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is caused by natural processes. Homo-sapiens is responsible for the rest.

Not too many 4wd's or power station around several million years ago. Not too many "scientists" hunting research grants either. Still a lot of climate though.
Whatever.
Quietly proceeding without much publicity: The extinction of homo-sapiens.
Note the rather rapid drop in fertility exhibited among many of the species.
If continues to drop the end will occur in about 150kyrs: Not a bang, a whimper !

24 Nov 2009

I copied this link earlier in the post, but doubt anyone has actually watched it:

It is Lord Moncktons full speech from earlier this year. It disproves much of the "proof" that climate change is happening and is VERY MUCH worth a watch - as long as you can put up with a bit of political rhetoric and have 90 mins or so to watch it.
Alternatively Google moncktons videos' as this has been dissected into smaller parts and there is other stuff from him which is at best thought provoking !!
If you are a climate change sceptic this is the best bit of video that you will ever watch and it will give you climate change forum posting material formany months to come !

24 Nov 2009

The whole point of this debate is that it ISN'T clear that global warming is happening.......hence why you never hear that terminology any longer. Check out the link I used in my earlier post and you will see that the hottest year globally was 1998 and that global temperatures have not increased since.

Max, I'm no climate scientist, but it seems that a warming trend over the last 150 odd years is a fact, whichever way it's spun. NASA have measured it any number of ways : The 1998 temperature was I believe previously the hottest year on record, and lower temperatures in the years following did allow the nay-sayers to argue for a time that there hasn't been a significant increase since 1998, or that relative to it, we're now in a short cooling phase, but suggest that 2005 was the hottest year recorded in over a century, and suggest that 8 out of the 10 hottest years since the 1880s have occurred in the last decade. I'm not equipped to argue whether their data is any more or any less reliable than anyone else's, but their stats say the general long-term trend is still upwards.
Neil x x x ;)

24 Nov 2009

So if NASA maintains that Global Warming has been happening for the past 150 years, surely a lot of it must be down to natural causes as a large chunk of that time will predate any of the things said to cause it, ie air travel, car emissions etc?

24 Nov 2009

The 1998 figure for the highest year of the 20th was wrong.
It was a problem caused by:
1. Incorrect measurements by instruments sited near heat sources and
2. A programming error.
1934 was the hottest year of the 20th century.

24 Nov 2009

its all a big con.
so companies can keep the price of oil very high and get more money from the public.
in turn of 2000 planes were supposed to fall out of the sky and everything go into meltdown if all the world computers were not load of bollocks!
people sign up to anything they hear because they dont think for themselves.
if global warming was such a big and major problem all motor racing across the globe would be matches or anything which had to use large energy outputs would be held in daylight hours so the need for lighting would be reduced.
superbikes and all high proformance cars would be banned everywhere.
its all designed so you pay more,councils do less and the fat cats rub their hands with glee because of all the brainwashed greens who think by getting rid of 100w light bulbs will save the planet.
give me a break! drop the fucking bomb tomorrow!

24 Nov 2009

I found this interesting.....
Max the majority of climate change research is carried out and funded by universities and so by extension is funded by is very inconvenient, for U.S. researchers at least, as for the last 10 years the government that funds them has been desperately trying to spin and deny the existence of climate change...btw N.A.S.A. also seems to think there's something in the global warming thing and they are biting the hand that feeds them

24 Nov 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I found this interesting.....
Max the majority of climate change research is carried out and funded by universities and so by extension is funded by is very inconvenient, for U.S. researchers at least, as for the last 10 years the government that funds them has been desperately trying to spin and deny the existence of climate change...btw N.A.S.A. also seems to think there's something in the global warming thing and they are biting the hand that feeds them

Staggers, I understand how University funding works. Your inference was that research results of the sceptics are influenced by the nature of their financial backers......I would level the same argument against many of those that are pro global warming and rely on the government for their funding.
The US Government can not deny the existance of climate change as it has been changing ever since the planet was formed and no doubt will continue to do so until the day it dies....they may have tried to deny the existence of global warming however. I wonder why the terminology changed from global warming to climate change?
As for NASA...as I said in response to Neilinleeds, if they claim global warming has been occuring for some 150 years, then much of that must be due to natural causes as man's influence will not have had a major impact until much later than that.

24 Nov 2009

Quote by tyracer
its all a big con.
so companies can keep the price of oil very high and get more money from the public.
in turn of 2000 planes were supposed to fall out of the sky and everything go into meltdown if all the world computers were not load of bollocks!
people sign up to anything they hear because they dont think for themselves.
if global warming was such a big and major problem all motor racing across the globe would be matches or anything which had to use large energy outputs would be held in daylight hours so the need for lighting would be reduced.
superbikes and all high proformance cars would be banned everywhere.
its all designed so you pay more,councils do less and the fat cats rub their hands with glee because of all the brainwashed greens who think by getting rid of 100w light bulbs will save the planet.
give me a break! drop the fucking bomb tomorrow!

They would have to shoot me first. lol

So I think we can safely say, it IS a big fecking con.
They TELL us to switch off our tv's and not to leave anything on standby, and there was a turn ya lights out day or night not long ago yet....IF you was to pass Canary Wharf in London at 3 in the morning with nobody in the buildings, you would see there are thousands of lights burning away all night.
I am all for recycling but I draw the line at all this utter rubbish about Global warming melarky!
It is about getting more money from us, and if I was the leader of Chine or somehwere else, I would tell Brown and his " experts " to " fuckoff ".
The trouble is that unlike in say France the Brits are a bunch of sit on ya armchair merchants, with the majority just taking all the crap that comes their way.
They have found a perfect way to raise billions of pounds every year on the pretext they are going to save us all from certain disaster, when the earth overheats. What a load of bollocks.

24 Nov 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
its all a big con.
so companies can keep the price of oil very high and get more money from the public.
in turn of 2000 planes were supposed to fall out of the sky and everything go into meltdown if all the world computers were not load of bollocks!
people sign up to anything they hear because they dont think for themselves.
if global warming was such a big and major problem all motor racing across the globe would be matches or anything which had to use large energy outputs would be held in daylight hours so the need for lighting would be reduced.
superbikes and all high proformance cars would be banned everywhere.
its all designed so you pay more,councils do less and the fat cats rub their hands with glee because of all the brainwashed greens who think by getting rid of 100w light bulbs will save the planet.
give me a break! drop the fucking bomb tomorrow!

They would have to shoot me first. lol

So I think we can safely say, it IS a big fecking con.
They TELL us to switch off our tv's and not to leave anything on standby, and there was a turn ya lights out day or night not long ago yet....IF you was to pass Canary Wharf in London at 3 in the morning with nobody in the buildings, you would see there are thousands of lights burning away all night.
I am all for recycling but I draw the line at all this utter rubbish about Global warming melarky!
It is about getting more money from us, and if I was the leader of Chine or somehwere else, I would tell Brown and his " experts " to " fuckoff ".
The trouble is that unlike in say France the Brits are a bunch of sit on ya armchair merchants, with the majority just taking all the crap that comes their way.
They have found a perfect way to raise billions of pounds every year on the pretext they are going to save us all from certain disaster, when the earth overheats. What a load of bollocks. yep, it is a con kenty, a con spiracy, just like the occupations of iraq and afghanistan, the destabilisation of pakistan and iran, the tube trains and bus on 7/7, 9/11, and the war on terror. carbon tax credits are traded on the world's stock markets by goldman sach's and jp morgan chase. the cap and trade and carbon tax has already been passed in the u.s. senate and is due before congress. the copenhagen accord is due in a couple of weeks and led by the bilderburger herman van rompuy who gave his support in his inaugral address. this is an attempt to rob every farting, breathing human on the planet of the gain from hard earned income for profit for a tiny minority and that aint me or you. they have created a false fear to offer their solution. more tax. dont forget notwithstanding nigel lawson, m.p.'s of ALL parties, camaron included, have all paid lip service to this green fraud/conspiracy.

24 Nov 2009

oh, and i forgot, the a-h1n1 fraud........in my opinion

24 Nov 2009

Max, of course. I don't think even the most ardent proponents have ever denied that climate change is driven by natural processes to a large extent? Unlike the nay-sayers who still occasionally seem to be trying to claim that either a) climate change is simply not happening at all, and the whole thing's a lie, or b) well, yes it is happening, but it's nowt to do with man? The evidence seems to show that change is happening, and all that's left to argue about is just how much of it might be driven by man's activities since the industrial revolution? It seems a reasonable course of action to assume that massive deforestation and the ongoing burning of finite fossil fuels, purely by way of example, have some impact in the grand scheme of things, and it seems reasonable to decide that we should try and put an end to that as far as we're able?
As for the green taxes thing, I'm genuinely conflicted on it. On the one hand, history tells us that big business is rarely all that concerned with the pursuit of the common good. They're not in it for the altruism, after all? The bottom line is, when it comes down to it, it's all about the bottom line. They will not change of their own volition, and only really respond to public opinion when their customers stop buying from them. Punitive taxes are probably necessary, cos they only really respond to very large sticks, unless of course they have a very, very large carrot dangling before 'em. Punitive taxes on individual consumers though, despite their potential to change behaviour, do tend to impact mostly on the poor, who most often have the fewest options available to them as far as their life-style choices go? confused

I don't much like punitive taxes on the poor, full stop. I'd like there to be a bit more carrot all round. ;)
N x x x ;)

24 Nov 2009

Quote by gulsonroad30664
oh, and i forgot, the a-h1n1 fraud........in my opinion

Why would it be fraud? Do you imagine that HMG is going to introduce some kind of "catching flu" tax?
Seriously, the more you post - the more bonkers you sound - in my opinion wink

24 Nov 2009

Pretty much agree with what you say there Neil :thumbup:

24 Nov 2009

Pretty much agree with what you say there Neil:thumbup:

24 Nov 2009

Quote by foxylady2209
oh, and i forgot, the a-h1n1 fraud........in my opinion

Why would it be fraud? Do you imagine that HMG is going to introduce some kind of "catching flu" tax?
Seriously, the more you post - the more bonkers you sound - in my opinion wink

the more i sound bonkers today, the more sane i will sound tomorrow. i never said that the a-h1n1 virus was a tax, i said its a hoax, a fraud and a scam. it was created in a laboratory, spread by design and called a pandemic by the change in the criteria determining what is a pandemic by corporate influences within the u.n. on the w.t.o. and subsequently on governments. i refer you to doctor teresa folcades i villa on youtube although there are many other doctors and virology experts to refer to. by the way, carbon tax is a breathing tax.

24 Nov 2009

Quote by Max777
I found this interesting.....
Max the majority of climate change research is carried out and funded by universities and so by extension is funded by is very inconvenient, for U.S. researchers at least, as for the last 10 years the government that funds them has been desperately trying to spin and deny the existence of climate change...btw N.A.S.A. also seems to think there's something in the global warming thing and they are biting the hand that feeds them

Staggers, I understand how University funding works. Your inference was that research results of the sceptics are influenced by the nature of their financial backers......I would level the same argument against many of those that are pro global warming and rely on the government for their funding.
The US Government can not deny the existance of climate change as it has been changing ever since the planet was formed and no doubt will continue to do so until the day it dies....they may have tried to deny the existence of global warming however. I wonder why the terminology changed from global warming to climate change?
As for NASA...as I said in response to Neilinleeds, if they claim global warming has been occuring for some 150 years, then much of that must be due to natural causes as man's influence will not have had a major impact until much later than that.
I would ask if you think the 150 year time frame and the industrial revolution are mere coincidence.....I am not totally in support of the idea that we're walking towards global meltdown but as the video i linked to suggests the possible consequences of doing nothing are catastrophic the consequences of acting now and being proved wrong later aren't...you may take your choice,I'm not a gambler
to answer to the best of my ability some of your questions...the change in terminology was I believe due to the fact that though GLOBAL warming is the overall consequence of human driven climate change many areas will experience differing effects (I also suspect the clarksons of this world boarishly proclaiming their love of suntans may have been a factor)
You say that mans affect on the climate takes years to be seen (or at least intimate this)I would suggest you look at weather patterns and climate figures immediately after and for many months/years following any large volcano erupting..I think you'll find that belching tonnnes of pollution into the atmosphere has a very rapid and long lasting effect
As for funding it seems odd to me you cannot see the difference between the fact that research privately funded by oil and energy companies tends to find evidence to support the position of their paymasters and that research funded by government (specifically U.S. research)tends to contradict the position of said government

24 Nov 2009

I can remember when I was quite young, probably some time in the seventies being completely terified by the news papers, and the tv that we were heading into the next ice age, what a load of crap that was. I firmly believe that the powers that be like to keep us all in a state of fear :upset:

24 Nov 2009

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I found this interesting.....
Max the majority of climate change research is carried out and funded by universities and so by extension is funded by is very inconvenient, for U.S. researchers at least, as for the last 10 years the government that funds them has been desperately trying to spin and deny the existence of climate change...btw N.A.S.A. also seems to think there's something in the global warming thing and they are biting the hand that feeds them

Staggers, I understand how University funding works. Your inference was that research results of the sceptics are influenced by the nature of their financial backers......I would level the same argument against many of those that are pro global warming and rely on the government for their funding.
The US Government can not deny the existance of climate change as it has been changing ever since the planet was formed and no doubt will continue to do so until the day it dies....they may have tried to deny the existence of global warming however. I wonder why the terminology changed from global warming to climate change?
As for NASA...as I said in response to Neilinleeds, if they claim global warming has been occuring for some 150 years, then much of that must be due to natural causes as man's influence will not have had a major impact until much later than that.
I would ask if you think the 150 year time frame and the industrial revolution are mere coincidence.....I am not totally in support of the idea that we're walking towards global meltdown but as the video i linked to suggests the possible consequences of doing nothing are catastrophic the consequences of acting now and being proved wrong later aren't...you may take your choice,I'm not a gambler
Yes I would think the 150 year time frame ( if correct) and the industrial revolution are mere coincidence. I'm not a scientist but I'm certain that the impact of the first 75 years or so would have been minimal compared to natural events, such as major volcanic eruptions etc. I'm not saying that man is not having any impact on climate change.........I'm saying that the bloody politicians have hijacked the whole issue for the sole purpose of raising further taxation.

24 Nov 2009

seems we crossed while editing

24 Nov 2009

have we solved it yet................... rolleyes

25 Nov 2009

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to HOMO-SAPIENS is 5%
You think that reducing that 5% by 50% is going to make any difference ?
Removing that 5% would drop the level of CO2 from 380ppm to 361ppm ?

25 Nov 2009

I had a word with God about all of this and guess what........he said nothing. As good as admitting guilt in my book.

25 Nov 2009

Well suprise suprise..

It seems that leaked documents show the climate change figures have been shall we say " manipulated ".
So if there are any doubters out there who think climate change is this " myth " that is for real...have a gander at this.
Yes I am all for re-cycling, I am all for burning less polluting fuels, but I draw the line in the " suited and booted brigade " CONNING me out of my hard earned money, on the sick pretext they are saving the planet!
Where the fuck is all this extra money in " green taxes " going? Because I bet most of it is going nowhere near where they say it is going too.
Most of these people are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. They spout all this bollocks yet, will still get on a plane and use their cars, and do all the other things THEY are telling us we have to pay extra for.
It is things like this that make me sick of this country. Yet another " stealth " tax to go with God knows how many more this Government have imposed on us over the last ten years or so.
Climate change?? Global warming?? Oh look I just saw a fucking big pink pig fly over my roof, with Father Christmas flying after it with Rudolph in stockings and suspenders. :twisted:

25 Nov 2009

Fucking looked like Rudolph to me.
Maybe you saw that pink pig as well???

25 Nov 2009

Quote by Too Hot
Personally, I think that the rich and the powerful who subscribe to the climate change theory are like King Canute. They are so vain and so full of themselves that they simply have to believe that man is capable/responsible for what goes on with the natural world. Is man so great and so clever that he can affect the natural cycles of the planet?
If you have an hour and a half or so to spare and don't mind a bit of political rhetoric watch this. Ignore that political spouting and listen to some of the facts and counter arguments.

Dont disagree with anyone about the benefits of being frugal and recycling but the biggest culprits are NOT in this country.

Point of History: Canute's performance over the tide was to demonstrate that the forces of God/nature were far superior to the power of any man even if he were a King. Sadly, he's been much misrepresented over the years as a vain idiot, rather than the wise sage he was smile

25 Nov 2009

Don't get me started ! smile

But first I should state that I think it's totally irresponsible to be burning our oil and coal reserves - there's the pollution, depletion of natural resources, reliance on the middle east etc etc. There are far better, globally viable, energy sources - but that's another discussion.
30 years ago or so when I was doing my first degree (Biochemistry) CO2 emissions were being touted as a problem that was going to cause Global Warming.
The science goes a bit like this - CO2 forms a double co-valent bond which absorbs strongly in the infra-red region of the electromagnetic spectrum (ie heat). This much is true. (but it also simultaneously radiates this absorbed energy in all directions.)
We know light from the sun gets absorbed by the earth and then radiates this back as heat.
Thus, the theory goes, that this heat will be absorbed by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere and continue to heat up and heat up, raising the earth's temperature as it can no longer dissipate sufficient energy.
There are so many problems with this theory that I've been banging on about for years - but no-one listened - I should have written a book!!
Firstly, CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, as previous posters have stated - 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere is not down to human and activity - so our bit is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.
Secondly, H2O (water) vapour, also strongly absorbs in the infra-red region - a sample of air can be up to 80% saturated with H2O vapour - there's loads of it about and always has been - so why doesn't that affect Global warming?
Thirdly, there are feedback mechanisms operating against Global warming - as the surface heats up, so more H2O vapour is produced (approx 70% of the earth's surface is water). This condenses into vapour and causes clouds. Clouds both insulate the planet, stopping heat getting out, but also prevent light coming in, so there's less energy dissipated as heat in the first place - we know what happens next - the clouds get cooler, droplets get bigger, we get rain and the clouds (eventually) disperse, and the whole thing starts again.
I'll stop there - I could go on all day.
Suffice it say that the science is decidedly dodgy, the data massaged to support the theory is often skewed and/or flawed. As a scientist (non practising) I'm disappointed at the number of so-called authorities who practice bad science over this issue.
If nothing else, at least the counter arguments are getting some profile - just wish it was me getting the publishing royalties biggrin

25 Nov 2009

Quote by Bluefish2009
I can remember when I was quite young, probably some time in the seventies being completely terified by the news papers, and the tv that we were heading into the next ice age, what a load of crap that was. I firmly believe that the powers that be like to keep us all in a state of fear :upset:

Not wishing to scaremonger, but ironically, a European Ice age remains a distinct probability, but hopefully it won't happen overnight smile

The issue is with the the Atlantic Conveyor (Gulf stream, North Atlantic Drift etc). This brings warm water and air from the gulf of mexico and keeps us and western Europe from the arctic sub zero winter temperatures experienced by central continental locations at the same latitude (ie same distance from the equator).
Ice core sample study and other research strongly indicates that the AC has failed several times in the past, each failure being followed by a Western European Ice Age with rapid onset, taking a few hundred years to thaw.
The problem is that the return flow of the AC along the ocean floor, has been declining for years and is now down by about 50% of what it should be. This has been scaring the shit out of climatologists for years.
As I understand it, the AC is powered by a saline pump caused by the different densities of salt and fresh water. One theory is that the increased melt waters from northern European mountain ranges and the polar ice sheet are diluting the pump and causing this reduced flow.
So, one scenario goes, that perversely, global warming (however caused) will lead to an ice age in western Europe - with an ice sheet probably down to the Mediterranean

25 Nov 2009

Lord Monckton weighs in with more (canadian Telegraph 25 Nov 2009):
Lord Monckton calls the caught-out scientists â€œcriminalsâ€. He is furious about the emails and documents and says that everyone must now kick up a fuss.
Calling them â€œarrogant fraudstersâ€, he says we now know why they have consistently refused to show their data to other scientists. He quotes from one long document that says the figures were a â€œhopeless, tangled messâ€. But, of course, they were cleaned up and presented as a cogent whole, â€˜provingâ€™ warming was still going on! â€œIn effectâ€ says Monckton, â€œThe global temperature trends have simply been made upâ€
He adds that â€œUnfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their US counterparts, who compile the other terrestrial temperature datasetâ€¦ the dataset, too, contains numerous biases intended to inflate the natural warming of the 20th
Monckton continues:
â€œFinally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and â€˜global warmingâ€™ profiteers - for that is what they areâ€”have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK, by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientistsâ€”they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and US