|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2009 17:00:55 GMT
Although I do think human action is having a dire effect on the planet, we are doomed while we have a democracy because any really useful measures would have too much of an impact of people's lives. I've always said what we need is a benevolent despot. One who agrees with me, of course
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2009 8:58:47 GMT
Lin, I've just read your two posts at the bottom of page one and don't disagree that funding can certainly influence who says what about a situation, and that money for research can quickly come to an end if the conclusion doesn't fit the bill.
But the IPCC claims to be supported by the science academies of 16 countries including Austrialia, China, the Caribbean and India as well as the UK. Please let me what vested interest these have in promoting the idea that human intervention is promoting climate change?
As for the speed of temperature change - I've never denied that there are not localised climate changes that happen fast. As for the speed of arrival of an ice age - well, I coudn't find any information about that, one reference to a very slow advance.
If we can do nothing about global warming - well, I shall take a few more holidays and not feel guilty about using my car to walk the dog. But if the change continues at the pace it is happening now, perhaps we should all stop having children.
.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 10, 2009 1:14:55 GMT
Here's Nobel Prizewinning scientist Kary Mullis' opinion of the IPCC:
(The quote begins by describing a cycle ride up a mountain he's just been on and he then makes a sarcastic comment about his contribution to 'global warming.')
Here's his quote:
'I wondered on the way down whether the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was watching me from some satellite, recording my blatant and unnecessary contribution to Global Warming. With a budget of over $1 billion a year, who knows what those international bureaucratic bastards are up to?
Okay, maybe I am a little overzelous here about the IPCC. But they are causing us a lot of trouble and we are happily paying for it the same way we paid for the Inquisition some years ago, when another international bureaucracy called the Catholic Church got out of hand.
We have been had again, and grossly misinformed. And the more we pay these parasites, the longer they will be in business and the more damage they can do in the name of saving us from ourselves.
The climate control cartel is now spending more of the world's resources than we used to allocate to the much more realistic threat that someone might blow up the world. This business of intergovenmental panels on climate change is not just mad - it's embarrassing.
I recall a cartoon. A caveman is raging in front of his cave glaring up at a flash of lightning and pointing an accusing finger towards his mate and the fire burning in the mouth of the cave. "It didn't used to do that before you started making those things."
The world that the Vikings sailed out into a thousand years ago was warmer by far than it is today. Since then it has gotten colder. It even got colder last century. It didn't do so in response to the Viking ships or the Spanish horses dropping manure on the California poppies. It got colder all over the planet.
The global warmers - the climate simulation programmers, the so-called general circulation modelers, the computer jocks who hardly go outside even on nice days - write the programme for their bosses at IPCC. They predict that global warming is coming and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.'
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2009 10:52:41 GMT
Kary Mullis is a clever man, but a biochemist, not an environmental scientist. Of the scientists I've met - one of whom has worked in a related field - all dismiss the theories that we don't have a real and serious threat as lightweight. There is, of course, a need to continually test all the collected and accepted "wisdom" on the subject.
As for the "politics of fear" theory - it is a vote winner to tell the electorate that the government is keeping them safe from alien terrorists and the threat of nuclear war. It is NOT a vote winner to tell people to restrict their family size and travel by public transport. It probably isn't a vote winner to tell people that there is nothing anyone can do about global warming, either - though many scientists believe it is now nearly too late.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 10, 2009 14:13:04 GMT
There are now 32,000 scientists who've come out and openly said that global warming is a hoax.
ALL the FACTS show that we are headed towards a new Ice Age and NOT towards global warming.
Unfortunately there are various vested interest groups - like the IPCC - who have just as much motive for lying as the oil companies.
Sadly, their lies are being believed.
In the 1970s the overwhelming scientific consensus was that we were headed for a new Ice Age. Then the global warmers decided to put their oar in.
It is a FACT that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a hole in the ozone layer and those people who claim there IS one are either morons or deliberately LYING.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2009 15:13:03 GMT
So far as I am aware, no climatologist has ever claimed there is a "hole" in the ozone layer; that was just slack media talk. They discovered damage to the ozone layer in the southern hemisphere and proced a link with CFCs. These were banned (or curbed) and the damage has receded.
As for the ice age - yes, we should be working towads one, but if you take the average temperates since the 1970s we are clearly not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2009 15:41:10 GMT
i have just found a site about the Ozone "hole" so will have to eat my words... but they go on to explain that it is as I described it above, damage to the ozone layer, not an absence of it in patches. A scientist who tries to argue against something that was never claimed is immediately under my suspicion. Do your scientists say that all the information here is made up? the ozone hole
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 10, 2009 22:57:42 GMT
I feel that it possibly time I commented on this subject.
The reality is that temperatures on the planet have been falling consistently for the last two centuries.
Of course there have been individual years where temperatures have been higher but that was the case even during the two worst Ice Ages.
The case for global warming is equivocal at best and too many of its advocates are prone to making dubious pronouncements with insufficient data to back them up.
Through the process of selection one can rig statistics to prove almost any theory that it is considerable desirable.
The scientific method requires us to evaluate the data over a long time period, to account for all possible variables, to consider alternative explanations and above all to offer evidence that it is possible to verify or falsify.
Unfortunately the sad reality is that the arguments presented by the advocates of the CO2 hypothesis fail all of the above criteria which really ARE necessary for an idea to be seriously regarded as a scientific hypothesis rather than simply a piece of special pleading.
Incidentally, Skylark, I recommend that you read Thomas Kuhn, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' should you still entertain lingering doubts that scientific progress comes about in an orderly fashion and in response to the discovery of new facts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2009 8:43:02 GMT
Mike, I am no scientist but recognise it is vitally important to test and keep on testing all accepted theories and knowledge. I have said that. Even those climatologists who agree that the earth is warming (and there is evidence that it has done so steadily in the past 30 - 50 years) and that this is due in part at least to human activity, disagree on details. The use of low energy lightbulbs for example is controversial within this group.
I am needled, however at a book that dismisses current theories as nonsense and politically manipulated. I am even more annoyed a man who presents an argument about the "ozone hole" by pretending it is something different to how it has always been explained. Those two things point to people trying to sell books (or articles on the Telegraph) and have no place in a serious debate.
Is anyone seriously saying that global temperatures have fallen in t he last 30 - 50 yers, by the way?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2009 11:46:38 GMT
Here's a review of the book in the Guardian, claiming that the "facts" set out in Booker and North's book are nothing of the sort, but are selective and from secondary sources: what planet are these people on?The book attributes quotes to Cambridge astrophysicist Nigel Weiss that he never actually said.: He is said to support solar radiation changes as the cause of Earth's woes and believes things will soon get cool again once the sun mends its ways. Direct quotes from Weiss are included.
Except that Weiss never said any such thing. He never even gave an interview to the Post, which long ago posted a retraction and an apology, under legal threat from Weiss who was infuriated such claims had been falsely attributed to him. 'I don't believe solar radiation is the main cause of global warming and I never said so to the Post, as the authors of this book would have discovered if they had asked me,' says Weiss. The reviewer damns them thus: " they have constructed, utterly without shame, a quite preposterous theory by throwing together a few clippings, making no discernible fact checks and reporting a non-existent interview. They accuse other journalists of 'unthinking credulity' but commit egregious errors that would shame a junior reporter."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 6:15:15 GMT
Despite my dislike of this type of journalism, the thread has provided some interesting food for thought. Indeed, I shan't instantly dismiss global warming scepticism quite so readily in future, providing it is proper science!
Sky xx
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 27, 2009 1:04:24 GMT
It is of course (as is so frequently the case) true to say that inaccuracies, deliberate obfuscation and mendacity, selective presentation and interpretation of statistics, and other generally dishonest behaviour is being indulged in on both sides of the global warming debate.
I am not at all disposed to argue that global warming is a myth since it is plain that there ARE changes in climate.
I am even prepared to concede that human activity plays a part.
On the other hand, it is generally agreed that the human contribution to global warming is at most 5% and that the remainder comes from other sources.
It is also difficult to understand how the activity of the denizens of Earth could possibly be impacting upon Mars, Jupiter and Pluto.
Like you, Skylark, I like to keep an open mind on these topics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2009 6:46:32 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by "it is generally agreed that human contribution to global warming is at least 5 %". Is this saying that humans have contributed to only 5% of the increase in rising temperatures? I cannot find consensus on that. While searching, I came across this article: little evidence of biasClimate sceptics were invited to produce evidence that they had been turned down for grants or publication: little was forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 1, 2009 9:59:25 GMT
If you want to get the most important fact about global warming, look at the documentary called ''who killed the electric car'' and see how the oil companies funded the arguments against the electric car and see how far big business went to make people not buy it. Then apply the logic to who is telling us not to worry about GW. We are being manipulated to be sceptical in the same way a killer's defence lawyer pushes the jury to remember the 'reasonable doubt' instruction. www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 1, 2009 17:48:18 GMT
When NASA tell me that most planets in our solar system are warming up, I tend to believe them.
BTW, the are plenty of electric cars about, they are called milk floats and they are highly crap and don't perform very well (and are also fueled by fossil fuels).
Don't be sucked in by the cult of MMGW Trubbs...you'll be denouncing people and informing on heretics before you know it...
AH
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2009 7:39:03 GMT
I had a quick look on the NASA site and see that Mars is getting hotter, but it seems not all scientists agree this is down to solar activity. I couldn't find anything about the other planets near the sun.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 11, 2009 0:46:11 GMT
I call it Gore-Bull warming. A more accurate characterization.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2009 8:45:33 GMT
Call it what you like - the earth is getting warmer and most scientists think that human activity contributes to this, if not causes it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 11, 2009 13:20:12 GMT
Like I said, anyone who believes that CO2 or other human activitiy is causing 'global warming' has to answer the following questions (and so far, none of them have):
1 Why were temperatures between 1100-1500 AD HOTTER than they are today?
2 Why is there clear evidence of global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto?
3 Why is it that the HOTTEST years of the 20th century also coincided with the LOWEST period of CO2 emissions?
4 Why is it that during the 1960s and 1970s scientists were convinced that we were about to enter a new Ice Age?
5 Why is i that the last ten years have seen a worldwide FALL in temperatures and an overall COOLING of temperatures on Earth?
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Apr 11, 2009 13:24:48 GMT
1 Why were temperatures between 1100-1500 AD HOTTER than they are today? Sorry about that, I was eating a lot of beans back then 2 Why is there clear evidence of global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto? They eat beans too 3 Why is it that the HOTTEST years of the 20th century also coincided with the LOWEST period of CO2 emissions? Chili Con Carne replaced beans in my diet 4 Why is it that during the 1960s and 1970s scientists were convinced that we were about to enter a new Ice Age? I told them while glowing and wearing a false beard, I did it for a bet 5 Why is it that the last ten years have seen a worldwide FALL in temperatures and an overall COOLING of temperatures on Earth? I would rather not talk about that incident. Still trying to fix it Disclaimer: None of my answers are to be taken seriously ;D
|
|