Climate Change & Global Warming

[paulb]

have a quick search on isreal and deniers related topics. the mods have spent days on it in the past.

[scoots]

Now enlightened (thanks again, Gibber) I shall hussssssh!

 

(although it's still a great pity and shame, for all who would discuss and debate honestly and openly!)

[ArabiaTerra]

Re Arabia Terra/Disinformation Hubs.

 

Thanks for the so called informative websites...

You're welcome. Though I would like to point out that Skeptical Science is a website run on an entirely voluntary basis, funded by donations from readers and with no affiliation to any outside organisations or governments.

 

They remind me so much of the dis-information hubs set up by the perpertraitors of CHEMTRAILS...

I think I've made my opinion on the whole chem trails thing clear before (It's water).

 

I too could have given links to a number individuals and groups, many of whom have a relevent scientific background and have done their own research. which flys in the face of mainstream controlled propaganda and scare mongering.

Global Warming Theory is not being advanced by "a number individuals and groups, many of whom have a relevent scientific background". It is being advanced by every major university, laboratory and research station concerned with the subject in the world. This includes 97% of the scientists working in the field. It is also supported by every Government in the world apart from a few of the major oil producing nations and the US Republican party.

 

It is opposed by the fossil fuel industry and the think-tanks/lobby groups they fund, and the newspapers and TV stations they own. In other words, the people who stand to lose the most money from a carbon free economy. (As you say, follow the money.)

 

I choose instead simply to ask a question - like the banking crisis, who are the ones who actually benefit from creating the problem in the first place?

 

Create the problem - provide a reaction - Beneifit from the solution.

Ah yes, the conspiracy theory approach.

 

It's a hell of a conspiracy though. The first scientific papers warning about the danger to the climate of unrestricted CO2 emissions were published in the 1930's

 

Are you seriously asking me to buy an 80 year old conspiracy which will only bear fruit for the conspirators long after those inventing it are dead? Seriously?

 

Here's an alternative theory: The conspiracy is among the fossil fuel companies who in the early 1990's realized that decarbonisation of the worlds economy meant the extinction of their industry, so they then set about attacking the science and scientists using every method they could think of afford (and they have very deep pockets).

 

Which of those theories sounds more convincing?

 

You are like myself fully entitled to your own opinion and if you really believe that then fine, however, I find it odd that goverment legislation is currently being rushed through in an attempt to silence people such as myself from having an opinion - they intend to lable us climatechange deniers and class it as a crime against humanity on the same scale as Holocaust denial.

Citation needed, as they say. I am not aware of any such legislation being proposed by any nation on Earth. Perhaps you could provide a link to back up this claim?

 

On the subject of climate change deniers vs holocaust deniers, I think you are doing the honest holocaust deniers a disservice here. While their views are repellent and their historical research dodgy, to say the least, they are, at worst, a bunch of unrepentant racists and at best, irrelevant.

 

Climate change deniers on the other hand, should they succeed in their aim of delaying action to save the climate until it is far, far too late, pose a real and present danger to the entire future of human civilisation. The resulting death toll from such a collapse could potentially make the holocaust look like a bad car accident. Climate change deniers are much, much more dangerous than holocaust deniers.

 

So I would be labled a criminal?

 

For having an opinion??

 

Doesnt this sound a little like 1984.....???

 

These are the same people who control all TV and Media.... obviously their view of things and the message given to the masses are always correct and done in the best interests of the people?

As I said above, citation needed. I know of no such legislation.

 

On the subject of the media, The Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Express all regularly publish (often laughable) articles promoting the deniers point of view. You will find their articles regularly linked to both on this thread and on the windfarm thread by those who have drunk the Kool-Aid. Hardly the monolithic propaganda machine you seem to believe in. And on an international scale, the Murdoch press is, as a block, opposed to the reality of climate change (not surprising, seeing as it's part owned by a Saudi oil prince). He who pays the piper...

 

I would strongly suggest you take your own advice, POPCORN, and follow the money, but look at the other side. Look at the side which is opposed to the scientific consensus. It is dripping with oil, from top to bottom. That's where you'll find your conspiracy.

 

Edit: Google up some climate articles, POPCORN, identify the organisations which published them, and look them up at this site: Sourcewatch

 

It will tell you who funds the organisation which produced the article. Have fun.

[ArabiaTerra]

Well now, would you just look at this:

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/heartland-institute-fraud-leak-climate

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1294

 

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/14/425354/internal-documents-climate-denier-heartland-institute-plans-global-warming-curriculum-for-k-12-schools/

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

[Urabug]

Years ago we used to get more snow & deeper frosts.

 

So what has changed this?

 

Well if we go back say 50 years ago every house in Shetland & probably the whole of Europe would have been burning peat, coal, and logs whatever spewing smoke & dust into the atmosphere just what snow needs to form on.

 

With all the vehicle emissions the atmosphere is no cleaner to-day but it is a different†texture “of dust & pollution & not the stuff that creates snow so readily.

 

To-day few of us burn fossil fuel less smoke in the air & less snow !

[ArabiaTerra]

I urge everyone to please watch this video:

 

 

(Not sure why it isn't youtubing, perhaps one of the mods could take a look?)

[ArabiaTerra]

Years ago we used to get more snow & deeper frosts.

 

So what has changed this?

 

Well if we go back say 50 years ago every house in Shetland & probably the whole of Europe would have been burning peat, coal, and logs whatever spewing smoke & dust into the atmosphere just what snow needs to form on.

 

With all the vehicle emissions the atmosphere is no cleaner to-day but it is a different†texture “of dust & pollution & not the stuff that creates snow so readily.

 

To-day few of us burn fossil fuel less smoke in the air & less snow !

Actually we are burning vastly more fossil fuels and the resulting rise in CO2 is warming the Earth. That's why you are seeing less frosts and snow.

[ArabiaTerra]

Some more research on Global Warming's evil twin: Ocean Acidification.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17088154

 

"Fifty-five million years ago when we had an event like this (and that took over 10,000 years to occur), it took the oceans over 125,000 years to recover, just to get the chemistry back to normal," he told BBC News.

 

"It took two to 10 million years for the organisms to re-evolve, to get back into a normal situation.

 

"So what we do over the next 100 years or 200 years can have implications for ocean ecosystems from tens of thousands to millions of years. That's the implication of what we're doing to the oceans right now."

[Urabug]

The problem as I see it ,is the scientists are over looking the obvious.

 

Yes of course we are burning more fossil fuel mainly oil ,gas & producing more CO2, but the point is this is “clean†compared to burning peat,coal & wood .

 

Clean in as much as the whole of Europe is not encapsulated anymore in a blanket of smoke producing vast amount of soot & ash.

 

It is this soot & ash which helps the formation of snow

 

Heavy falls of snow then cool the ground & we get even more snow.

 

Many of us can remember the smog .You put on a clean white shirt & an hour later it looked like you had been wearing it a week . That is the stuff that helps makes SNOW.

[NewMagnie]

I rather fear you're havering but leaving aside the snowflake forming qualities of reek, overall increase in production of CO2 still results in higher temperatures which will inhibit snow and frost regardless of how much peat wood and coal you burn.

 

Snow is formed when the air temperature surrounding a cloud falls below zero. Smoke has sausage all effect on it.

[ArabiaTerra]

This is worrying:

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106901

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Another reason NOT to build industrial windfactorys on carbon sinks,ie, Shetland, but hey, money and greed talks.

[Dratsy]

This is worrying:

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106901

only if du's a drama queen and worried about the sky falling on your head aswell. For da luv o god get a life and a job. Maybe if we had less humans on the planet especially the unproductive drains on society that use up resources without putting anything back then there wouldn't be any need for the lobal warming scare mongering that you preach. Now I am off to catch another jet plame on my round da world jolly

[Urabug]

Well, NewMagnie you may well be right possibly I am havering. I’m certainly no scientist but the fact is that as many parts of the world changed to cleaner fuels ,so has the weather. There is a definite correlation between the change in the weather I believe and the way we heat our homes

and workplaces

 

This has happened very quickly in the last 50years or so.

 

Many old photographs show scenes of deep snow & frost . Lochs with several inches of ice ,voes frozen over ect.

 

These are pictures that we cannot take to-day even if someone on the TV said we were getting more snow in the UK, I do not believe them !

 

 

Next time we get a decent fall of snow ,when it thaws go up in the hills away from any source of dust and tell me where the black scum that you will find on the snow comes from ?

 

Snow can certainly form without dust ,but when there is dust present it then presents a “nucleus†& we get more snow forming.as it falls to ground.

 

My theory is there is a link and until proved otherwise will haver on

[derick]

The problem as I see it ,is the scientists are over looking the obvious.

Clean in as much as the whole of Europe is not encapsulated anymore in a blanket of smoke producing vast amount of soot & ash..

 

Um, actually the owld scientists are not overlooking the effects of soot aerosols.

 

google 'climate forcing soot aerosols'

 

man made climate change is probably as robust a field as any in science, not least because of the virulence of the opposition. Nae thing is proven, naething provable. True. Gravity is not 'proven' (even by Einstein) but step off the Kame of Foula and proven or not, the effect is real

 

GLOBAL WARMING RISK MANAGEMENT MATRIX (or do you feel lucky, Punk? Well – do you?)

 

ACTION OPTIONS

1No Action Taken until adverse climate effects, if any, become obvious

(looks the most likely course at present)

2 Moderate Action Taken (IPCC) Hope to limit CO2 to 450ppm by negotiation

3 Radical Action Taken. Limit CO2 to 300-350ppm

 

VARIABLES AND OUTCOMES

VARIABLE 1 CLIMATE SCEPTICS CORRECT NO HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE

Action outcome 1 - No economic cost. No adverse climate effects

Action outcome 2 - Some immediate economic cost. No adverse climate effects

Action outcome 3 - Major immediate and long term economic costs. Risk of international tensions or worse. No adverse climate effects

 

VARIABLE 2 - IPCC CORRECT HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CLEAR BUT MAY BE AMELIORATED BY LIMITING CO2 TO APPROX 450ppm.

Action outcome 1 No immediate economic cost. Certainty of some adverse climate effects e.g. on low lying areas etc but may be survivable by human societies with major disruption and probable loss of life / population movement and damage to biosphere

Action outcome 2 - Some immediate economic cost. Risk of adverse climate effects e.g. sea level rise of <1m over 100 years, but should be survivable by human societies with some disruption / population movement.

Action outcome 3 - Major immediate and long term economic costs. Risk of international tensions or worse. No adverse climate effects

 

VARIABLE 3 HANSEN AND PALEOCLIMATE SCHOOL CORRECT - HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE NOW CLEAR, PALEOCLIMATE SHOWS NUMEROUS RAPID CLIMATE SHIFTS AND ASSOCIATED MASS EXTINCTIONS DUE TO SMALL NATURAL FORCINGS, CURRENT HUMAN FORCINGS ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE ABOVE THIS

Action outcome 1 - No immediate economic cost. Certain major adverse climate effects, catastrophic feedbacks: ice sheet collapse, rapid sea level rise of several metres per century to to 80m above current level, methane hydrate release, water vapour increase and runaway greenhouse 'The Venus Syndrome'. Worst case total and permanent extinction of all life

Action Outcome 2 - Some immediate economic cost. Probable major adverse climate effects and feedbacks with economic collapse, population movement, major extinction and major loss of human life

Action Outcome 3 Major immediate and long term economic costs. Risk of international tensions or worse. Adverse climate effects occur but may be stoppable before runaway warming occurs.

 

It is not yet proven which of the vast majority of reputable scientists including the national academies of all major nations, or the tiny number of climate sceptics (largely funded by energy companies) are correct.

 

The built in climate inertial due to ocean and ice sheet mass means that once serious adverse climate effects such as ice sheet disintegration are indisputably clear, it will probably no longer be possible for humans to prevent further substantial change.

 

The basic principle of risk management is risk likelihood x risk effect. do you feel lucky?