Climate Change & Global Warming

[north]

It is nearly as entertaining as Al Gore's thories.

 

This issue has become a haven for idiots of every type, worldwide.

[Ghostrider]

Whether environmentalism appears to have similar traits to religion or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the claims of environmentalists are correct.

 

The purpose of highlighting the similarities was not intended to contribute in any size shape of form to the validity of the claims made by either body of opinion, rather it was to highlight the almost fanatical blinkered devotion of many Global Warming "converts" to their "cause", and the zeal with which they attack the task of "converting" the "unbelievers". It comes across to the "unbeliever" strikingly reminiscent of how conventional religious fanatics approach the task of converting their "unbelievers", the rhetoric is in different terminology, but in all other ways they are they same.

 

It was also intended to highlight the point that to the "unbeliever" the cited evidence of "proof" of the existence and alleged cause(s) of global warming are no more credible than the evidence of "proof" supplied by those selling conventional religion.

 

The fact is that the people currently shouting loudest about global warming are not just environmentalists, they are scientists - people who have studied the climate, collected data, analysed data, and come to an unwelcome but unavoidable conclusion: that global warming is happening, and that there is very strong evidence to suggest that rising levels of Co2 are the main cause.

 

The ability to shout loudest doesn't prove one damn thing other than the person in question has good vocal chords. It is equally possible to prove facts in very few words and/or said quite quietly. Hitler and Mussolini were excellent at making noise, it didn't make them right as I seem to recall from history....

 

There are also scientists, who claim to be of equal stature to the stature claimed by the global warming theory scientists, who have studied the climate, collected and analysed data, and come to the conclusion that the the level of Co2 emissions attributable to the activities of humanity is a minimal and negible percentage of the total atmosphere composition, and any variations in it's total will only at most create negible overall changes in the atmosphere.

 

Heed what North says, Google and you will find as much information out there allegedly sourced from allegedly as qualified "experts" as the supporters of global warming have supporting their stance, but supposedly proving the whole global warming debate is a total farce and scam, and in similar quantity.

 

To the layman there can only be one interpretation of this state of affairs, that either one or both sides of the debate are at best badly mistaken, and at worst are outright liars who probably have a hidden agenda in play.

 

Initiatives to achieve a cleaner atmosphere are laudable, and common sense dictates all the junk we send upwards must make some difference to the big picture. What anyone has as yet failed to prove is just what that difference is, and what knock on effect(s) (if any) it may have. Temperatures may well be showing an upward trend, at the moment, but that the cause of that is wholly or even partly down to the levels of emissions put in to the atmosphere by humanity is a long way from being proven beyond reasonable doubt. The best either side have to offer are their guesswork conclusions based on tentative suppositions.

 

I point blank refuse to throw my lot in with either camp as they stand right now, both could be very right, or both could be very wrong, neither has enough information on or knowledge of their chosen subject to know yet what they are talking about. As I said I fully intend to carry on emitting just as I have always done until such time as one camp or the other can actually prove themselves correct beyond reasonable doubt and silence the opposition once and for all.

 

To take either side at present I'd liken to running in blind panic over unknown terrain on the darkest of nights, in an attempt to avoid some rabid beast that might possibly also be somewhere out there hunting you. Logic dictates you're as likely to run on to it's jaws as escape it, or do yourself equally as much harm by other means you were blind to.

 

in the same 40+ years I've noted no change in sea levels, or significant changes in weather patterns around here.

Wake me up again when Bain's beach no longer comes asight wi a grund ebb, and the temperatures never go below zero in winter and reaches 25+ in summer

 

Well, clearly sea levels tend to rise slowly, and the change will not be noticed by just looking out your window every day, but if there is an increase in ice melting in the Arctic or of the Greenland ice cap, as is currently underway, then quite obviously sea levels will rise.

 

Yes, but a pier of quayside doesn't go anywhere, I neither own or use one regularly, but several around Lerwick have been around a very long time, some for close on 200 years, I'm sure somewhere some old data muct still exist as to what point highest high water reached on any one given structure at points in history, and a quick trip with a tape measure at the right time on the right day would give you the current one. It would seem to me the perfect way of proving once and for all on a local basis that sea levels are rising, yet I've yet to hear of anyone seriosuly pursuing it.

 

I just know that in the last 40+ years the sea has not started to drive further ashore on to low lying land and flood it during storm conditions, and there has been no noticable increase in costal erosion of the not insignificant length of coastline I am very familar with, both things that would be expected if the water surface were continually rising.

 

In fact a number of lowlying areas I am familar with were flooded far more frequently and considerably more severely by the sea during the period 60-110 years ago than they have ever been in the last 40.

 

Concerning the ice cap, yes, parts are melting, or so we are told, but didn't they always? We are also told parts are thickening, again as they assumedly always have.

 

Neither of these two isloated alleged facts have any real relvance to the question though, the question which needs an answer is rather, "Is the total ice cap mass present at any one given moment larger or smaller than previous, and is any variation from past mass able to be considered within normal fluctuations or not?" There seems few answers being offered up on this one, and even fewer of them offering anything of worth.

 

As for Shetland, even an unscientific glance back will tell you that we have far fewer extremes of low temperature now than, say, in the 70s, when snows tended to be heavier, more frequent and lasted longer. Ice also froze harder on the lochs. Just as elsewhere in the UK, the last decade has seen temperatures in Shetland far higher than the average for previous decades.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree very strongly with you here. Yes there were some significant snows in the late 60's and for much of the 70's, I disagree concerning the frost levels though. I grew up staring straight at one of Shetland's larger lochs and the first time I ever saw it entirely forzen over was at the very end of the 70's when I was well in to my teens. Prior to that I had only ever seen the shallows frozen, so while there were snows, in the earlier years, I cannot agree to were accompanied by significantly low temperatures.

 

We then had for much of the 80's an almost snow free period, it was only in the latter half of the 80's there was any snow worthy of mention, there then followed a few virtually snow free years in the early 90's. Since the mid 90's we've had no really significant snow, but we've had numerous minor snowy episodes. Taken as an overall picture I don't see that as proof of much of anything, the present snow levels are entirely consistent and within the known variables of the past. Snow free winters are by no means a new thing for Shetland, a great-grandfather spoke of "green winters" I am led to believe, and he had personal knowledge of what is now 160 years ago, and they were nothing new even then, they had already achieved a reputation of being disliked, as the belief was they'd be followed by a poor summer, and low crop yields due to the soil not being properly areated by frost break.

 

The effects of these changes here are not necessarily subtle either. Rising sea temperatures have brought new southern fish species into Shetland waters, and has also seen other fish moving north, away from us, most likely because of changes in plankton availability. This is currently having a devastating impact on Shetland's seabirds. This year, once again, looks to being yet another complete disaster in breeding terms for some species, simply because of the lack of suitable food.

 

These again are suppositions presents as "facts", sea temperature around here is dictated by the Gulf Stream, the currently marginally higher average temperatures could possibly be contributing to an increase in ocean temperature, those marginally higher average temperatures could possibly be as a result of global warming, if indeed global warming is proven to exist in the way those who espouse it would have us believe. That's an awful lot of if's, but's and maybe's upon which to base a soild factual statement. On the other hand a rise is sea temperature could possibly be down to any number of other reasons. Fish too are by nature migratory, certain species generally loosely follow an annual pattern, but it can and does evolve over time, and for a species to desert one area and move elsewhere is not entirely unheard of either. Certainly a warming of the ocean, which may or may not be man made, has highly likely been a factor in migratory pattern changes, but to lay the entire credit for it at man's door is a bit steep when the evidence amounts to little other than conjecture.

 

Your birds, like fish are also migratory, and like any other living creature have good and bad breeding cycles. It's known that certain species which once were plentiful in some locations in Shetland went in to a steady decline at some time in the past, and for no obvious reason, it is also well known that species once a rarity here now dominate most cliff faces. These things are not static constants, and while food or the lack thereof undoubtely plays an important role, it is unlikely it is the sole contributory factor. Man's activities certainly do have a significant impact upon the bird populations, but you don't need to look as far as rising sea temperature, which may be man made, which has resulted in changes in food availability, which may be the cause of a species poor breeding season.

 

Changes in fishing, agriculture and waste disposal practices are far more likely to have an obvious and immediate effect on birds.

 

It is no use standing outside your front door and saying "it doesn't feel very warm to me". Scientists have shown and continue to show that average temperatures are rising, and that these rises are having a serious impact on certain species and ecosystems. As these changes continue, the impact will certainly increase, and human beings will be more and more directly affected.

 

The attitude "wake me up when it's too late" seems to me rather pointless. I would rather try and do something now, while there is still a chance of improving the outlook.

 

Certain scientists would have us believe that at the moment average temperatures are rising, what they have failed to prove conclusively is why they are rising, and consequently whether or not there is a liklihood that they will continue to do so. They have also failed to prove that the change is abnormal, after all Shetland once had, or so we are told, a considerably more temperate climate than at present. Whatever it was it could grow small bushes at exposed locations in the hills anyway, somthing that's not been possible for a very long time.

 

Species and ecosystems have evolved to where they are as a direct result of all the changes this planet has gone through over millions of years, of course further changes will not suit some species, but that is the name of the game, adapt evolve or die, and that goes for homo sapiens too. If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt current changes are 100% man-made, attempts to negate their impact are laudable, however if the changes are part of an ongoing natural evolutionary process it is equally as dangerous to meddle with nature as it is to continue poisioning the atmosphere and planet with various gasses, if we are indeed doing that.

 

Our climate, like everything else in this world is a continually changing and evolving thing, let at least have enough respect for it to take the time and trouble to figure out best we can what are natural changes and what are man-made, and preferably do nothing unless we know we need to do something, and know what we are doing is right. Going in as we are, racing ahead with the first "solutions" that jump up, without even knowing if solutions are necessary, all based on assumptions, presumptions and guess work runs as great of a risk of doing harm as doing nothing does if indeed the assumptions, presumptions and guess work of some scientists is eventually proved to have any basis in fact.

 

I would argue the "too late" tag is just a scare tactic, "too late" will only kick in when the whole planet is a sterile barren rock devoid of any life force. "Wake me up when you know what you're talking about, and know if something needs doing about it" is more where I'm coming from. If indeed the Enviornmentalist scientists camp is correct there may well be an amount of collateral damage, but as long as there's life there's hope, and by the stage collateral damage is visibly occuring we can start to have a bit more faith and belief in their current theories, and we will know a great deal more about how to handle/minimise/reverse the situation once it does exist than simply fumbling in the dark as we are now.

 

Wouldn't you just hate it if some years down the line scientific advances were able to prove that the current thinking of Enviornmentalist scientists was complete garbage, and in fact all the enviornmental initiatives they are pushing just now actually either had made the problem become much worse instead of better, or created an entirely new and unforseen one instead, that was equally dangerous to the one they current think they forsee.

 

Based on the so called "proof" put about for Global Warming, I see one outcome being equally as likely as the other, hence I will go with neither.

 

In a nutshell, we humans haven't really got the first clue what is really happening, or why, or what if anything should(n't) be done with it. So, in the words of oft repeated sage advice "Don't f*** with what you don't know".

[Malachy]

Heed what North says, Google and you will find as much information out there allegedly sourced from allegedly as qualified "experts" as the supporters of global warming have supporting their stance, but supposedly proving the whole global warming debate is a total farce and scam, and in similar quantity.

Yes, true, you can read whatever you wish to read by googling it. But if you want to look for peer-reviewed scientific papers that seriously discredit the conclusions of the IPCC regarding global warming, you will find a grand total of none. Anywhere. And don't try to argue (as someone did earlier in this thread) that peer-reviewed scientific papers are no longer considered of greater scientific value than any old guff that someone writes on their website, because that is simply untrue. There may well be respected scientists who disagree with current thinking on climate change, but if so they have not managed to produce a single paper that has stood up to scientific scrutiny. The fact is that you can find as much information as you want to support either side of the debate, but if you consider solid scientific evidence to be important in formulating your opinion, then there simply is no debate any more. The debate has already been won.

 

Temperatures may well be showing an upward trend, at the moment, but that the cause of that is wholly or even partly down to the levels of emissions put in to the atmosphere by humanity is a long way from being proven beyond reasonable doubt. The best either side have to offer are their guesswork conclusions based on tentative suppositions.

Part of the problem here is that many people are requiring a level of proof that is simply not possible to give. The greenhouse effect has been known and understood by science for decades - greenhouse gases act to trap heat in the atmosphere - and we also know that human beings produce a lot of greenhouse gases. Nobody can seriously argue with either of these facts. But this is not a detective novel; there will be no smoking gun discovered in mankind's glove compartment. At some point you have to be prepared to put two and two together and accept that you have four; people cannot forever put two and two together and claim the sum is not yet convincingly answered. The last IPCC report, which was contributed to by well over 3000 climate science experts, concluded that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Now, the words "very likely" may not seem good enough for you, but in the report, that term is defined as being above 90% certainty.

 

Thousands of climate scientists being more than 90% certain is a good as it is going to get unfortunately. Similarly, we cannot 'prove' that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but all of the evidence we have so far observed suggests that it will. If you want to find an equivalent level of proof on the other side of the debate, you will search in vain. All you will find is a few conspiracy theorists, right wing columnists and some disgruntled cranks.

 

Our climate, like everything else in this world is a continually changing and evolving thing, let at least have enough respect for it to take the time and trouble to figure out best we can what are natural changes and what are man-made, and preferably do nothing unless we know we need to do something, and know what we are doing is right.

 

As I said, the greenhouse effect has been understood for a long time - it was first observed in 1824. There is a feeling that the current interest in global warming is brand new, like a wave of mania, but scientists have been accumulating evidence for a long time. They have taken their time, and they are now convinced. That the media are only now cottoning on to it says nothing about the quality of the science and everything about the quality of the media.

 

I would argue the "too late" tag is just a scare tactic, "too late" will only kick in when the whole planet is a sterile barren rock devoid of any life force.

That is a very sad thought. I would hope that people will choose to act before it gets that far.

[north]

And don't try to argue

 

Ah, now we get to the crux of the debate!

 

Scientists have been wrong on all kinds of topics. There is a self perpetuating agenda at work - to ensure the continued employment of the same pack of theorising "experts" forever.

 

Supposedly we were all going to die from bird flu last year?

 

Foot and Mouth was admirably contained by scientists and experts?

 

Who was talking about totalitarian, one party states! Don't argue or you will be shot (down)!

[Malachy]

Yes, you've certainly grasped the crux of my argument there north, well done.

And your logic is impeccable: scientists have been wrong before, therefore they are wrong. I like it.

[north]

You take your side. I'll take mine.

 

The wasted electrons arguing on the Internet will only make this problem worse - assuming you are right!

 

Maybe we'll see Al Gore up in the Arctic again this year? Or maybe he's too busy counting his pennies (or cents) from his carbon credit scheme he has worked up. Who the hell falls for all this old cobblers? Willingly giving money away to the rich? Taxing the hell out of the rest of us.

 

It is pathetic.

[Ghostrider]

Heed what North says, Google and you will find as much information out there allegedly sourced from allegedly as qualified "experts" as the supporters of global warming have supporting their stance, but supposedly proving the whole global warming debate is a total farce and scam, and in similar quantity.

Yes, true, you can read whatever you wish to read by googling it. But if you want to look for peer-reviewed scientific papers that seriously discredit the conclusions of the IPCC regarding global warming, you will find a grand total of none. Anywhere. And don't try to argue (as someone did earlier in this thread) that peer-reviewed scientific papers are no longer considered of greater scientific value than any old guff that someone writes on their website, because that is simply untrue. There may well be respected scientists who disagree with current thinking on climate change, but if so they have not managed to produce a single paper that has stood up to scientific scrutiny. The fact is that you can find as much information as you want to support either side of the debate, but if you consider solid scientific evidence to be important in formulating your opinion, then there simply is no debate any more. The debate has already been won.

 

Of course there is no debate any more, there never was a debate in the first place. It is wholly up to the Global Warming camp to prove that the status quo is changing as a direct and parallel effect of mankind's output in to the atmosphere, something they have so far abysmally failed to achieve.

 

The rest of us have no onus on us to prove anything other than point out the window and say "look, nothing has changed", and to point out the known that global temperatures have been both much lower and much higher than they are today, with no help whatsoever from mankind, and the planet and life on it is still here.

 

There are several problems afoot as regards the pro Global Warming camp, there's a liberal dose of "WMD Syndrome" going on amongst them for one thing. "One the balance of probability Iraq has WMD" was the actual statement used to justify invading, yet somehow in the feeding frenzy of media sensationalism, hype and sound bite that followed that statement morphed in to "Iraq has WMD", which, clearly had a wholly different meaning. But, planted as it was in so many brainless heads as the lie so oft repeated that it became accepted as the truth, it is what now is virtually universally accepted as such.

 

What is being bandied about today concerning global warming is what was offered up as a worst possible case scenario when the issue first started to gain publicity. It seems to me that like the WMD's mistruth which was presented so often in the media that it became believed, the worst possible scenario outcome is now largely accepted as the only possible outcome for global warming.

 

It does not help anyones case either that somewhere in the not to distant past the role of a scientist sidestepped across a certain line. Scientists used to be people who's job was to determine cause and effect, and demonstrate it to be so, but someplace along the way they branched out in to the crystal ball gazing side of science. It is now no longer an option to say "we do not have enough information to make an accurate assessment", they are expected to forecast what in their opinion is the most likely outcome on any subject, regardless of how little data or understanding they have of it,, and then that forecast is trumped through the media as the "truth". I wish they'd learn to stop it, as it's a task they are absolutely rubbish at, not to mention it can be downright dangerous.

 

This is the same science that predicted thousands of fatalities in the UK from people catching CJD variant from eating meat from cattle with Mad Cow Disease. How many have died? Eighteen I think was the number last I heard it reported on the news several years ago.

 

This is the same science that established the "truth" that cattle got Mad Cow Disease from eating bone meal sourced from the carcases of sheep suffering from Scrapie, without ever making it or observing it happen, it was purely assumption and supposition.

 

They probably were right, but they conveniently ignored the allegation that the legal minimum temperature at which the sheep carcases had to be boiled during the bone meal making process, was lowered coincidentally at around the same time as it seemed cattle which suffered Mad Cow Disease became infected, and maybe perhaps allowed the condition to survive and jump species. They also ignored the ethical abhorrance of why in hell it was permitted to feed carnivorous food to a vegetarian species in the first place.

 

This is the same science that in only the recent past justified the slaughter of thousands of sheep who had a genetic make up which it is thought pre-disposed them to a higher risk of developing Scrapie, despite the fact that no scientific evidence whatsoever exists to suggest that those animals, or any Scrapie infected sheep at any time past has ever posed any direct health threat to any other species.

 

I could go on....

 

The problem here is that Enviornmentalist Scientists are reaching possible outcome scenario(s)s based on what clearly is woefully inadequate data and knowledge, then, as if that weren't bad enough, the very worst of these have been seized and cast is tablets of stone as undeniable fact, and hyped and sensationalised in scare tactics to the general public.

 

Temperatures may well be showing an upward trend, at the moment, but that the cause of that is wholly or even partly down to the levels of emissions put in to the atmosphere by humanity is a long way from being proven beyond reasonable doubt. The best either side have to offer are their guesswork conclusions based on tentative suppositions.

Part of the problem here is that many people are requiring a level of proof that is simply not possible to give. The greenhouse effect has been known and understood by science for decades - greenhouse gases act to trap heat in the atmosphere - and we also know that human beings produce a lot of greenhouse gases. Nobody can seriously argue with either of these facts. But this is not a detective novel; there will be no smoking gun discovered in mankind's glove compartment. At some point you have to be prepared to put two and two together and accept that you have four; people cannot forever put two and two together and claim the sum is not yet convincingly answered. The last IPCC report, which was contributed to by well over 3000 climate science experts, concluded that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Now, the words "very likely" may not seem good enough for you, but in the report, that term is defined as being above 90% certainty.

 

Why shouldn't people expect the same level of proof from the scientific community for global warming that is required, or at least used to be required for everything else, ie. to have the cause and effect clearly demonstrated?

 

If that level of proof is not available to give, then it simply proves the scientists in question do not have adequate data and knowledge of the subject to be able to reach a trustworthy and reliable conclusion. Which brings us right back to half baked suppositions and presumptions, which seems to be what we're being fed, and what we're supposed to accept as "proven fact". For goodness sake, if the experts know no more than that, leave it all well alone, how can anyone have the first clue as to whether any one given action is going to make the problem better or worse on that level of understanding.

 

So what if they think the recent rise in average temperature is caused by greenhouse gasses, they may well be right, all that means is it's not been disproven as the reason. Humanity is not the sole producer of greenhouse gasses anyway, those gasses are produced by a large number of sources so it is largely irrelevant that they may have caused some level of warming. What is relevant is how much of the total greenhouse gasses produced in any one given period are solely the result of mankind's activities, how much mankind's total has increased over the period in question, how much, if any the totals from other sources have increased, or not over the same period, and what relationship, if any can be made between those increases/decreases and the slight rise in average temperatures.

 

Greenhouse gasses may well act as a layer of insulation within the atmosphere, but the heat it is trapping comes largely from outside the atmosphere in the first place. It's overly simplistic to just say "we're retaining more heat because we have more insulation now", that's only half the story, you have to factor variations which may occur in the heat source(s) as well. And if I was a hard line cynic I'd also wonder, seeing as the majority of earth's heat comes from outside the atmosphere, does a layer which allegedly traps heat inside said atmosphere, not also serve to additionally prevent an equal percentage extra from entering said atmosphere in the first place.

 

 

[Thousands of climate scientists being more than 90% certain is a good as it is going to get unfortunately. Similarly, we cannot 'prove' that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but all of the evidence we have so far observed suggests that it will. If you want to find an equivalent level of proof on the other side of the debate, you will search in vain. All you will find is a few conspiracy theorists, right wing columnists and some disgruntled cranks.

 

Ummm....not quite. The "other side" have all the evidence they need by pointing out the window and saying, "Look, show me what's changed"

 

]Our climate, like everything else in this world is a continually changing and evolving thing, let at least have enough respect for it to take the time and trouble to figure out best we can what are natural changes and what are man-made, and preferably do nothing unless we know we need to do something, and know what we are doing is right.

 

As I said, the greenhouse effect has been understood for a long time - it was first observed in 1824. There is a feeling that the current interest in global warming is brand new, like a wave of mania, but scientists have been accumulating evidence for a long time. They have taken their time, and they are now convinced. That the media are only now cottoning on to it says nothing about the quality of the science and everything about the quality of the media.

 

The greenhouse effect and global warming may well be real enough, I'm not particularly disputing that. What I am disputing is mankind's level of responsibility for it, and if scientists have been convinced, although the cynic would say that maybe their paymasters have instructed them to be convinced, that man's responsibility is of the magnitiude put about in the media, when they have nothing more to go on than has been made public so far. I despair at what the scientific community has become, and hope they have the good sense to retire before they create any more chaos and panic.

 

I would argue the "too late" tag is just a scare tactic, "too late" will only kick in when the whole planet is a sterile barren rock devoid of any life force.

That is a very sad thought. I would hope that people will choose to act before it gets that far.

 

What would be sadder would be if well intentioned but badly misguided people acted believing they were helping preventing it get that far, and those actions directly led us there when we weren't even heading down that road.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

The lower solar activity during the Maunder Minimum also affected the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. The resulting change in the production of carbon-14 must be taken into account when radiocarbon dating is used to determine the age of archaeological artifacts.

Solar activity also affects the production of beryllium-10, and variations in that cosmogenic isotope are studied as a proxy for solar activity.

Other historical sunspot minima have been detected either directly or by the analysis of carbon-14 in ice cores or tree rings; these include the Sporer Minimum (1450–1540), and less markedly the Dalton Minimum (1790–1820). In total there seem to have been 18 periods of sunspot minima in the last 8,000 years, and studies indicate that the sun currently spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporer_Minimum

and lest we forget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, lasting from about 1790 to 1830. Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum it coincided with a period of lower than average global temperatures. Low solar activity seems to be strongly correlated with global cooling.

-----------------------------------------------

The sun has been laying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots.

The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm

 

Once we've tripped the rift by 2016 things will likely be hunky dory

(Although the poles might have flipped and we might have grown another Sun)

 

sounds good to me, onward we go

[north]

Never forget that great scientists once considered the World was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the Universe!

 

This whole issue is all about money.

 

http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

 

And this is where a lot of it goes. It is where Al Gore banks his credits to neutralise his opulent lifestyle. Worse - for all those believers; it is a haven for Capitalists!

 

And they are making money, lots of money; from your paranoia.

 

Include China and India in any plan to change human behaviour and I'll take this far more seriously. I live a moderate lifestyle, but I am damned if I will sit back and allow others to pile fake taxes on me in the name of saving the planet.

 

Carbon Neutral by buying your way out is a scam!

[Evil Inky]

I would argue the "too late" tag is just a scare tactic, "too late" will only kick in when the whole planet is a sterile barren rock devoid of any life force.

That is a very sad thought. I would hope that people will choose to act before it gets that far.

 

What would be sadder would be if well intentioned but badly misguided people acted believing they were helping preventing it get that far, and those actions directly led us there when we weren't even heading down that road.

 

Could you explain exactly how encouraging people to walk and cycle more, and to drive less, could lead to the planet becoming "a sterile barren rock devoid of any life force" ?

[Gibber]

I've just bought a car with a 2.5 litre V6 engine.

[Evil Inky]

I've just bought a car with a 2.5 litre V6 engine.

Do you get a kick out of paying lots of fuel duty ?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling:

All of this defies the “consensus†that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary†1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871#

 

What a world!! Global warming alarmists bring us to the brink of world food shortage and economic collapse—using words and computer models, not higher temperatures. As a result, more wildlife species are threatened by palm oil plantations growing biodiesel than by climate change. Heavy sea ice just trapped a big Russian ice-breaker for seven days in the Arctic’s Northwest Passage, which the alarmists told us last year would soon be open sailing. The sunspots and a Pacific Ocean cooling phase are forecasting the earth will cool further over the next two decades. In the past, both have accurate in their in their predictions. 

 

The blue collar world sees no warming, but they surely see economic ruin staring them in the face.  Finally, the workers of the world are crying, “Enough of this man-made warming hype without warming!â€

 

Fishing fleets have gone on strike across Europe against ultra-high diesel prices, while the Greens demand that fuel become even more scarce and expensive

Truckers are staging fuel-protest slowdowns in major European cities. 

Protesting French farmers have blockaded fuel stations.

More than 70 percent of Britons now say they will not pay any extra taxes to “save the planet.â€

 

Unless the planet starts warming again, quickly and significantly, the Green momentum for a low-carbon society will come to a screeching stop. There are many indications that we are in a long, moderate warming cycle, which began 150 years ago with the end of the Little Ice Age, and may continue for several more hundred years. There is no indication that this modest warming will be bad for humans, or for the wildlife. The thermometers show a net global temperature increase of just 0.2 degree C since 1940 —and even that tiny increase has been inflated by the urban heat island effect.

 

The big temperature increases are all in those unverified computer models so beloved by the Green movement. The mothers of the world’s kids and the workers who grow and catch its food now demand to see the thermometers climb more than .2 degrees before they renounce their food and jobs. Without energy, the workers can’t work, the farmers can’t farm, and the children can’t eat.

 

Until and unless the Greens and the UN can offer some evidence beyond the guesses of computer models that consistently over-estimate the warming that is occurring, we’ll accept the unsung voice of the thermometers

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3435

[Malachy]

KOYAANISQATSI, why do you keep posting this trash? It is hardly surprising that a right wing news organisation is publishing articles like that. It proves nothing. It is exactly the same 'common sense shows science is wrong' logic that Ghostrider has been employing above. It is ill-informed, deliberately misleading and full of conspiracy theories and other such nonsense. It seems to me that one of the reasons rubbish like that attracts people is because it is simple. The science is complex, the lies are simple, therefore people believe the lies.

And this claim that global warming is a conspiracy to make governments and a few people lots of money is so ludicrous it is barely worth a response. There are always people who will make money out of anything. People make huge amounts of money from war, and you don't complain, but if someone sees an opportunity to profit from an environmental cause then suddenly the whole cause is considered fraudulent. And to think that governments are requiring their scientists to back up the climate change consensus, that is equally stupid. Especially considering that the US, where scientists and nasa have been documenting climate change for a very long time, has only just in the past couple of years accepted that they might in fact be telling the truth. The last thing governments want to do is to accept the reality of climate change, because an acceptance of the science would require significant, expensive and hugely unpopular actions to combat it. Governments are not prepared to take those actions (with the possible exception of Sweden). Just look at what is happening now - tiny changes in the tax system, and some whispers about 'green taxes' and people start screaming like spoilt children and running for the hills to hide their wallets. It is greed that has caused the problem, and it is greed that is making a solution so difficult to reach. Your protests merely underline that fact.

[Malachy]

Never forget that great scientists once considered the World was flat

 

Actually that is not the case. Scientists have understood that the earth was spherical since about 500BC (around the time of the birth of 'science', in fact), and they knew it was not flat long before that.

The knowledge of the scientists was only denied much later by Christians, because it did not fit in with their own view of the world and of human significance. They denied it until it could be denied no longer.