Climate Change & Global Warming

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

I came across this earlier when reading another forum about the subject of how facts are not always how they appear to be at first glance..

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/08/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-79-would-you-could-you-with-a-boat/#more-4455

 

I wonder what the GISTEMP algorithm does..

[justlookin]

where are all these global warming fanatics now? please come and preach your theories(bull)..ahemm.

 

Arabia!!!!!! where are you? ;P

[Medziotojas]

I find this whole debate rather depressing and counterproductive. As with many Shetlink topics it has turned into another us against them thread; however, few are denying (scientists included) that global warming actually exists in some form or another. Whether man has had some input into the potential climatic crisis, or it is merely a natural phenomenon--which, incidentally, I somewhat doubt--the way forward must be to work together and try to negate the worst effects of global warming.

 

Just because some do not believe that man is causing this already natural phenomenon to accelerate at an unprecedented rate, isn’t reason enough to promote burning more fossil fuels and wantonly wasting our resources. How many people do you know who live in the town and drive to the corner shop and back? And that’s just the merest particle on the tip of the iceberg (perhaps soon not to be). Without a serious global shake-up things will only deteriorate, and faster than many may think. Who knows, maybe this financial crisis will prove to be the proverbial kick up the backside for some if it causes the westernised populace to tighten their collective belts and think about their consumption. If you don’t hit people where it hurts then they are likely to remain apathetic.

 

That said, and I hate to be pessimistic, the reality is we will never combat this by working as a global community.

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

I tend to find that from debate comes cooperation, both sides learn a little, the gap between people is less, and common ground is found to work on.

 

Its not perfect, but the old fashioned way of each doing their own thing leads to duplicated effort and wastefulness, as well as doing at times oppersite solutions.

 

The less we fight each other and fight the problem at hand the better in my view.

 

Language is one of our greatest gifts, it helps us achieve as a species, let us continue to use it!

[Medziotojas]

I tend to find that from debate comes cooperation, both sides learn a little, the gap between people is less, and common ground is found to work on.

 

I would agree, and this is usually the case. However, this thread, to my mind, is one of the many exceptions to that rule. The majority agree that global warming exists, but rather than trying to see eye to eye, one camp screams from the rooftops that the problem is man-made (and make their token adjustments to resolve the problem [perhaps by switching off their PCs at 2am instead of 3am]), and the other camp screams blue murder that the problem is a natural occurence, the result being that they do nothing at all.

 

As I've mentioned before in this thread, whether global warming is man-made or part of the earth's natural cycle, we ALL must react and adjust accordingly.

 

Yes debate is important, but we need reasoned debate at a much higher level.

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

What you see voiced is disagreement, people rarely say they agree

 

Its like in customer support forums, people are there to complain, rarely do they say your doing a good job and keep it up.

 

It might appear that nothing at all comes from all of this, but I find if you speak to people in person after they have had a good session listening to others views on something like a forum like this, that your find it has coloured their views just a little.

 

Some high level people do listen to debates like this (Though I agree more should do so and not stay in their ivory tower blinkered to what everyone else thinks..), as its quite common that all you see being spoken is by about 2% of the people who are here, the other 98% just sit and listen, but it does sometimes sink in whats being said and makes a little difference here or there.

[Medziotojas]

What you see voiced is disagreement, people rarely say they agree

 

I agree

[justlookin]

My main point is you cannot trust any of the data which is out there with regard to "climate change". The IPCC was set up to prove that "Man Made Global Warming" exists. It wasn't set up to find out IF it exists.

The UN and EU make insane amounts of money from Global Warming taxation. Thats why its being punted at us with no other option, anyone who still beleives climate change is an issue is still where the governments want them. The only real issue is running out of oil.

 

i'm all for conservation, look after what little resources we have left, recycle and all that.but as the top nobel winng scientists have said, humans couldn't affect climate change if they wanted to.

 

Does it not disgust you that they are teachinig Global Warming as being gospel in our schools? I for one don't want my kid being taught a THEORY as fact more sppecifically a theory which has been discredited by 99% of all the scientist which were involved in the creation of it.

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

It wouldn't suprise me if like many issues, that it gets hijacked in the self interests of those at the top of the food chain.

[justlookin]

It wouldn't suprise me if like many issues, that it gets hijacked in the self interests of those at the top of the food chain.

 

What do you mean issues? I wouldn't even give them the satisfaction of calling climate change an issue(when something is not true its not an issue). Thats my point, giving it any recognition plays into their hands.

 

The GISTEMP algorithm said it all.

[ArabiaTerra]

My main point is you cannot trust any of the data which is out there with regard to "climate change". The IPCC was set up to prove that "Man Made Global Warming" exists. It wasn't set up to find out IF it exists.

That's because scientists were already fairly sure it existed, and it didn't prove anything, it simply said that AGW was 90% probable.

The UN and EU make insane amounts of money from Global Warming taxation.

Name one specific global warming tax you pay, just one.

... more sppecifically a theory which has been discredited by 99% of all the scientist which were involved in the creation of it.

That's just complete rubbish, and you know it.

 

Here's a few facts you should consider:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

 

And a warning:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.pdf

[Twerto]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/2606951097_4af5581315_d.jpg

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^ ^^^

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

Perhaps I might have chosen a better word than issue, but on the whole, anything thats disagreed about becomes an issue.

 

Throughout the ages there have been things, from building wacking great big cathedrals which I'm sure gave plenty of work to stonemasons, to one of my favourite pet theories, that bonfire night was actually dreampt up by firewood salesmen so as to make sure there was plenty of demand just before it got really cold by getting everyone to burn all their spare wood..

 

Issues/things also keep us all busy arguing and not getting on with the real issues, next week I'm sure it will be alien abductions causing damage to the ozone layer by the influx of out of solar system holiday-makers intent on safari hunting whose spaceships are polluting our atmosphere and we need just a little bit of funding for an EU committe..

[justlookin]

My main point is you cannot trust any of the data which is out there with regard to "climate change". The IPCC was set up to prove that "Man Made Global Warming" exists. It wasn't set up to find out IF it exists.

That's because scientists were already fairly sure it existed, and it didn't prove anything, it simply said that AGW was 90% probable.

"Fairly sure" sounds real scientific to me. Why do we now have the scientists backing out after all the this proof you say we have.

 

The hockey stick curve has been proven wrong.

 

"POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

 

 

The UN and EU make insane amounts of money from Global Warming taxation.

Name one specific global warming tax you pay, just one.

 

We dont directly pay the taxes but the companies who create energy have been told to cut their prices by up to 75% in some cases as they have not been cutting there carbon outputs and instead just taking the carbon charges they inccur from the EU out of their customers pockets.

 

 

Here's a few facts you should consider:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

 

And a warning:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.pdf

Thats a great idea using the MET office for an unbiased source of information. I can't beleive i questioned you. My appologies.(ha)

 

i know its hard to forget all the bull thats been forced down you. i used to be a believer up until 8months ago. it all seemed so plausible. but now...

 

a few quotes you might find enlightening.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.†- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

 

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.†– . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

 

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.†- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

 

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.†- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

 

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.†- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.