Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
    • I don't know what to think

This poll is closed to new votes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.   Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocaly

This guy went to Princeton University and Harvard Law School for goodness sake! Please tell me he knew the Paris Climate Agreement was named after the location the meeting took place and had nothing t

Anyone else getting a little fed up with being told that we have to "cut this, and cut that" when in truth, the one thing that we MUST cut is the global population.  Anything else is just "fiddling wh

Great post, GBC!


You said it all, so really, this thread can now be closed as there's nothing left to debate!


'The science is settled' ;)


{Just re-read what I said - I wasn't being facetious... The Blood, Gore & Rumsfeld carbon-credit companies days are numbered as people are waking up and starting to question.}

Link to post
Share on other sites

No thats not my own work, just a copy and paste from another source.

Just thought it was so thoroughly done it had to be posted here as well.


It came from here



Its a comment posted halfway doon the page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sence would be nice. I'm a lot more conserned about environmental polution as a whole than global warming. Changes in the weather would seem possible to adapt to but neclear fall out to the best of my knowledge is a bit harder to live with :? So for that reason bring on the renewable energy as fast as possible. If the amount of money that will be spent fixing up the oily mess in America had been spent on reserching wave power...enough said :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

The amount of money spent in the gulf of mexico has more to do with politics than any real cost in cleaning up the mess.

remember the Braer oil on its way to the states and owned by yanks but only a trifling amount spent on the clean up and compensation compared to the gulf of mexico.

The best thing about this is now that obama god bless him has thrown out the $125million cap on oil companies liabilities he has single handedly gaurenteed that the yanks are going to run out of domestic oil a whole lot faster than they thought.

The yanks relly on mom and pop companies(just think JR Ewen) producing lots of small to medium fields that could never hope to pay out what BP have been forced to and now with unlimited liabilty for clean up and compensation insurance companies are going to charge a fortune if they even cover them at all so bang goes their domestic oil industry :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ However the money's spent it's still wasted on fixing a f*** ups that never needed to happen! the dependancy on oil is just mental as I see it. There are lots of bright minds out there with great power producing ideas that wont mess up the environment if something breaks, but they don't see a tiny fraction of that kind of money to develop them. Oil and nuclear keep the war machine going so that's what we are stuck with it seems :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The yanks relly on mom and pop companies(just think JR Ewen) producing lots of small to medium fields that could never hope to pay out what BP have been forced to and now with unlimited liabilty for clean up and compensation insurance companies are going to charge a fortune if they even cover them at all so bang goes their domestic oil industry

Won't these small operators simply by bought up by the big operators?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Green, lefty enviro-hippies, the rise of the new National socialist German workers party, If Hitler could have had a red button like that in place of Zyklon B, no doubt he would have been a happy man. Here we see the ugly side of the left ideology. Hard to believe our taxes fund this. Sickening.






Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours and counting since gorgo's brilliant post and no comeback from AT this must surely be a new shetlink record. :lol: :lol:

Dog-dammit, I take a couple of days break from checking Shetlink and look what happens. Gorgo spews up another pile of conspiracy laden garbage and the gullible among you fall for it, hook, line and sinker.


Why don't you try thinking for yourselves for a change? Don't believe me or Gorgo, check it for yourselves.


Pick one of the scientific "facts" from Gorgo's rubbish and google it. Try and find some scientific evidence to back it up.


Edit: This is a good place to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the deafening silence of the mainstream media on the subject, you may not have heard of the recent resignation of Professor Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society. The Society's stance on AGW is his reason - you can read his whole resignation letter on the Watts Up With That page about it.


He describes AGW as "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist" (he was a member of the society for 67 years), and says of the "Climategate" leaked documents "I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist". A serious read, and sobering to think that the integrity of the scientific establishment has declined to the point where one of its top brains feels he has to step down like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites


He wouldn't be the first eminent physicist to go a bit dotty in his old age. (Frank Tipler ended up writing a book claiming that he could prove the dead will be resurrected in a giant computer simulation.)


It (the dottiness, not the resurrection from the dead stuff) seems a more likely hypothesis than the one where, for more than four decades, the vast majority of climate scientists on the planet have been conspiring with people like Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, and George Bush in order to hoodwink the population into believing we face enviromental disaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody else going to take this on? Ok then, I'll do it.


The climatology field has not yet developed to the point where it can make reliable predictions about future climate change with enough warning to allow time for useful proactive adaptations. It is therefore ludicrous to give credence to alarmist predictions over the next century.

This is rubbish. The first computer models of the Earth's atmosphere were constructed in the mid 80's by NASA's Jim Hansen. He postulated three possible scenarios for future CO2 emissions: Scenario A, an exponential increase, scenario B, a linear increase and scenario C a peak in 2000 followed by a gradual fall. Scenario's A & C didn't happen, so that leaves scenario B, a linear increase, which is slightly higher than what has actually happened.


So, how do Hansen's predictions match up with what has actually happened over the last 20 years?


Well, given that Hansen's scenario B assumes a slightly higher level of CO2, and also had a slightly higher climate sensitivity than the figure now accepted, the predicted increase is very close to what actually happened, though a little on the high side.


More here.


Around the 17th century we had a cold spell (the Little Ice Age - LIA) when the Thames and other bodies of water froze in cold Winters, allowing ice fairs to be held on them. Such ice fairs have not been possible since the early 19th century. Therefore it is indisputable that there has been a period of warming over the last couple of centuries as we recovered from that cold spell. It is alarmist shroud waving over the cause of the warming that has caused such a panic.

While we don't know exactly what caused the LIA, we do know some of the contributing factors, the principal one among them being the Sun. The LIA coincided with the Maunder Minimum, a long period with no sunspots and correspondingly lower solar output. Since then, the Sun has increased it's activity and the Earth has warmed.


However, the Sun stopped increasing it's output around 1950, and since 1970 has actually reduced it's output slightly yet the Earth's surface temperature has continued to increase. This increase is not due to the Sun and so must have another cause.


More here.


There appears to be a longish cycle of the solar magnetic field that has just peaked. It oscillated through the warmer bronze age, a cooler iron age, the warmer Roman empire, when the Romans brought vineyards to England, the Dark Ages, the Mediaeval Warm Period when there were vineyards in England during Chaucer's time, the Little Ice Age as mentioned above, and now our little warm spurt which according to satellite data has, temporarily at least, ceased.

As I mentioned above, the Sun stopped warming around 1950 and since 1970 has actually cooled while the Earth has continued to warm relentlessly. The allegation that the warming has stopped is, quite simply, a lie.


More here.


The IPCC computer models did not predict the cessation of the warming trend, which illustrates that something is driving the climate that the models do not know about. In addition, we are once more starting to hear predictions of cooling and maybe a repeat of the Little Ice Age. Deja vous anyone?

Lies. The warming has not stopped.


More here.


Computer models do not produce evidence - they only produce whatever their programmers want them to produce, in what is therefore a circular argument. So far the models have only proved that the computers are working, and that the output outside of their training data sets has been wrong every time, so far.

Where computer models have been wrong, such as with predictions of ice loss from the Arctic and Greenland, they have been too conservative. Climate Change has happened faster and been more extreme than predicted. I wouldn't call that a good thing. For other effects, such as the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, they were accurate.


More here.


Furthermore, there is no evidence, despite every effort to finesse it, of an increased greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (hot spots in the troposphere) that was predicted by the computer models. However, we don't hear much about that from the warming industry.

The initial Satellite readings were found to be flawed as they didn't take into account variations in the Satellites orbits. The data has been re-analysed to take this into account and now shows a much greater match with the predicted changes.


However, we don't hear much about that from the denial industry.


More here.


Meanwhile the case for the AGW hypothesis remains an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy where it is claimed it must be true because they (the warming industry) allegedly can't think of anything else. This is equivalent to blaming witches for crop failures in the middle ages.

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:




Unfounded fear of man-made global warming, rather than the climate change itself, is the problem.



More here.


Right, this is threatening to turn into the longest comment ever posted on Shetlink, so I'll break it up over a few posts. More later. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...