Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

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
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

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" ?

 

You're cherry picking, that's a general statement summarising the entire Global Warming circus, of course if you break it down in to individual (alleged) component "remedies" for the (alleged) problem you will find some which are extremely unlikely to ever be of any measurable harm.

 

The statement is simply an illustration of how I see the level of knowledge and understanding of the (alleged) problem by the so called experts. They're using a level of science, knowledge and understanding of the issue that would have them laughed at in any other sphere, Greenheatman's science is much sounder than Global Warming science, at least his principles are known, demostratable and understood, only his sums and whether or not all the component parts he uses will behave as he predicts when brought together remains open to question. Global Warming science involves so many variables and unknown products of both known and unknown interaction, few of which are demonstratable, that it is barely one step ahead of pure guesswork.

 

Yet this guesswork is being forced down every human's throat like it was proven fact beyond all reasonable doubt, and it is being demanded of every human that they significantly change their lifestyle as a result. As I said before, the parallels with religions is worryingly striking, they are the only other subject where a "truth" based on unprovable, undemonstratable "facts" is allowed to stand.

 

Despite completely failing to prove they have an adequate and competent knowledge of the condition they term Global Warming, and having also failed to prove such a condition actually exists in the form they claim it does, we're being railroaded in to numerous "remedies" by those same scientists.

 

How can anyone have any faith or belief in a so called "remedy" for an alleged problem, which is supplied by the same people who are unable to show the problem actually exists in the way they claim in the first place. Without knowing if there is a problem, or of exactly what nature that problem is, if indeed it does exist, any so called remedies, according to the law of averages will have an equal chance of doing as much harm as good.

 

Your walking and cycling more and driving less is highly unlikely to do much apart from good, but on the flip side of the same coin nuclear energy generation is enjoying a resurgence of support that it's not seen in several decades. It's almost inevitable that as the mad blind sprint towards reducing Co2 gains momentum a few more plants will be built, and when the next Chernobyl or similar happens you're certainly going down the road towards a sterile barren rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I would hardly call myself a Republican and neither is the likes of Dana longcope who has put a good bit more work into this than you.

As for where the money is on this. I imagine while the morons are taking over scientific dictatorship; the best route to the cash is to agree with the general consensus as I see you are happy to do, without questioning both sides as many have.

using the word science 50 times per post is not going to convince anyone you know what you are talking about.

 

If you have a direct disagreement with the sun having anything to do with the status quo, I would love to hear it instead of just screaming in peoples faces that the methods you use to decide what you want to believe are better than those who look on it with a calmer, dare I say, saner approach.

 

Let me guess... the lack of sunspot activity is because humans haven't embraced socialism.

 

Science shmience, you'll be telling me next the Sun is something other than a big electric lightbulb. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oi - north most certainly didn't say that!

 

How dare anybody employ these sources, especially if they deny the findings of the great God, Gore, and his teachings!

 

The sheep these days don't have wool and live in a park!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

Isn't Iran going to dump a lot of surplus oil onto the market causing the price of fuel to plummet to destabilize the US economy quite soon?

 

I was counting on that.

 

Rats

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Iran going to dump a lot of surplus oil onto the market causing the price of fuel to plummet to destabilize the US economy quite soon?

As evil master plans go, I think it leaves something to be desired:

 

"After a few weeks of cheaper petrol the accursed Western infidel dogs will come on their knees, begging for mercy! Bwhahhahah!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your walking and cycling more and driving less is highly unlikely to do much apart from good, but on the flip side of the same coin nuclear energy generation is enjoying a resurgence of support that it's not seen in several decades. It's almost inevitable that as the mad blind sprint towards reducing Co2 gains momentum a few more plants will be built, and when the next Chernobyl or similar happens you're certainly going down the road towards a sterile barren rock.

 

Now that's scare-mongering! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a direct disagreement with the sun having anything to do with the status quo, I would love to hear it

 

Well, not being a climate scientist myself I think my own research would probably not be of much value, but here is a peer-reviewed paper by the Royal Society, which concludes that sun spot activity cannot account for global warming since 1980 - http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf - and here is a peer-reviewed paper from the journal Nature, which concludes the same thing - http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

 

When you've read them you can let me know where you think they went wrong in their analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your walking and cycling more and driving less is highly unlikely to do much apart from good, but on the flip side of the same coin nuclear energy generation is enjoying a resurgence of support that it's not seen in several decades. It's almost inevitable that as the mad blind sprint towards reducing Co2 gains momentum a few more plants will be built, and when the next Chernobyl or similar happens you're certainly going down the road towards a sterile barren rock.

 

Now that's scare-mongering! :)

 

That too! We do try! One must fight fire with fire. :wink:

 

It's also a quite probable outcome scenario if we keep on down the road of "wisdom" as preached by Enviornmental Scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Conclusions

Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean tempertures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

 

When you've read them you can let me know where you think they went wrong in their analysis.

 

They did not take into account that our solar system, which is not static, moves up and down in a periodic cycle. What is happening here is that our solar system is moving across the equator of our galaxy. I am more inclined to believe this is why we are heating up more than we should in respect to global warming.

The rift will likely have an effect on all solar bodies, not just our Sun.

 

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 if.

 

Then again:

"Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research"

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

 

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored†by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors†are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

 

List of petition signers By Name:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php

The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPPC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

 

Moreover, the current totals of 31,072 signers, including 9,021 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. As the project obtains more funds for printing and postage, these numbers can become much higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as I see any reference to the UN, my eyes glaze over. The UN is the most ineffective venue ever created, legitimising the greatest despots and totalitarian non-democratic governments and individuals in the world, and providing a grand stage for them to play out on.

 

The UN organization is as corrupt from top to bottom as the cartel of scientists sustaining a political agenda, based upon theoretical science; that is infecting the thinking of politicians who will do anything to get, and stay, elected.

 

This is not to say that all science is bad or wrong - I work on the practical side of business that is founded upon invention and technological change - but simply that every part of this is theoretical and will ensure continued funding and work for the same scientists that originate the interpretation of events that started it all.

 

Bit like religion actually. In fact, Environmentalism is the new religion to many of its proponents. Accepted and relied upon in the same manner as zealots of many other persuasions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

 

Sorry KOYAANISQATSI, the article you refer to is not considered a serious scientific paper, nor was it written by climate scientists, and the journal it was published in was the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a far right wing mouthpiece, which has also published articles that suggest the theory of evolution is a socialist conspiracy, that Aids is not caused by HIV and other articles attacking gays and abortion. For obvious reasons it is not considered a credible scientific journal.

 

List of petition signers By Name:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php

The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPPC process.

.....

Moreover, the current totals of 31,072 signers, including 9,021 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. As the project obtains more funds for printing and postage, these numbers can become much higher.

 

Again, this petition has been widely discredited. Scientific American took a sample of signatories and found some were false, some had no recollection of signing and others had no relevant experience. Only a tiny minority are working scientists in relevant fields. And many of these signed years ago but have since changed their views. (It is worthwhile googling some of the names on the list at random - some very interesting people on there!!)

 

We could trade claims back and forth like this forever. It makes no odds. I am not finding it a worthwhile use of my time.

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...