Useful

**scoobish** · 02-12-2009, 10:53

Originally Posted by cdo_gunner

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

Originally Posted by cdo_gunner

Just for the record, i live in the arctic and have seen quite a change in the climate over the 20 years i've been experiencing the winters here.

We've had yet another unusual weather month, roughly 10 times drier than average, about 10 times more sun than average and about 1.5 to 2 degrees C above average.

In general we've experienced shorter and warmer winters over the last 20 or so years. You can also see it in the flora and fauna here, species moving northwards for example or the treeline climbing higher.

So you guys can argue about what's causing it but we're experiencing climate change up here.

I don't think there's any doubt that there is climate change. All the heat and light (to excuse the pun) is about 1) Did people do it and 2) if we did, is the current emphasis on greenhouse gas the best way to deal with it?

If people didn't do it, then we just have to learn to deal with the consequences.
If people did do it, then should we reduce greenhouse gas, or try other, more environmental packages to reverse the damage?

There are huge cost and political implications involved, and it seems that tribalism has broken out, with various lobbygroups screaming abuse at each other, and discrediting each others evidence.

It's all bald men fighting over a comb really. At the current rate, by the time they decide what to do, the ice caps will have melted, the coral will have dissolved into an acid ocean and the last malnourished Ethiopian will have been eaten by the last starving Somali.

Irrespective of what's causing it we're not in a position to ride it out as long as nothing is done with population growth, which is the root problem of most of the big issues facing mankind now. Hardly anyone even dares bring the subject up, much less dare to suggest any solution.

If mankind is contributiong to climate change then it's only a symptom of over population coupled with increasing wealth. all this 'green' BS is utterly useless unless the root cause is tackled. The irony is, the solution is pathetically easy for each of us individually...but the reality is, it's never going to happen. We will go the way of Easter Island.

World population growth forcast for this year is an additional 85 million people. The population of Germany, every year and increasing...

where they going to live, what will they eat?

**lsquared** · 02-12-2009, 10:56

Forget 'dodgy data' emanating from seats of academia - 'dodgy data' is de rigueur in the world of New Labour - if Brown believes in 'global warming' then you can bet your pension that the whole subject is a massive global confidence trick and an excuse for half-wits like Brown to raise taxes.

**StickyEnd** · 02-12-2009, 10:58

Originally Posted by cdo_gunner

Irrespective of what's causing it we're not in a position to ride it out as long as nothing is done with population growth, which is the root problem of most of the big issues facing mankind now. Hardly anyone even dares bring the subject up, much less dare to suggest any solution.

If mankind is contributiong to climate change then it's only a symptom of over population coupled with increasing wealth. all this 'green' BS is utterly useless unless the root cause is tackled. The irony is, the solution is pathetically easy for each of us individually...but the reality is, it's never going to happen. We will go the way of Easter Island.

Global warming seems to be the eco flavour-of-the-month at the moment but you are spot on about population. I believe that humanity numbered between 2 and 3 billion when I was born, it now exceeds 6. As a species we have exhausted fish stocks, eroded soil and caused massive polution. It will come to an end eventually. As a civilisation, the people of Easter Island exhausted their resources and disapeared, we are now doing it on a global scale.

http://www.beltramiswcd.org/Aquatic%...n%20Growth.jpg

**surelynot** · 02-12-2009, 11:11

Don't worry about global warming. It is a natural cyclic thingy and will, in time, dip into a mini cooling age again, just like in the Middle Ages. In the meantime scientists who have pinned their careers on this global panic about warming and scumbag governments who have also committed to the falsity and tagged on taxes etc cannot back out now. Basically we are stuffed by politicians .... again.

Population growth..... now that is something else. Curiously this weird old eco-system we are in is self balancing and if we think mankind can control it we are as crazy as a mad dog. It, that being what many call "Mother Nature" will sort it all out by natural biological control mechanisms such as massive famine, disease, water lack and consequent wars and devastation that will bring the human population back down to an ecologically manageable level, albeit in a state that will take those survivng back into the dark ages or beyond. Ah, well, what turns round comes round ehh?

**spunkymonkey** · 02-12-2009, 11:17

I notice, now that they can't completely ignore the leak anymore, most of the mainstream media are plugging the "it must be happening because we can't explain the change without human influence" line.

Stop and think about that for a minute - until Newton invented* gravity in the 1670s, science couldn't explain how the planets stayed in orbit. So it had to be because of God's actions. Physics and astronomy had been around for a very long time by then but there was simply no way to explain it without his influence.

Although the AGW brigade point to a "200 year" history of climate science, (a) most of those 200 years were spent only being interested in forcasting for the next crop or for shipping (no consideration at all of loing-term matters), and (b) even if we accept the 200 year claim, that is a very short time for a science.

So to say "It must be because we can't explain it without..." is absolutely not science - all it really means is "we don't know".

* yes, I know already!

**shape.when.wet** · 02-12-2009, 11:24

Originally Posted by Spank-it

Well I'm glad you and your Greenie colleagues can giggle away in your staff room, are you saying that people on the "Tree Hugging Side" never make statements that are off the wall ? If you want to look at utter shoite from the Internet there are plenty of wack jobs on your side too.

The protect the "Environment movement at all costs" religion rely on Exaggerations, Distortion, Manipulation and in some cases just downright Lies to get the point across.

The majority of posters in this thread are simply asking for an independent and Peer review of the Data.

I resent the accusation of being a tree hugger. I despise most of humanity that I have met, and only hope that 98% of them are wiped out by famine, disease and war caused by climate change. I don't care about protecting the environment per say, it can take care of itself and I respect the way species respond to environmental pressure by adapting. I do think it's unfortunate to impose it on people who didn't have a hand in it though.

But I'll be first on the deck of the Rainbow 2 if the US/Russia/take-your-pick goes raping Antarctica, sodding the rest of the world and blatently putting money before anything else. That's just greedy and rude.

As I said before, who's independent for your 'review'? Nobody is, especially if you accuse the 'experts' of being charlatans. And I say again no where in this thread or the press has anyone accepted that some of the sceptics and their funding has made them produce outright lies in the past. If you want evidence of this, look at the history of Russia's environmental policy, or just google the likes of Fred Singer. And Governments and politicians are hardly neutral.

What should be advocated is for both sides to be put in a room together with alternate powerpoint assaults and at the end of it see who's left standing. I doubt they'll agree but it will be jolly entertaining.

Sometimes I do think the problem with those advocating change, is it's change their looking for. But then the same can be said on both sides.

**spunkymonkey** · 02-12-2009, 11:43

Originally Posted by shape.when.wet

.... And I say again no where in this thread or the press has anyone accepted that some of the sceptics and their funding has made them produce outright lies in the past. If you want evidence of this, look at the history of Russia's environmental policy, or just google the likes of Fred Singer. And Governments and politicians are hardly neutral.

What should be advocated is for both sides to be put in a room together with alternate powerpoint assaults and at the end of it see who's left standing. I doubt they'll agree but it will be jolly entertaining.

Sorry, shape, I thought the "lies from some sceptics" was so obvious I didn't bother explicitly accepting it. Guess that goes to show how easily relevent information can be overlooked because of a personal POV ;)

As for your suggestion to solve it, could I suggest machetes instead of powerpoints? far more entertaining and would go some way to helping the population problem at the same time :D