Enjoy life while you can

#1
The Grand Wizard of climate science speaks in the Guardian.

I've long been a sceptic of the argument of global warming being man-made. That is, it being the result of carbon dioxide emissions. The fact that the 'climate change' lobby fails to consider global warming in relation to the increasing temperature of the sun seems illogical and irrational. Of course, it follows that if the Sun's hot-spots increase in temperature then the Earth will also increase in temperature. It's a natural cycle. That's not to say that greenhouse gases don't have some effect, but that their effect is relatively minor.

However, the multi-billion dollar climate change industry prefers to ignore this phenomenon since there are hundreds of thousands of jobs that rely on the emissions argument. As such, what may once have been a virtuous and scientific movement has been turned into a cash cow. Furthermore, our policy makers and politicians prefer to use the emissions argument to instill guilt and fear into us and, therefore, impose more taxes/restrictions on us. Whatever happened to the Age of Reason that our forebears in Europe strove so hard for?

Finally, I say that if Lovelock speaks, then we should listen. Here he gives an apocalyptic vision of what's to come in the next twenty to forty years. Of course, he could be wrong. Interestingly, Britain is referred to as a future lifeboat for the world:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
 
#5
hong_kong_fuey said:
The Grand Wizard of climate science speaks in the Guardian.

I've long been a sceptic of the argument of global warming being man-made. That is, it being the result of carbon dioxide emissions...
Why?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Climate change arguments are many and varied. There is the scientific argument and then the hangers on. Politicians will use it as an excuse to raise taxes. Lobby groups will use it to bolster their pet aims. Business will use it to increase profits. The only argument to consider really is the scientific one all the rest are motivated for purposes removed from the cold hard facts.

Using fossil fuels is not part of the natural cycle. Earth/Sun warming and cooling is. Therefore it is a tad confusing and arguments can be made pro and anti with reference to human activity causing global warming.

I believe we are adding to global warming. Not because I completely understand all the arguments but because the vast majority of scientists who sorta understand are not only saying it but backing their arguments with evidence.
 
#7
The Earth warms and cools in cycles of thousands of years, perhaps over the last 2 - 300 years we have added to the warming of the earth, who really knows, as even in the scientific communities they are split!

So why does government let new homes be built on flood plains?

Why have this bunch of half wits not done more about a fully intergrated public transport system that was promised at the start of the new labour regieme?

Why are the energy companies putting their bills up by two or three times the rate of inflation?

Why do WE let them?
 
#8
Damn, I have a reply to you, peturbed. But is it worth it considering that this thread is being hijacked by a mong who sells shoes and, therefore, that the thread should perhaps be shut down? This is a debate worth having and it's sadly lacking in media land and in the world of politics.

Any chance the MODs could delete the parasitic shoe seller's post and not the entire thread?
 
#9
hong_kong_fuey said:
Damn, I have a reply to you, peturbed. But is it worth it considering that this thread is being hijacked by a mong who sells shoes and, therefore, that the thread should perhaps be shut down? This is a debate worth having and it's sadly lacking in media land and in the world of politics.

Any chance the MODs could delete the parasitic shoe seller's post
and not the entire thread?
Include my reply to the spammer as well please should this happen.

Reply please h-k-f, the thread is not ruined yet.
 
#10
The climate change lobby tends to overlook the argument that CO2 a far worse greenhouse gas than water vapour (produced by planes, cars and Gordon Brown), and also the fact that we are coming out of an Ice Age.
Another excuse for tax, I fear.
 
#11
Firstly, I'm not a scientist and nor am I an expert in climate change. Secondly, I'd prefer to be wrong in my scepticism of the line promoted by bodies such as the IPCC. If they are right then this could be a positive thing, since there may be measures we could take to reduce the impact of global warming and thus avert ecological disaster.

However, my scepticism stems from historical examples of scientists predicting inevitable ecological doom. I remember sitting in front of the TV in the 1970s, aghast at the 'likelihood' of us facing an impending Ice Age. Furthermore, what is nowadays purported to be 'science' is actually full of misleading data and irrational methods. Take, for instance, the model that the current climate change proposition is based on. It's been shown that this complex model has been manipulated, in that its creators failed to include 70 years of history (known as the 'Little Ice Age) into the model. Had they done so then the conclusion they would have reached would have been very different. Furthermore, and I don't have the data to hand, something like only 5 per cent of greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Studies of the troposphere have shown that 95 per cent of the gas is actually water vapour. This fact is not included in the IPCC study. And again, the climate change lobby fails to consider the increase in temperature of the surface of the sun in its study.

The IPCC is a UN body and is, therefore, a conglomerate of world governments. It is, as such, a political organisation and prone to propaganda in order to achieve its objectives. The so called 2500 'scientists' that comprise this body are, in fact, not all scientists. Some are bureaucrats and government analysts -- and not part of independent academic faculties or independent scientific establishments. Furthermore, a number of the scientists included in the list of the 2500 have had their names included against their consent. That is, many scientists disagreed with the conclusion of the IPCC study and tried to distance themselves from its findings. However, the UN chose to include their names and titles in the report, against their wishes.

One must also consider that the exponents of man-made climate change tend to have received funding from the UN or governmental bodies. Indeed, I've spoken to scientists who have complained that statutory funding is only available to those organisations that promote the man-made thesis. Many great scientific bodies are threatened with closure/downsizing because they cannot get funding from the government because they wish to examine more rationally the link between CO2 and global warming. They are being silenced by the holders of the purse strings. This takes us back to the idea that governments are using a false conclusion based on a flawed model in order to achieve their own objectives.

I seem to remember an interesting take on the climate change issue in a contentious documentary on Channel 4. I've checked and its on YouTube:

YouTube

However, I hope to be wrong and that we can do something to reverse what possibly could be an impending catastrophe.

Edited for mong spelling.
 
#12
hong_kong_fuey said:
Firstly, I'm not a scientist and nor am I an expert in climate change. Secondly, I'd prefer to be wrong in my scepticism of the line promoted by bodies such as the IPCC. If they are right then this could be a positive thing, since there may be measures we could take to reduce the impact of global warming and thus avert ecological disaster...
Snipped by me but replying to the whole post in general

Once science is hijacked in the way you describe it stops being science. You hilighted how this is being done by the global warming claimers. It is also being done by the warming deniers and the GWB administration is in it.

Having said that the general consensus among scientists is that mans activity is making our planet less habitable for life. The thing is that life has evolved over billions of years slowly changing conditions on Earth and we are adapted to that. We have no other planet to live on and should care for it better.

Global warming is not the only problem we face. Deforestation, salinisation, depletion of other species, soil loss, extinctions...(the list is long) are other ways we are destroying what we have. Resources are finite and we are consuming too much.

Burning fossil fuel is releasing stuff back into the atmosphere that was removed from it before mamals evolved. The atmosphere was different back then and we are unlikely to find it a pleasent experience if we put too much back that was removed. Another statsic that the deniers like to use is that man-made releases are a small % of total emisions such as those that cows give. That fact is misleading as emisions from living creatures are of stuff that they have also removed in the first place.

The carbon etc in coal and oil was removed from the atmosphere by long dead life and then trapped in the Earths crust. We are putting that back. Now I am not saying we should stop using fossil fuels as society would collapse if we did that, but there are damned good arguments for investing in research and technology to minimise any damage we are doing.

Could not view your link as I am posting from work.
 
#13
Perturbed said:
Once science is hijacked in the way you describe it stops being science. You hilighted how this is being done by the global warming claimers. It is also being done by the warming deniers and the GWB administration is in it.

Having said that the general consensus among scientists is that mans activity is making our planet less habitable for life. The thing is that life has evolved over billions of years slowly changing conditions on Earth and we are adapted to that. We have no other planet to live on and should care for it better.

Global warming is not the only problem we face. Deforestation, salinisation, depletion of other species, soil loss, extinctions...(the list is long) are other ways we are destroying what we have. Resources are finite and we are consuming too much.

Burning fossil fuel is releasing stuff back into the atmosphere that was removed from it before mamals evolved. The atmosphere was different back then and we are unlikely to find it a pleasent experience if we put too much back that was removed. Another statsic that the deniers like to use is that man-made releases are a small % of total emisions such as those that cows give. That fact is misleading as emisions from living creatures are of stuff that they have also removed in the first place.

The carbon etc in coal and oil was removed from the atmosphere by long dead life and then trapped in the Earths crust. We are putting that back. Now I am not saying we should stop using fossil fuels as society would collapse if we did that, but there are damned good arguments for investing in research and technology to minimise any damage we are doing.

Could not view your link as I am posting from work.
In relation to your point about science ceasing to be science, with regard to global warming, both sides of the debate seem to be engaged in misinformation and skullduggery. It's seemingly impossible for us to get a totally objective -- that is unbiased and honest -- account of what's going on.

I agree with your assertion that humanity is making the planet less habitable. I'm very concerned about deforestation (the forests are, after all, the lungs of the Earth), atmospheric and water pollution and the extinction of species. Furthermore, the issue of water supplies will soon be at the front of our consciousness. There will be war over water. Forget oil, we all know what the most precious commodity is. In my view, a great deal of the issue between Israel and its neighbours is actually over the control of the scarce water supplies in that part of the world. And, of course, the poor Africans will be some of the first to be affected if and when the water crisis materialises. Having said that, desalination plants are an option. However, ironically, this technology would most likely be opposed by the climate change lobby, as the process of desalination requires vast amounts of energy. It also costs a great deal of money to develop.

There's just too many people in the world, and we know how nature deals with a species when it becomes parasitic and virus like.
 
#14
[There's just too many people in the world, and we know how nature deals with a species when it becomes parasitic and virus like.[/quote]

Probably why we'll scorch the earth by our own hand ( As nature taught us to do) and millions of years from now the evolution process will start all over again although the fossil fuel that burns then will be us.

Seriously, what we are doing to the planet will eventually bight us in the bum but I can't help but agree with original post in that the situation is more one of 'convenience' for those who might benifit. This government is, for example raking in billions from various taxes that are supposed to dampen our thirst for energy. No less than Saddam was a convenience for obtaining oil fields and Afghanistan for wanting to run run gas pipes through it. If Saddam was the real reason why is Robert Mugabe (Spelling?) still in power?
 
#15
hong_kong_fuey said:
In relation to your point about science ceasing to be science, with regard to global warming, both sides of the debate seem to be engaged in misinformation and skullduggery. It's seemingly impossible for us to get a totally objective -- that is unbiased and honest -- account of what's going on.

I agree with your assertion that humanity is making the planet less habitable. I'm very concerned about deforestation (the forests are, after all, the lungs of the Earth), atmospheric and water pollution and the extinction of species. Furthermore, the issue of water supplies will soon be at the front of our consciousness. There will be war over water. Forget oil, we all know what the most precious commodity is. In my view, a great deal of the issue between Israel and its neighbours is actually over the control of the scarce water supplies in that part of the world. And, of course, the poor Africans will be some of the first to be affected if and when the water crisis materialises. Having said that, desalination plants are an option. However, ironically, this technology would most likely be opposed by the climate change lobby, as the process of desalination requires vast amounts of energy. It also costs a great deal of money to develop.

There's just too many people in the world, and we know how nature deals with a species when it becomes parasitic and virus like.
Nothing there I strongly disagree with.

Home now and seen the link. I have watched that film before and believe that saw it torn to pieces on a pro-science site as propaganda.

EDIT to add: Have you read "Jared Diamond's" book Collapse?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0670033375/?tag=armrumser-20
 
#16
Adam(KOS) said:
[There's just too many people in the world, and we know how nature deals with a species when it becomes parasitic and virus like.
Probably why we'll scorch the earth by our own hand ( As nature taught us to do) and millions of years from now the evolution process will start all over again although the fossil fuel that burns then will be us.

Seriously, what we are doing to the planet will eventually bight us in the bum but I can't help but agree with original post in that the situation is more one of 'convenience' for those who might benifit. This government is, for example raking in billions from various taxes that are supposed to dampen our thirst for energy...

[/quote]Snipped by me in an attempt to avoid derailment.

The man made global warning argument started as pure science. Yes it is true that the planet has naturally gone through hot/warm cycles. Lots of other things regarding global warming are also true. But mankind is adding to it.

Since the argument was originally made all sorts of both pro and anti people have jumped either on the pro the respective bandwagons. That is the parts that are not science and the reason they are not science is because they are starting with a conclusion and altering/choosing the evidence to fit (a tad like religious fundamentalism or some politics).

If you are really interested it is possible to get to the real science via the web but it aint easy as the issue has become politicised.
 
#17
Perturbed said:
Nothing there I strongly disagree with.

Home now and seen the link. I have watched that film before and believe that saw it torn to pieces on a pro-science site as propaganda.
I, too, heard some objections to the documentary but I wouldn't say that it was torn to pieces. In fact, the only people criticising it, if I remember correctly, were the climate change lobby (in particular through the Independent). However, I spoke to several scientists after the programme was aired (though not all climatologists) and most said that the objections made by the climate change lobby lacked veracity. Also, the objections didn't last long. In rational science all assertions and objections are taken to their logical conclusions. In this case this never happened. It was kind of forgotten about and buried by the climate change movement.

Some of the commentators in the documentary are the creme de la creme of the scientific world, that can't be denied. However, I remember one objection surrounded the idea that some of the comments made in the documentary were taken out of context -- where have we seen that before in British documentaries? Again, who the feck do we believe?

Do you have a link to the 'pro-science' site you mention? I'd be interested in taking a look.
 
#18
hong_kong_fuey said:
Perturbed said:
Nothing there I strongly disagree with.

Home now and seen the link. I have watched that film before and believe that saw it torn to pieces on a pro-science site as propaganda.
I, too, heard some objections to the documentary but I wouldn't say that it was torn to pieces. In fact, the only people criticising it, if I remember correctly, were the climate change lobby (in particular through the Independent). However, I spoke to several scientists after the programme was aired (though not all climatologists) and most said that the objections made by the climate change lobby lacked veracity. Also, the objections didn't last long. In rational science all assertions and objections are taken to their logical conclusions. In this case this never happened. It was kind of forgotten about and buried by the climate change movement.

Some of the commentators in the documentary are the creme de la creme of the scientific world, that can't be denied. However, I remember one objection surrounded the idea that some of the comments made in the documentary were taken out of context -- where have we seen that before in British documentaries? Again, who the feck do we believe?

Do you have a link to the 'pro-science' site you mention? I'd be interested in taking a look.
Try the one below. Ask your question but expect strong reactions. They are used to getting vested interested questions from science deniers and have become a tad sensitive to say the least.

Having said that, if you follow the links they will provide and show understanding it is possible to earn enough respect to get decent replies. They will eventually give you evidence and decent explanations but probably not immediately.

The majority of posters there are trying to defend science from the attack from the religiously motivated right wing (Christian) evolution deniers.

They do tend to argue frighteningly well though. Stick with it and you will see.


http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47c98f8b0d09a6f2;act=SF;f=14

The reason I chose this one is that actual scientists (and lots of others) post on it. It is a tad like a scientific version of arrse.
 
#20
hong_kong_fuey said:
Cheers Perturbed. I'll have a butchers and try to slowly and respectfully build a rapport with the members of the site.
Good. But believe it or not (and you will believe it if you persist there) they are actually harder than this site when evidence is demanded/requested.

Having said that, it is fun if you contribute and learn.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
ABF9 OTC and ACF 3
Bad CO RLC 6
Bad CO Gunners 29

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top