Global Warming/Climate Change, the Science.

Discussion in 'The Science Forum' started by Ord_Sgt, Feb 4, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    OK to not drag the other thread off topic I've opened this one.

    Theres so much so called science quoted about this phenomena that I thought I'd put this up. Its a bit long I know but please try and read it all then think about it. Then lets start flinging the scientific papers around.

  2. Iheard a professor of meteorology (can't remember which University) on Radio 4 a while ago explaining that the climate always changes and that the last time the world experienced similar climate/temperatures as we are today was in the mid-18th Centaury when there was no "global warming" to blame. He went on to say that the main driver of climate change was the Sun's activity. In essence pollution CO2 etc are not the cause of climate change, but that they probably don't help.
  3. In addition, there is a strong argument that CO2 levels rise as a direct result of warming. The higher the temperature the less CO2 remains dissolved in sea water. The average global temperature has always fluctuated - often widely without any impact from a largely irrelevant human population.

    If aviation accounts for about 2% of green house gas emmissions - how about takling the other 98% before ruining my business and holidays?

    I can fully understand why many British politicians are a bit wary about eugenics. I think I know where most of us would start the cull to improve the gene pool.
  4. Ord_Sgt's quote is from Crichton's 'State of fear'. A novel.
  5. Anyone else reminded of the current belief that the worker bees (ie those that contribute to society) are not producing kids as fast as the Dole claiming bees? I think the current thinking was that one set had kids at 30 ish, and only two or three. Where as the other set had kids in their early 20s, and knocked out 4 -5... on average.

  6. As I said in the other thread... please go and read Real Climate.

    It can be hard going at times (I'm no expert, but climate change influences my work so I have to be at least aware of the subject), but these lads are actually working on the subject (unlike Crichton who is a novelist FFS!) and back their comments up with reference to published science.

    Note the contrast with "some bloke said on the radio/down the pub/in the Sunday Times" as is usually trotted out in debates like this.
  7. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Yes you are quite right but you fail to mention that he backs up his arguments with research. Read the appendix and not the book. That never the less does not change what is there. Eugenics took the world of science exactly as described.

    I am not quoting anything from the novel, but the supporting scientific evidence. Try opening your mind not following blind dogma.

    Have you read his speech about comparing enviromentalism to religion? Very revealing.
  8. and I'm sure he will get a rousing reception here

    they will probably pay him $10K to come....
  9. Backs his arguments up with research? Yes - just the research is carefully selected to make his point, and bears no relation to what respected scientists are coming out with. Why should I open my mind to ranting loonies with agendas? That makes you insane, not open minded. Crichton's books sell loads because of the controversy surrounding him - controversy he creates.

    If you want mind opening gear stick to Whyohwhy's documents from the Royal Society linked above.
  10. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    The problem with your argument is that you start from the position that anybody not an enviromentalist scientist has no valid argument.

    We are all open to persuasion on this subject but blindly telling us we are simply wrong is nothing more than fundamentalism. Think about it.

    I'm reading through your link as we speak but you need to argue with facts about your case. Dismissing another point of view because it was put by someone who writes novels doesn't help your case. Debunk his research not dismiss him in the haughty voice of someone who knows best.
  11. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    But that is precisely what you are doing. Give me evidence not opinion.
  12. I'd say the Royal Society's writings could be classed as evidence. And Crichton's could be classed as novels.
  13. I'm blindly telling you Crichton's wrong. Because I'm a clueless twat rather than a scientist. But if you're bright enough to grasp what the scientists waffle on about, you'll find there are plenty out there debunking Crichton point by point. Even though they have rather more important things to be doing with their time these days.
  14. Let me get this right - you are saying that the Royal Soc are "ranting loonies with agendas?" :roll: