# Another Heated Debate - Climate Change, Reality Or Propaganda?



## Snelly (Nov 28, 2012)

I have just read an interesting book called Watermelons by James Dellingpole and whilst I am not in full agreement with everything he says, broadly speaking, I think he is right.  It is worth a read for anyone that has an interest in climate change and the effect that this movement has on our lives.    Essentially, the book's aim is to prove the following to be correct rather than something that needs to be imagined:

*Imagine if everything you knew about the environment was wrong.*   Imagine that global warming was something to be desired, not feared. Imagine that organic food, sustainability, biofuels and the WWF were far more harmful to the world and its inhabitants than GM food, industry, oil and ExxonMobil.
Imagine if it didnâ€™t matter one jot how big your carbon footprint was and you could go out and buy as many Hummers as you liked or accumulate as many air miles as you wanted without the need to feel the slightest sliver of guilt about the environmental damage you were causing.
Imagine if carbon dioxide were our friend.   Imagine if the worldâ€™s biggest mass murderer was a woman who campaigned against chemicals and pesticides, and the worldâ€™s biggest savior was the man who saved hundreds of millions from hunger with mutant crops and modern agricultural technologies.

Imagine if for a fraction of the money weâ€™re spending to â€œcombat climate changeâ€ we could ensure that no child went hungry or was malnourished, and that everyone in the world had access to clean drinking water. Imagine that "overpopulationâ€ was an illusory problem. Imagine that fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherishâ€”not a curse. Imagine if we could stop worrying about â€œscarce resources.â€ Imagine if the polar bears, glaciers, coral reefs, rain forests, Pacific islands, and the polar ice caps were all doing just fine. 

Imagine if economic growth, far from destroying the world, made it cleaner, healthier, happierâ€”and with more open spaces.


My view, having researched the subject and read a couple of books including this one, is that climate change as a movement now exists because there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of it.   Not much more than that. 

The whole issue of climate change and man damaging the planet is flimsy science at best and a front for the left to drive social change through a back door. 

I am in short, a climate change denier. 

What do you all think?  Any yoghurt knitters out there that think we are destroying our lovely planet and are doomed to a weather based armageddon?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2012)

The climate will always change and earth and its living things will always adapt.
London survived the 17th century. Salmon in the Thames now instead of bleach, oil and sewage.


----------



## Rooter (Nov 28, 2012)

Its amazing how media can spin anything. look back to 1999 when i started work in IT, people literally made millions of pounds (not me!) from preventing "the millennium bug". If the big papers write about it and the TV and radio talk about it, it must be true! The world was going to end and your kettle was going to come to life when the computers clocks hit from 99 to 00 or whatever it was... 

Not sure if i agree with the concept that climate change isnt happening, however i am not very well versed on the latest research etc, so i will keep an open mind.


----------



## MadAdey (Nov 28, 2012)

Climate change is happening...... if it didn't we would still be in the Ice Age, so it is a natural occurance not something that we are creating. We may have done some damage to the planet I do not deny that. But really are we causing what is happening at the minute? 

I am of the opinion that it is a load of old.................. sorry can't use that word cause the mods will be after me...


----------



## CMAC (Nov 28, 2012)

Snelly said:



			I have just read an interesting book called Watermelons by James Dellingpole
		
Click to expand...

well thats a coincidence :thup:

I just read - well when I say read I mean flicked through - my well thumbed copy of Watermelons monthly, the July edition with a readers wives section


----------



## cookelad (Nov 28, 2012)

Climate change is a force of nature its the planet going through it life cycle - It's a great excuse to tax the proles for things we need and want though isn't it! 

We're still coming out of the last ice age the poles didn't freeze over the day the Earth formed I don't think that happened till about 3 million years ago (happy to be corrected on the exact date!)


----------



## Piece (Nov 28, 2012)

My view is that man-made climate change contributes <1% of the actual climate change driven by solar-Earth interaction.


----------



## brendy (Nov 28, 2012)

I think politicians love jumping on the band wagon but to me regarding the whole situation, there is two major subjects.
Climate change, what is seemingly happening naturally.
Natural resources, being consumed at an enormous rate.

Climate change doesnt bother me one iota. Natural resources being used up with no real alternatives really does leave earths population (in a few generations time) up the Lagan without a paddle. I am no tree hugger (certainly if car choice is anything to use as a yardstick) but it does bother me that some countries are using more than their fair share of oil etc. In an ideal world resources should be shared not fought over, that isnt ever going to happen though. I really wonder how my daughters children and their children again are going to fare, I really do. Perhaps stoneage man had it easy!


----------



## JustOne (Nov 28, 2012)

Frankly I'm not that bothered... I think Israel, Syria, Afganistan etc are far more pressing issues for mankind.

Our planet is run for greed (economics), not for mankind.


----------



## Shaunmg (Nov 28, 2012)

Personally I havenâ€™t a clue. So when I havenâ€™t a clue on something. I think itâ€™s best to listen to the experts and take the safe option. It seems to me the vast majority of the experts, scientists that is, say itâ€™s a man made problem. A minority view is that it isnâ€™t or at best inconclusive

Is it wise to accept the minority view? I think not. Unless that is; the minority says something is harmful. Take the case of the MMR scare for example. Most medical advice was it was a good thing with no risk. A tiny minority said it could possibly be harmful. Yet thousand of mothers took the safe option, just in case the minority might happen to be right. They were not prepared to gamble with their babies when opinions were divided, even if a minority view, they took the safe option

Yet here we have the illogical view that we should ignore the advice of the main body of environmental science and evidence before us, and accept the sceptic argument that itâ€™s not a problem

Iâ€™m afraid itâ€™s a no brainer for me; we should assume the majority are right and not gamble the planet, just in case the majority might happen to be right after all. 

it will be too late if we ignore it and say in the future, Ah! yes they were right after all, we should not have listened to the sceptic conspiracy theorists, they got it wrong. Take the safe option, if itâ€™s wrong, what harm done?


----------



## Andy (Nov 28, 2012)

Ask the Polarbears how they are coping with the ice disappearing?

To deny nothing is changing is just ignorant.


----------



## cookelad (Nov 28, 2012)

Andy said:



			Ask the Polarbears how they are coping with the ice disappearing?

To deny nothing is changing is just ignorant.
		
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether or not the ice caps are melting, the question is why, is it us humans or is it part of the Earth's cycle?

At least thats the way I've read it!


----------



## Snelly (Nov 28, 2012)

Andy said:



			Ask the Polarbears how they are coping with the ice disappearing?

To deny nothing is changing is just ignorant.
		
Click to expand...

You have obviously researched this a great deal.

I love the fact that you assume I am ignorant when the last 4 books I have read are on this subject from varying perspectives.  What are your credentials relative to your statement about polar bears?   In fact, polar bears are coping perfectly well, despite what the BBC may say.


----------



## Snelly (Nov 28, 2012)

cookelad said:



			The question isn't whether or not the ice caps are melting, the question is why, is it us humans or is it part of the Earth's cycle?

At least thats the way I've read it!
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, no question that the climate is changing.  None at all.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 28, 2012)

Personally I believe we are 'dumping' on our planet BIG TIME... We are here only for a very short time so we should respect what we have... But we don't ...


----------



## JustOne (Nov 28, 2012)

Andy said:



			Ask the Polarbears how they are coping with the ice disappearing?

To deny nothing is changing is just ignorant.
		
Click to expand...

Is it not feasible that the polar bears coped perfectly well the last time this happened? However this time mankind is in their way as we've spread to practically every inhabitable surface and likely shoot anything that moves.

I wonder if the polar bears are coping with the depleted fish stock?


----------



## coolhand (Nov 28, 2012)

A couple of questions to help with the debate (out of ignorance not as leadign questions):

Is the green house effect of Carbon Dioxide proven?

Is more carbon dioxide produced now in an industrial world than was produced by all the vegittaion and farting Dino's in the past?


----------



## bladeplayer (Nov 28, 2012)

No expert or have no  insight into it , and i believe alot of it is natrual & would happen no matter what , 

i do however believe there is a natrual balance to the eco system  & i also  believe pulling oil & gas out of the ground cutting down rain forrests etc at the rate we are doing so  upsets this natrual balance , this in turn will cause its own problems .. 

I think its changing & i believe alot of it is of mans making , what i could never understand tho was how cfc's  in hairsparay etc damaged the ozone layer but planes , jets & rockets burning tons of fuel up there didint ..  

Just an opinion tho , no science or figures to back any of it up


----------



## tarmac (Nov 28, 2012)

didnt i read somwhere lately that the earths(average) temperature hasnt risen in  something like the last 15years,so global warming isnt happening.climate change on the other hand is a different kettle of fish.there deffinately seems to be a change the last few years toward windier and wetter weather but in my view its a percieved change.but even if it is how much is man made and how much is just natural weather pattern?
as been said before a lot of money to be made in pedaling views to the rite politician!!
i remember strangely enough,in the late seventies when i was in primary school we were being taught that the earth was moveing into the next ice-age!!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 28, 2012)

I think its down to all the methane that Imurg produces :rofl:


The Earths climate moves in cycles, this is another part of the cycle, Im sure that we humans have an impact
although how we can quantify that illudes me

We had Ice ages and periods of global warming before the industrial revolution

Fragger


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 28, 2012)

I do find it rather ironic that the melting of the ice-cap, perhaps caused by excessive use of fossil fuels, is opening up further fields of fossil fuels!

Here's a serious p-take on greed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGbrCJfgH8s&feature=related


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 28, 2012)

i have always wondered what  effect mining trillion tons of coal, over hundreds of years and  removing trillions of barrels of  oil and gas from under our feet and burning it . it must have some effect just by making the big ball  lighter, i know it made a difference when they did it with the old golf ball. not too  scientific but there you go


----------



## JustOne (Nov 28, 2012)

I seem to recall hearing something when Mt St Helens erupted that it put more crap into the atmosphere than mankind could do in 100yrs, forget Iceland and countless other eruptions since.

I stand to be corrected on that though but it appears the Earth is quite proficient at ruining itself, as well as healing.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2012)

Leading Weather Scientists do not all agree that CO2 emissions are warming the earths temperature.

The Earths temperature has not warmed in the last 15 years

According to some sources Polar ice is increasing in some places.

50K years ago the polar ice expanded to cover most of the UK.   35K years ago it retreated much to it's current position. Why did it??  Was it due to increased CO2 emissions from Neanderthals and Mammoths farting?  They weren't generating Electricty with coal power stations or buzzing around in BMW's.

Why was 'Global Warming' changed to 'Climate Change'

What has happened to our climate that has not happened before time and time again. In my lifetime it's been Hotter, Colder, Drier, Wetter, Windier and Whiter than we have experienced in the last 20 years.

I have met a lot of very stupid people in my life that have very good academic qualifications.


----------



## PIng (Nov 28, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I seem to recall hearing something when Mt St Helens erupted that it put more crap into the atmosphere than mankind could do in 100yrs, forget Iceland and countless other eruptions since.

I stand to be corrected on that though but it appears the Earth is quite proficient at ruining itself, as well as healing.
		
Click to expand...

And yet, I can apparently counteract this pollution by switching to one of those crappy low energy light bulbs! Made in a Chinese factory burning coal!


----------



## walshawwhippet (Nov 28, 2012)

I can't remain silent on this.
What qualifies me to give my views-degree in earth science.
Is climate change part of the earths natural cycles? Yes.
Is man excellerating these changes? Yes.

Now to clear up a few mis-conceptions:
There is evidence the earth has had periods of glaciation for more than 2 billion yrs. 
Plants don't produce co2, they cosume it and produce oxygen as a waste product (photosynthesis)
Dinos didn't produce co2 but methane when farting, but probably much less than the worlds domesticated herds to-day.

Is there more co2 to-day than in the past ? Yes as far as the available evidence tells us(ice cores going back 650k yrs).In all that time co2 never rose above 300 parts per million, that was untill 1950 when we first broke this barrier. Since then levels have continued to rise to our present level of c380 parts per million. Coincedence ? Maybe, but when you review the evidence the general consensus amongst the worlds leading climatologists(not industrialists, or scientists employed by industrialists), is that man is part of the problem. You can't chop down rainforests that consume co2,& burn fossil fuels that release co2 without there being consequencies.
So if you believe that co2 is a greenhouse gas(Venus, hottest planet in solar system), and if you accept that man is likely responsible for the unprecedented levels of co2 in the atmosphere, then the only logical conclusion is that climate change is real and we aint helping. 
Of course this is just my view, over views are available.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 28, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I seem to recall hearing something when Mt St Helens erupted that it put more crap into the atmosphere than mankind could do in 100yrs, forget Iceland and countless other eruptions since.

I stand to be corrected on that though but it appears the Earth is quite proficient at ruining itself, as well as healing.
		
Click to expand...

Biggest problem I see is that we are certainly destroying the major 'healer' (forests) at an incredible rate! Ingenuity, and greed, will find ways around the fossil fuel issue. It's the (natural) CO2-->O2 process that needs to be addressed imo.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 28, 2012)

PIng said:



			And yet, I can apparently counteract this pollution by switching to one of those crappy low energy light bulbs! Made in a Chinese factory burning coal!
		
Click to expand...

Yep. That's complete tokenistic b-s! As is the ridiculous current UK 'recycling' arrangements. I believe both currently cost more in resources than what they 'save'. However, there has to be a start somewhere - remember 'mobile' phones?


----------



## Val (Nov 28, 2012)

The climate is changing but it ain't our fault, we are however to blame for the fallout from floods. If houses are going to built on or near flood zones then the correct protection has to be in place or as was suggested on another thread more man made reservoirs to collect and hold water.

The water table is higher now and will only get higher unless something is done.

Over to you our government.


----------



## Andy (Nov 28, 2012)

cookelad said:



			The question isn't whether or not the ice caps are melting, the question is why, is it us humans or is it part of the Earth's cycle?

At least thats the way I've read it!
		
Click to expand...

Another Heated Debate - Climate Change, Reality Or Propaganda?

Ice disappearing is reality if from what I see on tv.


----------



## Andy808 (Nov 28, 2012)

If we are to blame for global warming can I just ask why is Mars warming at the same rate as earth?
Haven't noticed too many fossil fueled vehicles up there!


----------



## Andy (Nov 28, 2012)

Snelly said:



			You have obviously researched this a great deal.

I love the fact that you assume I am ignorant when the last 4 books I have read are on this subject from varying perspectives.  What are your credentials relative to your statement about polar bears?   In fact, polar bears are coping perfectly well, despite what the BBC may say.
		
Click to expand...

Never assume Snelly,  it makes an ass out of you and me!


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			I can't remain silent on this.
What qualifies me to give my views-degree in earth science.
Is climate change part of the earths natural cycles? Yes.
Is man excellerating these changes? Yes.

Now to clear up a few mis-conceptions:
There is evidence the earth has had periods of glaciation for more than 2 billion yrs. 
Plants don't produce co2, they cosume it and produce oxygen as a waste product (photosynthesis)
Dinos didn't produce co2 but methane when farting, but probably much less than the worlds domesticated herds to-day.

Is there more co2 to-day than in the past ? Yes as far as the available evidence tells us(ice cores going back 650k yrs).In all that time co2 never rose above 300 parts per million, that was untill 1950 when we first broke this barrier. Since then levels have continued to rise to our present level of c380 parts per million. Coincedence ? Maybe, but when you review the evidence the general consensus amongst the worlds leading climatologists(not industrialists, or scientists employed by industrialists), is that man is part of the problem. You can't chop down rainforests that consume co2,& burn fossil fuels that release co2 without there being consequencies.
So if you believe that co2 is a greenhouse gas(Venus, hottest planet in solar system), and if you accept that man is likely responsible for the unprecedented levels of co2 in the atmosphere, then the only logical conclusion is that climate change is real and we aint helping. 
Of course this is just my view, over views are available.
		
Click to expand...

Is this mainly opinion based?


----------



## Andy (Nov 28, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Is it not feasible that the polar bears coped perfectly well the last time this happened? However this time mankind is in their way as we've spread to practically every inhabitable surface and likely shoot anything that moves.

I wonder if the polar bears are coping with the depleted fish stock?
		
Click to expand...

Did it happen to the same extent last time? The fact they are still here would suggest they did but for how long at the current rate of ice disappearing?

Think they would be more concerned wIth depleted seal stocks.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 28, 2012)

Valentino said:



			The climate is changing but it ain't our fault, we are however to blame for the fallout from floods. If houses are going to built on or near flood zones then the correct protection has to be in place or as was suggested on another thread more man made reservoirs to collect and hold water.

The water table is higher now and will only get higher unless something is done.

Over to you our government.
		
Click to expand...



Thank goodness for that, I thought he was going to blame the Mods for a minute there :rofl:

Fragger


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2012)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Thank goodness for that, I thought he was going to blame the Mods for a minute there :rofl:

Fragger
		
Click to expand...


If he's not then I am!


----------



## Val (Nov 28, 2012)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Thank goodness for that, I thought he was going to blame the Mods for a minute there :rofl:

Fragger
		
Click to expand...

You have the wrong impression of me, I wouldn't blame all the Mods just Chris and Brendy


----------



## chris661 (Nov 28, 2012)

Valentino said:



			You have the wrong impression of me, I wouldn't blame all the Mods just Chris and Brendy 

Click to expand...


----------



## Val (Nov 28, 2012)

chris661 said:



 

Click to expand...

:rofl:


----------



## thecraw (Nov 28, 2012)

Snelly said:



			I have just read an interesting book called Watermelons by James Dellingpole and whilst I am not in full agreement with everything he says, broadly speaking, I think he is right.  It is worth a read for anyone that has an interest in climate change and the effect that this movement has on our lives.    Essentially, the book's aim is to prove the following to be correct rather than something that needs to be imagined:

*Imagine if everything you knew about the environment was wrong.*   Imagine that global warming was something to be desired, not feared. Imagine that organic food, sustainability, biofuels and the WWF were far more harmful to the world and its inhabitants than GM food, industry, oil and ExxonMobil.
Imagine if it didnâ€™t matter one jot how big your carbon footprint was and you could go out and buy as many Hummers as you liked or accumulate as many air miles as you wanted without the need to feel the slightest sliver of guilt about the environmental damage you were causing.
Imagine if carbon dioxide were our friend.   Imagine if the worldâ€™s biggest mass murderer was a woman who campaigned against chemicals and pesticides, and the worldâ€™s biggest savior was the man who saved hundreds of millions from hunger with mutant crops and modern agricultural technologies.

Imagine if for a fraction of the money weâ€™re spending to â€œcombat climate changeâ€ we could ensure that no child went hungry or was malnourished, and that everyone in the world had access to clean drinking water. Imagine that "overpopulationâ€ was an illusory problem. Imagine that fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherishâ€”not a curse. Imagine if we could stop worrying about â€œscarce resources.â€ Imagine if the polar bears, glaciers, coral reefs, rain forests, Pacific islands, and the polar ice caps were all doing just fine. 

Imagine if economic growth, far from destroying the world, made it cleaner, healthier, happierâ€”and with more open spaces.


My view, having researched the subject and read a couple of books including this one, is that climate change as a movement now exists because there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of it.   Not much more than that. 

The whole issue of climate change and man damaging the planet is flimsy science at best and a front for the left to drive social change through a back door. 

I am in short, a climate change denier. 

What do you all think?  Any yoghurt knitters out there that think we are destroying our lovely planet and are doomed to a weather based armageddon?
		
Click to expand...

Are you Jeremy Clarkson????


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 28, 2012)

Imagine there's no heaven


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2012)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Imagine there's no heaven
		
Click to expand...

OK, and?


----------



## MadAdey (Nov 29, 2012)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Imagine there's no heaven
		
Click to expand...

It's easy if you try......


----------



## USER1999 (Nov 29, 2012)

I know nothing about climate change etc. I do know that what ever they are doing to the parts of china that I visit can not be sustainable for ever. The pollution is insane. The use of resources ditto. Be it fuel, building materials, metals, what ever. If India and brazil are the same, the world is going to run out of some pretty basic resources quite quickly.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Nov 29, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Is this mainly opinion based?
		
Click to expand...

Hi SR,
To be honest yes it is my opinion, but its an opinion based on research and an enthusiasm for the subject stretching many years, an enthusiasm first tweeked whilst studying for me degree.
The rate our climate is changing is virtually unprecedented,if you take away super volcanoes, flood basalts and asteroid impacts, and you ask the question. If none of these are responsible for the rapid rate of change, what is present today that wasn't present in the past ? The one answer that smacks you in the face is the human race and our consumption of the earths resources.
The subject of climate change is frankly too large and complex a subject for a golf forum, there's far more to it than burning fossil fuels and the release of co2, in fact the real monkey in the room is the melting of the perma frost and the warming of the oceans that could release the billions of tonnes of methane hydrates present, a far more destructive greenhouse gas than co2. But thats at least a whole other thread 

If your interested SR then i've found a good web site which will corroborate  my co2 figures at least, and much more. I've tried to find one that most people would agree have no hidden agendas or axes to grind, so have a look at climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  .
If you have any specific questions ask away and i'll do me best :thup:..


----------



## JustOne (Nov 29, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			in fact the real monkey in the room is the melting of the perma frost and the warming of the oceans that could release the billions of tonnes of methane hydrates present, a far more destructive greenhouse gas than co2.
		
Click to expand...

I watched that program too :thup: ...and the one where they sank co2 to the bottom of the sea in 'ice rods'.


----------



## richart (Nov 29, 2012)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Imagine there's no heaven
		
Click to expand...




MadAdey said:



			It's easy if you try......
		
Click to expand...

No hell below us....


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 29, 2012)

richart said:



			No hell below us....
		
Click to expand...

Above us only.............Depleted Ozone layer

Have to fix that, doesnt rhyme very well


----------



## walshawwhippet (Nov 29, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I watched that program too :thup: ...and the one where they sank co2 to the bottom of the sea in 'ice rods'.
		
Click to expand...

There's also some good articles in nature magazine and on the usgs web site to name just two resourses. 
Sobering reading :mmm:.
Lets hope the large energy companies get it right when they get round to exploiting this source of energy


----------



## Pants (Nov 30, 2012)

One thing I can't get my head around is ....

We get a very hot/cold/wet day/week whatever and immediately we are told by the "experts" via the media that this was the hottest/coldest/wetist (sp) day/week whatever for (say)150 years.  

All those years ago, what did they blame that exceptional weather event on? 

And, how come it's taken those (say) 150 years of man made interference to the climate to get to the same level again?  

Whilst I accept that we are causing damage to the planet, I do believe that the climate is changing mainly due to natural causes.  It always has done and probably always will as our climate is governed predominately by the Sun.  

Great excuse though for the government to fleece us again and again.

Heard today that energy bills will rise again over the next few years to pay for more wind farms and the like.  Anyone know how much energy is used to make and install one wind generator compared to how much "free" energy it will produce over it's lifetime?

Rant over ......


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			Hi SR,
The rate our climate is changing is virtually unprecedented,if you take away super volcanoes, flood basalts and asteroid impacts, and you ask the question. If none of these are responsible for the rapid rate of change, what is present today that wasn't present in the past ?..
		
Click to expand...

I believe if you look through the climatic changes over the last thousand years or  so you will find there have been wide variations in temperature from Mini Ice Ages to very warm periods.   Many believe the Sun's activity cycles are attuned to these changes.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 30, 2012)

there is no disputing the ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate over the last 20 years, these are facts, however, they cannot state categorically WHY this is happening which leaves the wriggle room for all and any theories.


----------



## Tiger (Nov 30, 2012)

Shaunmg said:



It seems to me the vast majority of the experts, scientists that is, say itâ€™s a man made problem. A minority view is that it isnâ€™t or at best inconclusive. Is it wise to accept the minority view? I think not. Unless that is; the minority says something is harmful

Click to expand...

Interesting perspective Shaun but don't forget there was a time when the world's brightest minds thought the world was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. One of the greatest scientists of all time (Galileo) spent most of his life under house arrest because he allegedly criticised the Pope!


----------



## Shaunmg (Nov 30, 2012)

Tiger said:



			Interesting perspective Shaun but don't forget there was a time when the world's brightest minds thought the world was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. One of the greatest scientists of all time (Galileo) spent most of his life under house arrest because he allegedly criticised the Pope!
		
Click to expand...

I think science has come on a bit since the flat earth society and Galileo; it can be trusted a bit more today. The evidence in favour of manmade global warming is overwhelming. But there is a mass and powerful influence in the world, whose interest is to discredit and pour scorn on it. They are the fossil fuel barons of the oil, gas and coal multinational empires, whoâ€™s influence is all powerful

The nature of science has always been one of theory, based on probability and evidence and not always absolute proof. We have the evidence before us; I repeat point from my original post. Can we afford to gamble and ignore the weight of scientific opinion, in favour of a sceptical one? 

Your call planet


----------



## Snelly (Nov 30, 2012)

Shaunmg said:



I think science has come on a bit since the flat earth society and Galileo; it can be trusted a bit more today. The evidence in favour of manmade global warming is overwhelming. But there is a mass and powerful influence in the world, whose interest is to discredit and pour scorn on it. They are the fossil fuel barons of the oil, gas and coal multinational empires, whoâ€™s influence is all powerful

I 

The nature of science has always been one of theory, based on probability and evidence and not always absolute proof. We have the evidence before us; I repeat point from my original post. Can we afford to gamble and ignore the weight of scientific opinion, in favour of a sceptical one? 

Your call planet 

Click to expand...

I suggest you read Watermelons, the book I referenced in the first post.  I think you would find it interesting.


----------



## bladeplayer (Nov 30, 2012)

Tiger said:



			Interesting perspective Shaun but don't forget there was a time when the world's brightest minds thought the world was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. !
		
Click to expand...

So what to say in 50/70 years time the next generation wont  find out our current brightest minds were as  wrong about climate change as they were about their findings  ?


----------



## Shaunmg (Nov 30, 2012)

Snelly said:



			I suggest you read Watermelons, the book I referenced in the first post. I think you would find it interesting.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m not sure if will be rushing to Amazon to get the book. I have heard of it and its claims. The Author James Delingope is a well know rightwing columnist and novelist, Also a champion of Capitalist cause. So not surprising his defence of the oil barons hatred of environmentalists. I understand watermelons is derogatory term for them, Green on the outside but red in the middle 

This is the guy who thinks the BBC are a Marxist organisation and sees red under every bed. A brilliant and influential writer he may be, but is not an environmental scientist


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2012)

DarthVega said:



			there is no disputing the ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate over the last 20 years, these are facts, however, they cannot state categorically WHY this is happening which leaves the wriggle room for all and any theories.
		
Click to expand...

Antartica has actually grown in recent times.  The Ice in the North Pole has reduced in the Oceanic part but not over Greenland, it has increased in depth over the landed areas.    As the South Pole sits over a Continent it is not so affected by the change in Ocean  temperatures and has no effects from the likes of the Gulf Stream.

All this points to a rise in Ocean temperature, especially in the Northern hemisphere.   I dont believe the rise in sea temperature is proven to be a result of raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  I also believe statistics show that the Earths temperature has not warmed at all in the past 15 years.

The problem seems to be that a number of 'Experts' on climate dont seem to be able to agree on what is happening.  They seem to be cherry picking data to prop up their personal beliefs and opinions.   My own gut instinct tends to go against the prophets of Doom, they have scared us all witless so many times of late with false predictions of impending doom.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 30, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			The problem seems to be that a number of 'Experts' on climate dont seem to be able to agree on what is happening.  They seem to be cherry picking data to prop up their personal beliefs and opinions.   My own gut instinct tends to go against the prophets of Doom, they have scared us all witless so many times of late with false predictions of impending doom.
		
Click to expand...

Given that they can't get the weather forecast right, what do you expect! My instincts are that there is or will be a problem. The only way for those at the 'working' level to get anything done - by those at the 'strategy' level - is to make such a fuss about it that it cannot be ignored - because ignoring it or rejecting it as hippy-ish is what the vested interests do, and they have huge resources to market their 'views' (look how long it took to fight the Tobacco industry!). The fact that there is so much 'negative' evidence with little on the 'positive' side worries me. However, I certainly don't believe that this year's peculiar weather, or last year's, or any other recent 'peculiar' stuff, is down to 'climate change'! It's a much slower process than that.


----------



## JustOne (Nov 30, 2012)

I think that technology will save us over the next 20/30yrs regardless of what's happening.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 30, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I think that technology will save us over the next 20/30yrs regardless of what's happening.
		
Click to expand...

Now that really IS a leap of faith!:mmm:


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 30, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Antartica has actually grown in recent times.  The Ice in the North Pole has reduced in the Oceanic part but not over Greenland, it has increased in depth over the landed areas.
		
Click to expand...

Apparently incorrect!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483


----------



## williamalex1 (Nov 30, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I think that technology will save us over the next 20/30yrs regardless of what's happening.
		
Click to expand...

and a new god called technology is born .praise the tech


----------



## HughJars (Nov 30, 2012)

Of course "climate change" is a reality, it's always changed, and always will.

The question is, are all these measures we get from the governments of the world about anything other than back door taxes? That is an entirely different story.

Over the last 30 years we've been expected to believe we were about to enter the next ice age, then it was "global warming", and when that proved to be an incorrect model, we now have "change", because no matter whta happens, the scientists and tax gatherers will be right.

The biggest con in history.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2012)

HughJars said:



			Of course "climate change" is a reality, it's always changed, and always will.

The question is, are all these measures we get from the governments of the world about anything other than back door taxes? That is an entirely different story.

Over the last 30 years we've been expected to believe we were about to enter the next ice age, then it was "global warming", and when that proved to be an incorrect model, we now have "change", because no matter whta happens, the scientists and tax gatherers will be right.

The biggest con in history.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it's interesting how 'Global Warming' suddenly became 'Climate Change'


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 1, 2012)

Snelly said:



			I suggest you read Watermelons, the book I referenced in the first post.  I think you would find it interesting.
		
Click to expand...

A question for you Snelly.
What qualifications does the writer, broadcaster that is James Delingpole have that justifies him attacking the integrity, knowledge of some of the worlds leading climate scientists ?
Indeed in his own words he does'nt do science.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 1, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Antartica has actually grown in recent times.  The Ice in the North Pole has reduced in the Oceanic part but not over Greenland, it has increased in depth over the landed areas.    As the South Pole sits over a Continent it is not so affected by the change in Ocean  temperatures and has no effects from the likes of the Gulf Stream.

All this points to a rise in Ocean temperature, especially in the Northern hemisphere.   I dont believe the rise in sea temperature is proven to be a result of raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  I also believe statistics show that the Earths temperature has not warmed at all in the past 15 years.

The problem seems to be that a number of 'Experts' on climate dont seem to be able to agree on what is happening.  They seem to be cherry picking data to prop up their personal beliefs and opinions.   My own gut instinct tends to go against the prophets of Doom, they have scared us all witless so many times of late with false predictions of impending doom.
		
Click to expand...

This is the biggest load of tosh i've read in a long time.
I've mentioned in previous posts some excellent web sites and journals, written by people who actually know what they're on about. I suggest you read them.
The internet is a marvelous place but it allows any lunatic to print there own personal views. All i ask is you research the qualifications of said authors before believing what they write as fact.
Science is about debate and people will always have differing points of view, but without evidence it is meaning less. If the vast majority of the worlds leading climate scientists say something is wrong, the only rational thing to do is believe the evidence. 
Why would the whole global scientific community be involved in a conspiracy when as a people we can't even co-operate to ease global hunger, political repression or even trouble in the middle east?:rant:


----------



## Snelly (Dec 1, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			A question for you Snelly.
What qualifications does the writer, broadcaster that is James Delingpole have that justifies him attacking the integrity, knowledge of some of the worlds leading climate scientists ?
Indeed in his own words he does'nt do science.
		
Click to expand...

Read it and you'll find out chap.


----------



## Snelly (Dec 1, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			Apparently incorrect!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483

Click to expand...

I wouldn't believe the BBC environment department if they told me that I had a hole in my backside.  The whole organisation is institutionally socialist.


----------



## Snelly (Dec 1, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			This is the biggest load of tosh i've read in a long time.
I've mentioned in previous posts some excellent web sites and journals, written by people who actually know what they're on about. I suggest you read them.
The internet is a marvelous place but it allows any lunatic to print there own personal views. All i ask is you research the qualifications of said authors before believing what they write as fact.
Science is about debate and people will always have differing points of view, but without evidence it is meaning less. If the vast majority of the worlds leading climate scientists say something is wrong, the only rational thing to do is believe the evidence. 
Why would the whole global scientific community be involved in a conspiracy when as a people we can't even co-operate to ease global hunger, political repression or even trouble in the middle east?:rant:
		
Click to expand...

See my original post. It is not the whole scientific community. Just the ones that can get baubles and dollars from the climate change industry.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 1, 2012)

Snelly said:



			See my original post. It is not the whole scientific community. Just the ones that can get baubles and dollars from the climate change industry.
		
Click to expand...

As opposed to the ones who can get baubles and dollars from the fossil fuel and right wing lobbyists. It's a pointless argument anyway. No one is going to change their mind and people are only going to listen to arguments they already subscribe to. History will tell us who was right, and I hope for the sake of my kids that its the man made sceptics.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 1, 2012)

Snelly said:



			See my original post. It is not the whole scientific community. Just the ones that can get baubles and dollars from the climate change industry.
		
Click to expand...

To paraphrase someone you may have heard of Snelly(Sir Paul Nurse) lets talk about "consensus".
If, god forbid you are one day diagnosed to be suffering from cancer and the general consensus of the worlds leading oncologists is that this or that is the best regumine to achieve a favouable outcome. Do you (A) take their advice, trusting in their expertise, or (B) lie under a pyramid hoping for the best? After all, all scientist are left wing loonies intent on ruining my profit margins.
It may not be all the scientific community Snelly, but its certainly the major *CONSENSUS.

*For those interested search bbc horizon for paul nurse/james delingpole.
I believe mr delingpole complained to the bbc later for being "intellectually raped" by mr nurse. Interesting phrase "intellectually raped".

Mr Delingpole is an ultra right wing libitarian concervative with absolutly no scientific qualification of any kind, who has managed to find an audience of like minded right wingers who read the telegraph.
_"There is simply no evidence for a left wing conspiracy to over-tax, over regulate the populace to make us all poorer.Whereas there is an abundance of evidence for a right wing agenda to under tax, under regulate industry, to make a few much richer.
_
The only people really interested in baubles and dollors Snelly, are Mr Delingpole and his accolites.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 1, 2012)

Snelly said:



			I wouldn't believe the BBC environment department if they told me that I had a hole in my backside.  The whole organisation is institutionally socialist.
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you and i doubt Mr Patton would either. But even if you were correct what does a persons politics have to do with his scientific integrity? Can only right wingers be trusted to tell the truth? That worked with the bankers didn't it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 1, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			This is the biggest load of tosh i've read in a long time.
I've mentioned in previous posts some excellent web sites and journals, written by people who actually know what they're on about. I suggest you read them.
The internet is a marvelous place but it allows any lunatic to print there own personal views. All i ask is you research the qualifications of said authors before believing what they write as fact.
Science is about debate and people will always have differing points of view, but without evidence it is meaning less. If the vast majority of the worlds leading climate scientists say something is wrong, the only rational thing to do is believe the evidence. 
Why would the whole global scientific community be involved in a conspiracy when as a people we can't even co-operate to ease global hunger, political repression or even trouble in the middle east?:rant:
		
Click to expand...

Have the manners to explain what was incorrect with my comments.  To say "This is the biggest load of tosh i've read in a long time."  is a crude statement, to which I would suggest is unworthy of you.

Comment on whether ice in parts of Antartica are growing.

Comment on my point that it is sea ice that is predominantly melting.

Comment on my point that Ocean temperatures are rising and explain the proof that CO2 emissions are causing this.

Comment on my statement that the Earths temperature has not risen in the last 15 years.

Comment on my point that the Experts on climate change do not all agree on the causes.

You dont need to comment on my gut feelings as they are personal to me.

Did I suggest that the Global scientific community  are involved in a conspiracy?  Well did I?   I suggested they are cherry picking data to prop their personal beliefs, this happens all the time with 'scientific experts'  If we took what they said without question we would all have been wiped out by SARS, Bird Flu, AIDS, BSE etc, the Millenium Bug would have wrought disaster on humanity.

I welcome a constructive reply but dont bother if it's another rant.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 1, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			This is the biggest load of tosh i've read in a long time.
I've mentioned in previous posts some excellent web sites and journals, written by people who actually know what they're on about. I suggest you read them.
The internet is a marvelous place but it allows any lunatic to print there own personal views. All i ask is you research the qualifications of said authors before believing what they write as fact.
Science is about debate and people will always have differing points of view, but without evidence it is meaning less. If the vast majority of the worlds leading climate scientists say something is wrong, the only rational thing to do is believe the evidence. 
Why would the whole global scientific community be involved in a conspiracy when as a people we can't even co-operate to ease global hunger, political repression or even trouble in the middle east?:rant:
		
Click to expand...



I replied twice to this post with a reasoned reply but both have not been posted.  Can someone explain why?


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 1, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			I replied twice to this post with a reasoned reply but both have not been posted.  Can someone explain why?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe it's the Socialists???


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 1, 2012)

Climate change is happening and it is natural. Everything is striving for equilibrium across physics and chemistry, across out planet and the universe. As with "electronic overshoot" a decreasing amplitude wave usually plots the progress to equilibrium. In the case of climate change it is often described as a series of thresholds which boarder periods of extreme highs and lows (relatively).

A CO2 rich earth is a haven for plants, this is how it was billions of years ago. Their prevalence for such a long time contributed to a massive climate change over the next few billions of years.

What is important is that we have accelerated things by doing what ancient earth did and add lots of CO2 to the atmosphere before the "time of plants". 

We must adapt as a species to the changing environment, the accelerated change we are bringing about. Continuing as we are is only going to lead to mass starvation. Just look at any population model for any species kept in a closed environment, once the population exceeds what can be sustained the population crashes as disease and starvation steps in.

I have a LOT to say on this subject, if anyone has any questions please feel free to ask.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 1, 2012)

ScienceBoy said:



			Climate change is happening and it is natural. Everything is striving for equilibrium across physics and chemistry, across out planet and the universe. As with "electronic overshoot" a decreasing amplitude wave usually plots the progress to equilibrium. In the case of climate change it is often described as a series of thresholds which boarder periods of extreme highs and lows (relatively).

A CO2 rich earth is a haven for plants, this is how it was billions of years ago. Their prevalence for such a long time contributed to a massive climate change over the next few billions of years.

What is important is that we have accelerated things by doing what ancient earth did and add lots of CO2 to the atmosphere before the "time of plants". 

We must adapt as a species to the changing environment, the accelerated change we are bringing about. Continuing as we are is only going to lead to mass starvation. Just look at any population model for any species kept in a closed environment, once the population exceeds what can be sustained the population crashes as disease and starvation steps in.

I have a LOT to say on this subject, if anyone has any questions please feel free to ask.
		
Click to expand...

Very good post.  Thank you.

I do think that most of the planets problems would be lessened by a reduction in human population.


----------



## rosecott (Dec 1, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			I do think that most of the planets problems would be lessened by a reduction in human population.
		
Click to expand...

Will you be drawing up a list of names.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 1, 2012)

rosecott said:



			Will you be drawing up a list of names.
		
Click to expand...

Thats a bit strong!!  Did I suggest that we should start exterminating.   I was more considering birth control or that Nature will find a way of dealing with it if we dont.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 1, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Have the manners to explain what was incorrect with my comments.  To say "This is the biggest load of tosh i've read in a long time."  is a crude statement, to which I would suggest is unworthy of you.

Comment on whether ice in parts of Antartica are growing.

Comment on my point that it is sea ice that is predominantly melting.

Comment on my point that Ocean temperatures are rising and explain the proof that CO2 emissions are causing this.

Comment on my statement that the Earths temperature has not risen in the last 15 years.

Comment on my point that the Experts on climate change do not all agree on the causes.

You dont need to comment on my gut feelings as they are personal to me.

Did I suggest that the Global scientific community  are involved in a conspiracy?  Well did I?   I suggested they are cherry picking data to prop their personal beliefs, this happens all the time with 'scientific experts'  If we took what they said without question we would all have been wiped out by SARS, Bird Flu, AIDS, BSE etc, the Millenium Bug would have wrought disaster on humanity.

I welcome a constructive reply but dont bother if it's another rant.
		
Click to expand...

Ice thickening in antarctica:- As the temperature rises this leads to more precipitation, because the average temp of continental antarctica is way below freezing this falls as snow, so you are correct more ice. But as a direct effect of rising temps not falling temps. The same cannot be said about the ice shelves though, thay are diminishing rapidly, some on the brink of collapse. Read the antartic ice survey readings if you don't believe me. This is a result of rising sea temps. So what is causing this?

Your third point:- I have never claimed that rising sea temps were down to co2 emmissions. Rising sea temps are largly down to the albido effect. Less ice means a darker surface area means more heat is trapped by the sea which leads to less sea ice. Again the question is why was the ice melting in the first place? Rising global temps maybe ?

Point four:- I'll come to cherry picking later. You have to look at the bigger picture. Global average temps have risen by more than a degree since 1900, and the rate of that increase has doubled in the last fifty yrs. Again i suggest reading the nasa site, i keep refering to the nasa site bacause they are funded by the US government the most climate sceptic government there is. If they're worried perhaps you should be.

Point five:- Of course they don't, but the consensus is that humans and our use of fossil fuels is a major contributary factor. I will refer you to my post to Snelly, and the cancer scenario. Make your own mind up.

Your final paragraph:- Cherry picking ? Now thats rich. On every post i've asked you to look at the evidence, evidence based sometimes on thousands of yrs of data, not what happened last week or 1998. How many times have i said you need to look at the bigger picture? Climate change is a global not localised.
As for the conspiracy charge perhaps that was a little strong and for that i appologise. But if you refuse to believe the over-whelming scientific consensus that we are currently experiencing a largly man-made climate change, then what do you think they're upto? 
Not a rant i hope, but i was typing loudly :mmm:


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 1, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			I replied twice to this post with a reasoned reply but both have not been posted.  Can someone explain why?
		
Click to expand...

I have replied Socket but i to am being modded. Perhaps they think a bit passionate debate might brake out:rofl:


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 1, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			I have replied Socket but i to am being modded. Perhaps they think a bit passionate debate might brake out:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Seems like we are on the naughty step.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 1, 2012)

SocketRocket said:



			Seems like we are on the naughty step.
		
Click to expand...

 now its appeared and makes my last post look like i'am hallucinating.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 2, 2012)

We have been on a temperature rise now as a planet for many thousands of years, yes there have been periods of cooler and periods of warmer local and world average temperatures. 

We cannot dismiss that this is happening, it is part of a cycle that extends beyond time we can barely compare to our brief time on this planet. Yet it is clear that the last handful of generations, going back to the industrial era up to now, we have contributed to a slight acceleration of the change. 

The icecaps would have reduced, precipitation would have increased and CO2 levels would have risen if us as a species had been here or not, that is part of a cycle we cannot interrupted, just affect slightly.

Rather than discussing the facts of things we cannot control we SHOULD be addressing and debating methods of how to undo our acceleration and even look at ways to make this planet hospitable for many generations to come. That would be a far better use of our scientists time for us alive now and the grandchildren of those we are raising now.

If we do not act then we may just be creating, in a few million years of course, a haven for plants, and not even useful food plants, just another era where the strongest survive and evolution will return this world to a state of equilibrium.

In the short term we will probably just bring global food shortages and a wave of pandemic diseases as we overcrowd this earth and consume its resources.

Actions now, even the smallest such as saving electricity, gas and water can make a huge difference. Nothing is going to happen in an instant, the inevitable future will creep up on us and take us unawares in an unpredictable number of generations. I firmly believe we are living in the most influential period of our species and decisions we make over the next few generations could shape the future and make or break out next million years.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 2, 2012)

ScienceBoy said:



			We have been on a temperature rise now as a planet for many thousands of years, yes there have been periods of cooler and periods of warmer local and world average temperatures. 

We cannot dismiss that this is happening, it is part of a cycle that extends beyond time we can barely compare to our brief time on this planet. Yet it is clear that the last handful of generations, going back to the industrial era up to now, we have contributed to a slight acceleration of the change. 

The icecaps would have reduced, precipitation would have increased and CO2 levels would have risen if us as a species had been here or not, that is part of a cycle we cannot interrupted, just affect slightly.

Rather than discussing the facts of things we cannot control we SHOULD be addressing and debating methods of how to undo our acceleration and even look at ways to make this planet hospitable for many generations to come. That would be a far better use of our scientists time for us alive now and the grandchildren of those we are raising now.

If we do not act then we may just be creating, in a few million years of course, a haven for plants, and not even useful food plants, just another era where the strongest survive and evolution will return this world to a state of equilibrium.

In the short term we will probably just bring global food shortages and a wave of pandemic diseases as we overcrowd this earth and consume its resources.

Actions now, even the smallest such as saving electricity, gas and water can make a huge difference. Nothing is going to happen in an instant, the inevitable future will creep up on us and take us unawares in an unpredictable number of generations. I firmly believe we are living in the most influential period of our species and decisions we make over the next few generations could shape the future and make or break out next million years.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst i largly agree with your statement SB there are a few things that i might add.
Inaction isn't down to the scientists, but down to the politicians. Politicians who need the financial support of big business. If certain measures are going to effect the profit margins of these businesses then they're going to cry foul and turn to the ramblings of nutters like james delingpole. The knack is to engage with these people and show them money can be made by being green as well. Lets face it SB unless there's money to be made then the corporations that really matter aren't going to be interested.

Of course your right about the worlds natural cycles of warming and cooling, but what worries me is the 20%+ rise in co2 levels over the last 60 yrs. This rise is unprecedented over the last 650k yrs. I don't really believe in coincidences SB something has changed to affect this change. That change i believe is the industrialisation of our planet and the massive consumption of fossil fuels. 
As a planet we can't continue to stick our heads in the sand like some frightened ostrich. We need to wake up and remove the sleep from our eyes. Unfortunatly thats going to be made much harder whilst deniers like delingpole get totally inproportionate column space commenting on a subject they know nowt about, (indeed are unwilling to converse with the very scientists who do)
because they are worried action may cost them a few bob.


----------



## mikevet (Dec 2, 2012)

I accept that climate change exists, but cannot accept the concept of man-made global warming as thrown at us by the media - neither can a whole heap of highly credible scientists. One of the best books I've read, which gives a very reasoned view, is 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton. Yes. it's a novel, but it is extremely well researched and a huge chunk of the book is given over to references that are relevant. It certainly makes me seriously consider the possibility that we are being influenced by corporations and governments that have a vested interest in scaring the pants off us so that they can pursue their agenda.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 2, 2012)

mikevet said:



			I accept that climate change exists, but cannot accept the concept of man-made global warming as thrown at us by the media -
		
Click to expand...

We have contributed a little in a short space of time but you are right, nowhere near as much as the scaremongering media might want us to think.

However scaring us straight might be the only way to influence some people into conserving what needs to be conserved for the benefit of future genrations, I am not talking our kids but more like the great grandchildren of your kids!


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 2, 2012)

ScienceBoy said:



			We have contributed a little in a short space of time but you are right, nowhere near as much as the scaremongering media might want us to think.

However scaring us straight might be the only way to influence some people into conserving what needs to be conserved for the benefit of future genrations, I am not talking our kids but more like the great grandchildren of your kids!
		
Click to expand...

_
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence *that most of the warming observed over the last 50 yrs is attributable to human activities*".

_This statement was released by the IPCC (the intergovernmental panel on climate change). It is interesting to note that *No* scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting position to this statement. The last dissenting voice to this statement was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their opinion tp non committal in 2007.

These are not "scaremongering" media types SB. These are bodies made up of the worlds leading scientists on the subject.
No journalists, no ecconomists and certainly no authors of popular fiction were involved in the drafting of this statement.


----------



## Snelly (Dec 2, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			To paraphrase someone you may have heard of Snelly(Sir Paul Nurse) lets talk about "consensus".
If, god forbid you are one day diagnosed to be suffering from cancer and the general consensus of the worlds leading oncologists is that this or that is the best regumine to achieve a favouable outcome. Do you (A) take their advice, trusting in their expertise, or (B) lie under a pyramid hoping for the best? After all, all scientist are left wing loonies intent on ruining my profit margins.
It may not be all the scientific community Snelly, but its certainly the major *CONSENSUS.

*For those interested search bbc horizon for paul nurse/james delingpole.
I believe mr delingpole complained to the bbc later for being "intellectually raped" by mr nurse. Interesting phrase "intellectually raped".

Mr Delingpole is an ultra right wing libitarian concervative with absolutly no scientific qualification of any kind, who has managed to find an audience of like minded right wingers who read the telegraph.
_"There is simply no evidence for a left wing conspiracy to over-tax, over regulate the populace to make us all poorer.Whereas there is an abundance of evidence for a right wing agenda to under tax, under regulate industry, to make a few much richer.
_
The only people really interested in baubles and dollors Snelly, are Mr Delingpole and his accolites.
		
Click to expand...

You're a watermelon too.


----------



## tarmac (Dec 2, 2012)

whether its 'global warming' or 'climate change' it doesnt matter,what i think most of us agrees is  that finding 'greener' ways of powering our world is not a bad thing.yes stop burning fossil fuels and cutting down rainforests if it helps and find alternatives.

what i know is that the earth has been around for a while now and its not likely to dissapear in the near future so instead of forcing unreliable and useless wind farms,dim light bulbs and endless endless taxes on us to pay for it.why not take sum time and develop sum technoligy that works and is cost efective and will keep the lights on,then introdce it and then when we see it works we can pay for it.

its like this'we're all in it together recession' we're workin an suffering to an end that no-one can tell us when it ends,when is all the oil an gas running out? 20yrs,50yrs,100yrs,1000yrs? when ?tell us give us a figure 1000yrs not one of us is gonna give two hoots!!

once we get a time scale,work to a deadline and introduce effective and cost efficient procedures that will slow or halt the implied damage we are doing .as there is still not enough proof that we are doing the damage and this is not just natural .

god a wish i had the brains to make this speel more cohesive!!!


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 3, 2012)

Snelly said:



			You're a watermelon too.
		
Click to expand...

If that makes me the antithesis of everything that James Delingpole stands for, then thats probably the nicest thing that anyone has said to me in a long time. Thank you Snelly, thats made my day :thup:


----------



## Mr_T (Dec 3, 2012)

There are quite a few misconceptions around climate change, it is a natural process, as is the greenhouse effect, there are many long term causes of climate change such as sun spots and the milankovitch theory which cause periods of differing climates such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

The problem lies in the enhanced greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is something that earth requires, but human activity has intensified the process so that more CO2 is being trapped than is normal, so governments trying to cut emissions is not a ploy to get more money out the taxpayer (I accept it's difficult to see sometimes what they're doing with the money) but we are trying to cut back and slow down the increasing rate at which the greenhouse effect is taking place at the moment. The animal kingdom can adapt to change, but they struggle to adapt to change that is happening at a much faster rate than would normally happen, hence the problems faced by animals such as the polar bear. 

I would say most of the people on this forum will not really ever feel any significant impacts this in their lifetime, but I worry for my children and grandchildren as I feel that not enough will be done and that too big a problem will be left to them.

To simply say that nothing is happening or that there is no problem is very naive.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 3, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



_These are not "scaremongering" media types SB. These are bodies made up of the worlds leading scientists on the subject.
No journalists, no ecconomists and certainly no authors of popular fiction were involved in the drafting of this statement._

Click to expand...

_

I was thinking more along the lines of the "day after tomorrow" crowd, we could carry on as we are and things wont be noticeably different from now in our lifetime or maybe our kids lifetime BUT think a few generations on...

Strong statements are required but there is a line between mass panic inducing headlines and the truth that if we are not careful, the problem is going to creep up on us._


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 3, 2012)

ScienceBoy said:



			I was thinking more along the lines of the "day after tomorrow" crowd, we could carry on as we are and things wont be noticeably different from now in our lifetime or maybe our kids lifetime BUT think a few generations on...

Strong statements are required but there is a line between mass panic inducing headlines and the truth that if we are not careful, the problem is going to creep up on us.
		
Click to expand...

We appear to be working towards a consensus SB.
There is nothing more dangerous than an evangelist/fundamentalist when it comes to constructive debate.
On the left you have the "day after tomorrow" crowd, who look at the evidence, note the worst case scenario and double it, because the research was funded by either government or private buisness so there must be a hidden agenda not to panic the populace and big buisness. Where as on the right you get people like Mr Delingpole who completly ignore the evidence, apart from the bits they think will help their agendas, because the research was funded by government/ private corporations whose aim is to supress private enterprise, regulate biusness over tax the wealthy and in worse case scenario bring about the downfall of western civilisation. Both extremes equally dangerous to constructive debate and/or effective action.

You are a professional scientist SB, were as i am only a recent graduate, thanks to the educational marvel that is the OU, but we have both been taught to use the scientific method. It is when this method brakes down/ignored that we tend to get these polarizing views. All i ask SB is that people look at the evidence from reputable scientific bodies/journals like nature. the new scientist, usgs/bgs, the ipcc, nasa etc.. and look at the big picture, not the attention grabbing headlines in the populist media.

As you state the chances are changes to our climate in our lifetimes may be negligable, but we are both aware of the concept of tipping points, and lets hold our hands up here, science does'nt really know when these will be reached. As a generation we have an obligation to future generations to slow down this inexorable rise towards these tipping points, because once they are reached there is no going back.
 I can't speak for you SB or any other poster on this thread, but if my paying a few quid extra a week in "green" taxes help to make my grand/greatgrand childrens futures more secure then i'am all for it. Of course we can't be sure these extra taxes will go to were they're needed, but that is whole other thread.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 3, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			I can't speak for you SB or any other poster on this thread, but if my paying a few quid extra a week in "green" taxes help to make my grand/greatgrand childrens futures more secure then i'am all for it.
		
Click to expand...

I am definitely in this boat!

I never claim to be right on things, us scientists rarely are! We usually look at the evidence in front of us and conclude what we can (if anything. I am always happy to be proven wrong but I do hate to see people strung along by over hyped things, it happens so often that a paper says something, the media immediately take it as the truth and suddenly its set in stone. The fact is most of the time the scientist would accept being proven wrong if they are presented with the evidence.

My degree being heavily lent towards the study of the environment, Ok it is more about pollution than climate, means I am fairly aware of what is going on. I do admit I never read the attention grabbing headline stories, instead looking at established theory.

I must admit I am probably now at least 5 years out of date on climate issues as I have been focussing on my work but I agree with what you have said.


----------



## tallpaul (Dec 3, 2012)

When I studies climatology, it was all about the enhanced greenhouse effect. We were taught that the key to long-term harmony was sustainable development. At some point after that, it all became a lot of jingoistic dogma and the message was lost. Largely due to a complete misrepresentation by the media and the subsequent (willful?) failure of successive governments to do anything to address the publics misconception over anything to do with the 'environment'.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 3, 2012)

Thank you SB, coming from you sir that means a lot. :thup:
You are right of course, the concept of being proved wrong, being just as important as being proved correct, is often alien to most people. 
As for headlines: "the climate may warm by 2 - 5 c over the next century" isn't going to sell many newspapers. Where as "Scientists predict 5c rise across the globe in the near future" will. So annoying and completly unhelpfull.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 3, 2012)

walshawwhippet said:



			As for headlines: "the climate may warm by 2 - 5 c over the next century" isn't going to sell many newspapers. Where as "Scientists predict 5c rise across the globe in the near future" will. So annoying and completly unhelpfull.
		
Click to expand...

It almost instils the "its too late anyway" mentality, which is not true. The shock effect will make some act and others not. We have had an impact and we can work to reduce/reverse it. Sadly efforts in recycling are hindered by profitability but we do live in a world driven by money.

I do think little bits do add up, if everyone contributed a little bit each day over their lifetime then we could make a big difference down the line, not for our generation but for our species! One off big hits are not the answer, its a wholesale change over a long period of time.

And BTW, my approval doesnt mean much, I am out of date on the issues really, its just a module or two from university, A level in geography and a couple of bits of reading around when I was younger. A proper climatologist or student could do a FAR better job.


----------



## walshawwhippet (Dec 3, 2012)

ScienceBoy said:



			It almost instils the "its too late anyway" mentality, which is not true. The shock effect will make some act and others not. We have had an impact and we can work to reduce/reverse it. Sadly efforts in recycling are hindered by profitability but we do live in a world driven by money.

I do think little bits do add up, if everyone contributed a little bit each day over their lifetime then we could make a big difference down the line, not for our generation but for our species! One off big hits are not the answer, its a wholesale change over a long period of time.

And BTW, my approval doesnt mean much, I am out of date on the issues really, its just a module or two from university, A level in geography and a couple of bits of reading around when I was younger. A proper climatologist or student could do a FAR better job.
		
Click to expand...

Hey i'll take whatever general agreement is out there. After all the the counter view is a reference to my apparant likeness to the citrullus lanatus. 
I do think there's hope though SB. Remember what happened to atmospheric lead levels? One simple change to unleaded petrol and the levels nose dived.
Of course our climate is a much more complicated issue, but it shows what can be achieved when we accept there's a problem, and we work together to fix it.


----------

