• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Since that's such a massive generalisation, it's safe to assume that it's unlikely to be true.


I have met a few Africans over the years, some of whom were refugees, from East and West, North and South.

So "massive generalisations" are untrue ?,that's OK then.

So have I,and all of them had three or four "identities",so they could claim more benifits !
 
one day, when I can be bothrereded I will try to tidy up my "quotes" thang.
One day. :eek:
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
crunchy5 said:
LividBullseye said:
As for Global Warming ?, Weather out's nice for July isn't it :?:

Yup seems normal around here.

Nice one mate :D , do me a favour will you and drop the Environment Minister an email telling him not to worry about the rain, while you're at it drop the home office line telling them of suspicions of mass insurance fraud in the Sheffield region relating to floods. What was skiing like at Aviemore this winter, I gave it a miss and did some gardening instead it was good to get the shorts on. Wake up.
 
Errm, theres some quotes up there ^^^^ that are'nt mine !! :lol:

Damn it I'm going to my lawywer ,for defamation of character, 8) ,I'll take the lot of you to court,and FTMB !!!!. :lol:
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
LividBullseye said:
...

So "massive generalisations" are untrue ?...
Generally.

Such as Global Warming Caused by Human Activity ?.Because it sure as hell has'nt been proved to be a fact !. The climate has NEVER been constant,it's always been in a state of flux.But it's a damn good reason for the goverments to introduce more taxes, nucleur power stations,and f**k knows what else they'll come up with !.
 
LividBullseye said:
Such as Global Warming Caused by Human Activity ?.Because it sure as hell has'nt been proved to be a fact !. The climate has NEVER been constant,it's always been in a state of flux.But it's a damn good reason for the goverments to introduce more taxes, nucleur power stations,and f**k knows what else they'll come up with !.
Amen to that!
 
LividBullseye said:
...

Such as Global Warming Caused by Human Activity ?.Because it sure as hell has'nt been proved to be a fact !. The climate has NEVER been constant,it's always been in a state of flux.But it's a damn good reason for the goverments to introduce more taxes, nucleur power stations,and f**k knows what else they'll come up with !.
Maybe, but most Climate scientists would probably point out that the weight of evidence would suggest that human activity is a major contributory factor to Global Warming. And the maths don't look good. That's not quite the same as a 'Massive Generalisation'.

They could all be wrong, of course.

Yes there are a lot of OIL Corporations and (for some obscure reason), fringe Marxists, who say different, but they may have their own agendas.

As to the Nuke-a-leer Power lobby, there's clearly been a bit of bandwagon jumping, but that seems to have been after the fact, rather than a primary contributing factor to the debate.

The tax hike thing may just be a case of making hay while the sun shines.

Ultimately, I don't think that carbon trading's going to cut it.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Maybe, but most Climate scientists would probably point out that the weight of evidence would suggest that human activity is a major contributory factor to Global Warming. And the maths don't look good. That's not quite the same as a 'Massive Generalisation'.

They could all be wrong, of course.

Yes there are a lot of OIL Corporations and (for some obscure reason), fringe Marxists, who say different, but they may have their own agendas.

As to the Nuke-a-leer Power lobby, there's clearly been a bit of bandwagon jumping, but that seems to have been after the fact, rather than a primary contributing factor to the debate.

The tax hike thing may just be a case of making hay while the sun shines.

Ultimately, I don't think that carbon trading's going to cut it.

Amen Ra
 
Perhaps scepticsm about climate change is more widespread...

'Scepticism' over climate claims

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

Source
 
crunchy5 said:
Scunnerlugzz said:
crunchy5 said:
LividBullseye said:
As for Global Warming ?, Weather out's nice for July isn't it :?:

Yup seems normal around here.

Nice one mate :D , do me a favour will you and drop the Environment Minister an email telling him not to worry about the rain, while you're at it drop the home office line telling them of suspicions of mass insurance fraud in the Sheffield region relating to floods. What was skiing like at Aviemore this winter, I gave it a miss and did some gardening instead it was good to get the shorts on. Wake up.

Wake up from what exactly?

Climate change IS the norm.

At what point in history has the climate been static?
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
...

Climate change IS the norm.

At what point in history has the climate been static?
Yes indeed, in the great geological cycles climate change is the norm. Archaeologists, palaeoclimatologists, palaeobotanists and etc. have spent some considerable time of late studying the available evidence, to try and understand how very minor changes in the World's climate can have quite major effects on the environment, ecosystem, evolution and human development.

It just depends on how much and how quick you want your climate change and do you want sprinkles on top? ;)
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
Wake up from what exactly?

Climate change IS the norm.

At what point in history has the climate been static?

Your self imposed intellectual slumber.

Who's arguing otherwise on your other points, my archaeologist poker bud tells me there have been various times in human history where the human population went down to incredibly small numbers, probably as a result of climate change bringing new environmental pressures, this shows up in genetic records as an hour glass narrowing of the gene pool. Not a future I fancy.

Do you think what we put into the atmosphere has no effect on climate, I'll assume you don't think this, so what is to lose by cutting back ?

I hope you don't think it'll only effect the third world, who don't deserve any better cos their ancestors didn't work as hard as yours, an opinion I've actually heard, the knock on consequences will ripple around the world like a mad domino trail.

What do you think well armed and nuclear equipped China and India will do if the Himalayan ice fields melt taking 70% of the fresh water available to a couple of billion people, me, I think it'll mean war. Where do you think the Africans are gona want to move to when it gets too hot and arid, I'll bet Europe, I didn't fancy a future of manning a machine gun to protect fortress Europe for my lads when they were born.

A long read but well worth it.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/article2727874.ece

Linking a single meteorological event, however dramatic, to global warming may be tricky. (Yes, there have been protracted rain delays at Wimbledon before this year.) The planet has forever undergone cycles of droughts, floods and fires. Yet, few scientists now say those cycles are not becoming more extreme and frequent or that global warming is not a major factor.

Each new scientific paper that is released seems to carry a message grimmer than the last. This year, a UN panel on climate change, with 2,500 leading experts, officially endorsed the notion that the rising temperatures are the result of human activity, notably the burning of fossil fuels.

The warmest 10 years of the past 150 years have all been since 1990. And without action by us to curb it, that temperature climb is not going to stop. The "best estimate" of the UN panel is that the planet's surface temperatures will spike a further 1.8 to 4 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.

The world over, people are getting the message that the planet is ailing. Results last week from an unprecedented poll in 46 countries by the US-based Pew Research Centre showed environmental degradation is the number one concern of people around the world, eclipsing worry even about nuclear attacks, ethnic rivalries or Aids.

"It's going to get worse before it gets better," says David Masur, director of PennEnvironment, an environmental advocacy group in Pennsylvania. "We're not even at the tipping point yet, in terms of the worst of the worst."

Salvano Briceno, who shapes UN policy for responding to natural disasters, agrees. "Severe events are going to be more frequent." He is urging governments to get cracking on plans to protect populations from the threat posed by more dangerous events such as drought, famine and flooding. "We need to reduce all the underlying risk factors, such as by locating communities out of hazard-prone areas," he says. "We now have a clearer picture of what is going to happen and it's urgent that governments give this higher priority."

In the broadest terms, the impact of rising temperatures is the faster evaporation of surface moisture. This in turn threatens more frequent and more grave droughts for some. At the same time, this increases the amount of moisture entering the atmosphere, meaning it has eventually to fall as rain, sometimes in extreme storm events such as last week's flooding in Britain and cyclones in Asia.

Even the devastating forest fires in Tahoe, California, last week seem to be connected to the warming phenomenon. There were four times as many major wildfires in the western US between 1986 and 2004 as there were from 1970 to 1986. As spring and summer temperatures have risen, so the mountain snowpacks have retreated, flow in streams and rivers has decreased and so humidity in forest areas has fallen. This year, the snowpack above Tahoe was just 15 per cent of the average.

On Friday, Stavros Dimas, the EU commissioner for the environment, unveiled new EU proposals for protecting Europeans from weather disasters. He added: "In Britain, there is bad flooding and destruction on a scale rarely seen before, and more bad weather is on the way. For some people in Europe it will be a case of adapt or die."

Europe

To fly from the UK to Italy last week was like crossing continents: Britain's cold rain gave way to suffocating heat and a ferocious scirocco, the hot Saharan wind, in Sicily. The Fiat car plant was closed after employees refused to work in the heat. Fires were burning in southern Italy, with Calabria (24 blazes) and Puglia (22) worst affected. In Greece, seven people have died. Firefighters and soldiers are battling a fire which has destroyed much of Mt Arnitha National Park, and threatens Athens. Peter Popham
 
theyithian said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6267038.stm

Evidence of nothing.
Hailstorm? Evidence of a huge cumulonimbus cloud, I'd say! 8)

(Which in itself is evidence of very strong thermal updraughts.)
 
crunchy5 said:
...my archaeologist poker bud tells me there have been various times in human history where the human population went down to incredibly small numbers, probably as a result of climate change bringing new environmental pressures, this shows up in genetic records as an hour glass narrowing of the gene pool. Not a future I fancy.

I rather like the sound of that. One way to limit the damage man is doing is to limit man. 6.58 billion and increasing by 2.5/second. Man is due a bloody good cooling period. Knocking us back to a max of 2.5 billion (human pop in 1952) would be a good thing. the drop would have to be species specific so as not to harm other already limited species. Bring on the virus :twisted:

I have to admit that the global warming arguement has me on the fence somewhat, but as an envoronmentalist i have to consider that constantly pumping the air full of crap must be harmful to some extent. Therefore limiting our man made fumes is a common sense move regardless of the scientific arguements.
 
An 8 page article from Rolling Stone entitled,

The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming

Earlier this year, the world's top climate scientists released a definitive report on global warming. It is now "unequivocal," they concluded, that the planet is heating up. Humans are directly responsible for the planetary heat wave, and only by taking immediate action can the world avert a climate catastrophe. Megadroughts, raging wildfires, decimated forests, dengue fever, legions of Katrinas - unless humans act now to curb our climate-warming pollution, warned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "we are in deep trouble."

You would think, in the wake of such stark and conclusive findings, that the White House would at least offer some small gesture to signal its concern about the impending crisis. It's not every day, after all, that the leading scientists from 120 nations come together and agree that the entire planet is about to go to hell. But the Bush administration has never felt bound by the reality-based nature of science - especially when it comes from international experts. So after the report became public in February, Vice President Dick Cheney took to the airwaves to offer his own, competing assessment of global warming.

"We're going to see a big debate on it going forward," Cheney told ABC News, about "the extent to which it is part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man." What we know today, he added, is "not enough to just sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that's going to 'solve' the problem."

Even former White House insiders were shocked by the vice president's see-no-evil performance. "I don't see how he can say that with a straight face anymore," Christine Todd Whitman, who clashed privately with Cheney over climate policy during her tenure as the administration's first chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, tells Rolling Stone. "The consequences of climate change are very real and very negative, but Cheney is not convinced of that. He believes - not quite as much as Senator James Inhofe, that this is a 'hoax' - but that the Earth has been changing since it was formed and to say that climate change is caused by humans is incorrect."

Cheney's statements were the latest move in the Bush administration's ongoing strategy to block federal action on global warming. It is no secret that industry-connected appointees within the White House have worked actively to distort the findings of federal climate scientists, playing down the threat of climate change. But a new investigation by Rolling Stone reveals that those distortions were sanctioned at the highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and enforced by none other than Karl Rove. An examination of thousands of pages of internal documents that the White House has been forced to relinquish under the Freedom of Information Act - as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration scientists and climate-policy officials - confirms that the White House has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.

That's most of page 1.
 
I don't think I have ever seen a more divisive issue in science.
Not even unsubstantiated claims of cold fusion have met with such a backlash.

Michael Cichton wrote an amazing piece (not sure if it was refered to earlier in this thread) about how aliens caused global warming.

It is not as daft as it sounds, as it begns with the famous sixties formula for calculating the probable number of planets that support life in the universe. It goes on to argue that science by consensus is not science and so he makes good case for how global warming theoryies today must be attacked with the skepticism every theory deserves until clear evidence is found.

This consensus idea for science I think is what seems to be damaging things. As people are asked to support a theory based on evidence that they may not have had the opportunity to examine thoroughly, if any doubt is cast on the evidence, then they are similarly overshadowed.

It is a bad way to proceeed on a crucial issue facing humanity today.

LD
 
theyithian said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6267038.stm

Evidence of nothing.

I was in that - the biggest hailstones I've seen.

Reminded me of the film "The Day After Tomorrow"

It's a sign I tell you...
 
bazizmaduno said:
theyithian said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6267038.stm

Evidence of nothing.

I was in that - the biggest hailstones I've seen.

Reminded me of the film "The Day After Tomorrow"

It's a sign I tell you...

It was decent - I was cycling home in it and got soaked, then pelted with hail stones.

It was very similar to a storm I was in when I was in South America - sudden darkness, rain, wind, thunder, then the air literally full of big hailstones.

A weatherman later said that the sun warmed up something and caused the storm (don't really understand all this stuff about cold fronts etc).
 
I've come in very late on this thread :oops: but thought I'd fill my experience of the Revolutionary Communist Party, as some has already stated they are a small insignificant sect andare "controversialists".

At times when the left buries its differnces and comes together the RCP has always taken a seperate stance, e.g. during the miners strike during the mid 80s the RCP campaigned for a ballot when the miners and the rest of the left were adamantly against one. They campaigned against safe sex and argued that aids was confined to gays. It was suggested many times on the left that the RCP were in fact formed and /or funded by the gov't or the intelligence agencies to split the left. Without getting at this point into the causes of climate change is doesn't surprise me to see them "split the ranks" on this. what does surprise me is that they're still around.
 
crunchy5 said:
Scunnerlugzz said:
Wake up from what exactly?

Climate change IS the norm.

At what point in history has the climate been static?

Your self imposed intellectual slumber.

Erm, so if I don't agree with you then I'm not being intellectual? I see.

crunchy5 said:
[Who's arguing otherwise on your other points, my archaeologist poker bud tells me there have been various times in human history where the human population went down to incredibly small numbers, probably as a result of climate change bringing new environmental pressures, this shows up in genetic records as an hour glass narrowing of the gene pool. Not a future I fancy.

So glad for you that you have access to such an intellectual source or reference as an archaeologist poker bud.
"Probably" due to climate change?
Well if it was due to climate change then are you saying that this was man-made or natural?

If the climate change that wiped out "the human population went down to incredibly small numbers" before was natural... :roll:


crunchy5 said:
Do you think what we put into the atmosphere has no effect on climate, I'll assume you don't think this, so what is to lose by cutting back ?

I agree that there is nothing to lose by cutting back, however neither you nor I is able to quantify this, or even say for sure that its happening.
After all there is a much better correlation between Sun spot activity with global heating than there is with greenhouse gas accumulation.

crunchy5 said:
I hope you don't think it'll only effect the third world, who don't deserve any better cos their ancestors didn't work as hard as yours, an opinion I've actually heard, the knock on consequences will ripple around the world like a mad domino trail.

I've never thought this or even hinted at it, so why have you introduced such an opinion into your reply?
Global means global, the ice sheet in Britain melted last time did it not?

crunchy5 said:
What do you think well armed and nuclear equipped China and India will do if the Himalayan ice fields melt taking 70% of the fresh water available to a couple of billion people, me, I think it'll mean war. Where do you think the Africans are gona want to move to when it gets too hot and arid, I'll bet Europe, I didn't fancy a future of manning a machine gun to protect fortress Europe for my lads when they were born.

Hmmm, some fairly dodgy assumptions there Scrunchy old bean.

I seem to remember that all winter I was hearing that we were in for a killer hot summer, now that it hasn't arrived then its the rain thats the latest fashionable climatic indicator.

Warmer, cooler, drier, wetter is all a sign!
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
...
"Probably" due to climate change?
Well if it was due to climate change then are you saying that this was man-made or natural?

...
Well, if it was natural in the past, whether through meteor strike, volcanic eruption, 'Sunspot activity', or other Natural intervention, it certainly looks like human intervention has given Climate Change a boot up the jacksey this time round.
Scunnerlugzz said:
...
I seem to remember that all winter I was hearing that we were in for a killer hot summer, now that it hasn't arrived then its the rain thats the latest fashionable climatic indicator.

Warmer, cooler, drier, wetter is all a sign!
Unstable and chaotic systems. Strangely enough, this is the sort of weather that the 'experts' have been predicting, because it represents evidence of increasingly 'Chaotic Systems.'

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11641

;)
 
I predict tomorrow we will have some weather.

The day after that too probably.

Woohoo, look now I'm an expert!
 
Back
Top