What global warming?
- Thread starter Cornish Steve
- Start date
- Original Poster
- #43
There was an interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal. The paper was criticising John McCain who, most unusually for a Republican, is pushing a green agenda. The article claims that McCain's plan, which is modelled on the approach taken in Europe, will go nowhere and just lead to unnecessary bureaucracy. Here's the bit that surprised me:
"Since 2001, U.S. net carbon emissions have fallen by 3% - that is, by more than all but four countries in cap-and-trade-bound Europe."
In other words, the Bush administration in America, through voluntary targets and limited regulation, has achieved greater reductions in carbon emissions than most of the countries in Europe that signed various accords and have pursued green agendas with fervour.
I really fail to understand how this can be the case. With all the attention and regulation, how come Europe's emissions record is so poor?
"Since 2001, U.S. net carbon emissions have fallen by 3% - that is, by more than all but four countries in cap-and-trade-bound Europe."
In other words, the Bush administration in America, through voluntary targets and limited regulation, has achieved greater reductions in carbon emissions than most of the countries in Europe that signed various accords and have pursued green agendas with fervour.
I really fail to understand how this can be the case. With all the attention and regulation, how come Europe's emissions record is so poor?
Upvote
0
H
h20ho
Europe has twice as many people as North America and 10 times as many countries as North America. North America creates more carbon emissions than Europe. One can easily see why North Amercan statistically can reduce emissions more easily.
Why are cities and states 'voluntarily' doing this? The US goverment backed by corperations is against any form of regulations. Pretty well all nations on earth except the North American Goverments have implemented strong policies to curb what scientists are predicting.
All media that is calling this a hoax is owned by these corperations. They bring in their experts to refute scientific results.
In the scientific community where one theory is always being proven incorrect by another in regard to this or that one will find that reports of global warming are uncommonly consistantly agreeing with each other.
10 of the highest ever recorded temperatures on earth have occurred in the last 20 years. This use to be a natural cycle.
Global temperatures are unnaturally rising. OK, you Don't see it at 45 latitude and definately not at the equator. The fact is the equator average temperature raised 1 degree. This equates to around a 24 degree change at the poles. How many of the readers are in the North Pole or the South Pole? If there are I would like to hear if they notice a change in temperatures.
This change in temperatures is changing the ice caps. Yes, change is natural but when you graph these changes one will see that in recent years these natural changes look anything but natural. The Larson Ice flow of antartica shrunk by 80% which is the size of Korea. Gone. This changes average temperatures in the oceans slightly which changes the global currents both in speed and severity. These changes effect wildlife. These changes affect our weather. The severity of our weather is changing. Storms are getting stronger.
The pollution we create changes our atmosphere. Remember, the ozone issue. Was that a hoax? No, it was a serious issue that we fixed because of these policies. I understand it costs a lot. I understand you might be angry. Be angry at countries that do not implement them. They are the ones that you should be upset with. Globally you are holding your own. They are not. You should be proud to have a government that actually cares about you and earth instead of being paid to say it just aint so!
The pollution we pump into the atmosphere changes the amount of the suns rays that get through into our atmosphere. Our atmosphere acts like a mirror and reflects 90% of the rays of the sun. The more pollution the more % gets through. Our oceans temperatures increase. Once in our atmosphere our atmosphere acts as an insulatore to prevent it from going out past our atmosphere. Once, it gets colder as the Axis of the earch changes for its seasonal cycle, the cold stays in our atmosphere more and creates colder winters.
As we get more people on earth we create more pollution. We are changing our earth as it has never been changed before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The history of earths population is incredible. We reached 1 billion on earth in 1800, it took us 70,000 years to get to 1 billion. Then it took 127 years to get to 2 billion, 13 years to 3 billion, 13 years to 4 billion, 12 years to get to 5 billion, 12 years to 6 billion, predicted 13 years to 7, billion and predicted 18 to get to 8 billion. We are slowing down the increase now which is a great thing. We have a great momentum going and it would be very easy to add one billion in 5 or 6 years with the amount of people we currently have, so to decrease this ammount of time increasing the population by one billion is a huge step. I feel this has been achieved because we are smarter now and pay attention to statistics and look forward to the way things might be.
Do you honestly think we are not going to have an impact on Earth's atmosphere? Well I guess we can stand around and do nothing and hope that we don't or we can pray to whatever God we pray too.
All of a sudden in the far north of Canada, they are building a $2 billion plus military installation in the middle ... nothing. A country that has basically no military at all. This is to prevent one of no less than 6 countries now claiming ownership of what has been for hundreds of years Canadian. Two reasons for this are ... we are running out of viable oil resources and ... now you can actually sail ships in that area for over 250 days a year. In the past you could only sail in this area for less than 60 days a year.
Personally, as a North American, I am embarrassed of the non-action, ostrich (head-in-the-sand) attitudes the governments are displaying. I am embarrassed that the high standard of living we have has been reapped and continues to be by our 'I don't belive in global warming or anything' attitudes that the media is paid for to brainwash us to think this way. I commend nations that are trying to actually do something about it. If you are upset about your taxes then be mad, be mad that you pay them and North American governments are saying 'screw you!'
Why are cities and states 'voluntarily' doing this? The US goverment backed by corperations is against any form of regulations. Pretty well all nations on earth except the North American Goverments have implemented strong policies to curb what scientists are predicting.
All media that is calling this a hoax is owned by these corperations. They bring in their experts to refute scientific results.
In the scientific community where one theory is always being proven incorrect by another in regard to this or that one will find that reports of global warming are uncommonly consistantly agreeing with each other.
10 of the highest ever recorded temperatures on earth have occurred in the last 20 years. This use to be a natural cycle.
Global temperatures are unnaturally rising. OK, you Don't see it at 45 latitude and definately not at the equator. The fact is the equator average temperature raised 1 degree. This equates to around a 24 degree change at the poles. How many of the readers are in the North Pole or the South Pole? If there are I would like to hear if they notice a change in temperatures.
This change in temperatures is changing the ice caps. Yes, change is natural but when you graph these changes one will see that in recent years these natural changes look anything but natural. The Larson Ice flow of antartica shrunk by 80% which is the size of Korea. Gone. This changes average temperatures in the oceans slightly which changes the global currents both in speed and severity. These changes effect wildlife. These changes affect our weather. The severity of our weather is changing. Storms are getting stronger.
The pollution we create changes our atmosphere. Remember, the ozone issue. Was that a hoax? No, it was a serious issue that we fixed because of these policies. I understand it costs a lot. I understand you might be angry. Be angry at countries that do not implement them. They are the ones that you should be upset with. Globally you are holding your own. They are not. You should be proud to have a government that actually cares about you and earth instead of being paid to say it just aint so!
The pollution we pump into the atmosphere changes the amount of the suns rays that get through into our atmosphere. Our atmosphere acts like a mirror and reflects 90% of the rays of the sun. The more pollution the more % gets through. Our oceans temperatures increase. Once in our atmosphere our atmosphere acts as an insulatore to prevent it from going out past our atmosphere. Once, it gets colder as the Axis of the earch changes for its seasonal cycle, the cold stays in our atmosphere more and creates colder winters.
As we get more people on earth we create more pollution. We are changing our earth as it has never been changed before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The history of earths population is incredible. We reached 1 billion on earth in 1800, it took us 70,000 years to get to 1 billion. Then it took 127 years to get to 2 billion, 13 years to 3 billion, 13 years to 4 billion, 12 years to get to 5 billion, 12 years to 6 billion, predicted 13 years to 7, billion and predicted 18 to get to 8 billion. We are slowing down the increase now which is a great thing. We have a great momentum going and it would be very easy to add one billion in 5 or 6 years with the amount of people we currently have, so to decrease this ammount of time increasing the population by one billion is a huge step. I feel this has been achieved because we are smarter now and pay attention to statistics and look forward to the way things might be.
Do you honestly think we are not going to have an impact on Earth's atmosphere? Well I guess we can stand around and do nothing and hope that we don't or we can pray to whatever God we pray too.
All of a sudden in the far north of Canada, they are building a $2 billion plus military installation in the middle ... nothing. A country that has basically no military at all. This is to prevent one of no less than 6 countries now claiming ownership of what has been for hundreds of years Canadian. Two reasons for this are ... we are running out of viable oil resources and ... now you can actually sail ships in that area for over 250 days a year. In the past you could only sail in this area for less than 60 days a year.
Personally, as a North American, I am embarrassed of the non-action, ostrich (head-in-the-sand) attitudes the governments are displaying. I am embarrassed that the high standard of living we have has been reapped and continues to be by our 'I don't belive in global warming or anything' attitudes that the media is paid for to brainwash us to think this way. I commend nations that are trying to actually do something about it. If you are upset about your taxes then be mad, be mad that you pay them and North American governments are saying 'screw you!'
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Just to use your first stat, "Europe has twice as many people as North America".
North America, (Canada, USA and Mexico), has a population of about 450 million.
Does Europe really have a population of 900 million?
The rest of your diatribe is easily fisked too: this is the trouble with the whole debate; there are those who have to have it all their way, where the truth, as always, lies somewhere between polarized positions.
North America, (Canada, USA and Mexico), has a population of about 450 million.
Does Europe really have a population of 900 million?
The rest of your diatribe is easily fisked too: this is the trouble with the whole debate; there are those who have to have it all their way, where the truth, as always, lies somewhere between polarized positions.
Upvote
0
H
h20ho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Here is pop stats. I guess you are right and stats are wrong. I suggest keep polluting and leave it to your kids that might be a bit more forward thinking. Also, get rid of those governments and get one like the US.
Here is pop stats. I guess you are right and stats are wrong. I suggest keep polluting and leave it to your kids that might be a bit more forward thinking. Also, get rid of those governments and get one like the US.
Upvote
0
Generally the fall in carbon emissions seen in the developed world is mainly due to the loss of heavy industry and manufacturing which has shifted to China et al.
This may account for the fall in the US. While heavy state-subsidised industry in Germany and France have meant they continue to produce emissions long after UK's base has disappeared. I expect if you took UK alone, emissions will have fallen. Also Europe has expanded to include poorer nations from eastern Europe who still produce their own sizeable emissions with less regulation than UK.
We can't really blame China for the muck they're throwing out because basically they're making the stuff for us.
If we agree to pay higher prices for goods then this added cost may go to improve their industrial processes but will we? And who is to say that the industry won't just move on again to find the next cheap location where these 'taxes' won't be imposed.
This may account for the fall in the US. While heavy state-subsidised industry in Germany and France have meant they continue to produce emissions long after UK's base has disappeared. I expect if you took UK alone, emissions will have fallen. Also Europe has expanded to include poorer nations from eastern Europe who still produce their own sizeable emissions with less regulation than UK.
We can't really blame China for the muck they're throwing out because basically they're making the stuff for us.
If we agree to pay higher prices for goods then this added cost may go to improve their industrial processes but will we? And who is to say that the industry won't just move on again to find the next cheap location where these 'taxes' won't be imposed.
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
And here are non Wiki stats
Now where did I put the can of diesel to choke the lowpaid bunnies I employ to recharge the sanctimonious implants in North American idiotarians?
Upvote
0
Anyone who quotes wikipedia for statistics loses the argument.
I studied climate at university in late 80s. Guess what, we'd only just come out of the period where everyone said we were all gonna die because...
there was a mini ice age coming!
Climate change happens all the time - it's something to do with the big bright thing in the sky that comes up every day. When it goes then we're in trouble - a little bit of global warming might be a good thing then!
If scientists can't decide - it's all opinions (mostly based on where the next funding round comes from), then no one really knows. It will all change again, no doubt, when it is politically expedient to do so. The public are easily fooled.
My political stance:
1. Put finger in the wind.
2. See which way to gauge political and public hysteria.
3. Direct political debate in order to raise taxes.
Call me a sceptic.
"Don't believe half of what you see, none of what you hear
It's like my painter friend Donald said
Stick a fork in their ar*e and turn them over, they're done"
I studied climate at university in late 80s. Guess what, we'd only just come out of the period where everyone said we were all gonna die because...
there was a mini ice age coming!
Climate change happens all the time - it's something to do with the big bright thing in the sky that comes up every day. When it goes then we're in trouble - a little bit of global warming might be a good thing then!
If scientists can't decide - it's all opinions (mostly based on where the next funding round comes from), then no one really knows. It will all change again, no doubt, when it is politically expedient to do so. The public are easily fooled.
My political stance:
1. Put finger in the wind.
2. See which way to gauge political and public hysteria.
3. Direct political debate in order to raise taxes.
Call me a sceptic.
"Don't believe half of what you see, none of what you hear
It's like my painter friend Donald said
Stick a fork in their ar*e and turn them over, they're done"
Upvote
0
The generation who believe they can get all the information they will ever require by reading stuff on the Internet is frightening.
Mass communication / mass propaganda - which side of the coin do you want?
People are too quick to latch on to the next fashionable thing. Business is eager to exploit them for monetary gain. Politicians eager to exploit the situation for power.
If only we had time or the inclination to read round the subject a little. Get a different perspective. We might realise that this planet is not about to go to hell in a handcart - it'll be here long after we're gone.
Mass communication / mass propaganda - which side of the coin do you want?
People are too quick to latch on to the next fashionable thing. Business is eager to exploit them for monetary gain. Politicians eager to exploit the situation for power.
If only we had time or the inclination to read round the subject a little. Get a different perspective. We might realise that this planet is not about to go to hell in a handcart - it'll be here long after we're gone.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #53
Someone recently ran the models used by global warming scare-mongers using numbers that were totally random. Guess what? The models all showed a hockey stick rise in global temperatures. 
That pretty much says it all. As for record hot years in the last two decades, you need to look more closely. Temperatures have dropped more in the last decade than they rose in the previous century. There's record ice in Antarctica.
As someone noted earlier, this is why the scare-mongers are now screaming "climate change". That way, no matter what happens, they can claim they're right.
Just to reiterate: I'm not against taking a responsible attitude to the environment; however, I'm totally against letting the government and interest groups infringe on our personal freedoms using some invented phenomenon as justification. Lying is lying, no matter how carefully the words are framed or how many Nobel prizes are awarded.
That pretty much says it all. As for record hot years in the last two decades, you need to look more closely. Temperatures have dropped more in the last decade than they rose in the previous century. There's record ice in Antarctica.As someone noted earlier, this is why the scare-mongers are now screaming "climate change". That way, no matter what happens, they can claim they're right.
Just to reiterate: I'm not against taking a responsible attitude to the environment; however, I'm totally against letting the government and interest groups infringe on our personal freedoms using some invented phenomenon as justification. Lying is lying, no matter how carefully the words are framed or how many Nobel prizes are awarded.
Upvote
0
I would think California's deluge of anti-CO2 laws is bound to have an impact - I could be wrong, but isn't that the biggest state in the US economy? There is regulatory change in the USA.
Media love the "Hottest year since records began" stories. Know what - if I start recording my daily Guinness intake every so often there will be a "highest volume since records began" day. Its inevitable and statistically likely rather than unlikely that we will have 'hottest days on record', after all, humans have only been recording temperatures for a very short period of time in comparison to the type of weather cycles being discussed.
Could you point me towards the scientific paper which confirms that this is 'unnatural'. Certainly its a phrase always associated with climate change but if you are going to use it can you point to a good peer-reviewed paper confirming it is indeed 'unnatural'? If you have a source I would be interested to read it. (That's not meant to be sarcastic - if proof is out there I really would like to read it).
I read in James Lovelock's most recent book, (he who thinks we're all doomed and have killed the planet) that having ice at both poles is in fact unusual for the planet in geological terms so it can be said that melting of the ice caps is a trend towards 'normality'.
You are correct. But an unrelated issue does not prove a human-cause for climate change.
Actually, I do think that the climate is changing and that humans are having an impact, but I think it is a combination of human arrogance and human ignorance that leads to misunderstanding and over-estimating the scale of our impact.
As Steve, ChrisH and others have said, sure, use less, drive less, use more efficient energy sources, recyle more, etc. That makes good sense, but mixing good common sense with poor science, politics and media headline-grabbing is just making a muddled mess of the whole situation.
Upvote
0
F
Figaro
I think the idea that the government are monopolising on the climate change to make us pay more for fuel etc is quite perceptive. Carbon emissions from cars and traffic is the biggest contributor... right??
Nope... Cows. Seriously, I can't post links yet but just google "global warming cows" and have a look at the results.
Oh yes.
Nope... Cows. Seriously, I can't post links yet but just google "global warming cows" and have a look at the results.
Oh yes.
Upvote
0
It's all down to how you read the data. A Chinese government official said on TV a few weeks ago that as China had such a high population, the carbon footprint per head was lower that anywhere else in the world and used that as justification for their pollution.
Lies, damn lies and statictics
Lies, damn lies and statictics
Upvote
0
D
dagr
Here's a thoroughly good read about understanding statistics and intuition:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tiger-That-...ts=1&customer-reviews.start=1#customerReviews
For example, did you know that almost everyone on earth has an above average number of feet?
Upvote
0
R
Rhyl Lightworks
It amazes me how some people still want to deny global warming is happening. Do they deny melting of the polar ice caps, when this can actually be observed with the naked eye, or the rise in average temperature of the earth as a whole, which can be easily measured?
I agree there can be a debate over what is causing it. It could be an inevitable part of a natural cycle, or it could be caused by humankind, or (what I believe) a combination of the two. To deny it is actually happening reminds me of ostriches, heads and sand.
Barrie
I agree there can be a debate over what is causing it. It could be an inevitable part of a natural cycle, or it could be caused by humankind, or (what I believe) a combination of the two. To deny it is actually happening reminds me of ostriches, heads and sand.
Barrie
Upvote
0
I don't think anyone here is denying that climate change (as opposed to 'global warming') is taking place. The scepticism comes in over the question of what is natural versus unnatural (e.g. metling of the ice-caps), what part is down to humans, and unfortunately which part is true and which part is media/urban myth. The eco-mentalists and complete-denyers both see it as black and white but both occupy nonsense positions at their respective ends of the scale.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #60
I've been trying to think this one through. Presumably, if 999,999 people have two feet and one poor soul has just one foot, then the average number of feet per person is 1.999999 - and almost everyone has more than the average number of feet.
Indeed, this reveals that one unusual occurrence, which is always going to happen given we live in a probabilistic world, will skew data and allow us to make misleading claims. There's nothing skewed, however, about the fact that world temperatures are currently declining at quite a rapid rate.
Barrie, the onus is on you to explain why, in light of this surprising but undeniable cooling cycle, there is such a focus on global warming. The continued drop in world temperatures could have a dramatic effect on crop production and could lead to significant food shortages. If temperatures have to move one way or the other, let's pray for warming rather than cooling because it would not have such a dire effect on the food supply.
(Personally, though, I don't believe mankind has much effect on this anyway. One of the biggest factors right now is the absence of the usual sunspots - and we sure as heck didn't cause that.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
L
leemason
Whether you think that climate change (or is it global warming...) is happening, either because of us or not, surely it takes more sense to look after our natural environment rather than destroy it?
Climate change will accelerate as rain forests are cut down and as the oceans reach their limit of absorbing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the Gaia principle is correct then nature will compensate for or remote the cause of the problem. If we are the cause then removal is an option...
Climate change will accelerate as rain forests are cut down and as the oceans reach their limit of absorbing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the Gaia principle is correct then nature will compensate for or remote the cause of the problem. If we are the cause then removal is an option...
Upvote
0
R
Rhyl Lightworks
I didn't think there was any doubt that the world is warming up. The following graph is taken from NASA's website, but I could have chosen half a dozen others which show much the same trends:
or am I interpreting this data wrongly?
Barrie
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #64
The trouble is that for any one set of data there are just as many that contradict or explain away. For example, here's an article from National Geographic that reveals that, for the last few decades, temperatures on Mars have increased in sync with temperatures on Earth. Where are the greenhouse gases on Mars? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
And climate changes are happening on Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html .
And climate changes are happening on Triton: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml .
And what about global warming on Pluto? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
And temperatures on Venus have been rising too.
And to quote this article, "scientists are somewhat puzzled" by the drop in sea level in the Arctic region: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm . Oh, and by the way, they are falling in the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean too.
Would you like a list of the many glaciers that are growing? Here's an article about this in Greenland: http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN .
And another article concerned about a new Ice Age: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html .
Did you know that, when Eric the Red invaded Greenland in the 900s, it was ice-free farm country? Why can the IPCC not explain why global temperatures fell from 1940 to 1975 even while carbon dioxide levels increased? The Wall Street Journal points this one out: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693 .
And what about the open letter from 100 top scientists to the UN to protest the unwarranted paranioa about global warming? These leading scientists believe sunspots control our climate, not man's activity: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 .Then there's the series of blog articles about recent global cooling. Graphics such as the one you posted are compared with sunspot cycles, which certainly seem to explain temperature variations. http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog .
Then there's this article from the Cato Institute that notes, rather insightfully IMHO: "This constellation of half-truths and misstatements is a predictable consequence of the way that science is now conducted, where issues compete with each other for public support. Unfortunately, this creates a culture of negativity that is reflected in the recent spate of global warming reports." http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622 .
Then there's the former recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who now wishes to retract his opinion that CO2 affects our climate: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...acekeeper-asks-un-admit-climate-change-errors . Al Gore, eat your heart out!
And the list goes on and on and on and on. And the scare-mongering, without evidence, goes on and on and on and on. And, in the meantime, the government infringes more and more on our personal liberties in the name of the global warming myth.
And climate changes are happening on Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html .
And climate changes are happening on Triton: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml .
And what about global warming on Pluto? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
And temperatures on Venus have been rising too.
And to quote this article, "scientists are somewhat puzzled" by the drop in sea level in the Arctic region: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm . Oh, and by the way, they are falling in the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean too.
Would you like a list of the many glaciers that are growing? Here's an article about this in Greenland: http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN .
And another article concerned about a new Ice Age: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html .
Did you know that, when Eric the Red invaded Greenland in the 900s, it was ice-free farm country? Why can the IPCC not explain why global temperatures fell from 1940 to 1975 even while carbon dioxide levels increased? The Wall Street Journal points this one out: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693 .
And what about the open letter from 100 top scientists to the UN to protest the unwarranted paranioa about global warming? These leading scientists believe sunspots control our climate, not man's activity: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 .Then there's the series of blog articles about recent global cooling. Graphics such as the one you posted are compared with sunspot cycles, which certainly seem to explain temperature variations. http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog .
Then there's this article from the Cato Institute that notes, rather insightfully IMHO: "This constellation of half-truths and misstatements is a predictable consequence of the way that science is now conducted, where issues compete with each other for public support. Unfortunately, this creates a culture of negativity that is reflected in the recent spate of global warming reports." http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622 .
Then there's the former recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who now wishes to retract his opinion that CO2 affects our climate: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...acekeeper-asks-un-admit-climate-change-errors . Al Gore, eat your heart out!
And the list goes on and on and on and on. And the scare-mongering, without evidence, goes on and on and on and on. And, in the meantime, the government infringes more and more on our personal liberties in the name of the global warming myth.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #65
And, so I can post a picture too , here's the extent of the temperature drop in the last ten years.
, here's the extent of the temperature drop in the last ten years.
Notice how the temperature increase in your graph, over 120 years, is similar to the decrease observed in the last decade. When comparing graphs, it's very important to note the scales.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #66
This is a really interesting quote. In January 2007, newspapers in the US warned us all that 2006 was the hottest year in American history. Guess what? Some scientists looked into the data and discovered a surprising discontinuity in the numbers obtained from US weather centres. To quote an article about this, "it was determined that GISS had accidentally incorporated a data error in their routines aimed at updating and compiling individual station histories as well as the U.S. national temperatures."
What does this mean? 2006 was the 4th hottest year, quite a bit behind 1938. Guess what? No newspapers ever published a correction. Funny that!
What does this mean? 2006 was the 4th hottest year, quite a bit behind 1938. Guess what? No newspapers ever published a correction. Funny that!
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #67
And why does all this matter? Why not just go along with the purveyors of doom and gloom? Surely it wouldn't hurt.
Here's an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:
Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.
So, it does matter. As the author puts it, "environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings". Many of the policies being inflicted on us right now are going to hurt our food supply. Indeed, we've seen this in the last few months. This is before we consider the flagrant encroachment on individual liberty and the mocking of those who don't agree with the establishment view. Yes, it does matter.
Here's an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:
Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.
So, it does matter. As the author puts it, "environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings". Many of the policies being inflicted on us right now are going to hurt our food supply. Indeed, we've seen this in the last few months. This is before we consider the flagrant encroachment on individual liberty and the mocking of those who don't agree with the establishment view. Yes, it does matter.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Some more links to add to Steve's excellent round up!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021
Some very interesting quotes regarding the data collection methods of the dendroclimatologists!
The way in which temperature is measured pre-20th century is also an area which should be subject to scrutiny. I spent about £3000 last year calibrating the thermocouples and instruments in my lab so that recorded oven temperatures were acceptable to standards bodies. Yet someone can look at a tree ring and tell me what the temperature was with any reasonable degree of accuracy 5000 years ago? Phhht.
Looking at CO2 in ice core samples for even further back? Still not had it explained how the high permeability of CO2 in ice affects any measurements.
Anyways, back to the 'hockey stick graph'.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
Seems even the most basic controls and counter balances weren't applied to the methodologies for generating these numbers.
The environmental lobby should be reducing their reliance upon this whole area of 'bad science' pretty sharpish or their admirable movement is going to be set back decades.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021
Some very interesting quotes regarding the data collection methods of the dendroclimatologists!
The way in which temperature is measured pre-20th century is also an area which should be subject to scrutiny. I spent about £3000 last year calibrating the thermocouples and instruments in my lab so that recorded oven temperatures were acceptable to standards bodies. Yet someone can look at a tree ring and tell me what the temperature was with any reasonable degree of accuracy 5000 years ago? Phhht.
Looking at CO2 in ice core samples for even further back? Still not had it explained how the high permeability of CO2 in ice affects any measurements.
Anyways, back to the 'hockey stick graph'.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
Seems even the most basic controls and counter balances weren't applied to the methodologies for generating these numbers.
The environmental lobby should be reducing their reliance upon this whole area of 'bad science' pretty sharpish or their admirable movement is going to be set back decades.
Upvote
0
R
Rhyl Lightworks
There is some dubious science on both sides, and for every report that seems to point in one direction, there can be found an equivalent contradicting it. While I re-iterate that the causes of climate change can be debated, I believe there is little doubt that it is happening; how can anyone deny the melting of the polar ice-caps or the increasing frequency of climate related disasters.
I sometimes wonder what people in Burma, Sudan and other parts of Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, New Orleans, even Gloucestershire and many other places would think if they knew we were having an esoteric debate about the validity of the science.
Barrie
I sometimes wonder what people in Burma, Sudan and other parts of Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, New Orleans, even Gloucestershire and many other places would think if they knew we were having an esoteric debate about the validity of the science.
Barrie
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
I'm sorry, are you trying to say:
Debating climate change is esoteric, (Hidden or deeper knowledge or teachings that are possessed or understood only by a few)?
Esoteric means worthless?
People in those places can't or don't debate about climate change, or other concerns?
Mildly patronising? (My little Welsh bulb seller)
Upvote
0
Sorry, but that's tabloid-level nonsense - nobody can tie individual self-contained events into being as a result 'climate change'.
And, yet again, I don't deny that change is possibly taking place, I just personally question the cause, to some degree the extent of it, along with the reporting of it and political reaction.
By the way, I live just outside Tewkesbury, which I assume is the Gloucestershire bit you are referencing. Yes, it was what one may call a little damp last summer, but you know what, it was variously referred to as the 1 in 100 years storm or 1 in 1000 years storm, which by its very definition means its an event that has a chance of happening and is in no way proof of anything new as a result of mankind's actions. The people who built the abbey over 1000 years ago, on the original site where Tewkesbury was intiailly settled (and a little before modern industrialisation and its CO2 emissions) managed to work that out, hence it didn't flood.
Upvote
0
R
Rhyl Lightworks
I'm sorry, are you trying to say:
Debating climate change is esoteric, (Hidden or deeper knowledge or teachings that are possessed or understood only by a few)?
Esoteric means worthless?
People in those places can't or don't debate about climate change, or other concerns?
Mildly patronising? (My little Welsh bulb seller)
Touche - although I do defend the use of the word esoteric, whose primary definition in my dictionary is 'abstruce, obscure' - what I was trying to convey.
I do wonder what will have to happen before some people accept that both global warming and climate change are upon us, but I see little point in
continuing this discussion as no-one is going to change their positions.
Barrie
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #75
In a sense, climate change has always been with us. The mini ice ages that occurred several centuries ago were probably more dramatic than anything we see right now. The real issue, to me at least, is that certain groups want to force their political agendas down my throat. They grasp at whatever data supports their case, or wins them a Nobel prize, and ignore other data and ignore explanations that contradict their explanation. It's a sad fact that the media gives these groups their active support because they make good headlines. This whole issue has little to do with science because more and more scientists are pointing out the lack of evidence for global warming.
Barrie, if I believed the evidence was there and that human actions are the cause, I would change my opinion. But I just don't see it. Climate change, whether we're warming or cooling (and cooling is far more worrisome), is almost completely outside our control.
Upvote
0
T
theguvnor
You learn something every day. I'll take drowning over being joined to France any day though!
Upvote
0
W
WhatManufacturersWant
Not quite all but fair enough.
Firstly I'm nobodies advocate for global warming being a human activity. The planet warms and cools - learn to live with it.
However the the argument for/against the rising sea levels is not the extra water. It's the temperature itself.
If the planet warms so does the water on it. A 1 degree rise in temperature expands the volume of water on the surface by (don't know the actual figure) lets say 0.1%.
There happens to be quite a bit of it so we can esimate that the level of water increases by say 0.05% (as the water gets higher there is less land so the water has more gaps to fill) so a 0.05% ( of 5000ft average say ) rise in the level means we all buy wellies and it gets a bit crowded.
Firstly I'm nobodies advocate for global warming being a human activity. The planet warms and cools - learn to live with it.
However the the argument for/against the rising sea levels is not the extra water. It's the temperature itself.
If the planet warms so does the water on it. A 1 degree rise in temperature expands the volume of water on the surface by (don't know the actual figure) lets say 0.1%.
There happens to be quite a bit of it so we can esimate that the level of water increases by say 0.05% (as the water gets higher there is less land so the water has more gaps to fill) so a 0.05% ( of 5000ft average say ) rise in the level means we all buy wellies and it gets a bit crowded.
Upvote
0
You can debate science as much as you like, but some industries are directly affected by climate change.
Ski resorts have had to move upwards by over 1,000 meters and the lower resorts already closed completely back in the 90's and the lifts dismantled because there had been no snow for over 10 years an no prospect of snow again.
The high resorts now all have artificial snow making and some seasons are so warm that even they are unable to make snow.
This is a real industry with some serious money. A single lift costs over £ 1 million and more people stay in a large ski resort each week than visit Old Trafford.
A number of glacier resorts have completely closed in the summer because the glacier no longer exists.
If you look anywhere in the world the glaciers have melted back a long way. The Alps are close if you want to take a look, and you can see that the glaciers have moved miles back up the mountain where they still exist.
Personally, I spent over 15 years ski racing, and glaciers that were over 60 feet deep when I started had disappeared by the time I quit in 1993.
All the best
Ronald
Ski resorts have had to move upwards by over 1,000 meters and the lower resorts already closed completely back in the 90's and the lifts dismantled because there had been no snow for over 10 years an no prospect of snow again.
The high resorts now all have artificial snow making and some seasons are so warm that even they are unable to make snow.
This is a real industry with some serious money. A single lift costs over £ 1 million and more people stay in a large ski resort each week than visit Old Trafford.
A number of glacier resorts have completely closed in the summer because the glacier no longer exists.
If you look anywhere in the world the glaciers have melted back a long way. The Alps are close if you want to take a look, and you can see that the glaciers have moved miles back up the mountain where they still exist.
Personally, I spent over 15 years ski racing, and glaciers that were over 60 feet deep when I started had disappeared by the time I quit in 1993.
All the best
Ronald
Upvote
0
W
WhatManufacturersWant
LOL
Darn (keeping it clean)
OK, what am I bid for 20,000 wellies - All left footed. (It was a special deal and lets face it in a crisis anythings better than nothing)
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from...- maka
- Updated:
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
SEO in the Age of AI: What UK Small Businesses Actually Need to KnowTL;DR Search has shifted from "ten blue links" to answer engines, and...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
