aintforever Posted 15 November, 2009 Share Posted 15 November, 2009 Whilst over here in Gordon Brown's Britain we are closing down wind turbine factories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 More good news for common sense ahead of the Copenhagen sumit http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?_r=3 Looks like its going to be down to Britain and Spain the save the world all on their own now then...Good luck with that y'all.....20% unemployment in Spain along with the worst economy in Europe....That's what happens when you give a Socialist Government the keys to the windmill factory. ............................................................ BTW, anyone notice how quiet Saintfully has been, since being asked to clarify his "3000 scientist" comment?....No surprise there....fact is, he can't....Its just a fantasy figure branded around by the media, for the consumption of the dim and gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 We had better hope Saint George knows better than the scientific community because our politicians certainly not going to sort anything out. They can't even agree on targets let alone actually meet them. The UK's government might as well stop bothering trying to combat climate change and just concentrate of preparing for the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 16 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 16 November, 2009 St George and Ian Plimer go well together. George Monbiot has a good go at Plimer today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/nov/13/climate-deniers-today-programme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 We had better hope Saint George knows better than the scientific community because our politicians certainly not going to sort anything out. They can't even agree on targets let alone actually meet them. The UK's government might as well stop bothering trying to combat climate change and just concentrate of preparing for the changes. Hey...The 'science' happens to be on 'my' side!....And you're 100% correct, you're far better off putting resorces into planning for the inevitable, that being, what ever nature has in store for us next.....Sun Spots and volcano eruptions etc, are not going to be influenced by building windmills and arresting peeps for putting the wrong garbage in the wrong bins....No matter how much Gordie, the mythical 3000 and the eco profiteers stamp their feet about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 Hey...The 'science' happens to be on 'my' side!....And you're 100% correct, you're far better off putting resorces into planning for the inevitable, that being, what ever nature has in store for us next.....Sun Spots and volcano eruptions etc, are not going to be influenced by building windmills and arresting peeps for putting the wrong garbage in the wrong bins....No matter how much Gordie, the mythical 3000 and the eco profiteers stamp their feet about it. I'm glad you put 'science' in quotes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 Hey...The 'science' happens to be on 'my' side!....And you're 100% correct, you're far better off putting resorces into planning for the inevitable, that being, what ever nature has in store for us next.....Sun Spots and volcano eruptions etc, are not going to be influenced by building windmills and arresting peeps for putting the wrong garbage in the wrong bins....No matter how much Gordie, the mythical 3000 and the eco profiteers stamp their feet about it. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that science is on your side when just a few minutes looking on the net... In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years. The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[7] that: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities. In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment[8]: Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest: Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. n 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” National Research Council (US) In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[24] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community: The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. European Science Foundation In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change: There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial. In fact, according to wikipedia, since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 I'm sorry, but ANYONE who thinks that the planet will be 'fine' given that we are throwing up more CO2 now then ever before with less rainforest to absorb it all needs their head testing. The seas ARE becoming more acidic, which is killing off small crustations which will have an untold impact on the food chain. This planet is going down the ****ter, and it is a shame that smoe people are so ignorant and greedy that they just refuse to listen to common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 Come on Peeps, Saint George has got it all worked out so y'all don't have to worry none. Thank the hot diggedy dawg lord for that!! Yeee haaaa.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 16 November, 2009 Share Posted 16 November, 2009 I'm sorry, but ANYONE who thinks that the planet will be 'fine' given that we are throwing up more CO2 now then ever before with less rainforest to absorb it all needs their head testing. The seas ARE becoming more acidic, which is killing off small crustations which will have an untold impact on the food chain. This planet is going down the ****ter, and it is a shame that smoe people are so ignorant and greedy that they just refuse to listen to common sense. TBF not a lot we can do about it now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 Hey...The 'science' happens to be on 'my' side!....And you're 100% correct, you're far better off putting resorces into planning for the inevitable, that being, what ever nature has in store for us next.....Sun Spots and volcano eruptions etc, are not going to be influenced by building windmills and arresting peeps for putting the wrong garbage in the wrong bins....No matter how much Gordie, the mythical 3000 and the eco profiteers stamp their feet about it. Just because I havn't replied dosn't mean the 3000 don't exist - they were the attendees of an AAAS summit in 2007. And actually the number is really an irrelevance - next you'll be citing the list of 30000 'scientists' who were said to disbelieve climate change - and were then found out to consist of 650 PhDs and 29350-ish utter ****s... reminding me of ??? The point is that there is an accepted concensus in the scientific community. My question to you St George is whether it is just a happy coincidence that your climate-change beliefs (a scientific position) lie alongside your political beliefs, or are you incapable of separating the two and therefore a bit simple ? Im off to do some science now - or maybe I'll just make up a load of ****** that suits my political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 Climate change is not man made, it's a natural phenomenon that has always occured. Furthermore climate fluctuations happen quickly i.e over decades as oposed to over thousands of years as proved by the warm spell of the 14th century and the cold spell of the 18th century, not mention the Ice age we suposedly entering in the 70's. But hey who are we to argue with a Socialist excuse for yet another stealth tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 (edited) Climate change is not man made, it's a natural phenomenon that has always occured. Furthermore climate fluctuations happen quickly i.e over decades as oposed to over thousands of years as proved by the warm spell of the 14th century and the cold spell of the 18th century, not mention the Ice age we suposedly entering in the 70's. But hey who are we to argue with a Socialist excuse for yet another stealth tax? As I said before, all this extra CO2 THE HUMAN RACE is responsible for throwing up into the atmosphere isn't having any impact then? Edited 17 November, 2009 by Thorpe-le-Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 As I said before, all this extra CO2 THE HUMAN RACE is responsible for throwing up into the atmosphere isn't haven't any impact then? has it..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 has it..? Well of course it is/has! Like my previous post mentioned, due to the lack of rainforest left to soak up the unbelievable CO2 expenditure of the developed world, the sea has to pick up the slack. This in turn is making the world's oceans more acidic, I won't repeat myself. I'm afraid I trust scientists and academics who have devoted their lives to academia a hell of a lot more than I trust some random/average Joe in the street who simply claims that any green measures are a "stealth tax" or some sort of "socialist agenda". The ignorami among you will have the pleasure of not paying the price of flooding, not just across the world, but in Britain too or the extinction of animals that have roamed this planet for thousands of years which WILL affect the food avaliable for us eat. It will be your children and your children's children who will look back at the early part of the 21st century and think to themselves "What the hell were these people doing?" The facts are there, and if you choose to ignore them then you do so at your peril. If you cared to do some research you will find that ice is at it's slimest level just as CO2 production is at record highs...coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 (edited) Climate change is not man made, it's a natural phenomenon that has always occured. Furthermore climate fluctuations happen quickly i.e over decades as oposed to over thousands of years as proved by the warm spell of the 14th century and the cold spell of the 18th century, not mention the Ice age we suposedly entering in the 70's. But hey who are we to argue with a Socialist excuse for yet another stealth tax? You don't think that the World's scientific community would just maybe have taken natural variations into account? Edited 17 November, 2009 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 Just because I havn't replied dosn't mean the 3000 don't exist - they were the attendees of an AAAS summit in 2007. And actually the number is really an irrelevance - next you'll be citing the list of 30000 'scientists' who were said to disbelieve climate change - and were then found out to consist of 650 PhDs and 29350-ish utter ****s... reminding me of ??? The point is that there is an accepted concensus in the scientific community. My question to you St George is whether it is just a happy coincidence that your climate-change beliefs (a scientific position) lie alongside your political beliefs, or are you incapable of separating the two and therefore a bit simple ? Im off to do some science now - or maybe I'll just make up a load of ****** that suits my political agenda. Ah so the 3000 were just atendee's at a sumit then.....A bit like 3000 peeps watching big Al's movie....When you said "Hmmm - who to believe ? 3000 scientists who've each spent there entire working lives on climatology etc., who are at least as intelligent as anyone on this forum and who say there is a problem after following scientific method." I assumed you at least knew who these peeps were, I mean you sounded so sure of their history and IQ levels. Apparently not, silly me.....Just as well you called them irrelevant then. Interesting that you happen to mention the AAAS though.....Look at the wording that has just miraculously slipped into their letter to the US Senate in Oct 09 "If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves. http://"http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf hmmmm sounds like they're starting to hedge their bets a little, you could even say they're finally starting to accept Climate Change is inevitable...Definitely the first signs of a little wriggling there....and even worse for some...oooooh noooooo's'they're starting to agree with St George!.... ....Hell, even the BBC's starting to shuffle toward the bail out hatch http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm I did warn y'all a year or so back to get on the right side of the argument before you end up looking stupid. As for my political beliefs...Let me just say this..... There has been some significant research to suggest that peeps who tend to be led by logic tend to lean to the political right and peeps who tend to be led by their emotions ie the bleeding hearts and artists, tend to lean to the left.....Thats why you see so many drama queens falling for the media led 'Man made' global warming scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 hmmmm sounds like they're starting to hedge their bets a little, you could even say they're finally starting to accept Climate Change is inevitable...Definitely the first signs of a little wriggling there....and even worse for some...oooooh noooooo's'they're starting to agree with St George!.... ....Hell, even the BBC's starting to shuffle toward the bail out hatch http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm Why do you never actually read anything that is posted by people who accept MMCC ? NOBODY, I'll repeat that as you seem to be a bit hard of thinking, NOBODY, denies that climate change is a natural geophysical phenomenon, OK - point agreed, don't have a problem with that ! However those who accept the science, and don't immediately and blindly dismiss anything from the Government as another 'stealth tax', have concerns that human activity is exacerbating the problem - not just by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but by deforestation and pollution of the seas. You see, in any totally natural event, the balance of nature will be maintained, but we are so obsessed with material wealth and 'my cars bigger than yours' that we are tipping the balance. And whilst it may only be a little bit of the overall total that we contribute directly, the models show that it only needs a very small amount over and above what can naturally be managed, to nudge things beyond the tipping point. In all the historical cycles prior to the mid 1800's, mankind's contribution was effectively zero, and, of course, the rainforests were intact, and the plankton blooms were perfectly happy in their environment. Oh, and the BBC article does nothing other than to say there are two sides to the argument. Hardly an earth shattering conclusion ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 As for my political beliefs...Let me just say this..... There has been some significant research to suggest that peeps who tend to be led by logic tend to lean to the political right and peeps who tend to be led by their emotions ie the bleeding hearts and artists, tend to lean to the left.....Thats why you see so many drama queens falling for the media led 'Man made' global warming scam. Yeah like that looney leftie who was one of the first to speak out on climate change in 1989 - Margaret Thatcher (who just happens to have a chemistry degree). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 Ah so the 3000 were just atendee's at a sumit then.....A bit like 3000 peeps watching big Al's movie....When you said "Hmmm - who to believe ? 3000 scientists who've each spent there entire working lives on climatology etc., who are at least as intelligent as anyone on this forum and who say there is a problem after following scientific method." I assumed you at least knew who these peeps were, I mean you sounded so sure of their history and IQ levels. Apparently not, silly me.....Just as well you called them irrelevant then. Interesting that you happen to mention the AAAS though.....Look at the wording that has just miraculously slipped into their letter to the US Senate in Oct 09 "If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves. http://"http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf hmmmm sounds like they're starting to hedge their bets a little, you could even say they're finally starting to accept Climate Change is inevitable...Definitely the first signs of a little wriggling there....and even worse for some...oooooh noooooo's'they're starting to agree with St George!.... ....Hell, even the BBC's starting to shuffle toward the bail out hatch http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm I did warn y'all a year or so back to get on the right side of the argument before you end up looking stupid. As for my political beliefs...Let me just say this..... There has been some significant research to suggest that peeps who tend to be led by logic tend to lean to the political right and peeps who tend to be led by their emotions ie the bleeding hearts and artists, tend to lean to the left.....Thats why you see so many drama queens falling for the media led 'Man made' global warming scam. I think the first thing to say at this point is that Im not concerned with looking stupid... I would be worried about being stupid, but I only have to look at the arguments presented to me by others to realise thats not something I need to worry about. The second point is that unavoidable climate change is not a sum-total game. MMCC will be exacerbated by failure to reduce carbon emissions. Its not that difficult to understand is it? I think Badger explained it clearly. Lastly, George, what was the significant research? Does it explain the confusing acceptance of MMCC by a bunch of right-leaning chinese leaders who control there own media? I think your world is a very simple one, and the real world is more complicated than you are prepared to accept/understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 I don't know how you come to the conclusion that science is on your side when just a few minutes looking on the net... In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years. The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[7] that: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities. In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment[8]: Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest: Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. n 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany: “A consensus, based on c urrent evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” National Research Council (US) In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[24] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community: The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. European Science Foundation In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change: There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial. In fact, according to wikipedia, since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Nice list there, but not much more than If's, buts, maybe's and dodgy climate models......Some of it is hopelessly out of date and some of it, nothing more than politically or financially led clap trap....But where's the facts?, the proven theory's and scientific Laws? The IPCC?....the same UN and politically led IPCC that introduced the World to Mann's "Hockey Stick", complete with air brushed out Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?....nope....no credibility there The U.S. Global Change Research Program? another Political organization. None the less they've recently introduced rhetoric like this......"No matter how aggressively heat-trapping emissions are reduced, some amount of climate change and resulting impacts will continue. Consequently, there is a need for adaptation".....oh look there's that word "adaptation" again http://www.globalchange.gov/component/content/article/67-themes/153-our-changing-planet The Intergovernmental Arctic Council?....from 2004?.....May have looked relevant back then but the Earth has 'Cooled' a fair bit since they wrote that assessment The European Academy of Sciences and Arts........ Arts?....Anything with the word "Arts" in the title deserves no place in a science discussion.....Next! The Network of African Science Academies...LOL this is great heh...Africa is one of the largest benefactors of the Cap and Trade scam lol ...They're the recipients of $$$Billions$$$ in global scam grants from the West. Like Turkey's are ever going to vote for xmas lol National Research Council?.....IPCC arse kissers...great way to get funding As for your comment "In fact, according to wikipedia, since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion Are you kidding me?..... http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23406/Scores_of_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/23561/More_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23697/Still_More_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html Enough of the theories, ifs, but's, maybe's and dodgy models etc...here are the undisputed 'facts' Nature's gunna get ya! http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm Good luck with trying to stand in the way of that! and to put it all into words...... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/Robinson_Soon.pdf . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 You don't think that the World's scientific community would just maybe have taken natural variations into account? The IPCC certainly didn't, when they introduced the world to this.......And this is where it all started http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm "The evidence from the `exhibits' is overwhelming. From all corners of the world, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age clearly shows up in a variety of proxy indicators, proxies more representative of temperature than the inadequate tree rings used by Michael Mann. What is disquieting about the `Hockey Stick' is not Mann's presentation of it originally. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found to be flawed in any way. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse industry to it - the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence which was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear. Proponents of the `Hockey Stick' should recall George Orwell's `Nineteen Eighty-Four', a black SF drama in which his fictional totalitarian regime used `memory holes' to re-invent past history [22]. In this age of instant communication, there is no `memory hole' big enough to overturn the historical truth about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 Can you please tell me what John Daly's qualifications are? All I know, from a brief google search is that he's a Tasmanian school teacher who's dead (presumably from heat exhaustion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 You're trying to bamboozle us with graphs and charts St.George, but how can you be sure that those temperature readings etc in 1500/1600/1700/1800 are 100% accurate?!? The truth is, you can't! And for the love of God, please stop saying "Ya'll", it makes me want to smack you in the face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 November, 2009 An interesting set of proposals put forward by the government today to grant permitted planning development rights to put up smaller turbines and solar panels. http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1384648 It's been put out to consultation for three months but should make it through. Basically it will remove the need for planning permission to be granted to put up green energy devices in many cases. A good move in my opinion. I am assisting a museum install a 50KW solar PV system which ought to produce enough energy on average to power the equivalent of about 20 houses on a 24-hour basis. However, the flat earth society nimbys have halted much small scale green energy development in the UK while Germany, Spain and Denmark have embraced the concept. This looks like a plan that could help alleviate the planning process quagmire, allow the generation of green energy at places such as schools, hospitals and stadia, and help bring the manufacturing cost and retail price of turbines/PV panels down as well. A win-win, I would suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 St George: Can you tell me why the 'Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine', upon which you heavily rely, seems rather more interested in survivalism - specifically preparing for nuclear annihilation and 'homeland defense' against war and terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 Nice list there, but not much more than If's, buts, maybe's and dodgy climate models......Some of it is hopelessly out of date and some of it, nothing more than politically or financially led clap trap....But where's the facts?, the proven theory's and scientific Laws? The IPCC?....the same UN and politically led IPCC that introduced the World to Mann's "Hockey Stick", complete with air brushed out Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?....nope....no credibility there The U.S. Global Change Research Program? another Political organization. None the less they've recently introduced rhetoric like this......"No matter how aggressively heat-trapping emissions are reduced, some amount of climate change and resulting impacts will continue. Consequently, there is a need for adaptation".....oh look there's that word "adaptation" again http://www.globalchange.gov/component/content/article/67-themes/153-our-changing-planet The Intergovernmental Arctic Council?....from 2004?.....May have looked relevant back then but the Earth has 'Cooled' a fair bit since they wrote that assessment The European Academy of Sciences and Arts........ Arts?....Anything with the word "Arts" in the title deserves no place in a science discussion.....Next! The Network of African Science Academies...LOL this is great heh...Africa is one of the largest benefactors of the Cap and Trade scam lol ...They're the recipients of $$$Billions$$$ in global scam grants from the West. Like Turkey's are ever going to vote for xmas lol National Research Council?.....IPCC arse kissers...great way to get funding As for your comment "In fact, according to wikipedia, since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion Are you kidding me?..... http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23406/Scores_of_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/23561/More_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23697/Still_More_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html Enough of the theories, ifs, but's, maybe's and dodgy models etc...here are the undisputed 'facts' Nature's gunna get ya! http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm Good luck with trying to stand in the way of that! and to put it all into words...... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/Robinson_Soon.pdf . . . The Heartland Institute - Free Market Solutions - are you being serious? Which scientific body of national or international standing agree with your theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 If you want to present a graph, why not extend it back 30,000 years ? At that point, in the middle of the last Ice Age, Britain was under 1Km of ice, we have sure seen a lot of warming since then. I would have thought that's exactly the kind of statistical information you thrive on. Then again, why not go back to the Cretaceous Period, when there were no ice caps at all, and the sea level was far higher than it is now. ( You would have been happy back then, with all the other dinosaurs ). None of your graphs disprove MMCC, they simply show there is no simple answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 17 November, 2009 Share Posted 17 November, 2009 Nice to see some robust challenges to St G's incessant, and usually offensive denial. I'm all for debate but as has been proven many times, his inability to accept any opinion other than his own is somewhat limiting... debates need each side to actually acknowledge the other first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Saints George's opinions, backed up by his own research, mirror my own views on climate change. Unlike the majority on this thread (who invariably happen to be left wingers/socialists), St G and myself have listened to the debate, and looked at the evidence and made our own judgements based upon myriad information. There is a saying “Eagles fly alone, but sheep flock together” and without wanting to patronise it’s crystal clear that the majority of those who have obediently fallen into line behind the man made climate change myth are sheep. The graphs St G has pasted up are not opinion open for debate, they are facts. There is an indisputable correlation between sun spot activity and the temperatures on Earth. Note how the blue line and the red lines strangely follow. Mmmm now let me see does this mean that those dirty fumes from cars and factories have affected sun spot activity? Get real guys and look at the facts - not the spin from the left wingers and socialists. So why are western governments pushing this lie? Well it’s a good ploy to force a new tax on the masses, but also consider the question of oil reserves and the ancient battle between Christendom and Islam. OK so nowadays we are more secular (at least in the west) in our thinking, but the old crusade for wealth and power continues. With the growth of the economies of India and China, and the rising power held by middle eastern oil producing states, we in the west cannot sit idly by and simply let the old world order be superseded by an eastern new world order. In days gone by we would have gone to war to protect our interests, but times have changed and the best way of protecting our interests is take the power away from the oil producing states by making sure we don’t need vast amounts of oil to fuel our economies. This is why the man made global warming myth is being pushed - so that we develop and use renewable energy sources that we can produce ourselves. I do not dispute that the fight to suppress the middle east and developing world is a noble cause, and I do not deny it’s essential for sheep (the left wingers and socialists) to believe and to peddle the myth. In fact without the sheep the west is doomed to fall like so many empires and civilisations have done before, but that doesn’t mean that we all should be hoodwinked, brainwashed and naïve. Thinking about it the man made global warming myth has striking similarities to the bible or the Koran. It’s amazing that in the 21st century humanity has not changed at all and the flock are still blindly following the shepherds. In fact the left wing/socialists might as well go the whole hog and adopt this song as their battle cry… It is ironic that those that argue so much against the crusader mentality are in fact it’s fiercest disciples and that the most ardent socialists/left wingers are in fact the most subjugated of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Well of course it is/has! Like my previous post mentioned, due to the lack of rainforest left to soak up the unbelievable CO2 expenditure of the developed world, the sea has to pick up the slack. This in turn is making the world's oceans more acidic, I won't repeat myself. I'm afraid I trust scientists and academics who have devoted their lives to academia a hell of a lot more than I trust some random/average Joe in the street who simply claims that any green measures are a "stealth tax" or some sort of "socialist agenda". The ignorami among you will have the pleasure of not paying the price of flooding, not just across the world, but in Britain too or the extinction of animals that have roamed this planet for thousands of years which WILL affect the food avaliable for us eat. It will be your children and your children's children who will look back at the early part of the 21st century and think to themselves "What the hell were these people doing?" The facts are there, and if you choose to ignore them then you do so at your peril. If you cared to do some research you will find that ice is at it's slimest level just as CO2 production is at record highs...coincidence? I think that a contributory factor to flooding in this country is more concrete (replacing the green stuff that can absorb water), an antiquated inadequte water system (the wonders of privatisation) and greedy developers being allowed to build on flood plains. You have a habit of labelling people ignorant for not agreeing with your point of view. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 'Dune', you make no sense at all. And I think I might trust a few people with actual scientific credentials a bit more than this myopic twaddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Saints George's opinions, backed up by his own research, mirror my own views on climate change. Unlike the majority on this thread (who invariably happen to be left wingers/socialists), St G and myself have listened to the debate, and looked at the evidence and made our own judgements based upon myriad information. There is a saying “Eagles fly alone, but sheep flock together” and without wanting to patronise it’s crystal clear that the majority of those who have obediently fallen into line behind the man made climate change myth are sheep. The graphs St G has pasted up are not opinion open for debate, they are facts. There is an indisputable correlation between sun spot activity and the temperatures on Earth. Note how the blue line and the red lines strangely follow. Mmmm now let me see does this mean that those dirty fumes from cars and factories have affected sun spot activity? Get real guys and look at the facts - not the spin from the left wingers and socialists. So why are western governments pushing this lie? Well it’s a good ploy to force a new tax on the masses, but also consider the question of oil reserves and the ancient battle between Christendom and Islam. OK so nowadays we are more secular (at least in the west) in our thinking, but the old crusade for wealth and power continues. With the growth of the economies of India and China, and the rising power held by middle eastern oil producing states, we in the west cannot sit idly by and simply let the old world order be superseded by an eastern new world order. In days gone by we would have gone to war to protect our interests, but times have changed and the best way of protecting our interests is take the power away from the oil producing states by making sure we don’t need vast amounts of oil to fuel our economies. This is why the man made global warming myth is being pushed - so that we develop and use renewable energy sources that we can produce ourselves. I do not dispute that the fight to suppress the middle east and developing world is a noble cause, and I do not deny it’s essential for sheep (the left wingers and socialists) to believe and to peddle the myth. In fact without the sheep the west is doomed to fall like so many empires and civilisations have done before, but that doesn’t mean that we all should be hoodwinked, brainwashed and naïve. Thinking about it the man made global warming myth has striking similarities to the bible or the Koran. It’s amazing that in the 21st century humanity has not changed at all and the flock are still blindly following the shepherds. In fact the left wing/socialists might as well go the whole hog and adopt this song as their battle cry… It is ironic that those that argue so much against the crusader mentality are in fact it’s fiercest disciples and that the most ardent socialists/left wingers are in fact the most subjugated of all. I am left leaning and I don't go along with all this climate change propoganda. Why the label. Cameron and the Tories are painting themselves as the party of the environment and they're not exactly left-wing are they. Unless you are telling me that they are lying - surely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 I think that a contributory factor to flooding in this country is more concrete (replacing the green stuff that can absorb water), an antiquated inadequte water system (the wonders of privatisation) and greedy developers being allowed to build on flood plains. You have a habit of labelling people ignorant for not agreeing with your point of view. Nice. Not at all, it's just when cold hard facts are clear for all to see and people simply put their heads in the ground and fingers in their ears, what else can I label them but ignorant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml (" Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.") http://www.enersolcorp.com/news/2007/Solar_report.htm ("Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.".) http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/ ("Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming") :smt008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 this thread shows me that there is not real proof what so ever either way.. one said will quote facts and figures then the other side will counter that with more facts and figure and so on.. meanwhile, we are getting hit with little taxes here and there and we just get on with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Saints George's opinions, backed up by his own research, mirror my own views on climate change. Unlike the majority on this thread (who invariably happen to be left wingers/socialists), St G and myself have listened to the debate, and looked at the evidence and made our own judgements based upon myriad information. There is a saying “Eagles fly alone, but sheep flock together” and without wanting to patronise it’s crystal clear that the majority of those who have obediently fallen into line behind the man made climate change myth are sheep. The graphs St G has pasted up are not opinion open for debate, they are facts. There is an indisputable correlation between sun spot activity and the temperatures on Earth. Note how the blue line and the red lines strangely follow. Mmmm now let me see does this mean that those dirty fumes from cars and factories have affected sun spot activity? Get real guys and look at the facts - not the spin from the left wingers and socialists. So why are western governments pushing this lie? Well it’s a good ploy to force a new tax on the masses, but also consider the question of oil reserves and the ancient battle between Christendom and Islam. OK so nowadays we are more secular (at least in the west) in our thinking, but the old crusade for wealth and power continues. With the growth of the economies of India and China, and the rising power held by middle eastern oil producing states, we in the west cannot sit idly by and simply let the old world order be superseded by an eastern new world order. In days gone by we would have gone to war to protect our interests, but times have changed and the best way of protecting our interests is take the power away from the oil producing states by making sure we don’t need vast amounts of oil to fuel our economies. This is why the man made global warming myth is being pushed - so that we develop and use renewable energy sources that we can produce ourselves. I do not dispute that the fight to suppress the middle east and developing world is a noble cause, and I do not deny it’s essential for sheep (the left wingers and socialists) to believe and to peddle the myth. In fact without the sheep the west is doomed to fall like so many empires and civilisations have done before, but that doesn’t mean that we all should be hoodwinked, brainwashed and naïve. Thinking about it the man made global warming myth has striking similarities to the bible or the Koran. It’s amazing that in the 21st century humanity has not changed at all and the flock are still blindly following the shepherds. In fact the left wing/socialists might as well go the whole hog and adopt this song as their battle cry… It is ironic that those that argue so much against the crusader mentality are in fact it’s fiercest disciples and that the most ardent socialists/left wingers are in fact the most subjugated of all. LOL. My favourite bit is where you don't think you're a sheep but an eagle.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Saints George's opinions, backed up by his own research, mirror my own views on climate change. Unlike the majority on this thread (who invariably happen to be left wingers/socialists), St G and myself have listened to the debate, and looked at the evidence and made our own judgements based upon myriad information. There is a saying “Eagles fly alone, but sheep flock together” and without wanting to patronise it’s crystal clear that the majority of those who have obediently fallen into line behind the man made climate change myth are sheep. The graphs St G has pasted up are not opinion open for debate, they are facts. There is an indisputable correlation between sun spot activity and the temperatures on Earth. Note how the blue line and the red lines strangely follow. Mmmm now let me see does this mean that those dirty fumes from cars and factories have affected sun spot activity? Get real guys and look at the facts - not the spin from the left wingers and socialists. So why are western governments pushing this lie? Well it’s a good ploy to force a new tax on the masses, but also consider the question of oil reserves and the ancient battle between Christendom and Islam. OK so nowadays we are more secular (at least in the west) in our thinking, but the old crusade for wealth and power continues. With the growth of the economies of India and China, and the rising power held by middle eastern oil producing states, we in the west cannot sit idly by and simply let the old world order be superseded by an eastern new world order. In days gone by we would have gone to war to protect our interests, but times have changed and the best way of protecting our interests is take the power away from the oil producing states by making sure we don’t need vast amounts of oil to fuel our economies. This is why the man made global warming myth is being pushed - so that we develop and use renewable energy sources that we can produce ourselves. I do not dispute that the fight to suppress the middle east and developing world is a noble cause, and I do not deny it’s essential for sheep (the left wingers and socialists) to believe and to peddle the myth. In fact without the sheep the west is doomed to fall like so many empires and civilisations have done before, but that doesn’t mean that we all should be hoodwinked, brainwashed and naïve. Thinking about it the man made global warming myth has striking similarities to the bible or the Koran. It’s amazing that in the 21st century humanity has not changed at all and the flock are still blindly following the shepherds. In fact the left wing/socialists might as well go the whole hog and adopt this song as their battle cry… It is ironic that those that argue so much against the crusader mentality are in fact it’s fiercest disciples and that the most ardent socialists/left wingers are in fact the most subjugated of all. Wether you believe in made made climate change or not, making out it is something to do with socialism is just plain barking mad. Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to speak out about global warming in 1989, the fact that man is screwing up the environment is one of the few things all the main politcal parties agree with. The idea that it's just an excuse for new taxes is nuts as well, the measures the governments Worldwide are planning will cost billions, do they want to spend all that money for a laff?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 (edited) Let us see what David Cameron has to say ; http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/cameron_climate_interview.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-we-need-a-greater-sense-of-urgency-on-climate-change-474841.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4272196/Environmental-revolution-promised-by-David-Cameron.html http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/greenfutures/articles/602739 Veeery left wing agenda Also, Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain supports the theory of MMCC and espouses controls on carbon emissions; http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/283389 Another commie ? Edited 18 November, 2009 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 And don't forget those loonie lefties at the BNP... http://bnp.org.uk/policies/environment/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 And don't forget those loonie lefties at the BNP... http://bnp.org.uk/policies/environment/ if you think about it....BNP are FAR LEFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 if you think about it....BNP are FAR LEFT They are usually described as far right, my point is climate change has nothing to do with politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Not at all, it's just when cold hard facts are clear for all to see and people simply put their heads in the ground and fingers in their ears, what else can I label them but ignorant? What if they have all the 'facts' at their disposal, and still come out on the sceptical side (based on 'facts). You strike me as a touch immature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Wether you believe in made made climate change or not, making out it is something to do with socialism is just plain barking mad. Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to speak out about global warming in 1989, the fact that man is screwing up the environment is one of the few things all the main politcal parties agree with. The idea that it's just an excuse for new taxes is nuts as well, the measures the governments Worldwide are planning will cost billions, do they want to spend all that money for a laff?!? Perhaps i was wrong to tease our socialist/left wing sheep, but the fact remains that it is this gullible and naive section of society that have been snared hook line and sinker. Let me reiterate that the man made global warming myth is a necessary lie because we do need to neutralise the threat posed by the oil producing nations and we do need to fight back against emerging economies. It's just highly amusing that it is the tree huggers that are the ones who are the foot soldiers for this latest crusade between west and east. In your final paragraph you rightly stated that "going green" is going to cost us billions, but there is no alternative other than surrendering to the oil producers and emerging economies. In years to come historians will look back at the man made globl warming myth and will ask how so many were duped, but they will also state that without the brainwashed and naive subscribers to MMGW the west would have failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Perhaps i was wrong to tease our socialist/left wing sheep, but the fact remains that it is this gullible and naive section of society that have been snared hook line and sinker. Let me reiterate that the man made global warming myth is a necessary lie because we do need to neutralise the threat posed by the oil producing nations and we do need to fight back against emerging economies. It's just highly amusing that it is the tree huggers that are the ones who are the foot soldiers for this latest crusade between west and east. In your final paragraph you rightly stated that "going green" is going to cost us billions, but there is no alternative other than surrendering to the oil producers and emerging economies. In years to come historians will look back at the man made globl warming myth and will ask how so many were duped, but they will also state that without the brainwashed and naive subscribers to MMGW the west would have failed. Your theory is just complete nonsense, you are trying to say that all of the Worlds leading scientific bodies are being paid to make up lies about climate change to stop emerging economies like China and India?! Paid by who? And China and India obviously don't have scientists?!? The economic cost of combating climate change is going to have a much greater impact on the "west", why invent something that will make us much worse off - it doesn't make any sense at all. If it is all a product of the West's imagination then India and China will just keep on burning their fossil fuels and develop at an even greater rate while we wreck our economies trying to pay for expensive green technologies, which according to you are not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 FFS.... It's only a planet. A mere collection of molecules hurtling through the universe at over 258 mph. Why do human beings have this tiresome desire to project their own self conceived 'intelligence' on existance. Goodness gracious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 Dune - aptly named; keep your head buried in the sand. Baaaaaaaaa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 What if they have all the 'facts' at their disposal, and still come out on the sceptical side (based on 'facts). You strike me as a touch immature. Do they have all the facts? Their choice of evidence come from highly dubious sources which obviously have their own agendas in publishing that selected information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 This is the point in 1989 when Maggie T pulled the wool over our eyes, her speech to the United Nations General Assembly : http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107817 "What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. " "We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3] The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones. " "Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: • The land they cultivate ever more intensively; • The forests they cut down and burn; • The mountain sides they lay bare; • The fossil fuels they burn; • The rivers and the seas they pollute. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. " "The negotiation of some of these protocols will undoubtedly be difficult. And no issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor—apart from water vapour—to the greenhouse effect." Alternatively, a right-wing political giant, with a relevant scientific qualification, understood and interpreted the facts of the research, and realised the severity of the problem, and the challenges that had to be met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 November, 2009 Share Posted 18 November, 2009 If the man made global warming scenario is in fact a myth as the skeptics claim (I have doubts myself) then without any resort to hyperbole this must surely represent the greatest collective failure in the scientific consensus since the onset of the Renaissance centuries ago . The sheer weight of respected scientific opinion amassed behind this hypothesis leaves both Government and citizen alike with little choice but to accept it (at this time anyway) and make the appropriate response as far as practicable . Acting on the best advice available most western governments seem to be pursuing this course to some extent , are they all wrong ? What is the worst case senario if the man made global warming theory is proven wrong ? - We waste time and precious resources unnecessarily combating 'greenhouse gases' and very possibly reducing the growth rate of the world economy as a result . This will lead to serious (but perhaps not disastrous) consequences , especially for the poor . What's the worst case senario if man made global warming is proven right ? - An environmental cataclysm could occur that might leave the planet almost incapable of supporting life as we know it . We are the custodians of this world not it owners , this has nothing to do with left or right wing politics the precautionary principle demands we take action to preserve our environment for future generations to inherit . If you don't accept that then look into the eyes of a little child and contemplate the terrible consequences of getting this wrong . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now