TopGun Posted 4 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 4 December, 2009 An interesting tour of climate change over millennia and the last 150 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm Sure to get George frothing at the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 No idea what the Canadian on the video is on about, as I can't do sound here at work - guess it must be something to do with supporting drilling tar oil (based purely on his nationality, and from the fact StG posted it!). Just remember folks....The opposite to Skeptic is Gullible (err? No it's not! http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/skeptical) Anyhow I wouldn't give you the credit of describing you as a sceptic*. Being naturally sceptical is a healthy position to adopt, unless of course there isn't any evidence to support your scepticism... then it's not a 'sceptical' position, more one of non-science and lunacy. So just remember folks.... The antonym (sorry StG that means opposite) of evidence is 'contradiction' or 'hearsay' *Sceptic is inaccurate as it suggests your opinion might have a grounding in reality; it doesn't. Denier has far too many negative religious connotations for me. I prefer 'non-science' it's simple and to the point. St G, your view on climate change are complete and utter ‘non-science’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 This guy says all that needs to be said......Most of the World is waking up to the scam, except for here, where most peeps are still in denial it seems.......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8&feature=player_embedded Just remember folks....The opposite to Skeptic is Gullible The climate comrades on this thread will never admit they are wrong. Believing in man made climate change is like believing that Socialism works when we all know it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Whatever the actual facts are, no one can surely doubt that we are not having an affect on the planet with what we pump into the air, oceans and rivers every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Whatever the actual facts are, no one can surely doubt that we are not having an affect on the planet with what we pump into the air, oceans and rivers every day. Soggy, that's the whole point some of us have been trying to make but Dune at St George are too dense to understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The climate comrades on this thread will never admit they are wrong. Believing in man made climate change is like believing that Socialism works when we all know it doesn't. Dune, two simple tasks for you, no traps or tricks ; 1) which of the options in post#329 do you subscribe to ? 2) Read post #266 and give your considered opinion on the bits highlighted in red. Thanks B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The climate comrades on this thread will never admit they are wrong. Believing in man made climate change is like believing that Socialism works when we all know it doesn't. The way I view it dune, having followed this thread for some time, is that virtually all of the 'Climate Comrades' as you are so fond of calling them, seem more then willing to accept that they may well be wrong. It is you and St George who so arrogantly believe you are right, and persist in throwing insults at those who point out that your logic might, just might, be flawed. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Soggy, that's the whole point some of us have been trying to make but Dune at St George are too dense to understand that. I am no scientists, but you only have to take a deep breath in after a bus or taxi drives past to realise that pumping tons of that stuff into the air can't be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 I am no scientists, but you only have to take a deep breath in after a bus or taxi drives past to realise that pumping tons of that stuff into the air can't be a good thing. Breathing in fumes is clearly not a good thing and we only have to look back a few decades to London when houses and industry burnt coal. Clearly the concentration of fumes wasn't good for health. But to then use this argument to suggest the said fumes are bad for the climate is a big jump and it doesn't stack up against the facts. To understand the future you need to understand the past. - `Medieval Warm Period' (AD 700 - 1300) - `Sporer Minimum' cool period (AD 1300 - 1500) - Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 - 1560) - `Little Ice Age' (`Maunder Minimum') (AD 1560 - 1830) - Brief warmer period (AD 1830 - 1870) - Brief cool period (AD 1870 - 1910) - 20th century warm period (AD 1910 - 2000) Now compare these FACTS of history with sunspot activity and notice the correlation between the low sunspot activity and cool periods, and high sunspot activity and warm periods: This account of climatic history contains two serious difficulties for climate comrades. 1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also? 2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 I do not doubt that the climate changes natuarly. What I am saying is if man made gasses are polluting the atmosphere that has to have an effect. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 some people would say that the earth is naturally changing (like is has done for millions of years)... people are able to farm food where they have not been able to before... not saying it is a good or bad thing...just the earth could well be changing like it constantly does... was the end of the ice age due to man made global warming..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Dune, the later part of the 20th century when the warming has happened, has actually seen a decline in solar irradiance - the natural variations you bang on about actually add proof to the man made climate warming theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 some people would say that the earth is naturally changing (like is has done for millions of years)... people are able to farm food where they have not been able to before... not saying it is a good or bad thing...just the earth could well be changing like it constantly does... was the end of the ice age due to man made global warming..? But the temperatures vary for a reason, wether it's volcanic activity, solar activity or changes in the Earths orbit. Scientists have observed all the factors and concluded that greenhouse gasses are most likely to blame. If there had been an increase in solar activity, or a **** off great big volcano, they might have made different conclusions - but there hasn't and temperatures have risen relatively quickly for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 But the temperatures vary for a reason, wether it's volcanic activity, solar activity or changes in the Earths orbit. Scientists have observed all the factors and concluded that greenhouse gasses are most likely to blame. If there had been an increase in solar activity, or a **** off great big volcano, they might have made different conclusions - but there hasn't and temperatures have risen relatively quickly for some reason. im still undecided on the whole thing... having been the world over it is clear that what we do (or dont do) in the UK will make no difference what so ever... when you go to the middle east and petrol is about 20p a litre and 4x4 cars/people carriers are the norm and teh way china etc just throw out pollution shows what the rest of the world thinks of the seriousness.. does that mean we should do nothing..? probably not but cant help feel that the government have taken this chance to tax us more people who campaign for such change can be wrong....not so long ago, it was the done thing to want to get rid of nuclear power from the UK...now on the other hand............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 We can bang on till the end of time about is it or isn't it down to us, but isn't it a no brainer that if we pollute the air that we breath with toxins it isn't actually very good for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also? It wasn't warmer. There was greenhouse gas contribution, both natural and human, albeit that human contributions were significant lower than today. There is nothing unusual about modern times being warm also. 2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth? the variable sun had little impact on the climates of either the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. Stronger solar activity in the 20th century accounts for little to none of the evinced temperature change since the middle of the 20th century. http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm I await St G's response with interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 I await St G's response with interest He'll just say it is part of the BBC's socialist agenda/propaganda machine. The deluded ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 The only deluded ****s are the ones that believe humans can do anything about Climate Change....Then you have the hypicrits that are crying about AGW but still drive cars, fly in planes, turn on computer Heh, love the latest idea over there of "Personal Carbon Cards", that one's priceless. Will definitely seal the deal for Orwell's Britain...Gordy and 'Call me Dave' are gunna own y'all in no time Keep sucking up those Green Taxes and loss of liberty........And fer ****s sake don't take any notice of the Climate Change happening on Mars...The entertainment factor over there is just too good to end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 Did you all know that the American President is a commie? SG proved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 Keep sucking up those Green Taxes and loss of liberty........ Liberty? Isn't that exactly what someone of your political persuassion hates most? Do you not realise your views are far more authoritarian and restrictive than any of the people who you are arguing against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 Liberty? Isn't that exactly what someone of your political persuassion hates most? Do you not realise your views are far more authoritarian and restrictive than any of the people who you are arguing against? Lol....You wouldn't recognize Liberty if it came up and hit you on the arse Heh, As a fully paid up member of these guy's I find your comments even more laughable than your belief that you can stand in the way of the Earth's natural Climate Changes......I'm just waiting to see you take your deck chair down to the the beach 'King Canute style lol It's 'your' side of the argument that are doing the controlling, taxing, and mind wiping...You only have to see how many people here who think 'Carbon' the very building block of life is currently a pollutant to see that.... No one mentions Water Vapor...Man, that would sound ridiculous wouldn't it?....But according to your guys...Water vapor is the largest green house gas by far....by 98% or 50%+ depending on who you listen to.........Carefull folks, when the Climate Commies (nice one rut) have seized control of every aspect of your Carbon use....Water, the most dangerous Green House gas will be next..........And you can thank the likes of Joensuu, badgerx16 et all...and most of all thank your selves, for being so dim and gullible and standing by and doing nothing! Have a nice day y'all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 St George, unless you stop mixing science with politics, no one is going to take you seriously. I suppose in your ****ed up world the tax on cigarettes is a big scam as well - don't tell me - the scientific community just invented the smoking-cancer link so y'all have to stump up more tax?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 I'm just waiting to see you take your deck chair down to the the beach 'King Canute style lol ....... No one mentions Water Vapor...Man, that would sound ridiculous wouldn't it?....But according to your guys...Water vapor is the largest green house gas by far....by 98% or 50%+ depending on who you listen to.........Carefull folks, when the Climate Commies (nice one rut) have seized control of every aspect of your Carbon use....Water, the most dangerous Green House gas will be next..........And you can thank the likes of Joensuu, badgerx16 et all...and most of all thank your selves, for being so dim and gullible and standing by and doing nothing! Have a nice day y'all #1) If you read back through the posts you WILL FIND that there is mention of water vapour ( note the spelling ! ) as a greenhouse gas; together with methane, chloro-flourocarbons, etc. So you score NUL POINTS on that one. #2) The given view of Canute, ( or possibly Knut ), a Danish king of the southern part of Britain, is that the scenario with the tide was actually him proving to the sycophants around him that he was in no way capable of influencing nature,- in fact he was merely a man. ( Oh, and the most likely location was the Solent, so a nice bit of local history for you ). #3) Please, please, stay on that side of the pond, we are much better off without the likes of you. Stay over there with the Colombian drug gangs, the rednecks in their bed linen burning crosses in front of negro Baptist churches, and the Creationists trying to deny reality. You deserve each other. By all means, please do have a nice day old bean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 Have you yet addressed the Margaret Thatcher conundrum, or given your view on the ACCCE issue ? Also, can you give us your esteemed opinion of the theory of Global Dimming - I'm sure you would have some enlightening insights into that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 Is this where I ask George to answer my questions again...? Nah. I'll just quote George Eliot instead: "The scornful nostril and the high head gather not the odors that lie on the track of truth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 Lol....You wouldn't recognize Liberty if it came up and hit you on the arse Heh, As a fully paid up member of these guy's I find your comments even more laughable than your belief that you can stand in the way of the Earth's natural Climate Changes......I'm just waiting to see you take your deck chair down to the the beach 'King Canute style lol You sound politically confused St G. You tell us you are a 'Libertarian', but unless you were answering untruthfully you turned out to be one of the least liberal posters in the political compass survey: Also small correction, we don't for a second believe we can stand in the way of "the Earth's natural Climate Changes", we only seek to minimise the human caused emissions which are tipping the Earth's natural climate over the edge. It's 'your' side of the argument that are doing the controlling, taxing, and mind wiping...You only have to see how many people here who think 'Carbon' the very building block of life is currently a pollutant to see that.... Not at all. As a liberal I want to see as few individual restrictions as possible. As I said before, the only law I agree with is one which protects somebody or something from the excesses of another. Responding to climate change should largely be a voluntary thing. Unfortunately there is a strong correlation between the most polluting members of society, and those who are least likely to voluntarily reduce their emissions. Hence, the undesirable requirement for legislation. No one mentions Water Vapor...Man, that would sound ridiculous wouldn't it?....But according to your guys...Water vapor is the largest green house gas by far....by 98% or 50%+ depending on who you listen to......... All factored in St George. Science is well aware of natural emissions. It's the human-caused emissions we need to focus on. Carefull folks, when the Climate Commies (nice one rut) have seized control of every aspect of your Carbon use.... Never have been, nor never will be a communist. Water, the most dangerous Green House gas will be next..........And you can thank the likes of Joensuu, badgerx16 et all...and most of all thank your selves, for being so dim and gullible and standing by and doing nothing! Have a nice day y'all The only reason water would be regulated is if it began running out. Of course not reacting to climate change can only make this occur sooner. If you ever live to see water regulated, I'm sure you'll receive loads of thanks from all of the people you know, 'for being so dim and gullible and standing by and doing nothing' despite all of the evidence, and scientific consensus standing against you. But don't worry, us liberals will see it in our bleeding hearts to forgive you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 December, 2009 Share Posted 7 December, 2009 You have to smile at how thick ST really is. Bet he fits right in down in the deep South. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 A senior geologist drilling off the New Zealand coast has called for the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be "killed". "The IPCC's incompetence is manifest in its failure to detect the corrupt science that has for so long permeated the activities of the international jetsetters of the climate science power group," Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University in Townsville, told the ABC. "The organisation should be closed down (without tears), and the Copenhagen COP-15 meeting would be a good place to start this process happening," said the Otago University graduate, who earlier this year teamed with a well-known climate sceptic, Chris de Freitas, of Auckland University, to argue that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate and that little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. Today, Prof Carter argued that the study of climate change had been "captured" by the small group of well-connected, well-networked and well-funded atmospheric scientists and computer modellers who advise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He claimed that the course of climate history and change on Earth should be the domain of geologists, "not meteorologists and computer jockeys". The palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist is now drilling holes in the seabed off the Canterbury coast in the hopes that core samples will provide new clues to the link between climate and sea-level changes over the past 35 million years. He is on the drillship Joides Resolution, which is carrying a multinational expedition to study sediments. The expedition involves 33 scientists, including three New Zealanders -- Greg Browne and Martin Crundwell, of GNS Science, and Otago University's Kirsty Tinto. Prof Carter said the "global warming scare" was a scam and the hacked files had demonstrated "scientific malfeasance" of an influential and internationally well networked segment of the climate research community. He was critical of political interference in government-funded research groups, and the power and financial clout of the Green movement. http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6562679/scientist-drilling-off-nz-drills-ipcc/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Whats perhaps being missed here is that although oin the scale of geological time, any impact we are having on our climate is negliable and frankly irrelevent. The Cliamte has changed since the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago and will continue to do so accelerated or not until the sun gives up and the world ends in several billion years time... BUT since thes ethings have been measure, there is credible data and simple observation that some strange things are happening - whether is this due to us fecking things around or a natural shift is frankly irrelevent. What we shoudl be focused on is understanding the potential IMPACT this may have and where it leaves us over the next 50-100 years. We are likely to see 8-10 billion folk on this planet in the next 50 years all wanting food and water. If we see a climate shift that impacts on the North American Grain belt or those in the Euasian zones, things are going to get mighty interesting politically. This whole situation becomes so frustrating because politicians never see these issues as they are, but use and abuse to suit their agendas and what will win votes - so its especially unhelpful when we see scientific data lose credibilty in this way as there needs to be more research done to look at the current changes, not less and certainly not ignored. Its fashionable to say that religion is the cause of all the current conflicts - but the reality is that the economics plays a big part and if we continue to ignore the imbalance and it get worse... well it dont look too rosey from where I am standing... trouble is this sort of stuff often gets cast as some sort of left wing propoganda, especially in the states, yet its just common sense really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 (edited) Agreed FC... I think I've written someone previously that many of these issues are interlinked... climate change (however it is changed), food security, fuel resources, population, biodiversity, national security, economies... all affect or are affected by each other, and ALL need to be looked at with a view to developing sustainable solutions that can withstand the test of time, climate change, and the running out of resources. Some are more fundamental than others however, namely food, fuel and population... and food and fuel are heavily reliant on, or contribute heavily to, the climate and biodiversity. So while the economy and national security may appear more fundamental in the short term, especially to government and industry leaders it seems, and we are constantly told how the economy and economic growth must be maintained etc, in the longer term, it is food, fuel and population that will shape the future, and the sooner that is realised the better IMO. Edited 8 December, 2009 by Minty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 A senior geologist drilling off the New Zealand coast has called for the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be "killed". "The IPCC's incompetence is manifest in its failure to detect the corrupt science that has for so long permeated the activities of the international jetsetters of the climate science power group," Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University in Townsville, told the ABC. "The organisation should be closed down (without tears), and the Copenhagen COP-15 meeting would be a good place to start this process happening," said the Otago University graduate, who earlier this year teamed with a well-known climate sceptic, Chris de Freitas, of Auckland University, to argue that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate and that little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. Today, Prof Carter argued that the study of climate change had been "captured" by the small group of well-connected, well-networked and well-funded atmospheric scientists and computer modellers who advise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He claimed that the course of climate history and change on Earth should be the domain of geologists, "not meteorologists and computer jockeys". The palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist is now drilling holes in the seabed off the Canterbury coast in the hopes that core samples will provide new clues to the link between climate and sea-level changes over the past 35 million years. He is on the drillship Joides Resolution, which is carrying a multinational expedition to study sediments. The expedition involves 33 scientists, including three New Zealanders -- Greg Browne and Martin Crundwell, of GNS Science, and Otago University's Kirsty Tinto. Prof Carter said the "global warming scare" was a scam and the hacked files had demonstrated "scientific malfeasance" of an influential and internationally well networked segment of the climate research community. He was critical of political interference in government-funded research groups, and the power and financial clout of the Green movement. http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6562679/scientist-drilling-off-nz-drills-ipcc/ Oh, you mean this Bob Carter: One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector. ... A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook. I'm sure asking for people to be killed makes for responsible and more accurate science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Whats perhaps being missed here is that although oin the scale of geological time, any impact we are having on our climate is negliable and frankly irrelevent. The Cliamte has changed since the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago and will continue to do so accelerated or not until the sun gives up and the world ends in several billion years time... Spot on. In geological time climate change matters very little indeed, but then in geological time humanity matters very little either! Whatever we do to mess up the planet, I have faith that life will continue to exist, will adapt and evolve and make a come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Spot on. In geological time climate change matters very little indeed, but then in geological time humanity matters very little either! Whatever we do to mess up the planet, I have faith that life will continue to exist, will adapt and evolve and make a come back. Thats true and in the grand evolutionary scheme of things like all species if we we feck up our niche too much and fail to adapt we will die out in our current form, whether naturally or through conflict. The difference is that we have been blessed (or cursed) by evolution to have this brain thing residing in our heads that in most cases can do more than eat drink procreate and sleep - so we have it within our power to use it and try and avoid regional extinction and suffering if we chose to. Its that that does set us apart from the rest of the fauna... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Oh, you mean this Bob Carter: I'm sure asking for people to be killed makes for responsible and more accurate science. How predictable. As I've said before, I would love to be convinced that the climate change scientific orthodoxy is wrong. However, every time some detractor is put up, it turns out he (and it's always a he) has no scientific credibility in the field, or is hopelessly corrupted by accepting the generous hand-outs from the oil industry...or, as in most cases, both. The carnival of cretins paraded on here and elsewhere as 'experts' do more to strengthen the orthodoxy than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Iam a sceptic. In the 70's I was at school and we lived in fear of the energy crisis.We as impressionable 10-12 year old kids were bombarded with tales of there is less than 20years of fuel left and we'd all be walking.Those scentists and advisors got it wrong big time. My father also in the 1970's assured by a proffesor from Southampton university that there were no more elements and they had all been found, it was an impossibilty. That is the arrogance of well educated people in their field.They close their minds to being wrong. If we in the uk all stopped using cars and stopped switching the light on would not effect man made climate change (if there indeed is such a thing), in fact if the world cuts emisssions by 30% that will help very little IMO. I do the best I can regarding recycling and reducig a carbon footprint in case it is true but the enviroment is a political and economic issue. Too many peoples living is tied up with the green issue for it to be properly assessed by us lay men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Iam a sceptic. In the 70's I was at school and we lived in fear of the energy crisis.We as impressionable 10-12 year old kids were bombarded with tales of there is less than 20years of fuel left and we'd all be walking.Those scentists and advisors got it wrong big time. Well, not all that wrong. The general concensus is that peak oil is pretty much upon us, hey, but some "Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil So the scientists in the 70's weren't too innacurate - thank goodness science is an adaptive process eh? Of course the oil companies themselves will tell you we have virtually endless oil - why then are less-profitable tar sands now being refined? My father also in the 1970's assured by a proffesor from Southampton university that there were no more elements and they had all been found, it was an impossibilty. That is the arrogance of well educated people in their field.They close their minds to being wrong. Whoever this proffessor was, he/she was wrong. Of course the six or so elements that have been confirmed since the 70's are all radioactive, and have very short half-lifes. Blink and you'll miss them! If we in the uk all stopped using cars and stopped switching the light on would not effect man made climate change (if there indeed is such a thing), in fact if the world cuts emisssions by 30% that will help very little IMO. A bit defeatist there. Of course the UK stopping carbon emissions would impact climate change, but by ourselves the difference wouldn't be that significant. Thankfully China, India and the States are all waking up to the problem http://www.theage.com.au/national/china-forges-new-emissions-axis-with-india-20091208-khn8.html?autostart=1 Together we stand a fighting chance. I do the best I can regarding recycling and reducig a carbon footprint in case it is true but the enviroment is a political and economic issue. Too many peoples living is tied up with the green issue for it to be properly assessed by us lay men. Which of course is what we have been telling St George to do! It's crazy for any one of us to think we know better than the current scientific consensus. A perfect example of someone who attempts to bend the science fit his political agenda, rather than adapting the politics to fit the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Well, not all that wrong. The general concensus is that peak oil is pretty much upon us, hey, but some "Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil So the scientists in the 70's weren't too innacurate - thank goodness science is an adaptive process eh? Of course the oil companies themselves will tell you we have virtually endless oil - why then are less-profitable tar sands now being refined? Whoever this proffessor was, he/she was wrong. Of course the six or so elements that have been confirmed since the 70's are all radioactive, and have very short half-lifes. Blink and you'll miss them! A bit defeatist there. Of course the UK stopping carbon emissions would impact climate change, but by ourselves the difference wouldn't be that significant. Thankfully China, India and the States are all waking up to the problem http://www.theage.com.au/national/china-forges-new-emissions-axis-with-india-20091208-khn8.html?autostart=1 Together we stand a fighting chance. Which of course is what we have been telling St George to do! It's crazy for any one of us to think we know better than the current scientific consensus. A perfect example of someone who attempts to bend the science fit his political agenda, rather than adapting the politics to fit the science. i see your reasonable parts of debate. The tar sands are being refined as the price of oil has got to a stage where it is profitable to do so. You can hardly blame the Canadians for doing so. I read some time ago the north sea only has about 20% of its resource ever tapped the rest is not cost effective to get to, if the price stayed at $100 a barrel for a long time that would be got to as well. My point about the element is that there is an arrogance in the academic world that only they can be right and so dismiss any other idea. I hope for all our grandchildrens sakes that man can change the climate but we wil never be around to see if we really did it.Much like a fighter pilot shot down and killed in the battle of britain he would have never known if his efforts were worthwhile. Of course that is an extreme coparison but Im sure you get my drift. Can you tell me what happened to the hole in the o-zone? Last I read was that the hole had gone.Now surely us giving up some aerosols could not have made that much difference so quickly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 Iam a sceptic. In the 70's I was at school and we lived in fear of the energy crisis.We as impressionable 10-12 year old kids were bombarded with tales of there is less than 20years of fuel left and we'd all be walking.Those scentists and advisors got it wrong big time. My father also in the 1970's assured by a proffesor from Southampton university that there were no more elements and they had all been found, it was an impossibilty. That is the arrogance of well educated people in their field.They close their minds to being wrong. If we in the uk all stopped using cars and stopped switching the light on would not effect man made climate change (if there indeed is such a thing), in fact if the world cuts emisssions by 30% that will help very little IMO. I do the best I can regarding recycling and reducig a carbon footprint in case it is true but the enviroment is a political and economic issue. Too many peoples living is tied up with the green issue for it to be properly assessed by us lay men. Sorry Nick, but perhaps a little naive ? I think its a case of too many people livlihoodstied up with exploitation of resources rather than Green issues... Also your statement that the professor from Southampton was arrogant in the assumption that no more elements woudl be found is a little disengenous. He was actually correct if you apply it to elements stable enough for us to actually see. Elements are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus and as such if you look at teh periodic table its full. Yes theoretically its possible that more will be discovered/made but these will be so unstable that they only exist for a fractionn of a second... but thats another story. Its true we dont know what levels of resources remain, but they WILL eventually run out. The issues is more a question of when rather than if... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 (edited) i see your reasonable parts of debate. The tar sands are being refined as the price of oil has got to a stage where it is profitable to do so. You can hardly blame the Canadians for doing so. I read some time ago the north sea only has about 20% of its resource ever tapped the rest is not cost effective to get to, if the price stayed at $100 a barrel for a long time that would be got to as well. Agreed. Oil prices will shoot past $100 per barrel over the next few years. If the UK had tar sands any governement (except Green) would exploit them ruthlessly to fill the coffers. Understandable, but regretable. Yes there will still be oil, but there will be less and less of it; or to put it another way, demand will be reduced by pricing the poorest out of the market. My point about the element is that there is an arrogance in the academic world that only they can be right and so dismiss any other idea. I know what you mean, scientists do sometimes sound arrogant. I guess they must find it hard to tread the line between accuracy and getting the message across. Tell the public that something is 'almost certain' or 'highly probable', and even though you are being accurate a minority will misintepret your accuracy for doubt. Perhaps out of frustration that their message gets skewed by public/media mis-interpretation, it is understandable that some scientists react by becoming more bullish. Scientists should stick to being scientists. That's what they are good at, not PR! I hope for all our grandchildrens sakes that man can change the climate but we wil never be around to see if we really did it.Much like a fighter pilot shot down and killed in the battle of britain he would have never known if his efforts were worthwhile. Of course that is an extreme coparison but Im sure you get my drift. Entirely agree. Like a fighter pilot, what choice do you have? Fight or give up? If you give up, then it's all over anyhow, so no matter how desperate the hope gets, there really isn't a choice to be made... Can you tell me what happened to the hole in the o-zone? Last I read was that the hole had gone.Now surely us giving up some aerosols could not have made that much difference so quickly! Not quite. The largest extent the ozone hole was seen to cover was in October 2006. Reducing CFCs was the only option, but the environment takes time to change. In fact "Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5%–10% by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion Edited 8 December, 2009 by Joensuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 8 December, 2009 Share Posted 8 December, 2009 UAE professor on THOSE emails: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6948008.ece Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Paul C Posted 9 December, 2009 Share Posted 9 December, 2009 How accurate was temperature and weather recording 150 years ago? Unless it is very closely comparable to the methods used today it surely cannot be relied upon as an accurate point to extrapolate from and then base international policy upon. It is widely accepted that "it's about 25c" was how temperature was recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 9 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 December, 2009 How accurate was temperature and weather recording 150 years ago? Unless it is very closely comparable to the methods used today it surely cannot be relied upon as an accurate point to extrapolate from and then base international policy upon. It is widely accepted that "it's about 25c" was how temperature was recorded. How many times do the Flat Earth Society types and non-scientists have to be told that 150 years ago is a piece of **** from carbon core readings etc. So is 15,000 years ago. And 150,000 years ago etc. Jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Paul C Posted 9 December, 2009 Share Posted 9 December, 2009 How many times do the Flat Earth Society types and non-scientists have to be told that 150 years ago is a piece of **** from carbon core readings etc. So is 15,000 years ago. And 150,000 years ago etc. Jeez. Have you ever read up on the accuracy of carbon dating techniques and variances? It's very easy to find disparities of 10's of thousands of years when dating objects so whose to say that core readings are accurate also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 9 December, 2009 Share Posted 9 December, 2009 Have you ever read up on the accuracy of carbon dating techniques and variances? It's very easy to find disparities of 10's of thousands of years when dating objects so whose to say that core readings are accurate also? Well I've read up about radiocarbon dating. RC14 tests are undertaken at one of a limited set of laboratories. The original technique required a fairly large amount of carbon, say an entire shin bone, but now the technique is far less destructive, requiring only a few grammes of organic matter. The results are normally presented to the scientist in the form of a series of numbers, each relating to the similarity between the carbon profile and individual years. From these numbers you extrapolate the most likely years that the carbon last lived (ie the date given by RC14 of a leather shoe is not the date the shoe stopped being worn, it is instead the date that the cow died). Scientists will take this range of dates, and present their results as a range of dates with an accuracy. So you might see the same RC14 date given as 1710-1790 with a 95% accuracy; but 1760-1780 with an accuracy of 90%. The major limitation of using radiocarbon for dating is that the half life of RC14 limits the use of the techique to organic matter which died in the last 2,500 years. Quite a limited time span. Fortunately other techniques (such as thermoluminecence can be used to cover vast distances of time, albeit for a very limited set of archaeological finds). Of course carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with historical temperature records! For that we turn to techniques such as dendrochronology and ice varves. Still, it's been an interesting aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 December, 2009 Share Posted 9 December, 2009 Have you ever read up on the accuracy of carbon dating techniques and variances? It's very easy to find disparities of 10's of thousands of years when dating objects so whose to say that core readings are accurate also? The methods used for deriving temperature data from ice cores use many factors ; "The ice cores can provide an annual record of temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and wind patterns. In a general sense, the thickness of each annual layer tells how much snow accumulated at that location during the year. Differences in cores taken from the same area can reveal local wind patterns by showing where the snow drifted. More importantly, the make-up of the snow itself can tell scientists about past temperatures. As with marine fossils, the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the snow reveals temperature, though in this case, the ratio tells how cold the air was at the time the snow fell. In snow, colder temperatures result in higher concentrations of light oxygen." ( From http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ ) Which links to... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/oxygen_balance.php And there is also this alternative route of research..... http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html Which includes the following "Like ice cores, deep sea cores have also provided information about climate, but from accumulated sediments on the ocean floor. Unlike ice cores, which provide direct climate information, sediment cores provide indirect information. An example of this indirect evidence is the method for determining temperature. When sediment cores are analyzed researchers painstakingly sort out plankton shells which twist in different directions depending on the temperature of the water they grew in. By counting the number of shells that twist each way the temperature of the surface water at the time that they grew can be determined. Understanding the behavior of these plankton in the modern world is necessary to produce a historical record of temperature for the ocean." From these ( and other ) alternative measures, it is possible to correlate the relationship between CO2 trapped in the ice and temperatures, and hence this can be extrapolated to assist in modern reports. ( With many thanks to GOOGLE ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 9 December, 2009 Share Posted 9 December, 2009 So are the 'non-science' brigade on SWF being paid, or just "unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of"? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 December, 2009 Share Posted 9 December, 2009 (edited) So are the 'non-science' brigade on SWF being paid, or just "unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of"? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry Is this St G ? "Target 1: Older, less educated males" I also think this bit is brilliant ; "But people behind these campaigns know that their claims are untrue. One of the biggest was run by the Global Climate Coalition, which represented ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute and several big motor manufacturers. In 1995 the coalition's own scientists reported that "the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well-established and cannot be denied". The coalition hid this finding from the public, and spent millions of dollars seeking to persuade people that the opposite was true." However, being in the Grauniad, it's bound to be just another bit of the Great Climate Change Swindle. Isn't it G ? Edited 9 December, 2009 by badgerx16 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