Global Warming?

[saintwarwick]

Who has milk delivered nowadays though, I don't know anyone who does.

 

Keeping with the thread, surely it is beter for the environment to scrap doorstep deliveries altogether now?

 

I do and quite a few from our estate support our local milkie. Don't think it affects the environment that much to be honest.

[Wade Garrett]

Saint George tells it how it is. Man made global warming is a lie. All we're seeing is nature taking it's course.

 

Cathedrals were built during the 13th century - a warm period.

 

The Thames froze every year in the 17th century - a cold period.

 

The climate changes - it has done since the dawn of time. It can change slowly and it can change quickly. Mother nature works like that.

 

Just about sums up how I feel.

 

There's nothing wrong with trying to produce cleaner fuel though, that's progress.

[St Landrew]

Saint George tells it how it is. Man made global warming is a lie. All we're seeing is nature taking it's course.

 

Cathedrals were built during the 13th century - a warm period.

 

The Thames froze every year in the 17th century - a cold period.

 

The climate changes - it has done since the dawn of time. It can change slowly and it can change quickly. Mother nature works like that.

 

I only wish he did. Sadly, it isn't told like it is. Don't comfort yourself Stanley. There are no quaint little thoughts about this topic anyone can have before they rest their heads on the pillow at night. The argument about whether the natural cycle of Climate Change [or Global Warming if you prefer, although that term is less accurate, hence the change] is human influenced or not, is a dead argument. The argument now has moved to how much humans have influenced the natural cycle. This so-called debate, we have here, is history. It has already been settled.

[Sheaf Saint]

Now how many times has this been predicted - bloody stupid. 'Aristotle said.................... blah blah' absolute rubbish.

 

Actually Jill, if you bothered to read up about it, you would realise there is a hell of a lot more to it than that.

[Thedelldays]

I only wish he did. Sadly, it isn't told like it is. Don't comfort yourself Stanley. There are no quaint little thoughts about this topic anyone can have before they rest their heads on the pillow at night. The argument about whether the natural cycle of Climate Change [or Global Warming if you prefer, although that term is less accurate, hence the change] is human influenced or not, is a dead argument. The argument now has moved to how much humans have influenced the natural cycle. This so-called debate, we have here, is history. It has already been settled.

what makes you the expert and SG not....

 

one thing saint george does is give quotes and sources for his views and gets called names usually

[trousers]

The argument now has moved to how much humans have influenced the natural cycle.

 

...

Edited 18 February, 2009 by trousers
rubbish post (for once)

[trousers]

Humans were put on the Earth by God to help destroy it.

 

Fact.

Edited 18 February, 2009 by trousers
Almost as rubblish as the post before, that was itself rubbish

[Mole]

I only wish he did. Sadly, it isn't told like it is. Don't comfort yourself Stanley. There are no quaint little thoughts about this topic anyone can have before they rest their heads on the pillow at night. The argument about whether the natural cycle of Climate Change [or Global Warming if you prefer, although that term is less accurate, hence the change] is human influenced or not, is a dead argument. The argument now has moved to how much humans have influenced the natural cycle. This so-called debate, we have here, is history. It has already been settled.

 

LOL - So the argument has moved on because what you think is right, which is wrong imo, is what you think is right everyone else is wrong if they think what you think is right is wrong?

 

Saint G and myself back up our arguments with data and scientific records. You back up your arguments with the opions of a layman. hmmm...

[Ponty]

I only wish he did. Sadly, it isn't told like it is. Don't comfort yourself Stanley. There are no quaint little thoughts about this topic anyone can have before they rest their heads on the pillow at night. The argument about whether the natural cycle of Climate Change [or Global Warming if you prefer, although that term is less accurate, hence the change] is human influenced or not, is a dead argument. The argument now has moved to how much humans have influenced the natural cycle. This so-called debate, we have here, is history. It has already been settled.

 

Gotta say StL, the argument's only been put to bed because the propoganda (for want of a better word) has been repreated so often that enough people believe it, unquestioningly. There's actually very little evidence available, certainly nowhere near enough to reach an unwavering conclusion either way.

[saintwarwick]

LOL - So the argument has moved on because what you think is right, which is wrong imo, is what you think is right everyone else is wrong if they think what you think is right is wrong?

 

Saint G and myself back up our arguments with data and scientific records. You back up your arguments with the opions of a layman. hmmm...

 

Bungle, Topgun, TheCholulaKid, mybameisthehulk and Badger16 also posted data to back up their claims, I guess you are all right in your own opinions. I sit on the fence on this one.

[Mole]

Gotta say StL, the argument's only been put to bed because the propoganda (for want of a better word) has been repreated so often that enough people believe it, unquestioningly. There's actually very little evidence available, certainly nowhere near enough to reach an unwavering conclusion either way.

 

100% correct. For the last few years there has been a brainwashing campaign going on and there are very few free thinkers left.

[St Landrew]

Gotta say StL, the argument's only been put to bed because the propoganda (for want of a better word) has been repreated so often that enough people believe it, unquestioningly. There's actually very little evidence available, certainly nowhere near enough to reach an unwavering conclusion either way.

 

There's plenty of evidence Ponty. There is data going way back to the 1900s. Sure people select what they choose to select, but if you look at the whole, it matches up quite well. I don't know how many times I have to point this out, but I seriously studied this stuff, as part of a degree, back in the 90's, and I'm damn well not going to bother dredging it all up again, only for someone to pooh-pooh what I'm saying, when I know people should be cautious, at the absolute least. It's a done deal; it's only a matter of degree.

 

But never mind, I'm sure technology will come bounding over the horizon in the nick of time.

[St Landrew]

LOL - So the argument has moved on because what you think is right, which is wrong imo, is what you think is right everyone else is wrong if they think what you think is right is wrong?

 

Saint G and myself back up our arguments with data and scientific records. You back up your arguments with the opions of a layman. hmmm...

 

Hardly a layman, Stanley, I'm actually a B.Sc. in Environmental Science, though I don't work in the field anymore. Which kind of says.. this bloke might have a clue what he's on about.

 

I don't normally care for titles, but as you brought it up...

[Weston Super Saint]

There's plenty of evidence Ponty. There is data going way back to the 1900s.

 

All that way eh?

 

In terms of how long the Earth has been around, that's what 0.0000000000000001% of the Earth's history!!

 

Compelling it must be!

[St Landrew]

All that way eh?

 

In terms of how long the Earth has been around, that's what 0.0000000000000001% of the Earth's history!!

 

Compelling it must be!

 

See what I mean..? How can anyone have a reasoned debate with this kind of poster..? Which is why I don't bother on this subject.

 

Once again, I wish I hadn't become bored enough to stop at this thread. I'll try to keep myself occupied elsewhere.

[Weston Super Saint]

See what I mean..? How can anyone have a reasoned debate with this kind of poster..? Which is why I don't bother on this subject.

 

Once again, I wish I hadn't become bored enough to stop at this thread. I'll try to keep myself occupied elsewhere.

 

Lol.

 

You have scientific evidence proving - beyond any reasonably doubt - that the temperature rise is down to human beings!

 

That proof comes from the last 109 years on a planet that has been around for billions of years!

 

Excuse me for being a little sceptical of your proof!

[Mole]

Hardly a layman, Stanley, I'm actually a B.Sc. in Environmental Science, though I don't work in the field anymore. Which kind of says.. this bloke might have a clue what he's on about.

 

I don't normally care for titles, but as you brought it up...

 

In other words you've been brainwashed by lecturers who themselves have been brainwashed by the national curriculum which is dictated by the government.

 

I think you need to be a little bit more open minded and look at the facts.

[saintwarwick]

In other words you've been brainwashed by lecturers who themselves have been brainwashed by the national curriculum which is dictated by the government.

 

I think you need to be a little bit more open minded and look at the facts.

 

So St Landrew has been brainwashed by one set of facts whereas you have been brainwashed by another set of facts

[Mole]

So St Landrew has been brainwashed by one set of facts whereas you have been brainwashed by another set of facts

 

On the contrary, i've made up my own mind by looking at the facts and deciding for myself that man made global warming is a myth.

[saintwarwick]

On the contrary, i've made up my own mind by looking at the facts and deciding for myself that man made global warming is a myth.

 

And that doesn't make you right or wrong just like someone who disagrees with you, just except people will agree on some theories whilst others will agree on other theories.

[Weston Super Saint]

And that doesn't make you right or wrong just like someone who disagrees with you, just except people will agree on some theories whilst others will agree on other theories.

 

The trouble is sometimes when you disagree, you get confronted by this

 

 

See what I mean..? How can anyone have a reasoned debate with this kind of poster..? Which is why I don't bother on this subject.

[benjii]

Hardly a layman, Stanley, I'm actually a B.Sc. in Environmental Science, though I don't work in the field anymore. Which kind of says.. this bloke might have a clue what he's on about.

 

I don't normally care for titles, but as you brought it up...

 

Not really - there are plenty of clueless mongs with degrees.

 

Some of your postings on here suggest to me you have quite a limited understanding of the nature of science in general.

[Kadeem Hardison]

In other words you've been brainwashed by lecturers who themselves have been brainwashed by the national curriculum which is dictated by the government.

 

I think you need to be a little bit more open minded and look at the facts.

 

National Curriculum at degree level?

[Weston Super Saint]

National Curriculum at degree level?

 

Who else decides what topics to cover?

[Ponty]

Degrees are not set by any National Curriculum. They're designed by the University itself, which would go someway to explaining why degrees from some Universities are more respected than others. Before Solent Uni got University status its degrees were accredited by the Nottingham University. Basically a degree from SIHE was the same level that you'd get from Nottingham. All degrees are different though, there's no deciding of topics by an outside/governmental establishment.

[St Landrew]

Oh well. I've never been here to change people's minds. I know what I know and that's fine by me. I didn't want to bring up the value of education in the first place, but descriptions such as layman, kind of force the issue. And I didn't expect that to be debated either. What's the point..? If you don't understand the rules, you have to accept someone's opinion in the end. My education gave me the ability to interpret the raw data, and to understand the implications. I'm no enthusiast about this, and I've forgotten most of what I learned. But like a driver forgets the process of driving, yet drives pretty well, I know what to look out for. Believe me, I'll be the very first to report if there's a change for the optimistic though. Bloody hell, I wish the doubters were/are 100% right. But at the very least - what if they're wrong..?

 

Perhaps debate is all about polarisation of opinions, rather than opinions exchanged and thought upon. It often seems that way on this subject because it impinges so much on people's lives.

[St Landrew]

Not really - there are plenty of clueless mongs with degrees.

 

Some of your postings on here suggest to me you have quite a limited understanding of the nature of science in general.

 

Don't I know it. Some of the most clueless mongs I met were at University. Nobody seemed to have an all round grasp. However, what they were good at, they were pretty clued-up about.

 

And as for my grasp of science, and the particular area of environmental systems and chemistry, I don't think I've mentioned anything like enough of the subject for you to make a judgement.

[Saint George]

So St Landrew has been brainwashed by one set of facts whereas you have been brainwashed by another set of facts

 

Thing is, When St Landrew took his degree, the 'apparent' facts were very different to what they are today....In the last decade, due to a lot more research and monitoring of the early models our knowledge has significantly increased and much of what we thought 5 -15 years ago, has now been disproved and/or found to be in error........ That's why more and more scientists and climatologists are starting to speak out about the Hysteria....Some of the discovered errors have been simply horrendous and has led many 'true' scientist to responded to what the data has told them

 

The Alarmists answer to all that, having made so much fuss and put their reputations on the line, is to stick their head up their backsides and say "the argument is over" ....The more extreme wack jobs and financial stakeholders like Hansen and Gore, have even gone to the extent of altering data and publishing a constant flow of erroneous findings, many of which, I've pointed out on here over the last year or so....All their 'innocent' little mistakes have always been very conveniently one sided...'always' making the picture look worse and often receiving media attention.

 

One big problem with this near 'brainwashing', is the fact the reports containing mistakes and errors, get media exposure but after they're pointed out and corrected, no one gets to hear about it. Hence many peeps are left with a false impression.... Things like the planet is continuing to get warmer when in fact ite been getting cooler for the last decade....Ice caps are still melting when in fact they're pretty much where they should be at this point in the Earths Natural climate cycle....We all heard how the North West passage had opened for the first time last year...Well that was a out right lie...It was navigated back in 1905 and i believe 1845 also....Musta been the horse and cart farts that did it

 

How many peeps here, are aware of the active underwater volcano discovered in the Antarctic last year?....Was it on the BBC? or in the Guardian? or the Geysers among some of Greenlands glaciers....Ask your selves why....The media and Global warming wack jobs will not attribute any melting ice in the area to the geysers and volcano?......No...They're addamant its 'Global warming init....Must be, because their models dont account for them so they cant exist

 

The bottom line is this.......200 parts of carbon in a million, is a speck in the ocean compared with the 'huge' Natural forces from the Earth, the moon and the Solar System that are the real drivers of our climate.... Always have been and always will be

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” added atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

 

UK scientist David Bellamy, a botanist and environmental campaigner, reversed his view on man-made warming and converted to a skeptic. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,”

 

"We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,”/url]

[Mole]

Another good post Saint George. I'm open minded on the subject but all the facts are pointing to the global warming being natural. I like the way you deal in facts and would encourage those with differing views to mine and yours to back up their arguments in the same way as the subject does interest me.

[Kadeem Hardison]

Who else decides what topics to cover?

 

You're kidding, right?

[TheCholulaKid]

Another good post Saint George. I'm open minded on the subject but all the facts are pointing to the global warming being natural. I like the way you deal in facts and would encourage those with differing views to mine and yours to back up their arguments in the same way as the subject does interest me.

 

I think you might be on a wind-up but anyway.....

 

Where are the 'facts' in St George's post? How has he backed them up? Do you even know what a 'fact' is? Seriously? As opposed to a truth, theory, hypothesis etc.

 

I am also open minded but if 99 people are telling me one thing and one person (especially if that person is from a previously unheard of university or David Bellamy) contradicts them then I can normally be pretty sure about the conclusion I have come to.

 

While I'm here....for those who do not believe in man-made global warming in the face of pretty overwhelming evidence (despite what St George says).....what's your issue? Why would the government or whoever want to dupe us?

[Weston Super Saint]

You're kidding, right?

 

No.

 

It's a serious question.

 

I was under the impression that exam boards set the questions, and were regulated by the Gov't....

[Weston Super Saint]

 

I am also open minded but if 99 people are telling me one thing and one person (especially if that person is from a previously unheard of university or David Bellamy) contradicts them then I can normally be pretty sure about the conclusion I have come to.

 

Well, the conclusion they came to for sure

[bungle]

No.

 

It's a serious question.

 

I was under the impression that exam boards set the questions, and were regulated by the Gov't....

 

Not at university level. Ponty has explained the system earlier in the thread. University's set their own courses.

[spain saint]

I read recently that every google search that is made uses the same energy as 100 kettles being boiled!

 

I don´t think we will ever be able to stop global warming, if infact it does exist?

[Weston Super Saint]

Not at university level. Ponty has explained the system earlier in the thread. University's set their own courses.

 

So there is absolutely no regulation at all?

 

IN theory a University could ask you to spell your name, and then give out a first - I appreciate they may lose a little credibility - but then again if they aren't regulated, who would know???

[Saint George]

I think you might be on a wind-up but anyway.....

 

Where are the 'facts' in St George's post? How has he backed them up? Do you even know what a 'fact' is? Seriously? As opposed to a truth, theory, hypothesis etc.

 

I am also open minded but if 99 people are telling me one thing and one person (especially if that person is from a previously unheard of university or David Bellamy) contradicts them then I can normally be pretty sure about the conclusion I have come to.

 

While I'm here....for those who do not believe in man-made global warming in the face of pretty overwhelming evidence (despite what St George says).....what's your issue? Why would the government or whoever want to dupe us?

 

 

Ah so just a numbers game now then?....Fair enough I Win!.....

 

[Ever heard of the 'Manhattan Declaration'?

 

didnt think so.....How about these guys? "The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science." (up 3000 in 3 months)

 

The above are primarily American and don't include the huge numbers and in some cases near unanimous number of scientists from India, Russia, China, South America and much of Asia......You say you're open minded but i very much doubt you'll even bother to read what they're saying

 

BTW the "IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers." Thats the document that drives the UK and much of Europe's 'Green Policy" was authored by a mare '52' scientists. But with huge media backing gave many peeps, who didn't know better, the impression it had come from some kind of world wide consensus....It didn't....and now you have to 'pay'

 

 

If you haven't figured out why your government hasn't seen all this as a way to extract more tax from you to help pay for their many **** ups, then you might want to open your eyes a little

[TopGun]

I think you might be on a wind-up but anyway.....

 

Where are the 'facts' in St George's post? How has he backed them up? Do you even know what a 'fact' is? Seriously? As opposed to a truth, theory, hypothesis etc.

 

I am also open minded but if 99 people are telling me one thing and one person (especially if that person is from a previously unheard of university or David Bellamy) contradicts them then I can normally be pretty sure about the conclusion I have come to.

 

While I'm here....for those who do not believe in man-made global warming in the face of pretty overwhelming evidence (despite what St George says).....what's your issue? Why would the government or whoever want to dupe us?

 

Exactly. I can't be arsed to argue with George or Stanley on this any more! Off to view a field in Kent tomorrow that may become a 1,000MW gas-fired power plant! No doubt George is off to study some more crackpot navel gazers :-)

[Thedelldays]

if I am right....denmark are doing their "green" bit by having thousands of wind turbines that generate something like a 5th of the nations energy requirements..

 

guess how much the output of their power stations has gone down by...?

 

 

 

NOTHING..!!!

[Ponty]

So there is absolutely no regulation at all?

 

IN theory a University could ask you to spell your name, and then give out a first - I appreciate they may lose a little credibility - but then again if they aren't regulated, who would know???

 

That's pretty much the case. Hence we end up with people doing degrees in David Beckham and Madonna. Like you say though, it does the credibility of the University no good at all.

[TopGun]

if I am right....denmark are doing their "green" bit by having thousands of wind turbines that generate something like a 5th of the nations energy requirements..

 

guess how much the output of their power stations has gone down by...?

 

 

 

NOTHING..!!!

 

Not right. At times Denmark has so much windpower going on it actually exports much of the power to its neighbours. There was a similar instance in Spain last week when fairly high winds swept across the country for a few days.

 

Why would power usage suddenly increase because there is more capacity available? People still have to pay for it, no matter what its source is. All that happens is powerstations become no longer 100% baseload but drop their output so that they supplement wind output rather than being the primary source.

 

The only way that TDD could be conceivably right (and I doubt it is the case) is if Denmark and Germany had an agreement. Germany would switch off its worst coal polluters and buy Danish wind. Denmark would continue to use its less polluting gas fired plants. But that sounds too complicated.

Edited 19 February, 2009 by TopGun

[tpbury]

Sounds good to me, I'm off to light the bonnie, take the 4x4 for a burn up on the A34 and leave my lights on all night!!!!!!!!!!

[TheCholulaKid]

Ah so just a numbers game now then?....Fair enough I Win!.....

 

[Ever heard of the 'Manhattan Declaration'?

 

didnt think so.....How about these guys? "The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science." (up 3000 in 3 months)

 

The above are primarily American and don't include the huge numbers and in some cases near unanimous number of scientists from India, Russia, China, South America and much of Asia......You say you're open minded but i very much doubt you'll even bother to read what they're saying

 

BTW the "IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers." Thats the document that drives the UK and much of Europe's 'Green Policy" was authored by a mare '52' scientists. But with huge media backing gave many peeps, who didn't know better, the impression it had come from some kind of world wide consensus....It didn't....and now you have to 'pay'

 

 

If you haven't figured out why your government hasn't seen all this as a way to extract more tax from you to help pay for their many **** ups, then you might want to open your eyes a little

 

No. it's not a number game it's a facts game. But, if you think you're winning then go you.

 

Manhattan Project - hmm, David Bellamy again - right there on the front page. Did you read my previous link? Or did you conveniently ignore it?

 

As for the petition - the spelling mistakes were a bit off putting but I persevered. I thought I'd randomly Google 10 names from the list of those who have signed. First up, a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Washington - quite impressive, even if his specialty is geometry and not climate change. Next up was the MD of a wine distribution company in California - not quite sure why I would take any notice of him regarding climate change. The next 8 I Googled did not show up at all aside from the petition itself. You'd have a thought if they had an academic credentials at all (publications, members of a faculty etc) then they might have shown up. Odd that they didn't.

 

I'd like to see some evidence that all these academics from the rest of the world also deny man made climate change. Any evidence will do. As long as it's spelt properly and that they have some scientific credentials.

 

I won't even respond to your jibe about the IPCC as if you seriously think that report was the combined efforts of just 52 scientists then you're seriously deluded.

[1976_Child]

Global warming is a load of old horse dung. A myth.

 

Or is it....

 

The thing is, no one really knows. But what we can say with absolute certainty is that if only a tenth of what the doom-merchants say will happen, actually does happen then we are stuffed. So perhaps it is worth mitigating our behaviour and co2 levels just as an insurance policy in case it is true.

 

That's how i see it anyway. Personally, I think it is over hyped but it won't halm us to prepare for it anyway so let's all just shut up and sort our co2 levels out before it is potentialy too late. If it is a load of nonsense then there is no harm done - and the bonus that we have cleaned the world up somewhat and reduced our dependecy on unstable dictators with all the oil and gas. If on the otherhand the lunatic-left-green-weirdo-coalition-of-nutters actually are correct (and I strongly doubt they are) then we have averted a major catastrophe.

 

It is called insurance.

[mack rill]

Global Warming, or to give it its proper title,,,,scientist and media cash cow.

Many scientists all around the world being paid mega bucks by there respective governments to say (Yep! its all are silly faults for feckin up the world)...In reality the climate has changed thousands of times over millions of years. Long before our little freckles were pointing downwards... Now if it is a natural occurrence can you see all these scientists on big salaries admitting this!

Not a feckin chance they will be safeguarding there jobs......(i know I'm fick but thats how i see it:cool:)

[1976_Child]

Global Warming, or to give it its proper title,,,,scientist and media cash cow.

Many scientists all around the world being paid mega bucks by there respective governments to say (Yep! its all are silly faults for feckin up the world)...In reality the climate has changed thousands of times over millions of years. Long before our little freckles were pointing downwards... Now if it is a natural occurrence can you see all these scientists on big salaries admitting this!

Not a feckin chance they will be safeguarding there jobs......(i know I'm fick but thats how i see it:cool:)

 

you are fik. but then from ur av-a-tar it looks as if u is a skate so why shud we b sir-prised.

 

[Saint George]

No. it's not a number game it's a facts game. But, if you think you're winning then go you.

 

Manhattan Project - hmm, David Bellamy again - right there on the front page. Did you read my previous link? Or did you conveniently ignore it?

 

As for the petition - the spelling mistakes were a bit off putting but I persevered. I thought I'd randomly Google 10 names from the list of those who have signed. First up, a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Washington - quite impressive, even if his specialty is geometry and not climate change. Next up was the MD of a wine distribution company in California - not quite sure why I would take any notice of him regarding climate change. The next 8 I Googled did not show up at all aside from the petition itself. You'd have a thought if they had an academic credentials at all (publications, members of a faculty etc) then they might have shown up. Odd that they didn't.

 

I'd like to see some evidence that all these academics from the rest of the world also deny man made climate change. Any evidence will do. As long as it's spelt properly and that they have some scientific credentials.

 

I won't even respond to your jibe about the IPCC as if you seriously think that report was the combined efforts of just 52 scientists then you're seriously deluded.

 

You made it a numbers game when you said..... "I am also open minded but if 99 people are telling me one thing and one person (especially if that person is from a previously unheard of university or David Bellamy) contradicts them then I can normally be pretty sure about the conclusion I have come to.

 

I just turned your statement around and kicked you up the arse with it....You lost...Now you don't want to talk about numbers any more...Fair enough, at least thats out the way....Well almost

 

And BTW If you cant see why anyone with a large stake in the Californian wine industry wouldn't be taking a serious interest in the climate then you really ain't that clever

 

And as for facts....52 scientists authored the "IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers" FACT!

 

Lifted from The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public works minority pagehttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

 

In May, UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article.

 

There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

 

According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:

 

"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."

 

Many of the so-called "hundreds" of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as "expert reviewers" are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC "expert reviewers" but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.

 

 

So who's deluded?.......Looks like you fell for one of the many misconceptions put out by the Global warming wack jobs and the alarmist media...... Is this where i'm s'posed to call you a moron?.....You seem to pretty good at that sort of thing so i'll take your guidance

 

 

Feel free to add any 'facts' to this thread..it appears to be very lacking from the alarmist's side ....Just the usual hot air, spin, withdrawals from the debate (they always do when their errors and misconceptions get corrected) and a little abuse....No surprise there then

 

And yes, i read your link ....Nothing more than the normal sneering contempt from a lefty jurno.....If thats your 'facts' then there aint no hope 'realy'

 

Have a nice day

[Sheaf Saint]

Global warming is a load of old horse dung. A myth.

 

Or is it....

 

The thing is, no one really knows. But what we can say with absolute certainty is that if only a tenth of what the doom-merchants say will happen, actually does happen then we are stuffed. So perhaps it is worth mitigating our behaviour and co2 levels just as an insurance policy in case it is true.

 

That's how i see it anyway. Personally, I think it is over hyped but it won't halm us to prepare for it anyway so let's all just shut up and sort our co2 levels out before it is potentialy too late. If it is a load of nonsense then there is no harm done - and the bonus that we have cleaned the world up somewhat and reduced our dependecy on unstable dictators with all the oil and gas. If on the otherhand the lunatic-left-green-weirdo-coalition-of-nutters actually are correct (and I strongly doubt they are) then we have averted a major catastrophe.

 

It is called insurance.

 

Amen 1976 child.

 

I too am skeptical about global warming. I have no doubt that our climate is changing but, and I will concede that I am not a scientist and by no means an expert on the matter, I have yet to read anything which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the current changes to our climate are anything other than part of a natural cycle. However, it does no harm to clean up our act anyway. You only have to look at the amount of pollution in the world's major cities (take Beijing for example) to realise that our current energy-production methods are not good for the health of the world's human population, even if they do not affect the rest of the planet.

[badgerx16]

 

And as for facts....52 scientists authored the "IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers" FACT!

 

The 52 scientists are credited as the 'Core Writing Team', drawn from the hundreds of environmental, climatological, biological, and geological scientists who are members of the IPCC worldwide.

 

 

Feel free to add any 'facts' to this thread.

 

 

Glad to be of help

[Saint George]

The 52 scientists are credited as the 'Core Writing Team', drawn from the hundreds of environmental, climatological, biological, and geological scientists who are members of the IPCC worldwide.

 

 

 

Glad to be of help

 

 

Thanks, but i got it right the first time... "52 scientists authored the "IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers".....Thats a 'fact'...you can spin it any way you want, I know it hurts, but it won't change the 'facts'

 

 

Thank you and have a nice day