Global Warming

?

you need a fourth option, tya ......

Not Sure its Happenning/Cause Impossible to Prove

As far as I'm concerned, there's no conclusive proof either way, as you can find "research" to "prove" both sides of the argument.

What's beyond doubt is that governments are using it as an excuse to tax the arses off all of us.

I'm also concerned at the attitude of the more vociferous proponents of the global warming/climate change theory. They have a tendency to smear people who disagree withthem as somehow being morally deficient, and on a par with holocaust deniers.

Within the last 100 years, the same attitude was common towards eugenics. There was a widespread belief amongst the scientific community that mankind would be greatly enhanced if hereditary diseases were "bred out" so to speak. Many powerful and prominent figures spoke in favour including politicians and writers - dissenters were mocked and ridiculed. Today, of course, the very idea disgusts most people, especially after the Nazi experiments.

Quite so.

The very use of the term "deniers" is loaded with abuse. Trouble is, the religious fervour with which those who make the man-made climate change case is being unravelled by reality. It's all very well to say that the global temperature falls of the last decade are somehow merely temporary and they will move upwards again - that might be true, but how come not a single one of the climate change models predicted it?

brrrr ...

I'm in the "it's not hapening at all" bunch of slobs.

Like Growls, I reckon it's the politicians "humane" way of taxing the arses off the populace and also it feathers the nest of that "has been" failed Seppo presidential candidate 'wotsisname' - who collects millions for his lectures on climate change ... like he f**king knows what he's talking about!

You should have the option "Natural phenomenon accellerated by people".

Shoeshine wrote:Quite so.

The very use of the term "deniers" is loaded with abuse. Trouble is, the religious fervour with which those who make the man-made climate change case is being unravelled by reality. It's all very well to say that the global temperature falls of the last decade are somehow merely temporary and they will move upwards again - that might be true, but how come not a single one of the climate change models predicted it?

Nary a truer word spoken shoey.

I'm so sick of supposed 'causes' that morph into 'industries.' Over it.

And not having the Right to debate an issue without being labelled and laughed at. It's offensive.

Rob I wrote:You should have the option "Natural phenomenon accellerated by people".

Thing is Rob, I would contend that if mankind were accellerating a normal phenomenon, temperatures should have been going up for the last 200 years or so.

The boffins are blaming air travel, cars and the generation of electricity for throwing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere today - but compare todays power generation with old coal plants, modern engines with catalytic convertors against the old diesels which clagged like steam engines, and the spread of central heating in domestic homes replacing coal fires.

Go back just 40 years, when towns like Sheffield, Corby, ******, Shotton & Port Talbot couldn't be seen for the muck in the air all around them from steel plants, the Black Country towns were firing pottery in kilns, many northeren towns had woolen or cotton mills, and shipyards from Glasgow to Newcastle, Liverpool and Southampton ........ all burning coal to provide steam power before the term exhaust scrubbing was even an idea.

Those old industries were throwing all sorts of heavy metals, sulphur and assorted carcinogens into the atmosphere as well as CO2. I'm still to be convinced that todays emissions are causing more damage. Nobody's explained why the %age of CO2 hasn't increased from previous levels.

As for pledges to reduce emissions to 1990 levels in 25 years or whatever it is ....... it's pure fantasy, unless they want us all living by candle light and playing charades as electricity is rationed to private houses.

Growler wrote:

Rob I wrote:You should have the option "Natural phenomenon accellerated by people".

Thing is Rob, I would contend that if mankind were accellerating a normal phenomenon, temperatures should have been going up for the last 200 years or so.

According to the Vostok Ice Core Data, temperatures have been going up for a lot longer than that. They go up and down over a 100,000 year cycle, and a direct correllation exists between mean temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm.

Over the last three upwards cycles, humanity could have had nothing to do with it because we were hominids in those days.

But over the last 200 years the atmospheric CO2 appears to be in excess of that predicted by the Vostok graph. It would appear that we have made an impact on the composition of the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Agribusiness appears to have made an impact too - methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 and we now have zillions of cattle to make methane.

If you're ever unfortunate enough to get into a debate with the climate-change fanatics, ask them what the hottest year on record is. The answer stuns them.

Rob I wrote:You should have the option "Natural phenomenon accellerated by people".

Aye to that

Shoeshine wrote:If you're ever unfortunate enough to get into a debate with the climate-change fanatics, ask them what the hottest year on record is. The answer stuns them.

1976?

DJ_Smerk wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:If you're ever unfortunate enough to get into a debate with the climate-change fanatics, ask them what the hottest year on record is. The answer stuns them.

1976?

That was a seriously hot Summer - hotter than anything I recall since.

1998 was pretty hot, as was 2001. been a bit shit since then.

Basil wrote:

DJ_Smerk wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:If you're ever unfortunate enough to get into a debate with the climate-change fanatics, ask them what the hottest year on record is. The answer stuns them.

1976?

That was a seriously hot Summer - hotter than anything I recall since.

Shame I couldn't have been there.

I prefer the term climate change rather than global warming. It's actually the temperature swings that bother me.

Damn, I had a decent joke on unreliability, involving the Weather and Ian Bell, dang.

Shoeshine wrote:If you're ever unfortunate enough to get into a debate with the climate-change fanatics, ask them what the hottest year on record is. The answer stuns them.

It's also a bit stunning that anyone thinks the hottest year on record is a relevant statistic when measuring a trend.

ten years after wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:If you're ever unfortunate enough to get into a debate with the climate-change fanatics, ask them what the hottest year on record is. The answer stuns them.

It's also a bit stunning that anyone thinks the hottest year on record is a relevant statistic when measuring a trend.

ker-farkin-ching . . .

ten years after wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:If you're ever unfortunate enough to get into a debate with the climate-change fanatics, ask them what the hottest year on record is. The answer stuns them.

It's also a bit stunning that anyone thinks the hottest year on record is a relevant statistic when measuring a trend.

Quite so - yet they're fairly keen on using a 25 year period as evidence when it's nothing of the sort, and then complaining when someone does the same back to them (i.e. looking at the last 10 years).

Anyway, the hottest year on record is 1934, not exactly part of the current ever upwards* graph.

*According to Hansen anyway, but the famous hockey stick graph apparently showing temperatures rocketing in recent years has been effectively debunked, not least when someone pointed out you could put the numbers from a telephone directory into the database and it would produce exactly the same graph.

The delightful thing about the scaremongering is how easily they're caught out on stuff. The IPCC just isn't "6,000 of the world's leading scientists" as you so often hear, it's several thousand civil servants and some scientists, many of whom are livid at the stuff that goes out in their name and end up resigning. Also ask the climate nutters what they think the heat island factor is and should be. When you get the blank look, you can explain how urbanisation has skewed temperature data (because urban areas are hotter than rural ones) and in all climate models they have to take a "view" on what the correction factor should be.

Since when did CO2, without which we can't survive, become a pollutant anyway? It's insanity!

Sea levels are not rising either, the data simply doesn't back the claim.

Even if temperatures were rising (and who knows, they might be long term), at every time in history a warmer climate has benefitted life, not harmed it. A higher global temperature would actually on balance be a good thing not a bad one - after all, we've seen it before - Greenland was so named for a damn good reason.

And finally, always ask them what impact clouds have on the data. They won't know for the simple reason that almost all models don't include clouds because we don't understand them. You'd have thought it would have a fairly important part to play.

Shoeshine wrote:
Since when did CO2, without which we can't survive, become a pollutant anyway? It's insanity!

No, it's a question of dynamic balance between ppm of atmnospheric gases.

Sea levels are not rising either, the data simply doesn't back the claim.

I wonder where the water from the melting glaciers is going, then?

Dear God in Heaven. I have just sat through a near on 4 hour River Management Committee meeting which spent half the time arguing over the wording of a letter to the State Government demanding that the rules for setting maximum probably flood contours be drastically revised to take into account global warming.

FFS. It was a massive struggle to sit there and bite my tongue while these halfwits with a small modicum of scientific data and a sh!tload of hysteria harangue the poor bugger from Maritime Services. He looked like he wanted to punch the lot of the qunts in the room. I had a beer with him afterwards and gave him my sympathies.

Rob I wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:
Since when did CO2, without which we can't survive, become a pollutant anyway? It's insanity!

No, it's a question of dynamic balance between ppm of atmnospheric gases.

Sea levels are not rising either, the data simply doesn't back the claim.

I wonder where the water from the melting glaciers is going, then?

Atmospheric gases have shifted around throughout the life of the earth. But CO2 is not a driver of climate change and never has been. There is a clear lag in CO2 levels when climate changes (as it always has), in other words CO2 is a symptom of higher temperatures, not a cause. It's not as clear cut as that, but it's a damn sight closer to it than the facile view that we're all going to die because CO2 levels are a touch higher.

Glaciers have always melted, that's what they do. But that's a perfect example of the hysterical media and lobbyists, showing you a melting glacier and calling that a global problem. 90% of the world's ice is held in Antarctica, and despite one oft-shown area melting (duh, ice melts!) and falling into the sea the total amount of ice is showing an INCREASE at the moment, bucking a 6,000 year trend. But hey, why worry about people not being able to tell the difference between weather and climate.

Now, you remember the disappearing ice on Kilimanjaro? Definitely is disappearing, but that's not because of climate change. It's because the idiots have chopped down all the trees at the base of the mountain that used to act as a windbreak against the warmer airs no scooting up the side of the mountain. But will you hear about this from the fanatics? Nope.

Our State Environment Protection Agency (for years known as the EPA) has recently changed its name to the Department of Environment and Climate Change. No doubt the new Director General is a Rad Lez Fem PETA member.

That's because if you attach climate change to your name, you have a better chance of getting funding. Same with scientific research. Amazing really that people are hostile to corporate sponsored research yet don't see this fundamental point.