My hat is off to Sammy Wilson, Northern Ireland's Environment minister, for telling the environmentalists to get real and start listening to a broader sweep of expert scientific opinion (not just the ones they pay grants to). He claimed that environmental initiatives were just politically motivated. An honest politician!?
The recent bush fires that have claimed a couple of hundred lives in Australia were fanned by strong winds which we are told were produced by the COOLING of the Indian Ocean! I though all the experts have been telling us the sea is warming up?
The last few winters and summers here have been pretty cold and doesn't the overheating cause moisture to rise, form cloud and block out the suns rays? (the biggest contributor to golbal warming).
Climate change and extreme weather is not a new phenomenon. There is plenty of scientific evidence that large scale cooling and heating events have happend over millenia. Events before industrialisation and the wide scale burning of fossil fuels.
I once saw a programme that claimed people lived up on Dartmore because the weather 300-400 odd years ago was much warmer than it is today. They didn't have 7L pickup trucks or gas central heating back then!
If you want to save fuel, switch your central heating right down, or off and buy a car capable of 65 mpg, but only use it if you have to. Forget switching off mobile phone chargers and leaving devices on standby.
The UK contributes 3% of global emissions, so if we shut down everything tomorrow, the difference would be negligible. Our biggest source of pollution is domestic heating (40%) and cars (35%). Air travel accounts for nothing worth mentioning (2%). Check out the science museum for further information.
You can't beat volcanic erruptions for Co2 emissions either.
1/10
A politician said and you think you saw a TV programme once? I'm convinced!
Actually 3/10 - extra points added for contradicting yourself and not really getting to a point.
It's funny how religious fundies like Mr Sammy Wilson can have unerring faith in a god, with zero evidence of it's existence, and zero acceptance of what looks to be a sizable amount of evidence suggesting human contribution to accelerated climate change.
..we are told were produced by the COOLING of the Indian Ocean! I though all the experts have been telling us the sea is warming up?
Although I'm quite skeptical over the hysteria surrounding 'global warming' (after all we could just be finally coming out of last ice age, who really knows?) the cooling of the Indian Ocean is actually a by-product of the sea around the Antarctic warming up, melting the snowcap and releasing cooler water into the seas.
This is such fun!
This is such fun!
What is? Trolling badly or displaying your ignorance in public?
Apparently cows farting is a major problem too.
The correct term is "Climate Change" not "global warming" for a start. And even if the planet is warming that doesn't mean Britain will warm, too.
But my own view is that
a) In geological terms we are still leaving the last ice age
b) The human race, and more importantly our usage of its resources that apparently are affecting our climate, is but a blink in time. Even if we are affecting the climate, sooner or later we'll run out of stuff to pollute the planet with and more than likely the planet will put it all right all on it's own. A small geological cough. That's all we are.
Sad. Sammy Wilson's a known idiot. Even his party think he's an idiot, but to trot out this sort of stuff and to pretend there's some sort of debate about climate change is a bit old hat. No?
Even Bush accepted this stuff was real...
And Bush was a retard
[size=32]TROLL![/size]
For what it's worth: I take the [url= http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278 ]climate change views of the Royal Society[/url] a lot more seriously than some raving politician.
Troll, but for the sake of pointing out your errors................
yes tempreatures fluctuate, and yes there are times when there has been more CO2 or the plannet has been warmer.
Its the speed thats the problem, but yes everythign works in cycles, its hard to produce CO2 when your under-water/starving/dessicated.
Good excuse for this:
[url=
G interviews Sammy Wilson, from 2mins 30[/url]
Personally I take the views of the RS with as much scepticism as the views of anybody else who starts off their position with the idea that science is somehow a democracy (I'll note that in Galileo's day, "scientific consensus" was that the Earth was the centre of the universe).
Thing is, if it is our doing - so what?? what is "the environment" anyway.
If it was 3 degrees colder 50 years ago - would difference does it make today? naff all thats what. The human race has always got problems and they're always sorting them out. And what does "global warming" really affect?? its just us, human beings. Life on earth has coped through far worse events, so thers little point in flashing up pics of cute looking animals and telling everyone to stop buying Range Rovers.
Theres no way that the human race will stop burning this oil. The only solution will be a technological one.
In 5 billion years the Sun will burn out anyway.
If it was 3 degrees colder 50 years ago - would difference does it make today? naff all thats what.
The issue is more about whether it will be 3 degrees warmer in 50 years (or less). And if you don't know what difference that makes then I have some low-lying seafront land to sell to you 🙂
And what does "global warming" really affect?? its just us, human beings.
And are a few billion human beings worth sacrificing so we can drive Range Rovers?
This is the crassest and most retarded troll I have seen on here in ages. What a berk...
This is the crassest and most retarded troll I have seen on here in ages.
High praise indeed!
We all know that global warming's not really. [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/columnists/petermullen/4096741.Snow__Let___s_talk_global_warming/ ]It snowed in London[/url]!
"Sad. Sammy Wilson's a known idiot. Even his party think he's an idiot, but to trot out this sort of stuff and to pretend there's some sort of debate about climate change is a bit old hat. No?"
I have known him for a number of years, he is far from an idiot and if you ever had the chance to meet him you would realise what a decent, kind, helpful gentleman he is.
I concur with his comments re the global warming thing, contrary to wandering like a lost sheep he is able to have a different opinion than the masses, I think that is a breath of fresh air!
much more co2 released and absorbed by the sea than humans can ever make a significant contribution to.
I though all the experts have been telling us the sea is warming up?
The sea is a big place mate.
Global warming means on average the entire globe is warming. It's not called local warming.
That's why people now talk about climate change - they realised that the term 'warming' was confusing simple people who looked out of their window at the snow and said 'Warming? Whatever are you talking about?'
And why bother telling us that human beings are just a blip in time? This is obvious to anyone over the age of 14 with more than half a brain - however, when people die it's still quite sad and should be avoided.
Life on earth has coped through far worse events
Hahaha. Some things survived the precambrian extinction, so that means it's all fine and we can all die slow deaths and enjoy it.
Dear god.
Dear god.
Don't bring her into it or we'll be here all night!
contrary to wandering like a lost sheep he is able to have a different opinion than the masses, I think that is a breath of fresh air!
That would be an intelligent thing to do.
Or you could put it a different way - he sticks his head in the sand and doesn't listen to people who've been researching it all their lives. Is that so intelligent?
I am convinced that most people haven't anything like enough brain power to cope with the decisions that they have to make in the modern world. So perhaps they ought to behave like sheep after all.
Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things and people do seem to get them mixed up and associate one with the other which isn’t necessarily true. Just web search them. It’s a bit like CFC and “The Greenhouse effect”
Just read the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and then see what you think about Climate Change.
That newspaper article is thoroughly depressing.
I just knew when we got some snow that some folk would jump up and down and say "Look, snow, all that nasty science must be wrong."
If there are any actual sceptics here (rather than just poor trolls) then PLEASE read the Royal Society link that I posted above.
Don't worry, they aren't some frothy greeny group. They are the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth, a world-respected collection of scientists.
And yes they do have several differing views on climate change (one of them actually appeared on that Channel 4 "The Great Climate Swindle" mockery) but one thing they are very clear on is scientific consensus:
[b]Misleading arguments 2: Many scientists do not think that climate change is a problem.
Some scientists have signed petitions stating that climate change is not a problem.[/b]There are some differences of opinion among scientists about some of the details of climate change
and the contribution of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers continue to
collect more data about climate change and to investigate different explanations for the evidence.
However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main
points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future.
In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.
There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in
their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions.
Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing
consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required through a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. But the opponents are well-organised and well-funded. For instance, a
petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 by a campaigning organisation called the Oregon
Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which called on the US Government to reject the Kyoto
Protocol. The petition claimed that “proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of
mankind”.
These extreme claims directly contradict the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, which states that
“reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilize their atmospheric concentrations would delay
and reduce damages caused by climate change”.
The petition was circulated together with a document written by individuals affiliated to OISM and to
the George C Marshall Institute, another campaigning organisation. On 20 April 1998, the US National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because
it had been presented “in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” The statement pointed out: “The NAS Council
would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences
and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or
in any other peer-reviewed journal”.
-- [url= http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761 ]"A guide to facts and fictions about climate change", Royal Society, March 2005.[/url]
That newspaper article is thoroughly depressing.I just knew when we got some snow that some folk would jump up and down and say "Look, snow, all that nasty science must be wrong."
Isn't it just. The [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/letters/4109354.Global_warming/ ]letter I wrote in response[/url] was published on Saturday.
(Yes, I've turned into one of those people who write to the local paper...)
I must admit, while the arguments for and against global warming being a man made/accelerated issue are quite strong and contradictory, and both sides have their own motivations for arguing those points, I think the investment in arguing and assessing it are a little pointless. Many of the people who claim it is man-accelerated also claim we are at or past the tipping point now anyway, I think the most sensible way of working is to assume it will happen and work towards living with it, rather than being and ant trying to prevent a steam roller from crushing it.
And are a few billion human beings worth sacrificing so we can drive Range Rovers?
Range Rovers sales figures would suggest the answer is "Yes" so long as we're not in a Recession. 😉
And in any case, if human beings are the cause of the problem, and loads of them die, won't that just solve the problem anyway?
And is that the only reason global warming is bad - because people will die?
in which case, if we can stop that happening without solving global warming is everything ok?
if i buy a solar powered house boat with desalinator will i be fine?
"b) The human race, and more importantly our usage of its resources that apparently are affecting our climate, is but a blink in time. Even if we are affecting the climate, sooner or later we'll run out of stuff to pollute the planet with and more than likely the planet will put it all right all on it's own. A small geological cough. That's all we are."
Peterpoddy is for once quite right. However what he fails to add is the planet changing may mean the human species dies out or more likely it drastically reduces in size causing unbelievable sufferring to countless millions. I would want to avoid this, some dont seem to care.
Well, you really do have to have quite a philisophical view of the universe to describe the extinction of human life as "the only reason it's a bad thing"....
😉
I believe it is called the K factor, I could be wrong though (its happened before!) - the damage a species does to its surroundings, with 1 being the point where it goes from sustainable to unsustainable. Humans are way past 1, but so are many animal species, which grow and grow, destroy the surroundings and animal life, then die out and survive only as small pockets. It's all perfectly natural and wont extinct our whole species as we are remarkable adaptors, though its results wont be pleasant. The thing is, what angle do we come at it from. Do we assume that survival of the fittest is best, so teh most adaptable (and probably most wealthy) will survive the climate change, or do we take on the "save everyone, stop everything" approach and spend our time trying to maintain our population?
The thing is though, watching rabbits on a small island breeding until there are so many of them that their population crashes is slightly sad, in a funny way. Whereas watching 6 billion people, each of whom can think, speak and feel in the same way as every other one can descending from a spectacular, brilliant civilisation into madness, anarchy, war, famine and pestilence is utterly tragic, especially if it is in any way avoidable but is not avoided.
😯
Ah right, so we're only really talking about the fall of human civilisation and the [i]near[/i] extinction of the human species (taking with it a very sizable chunk of the animal kingdom).
That sounds fine.
Maybe the chimps will make a better go of it when they are in charge
[img] 
[/img]
That's a great image
As has corectly been said every species uses up its resources, expands its population and then crashes, key difference is that we know we are doing it.
As has corectly been said every species uses up its resources, expands its population and then crashes, key difference is that we know we are doing it.
I suspect many species are aware they are eating up all the resources (as the resources run low). Key thing is why are we obliged to do something about it, why not accept it and prepare for the next phase in order to lessen the blow? I mean if you want to stop climate change, start chemically castrating everyone NOW!
I mean if you want to stop climate change, start chemically castrating everyone NOW!
No no, we have to be subtler than that dear boy...
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369 ]Total Fertility Rate, UK[/url]
An article by a climatologist I read recently pointed out that figures used by the Met Office for climate modelling have overestimated the accumulated warmth of the oceans from 1950-2003 by 200%. As the current models were "validated" by replicating this past ocean build-up of heat, and future projections are based on this warmth persisting, they will have to be revised. Oceanographers have correlated ocean changes to the sun's magnetic cycle. Current dogma states magnetic cycles cannot cause climate change, yet the ESA is spending millions of Euros to find a mechanism to explain the correlation of dense reflective cloud to the sun's magnetic status, only recently discovered by Danish scientists. The sun's next cycle is over two years late and the magnetic field is lower now than at any time recorded, mimicking the beginning of a cold period during Tudor times called the Little Ice Age, which brought widespread famine, disease and social unrest. It was marked by a southerly drift in the jetstream, wet summers and cold winters, with the Thames freezing over. The jetstream which directs Atlantic storm tracks, shifted exactly as predicted by this theory in summer 2007, bringing torrential rain to the West Country. It did so again in '08. Russian and Chinese funds are buying up millions of acres of food-growing land in the tropics. Their climate figures show noticable cooling until at least 2030. The UN model is based on the Met Office figures which are wrong.
The scientist concerned is Peter Taylor, and he provides ecological data for environmental consultancy Ethos (www.ethos-uk.com). I'd rather believe him than people given money by a government to provide figures to back up policies that allow said government to increase taxation. Sceptical, moi?
Oh yeah.
"thing is why are we obliged to do something about it, why not accept it and prepare for the next phase in order to lessen the blow?"
Well I prefer the option of reducing the negative effects on people but then some people say I'm idealistic.
"I mean if you want to stop climate change, start chemically castrating everyone NOW!"
Would that help or would the western world just increase its consumption.... also who would make the cheap crap we need for us?