Global Warming – Not our doing?

Home Forum Chat Forum Global Warming – Not our doing?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 89 total)
  • Global Warming – Not our doing?
  • Spongebob
    Member

    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.

    Spongebob
    Member

    You can’t beat volcanic erruptions for Co2 emissions either.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber
    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    A politician said and you think you saw a TV programme once? I’m convinced!

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Actually 3/10 – extra points added for contradicting yourself and not really getting to a point.

    sodafarls
    Member

    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.

    sootyandjim
    Member

    ..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.

    Spongebob
    Member

    This is such fun!

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    This is such fun!

    What is? Trolling badly or displaying your ignorance in public?

    sootyandjim
    Member

    Apparently cows farting is a major problem too.

    PeterPoddy
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    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

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber
    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    For what it’s worth: I take the climate change views of the Royal Society 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.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    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 🙂

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    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?

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    This is the crassest and most retarded troll I have seen on here in ages. What a berk…

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    This is the crassest and most retarded troll I have seen on here in ages.

    High praise indeed!

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    We all know that global warming’s not really. It snowed in London!

    JoeBones
    Member

    “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!

    YoGrant
    Member

    much more co2 released and absorbed by the sea than humans can ever make a significant contribution to.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    Dear god.

    Don’t bring her into it or we’ll be here all night!

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    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.

    Michael B
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    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:

    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.

    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”.
    ”A guide to facts and fictions about climate change”, Royal Society, March 2005.

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    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 letter I wrote in response was published on Saturday.

    (Yes, I’ve turned into one of those people who write to the local paper…)

    coffeeking
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    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”….

    😉

    coffeeking
    Member

    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?

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    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.

    😯

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Ah right, so we’re only really talking about the fall of human civilisation and the near 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

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    That’s a great image

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 89 total)

The topic ‘Global Warming – Not our doing?’ is closed to new replies.