An inconvenient truth is on C4 this weekend.
Huzzah, more scaremongering made it to mainstream TV....And its being billed as the ultimate film on the subject too....
?
I take it you're a sceptic then? I doubt the film is a bit of a laugh.
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I take it you're a sceptic then? I doubt the film is a bit of a laugh.
Biggest load of b*ll*cks I've ever seen, blatent propaganda.
Cheers
Chris
Its not so long ago that channel 4 showed the great global warming swindle.
There obviously trying to show they are unbiased although I side with the first program.
Paul.
The film raises some interesting questions surely, okay a decent sized comet hitting the earth would kill life quickly but it is undeniable that we
are poisoning the planet.
Surely anything that attempts to control or highlight this has got to be a good thing?
Why so anti
Al Gore said it is true - so it HAS to be complete tosh
i believe everything i read in the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Sport, its the telegraph, the Daily Mail and the financial times that are full of
cr*p 
Too many people, (the rest of this sentence has been self censored so as not to offend people)
It's all manbearpig's fault.
Like I said in another post, the only way to stop global warming (which I disagree has anything to do with the human being and everything to do with
cycles of a much greater nature - like longer than the human race has been making fire), is to remove all living things which produce gg's (of
which the most abundant is......... water vapour!) .
Kind of becomes pointless to remove life to save the planet from an unproven non existent threat so nothing can not live on it. Kind of thing!
It's all an excuse to raise tax, and give teachers something to talk to their classs about as they don't actually need to educate them in
chosen subjects as a) that can be learnt from wiki and b) they don't need to know much for the exams - writing your name gets you a
"d"
ATB
Simon
Obviously we are contributing to global warming but an average volcanic eruption put out more CO2 than all humans do in one year. Now how many
volcano's erupt in a year?
As said, its all an excuse to raise tax. Before global warming, there was global cooling so my solution is to pump out as much crap as we can to cool
the planet. That way we will be fine for a few decades before we have to do it again 
Is this like.. An April Fools joke? Surely no single collection of people could all share such clarksonesque views, even petrol heads?
I mean, I love destroying the environment as much as the next guy, but can you honestly say that a human population of 6 billion+ producing
thousands/millions/billions of tonnes of CO2 and NH3 (proven global warming accelerators) and very effectively destroying the largest green house gas
sponges on the planet compared to an Earth with no influence from Man is going to be experiencing the same cycles of warming and cooling?
Its like saying that Jewish people die all the time, so the holocaust was nothing particularly out of the ordinary 
.
I'm not suggesting we all go preindustrial, but when huge swathes of the population are starving, fossil fuels are getting scarce and were still
insistent on severely posioning the planet - its about time we man up and accept some responsibility.
Oooh, Godwin's Law!
I'm gonna take the Clarkson-esque view here too. While we're probably not great for the planet, it cools down and warms up anyway.
Remember when it was called global warming? they had to change that to climate change because it stopped warming up.
I like to think of these phenomena as Weather. Y'know, that stuff that happened before we were here?
quote:
I'm not suggesting we all go preindustrial, but when huge swathes of the population are starving
quote:
fossil fuels are getting scarce and were still insistent on severely posioning the planet
global warming man made my a*rse just another reason to tax folk buy an atlas have a look at how small the uk is then measure the populated areas
we really are very insignificant .... me switching my lights off saving the world ..... YEAH RIGHT
haha, i think thats the first reference to Godwins Law I've spotted on this forum .
I do acknowledge that actually KNOWING humans are having an adverse effect or not is close to impossible. We've not been around for long
enough!
What sways me to the green/dark side (as far as this forum is concerned) is the fact that environmental scientists were whinging about these issues
way way before it picked up political momentum and people started discussing tax (as per usual )
Oh and on the "switch off lights front" I think its more a principle that if everyone did it then it would make a difference...rather than
just you woodster unless you're running some megamega wattage lamps!
[Edited on 1/4/09 by cd.thomson]
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
What sways me to the green/dark side (as far as this forum is concerned) is the fact that environmental scientists were whinging about these issues way way before it picked up political momentum and people started discussing tax (as per usual
yep it pretty much is an excuse to tax us, we should reduce our CO2 emissions as much as is reasonable but everything living emits it, (including
plants) and as mentioned earlier water vapour and methane are far bigger contributions to the climate change effect.
It does irritant me when peeps say the electric cars etc are good for the environment, which is not true as you move the emissions to the power
station. That said it will be a more efficient use of said emissions.
I liked the idea of a plug in hybrid, from the death of the electric car show. would be ideal for someone who does low mileage a week so gets 150mpg
for the first 60 miles from a full charge but will do long journeys occasionally.
I won't have one as its still cheaper to run my £150 audi 80 which i spend a few hundred a year on maintenance and will get about 35mpg with it.
Its on a carb and its better than some modern cars!
The whole thing is gigantic con, working on the usual principal, known as the "bastard principal".
They want your money - in this case "green" taxes.
They pick a side. If you happen to disagree or are savvy enough to see through the bullshit then you're a bastard.
In this case you're the bastard who wants to kill babies with your pollution.
The effect is that anyone who takes a contrary view can be portrayed as the bad guy - the bastard.
If you oppose speed cameras, you're the bastard who wants to run over babies in the street and drive as fast as you like, ignoring the fact that
road deaths aren't falling, police traffic patrols have decreased by 60% and speed is the only road traffic offence that is policed anymore.
Anyway
Today I'm the bastard
Global warming - sorry "climate change" - there is no proof it exists and don't you think it even a little suspicious that
everything that can "Save the planet" is going to cost you money?
The earth has warmed up and cooled down cyclically since the days of the dinosaurs - all them triceratops must have had V8's.
If you're happy to believe what you're told and pay through the nose for the privellige then that's up to you but I'm not the bad
guy because I'm not
Chris
Try this
[Edited on 1/4/09 by chrisg]
no no, as I've said its going to impossible to prove the level of human contribution to climate change, although some influence is undeniable.
I'm not thinking green and I'm certainly not thinking taxes. I'm a scientist and I've made a hypothesis based on observations of
how insulating certain gases are (that we happen to produce in abundance) and the fact that the climate IS changing more rapidly than would be
expected from historical records. You've formed an opposing hypothesis based on a different set of data (namely ice core climate records). None
of this implies that one of our opinions is based on some huge conspiracy theory.
Oh and the dinosaurs happened to have a megatonne meteor to change the climate, the winters didnt just get gradually colder until an ice age started.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CIGj7Mrtz5kCFQG7GgodnhCOuA
How about heavily peer reviewed, independent scientific opinion thats strictly regulated and represented by one of the most prestigious scientific
communities in the world - if we're playing the linking game?
heres a more easily accessible link, please give it a read:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
[Edited on 1/4/09 by cd.thomson]
The planet has been cooling for the last 9 years in line with the solar cycle...nothing to do with Climate change bollocks
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CIGj7Mrtz5kCFQG7GgodnhCOuA
How about heavily peer reviewed, independent scientific opinion thats strictly regulated and represented by one of the most prestigious scientific communities in the world - if we're playing the linking game?
[Edited on 1/4/09 by cd.thomson]
quote:
Originally posted by Staple ballsI demand undeniable proof, like the bible.
Not much has been said about the fact that the average global temperature actually dropped last year and the next increase isn't predicted to
happen until something like 2012.
There was a rather good article in my IET (IMechE) mag a couple of months ago about it. Strange the mainstream press havent picked up that story....
quote:
Originally posted by Staple balls
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CIGj7Mrtz5kCFQG7GgodnhCOuA
How about heavily peer reviewed, independent scientific opinion thats strictly regulated and represented by one of the most prestigious scientific communities in the world - if we're playing the linking game?
[Edited on 1/4/09 by cd.thomson]
as you said, it's opinion, and we know all opinion pieces are tosh.
I demand undeniable proof, like the bible.
quote:
Opinions are like Bottoms.
Everyone has one,
Some are bigger than others and,
It can be rude to air them in public.
New Scientist had a very good set of articles about this a while ago, i'll try and find the web link. The best bit was the 50 global warming
myths. So for example, its not global warming its a natural cycle ..... and they had a link explaining that the planet does have natural cycles. Heck
in dickens time the thames use to freeze ..... except this is the warmest cycle ever and if you take historical data etc etc etc...
Basically debunks the "its not man made theories" and explains why they came about and why they are wrong. Amazing how many people are
prepared to say its not man made but refuse to read the articles.
(previous comments based on arguments with friends / work colleagues).
Got a link? that'd be interesting to read.
Guide for the perplexed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
(can't find the page i wanted - i'll keep looking)
There's also the FAQ for the IPCC report, which addresses some of the popular 'facts' like the volcanic eruption thing.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
I know that I do not understand science enough to comment conclusivly.
No one knows the truth, so I'm not going to call anyone for thinking something different to me.
Only thing I will say is that whether global warming is true or not, mankind has been ruining the planet for too long, with short sited, knee jerk,
greedy behavior. Maybe global warming is part of that, maybe it isn't, but our grandkids WILL pay the price when resources are gobbled up, vast
swathes of the planet suffer de-forrestation and soils are washed away leading to ir-repairable damage to the srea and species deminish.
No matter what we do, life on Earth will continue, either with us or without us. The human herd could do with a bit of thinning out anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
The planet has been cooling for the last 9 years in line with the solar cycle...nothing to do with Climate change nutsack
quote:
Originally posted by gazza285
No matter what we do, life on Earth will continue, either with us or without us. The human herd could do with a bit of thinning out anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CIGj7Mrtz5kCFQG7GgodnhCOuA
How about heavily peer reviewed, independent scientific opinion thats strictly regulated and represented by one of the most prestigious scientific communities in the world - if we're playing the linking game?
heres a more easily accessible link, please give it a read:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
[Edited on 1/4/09 by cd.thomson]
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
Our children are brainwashed at an early age about climate change, effectively adding to the effect that everyone who holds the contrary view of a subject which is clearly not scientific fact, but a matter for debate is the bogie man and trying to kill everyone.
Would this be acceptable for any other scientific hypothesis? Why is possiblility taught and indeed accepted as fact?
It's an interesting point but the ratio of evidence in favour of evolution is probably 90/10 or more, with climate change it's much nearer
50/50.
Much of the "research" must be viewed skeptically, especially if it's sponsored by people with a specific axe to grind.(on both
sides)
I'd rather wait until there was a consensus before I threw the worlds resources at a problem which may or may not exist.
Chris
I know a guy who used to be a Rolls Royce dealer, who used to think the sun still didn't set on the British Empire (I won't say where he
lived), and everyone was a traitor etc etc. He clearly took a while to understand global economics, but guess what his boys sell now? You guessed it:
BMW's.
Get with the programme you guys. Just because you're building cars, doesn't make you experts on global anything, and just because your cars
pollute, doesn't make it a bad thing to make one.
quote:
Originally posted by RK
Get with the programme you guys. Just because you're building cars, doesn't make you experts on global anything, and just because your cars pollute, doesn't make it a bad thing to make one.
I don't want to upset people, because it's all just a laugh on the internet, but this is an issue that affects us all.
Have you ever been to Banff and Jasper National Parks in Alberta? See how small the glaciers are compared to what they used to be? See the signs
showing where they used to be bigger? Ever been to Alaska? Ditto. North Pole/Arctic ice floes? Ditto. The St. Lawrence Seaway, not that far from me
now is open (free from ice) earlier and earlier every year. Insects originally from South Carolina can now live here. I live in a cold country getting
warmer. Fact.
Maybe because you live in a temperate climate that hardly changes from season to season, so you don't see these changes we do. This is a very
scary phenomenon that affects everyone.
You might not like the messenger because they are annoying, self righteous, pious, pompous, asses - say that one fast (Al Gore and the like) but that
doesn't make the message any less important.
[Edited on 2/4/09 by RK]
[Edited on 2/4/09 by RK]
[Edited on 2/4/09 by RK]
quote:
Originally posted by RK
The flat earth people are wrong. The people who do not believe in global warming and man's contribution to it are wrong. These are facts. There may be other factors but these are not contestable.
quote:
Originally posted by RK
I don't want to upset people, because it's all just a laugh on the internet, but this is an issue that affects us all.
Have you ever been to Banff and Jasper National Parks in Alberta? See how small the glaciers are compared to what they used to be? See the signs showing where they used to be bigger? Ever been to Alaska? Ditto. North Pole/Arctic ice floes? Ditto. The St. Lawrence Seaway, not that far from me now is open (free from ice) earlier and earlier every year. Insects originally from South Carolina can now live here. I live in a cold country getting warmer. Fact.
Maybe because you live in a temperate climate that hardly changes from season to season, so you don't see these changes we do. This is a very scary phenomenon that affects everyone.
You might not like the messenger because they are annoying, self righteous, pious, pompous, asses - say that one fast (Al Gore and the like) but that doesn't make the message any less important.
Good point, but why take the chance when there is so much at stake and there are alternatives?
But also, being as good hypocrite as good as the next guy, I'm glad my car doesn't need Air Care when it gets on the road (that's my
attempt at humour there). It probably won't make it so it helps the environment by default.
[Edited on 2/4/09 by RK]
A great deal of the alternatives currently available aren't really that good;
Take energy efficient lightbulbs, save the world by eating less power. But aren't nearly as good at lighting as incandescent bulbs, contain
mercury, and flicker.
I still use them where I have conventional light fittings, because it saves me effort and probably some money.
Electric cars, ignoring the inconveniences of charging etc., I'd rather not have a massive bank of Li-Po batteries anywhere near me in a
crash.
Commercially produced biofuels, as good an idea as they are, they do have some links to causing food shortages/poverty.
Recycling, depends on the materials, I fear a good percentage is just stacked up in warehouses to create jobs.
I'm all for doing my part and saving the world, but I'm not getting bullied into doing needless stuff because of hype.
Ok then, how about we all wait till it's absolutely proven and an undeniable fact .... oh yes, becasue if we do that it'll be too late and
we'll all be f*cked - I just hope plenty of the 'non-belivevers' are still left alive to suffer with everybody else..... though nobody
will be laughing that's for sure.
[Edited on 2/4/09 by Jasper]
I dont have a problem with burning less fossil fuels and cutting our CO2 emmissions in any way whatsoever. Infact I am all for it, at the end of the
day it means I keep more of my hard earned in my pocket.
Its the way that you are scared into doing it that gets me. Such a contentious issue as GW amonst the scientific community shouldnt YET be
regurgetated as fact IMO. Nearly every fortnight in my IMechE (IET) mag there is a story for and against, both balanced and the conclusion is
basically there is no consensus.
Personally I think that its being blown out of proportion to scare people into cutting CO2 rather than approaching it from a factual point of view.
Yes global temps are rising, but I bet a considerable amount of that is some natural fluctuation, some of it is man made, how much each has an impact
I dont honestly know (and nor do I think anyone else does).
What I struggle to understand is that the minute amount of CO2 which humans contribute to the overal global output, which is less than 0.05%
(including natural events and process) can affect global temps in anyway. Maybe this 0.05% extra is enough to tip the balance, but I dont think it
is.
When, and if, there is undeniable proof and universal consensus amonst the scientific community who really know what they are talking about then I am
more than happy to admit I was wrong. For now I will continue to do my bit where I feel it has the most impact on preserving our natural resources for
the future generations.
David
Found it ....
26 myths about climate change ....
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
covers things like does co2 affect the climate, mans co2 emissions are too tiny to matter.
folks, have a read then come back and discuss. I'm not going to claim everything in here is gospel, but its written by people far more qualified
than I (and probably you).
edited to add - just realised its what i originally posted. Ooops.
So Flak monkey how does your "our co2 emissions are too tiny" view stand having read the article posted above? Do you have something I can
read to counter the argument?
(thats not supposed to sound as aggressive as i think it might - i'm very interested in this topic and like to hear anything that's got some
evidence behind it, esp as by the time i finish my car i'll probably need to power it via hydrogen and include air con)
[Edited on 2/4/09 by MikeR]
The emissions from the Alberta Tar Sands oil recovery projects are a very small percentage of Canada's total pollution too, but if you go there
and take a look, as my brother in law does every day because he works there, you will see a vast wasteland of pollution. No other word for it. Dead
birds etc. They are improving their environmental impact, but the oil is worth it to them, so they continue.
The Americans like to say how awful it is, but they intend to use that argument to pay for more extraction in Alaska. Have you seen the impact from
the Exxon Valdez accident?
One planet, more and more and more people. NOT a good thing
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Found it ....
26 myths about climate change ....
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
covers things like does co2 affect the climate, mans co2 emissions are too tiny to matter.
folks, have a read then come back and discuss. I'm not going to claim everything in here is gospel, but its written by people far more qualified than I (and probably you).
edited to add - just realised its what i originally posted. Ooops.
So Flak monkey how does your "our co2 emissions are too tiny" view stand having read the article posted above? Do you have something I can read to counter the argument?
(thats not supposed to sound as aggressive as i think it might - i'm very interested in this topic and like to hear anything that's got some evidence behind it, esp as by the time i finish my car i'll probably need to power it via hydrogen and include air con)
[Edited on 2/4/09 by MikeR]
Try having a read of this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?z1onotynt3j
for everybody in this forum who is basing their opinions on non peer reviewed science (thats aimed at both sides) you might be interested in
HERE for your holidays.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
Try having a read of this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?z1onotynt3j
I think this thread neatly sums up the situation quite nicely.
Those who believe in global warming not only exclude the possibility that they could be wrong, deny the fact that there is no consensus, and use the
bastard principal of quietening those who'd rather find out the truth before acting.
I could be wrong, I'm not sanctimonious enough to use moral majority politics to shout down all other possibilities.
Just because you subscribe to every "new man" sandle wearing, treehugging theory in an effort to be liked it don't, neccesarilly, make
it right.
Look into the facts and don't come down on the trendy side for the sake of it - ask questions, it's how we move on.
And that's me done - go in peace
Chris
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
Those who believe in global warming not only exclude the possibility that they could be wrong, deny the fact that there is no consensus, and use the bastard principal of quietening those who'd rather find out the truth before acting.Chris
Global warming has been going on for approximately 7000 years, this does coincide with the manufacture of the first Pinto 2.0.
Point proven
ROLF!!!!
Nice one mark.
I started out as a non believer. I started to read up, i now believe. I'm reading flak's links now cause I want to understand all view
points just in case everyone I believe so far is wrong.
(heck, lots of people believes the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the planet. Eventually this was disproved - maybe global warming
isn't happening.....)
i do love how fanatical people get on both sides. If its 50:50, that means half the worlds population is delusional, whoever is right.
Seems AMPLE evidence for me to accept that human actions is causing more CO2 to end up in the atmosphere. Cant deny that really, though id love
someone to pipe up if they do think we arent freeing up carbon stores.
And it seems entirely possible that causing an atmospheric gas to end up at 25% higher concentrations than the normal range for the last million
years, can cause some major knock on effects.
If i could go one step further, i think its naive madness to think that 6 BILLION people wont affect their environment.
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
I think this thread neatly sums up the situation quite nicely.
Those who believe in global warming not only exclude the possibility that they could be wrong, deny the fact that there is no consensus, and use the bastard principal of quietening those who'd rather find out the truth before acting.
I could be wrong, I'm not sanctimonious enough to use moral majority politics to shout down all other possibilities.
Just because you subscribe to every "new man" sandle wearing, treehugging theory in an effort to be liked it don't, neccesarilly, make it right.
Look into the facts and don't come down on the trendy side for the sake of it - ask questions, it's how we move on.
And that's me done - go in peace
Chris
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by gazza285
No matter what we do, life on Earth will continue, either with us or without us. The human herd could do with a bit of thinning out anyway.
An entirely acceptable position. The Earth will continue. Life with climate change will be more difficult for many, perhaps better for some. It is a respectable political standpoint that we do nothing and bear the consequences. Brave, even, if you're prepared to be one of the victims. Live near the sea do you? Want to move inland a bit?
quote:
Originally posted by RK
Have you ever been to Banff and Jasper National Parks in Alberta? See how small the glaciers are compared to what they used to be?
I think actually the latest research indicates burping mastadons rather than farting ones contributed to the problem. Not to say farting is a good thing or anything, unless you are the one doing it.