the great global warming swindle

[engineer one]

ok guys so are we all going to watch channel 4 tonight at 9.00 tonight and find some ACTUAL facts about global warming and the REAL causes. :roll:

personally i just see that so much of the so called science is not factually based, and we all know that cows fart co2 so who knows????

be nice to see the other side of the story for once :twisted:

paul :wink:

 

[MrJay]

Yes, looking forward to it. ACTUAL facts and REAL causes as opposed to...?

Before we get started proper, regarding cows and farting and CO2, unless you feed cows fossil fuels it matters not a jot how much CO2 you, me or cows fart into the atmosphere, because it is CO2 that is already in the system - the amount of carbon floating around in the carbon cycle remains constant. Farting is carbon neutral.

The Carbon released by burning fossil fuels is carbon that was taken out of the system millions of years ago (no apologies if you're willfully dumb enough to think the world is only 6000 years old). Releasing said carbon is increasing the amount of carbon currently in the carbon cycle and kills polar bears.

So while it's jolly to note that cows fart a lot, it is irrelevant to the debate (let's be honest, it's not really a debate anymore) on climate change.

Jay

 

[engineer one]

speculation, bs, and computer projections NOT based in fact

paul :wink:

 

[MrJay]

So you're confident that this evenings telly fest will be free of speculation, bs and projections not based on fact. This will be fun.

 

[engineer one]

well, because it is contrary to the well publicised view, i am sure that many will consider it full of bs, but there are an awful lot of PROPER scientists
and people like David Bellamy, who question that we are totally responsible, and able to change things just by using and producing less CO2.

if you look at the industry around global warming, many of the promoters are those who need to ensure that their university jobs are funded and secure.

if you study what goes on in university funding these days you will know that "political correctness and populist studies" are those which get the best funding. :?

paul :wink:

 

[Slim]

I watched an interesting debate on Newsnight a few weeks ago. It was between a guy who has his own theory on global warming and an advocate of man made global warming.

His theory is based around cosmic rays. Now before you all go pfff! and stop reading, it was actually very interesting.

There is a proven link between the amount of cosmic rays entering our athmosphere and the formation of clouds. Apparently, cosmic rays reduce the amount of airborne particles that water droplets condense around when they form clouds (condensation nuclei). He said there has be a large increase in the amount of cosmic rays detected in the past decade. Meaning less clouds. Less clouds means less of the suns rays are reflected back into space. Ergo, global warming.

He also put forward some good arguments to disprove the Co2 argument. When the Romans invaded britain, the temperature was higher than it is now. They planted groves of meteranian fruit trees such as olives which simply wouldn't survive in our climate now. Yet a few hundred years ago the Thames froze over every year.

I don't know which side to take at the moment. I think the main problem we have as a race, is that we have an overwhelming need to understand things. Consequently, we come up with explanations as to why things happen. eg. Earth is at the centre of the universe, Sun orbits the earth etc. All completely viable and believed at the time, but all completely wrong.

Just my 2p's worth.

 

[MrJay]

if you look at the industry around global warming, many of the promoters are those who need to ensure that their university jobs are funded and secure.

You mean climatologists?

I'm not going to consider this evenings program to be batdung unless it's full of twaddle. I don't win anything if I drown in my low lying village, I won't be triumphantly gargling 'I told you so' as I go down. If climate change isn't a worry after all I'll be as happy as you.

...PROPER scientists and people like David Bellamy...

Poor Mr Bellamy. Still, if you'd like to run some of David Bellamy's (or the proper scientist's) specific criticisms of climate change past me I'll be happy to try and explain where the lovable old botanist is leading you astray.

Climate change has only been pervasive and mainstream in the very recent. Given that the US has been at the fore front of climate research and that the US has been politically and socially hostile to the the notion of man made climate change until, well, about 60 days ago, I think you're being a little unfair in your criticism of popularist academic funding.

 

[wrightclan]

I'm watching it, and trying to convince my indoctrinated kids to watch it with me. :roll:

Brad

 

[Nick W]

Whatever happend to Global Dimming? That didn't last long as an idea.

 

[engineer one]

simple logic, although humans are profligate and we waste much of our natural resources, when you study history, it shows weather changes which cannot be related to the excess production of co2, which is a recent
phenomonen.

we are not the only things to produce CO2, but more interestingly is the fact that co2 makes up so small a percentage of our atmosphere, so how come it so overwhelms things?????? :?

the sun, and other external items have as big or bigger effect than we do.

yes we should waste less, but how come when these great issues come up, we the mug public have to spend our money on the new products without them being proven. look at the wind turbine issue. THEY DO NOT WORK to the level of efficiency which makes them sensible for the investment. the household ones just about produce the power for an electric shaver, and for what.

as for battery cars, etc no one does the sums on the production costs of
these items whereas the figures for internal combustion engines are well known. as for the carbon footprint of battery production, and what about the residuals of things you can't dispose of, like the rare metals used in some of these products.

interestingly, i am reading a book which suggests that in 1420-23, the chinese sailed massive boats around the world, and discovered america and australia before the europeans. one of the interesting items is that
in mining for lead in australia, the chinese had to open up a uranium mine which of course led to long term deaths because they did not know what it was.

there is too much speculation and computer modelling in the global warming business which is not based on proveable facts.

paul :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

(let's be honest, it's not really a debate anymore)

Once you accept that enforced concensus mindset, theres no room for debate any way. Isn't there always at least 2 side's to any story? I always thought that the point of having a debate was to hear all sides and make an informed choice/vote etc??
I honestly dont know who or what to believe, if all the talk of climate change is exaggerated for a way for loonie left field control freaks to frighten folks into their agenda of global collectivism and a way to attack "capitalism" :roll:
We just have a lot of greenhouse gas/carbon neutral/reduce/reuse/recycle/global warming etc etc propoganda at the mo which is designed to creat that enforced concensus mindset (repeat it often enough and folk will accept it), but I am left wondering is it a hoax, or is there genuine substance to it? Like is it just a way of creating a new taxable commodity at local and national level to fund government beauracracy? Or a powerful global political lever to facilitate global collectivism by paralysing energy dependent industry?:

 

[wrightclan]

there is too much speculation and computer modelling in the global warming business which is not based on proveable facts.

paul :wink:

And in no other scientific field is the most extreme speculative scenario accepted as scientific fact.

Brad

 

[MrJay]

(let's be honest, it's not really a debate anymore)

Once you accept that enforced concensus mindset, theres no room for debate any way. Isn't there always at least 2 side's to any story? I always thought that the point of having a debate was to hear all sides and make an informed choice/vote etc??

My mindset is neither enforced or consensus. I think if you'd care to put that thought in the context of this thread you'll see how very wrong you are. So far the consensus here is that man made climate change is a swindle or something that one should be healthily skeptical about.

I'm also going to take great personal offense to the notion that I'm not up for good honest debate, when the evidence in this thread is that I'm happy to politley debate the unpopular using reasoned arguments. Infact, I'd quite like you to demonstrate how exactly I am supposed to be stifling debate.

simple logic, although humans are profligate and we waste much of our natural resources, when you study history, it shows weather changes which cannot be related to the excess production of co2, which is a recent phenomonen.

Certainly. A few hundredy million years ago the planet was covered in vomiting volcanoes, every 1200 years or so we seem to have an ice age, the sun has an eleven year activity cycle (and is by fay the biggest influence on climate), we have well understood cyclical weather systems like the gulf stream and el-nino. Oddly the climatologists are aware of these things (they're a clever bunch and read books on this sort of stuff) and the message is that what we are experiencing in the here and now is something different. Something that on top of all the natural influences one might expect is consistent with effects of human activity and sufficient that we can't rely on natural processes to balance the effects.

 

[wrightclan]

Before we get started proper, regarding cows and farting and CO2, unless you feed cows fossil fuels it matters not a jot how much CO2 you, me or cows fart into the atmosphere, because it is CO2 that is already in the system - the amount of carbon floating around in the carbon cycle remains constant. Farting is carbon neutral...

...So while it's jolly to note that cows fart a lot, it is irrelevant to the debate (let's be honest, it's not really a debate anymore) on climate change.

Jay

Actually, as I understand it, the cow issue is methane, which is supposed to be 10 times as effective as CO2 in holding in the earth's heat. Can't remember any scientific study to back that up, but I've heard or read it on a number of occasions. (But neither do a lot of the Friends of the Earth types often reference scientific data to back up their claims.) :roll:

Brad

 

[ike]

I think anyone who believes that climate change is not linked to human activity must be deaf/blind/in denial/barking or any combination thereof.

Anyone who thinks global collective action will reverse the trend must also be one or more of the above. We're all DOOMED cap'n Mannering!, I said DOOMED! aye.

Ike

 

[engineer one]

whilst you may be right mr jay, i wonder when any opposed view is always blasted down by noise, not fact.

an oxford don is being pushed out of his job because he moaned about uk population influx. by whom is he being pushed out ,the very students he is supposed to be teaching.

show me how the production of human co2 is greater than that produced by cows, rotting vegitation, trees( yes i know they are supposed to be carbon neutral, but recent german test show they produce more co2 than we imagine) but prove it with facts not hopes.

paul :wink:

 

[MrJay]

stuff

Regardless, and I was answering a criticism levied directly to cows about they're CO2 emissions specifically; cows only process, they don't increase or decrease or have any noticeable effect on the quantity of elements floating around in the environment, regardless of whether the elements in question are 10x as likely to kill polar bears as another element.

Cows eat stuff already in the environment and then fart it out again. Cows are not the cause of climate change. My argument; and it remains, is that cows are irrelevant and that considering them is a distraction.


engineer one,

The difference with carbon is that humans currently burn a lot of fossil fuels: oil, coal etc.
The process that takes carbon out of the carbon cycle and fossilises it is very slow, we are burning it (and thus releasing the carbon back into the carbon cycle) rather quicker. The net effect is that the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle increases when we process fossil fuels. Cows don't burn fossil fuels, cows eat grass. The carbon in grass is carbon that already exists in the carbon cycle and is just being temporarily stored until the grass becomes cow food or rots or whatever. Overall, the amount of carbon in the system remains constant.

 

[wrightclan]

stuff

Excuse me :?: :?: :?:

 

[wrightclan]

Cows are not the cause of climate change. My argument; and it remains, is that cows are irrelevant and that considering them is a distraction.

:-k Exactly where did I say that cows are the cause of climate change? I have no idea what the cause of climate change is. There is historical evidence for significant climate change prior to the current heavy usage of fossil fuels. That would suggest that perhaps climate change is affected by factors other than fossil fuels; and indeed that any climate change that is occurring is within the realms of historical variations. (i.e. we're not doomed by climate change).

Brad

 

[engineer one]

i agree brad, we are not doomed only by climate change :twisted: :lol:

newton i think suggested that the total amount of matter in the earth stays the same, so why should carbon production cause more problems.

are there any figures which show how the nitrogen levels have reduced in the last 50 years. or indeed since nasa started puncturing the ozone level to send spaceships up???? :roll:

climatologists may well read, but why is it so wrong to question the results
of computer modelling when our weather bureaus cannot tell us what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, let alone in two hours????

as a simple engineer, i just wonder why it is only the car that gets blamed :roll:

paul :wink: