the great global warming swindle

[MrJay]

More stuff

There is no question that there are other, non man made, factors that influence climate change.

The man made climate change issue is that on top of these naturally occurring influences human activity is also having an effect and to such an extent that we cannot simply rely on natural processes to balance things out for us. We are tipping the balance so to speak.


Engineerone,
It is true that the quantity of elements in the universe remains constant. However the quantity of gases in the atmosphere and their effects on our climate do not. If you pour £20 worth of petrol on your back seat the argument that you filled your car up might not wash when you run out of vroom vroom down the road. Location is important.

It is perfectly proper to question the validity and use of speculative computer modelling. But it also helps to try and understand the role and extent in which modeling is used in science before criticising climate science for using computers to do stuff.

 

[Slim]

stuff

More stuff

Thats not very respectful... is it?

 

[wrightclan]

Popular platitudes

 

[wrightclan]

Off to watch the show.

Brad

 

[MrJay]

stuff

More stuff

Thats not very respectful... is it?

Not a particularly constructive contribution to the discussion is it? You'll notice me being disrespectful when I don't give decent, fair and meaningful replies to comments. Feel free to turn this into a personality contest.

platitudes

Once again, I think this thread doesn't show me platituding a popularist agenda. Amongst the prevailing attitudes here I seem to be somewhat not popularist.

 

[wrightclan]

Why is any discussion which does not agree with you, referred to as "stuff," or as "Not a particularly constructive contribution to the discussion."?

Brad

 

[Anonymous]

personally i just see that so much of the so called science is not factually based

:roll:

 

[A_n_g_e_l_a]

... and we all know that cows fart co2 ...

Sorry to be so punctilious but cows exhale CO2 and fart CH4 (methane).

 

[ike]

Actually, fart gas is a mixture of both, something like a 60/40 or 70/30 CH4 to Co2. well there's quite a bit of H20 in the mix if it's a particularly wet one, along with various aromatic hydrocarbons.

 

[Losos]

Wow, this thread is getting really scientific, :wink: I'll really take more interest in the cows in the field opposite me when walking the dogs tomorrow :lol:

By the way anyone know the ratio of CO2 to CH4 in a dogs fart, 'cos our two do quite a lot of that and I sometimes think they are entirely responsible for global warming :roll:

 

[MrJay]

Why is any discussion which does not agree with you, referred to as "stuff," or as "Not a particularly constructive contribution to the discussion."?

Brad

You'll notice I made proper replies to your comments, "stuff" was simply shorthand to show I was replying to the comments you made. I could have copied and pasted word for word, but frankly the stuff is there on record a couple of posts before mine for anyone to reference should they wish.

Slimjim made no contribution to a discussion on the validity of human influence on climate change, and preferred to try for a sideways character assination movement instead hoping the popular sway would carry the sideswipe. I think my call was proper.

 

[Slim]

Slimjim made no contribution to a discussion on the validity of human influence on climate change

Perhaps you should read my comment on page 1. I simply thought that referring to wrightclan's comments as "stuff" showed a distincted lack of respect for his opinion.

Anyway, I don't want to get drawn into an argument, so in the words of the Dragons.... I'm out.

 

[wrightclan]

Why is any discussion which does not agree with you, referred to as "stuff," or as "Not a particularly constructive contribution to the discussion."?

Brad

You'll notice I made proper replies to your comments, "stuff" was simply shorthand to show I was replying to the comments you made. I could have copied and pasted word for word, but frankly the stuff is there on record a couple of posts before mine for anyone to reference should they wish.

Yeah right, that's why slimjim and I both saw the same implication, and why you felt the need to add the adjective "more" in your second instance, and why you don't normally use the descriptive "stuff" in other posts. If you believe the explanation you just wrote; then you're deceiving yourself, not me.

Brad

 

[Gill]

Can we please stop bickering? I don't care who started it or who's scored the most puppy points. I'd just like to see this thread return to a civilized discussion in the hope that I might become better informed.

Gill

 

[Paul Chapman]

Well I watched the programme and thought it was all pretty convincing. Looks like a lot of people have been telling a lot of porkies.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[MrJay]

yadda yadda yadda

Once again, I made proper, polite and considered responses to your comments. If you want to get hung up on my use and misuse of quotes rather than the meat and bones of the discussion then knock yourself out. Frankly I don't like your socks.

Still, seeing as you insist. When replying to the post directly above I tend not to use the quote function. It is unnecessary as there is a clear narrative for anyone caring to read the thread to follow. Every now and then someone slips a post in the middle before I can get my reply in and I retrospectively edit my post with the appropriate quote so it is clear that my own post is a reply to elsewhere. When editing a post the automatic quote function is not available and one needs to resort to manual editing. I used shorthand because the frequency of posts making points and comments replying to things I said were occurring faster than I could make replies. Speed was an issue. Your comments weren't actually relevant to the discussion - cows have no impact at all whatsoever on the makeup gasses in the atmosphere - but I thought you deserved a response because I felt you were posting in good faith. In order to get a response out quickly and retain some easy to follow narrative in the thread I used shorthand rather than copy and paste - you'll notice if you edit a post the edit screen doesn't display earlier posts to reference, which can make things a bit of a chore. From then on I did it for personal amusement, so there. If you think it's worth further discussion I recommend Personal Messaging as the appropriate forum.

Back to the thing on the telly...

The description of the temperature record leading atmospheric CO2 levels I thought was interesting - it's well known that there are positive feedback loops in peat bogs and similar that cause increased natural emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. It'll be fun finding out more. Unfortunately that was pretty much the sum of the science bit; and being (probably unashamedly) a one sided account and only very brief before wandering off into something about how marxists can't be trusted because they don't wash, my interest was piqued and then left wanting.

The rest of what I saw was predictably politicised cat fighting. And given that much of the program was a critique of the left's politicisation of climate change then it didn't much carry; which is a shame because a lot of the criticism is valid and deserves proper consideration.

 

[engineer one]

well obviously we all watched it from a different viewpoint, but with my experience of the way in which band wagons get going. i thought the programme was pretty fair and more objective than those who promote the global warming story.

animal rights protestors seem to work in the same way as the global warmers. if you disagree with us, then you are wrong.

the particular science which makes sense is that CO2 is only 0.54% of the overall gases within the atmosphere. memory serves to remind me that nitrogen is over 80 % seems a long way to go.

the other thing is that clearly the sun has a real impact on our atmosphere, and we ignore that at our peril.

the interesting thought from the end is that much of the anti global warming thought process wishes to keep the poor in the gutter. i wondered how many of the global warming promoters have considered that their efforts will in fact keep millions in poverty rather than help them out of it.

it is a definate fact that wind power, solar power and wave power will for a considerable time be marginal in their ability to mass produce power, mainly because we cannot store electricity very well.

the thing that still concerns me is that despite considerable investment over the last 30 years since i was first involved, it is still not practical to have a battery powered car which can reach 60 within less than about 30 seconds, and travel for more than about an hour, and that does not need re-charging over night to recover. if it can't happen with my electric toothbrush, then #-o

producing electricity through batteries is expensive in production, re-charging and then disposal and until that changes then everything else is moot.

paul :wink:

 

[Paul Chapman]

I felt that the programme presented its case very well. I would summarise the main points as follows:

1. Statistical evidence (if it was accurate) shows that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature, and that increases in temperature are caused by activity in the sun, known as sun spots. This, of course, is the exact reverse of what the global warming doom-mongers have been telling us and was, I feel, the most significant part of the programme.

2. The bulk of CO2 emissions come from the sea and, by comparison, the CO2 emissions caused by people are relatively insignificant.

3. Going back over hundreds of years, periods of global warming and freezing have happened before and have not had the catastrophic effects that people are predicting.

4. Politicians for many years have found the arguments of the global warming lobby convenient, for a variety of reasons, and their global warming advisors have therefore found many receptive politicians who have repeatedly been told what they want to hear, irrespective of whether it was the truth. This, by and large, has been responsible for the global warming bandwagon.

All in all a very interesting programme which provided much food for thought.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[MrJay]

well obviously we all watched it from a different viewpoint, but with my experience of the way in which band wagons get going. i thought the programme was pretty fair and more objective than those who promote the global warming story.

Fair the programme wasn't. It was unadulterated politicised propaganda that presented a single viewpoint without debate or challenge. Rather like Al Gore's film (which unlike this one I haven't bothered to watch as I've better things to do than listen to what Al Gore has to say about anything) this was a piece of film designed to preach to the already converted. One tends to trust and agree with things that reinforce our point of view.

Animal rights protesters are irrelevant to the discussion. There are muppets with stupid arguments on both sides of the fence.

the interesting thought from the end is that much of the anti global warming thought process wishes to keep the poor in the gutter. i wondered how many of the global warming promoters have considered that their efforts will in fact keep millions in poverty rather than help them out of it.

If it were so simple. For example I am more than happy for developing nations in Africa and the Middle East to develop nuclear programmes. The film conveniently forgot to mention that Africa was rich in natural resources of uranium. But then the film was a politically charged attempt to make an argument based on the notion that you can't trust what the lefties say; which might be a fair standpoint, but it doesn't make the righties any better.

Batteries are indeed a technological stumbling block to mass uptake of renewable energy.


Paul,
Certainly this is not the exact reverse of what the global warming doom-mongers have been saying. The Sun is the biggest influence on planet earth full stop. Cycles in solar activity are well known and well documented, but do not match long term trends in climate change. If it were the case the climate would be much more erratic than it is. What was interesting was the charge that the nature of the link between CO2 and Temperature wasn't causal, but symptomatic. Unfortunately the programme fluffed over this without exploring the ideas with any depth.

It's never been debated that the bulk of CO2 in the system is naturally occurring. It's not the quantity of CO2 that is the cornerstone of the argument 'for' man made climate change, rather the increase in CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels and the effect that this may have on the climate.

One can certainly look at previous extremes in climate and notice catastrophic effects on people. It's nice and comfy in the UK and in the short term we may have more grapes, but if you're living next door to a desert things probably aren't looking so rosy.


For me politicising climate change does nothing to further the debate, it's not about political allegiance. This film was no different in that respect and disappointed. Perhaps if it had a narrower remit and concentrated on elements of the science, or for that matter had stuck to criticising the left's enthusiasm for climate change it might have got somewhere; but this was a film made by people less interested in debate than with scoring political points against the BBC and lefties everywhere.

 

[kafkaian]

I certainly don't know what to believe or what the truth holds but one thing I do know; this (and any) government will do anything to bring about the changes they require through stealth and hypocrisy. I've not long returned from a trip to Russia and China. Like many, I've been to the States. These three countries alone, leaving aside Europe, India and Brazil for the moment, have more heavy industry, vehicle emissions and CO2 formers to negate ANYTHING we try to do in this country. These countries will probably continue to belch out "greenhouse" gases for many, many, many years to come. And we haven't finished yet, Africa is the next continent to want to progress like any other. When they start, they will add an even bigger carbon footprint to the debate.

If the doom merchants are correct, then we're doomed anyway as far as I can see.

Oh, and in future, if I get on a plane to go to these places, I will make sure trees are planted to counter the ensuing carbon footprint

However, I am sufficiently concerned to try to put SVO in my diesel vehicle and look at purchasing a wind turbine as well as reducing my waste output. I don't know what else, as individuals, we can do. For you that live in the sticks, to be told to get on a bus is a bit of a joke!

One thing is for sure though, this planet will survive into the period of solar expansion/enlargement probably a long time after the human race has pressed the self-destruct button. If global warming due to our intervention is true, then we're not destroying the planet, only our species!