the great global warming swindle

[Anonymous]

you seem more wound up than any body on this mr jay :lol:

I was surprized to hear Piers (Corbyn) sticking his neck out and challenging the assumed "Global warming polemmic" Him and his brother Jeremy are both committed "lefties" Good on him winning bet's at william Hill's he was always poor, I remember him scrounging meals at the ambulance station C1985 8)
One thing that stuck out was the cutesie convention in Kenya, with some delegate or other arriving in a mercedes 4X4 :roll: , meanwhile the locals "banned" from access to African coal or oil and reduced to making cute little trinket's for the international visitors. Some of them even have wooden scooters and bikes (no bad engines of course) The producer's hinted at the deep green issues but perhaps should have looked at that more closely.
Why would these scientist's challenge what is generally now regarded as the concensus view of climate change if doing so makes life so difficult for them? Why would they present a view that costs them, their job, funding, peer respect, generates media hostility and witch hunt mentality against them?? Not for the good of their health as one put it!. Engineer's comment about A.R.P's was relevant. Theres the same extreme bigoted intolerance of an alternative view-you disagree therefore your wrong, and we reserve the right to attack you mercilessly. Why would anyone need to issue death threat's to a dissenting scientist unless they are desperate?
And what of the global warming industry? I bet all the delegates at these conferences dont travel their on rowing boat's or eco bikes :lol: :idea: If this whole CO2 thing was debunked as a modern superstitious myth, there would be no basis for the new emision taxes/obligations to recycle/ban flights (unless your going to a climate change conference!) etc. /offsetting/buy a tree to offset your holiday flight?!

ModEdit Newbie_Neil

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Gentlemen and Ladies

Please keep politics out of this thread.

It is an interesting discussion that deserves better.

Thanks
Neil

 

[StevieB]

Speaking as a scientist, put two of us in a room together and you will get an argument about something - generally to the death!

Science as a field is based on developing a theory, testing that theory, and once you are as happy as can be that the theory is sound you present it to your peers for discussion. Climate change is a science (albeit one in its infancy) and as such theories get proposed and trumpeted, then discredited or reworked until a consensus view or accumulating evidence supports or refutes them and they become 'fact' or 'fiction'. The real trouble with climate change is that nobody really knows - both sides of the debate are presenting theories (sometimes as fact, sometimes as hype) but facts in this field are few and far between. We know the earth is warming, the discussion is about why and whether we can or need to stop it.

As someone mentioned earlier, we cannot predict local weather 2 weeks in advance, why should we be any better at understanding global patterns?

Last night programme was a sensible, calm presetation of the side of climate change you do not hear as often as the doom laden side. Strip away the hype and the 'global warming is bad' camp could have made an equally reasoned and plausible case for the opposing view.

The bottom line is, nobody knows to any great degree of certainty. The problem is that money, business and politics have a vested interest in persuading the general public one way or the other, and true to form facts and theories tend to get hyped, blurred and seconded to whatever cause suits.

Please, believe whichever side you wish, but bear in mind that advancing scientific knowledge of climatology is not the primary aim of either side of the debate.

Steve.

 

[wrightclan]

I find it funny(but predictable) how when the scientists in this film present scientific data that the other side accuses them of being superficial. Here's a newsflash: documentaries by their very nature and due to the constraints of presenting a complex issue to a wide audience, are always superficial. That said, I think they did explain some of the data quite clearly, and indeed, showed quite clearly where the other side has ignored scientific data.

As for the issue of the latter part of the film being a supposed diatribe against the left, I heard arguments from scientists and commentators on both sides of the political spectrum (and including at least one prominent environmentalist) who think the path we are being told to go down by the extreme environmental movement is a dangerous path.

I'm all for conserving natural resources and personal resources. It makes good sense both personally and for business to be aware of how we can use all resources more efficiently. However, the reason I wanted my kids to watch this film, is that I think the consequences of following the path of the extreme eco/anti-globalist agenda will be more catastrophic than the supposed consequences of allowing the developing nations to develop and allowing the developed nations to continue having strong economies.

In the same way as the doomsayers say that anthropogenic global warming/climate change will hurt the poorest; I believe that following their path will hurt the poorest, and to a lesser extent the average person in both the developing and developed world. The rich can afford to wring their hands and spout platitudes, and take the brunt of a higher cost of living. Most of the world's population are just trying to put food on the table and stay well. Allowing developing nations to develop in the same way we have, can only be good for them and for us.

Brad

 

[dedee]

This whole debate is a bit like listening to the experts debate the merits of the UK joining the Euro.

When both sides of the argument are equally well represented, and the majority of the public (well possibly only me :wink: ) can't possibly keep up on an intellectual level, I give up and watch the footie :lol:

Andy,
who did his bit and bought low energy light bulbs the other day. When I took them back complaining they they were a bit dim the chap asked whether I had given them time to warm up, didn't know they had to said I. Why does it not say so that on the box?

 

[woodbloke]

There was a programme on the TV some time ago exploring this issue, it was to do with the climate change experiment that we were encouraged to run on our computers at home. At the end of the show, a large graph was produced (I think the axes were time and temperature) with 4 lines of varying colours (forget what they represented now). The lines were fairly constant up to the point about 1850 (the start of industrialisation on a big scale) and from that point on to the present day you could see a gradual increase in the amount of carbon produced. The amount of carbon produced started to rise alarmingly in the 1970's and has continued at an exponential rate.... and with it has come the corresponding rise in temperature. The whole graph looked like a horizontal hockey stick and the conclusion at the end was that the exponential increase in temperature (ie the blade of the stick) was not a natural phenomenon but due solely to man's activity and the production of carbon - Rob

 

[Anonymous]

Although I didn’t see the program, one thing that always strikes me when we are faced with a disaster or crisis of some sort is the figures and facts.
The thing that always eludes me is that the planet was tiny a few hundred years ago, we were all fledgling voyagers and discoverers but disasters still happened, famines, floods, earthquake, but we were never aware of them. Who knows, the polar ice caps could have melted much the same as now.
We certainly never had the scientific knowledge to record or try and predict impending doom, we used to fall of the end of the earth if we sailed too far. Mind you, nor did we have a multi millionaire Bob Geldof swearing at the proles for cash when a disaster loomed either…
And there’s the rub sometimes. The popstar/filmstar do gooders can have a big impact on how we contribute to certain aspects of our daily lives, but when you have Bonio, the lead singer of U2 spouting about global warming, famine aids etc, and then chartering a jet to fly his hat across the atlantic, well…in my mind, not a valid reason to listen some times!
Anyway, doesn’t affect the for or against arguments I suppose, but as I see it, the data collected for or against is based on a very small timescale. Just my 2p you understand!

Andy

 

[misterfish]

Some weeks ago we watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Until then I'd always been sceptical about global warming while SWMBO and my son were much more convinced. It's worth a watch even if you have an (understandable) aversion to American politicians.

Having seen the film I certainly questioned my beliefs and after a bit of soul searching decided that if it was all hype then nothing I or anybody else could do would make any difference. But, if it was all true then and if we all did our little bit to alleviate the perceived problem then it may help. As a result we have 'brought forward' our plan to use low energy light fittings where possible, rather than wait for the bulbs to blow. With our current house refurbishment we are installing new efficient plumbing, heating and appliances along with timber double glazed windows and doors. Hopefully when all this is done we will have a comfortable house with a much lower potential environmental impact. We also bought an Electrisave monitor that shows us how much electricity we're using, and since the lighting upgrade there is an appreciable reduction - it is good at indicatiing (nagging) that things are left switched on and there is a slight smugness when we can get the consumption lower.

After last night's program which showed that the carbon levels followed the temperature changes rather than caused them, I'm still not sure where I stand. The problem is that I'm a trained scientist and demand proof before I'm convinced of anything (don't ask me about religion). But despite that, there is a degree of self satisfaction in that we are starting to see the differences we have made to our own consumption and environment.

I'm always sceptical when politicians or big business get involved in anything - they almost always have their own agenda of taking care of themselves at others expense and that they are frequently 'economical with the truth'. Whether its politicians or environmentalists, they nearly always seem to be at one extreme or the other.

So here I am, still not fully convinced one way or another.

MisterFish

 

[Paul Chapman]

At the end of the show, a large graph was produced (I think the axes were time and temperature) with 4 lines of varying colours (forget what they represented now). The lines were fairly constant up to the point about 1850 (the start of industrialisation on a big scale) and from that point on to the present day you could see a gradual increase in the amount of carbon produced.

What I found interesting about last night's programme was the question of whether CO2 causes warming or increased warming causes increased CO2 (they also pointed out that reduced warming - when there were no sun spots - caused a reduction of CO2). They also produced historical data to show that during periods of expanding industrial activity there was not increased warming caused by increases in CO2 production.

Unfortunately, Joe Public is always left having to decide who to believe. Personally I feel a lot more comfortable about the whole situation after last night's programme.

What would be interesting would be a programme setting out what Governments in the industrial countries had actually done to back up what they say. At the moment it feels to me that they are clobbering us with increased taxation to pay for global warming but there seems to be little data on what they are doing with that money to deal with the situation. They are all telling us that the situation is catastrophic but their actions don't appear to support that.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic :roll: :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[kafkaian]

.... As a result we have 'brought forward' our plan to use low energy light fittings where possible, rather than wait for the bulbs to blow. With our current house refurbishment we are installing new efficient plumbing, heating and appliances along with timber double glazed windows and doors. Hopefully when all this is done we will have a comfortable house with a much lower potential environmental impact. We also bought an Electrisave monitor that shows us how much electricity we're using, and since the lighting upgrade there is an appreciable reduction - it is good at indicatiing (nagging) that things are left switched on and there is a slight smugness when we can get the consumption lower..

And regardless, the efficacy behind what you are doing will, in the long term, reduce your own bills and make your home 'green' marketable etc

 

[Gill]

I watched the programme last night. Reading through some of the contributions that have been made to this thread since the programme was broadcast, I suspect some people are commenting without the benefit of having seen it.

One thing that impressed me was the way that data was adduced and presented in a logical fashion, dispelling established notions that have been readily accepted but where cause and effect has not been established. A lot of this accepted data simply does not show cause and effect. I thought the explanations of climactic change given last night were much more persuasive than anything presented hitherto, although I would like to see the data in greater detail.

I also thought the political analysis was intriguing. Even if you don't agree with the programme's interpretation of the history of climate research, it has to be worth knowing that there are potential conflicts of interest among major players who are involved in this sort of research.

Gill

 

[kafkaian]

worth knowing that there are potential conflicts of interest among major players who are involved in this sort of research.....

Agreed. And any research ranging from tobacco to pharmaceutical drugs to genetically modified foodstuffs

 

[engineer one]

this issue will always be political, and therein lies the rub, whatever we do or say, the politicos will always find a way to increase their impact on our world, and probably tax us on it too.

i will say it again, we the "developed" human society waste too many resources, and that is the fault of globalisation and mass production. almost every body on the site has been affected by the movement of production to china, and white collar jobs to india. these are accountant lead decisions, and cost untold jobs in the uk, because accountants are able to fiddle the figures to make them tell any story.

most of us here have excel or lotus 123 as a programme lying around, and if you have done a business proposal, then you know how just changing one variable can make an unbelievable difference to the way in which a bank recieves your numbers. one comment stood out last night,
to get funding for squirrel research i have to add the global warming rubric.

the last twelve months have taught us all that reducing the amount of power we use actually does save us money, but how many have done it because of a concern about global warming, and how many because their gas and electricity bills went up by up to 50%???

but how many then waste that money and those resources by throwing away the tv and getting a new one, even though it still works, or the ps2, or etc etc? and now we have our local government telling us to recycle and save energy, then leaving the lights on in all their buildings.
but they can fine us for putting the wrong piece of paper in the re-cycling bag.

i am sure that many of those promoting global warming really do believe
it, but why do they need to discourage the contrary view so voilently??

it is well known that much of the evidence originally presented by green peace was "modified" after the author had resigned, and i thought it quite interesting that after the IPCC report was published recently many of the so called signatories stated that they had not actually agreed to being on the list, although the UN stated because they had been members they would be there. the un arms like unesco are political and will always work to their own agenda. but that does not make them right all the time.

i say again, if carbon is only 0.54% of the earth's atmosphere and about 70% is produced by the oceans, then what overall impact will the doubling of human output have on it.Is there actually any experimental data to show the impact???

the most important part of this programme is that we at least are talking and taking a more considered view, maybe then we can stop idiots behaving like bono, or his charity spending 52 millions to raise 9 :roll:

paul :wink:

 

[engineer one]

I do worry that today the EU agreed to a green programme.

so far they are not on their target to meet kyoto, how in the hell are they going to meet the 20% by 2020???

and guess who will pay for it, and pay extra taxes too?????? :roll:

paul :wink:

ModEdit Newbie_Neil

 

[engineer one]

interesting thought got my latest issue of pc pro magazine called may 2007.
on the rear page, a jon honeyball moans about computer modelling.
in particular he mentions the recent model about the epxansion of stansted airport.

his point is that you can make a computer model do what you want, you just change the parameters that you include,in this case the type and sort of customers, how they arrive, and how long each takes to go through security and what happens when the trains are late or whatever???

i just wonder how much computer modelling of the atmosphere has also been somewhat "massaged" to meet the end requirements??? :twisted:

i note that no one has yet come back to prove my thing about the amount of c02 in the atmosphere wrong???

we should save our resources, i agree, indeed i like the old patek phillipe ad where they say you do not own the watch rather you keep it for the next generations. we should think of all our resources in the same way, but not just to reduce carbon.

paul :wink:

 

[Nick W]

i note that no one has yet come back to prove my thing about the amount of c02 in the atmosphere wrong???

Unfortunately no one can prove that your 'thing' is wrong. However you are assuming that a small change in CO2 can only have a small change in the average temperature of the planet. It may be that the planet's temperature is extremely sensitive to CO2 content. As you're an engineer I'm surprised that you have never come across unstable systems or even positive feedback systems - at least in theory if not in practice.

 

[Anonymous]

i note that no one has yet come back to prove my thing about the amount of c02 in the atmosphere wrong???

Unfortunately no one can prove that your 'thing' is wrong. However you are assuming that a small change in CO2 can only have a small change in the average temperature of the planet. It may be that the planet's temperature is extremely sensitive to CO2 content. As you're an engineer I'm surprised that you have never come across unstable systems or even positive feedback systems - at least in theory if not in practice.

What's more if Paul really has a new angle on the problem then he is duty bound to present it to the the AGW lobby as soon as poss. There is a huge international majority consensus of informed scientific opinion and research in favour of the AGW hypothesis - either they are all wrong, or Paul is. He could save them a lot of bother. :lol:

cheers
Jacob

 

[Gill]

The problem though, is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus. We're told there is a consensus, but there's an awful lot of well qualified dissenters too, as was apparent in that programme. It also showed that many scientists who argue the case for global warming being generated by human CO2 production have vested interests.

Gill

 

[Anonymous]

The problem though, is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus. We're told there is a consensus, but there's an awful lot of well qualified dissenters too, as was apparent in that programme.

Well not that many in fact. It's a media thing - in the interests of balance they regularly wheel out the deniers - but usually from a small group of the same people. Lindzgen is best known in the states but he is heavily funded by oil interests and is conspicuously eccentric. Bellamy is not even a climatologist - it's not his subject.

It also showed that many scientists who argue the case for global warming being generated by human CO2 production have vested interests.

Gill

I think that is total nonsense - do you really believe that there is a massive conspiracy of weather experts just desperate to hang on to their jobs by forecasting doomsday? Ridiculous.
There is however a massive vested interest on the side of the oil producers who are the principle orchestraters of GW denial. Even Bush is having doubts about them. You don't have to be very bright to spot it!
I've been following the debate for quite some time and it is true that the scientists are continually getting it wrong - their estimates of temp rise and time scale are regularly being adjusted higher and nearer - it's happening faster and sooner than expected.

cheers
Jacob

 

[engineer one]

gee jacob, you are right, but does kind of prove the point that nick makes.
how do we know what would happen if co2 replaced another gas.

but since i remember school experiments where people blew things up, i wonder why there have been very few verifiable experiments to see what happen in laboratory conditions when you change the atmospheric make up.

like most reasonable people all i want is a reasoned q and a which gives us the chance to make a real impact on our world, and the mutual raising of all nations out of poverty. but the global warming people must provide proper evidence and not complain when their theories are questioned.

as one of the many on this forum who are the actual post war generation, i remember many climatic changes which were supposed to be cataclysmic, and yet we are still here.

smog was the great killer in the 50's, and that used to block out the sun, so we had the clean air act. did anyone ever check what impact it really had?? :twisted:
in the late 60's and early 70's we saw the threat of global cooling, whatever happened to that????? :twisted:

much is kind of like the cigarette cancer scare. the baccy companies knew for years that cancer was produced, but chose to hide it. however we now have more people dying of cancer after all this work. why well in the days of cigarettes without filters, the tobacco was not covered in fertilisers etc.
i have always wondered how anyone can think it good for you to burn the residues of a dead plant that was covered in fertiliser, and then draw that smoke through a plastic filter. have you ever burnt a filter, boy that is scary. :roll:

what about the old saccharin scare. for years it was banned and then later someone checked back on the research and discovered that the dosages had been enough to kill elephants not just rats. :roll:
seems to me that whilst we must cut waste, we must also approach this with a reasoned and even jaundiced eye. we know for sure that the politicians are out to con us, and the uni guys need funding so what about fair funding either way.

paul who loves the wind up :wink: