Reply With QuoteCome to the Pitt where we lob stuff like this back and forth on a continuous basis. :lol:
Anyone see the Channel 4 Program last night about Global Warming. It was an excellent insight into the spin created to enable government funding to various scientific and govenment departments. It appears (with proven evidence) that climate change is linked to sun spots and that in days gone by CO2 content within our atmosphere was 10x what it now with no effect on climate control.
It was also quote that a large amount of the 2500 scientists from which the UN etc collect these facts aren't even scientists or have subsequently changed their opinions in view of the evidence that CO2 isn't a cause of climate change.
Come to the Pitt where we lob stuff like this back and forth on a continuous basis. :lol:
Yes a good program,put together well, i think it was David Bellamy who said somthing similar a few years ago and was laughed at, will it make any difference ?, not a chance, the shit heads are in charge and will not let go, fredOriginally Posted by Maddogg
I've been reading for quite a few years that all we are seeing is part of the normal cycle of change and that our impact is negligible, at least in regard to temperatures. I am more worried about other environmental pollutants that are building up, compounds with hormonal effects in our water and so on, and our inability to properly dispose of our waste.
The commonsense lowdown (with as much detail as anyone could want) maybe found here
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
An island of sanity in a sea of junk thinking
I couldn't agree more Simon.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
I read Crichton's "State of Fear" which, while a work of fiction, does have an extensive bibliography/reference list in the back. I've jotted down the titles of about 20 books to read, haven't started on them yet, but they look interesting. Whatever your stance, there is definitely more to this than the "Climatology Light" that gets beaten around in the popular news reports.
M.
I did literally the same - I would recommend the novel highly as it is one of the most well-researched works of fiction you'll ever read, a ripping yarn and (in the vein of this thread) very thought-provoking.
I'm a skeptic, if not a scientist.... You read stuf like this and you say to yourself that someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong...... I don't think I've ever seen two totally opposite sides of a scientific issue as this one.... with scientists on either side, mind you.. :roll:
I've been reading the famous JunkScience pages on Global Warming, and there seems to be a compelling link between increased solar activity and the ris e in temperature, far more obvious than between CO2 and global warming. The effect of CO2 is apparently fairly small, compared to that of water vapour and clouds in particular.
The scaremongering about CO2 seems to serve mostly a political goal of forcing certain measures to be taken that are in themselves often sensible, like building better insulated houses equipped with solar panels and setting stricter limits for new cars so they get more energy efficient. Enhancing energy efficiency and managing resources in a sensible way is a matter of common sense. Turning the US maize crop production into ethanol to achieve a few percent reduction in fossil fuel use for petrol-guzzling SUVs is not a good idea - but then mr. Bush wants to keep US farmers happy - and neither is the construction of wind parks on every hilltop. But of course these are built by the same engineering companies that also construct offshore oil rigs. Follow the money.
From the article on the IPCC report:
"Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.
The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects."
I am glad I live in Europe, far from a coastline in the hills in an area where even in the driest periods there is still abundant potable water. With quite a bit of forest and agriculture. Of course that is no coincidence, we moved here deliberately five years ago.
What most people, conservative politicians and greens alike, usually don't say is that the major problem is not CO2. The major problem is that there are far too many people on the planet, and supposedly the ideal way of life for all of them is to live in a suburb with an SUV on the driveway, 300 channels on the tv, heating to 22 degrees Celsius in winter, airconditioning in the summer, a McDonalds around the corner and a shopping mall within 15 minutes by car where they can buy 70 kinds of peanut butter and 200 types of breakfast cereal. Billions are given the impression that this is the greatest good one can attain. And the planet can not support it. Period.
It also means people are moving into, and building homes in, areas that are far too vulnerable to natural 'disasters': flooding, earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, droughts. These natural events only become disasters as they affect human habitations. Even if there are not more floods, there are more flooding disasters as more people have gone to live in flood-prone areas. New Orleans is a case in point: it is mostly below water level, and on a coast that is being regularly hit by hurricanes. Build in such a place and shit is bound to happen.
Species are not primarily going extinct as a result of climate change, they are being actively exterminated or die out as their habitats are destroyed to make room for more suburbs, commercial areas and ethanol-producing crop. Most animals that are not bred to please or feed humans are automatically designated as 'nuisances', and must be shot as soon as they get within visual range of human habitats. It goes for wild boar, wolves, bears, foxes, weasels, birds of prey, deer: you name it, man kills it.
We are the worst plague that ever hit the planet and it has very little to do with CO2.
Either we learn how to control our numbers or we have to move off planet to new lands. The alternative is misery for all species that populate this lump of rock.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl ... 0312082025
:roll:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/sto ... d=10428336
:twisted:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21 ... 21,00.html
:roll: :?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/wa ... 867910.htm
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/Swe ... 853-1872r/
:wink:
============
Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography.
Not a day goes by without a new story about this subject. This one almost made me fall over. The New York Times actually doing a piece questioning Al Gore's film and book. Wow. They really took (great) pains to be kind to him, but I guess the pressure, and the science, is mounting..... :twisted:
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
For every argument there is a counter-argument. People naturally tend to agree with the one which most closely fits their own opinion, be it right or wrong.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I just want to know, for sure, based on real irrefutable data, if the current warming is for sure the fault of people or not. It seems that one side says, while ignoring much data, yes, and the other side says, "Hold on." :twisted:
I was listening to a BBC World Service discussion this morning in the car on the way to work, and they were talking about this new UK 5 year carbon reduction plan/law. Now, there is nothing wrong with reducing carbon emissions if you can do it without harming your economy, but the guy who was pushing it was oh so convinced in human created global warming, and the lovely BBC presenter never even brought up all of the new data coming out challenging the human aspect of the issue. I mean, the BBC as well as other news outfits have been running print stories on it almost daily. :?
I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that all of this Chicken Little human caused global warming stuff, when finally found out by all, will unfortunately cause a backlash and play right into the hands of those who want zero pollution/emission standards. That is bad because you do have to watch out for things like mercury and other pollutants. :roll: :?
Once again, a civilized middle of the road discussion and waiting for the science and research to catch up would have been a better course to take. Once again you get these enviro extremists pushing their agendas and panicking everyone. It's really not in their longterm interest since they will just harm their own agenda if/when it is proven that once again the "consensus" was wrong.
Listening to that guy on the BBC was so annoying because he was operating in this vacuum and the BBC presenter just allowed it. I know that they challenge peoples' views. I mean, when they interview US State and Defense Dept (and others) representatives on US foreign policy they do a lot of challenging, so much so that the interviewee can barely finish a sentence without being interrupetd. :?
Sorry.I shouldn't let it get me so steamed.
(and I am open to the possibility that GW is human caused, I just don't see it yet based on the big picture - i.e. human CAUSED, as they are preaching, and human contributed, are two different things)
There, see, I can't let it go.
Posting Permissions