Climate change - Hoax ?

nicensleazy

Are we being sold down the river on climate change? According to certain scientists (who are in the know) we are. Watching the debate on Question Time on Thursday, it does make you wonder. Is it just an opportunity for the government to sting us for more money and road tax. For me personally, I think there is indeed change, but its a natrual change which would happen. OK, perhaps enhanced by man, but I just wonder by how much! But I do think its all part of the great bullshit machine which is operating out of no '10'.

balthazar

Why not read the Copenhagen Diagnosis:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... cc-science

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

stigofthedump

Here we go again. I suppost that man never landed on the moon and God created the world in seven days.

Dont fall for the people who selectively use science and ignore the sfuff that does not suit their argument. The vast majority if the science produced supports the case for global warming, even if Daily mail journalists and Jeremy Clarkson don't like it.

Check out this
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 40116.html

deptfordmarmoset

Right, how many posts before your scepticism gets turned into accusations of Climate Change Denial?

Cressers

I'm currently reading Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth. He presents plenty of evidence that AGW is unsupported. He may well be wrong and have skewed his data as some AGW proponents do, but his case deserves examination.

LittleB0b

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

Does increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases increase the earths temperature?


Do activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation release C02 (and other greenhouse gases)?


If the answer to those things is yes, then we have man made climate change.

volvicspar

Climate change is probably real. Man made or not.

Whether or not the fact are being manipulated or not I don't know, but Climate change is a useful tool to help us deal with resource depletion. (even if it is completely fake like the tooth fairy, I'll support it for this)

Lets hope we can wean ourselves off oil.... quickly...

Homer J

stigofthedump wrote:

Here we go again. I suppost that man never landed on the moon and God created the world in seven days.

Dont fall for the people who selectively use science and ignore the sfuff that does not suit their argument. The vast majority if the science produced supports the case for global warming, even if Daily mail journalists and Jeremy Clarkson don't like it.

Check out this
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 40116.html

I thought god did it in 6 days

stigofthedump

A much more interesting debate is on how to wean ourselves off oil.

We should be living where we work to cut down transport miles.

Also is it better to buy a new car with low emmisions which has used a great deal of energy to make, or continue to use an old car that produces slightly more carbon?

Clarkson does get one thing right, however, Purely electric cars are not the future, hygrogen fuel cells are, IMO.

cougie

I think its probably a bit of both - natural warming and man made warming.

I dont think anyone understands enough to be 100% on this either way, but it does nake sense to reduce our emissions.

nolf

Article by Al Gore and David Blood,

Whilst the article is mainly run of the mill, the links to reports by various organisations are well worth having a look at.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b1067b2-dacd ... abdc0.html

Waderider

Society is currently led by politicians and businessmen. I believe society should be led by scientists.

Scientific opinion is always split, and this is a good thing, a checking mechanism if you like. There is no whip for scientists, although there is consensus and peer review.

Newspaper articles taken on their own are not a reliable source. There are plenty of polemics out there. What is key is peer reviewed scientific papers on climate change.

I can't find any climate change denying scientists with peer reviewed papers concluding climate change isn't man influenced. If anyone can, post it on this thread.

APIII

Whether it is or not, I think there is still an important issue concerning the abuse of natural resources and the wasteful approach to living that is prevalent in the UK and other developed nations. I'm referring to things like energy use, pillaging of poorer nations forests/oil reserves so we can 'benefit' from lower prices, the issue of over consumption and the resulting landfill problem, etc, etc.

mercsport

Just a quick thought on this contentious issue.

Yes, I believe GW is here and with us. I regard it as natural and our negative input as verging on the infinitesimal of the whole. I resent being labeled a 'denier' when I dispute the so called 'scientific consensus' view that we are wholly to blame.

Nonetheless, so long as government doesn't proscribe the lighting industry, I'll never take seriously their pronouncements about the need to curb power use, and the necessity for nuclear power and 'green solutions'.

This is about the general mind-set of people as a whole and their perception that the more light shed, and the resultant perpetual daylight, equates to better security and general well-being etc.. For a datum, consider what it is about the world that requires multi thousands of miles of motorway to be lit, as if by daylight, for your totally solitary perambulation at 3 o'clock in the am, oh, .. from Liverpool to Hull, say ? Further, take a midnight flight across Europe in clear conditions and marvel at the insanity of it all. There is barely a break in wattage squandered all the way from southern Italy to the local airport.

finchy

mercsport wrote:

Yes, I believe GW is here and with us. I regard it as natural and our negative input as verging on the infinitesimal of the whole. I resent being labeled a 'denier' when I dispute the so called 'scientific consensus' view that we are wholly to blame.

No scientist claims that humans are wholly responsible for climate change.

jimmypippa

LittleB0b wrote:

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

Does increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases increase the earths temperature?


Do activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation release C02 (and other greenhouse gases)?


If the answer to those things is yes, then we have man made climate change.

And we can do fairly simple maths to show that the amount of CO2 we release (form figures for amount of oil and coal burnt) is about the same as the annual increase that has been measured in CO2. If anyone is interested I can show *my* working. I am an engineer in a completely different discipline, but back of the envelope calculations show that the scientists' statements are plausible.

As the Now Show mentioned this week, the latest scientific organisation to join this conspiracy was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It is a bit odd because one would have thought that they'd find it in their interest to expose this obvious hoax....

finchy

jimmypippa wrote:

As the Now Show mentioned this week, the latest scientific organisation to join this conspiracy was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It is a bit odd because one would have thought that they'd find it in their interest to expose this obvious hoax....

Not to mention all of the governments - who so often will do anything it takes to look after oil companies, from selling arms to the most despicable dictators to starting wars - are also in on it.

To answer nicensleazy's original question - there is some debate about how much of the change in climate is caused by humans and how much is natural, but the vast majority of scientists from all disciplines believe in humans being responsible for most (not all).

CC research diverts money away from other areas of scientific work, for example the British government has pulled out of prestigious and important international space projects in the past couple of years, much to the dismay of astronomers (sorry, I can't find a reference - can anyone help me?). If this were just a hoax, you'd have a hell of a lot of scientists coming forward making a big noise about it - read the New Scientist on a regular basis and you'll see just how often scientists, particularly in the UK, complain about funding problems.

CC also diverts money away from environmental protection - humanity is still responsible for ever-increasing air pollution, water pollution, soil degradation, deforestation, habitat loss, species extinction and many, many other problems which are currently under-reported and little is being done to prevent or reverse them. So again, if CC is just a hoax, researchers and environmentalists in those fields would be working against their own interests by supporting a CC conspiracy.

tailwindhome

stigofthedump wrote:

Dont fall for the people who selectively use science and ignore the sfuff that does not suit their argument. The vast majority if the science produced supports the case for global warming, even if Daily mail journalists and Jeremy Clarkson don't like it.

Is that not what you're doing?

Has the majority of the science produced ever supported a case, later to be proven incorrect.

The world isn't flat.
The sun doesn't revolve round the earth.

Whatever happened to that Millenium Bug?

mercsport

johnfinch wrote:

mercsport wrote:

Yes, I believe GW is here and with us. I regard it as natural and our negative input as verging on the infinitesimal of the whole. I resent being labeled a 'denier' when I dispute the so called 'scientific consensus' view that we are wholly to blame.

No scientist claims that humans are wholly responsible for climate change.

Ah, yes. Well spotted. I got carried away there. :oops:

passout

When will people learn that academics have a vested interest in researching a topic that has funding attached to it & the result of which might be published in nature? Before we address global warming ask yourself how much you trust these people. We often seem to assume that boffins don't have political, religious or personal agendas but they often do in my opinion.

I do not deny global warming and oil will certainly run out soon BUT the media frenzy and social interpretation of these issues is B.S. As for the findings themselves I am skeptical; of course sciences teaches that we should be skeptical - that's half the point!

Jez mon

Well I have to say, it seems pretty straightforward.

Do we as humans produce a heck of a lot of green house gasses?

Yes

Does increasing the amount of green house gasses cause climate change?

Yes

Put 1+1 together and you get 2!!

Of course, the climate changes naturally over time, and sometimes it does change dramatically of it's own accord, but I think it's entirely plausible that we could be having a large effect on the environment

MrChuck

I think you're giving No. 10 a bit too much credit. Sure they may be exploiting it but it's not exactly something they've dreamed up by themselves is it?

jimmypippa

Jez mon wrote:

Well I have to say, it seems pretty straightforward.

Do we as humans produce a heck of a lot of green house gasses?

Yes

Does increasing the amount of green house gasses cause climate change?

Yes

Put 1+1 together and you get 2!!

Of course, the climate changes naturally over time, and sometimes it does change dramatically of it's own accord, but I think it's entirely plausible that we could be having a large effect on the environment

And if you look art when the temperature started climbing, again with fairly simple mathematical tools, you can see that it starts climbing roughly in the industrial revolution.

If you look at ice coverage, then this shows that the temperature is certainly increasing.


here is a good website
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

and some from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
A view down the Whitechuck Glacier in Glacier Peak Wilderness in 1973


and in 2006



It would be incredibly unlikely that wevery uncertainty just happens to be in the most benign way and that there isn't actually a problem that is exascerbated by man. Hey if it is mostly natural, we won't want to make it worse.

mercsport

For those of an insomniac disposition here are a few links :

First up is one from the wonderful DM this week, which will delight a lot of you

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z0XdsgtvSt

....further to which, in a related forum wherein, as here, likely, everyone was rubbishing the stated facts on the basis that this was sourced from the DM, a near lone voice reasoned :

"At first I thought wait a minute, only 16 ships? Then I remembered a show I saw on the construction of (I think) the Emma Maersk, and how truly mind numbingly HUGE its engine is. Some items I dug up:

"The Wärtsilä RT-flex96C is a two-stroke turbocharged low-speed diesel engine manufactured by the Finnish manufacturer Wärtsilä. It is currently considered the largest reciprocating engine in the world, designed for large container ships, running on heavy fuel oil. It stands at five stories (13.5 metres (44 ft)) high, is 27.3 m (90 ft) long, and weighs over 2300 tonnes in its largest 14-cylinder version — producing 109,000 brake horsepower (81.3 MW).

It was put into service in September 2006 aboard the Emma Mærsk."

So this thing weighs more than most WW2 era subs and destroyers!
And the fuel(according to the article) has 4500 times the sulpher content of automotive fuel. These ships don't make money sitting still and the engine consumes 3.8 litres PER SECOND of this high sulpher stuff. Thats 1 gallon of fuel per second! 3600 gallons an hour, 86,400 gallons a day. Times 16 ships is almost 1.4 MILLION gallons of this fuel burned per day. I'm beginning to see how this might be possible".

Chapter and verse on the practicalities of scientific connivance here :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/b ... more-12994

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 083704.htm

This next is a bit of a fag to wade through ( ..I didn't ), but I'm sure there'll be some who thirst for this type of debate. BTW, the feedback from the vid's is a good read :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/m ... ent-215124

And, for a little balance, I thought I'd chuck in this from a broadcaster I really admire ( and an old card carrying commie to boot ) but whose views on GW are not in accord with mine.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 928868.ece

nolf

Waderider wrote:

Society is currently led by politicians and businessmen. I believe society should be led by scientists.
.

Really?!
Do scientists have any experience whatsoever in leadership?

Scientists are experts, the very nature of experts usually make them unsuitable for general management/leadership role. They're overly focused on their own field, at the expense of the views of other stakeholders in society. Thats perfect for their current role as researchers and lecturers, but when trying to take charge you have to have the experience or at least acknowledge the importance of taking a wider view.

Society has never and hopefully never will be run by people who still call themselves scientists. (whether having a background in science before going into politics is beneficial is a different issue.)

finchy

passout wrote:

When will people learn that academics have a vested interest in researching a topic that has funding attached to it & the result of which might be published in nature? Before we address global warming ask yourself how much you trust these people. We often seem to assume that boffins don't have political, religious or personal agendas but they often do in my opinion.

I do not deny global warming and oil will certainly run out soon BUT the media frenzy and social interpretation of these issues is B.S. As for the findings themselves I am skeptical; of course sciences teaches that we should be skeptical - that's half the point!

Oh, come on now, Mr Passout, how much do you think that the sceptic scientists get given for their research if they're working for an oil company?

If I were a scientist who was interested in nothing but money, I know that I would have gone for Esso's sponsorship rather than Greenpeace of the government.

(And no, I'm not accusing sceptical climate scientists of being dishonest and only going for the money).

rake

i wonder what the people of cockermouth think.

Scrumple

Hoax

The real problem is too many people.

Climate change is a clever way of raising more tax. I'm fed up of hearing "our childrens' children".

Pass me another log for the fire. This place has survived 1000000000000000000000000 of years and the green muppets can bollo@ks.
That said, we need to reduce the population just to make the quality of life tolerable. Climate change is a red herring.

geoff_ss

mercsport wrote:

Just a quick thought on this contentious issue.

Yes, I believe GW is here and with us. I regard it as natural and our negative input as verging on the infinitesimal of the whole. I resent being labeled a 'denier' when I dispute the so called 'scientific consensus' view that we are wholly to blame.

.

Why? Isn't that what you are? You are denying that climate change is man made. I don't happen to agree with you but you're certainly entitled to your opinion and the term 'denier' seems to be a perfectly respectable one to me.

I think climate change certainly is the result of human activity at least to some extent and probably to a great extent. The atmosphere is incredibly thin; like a thin coat of varnish on a football. Cycling 10 miles doesn't get you very far but go 10 miles vertically and there's very little of it - certainly not enough to breathe unaided. It doesn't take much to affect it one way or another.

Do I think anything will be done about until it's far too late? No. I've given up bothering. I'll probably be beyond caring inside 20 years. I have no family so why should I care? At least most of the people here will be able to get about without powered transport.

Geoff

deptfordmarmoset

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Right, how many posts before your scepticism gets turned into accusations of Climate Change Denial?

Answer: 25

finchy

Scrumple wrote:

That said, we need to reduce the population just to make the quality of life tolerable. Climate change is a red herring.

I'd say that it's the other way round. Whilst I am all for reducing population, we can't just see that as a magic bullet for all of the world's problems. You and I almost certainly have more possessions than an entire poor African family, so just reducing the world's population without addressing how much each human uses ain't gonna solve a thing.

Imagine, for example that we managed to cut the population of our planet by 20% but each person consumed 30% more... well, I'm sure that you can see what would happen there.