Climate change - Hoax ?
Comments
-
Thanks WheezyMcChubby, however it is something of a myth that people believed that the world was flat or that the earth was the centre of the universe. both of these were part of religious dogma. The general populous were in no position to test them
The Greeks accepted that the world was round, and Eratosthenes of Cyrene actually measured it in around 240 BC. His result was within 1% of the actual size.
The point I was trying to make was that scientists are never 100% certain of anything. Much of the public mistake this for real doubt, hence creationalists ignoring the massive amount of evidence of evolution.
All the references in this thread, and many more, show an enormous amount of evidence for global warning and climate change and the link to CO2 emissions. There are scientists who don't agree however it is disingenuous to give this small number equal weight.0 -
Gullible fools.
And hypocrites to boot. If you believe what you preach none of you would have tv's.
Think logically, and use your brains.
My bike is ti. That's raping the planet of a resource. So is every carrier bag you use. But, recycle a few bottles and your conscience is clean. While India belches out smoke.
Missing the wood for the trees, and I for one will not be made to feel like I am to blame by some cardigan wearing pillock.0 -
Scrumple wrote:Gullible fools.
And hypocrites to boot. If you believe what you preach none of you would have tv's.
Think logically, and use your brains.
My bike is ti. That's raping the planet of a resource. So is every carrier bag you use. But, recycle a few bottles and your conscience is clean. While India belches out smoke.
Missing the wood for the trees, and I for one will not be made to feel like I am to blame by some cardigan wearing pillock.
:? :shock:
Wow, Mr Angry. You know that calling people gullible fools doesn't make you right and them wrong. It just means that you prefer to insult them rather than listen to what they say and then put forward a counter-argument for your particular position.0 -
My bike is ti. That's raping the planet of a resource. So is every carrier bag you use. But, recycle a few bottles and your conscience is clean. While India belches out smoke.
I think you will find they produce heck of a lot CO2equ per head compared to us. Plus we in the west have the money to cut back. Also there is nothing but wind farms on the western boarder with Pakistan. Oh and you will find in many parts of India they have banned plastic bags. I could go but I can't be bothered, run along and finish reading your mail.
Maybe you should get a cardigan to go with your Titanium frame, a good look I think
0 -
I suppose this is just trolling. In any case, perhaps you would be illuminated by reading even just the abstracts of the Copenhagen diagnosis that I linked to initially. It is a summary of recent scientific developments, and it might be the most accessible account of the current position of the scientific community, not the political one. It was released a few days ago by leading climatologists, many of whom are associated with the IPCC. Whether they wear cardigans or not I do not know.Scrumple wrote:Gullible fools.
And hypocrites to boot. If you believe what you preach none of you would have tv's.
Think logically, and use your brains.
My bike is ti. That's raping the planet of a resource. So is every carrier bag you use. But, recycle a few bottles and your conscience is clean. While India belches out smoke.
Missing the wood for the trees, and I for one will not be made to feel like I am to blame by some cardigan wearing pillock.0 -
I don't suppose anyone has been reading any of this with interest then ?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Doesn't change the fact we need to change our ways but if proven true then I think the government and scientific community need to sort themselves out.
I've worked with global warming scientists for a number of years and whilst they readily accept global warming is a naturally occuring phenomena are doubtful about man's contribution to it's acceleration.0 -
Escargot wrote:I don't suppose anyone has been reading any of this with interest then ?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Doesn't change the fact we need to change our ways but if proven true then I think the government and scientific community need to sort themselves out.
I've worked with global warming scientists for a number of years and whilst they readily accept global warming is a naturally occuring phenomena are doubtful about man's contribution to it's acceleration.
Yes, read that. Some of the things should be investigated, but really, e-mails between TWO researchers hardly puts the whole science in doubt, does it?0 -
Scrumple wrote:Gullible fools.
And hypocrites to boot. If you believe what you preach none of you would have tv's.
Think logically, and use your brains.
My bike is ti. That's raping the planet of a resource. So is every carrier bag you use. But, recycle a few bottles and your conscience is clean. While India belches out smoke.
Missing the wood for the trees, and I for one will not be made to feel like I am to blame by some cardigan wearing pillock.
Can't find much preaching tbh, all I can see is a number of us agreeing that modern life is causing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses to be released into the atmosphere which may well be contributing to climate change in a fairly major way...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Well I don't know the facts of entire story (I'm not sure anyone does for sure as a detailed investigation has yet to be carried out) but from the emails I've read there were a number of recipients and not just two (allegedly there were over 1000 emails so how you know that they were all between two people I'm not sure). Even if it were just two people it makes no difference if those two are in a position high enough to influence the scientific community.
Research is based on papers and if enough are published from one reputable establishment then it makes it easier for other researchers to base their research on what has gone before.
As I've said I've worked with scientists that don't believe it to be as big an issue as claimed. In truth I don't think anyone can say for sure as no-one is 100% and there are many disagreements.
Personally I sit on the fence with the whole thing. Naturally I think we need to minimise our consumption but then I work in aerospace, which is hardly green.
P.S. Edited to add
http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud
which indicates that it was not just between two scientist and more likely two organisations.0 -
I was just offering a different opinion. I chose to overplay it to test the conviction of some of your arguments.
The rudeness was deliberate, but insincere.
The opinion was sincere.
We are messing up the planet, but it isn't through CO2. Climate change is inevitable, and It is not the end of the world. And it will happen whatever.0 -
To Escargot
You say you work in the aerospace industry and the scientists you work with are sceptics, well there's a surprise.
And anyway the scientists that work within this field are not global warming scientists, they would work in climate change, as some places may or may not get colder or warmer.
Most scientists that were sceptics, now agree that there is an anthropological enhancement on climate change, the main arguments come from the degree and whether it is too late or not.
you are right though no one really knows what will happen, but as some have already said why shouldn't we become more efficient and less reliant on external resources. Even if it is for this reason alone its got be a good one to start with 0 -
On that melodramatic note, I'm off to bed.
To cuddle my "Barney" dinosaur. They all died out, you know. It was down to them farting too much, and the methane caused a comet to crash into the earth as a result of the bees all dying.0 -
solsurf wrote:To Escargot
You say you work in the aerospace industry and the scientists you work with are sceptics, well there's a surprise.
And anyway the scientists that work within this field are not global warming scientists, they would work in climate change, as some places may or may not get colder or warmer.
Most scientists that were sceptics, now agree that there is an anthropological enhancement on climate change, the main arguments come from the degree and whether it is too late or not.
you are right though no one really knows what will happen, but as some have already said why shouldn't we become more efficient and less reliant on external resources. Even if it is for this reason alone its got be a good one to start with
LOL sorry. Before I started in aerospace (about 3 years ago) I worked in a university alongside scientists studying ice cores/climate change etc.
I wholeheartedly agree on reducing our reliance on resources but sadly I'm one of the worst culprits working in the industry that I do. We are of course changing but whether that's quick enough I don't know when the world is largely reluctant to change.0 -
-
His barbie babies thrive, and keep me warm all night.
They were the love children of his brief fling with a .dodo doll.
I named Barney "mother" after the character in the famous film "Psycho" by Alfred Hitchcock, who is also dead.
He talks to me in my sleep.0 -
I really need sleep.
I think the realisation this is just a bike forum has hit me again. For a minute I thought we were all saving the planet.
I'm going to get a panning for this!0 -
Geoff_SS wrote: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.
Geoff
Hang on a mo'. Yourself, and the scientific GW vocalists would have it that I and my ilk are 'deniers', in the sense that we, ergo, believe that GW is not a fact. Not so. In my case, GW - I thought I'd made it plain - believe it's here and now, it's most likely natural and humankind's input being but an infinitesimal part of it only."Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
Whilst I'm at the coalface this morning I thought I'd post this link to a reasoned article in the Times online today : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936289.ece"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0
-
If you think about it, its in the governments interest to get the public side tracked on Climate Change. Just detracts from the real issues such as the war and MP's expenses and mass debts that our grandchildren will still be paying!0
-
nicensleazy wrote: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'.
You've not been listening to Mad Melanie Phillips, have you? She who thinks that WMD were found in Iraq.0 -
Just a thought - if hackers published a decade's worth of e-mails from the anti-GW lobby, do you not think that there would be at least a few which would show them up in the same bad light or even worse?0
-
deptfordmarmoset wrote:Right, how many posts before your scepticism gets turned into accusations of Climate Change Denial?
I guess that depends on just how long this "scepticism" can be strung out without any evidence.0 -
Scrumple wrote:Climate change is a clever way of raising more tax. I'm fed up of hearing "our childrens' children".
Only someone who has no idea of the history of cimate change science could say this.
Climate change theory began decades ago amongst a small number of scientists who managed to persuade the majority of scientists with good evidence and as recently as a couple of years ago climate scientists were being threatened with dismissal and/ or funding withdrawal if they took a line of supporting the view that man made climate change was significant.
Even the British government have yet to fully accept that climate change is real - otherwise they'd be doing far more than putting up a few taxes and banning lightbulbs.
so what sort of conspiracy is that - one that started in a tiny number of scientists who endured decades of ridicule and threats, who just recently have managed to win their arguments despite these threats.
Anyone who believes this is a conspiracy has a screw loose imo - unless they can provide some evidence?0 -
Cressers wrote: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.
Funny that the sceptics appear to be so gullible
Read this:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/0 -
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.
Stop making it about personalities. It's about evidence. find weaknesses in the theory - Otherwise - the sceptics have no case.
Explain why so many were persuaded during the period where funding was being cut for scientists who took the man made Climate Change theory line...which was true up to just a year ago.
It's simply a case of good science winning over bad.0 -
the other side of the argurment, some scientists are now saying that the planet is actually cooling
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=41330 -
Homer J wrote: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
yes I DID create the world in 6 days but like to think of it as 7 since the rest day is very important, i did go for a ride in the afternoon though
0 -
Barrie_G wrote:the other side of the argurment, some scientists are now saying that the planet is actually cooling
New Scientist covere this this week - it looks like Earth's about to / just has entered one of its periodic cooling periods.
It doesn't mean the man-made warming effect isn't occuring on top of that. It may buy us a bit of time - but imagine what will happen when the coolling period ends....which it will.
I think I read recently that the consensus seems to be that man made changes are roughly equivelent to natural variations at the moment - which is great while they cancel each other out - but not so good when a natural warming effect is added onto man made warming - it may push us over the threshold.0 -
Barrie_G wrote:the other side of the argurment, some scientists are now saying that the planet is actually cooling
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4133
Yes, but this was predicted by climate scientists - that the world would continue to go through periods of warming and cooling due to natural factors. The term global warming is a bit misleading, because it suggests continuous warming on a planet-wide basis.
Whether you believe that humans are responsible for nearly all of the changes in the last couple of centuries, or just a tiny, tiny amount, the real argument is about the extent to which human activity affects the environment - in other words, what would global average temperatures be if humans didn't exist?
Personally I think that the answer will be somewhere in between. I don't think that this is a giant hoax, for reasons I gave on the first page of this thread, and I don't believe the most extreme predictions for global warming either.
On the other hand, I am slightly pessimistic about modern human society's ability to adapt to a changing climate IF the worst does come to pass - will we be able to recognise structures such as the nation state as being obselete if need be?
I am starting an Open University science degree in January, so I'll give you the definitive answer to the question some time soon after that. 0
