Climate change - Hoax ?

13567…11

Comments

  • tri-sexual
    tri-sexual Posts: 672
    global warming is the biggest issue affecting the world and indeed all of man kind.
    in future it would cause death and destruction on an unimagineable scale
    future generations can expect famine, disease, large displacement of the worlds population, loss of large sections of the worlds land mass resulting in over population. wars will result for the control of land,natural resources and for even the most basic of things which are essential for life like clean water.
    it is not us that will suffer but its our children and our children's children

    THANK F*CK FOR THAT :lol::lol::lol:
  • skinson
    skinson Posts: 362
    When will they stop using nitrates as fertilizers then? These turn into oxides of nitrogen and are 289 times more dangerous than CO2 as a green house gas. Lets stop breeding cattle as the methane they give out as farts and belches are 20 times as bad as CO2. I have never, and will never subscribe to the "man made" climate change theory. As far as I'm concerned it's the biggest con since decimalisation. This theory was started in the late 70's by some swedish guy who said "man may be able to change the climate by co2 emissions" every government including Thatcher saw this as a way to extort more money from us, and they've been doing it ever since. Sometimes we will take in washing. Well you who have taken in washing can talk to me about it till you are blue in the face I'll never believe it, and you'll never convince me otherwise.
    Dave
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    skinson wrote:
    Well you who have taken in washing can talk to me about it till you are blue in the face I'll never believe it, and you'll never convince me otherwise.
    Dave

    So whatever evidence may be turned up in the future, you will never, ever change your mind?

    It's nice to see that some people are so pragmatic. :roll:
  • skinson
    skinson Posts: 362
    That's correct, because anyone who is a position to tell us what actually is going on, will either be cow towing to the authorities and telling us what "they want to hear" or giving us a complete load of boll0x. I'm not doubting that the climate is changing, just the fact that "mankind" is to blame.
    dave
  • MrChuck
    MrChuck Posts: 1,663
    skinson wrote:
    That's correct, because anyone who is a position to tell us what actually is going on, will either be cow towing to the authorities and telling us what "they want to hear" or giving us a complete load of boll0x. I'm not doubting that the climate is changing, just the fact that "mankind" is to blame.
    dave

    Don't follow this. Why do you think that people in a position to tell us what's going on will be kowtowing or giving us a complete load of bollox?

    Scepticism about the way academia and science works is all very well but just being cycnical about everything is no substitute for actually thinking about what's going on. You're implying that scientists routinely doctor their results to fit some other agenda, and while this undoubtedly does happen occasionally and it makes you all clever and cynical to suggest it there is absolutely no reason to think it's the norm.

    Don't confuse more funding for topics that are currently enjoying a high profile with $$$ for people who follow the 'official line', if there's even an agreement on what that is.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    skinson wrote:
    That's correct, because anyone who is a position to tell us what actually is going on, will either be cow towing to the authorities and telling us what "they want to hear" or giving us a complete load of boll0x. I'm not doubting that the climate is changing, just the fact that "mankind" is to blame.
    dave

    Why do you think that the authorities are going to go against the interests of the oil companies? They never have done in the past and they never will do.

    Take the USA for example, the previous administration spent 8 years refuting man-made climate change and trying to de-rail any agreement, but "establishment" scientists such as James Hansen still came out in support of AGW.
  • will3
    will3 Posts: 2,173
    The thing is that it doesn't much matter whether we need to use less carbon for climate change reasons or not. There is only a finite amount of oil. It will only get more expensive to extract.

    If we don't wean ourselves of oil dependacy we're fucked. In fact we're fucked anyway since I don;t see a viable source of alternative energy and without oil I've no idea how the world's popuation will be fed.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    will3 wrote:
    The thing is that it doesn't much matter whether we need to use less carbon for climate change reasons or not. There is only a finite amount of oil. It will only get more expensive to extract.

    If we don't wean ourselves of oil dependacy we're farked. In fact we're farked anyway since I don;t see a viable source of alternative energy and without oil I've no idea how the world's popuation will be fed.

    Electric power (from coal fired power stations)? How much coal is left?
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • socrates
    socrates Posts: 453
    There was an excellent article on this in yesterdays Mail on Sunday. The earth is cooler now that what it was in the middle ages, CO2 emissions are not the primary danger it is water vapour, the polar bear population is actually increasing and that usual photo of a polar bear looking at the water all around it as it sits on melting ice was taken in August when the ice normally melts. It was also very close to land and it can swim. Some years ago David Bellamy said that the earth's temperature changes and has done all through history and today is no different. Also the IPCC have been found to be fiddling the figures to support their arguments.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    socrates wrote:
    There was an excellent article on this in yesterdays Mail on Sunday. The earth is cooler now that what it was in the middle ages, CO2 emissions are not the primary danger it is water vapour, the polar bear population is actually increasing and that usual photo of a polar bear looking at the water all around it as it sits on melting ice was taken in August when the ice normally melts. It was also very close to land and it can swim. Some years ago David Bellamy said that the earth's temperature changes and has done all through history and today is no different. Also the IPCC have been found to be fiddling the figures to support their arguments.

    links?
  • balthazar
    balthazar Posts: 1,565
    skinson wrote:
    That's correct, because anyone who is a position to tell us what actually is going on, will either be cow towing to the authorities and telling us what "they want to hear" or giving us a complete load of boll0x. I'm not doubting that the climate is changing, just the fact that "mankind" is to blame.
    dave
    Futile as it may be, I'm going to suggest again that those with strongly-held self-developed opinions on this subject, take a little time to review the Copenhagen Diagnosis. It is an overview of aggregated climate science, by climate scientists, prepared for the next IPCC summit; and it presents a disturbing picture.
  • socrates
    socrates Posts: 453
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ntrol.html
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    socrates wrote:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html

    hopefully i'll have a chance to read this tonight, it'll be fun pulling it to pieces.
    But first, mull on this (link below) - where George Monbiot tried to engage in a debate with the author of this article above and book that it is based on. The man is a snake oil salesman. He refuses to deabte, instead making untrue or dubious assertions based on faked or altered evidence.

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/
  • socrates
    socrates Posts: 453
    Well Porgy, I am sorry that I submitted the link. I thought it was for someone to read and form an intelligent opinion, not some idiot who only wants to look for ways to disprove. However go ahead as you are obviously much more intelligent than the scientific person who wrote it. After you have read it and "pulled it to pieces" carry on being the the balloon head evryone can now see that you are.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    socrates wrote:
    Well Porgy, I am sorry that I submitted the link. I thought it was for someone to read and form an intelligent opinion, not some idiot who only wants to look for ways to disprove. However go ahead as you are obviously much more intelligent than the scientific person who wrote it. After you have read it and "pulled it to pieces" carry on being the the balloon head evryone can now see that you are.

    I said I was going to read it later :roll:

    I can't help it if I immediately recognised the name of Plimer as a complete charlatan.

    I did say I will read the article in my own time tonight - but I do know what to expect with Plimer's name attached to the article. Shame really as I was looking forward to some genuine debate there.

    Read my link and you'll see that he's just up to the same old trick again. I'll read yours then we can have an informed debate, and not just call each other idiots. :lol:

    You have both hit me with not being as clever as the scientific person who wrote this and at the same time ignored the majority of scientists and their evidence who disagree with Plimer.

    What's it to be? Scientists infallible? In which case most of them support climate change, or not infallibale, in which case i'm perfectly entitiled to point out that Plimer is a charlatan.

    Please don't call me an idiot, it doesn;t help, doesn't make you look very good.
  • socrates
    socrates Posts: 453
    If you take the time to look you will find 3 links from other "charlatans"
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    socrates wrote:
    If you take the time to look you will find 3 links from other "charlatans"

    you only put up one link - where are the others?
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    An aside - one of the comments attached to the Mail article:

    "GO AWAY.
    SHUT UP
    WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY.

    YOU ARE ALL LIARS AND CRIMINALS.

    Man made global warming is NOT a fact, never has been and never will be - not, for that matter, is swine flu or global terrorism."
    - Paul Kearns, HMP, England, 30/11/2009 08:51"

    :lol::lol::lol:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    socrates wrote:
    If you take the time to look you will find 3 links from other "charlatans"

    ah yes - i see - links in the article. I'm printing them off at the moment so i can have a proper perusal on the way home today (not on the bike today).

    I will try to address every point.

    i promise i will be open minded - unlike Plimer.

    btw - I use the word Charlatan sparingly, as i said, i am aware of Plimer - and a quick glance at his article shows he's repeating the same old arguments that i have seen disproved time and time again.

    i do not use the word to describe the authors of the links as i do not know them. Presumably they haven't faked evidence to prove their point. But I am concerned that no mention of the many critiques of Plimer's work is represented in any of the articles giving the impression that his "ideas" are in any way scientifically valid, becasue they are not.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    On the whole Monbiot vs. Plimer issue:

    Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist, and is a director of three mining companies, as well as being a member of a free-market think tank. If people are going to accuse "warmist" scientists of having vested interests, I hope they won't show double standards and see Plimer as some sort of sane voice of disinterested neutrality.

    Monbiot on the other hand has a degree in zoology, so again not qualified as a climatologist.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    johnfinch wrote:
    On the whole Monbiot vs. Plimer issue:

    Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist, and is a director of three mining companies, as well as being a member of a free-market think tank. If people are going to accuse "warmist" scientists of having vested interests, I hope they won't show double standards and see Plimer as some sort of sane voice of disinterested neutrality.

    Monbiot on the other hand has a degree in zoology, so again not qualified as a climatologist.

    you and i are not qualified as climatologists either unless there's something you're not telling me :wink:

    - I'm an engineer not a climate scientist.

    But does that mean we are excluded from the debate.

    Monbiot uses evidence from scientific sources, while Plimer seems to rely on just saying - well i'm a scientist - i must be right.

    I intend to engage with the issues - not argue about personalities and qualifications. A good journalist can use evidence to make their case in any field if the spend time and trouble to ensure they understand their subject...or at least make sure they speak to people who know their subject.

    What worries me about the Mail articles tis that they seem to depend on two scientists who are generally out of favour with the scientific establishment but - enough with personalities eh? I'll get back on with dealing with the issues.

    First I'm going to break the Mail article down into individuals claims and the evidence provided. After that I shall look at evidence offered elsewhere...and summarise the balance of evidence as i see it.

    I may have taken too much on - but still - i'm sure it'll be entirely enjoyable - and i'll probably learn something. :D
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Porgy wrote:

    you and i are not qualified as climatologists either unless there's something you're not telling me :wink:

    - I'm an engineer not a climate scientist.

    But does that mean we are excluded from the debate.

    My point about Plimer is that climate sceptics/deniers (delete according to preference) accuse climatologists of bias, vested interests, etc., so I was just saying that I hope they apply the same standards to the likes of Prof Plimer.

    I wanted to say the same about Monbiot, just in the interests of balance.

    EDIT: p.s. You're going to find taking a Daily Wail article to pieces enjoyable? You've got a very strange sense of fun! :wink:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    johnfinch wrote:
    Porgy wrote:

    you and i are not qualified as climatologists either unless there's something you're not telling me :wink:

    - I'm an engineer not a climate scientist.

    But does that mean we are excluded from the debate.

    My point about Plimer is that climate sceptics/deniers (delete according to preference) accuse climatologists of bias, vested interests, etc., so I was just saying that I hope they apply the same standards to the likes of Prof Plimer.

    I wanted to say the same about Monbiot, just in the interests of balance.


    OK - I'm not so worried about being balanced myself - but try to be open minded on the evidence.

    you are right of course. I've seen Al Gore accused of having a financial interest in green energy having invested heavily in it. But as he pointed out - if he hadn't invested in green energy he'd be accused of hypocracy. You really cannot win with the carbon deniers.

    EDIT: p.s. You're going to find taking a Daily Wail article to pieces enjoyable? You've got a very strange sense of fun! :wink:

    yeah i know - even if i manage by some miracle to win the argument - everyone's gonna think i;m some sort of weirdo geek anyway - but i do find a strange sort of satisfaction in completely discrediting Daily Mail articles. :oops:
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Porgy wrote:
    but i do find a strange sort of satisfaction in completely discrediting Daily Mail articles. :oops:

    Not the most taxing of challenges - do you also enjoy playing Scrabble against 2 year olds. :lol::wink:
  • geoff_ss
    geoff_ss Posts: 1,201
    Thanks John Finch and Porgy. I look forward to reading your considered opinions on Plimer's article.

    I feel guilty that I'm not studying all this myself in greater detail but I'm afraid I'm congenitally idle. My wife is a member of every green/environmental organisation extant (Green Party, Soil Association, Greenpeace etc) so I let her be the family conscious. I don't always agree with her but I find it safer not to tell her that always :)

    My gut feeling is that man made global warming is happening. However I'm not very confident that there will be the collective will to do anything about it until it's far too late.

    btw David Bellamy's assertion a few years ago that glaciers were not melting was discredited. I can't remember the details but it was something to do with a typo which confused '5' with '%' (ie shift + 5) which made a nonsense of the whole thing.

    Geoff
    Old cyclists never die; they just fit smaller chainrings ... and pedal faster
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Geoff_SS wrote:
    Thanks John Finch and Porgy. I look forward to reading your considered opinions on Plimer's article.

    Oh, I'm not going to offer my opinion on the article, as I said above I was merely pointing out to sceptics/deniers that allegations of bias and vested interests should work both ways. I would hate one side of the argument to claim that those scientists who agree with their views are saintly and honest, and the "opposition" to be dishonest crooks who are only interested in money.

    Great story about David Bellamy by the way, although a pity in a way because I quite like the man.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Actually, I changed my mind, and had a look at the DM article, and all I can say is - :shock: :?

    I'm interested in hearing about the other side of the argument, but Professor Plimer didn't answer a single one of the questions I would have asked him. All he does is give a long list of changes in climate that have happened in the past, and then goes on to say that this means that human activity therefore can't be affecting the climate. Well, of course forests have come and gone, so does that mean that humans can't be responsible for destroying the Amazon by Plimer's logic?

    He doesn't really seem to say what the evidence for AGW is, and why he believes this to be flawed.

    He does, however, try a few digs at climatologists - notice his use of the word "comrades" to describe them - plays up to the average Daily Mail worldview that CC scientists are basically a load of liberal-lefty PC brigade, blah blah, working on a gigantic conspiracy to rob them of their hard earned money using green taxes.
  • socrates
    socrates Posts: 453
    When Porgy has finished tearing apart the Mail he can start on another "charlatan" in the Telegraph.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    socrates wrote:
    When Porgy has finished tearing apart the Mail he can start on another "charlatan" in the Telegraph.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html

    Sorry, but Porgy'll take this one apart for sure.

    Christopher Booker has a history degree, which allows him to make such wise and learned statements such as Darwinism rests on blind faith:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebook.html

    White asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and is no threat to human health:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebook.html

    and there is no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebook.html

    So not a charlatan at all.
  • socrates
    socrates Posts: 453
    So what you are saying is that as he only has a history degree and you do not agree with what he says then he does not know what he is talking about. Excellent argument.
    Porgy has not put up any argument as far as I can see. All he has done is repeat what the climate change scaremongers have been saying. Now suddenly there seems to be a change of attitude among sections of the scientific community and oh dear what will we do.
    I have not heard Porgy or anyone tear apart the data in the links that I published in my post. Sure I have seen him "dispute" the persons integrity and their qualifications but not their findings in any way.

Categories