Global Warming or Not

[observer]

Thought ALL the Polar Bears were at the NORTH Pole?!

[Bill]

Actually Asperity there is NO hole!

 

Your also both wrong about the polar bears. They were killed off by the ozone hole that isn't there.

 

Try proving me wrong.

 

Bill

[asperity]

Thought ALL the Polar Bears were at the NORTH Pole?!

 

In any case the polar bears are safe because they live in the northern hemisphere.

 

 

Which is exactly what I said Obs. The bit about penguins was a VERY OLD joke which seems to have flown over your head by several feet

[asperity]

Actually Asperity there is NO hole!

 

Your also both wrong about the polar bears. They were killed off by the ozone hole that isn't there.

 

Try proving me wrong.

 

Bill

 

I don't know if this is proof enough for you Bill but it's very interesting anyway:-

 

http://tinyurl.com/yvno3z

[Bill]

The thing is when debating the likes of climate change and the ozone hole, the general public have little or no comprehension of the mechanisms involved so these easy to understand terms are invented in an attempt to overcome this even when they?re not strictly true.

 

The thought that a hole exists that let?s in dangerous levels of radiation is a scary thought but at least people understand what a hole is. The reality is that there is ozone in the atmosphere all over the planet and in certain areas there?s slightly less of it but there?s nowhere where there?s none, hence there is no hole.

 

I reckon much of the scientific evidence in both cases is a bit like the ozone layer (a bit thin)

 

Bill

 

A thought just crossed my mind about polar bears and melting ice. Do you think the advertising campaign for Fox?s Glacier mints all those years back may have had a deep psychological impact on certain people?

[Egbert]

What amazes me is how you guys on here know so much more than the experts. According to everything I had heard or read, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that climate change is taking place and that human activity is accelerating it. What is more, they are now saying it is changing quicker than they originally thought.

They have also said that the "hole" in the ozone layer HAS got smaller and that this is as a result of the banning of whatever it was that was supposed to be causing it.

What I want to know is this: Just what motive is there for misleading the public on the issue? Why are we being fed this pack of lies that you seem to think we are being told?

I can think of lots of reasons for them covering up such dangers but none for them inventing them when they don't exist!

[Bill]

Egbert

 

I don?t think anyone here has ever claimed to know more than the scientists involved. While I can?t speak for others, I think it?s only right to question these claims especially when so many other eminent scientist in recent years have changed their opinion as to the cause of such events.

 

As for the ozone hole, what I was saying is that thoughts of an ever-growing hole that let?s through cancer causing radiation is enough to spread fear and worry into most people. The reality is that a discovery was made that showed ozone rates were not as high in the southern polar than elsewhere on the planet. For all the scientist knew at that time, this situation could have existed for millions of years and any attempt to say otherwise would be pure speculation. And now after twenty years their still not certain if the changes are as a result of the fluorocarbon ban or just natural variation, bearing in mind the records don?t go that far back.

 

The way I see it is that natural phenomena linked to the weather and ultimately the sun, probably play a far greater roll in these matters than anything man made. We can?t even predict the weather let alone control it and we certainly can?t do much about the sun, which by the way is responsible for producing the ozone.

 

Bill

[Egbert]

It's high time that people DID think!!!! There is no eveidence of global warming other than the warming that has been taking place since the last ice age so the warmists have changed the title to "climate change". Unfortunately for them it is obvious that change is what climate does. Because the expected (for the warmists) accelerated warming hasn't taken place they have started a campaign of misinformation with claims of disappearing polar ice, polar bear extinction, disappearing glaciers, unprecedented tropical storms, record sea level rises, ocean acidification, droughts and floods. They even tried to blame the Indian Ocean tsunami on man made global warming!!

 

No-one?

[Egbert]

The planet's in fine fettle thank you, and the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is benefitting the plantlife and, therefore, the animal life. Keep burning that coal and oil, CO2 is good for the planet and therefore good for mankind!!

 

No-one?

[Egbert]

It isn't a matter of what scientists believe, science is not about belief, it's about reality. This is why the global warming / climate change lobby is more like a religion than sensible discussion. And why the ridiculous Pen Hadow and his chums are freezing their nuts off in the Arctic but believe it is semi tropical. The "scientists" who are pushing the "man-made climate change" scenario are relying on computer models that have been shown time and time again to be seriously flawed. As an example according to computer modelling global warming caused by man made CO2 emissions should be leaving a "fingerprint" in the form of a hot spot in the upper troposphere, but this hasn't happened. According to computer models the global temperature should be rising in line with increasing CO2, it isn't rising at all. When these "experts" come up with scientific proof of what they're postulating, then perhaps we can agree with what they're saying. Until then it's all speculation and scare mongering.

 

No-one?

[asperity]

Egbert, the fact is that the vast majority of scientists do not believe that climate change is caused by human activity. It is undeniable that climate change is occuring because that is what climate has always done - change. The scientists who are making such a big noise about so called man made climate change are doing so because thats how they get research funding. If there's no problem there's no research required, so no funding. They create scare stories to generate research funding. There is no evidence that CO2 drives climate change, in fact the evidence points the other way and global warming drives increased CO2. There are plenty of eminent climate scientists who have written peer reviewed papers explaining why global warming/climate change isn't caused by man but they tend to get ignored by the media (no scare - no story). There's no agreement on what the global temperature is, or what the optimum temperature should be, or whether we wouldn't all be better off if the temperature was 2, 3, 4 or even 5 degrees higher than today and CO2 was double what it is today.

[Egbert]

and Bill.... you ignored the last bit.

 

What motive is there for telling all these lies if there is no danger?

 

I think the cynics (who always seem to be saying 'I'll be long gone before it happens anyway') are more worried at the prospect of giving up their big cars, long haul holiday flights, patio heaters, etc, etc, etc, than they are about anything else.

[Egbert]

Asperity

 

Then why do I keep reading articles and hearing radio/tv programmes which say they do?

[asperity]

I haven't got a car or patio heaters, and don't go on long haul holidays. And I'm not cynical just sceptical

[Bazj]

and Bill.... you ignored the last big.

 

What motive is there for telling all these lies if there is no danger?

 

I think the cynics (who always seem to be saying 'I'll be long gone before it happens anyway') are more worried at the prospect of giving up their big cars, long haul holiday flights, patio heaters, etc, etc, etc, than they are about anything else.

 

Egbert,

 

You say in your opening bit on this thread that "most" scientists believe that global warming, climate change (or whatever other phrase they invent to call it) is affected by what we as the human race do, and that to me is the big problem.

 

How do you know that the scientists that say human intervention is speeding it all up; are actually right?

 

If all scientists say it, that is fine. What if the ones who are saying it has no effect are right? The big problem is that no one knows and if the scientists can't all agree then what chance of we the plebs got to pick the right answer. Some will side with the "oh my god we are all doomed if we don't give up the big cars" brigade; such as the way you seem to go whereas I pick the other option; the "well no it isn't having an effect actually" brigade.

 

I like my big car and and all the other things that government is now telling us are bad (but you can keep them as long as you pay more tax to do so.... (you can see a pattern developing here can't you?) That is my perogative because I don't believe that me giving up my car will make the slightest difference to the welfare of penguins.

 

Baz

[Bill]

Egbert

 

I wouldn?t call the information lies but as Asperity rightly says, there are an awful lot of people out there, whose livelihood depends on us accepting their take on the situation. If there was overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue I might think differently but for now, I?m not going to change my lifestyle or that of my family for something that may or may not be true.

 

Also taking a holiday or using a 100watt bulb isn?t being inconsiderate to future generations, it?s called making the best of your life while you?re here and as far as I can see, that?s exactly the way it?s always been.

 

If my predecessors put one less lump of coal on the fire it was probably because they couldn?t afford it and not that they were thinking of the effects it might have for my future. I don?t think less of them for this and I suspect my children won't hold me in contempt for using my 100watt bulb or just living within my means.

 

Bill

[observer]

Seems quite a sensible view Bill.

[Egbert]

Well Bill, this is where you and I differ. I believe that what is at stake, the future of the planet and the human race (never mind penguins), is so important that we should be changing our life styles JUST IN CASE the scientists are right. You say, in effect, you won't change until you have 100 per cent proof. Trouble is that by that time it will be too late, if it is not too late already!

 

Asperity

Glad to know you are so "green" - I wasn't having a go at you in that respect anyway. But my comments to Bill apply to you also.

 

Baz

I note your point about letting us use big cars provided we pay more tax but that is more to do with the ridiculous notion that we all have the right to do what we like which is prevalent in our modern, indisciplined, selfish society. I am sure the restrictions the Government want to place on us re climate change are costing far more in lost tax revenue.

You will never get 100 per cent agreement between scientists, or experts of any kind, on anything. But everything I have heard or read is that the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists are convinced that climate change is taking place and being hastened and worsened by human activity. I also have the evidence of my own eyes!

I like a big car too - but it is a very economical one and I don't use it much. In any event, I understand that one person flying to Florida (or anywhere else of similar distance) has a bigger "carbon footprint" than one running the average family car for a year.

And of course, the Florida tourist probably has the car as well and probably hires another when he gets there.

[Eagle]

we all have the right to do what we like

 

Yep, it's great isn't it?

[Paul Kennedy]

Happen to think that the climate is changing, and in the history of the Earth it always has done from time to time. Difference now is that with the population being so much greater, the effects will be felt by far more and indeed in previous times the population used to move to mitigate the effects, such large scale population movement is no longer feasible.

 

PS I note that in the last million years the polarity of the Earth has changed a number of times...and that it can occur during a period of 1 to 1000 years....no doubt something else for scientists to debate when climate change gets boring....or less remunerative.

[observer]

IF man has coursed "climate change", it must be largely due to his overpopulation of the planet and over comsumption of it's natural resources; so perhaps our eco-friends should be addressing the question of population reduction? The history of this planet, since it's creation, has been one of change, from one extreme to another, and in the reality of a changing climate, rather than believing we can impact on preventing such profound natural change, we should be preparing to ADAPT, to OVERCOME, to SURVIVE such changes. Large arears of the world are said to be destined to become arid desert, water will become THE most valued resource, which in turn will lead to human migrations and conflicts - arguably, "natures" way of correcting our over-population of this planet.

[asperity]

Egbert I would be fascinated to know what evidence of man made climate change that you have seen with your own eyes. How do you know it's not natural change?

[asperity]

You probably won't be so impressed with my "green" credentials if I tell you my ship burns a quarter of a tonne of diesel per hour giving about 25 litres per mile economy. Mind you if you take the cargo into consideration then its about 120 tonne/miles per litre

[Lt Kije]

Observer

 

I took your point about over population up with the Pope, He said you can not have enough Catholics. Thats why God made sperm

 

As to other points made about are ancestors using one less piece of coal, It is irrelevant, they were ignorant to climate change and the changes it can bring, A bit like some on this forum

 

If any one on here new that by using a 50watt bulb, instead of a 100watt bulb they would improve their Sons or Daughters future they would do it

[Eagle]

So if you sit in the dark then both son and daughter will be saved?