Climate Change - Man made or not?

[Arob]

A link to sing-a-long-a Jack Johnson

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnLZDbaoqC4[/ame]

[Dagmar]

1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

 

2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

 

3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

 

4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

 

5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

 

6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

 

7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

 

8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

 

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

 

10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.

 

11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.

 

12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.

 

13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.

 

14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.

 

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

 

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

 

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

 

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

 

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

 

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

 

Read how these statements were established at;

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

[Buzz]

I care little for the petty politics of this discussion, all I can remember is the talk of us sliding towards another Ice Age, (in the 70's I think), and yet now we have "global warming". Yet another tax raising gimick by those in control, with yet another excuse to control us and our movements. Nature has and always will work in cycles, and evolve as necessary. Whether or not mankind will survive, who knows?After all we are just a small blip in the history of the Earth, and I'm pretty certain the Earth will out-survive mankind. We have all the so-called experts hand-wringing their woes, but do they really know the truth? Or just justifying their own existence and fat salaries by leaping on the passing band-wagon?

 

That's my take on it as well Andy and pretty much what i've thought for some time.

 

Who the hell do we think we are are we that big headed that we think the earth will live or die on what we do...i doubt it some how !

[Arob]

Quote from Dagmar on p4 of thread

"By mental I mean anyone who holds onto an unprovable and witless argument then uses it to beat themselves and anyone else with it, this in spite a landslide of evidence to disprove and discredit that very argument."

 

 

Pot and kettle?

[skyhuck]

Quote from Dagmar on p4 of thread

"By mental I mean anyone who holds onto an unprovable and witless argument then uses it to beat themselves and anyone else with it, this in spite a landslide of evidence to disprove and discredit that very argument."

 

 

Pot and kettle?

 

 

Please explain

[Arob]

Please explain

 

As you ask;

1st post;

"I'm not convinced that it was ever anything other than a scare tactic to make us all accept higher prices/taxes in the name of saving the planet.

 

The only ones still sticking to the "we're all going to burn/drown/starve" mantra are the mental wing of the environment movements!!"

 

Both of these are fairly extreme opinions, the former that the entire premise of climate change is a 'scare tactic' is a highly cynical thing to say, to suggest that there is a core within the scientific community who have dedicated their careers to creating a political stunt?

There is a failure to differentiate between the initial scientific and resulting political activity.

 

In the second post comes the statement, "Where is the real evidence that we, as in the human race, are so destructive? Scratch at the surface of the 'evidence' and it has little substance."

This is an incredible statement to make!

We, as a species, have been incredibly destructive, civilizations have collapsed as a result of destroying their environments (read A Forest Journey by John Perlin). Across the world we have de-stabilised ecosystems, depleted the soils on which we depend, over-fished and polluted massive expanses of water, produced and released chemicals which accumulate in the food chain. The rate of species extinction which we are currently witnessing is far, far greater than anything seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs (read E.O. Wilson). Our agicultural practices such as battery farming are held to be the cause of highly virulent strains of bird 'flu

Our recent love affair with plastics has seen widespread pollution of the oceans, killing a wide range of birds, fish and animals as it gradually breaks down into small particulates which may well be bio-accumulative. I do know what kind of evidence is being requested here - it seems that there is "a landslide of evidence to disprove and discredit that very argument."

 

 

 

 

In the following post "Put your faith in the scientific record"

 

Yet the following post is entirely polarised and propagandist and therefore isn't worthy of serious refutation. Science must be impartial and open in order to be effective; begin with a hypothesis and test it in a repeatable manner, the aim being to generate evidence to either support or discredit the hypothesis. The article posted does not contain these qualities, it is rhetorical and not seeking to prove or disprove but ram through "to beat themselves and anyone else with" a particular agenda.

 

The next post may have some scientific validity but if it is (and it is) taken out of context then this validity is completely lost. Everything in life has positives and negatives, the fact that windpower is not consistent is pretty obvious, the challenge is to design a supportive system which is practical and cost-effective. If we blithely criticise anything that has a drawback then what can we ever acheive? Again the nature of this posting is pejorative.

 

This is followed up by a couple of lengthy posts, the first on p5, is interesting but the information about the specific studies requires further validation. It may well be the case that in the course of publicising a book on the subject an author has made exaggerations but this does not detract from the underlying scientific fact. I should also like to counterpoint the satements made about polar ice caps by reminding Dagmar that many tropical islands are becoming uninhabitable as a result of rising sea levels, such facts must be considered in connection to each other if we are taking a summary view of the argument. If we take one piece of information in isolation then it will be subjective.

 

I'd say fair comment to the following post, a statement backed up with current research.

 

I would say that the points raised in the post at the top of p9 are very important and valid comments; carbon sequestration depends upon this carbon being locked away, something which perhaps escapes most people who are looking for a quick fix, and the point of maintenance always seems to crop up, funding is made for a ''sexy' project but few like the 'dirty work' of keeping it going.

As far as carbon sequestration is concerned I wonder whether the best option is not to improve our soils by adding composted plant materials, that way we might gradually be able to increase overall biotic life - a slow process no doubt but are there any other options?

 

The following attack on Gore seems a little too cynical, "There is so much evidence that we, as humans, have no real influence on the climate system that it is a wonder that anyone bothers to watch this drivel , let alone think that it could be true." This again fails to respect the work of the majority of climatologists across the world who consider that man does have a very real influence.

I would not want to deny Dagmar her right to hold this opinion but it is an opinion, to be taken more seriously it needs to be substantiated from first principles.

 

Dagmar's following post clearly displays the kind of 'pot and kettle' attitude which I draw attention to;

 

"Why would a warmer climate be a bad thing?

 

 

Global warming lengthens growing seasons. Carbon dioxide, the cause of (part of the) warming (dormant for 11 years now) clearly improves crop yields in a world where stupid global warming policies (like burning our food supply in cars) are increasing food scarcity."

 

This simplicity of argument betrays a lack of research and contains statements which she has already opposed "Carbon dioxide, the cause of (part of the) warming" To suggest, as this statement does, that a warmer climate would only bring benefits, ignores the spread of insects and diseases, the problems presented to indigenous wildlife - we can plant olive trees in southern UK but can nature move so dratically without a short term break down which would be hugely damaging to our species?

 

To confuse increased crop yields with reduced food scaricity is deeply naive, we are not in an egalitarian society, there are haves and have nots, it has nothing to do with 'more', I am not saying that it's either right or wrong - it is fact. Our food staples are increasing in price in part because people who have previously been denied them are now able to afford them as their countries industrialise and they gain economic power.

 

The most recent posting on p10, a list of 20 statements is entirely propagandist, to suggest that all of the scientists who support the prevailing climate change theory are corrupt, that there is a conspiritorial 'hoax' at work, that there is 'biofuel hysteria', and 'Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder'; how can you expect to be taken seriously spreading nonsense like that?

 

Criticism of Gore's methods of politicising a complex scientific issue is one thing, to suggest scientific pre-eminence and then post base rubbish such as the above, is quite another.

 

Dagmar has posted a lot on this topic, others have commented on the fact that it is not easily digestable and copied in large part, the tone of a number of the articles is overpowering and not without strong bias. The overall argument which she [presents is very patchy, scientifically highly dubious and unsubstantiated.

 

The scientific arguments presented, like most climatological science is unbelievably complicated, and incredibly difficult to substantiate, if you listen to the majority of scientists, not extreme and polarised people, you will hear them couch their views in terms such as 'the prevailing data suggests' or suchlike, you won't hear absolutist statements as there is so much uncertainty - and rightly so.

 

But vitally important is to disentangle the science from the political shennanigins, there are vested interests on both sides of this argument, reasoned argument is lost when one allies oneself to the conclusions of convenience, I am pointing out that this is what Dagmar has done, her argument is as discredited as the argument she seeks to discredit.

 

[sierramog]

Agreed

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

its survival of the fittest, if we die out from polluting the place then fair do's.natural selection at its best:001_smile:

 

I'm sure something else will replace us

 

lol!!

[skyhuck]

As you ask;

1st post;

"I'm not convinced that it was ever anything other than a scare tactic to make us all accept higher prices/taxes in the name of saving the planet.

 

The only ones still sticking to the "we're all going to burn/drown/starve" mantra are the mental wing of the environment movements!!"

 

Both of these are fairly extreme opinions, the former that the entire premise of climate change is a 'scare tactic' is a highly cynical thing to say, to suggest that there is a core within the scientific community who have dedicated their careers to creating a political stunt?

There is a failure to differentiate between the initial scientific and resulting political activity.

 

 

So have resent revaluations regarding emails and fudged data in any way changed you views????????????????????????????

[Mozza]

Global warming is WOMAN made. There knicking all the

peebles of the beeches and sticking them in little piles all over the house for men to trip over. Then they stick candles every where.

 

Result millions of candles buring and heating the climate, melting the artic, more water and no fecking beech defense to stop local flooding..lol

 

 

 

:lol:

 

You been watching Lee Evans?? It was on last night and he said that joke, Made me chuckle!!