PDA

View Full Version : Wettest summer in 100 years proves climate change once and for all!



secrets in symmetry
30-Aug-12, 23:29
Summer 'wettest in 100 years', Met Office figures show

This summer is set to be the second wettest in the UK since records began - and the wettest summer in 100 years - provisional Met Office figures suggest.

The wettest summer - defined as June, July and August - since national records began was in 1912.

Figures up until 29 August show that 366.8 mm of rain fell across the UK this summer, compared with 384.4 mm rainfall in 1912.

The April to June period was also the wettest recorded in the UK.

The figures are provisional as there are still two days remaining in August, but the BBC Weather Centre said the rainfall was not expected to exceed the total amount in 1912. Records began in 1910.

Summer is 'wettest in 100 years' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19427139)

This proves beyond doubt that the climate is changing!

Well, no.... It proves that this was the second wettest summer since records began - assuming the average rainfall figures are indeed correct.

Cool. :cool:

Dadie
30-Aug-12, 23:54
It only proves that wellies should have been bought before now!
The weather and weather predictions havent had enough scientific data to record what the max / min rainfall nevermind the actual weather for the month or year or day.....day to day...

changilass
30-Aug-12, 23:59
If it proves climate change, then why was it so wet 100 yrs ago?

All it proves is that Mother Nature can do as she pleases.

Dadie
31-Aug-12, 00:14
And just what explains welly rash/burns on small people / kids and the fact there is a puddle therefore it has to be jumped in until there is no puddle left!
And snow angels......
And why it took so long to get rubber boots for such adventures...as well as heated gloves.....with or without batteries!

billmoseley
31-Aug-12, 07:59
Forgive if i'm wrong but out here in Kirtomy the summer seems to have been average or below normal rain fall. It's been a wee bit cold but not wet.

squidge
31-Aug-12, 08:30
Cold? There was a frost this morning - it had largely gone by seven except for the roof of the car but it was 3.5 degrees when I left

ducati
31-Aug-12, 09:01
I blame incomers, and the SNP

pmcd
31-Aug-12, 09:13
You're right to blame incomers. In the soft South, temperatures are considerably warmer than here in Scotland. When an Incomer family of four breezes in from Stoke Poges, the ambient temperature increase they bring with them is .0000004 of a degree. It may not seem a lot, but once you get 200,000,000 Southerners all clamouring to live in Caithness, you sure will feel the difference. The SNP has plans, on achieving Independence, of hosing down all Incomers with glycol to reduce their "IET"s (Initial Entry Temperatures). This process will be certificated, and carried with their Alien Cards, unless they are lucky enough to marry a Local, when they may apply for a Scottish Passport (Cead-siubhail Rioghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Eireann a Tuath) after 50 years residence.

ducati
31-Aug-12, 09:50
You're right to blame incomers. In the soft South, temperatures are considerably warmer than here in Scotland. When an Incomer family of four breezes in from Stoke Poges, the ambient temperature increase they bring with them is .0000004 of a degree. It may not seem a lot, but once you get 200,000,000 Southerners all clamouring to live in Caithness, you sure will feel the difference. The SNP has plans, on achieving Independence, of hosing down all Incomers with glycol to reduce their "IET"s (Initial Entry Temperatures). This process will be certificated, and carried with their Alien Cards, unless they are lucky enough to marry a Local, when they may apply for a Scottish Passport (Cead-siubhail Rioghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Eireann a Tuath) after 50 years residence.

Will there be any plans for retrospective hosing down of existing resident incomers do you think? :eek:

billmoseley
31-Aug-12, 09:56
As an incomer myself i feel it's a wee bit harsh to blame me. However i would blame the org as the amount of hot air and hot heads on here is enough to warm the Arctic :lol:

Rheghead
31-Aug-12, 11:37
The global temperatures have been on an upward trend so presumably it takes extra heat to evaporate all the extra water to make the rain in the first place?

secrets in symmetry
01-Sep-12, 00:21
Coincidentally, I had a visit from one of the top climate scientists in the country (and perhaps the world) today.

He said he had some ideas why this summer has been so wet, but he didn't seem very confident about his reasons - and he didn't share them with me.

2little2late
01-Sep-12, 01:05
you're right to blame incomers. In the soft south, temperatures are considerably warmer than here in scotland. When an incomer family of four breezes in from stoke poges, the ambient temperature increase they bring with them is .0000004 of a degree. It may not seem a lot, but once you get 200,000,000 southerners all clamouring to live in caithness, you sure will feel the difference. The snp has plans, on achieving independence, of hosing down all incomers with glycol to reduce their "iet"s (initial entry temperatures). This process will be certificated, and carried with their alien cards, unless they are lucky enough to marry a local, when they may apply for a scottish passport (cead-siubhail rioghachd aonaichte bhreatainn is eireann a tuath) after 50 years residence. BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least we'll spread the genes about a wee bit.

oldmarine
01-Sep-12, 05:06
If it proves climate change, then why was it so wet 100 yrs ago?

All it proves is that Mother Nature can do as she pleases.

It also proves weather is cyclic.

squidge
01-Sep-12, 08:47
I actually think that I must be to blame a bit - I have been hot under the collar the last wee while so a hosing down might be ...er.... fun?

I also blame Secrets in Symmetry because of all the hot air they spout. Secrets is a bit like a patio heater - just a waste of hot air....

Rheghead and Rob too they have been talking about air - well wind - the last couple of days -not sure if its hot or not though.

Bill is right though - its probably this board which is to blame actually all the friction here must cause quite a bit of hot air.....

Rheghead
01-Sep-12, 10:06
It also proves weather is cyclic.

The vast majority of climate scientists that agree that greenhouse gases are mostly responsible for climate change do actually say that there are very strong cyclical elements to Global climate.

Just because the climate is cyclical in nature, the present naturally warming phase doesn't explain why the climate is visciously out of control.

secrets in symmetry
01-Sep-12, 13:15
The vast majority of climate scientists that agree that greenhouse gases are mostly responsible for climate change do actually say that there are very strong cyclical elements to Global climate.Indeed.


Just because the climate is cyclical in nature, the present naturally warming phase doesn't explain why the climate is visciously out of control.Visciously? Have you invented a new word (which I like), or did you mean viciously? Or perhaps even viscously lol?

BTW the "top" climate scientist's first comment was that he'd like to see the uncertainty in the rainfall data. We both suspect that the data isn't accurate enough to distinguish the wettest year from the second wettest year.

Data without error estimates isn't a lot of use.

iain
01-Sep-12, 13:27
Summer 1985 was far wetter.Didnt make hay that year just baled mud.

secrets in symmetry
01-Sep-12, 13:29
Summer 1985 was far wetter.Didnt make hay that year just baled mud.It may have been wetter where you were, and it was pretty wet where I was, but it wasn't wetter over the UK as a whole.

Serenity
01-Sep-12, 14:53
I realise the OP and most replies are tongue in cheek.

But,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0

secrets in symmetry
01-Sep-12, 15:06
I realise the OP and most replies are tongue in cheek.

But,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0That's brilliant - because it's correct!

Locking up the deniers sounds good to me. :cool:

Armstrong and Miller are good at comedy involving science and scientists, as is Tim Minchin (http://www.timminchin.com/) - and Tim doesn't take the piss out of us like Armstrong and Miller do lol.

Shaggy
01-Sep-12, 23:57
i blame all the hot air you lot don't half spout, oh and the anti SNP brigade, the "shop is closing" scaremongerers and ofc the Org killers......now wheres my tinfoil hat.....oh and don't worry about the rain...i'm told drips don't get wet [lol]

secrets in symmetry
29-Sep-12, 13:49
This week's record rainfall proves beyond doubt that irreversible climate change is upon us.

That's this week's essay topic, folks. :cool:

riggerboy
29-Sep-12, 20:43
well i think if all the sooth mooths moved back over e wall, and it snowed here for a hunner years, caithness wid still be a better place, at lot joost bring trouble way em every where they gan, as fur is global warmin thing, its a load o spoot, her in charge o the weather will div lek any ither wumin, as she dam well pleases, mither bloody nature and faither blinking time div as they please, i joost wish they wur brickies and beelt yin wall higher,

secrets in symmetry
30-Sep-12, 00:08
Could you please write in Her Majesty's English riggerboy? Then one might know what one is saying, might one not? :cool:

I'm off to see the poshest weegie wifie I've ever met next week. How'ma doaan' aat speakaan' posh lek?

I've been learnaan' til speak Inverness this week, but I'm obviously not very good at it yet. That will come. :cool:

Rheghead
30-Sep-12, 17:39
well i think if all the sooth mooths moved back over e wall, and it snowed here for a hunner years, caithness wid still be a better place, at lot joost bring trouble way em every where they gan, as fur is global warmin thing, its a load o spoot, her in charge o the weather will div lek any ither wumin, as she dam well pleases, mither bloody nature and faither blinking time div as they please, i joost wish they wur brickies and beelt yin wall higher,

ats a bitty unfair riggerboy. If yud gorped at sum proper books an at yud bin a bitty better clood up.

squidge
30-Sep-12, 18:19
Locking up the deniers sounds good to me. :cool:



IS there anyone else that every time they see "deniers" wonders why the thread is talking about ladies hosiery?????? I always have to do a double take!

secrets in symmetry
03-Jan-13, 23:08
This year was the second wettest on record

Met Office: 2012 was UK's second wettest year on record (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20898729)


A look back at a year of extreme weather

The past 12 months were the second wettest on record in the UK, according to data released by the Met Office.

The total rainfall for the UK during 2012 was 1,330.7mm (52.4in), just 6.6mm short of the record set in 2000.

I'm not sure the 0.5% difference between the wettest year and the second wettest year is (statistically) significant, but these figures are all the more amazing after the dry winter and the exceptionally warm and dry March.

More proof of Climate Change? :cool:

Rheghead
03-Jan-13, 23:16
More proof of Climate Change? :cool:

The weirdest thing is that if we were in an independent Scotland, the DECC north of the border would be saying it was one of the driest years so that is evidence of climate change and the DECC south of the border would be saying that 2012 was the wettest of all time and saying the same thing. Both would be right.

secrets in symmetry
03-Jan-13, 23:24
Wasn't it just the North of Scotland that was exceptionally dry this last 9 months?

(I was away for much of the summer, so I didn't experience the Great Northern drought.)

Rheghead
03-Jan-13, 23:38
In truth it might have been, pretty distinct contrast though.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2012/17/2012_17_Rainfall_Anomaly_1981-2010.gif

Oddquine
03-Jan-13, 23:56
You're right to blame incomers. In the soft South, temperatures are considerably warmer than here in Scotland. When an Incomer family of four breezes in from Stoke Poges, the ambient temperature increase they bring with them is .0000004 of a degree. It may not seem a lot, but once you get 200,000,000 Southerners all clamouring to live in Caithness, you sure will feel the difference. The SNP has plans, on achieving Independence, of hosing down all Incomers with glycol to reduce their "IET"s (Initial Entry Temperatures). This process will be certificated, and carried with their Alien Cards, unless they are lucky enough to marry a Local, when they may apply for a Scottish Passport (Cead-siubhail Rioghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Eireann a Tuath) after 50 years residence.

ROFLMAO..........your bias is showing! But to be fair, there are twonks who come up here from the saft south (of England or Scotland) who appear to think a cashmere sweater on top of a T-shirt on top of bare skin works up here as it did where they came from. They are the ones who don't last long and head off to search out more clement weather. I know...I moved up here with one of them and his eternal whining about being cold was a pain in the butt! ;)

secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-13, 00:24
In truth it might have been, pretty distinct contrast though.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2012/17/2012_17_Rainfall_Anomaly_1981-2010.gif
That's the map I was thinking of - thanks!

This year's rainfall was close to the 30 year average when integrated over the whole of Scotland - 102% IIRC.

ywindythesecond
04-Jan-13, 01:06
The vast majority of climate scientists that agree that greenhouse gases are mostly responsible for climate change do actually say that there are very strong cyclical elements to Global climate.

Just because the climate is cyclical in nature, the present naturally warming phase doesn't explain why the climate is visciously out of control.

Coming in late here, but how is climate "visciously out of control"?

Shaggy
04-Jan-13, 20:44
I realise the OP and most replies are tongue in cheek.

But,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0

LOL and from that video i watched numerous other and im now sitting with sore sides and watery eyes through all the laughing.......suicide attempt is one of the vids lol

secrets in symmetry
05-Jan-13, 00:21
There are indeed a number of cracking videos on that page. I think some are specifically targeted at this forum's more ignorant Climate Change deniers lol.

weezer 316
05-Jan-13, 00:25
You can lump people who deny climate change in with folk who deny evolution, and you can lump them in with the luddites in the 16th century who denied the earth went round the sun becuase the earth and its devout inhabitants HAD to be the centre of the universe. And you can lump them in with the people who refused to believe the earth was round. And you can lump all of them in with the parasites who dont even know nor care what climate change is, and who likely will be the big winners out of it.

secrets in symmetry
05-Jan-13, 00:31
You can lump people who deny climate change in with folk who deny evolution, and you can lump them in with the luddites in the 16th century who denied the earth went round the sun becuase the earth and its devout inhabitants HAD to be the centre of the universe. And you can lump them in with the people who refused to believe the earth was round. And you can lump all of them in with the parasites who dont even know nor care what climate change is, and who likely will be the big winners out of it.I do lump them all altogether. :cool:

It's harder to fully understand the evidence for Climate change, but it's equally luddite to deny this evidence because you don't understand it, or because you've read a few incorrect articles by nutters in the Telegraph.

Dadie
05-Jan-13, 00:54
Ok understand it.....
Where do I go to have sledge time with the family?
Without rain to spoil my fun time!
answers please........without needing passports!
Yup I know of bad winters /undue bad weather etc in the last few years...

oldchemist
05-Jan-13, 16:03
The global temperatures have been on an upward trend so presumably it takes extra heat to evaporate all the extra water to make the rain in the first place?

Warmer air holds more moisture so therefore more rain. On its own it does not prove climate change but it is consistent with the predictions. Because the politicians have f****d about for almost 20 years without taking action it now seems likely that we are heading for a catastrophic 4 deg C increase in global temperature.

weezer 316
06-Jan-13, 18:32
Mate its not the politicians themselves, its the people who elect them. There are some people who dont belive it, and there are some on her like Old Marine saying its cyclic. Amazingly science shows its cyclic, yet that same science lets them see Co2 in the air is at levels never before seen, and is all happened in a timescale of 1/10000th the last "Cycle" occured at.

Its pure and utter ignorance. And they wont care until the price of food is so high they cant afford to buy it.

And then it will start being the politicians fault again......

secrets in symmetry
06-Jan-13, 21:34
Mate its not the politicians themselves, its the people who elect them. There are some people who dont belive it, and there are some on her like Old Marine saying its cyclic. Amazingly science shows its cyclic, yet that same science lets them see Co2 in the air is at levels never before seen, and is all happened in a timescale of 1/10000th the last "Cycle" occured at.

Its pure and utter ignorance. And they wont care until the price of food is so high they cant afford to buy it.

And then it will start being the politicians fault again......Indeed. :cool:

I'm hoping the next IPCC report will be a little stronger. The last one was rather conservative (in the non-political sense) in my opinion.

secrets in symmetry
19-Jan-13, 19:57
Some interesting information....


US scientists say that 2012 was among the 10 warmest years the world has experienced since 1880.

Nasa researchers said it was the ninth warmest year while experts from another American agency said it was the 10th.

Both teams said that temperatures would have been higher if it had not been for the La Nina weather pattern that brought cooling to some regions.

They were equally certain carbon dioxide had been the principal driver of the rise over the past 50 years.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said that their analysis of temperature data from a global network of weather stations indicated that the average temperature for 2012 was 0.57C above the 20th Century average.


More significant is


The agency stated that all 12 years of the 21st Century rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record keeping.

Source: the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033083)

ywindythesecond
20-Jan-13, 00:57
Some interesting information....

More significant is

Source: the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033083)

I don't know why your full post doesn't show here but anyone reading this should refer to post #43 for the full context.

Anyway, perhaps the most significant thing about this post is quoting the BBC as if it was a reliable source on anything to do with climate change or renewable energy.

Christopher Booker's book "The Real Global Warming Disaster" catalogues the multiplicity of fudging of information and suppression of scientific opinion which does not concur with "the concensus" that global warming or climate change is man-made.

Everyone should read it before making their own conclusion.

ywindythesecond
20-Jan-13, 01:02
Coming in late here, but how is climate "visciously out of control"?

Just noticed Reggy that you have not given me an answer. I am used to this but perhaps other viewers of this forum would be interested in it?

M Swanson
20-Jan-13, 10:25
Thanks for the heads-up Y. I'll certainly try to obtain a copy of Christopher Bookers book. I have however, read Ian Plimers' "Heaven and Earth," which I would definitely recommend.

I'm not a subscriber to the scaremongering of global warming. I see it more as a politically correct, tax generating, cash-cow. People wonder why petrol, gas, electricity and food are so expensive and why British manufacturers are unable to compete with their Chinese/Indian competitors. Well, it may, in part, have something to do with us paying 18 Billion a year in green taxes. And who really benefits? Opportunists who have cashed-in on this green obsession, imo. It's made so many folks rich and what has it achieved? Not a lot!

Any theory which has to be backed up by deception has to be questioned. Remember the polar bear, who was pictured stranded on an ice floe, which was offered as proof of climate change? Well, the photographer admitted that it was shot in summer and the bear was well within the 14 miles swimming radius he needed to return safely to the land. Great little exercise in emotional blackmail though, wasn't it? I won't even go into the fabrication of the hockey stick, or evidence offered against the theory, by a large group of scientists in America. Isn't this just yet another example of a large number of scientists insisting their research is infallible and everyone who doesn't buy into it is in denial? Ring any bells?

Christopher Booker is a wonderful writer. Some years back I read a book he wrote in collaboration with Richard North, called "The Great Deception." If you want to know the facts behind the European Union, then it's a must-read.

weezer 316
21-Jan-13, 16:15
Thanks for the heads-up Y. I'll certainly try to obtain a copy of Christopher Bookers book. I have however, read Ian Plimers' "Heaven and Earth," which I would definitely recommend.

I'm not a subscriber to the scaremongering of global warming. I see it more as a politically correct, tax generating, cash-cow. People wonder why petrol, gas, electricity and food are so expensive and why British manufacturers are unable to compete with their Chinese/Indian competitors. Well, it may, in part, have something to do with us paying 18 Billion a year in green taxes. And who really benefits? Opportunists who have cashed-in on this green obsession, imo. It's made so many folks rich and what has it achieved? Not a lot!

Any theory which has to be backed up by deception has to be questioned. Remember the polar bear, who was pictured stranded on an ice floe, which was offered as proof of climate change? Well, the photographer admitted that it was shot in summer and the bear was well within the 14 miles swimming radius he needed to return safely to the land. Great little exercise in emotional blackmail though, wasn't it? I won't even go into the fabrication of the hockey stick, or evidence offered against the theory, by a large group of scientists in America. Isn't this just yet another example of a large number of scientists insisting their research is infallible and everyone who doesn't buy into it is in denial? Ring any bells?

Christopher Booker is a wonderful writer. Some years back I read a book he wrote in collaboration with Richard North, called "The Great Deception." If you want to know the facts behind the European Union, then it's a must-read.

This is a particularly pungent piece of nonsense. CO2 levels are at the highest they have ever been recorded at and we are able to accurately map the last 10-15 millions years very accurately. This increase has happened at around 10 thousand times the pace the last large increase. We alos have 15x more methane in the atmosphere than has ever been recorded and its a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

Now, do you expect NONE of that to have an impact on our climate? Can you explain why we can quite clearly see the ice sheet ar the north pole get smaller each year?

And the first point couldnt have anything to do with the average chinese wage being 1/10th of our average wage could it? Just a n idea I thought i would throw out there y'know......





Such ignorance will kill us. Really.

weezer 316
21-Jan-13, 16:19
Just noticed Reggy that you have not given me an answer. I am used to this but perhaps other viewers of this forum would be interested in it?

Semantic antics. It isnt within our control, not even slightly so by definition its out of control. The point clearly alludes with the fact we are increaseing the greenhouse gases in the atmophere at a rate never before seen.

Flynn
21-Jan-13, 18:19
Thanks for the heads-up Y. I'll certainly try to obtain a copy of Christopher Bookers book. I have however, read Ian Plimers' "Heaven and Earth," which I would definitely recommend.

I'm not a subscriber to the scaremongering of global warming. I see it more as a politically correct, tax generating, cash-cow. People wonder why petrol, gas, electricity and food are so expensive and why British manufacturers are unable to compete with their Chinese/Indian competitors. Well, it may, in part, have something to do with us paying 18 Billion a year in green taxes. And who really benefits? Opportunists who have cashed-in on this green obsession, imo. It's made so many folks rich and what has it achieved? Not a lot!

Any theory which has to be backed up by deception has to be questioned. Remember the polar bear, who was pictured stranded on an ice floe, which was offered as proof of climate change? Well, the photographer admitted that it was shot in summer and the bear was well within the 14 miles swimming radius he needed to return safely to the land. Great little exercise in emotional blackmail though, wasn't it? I won't even go into the fabrication of the hockey stick, or evidence offered against the theory, by a large group of scientists in America. Isn't this just yet another example of a large number of scientists insisting their research is infallible and everyone who doesn't buy into it is in denial? Ring any bells?

Christopher Booker is a wonderful writer. Some years back I read a book he wrote in collaboration with Richard North, called "The Great Deception." If you want to know the facts behind the European Union, then it's a must-read.

Tell that to Australians. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/09/australia-too-hot-to-pump-gas-needs-new-colors/

A (http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/09/australia-too-hot-to-pump-gas-needs-new-colors/)nd if you're going to get your references on climate change from anyone it might be best not to listen to someone like Christopher Booker who has been discredited so many times it beggars belief. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker

M Swanson
22-Jan-13, 09:16
Has anyone noticed that David Bellamy hasn't been on our screens for a long while? I did! Well, he's still alive and kicking and I thought you may like to read this interesting article about why he was shafted by the BBC. Like so many of us, he believes man-made global warming is "poppycock;" is a fan of Prince Philip, (I love his gaffes), and sticks two fingers up to political correctness. Eat your heart out Al Gore and keep counting your fortune. :D My apologies for the source, but the facts are hard to come by these days.


The BBC froze me out because I don't believe in global warming: Outspoken as ever, David Bellamy reveals why you don't see him on TV any more | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming-Outspoken-David-Bellamy-reveals-dont-TV-more.html)

macadamia
22-Jan-13, 10:22
Hear Hear M Swanson! David Bellamy is a tour de force - a very special example of a total human being, a character, a lightener of darkness, an educator, and a bringer of joy - and who would rather shoot himself than tell a lie. Which makes his opinions on "global warming" - sorry, "climate change" all the more appealing and, dare I say, convincing. More than that, he is very good for morale. If we were to retrospectively use the defeatist, litigious, negative and oppressive mindset of today on the events of yesteryear, we would all be citizens of Greater Germany or Mother Russia: we would not have invented as many useful things as we did - TV, penicillin, the world-wide web - and we would all be reduced to the default drive of the socialist state which requires an equality of misery for its subjects, and adherence to the fashionable diktats of the day.

(Yes I know, YOU think there's a huge difference between naziism, communism, and reductive socialism - but at bottom they are all forms of extreme social engineering contrived by a minimum of controllers for a maximum of unwilling underdogs.)

Two men look through prison bars. One sees mud - the other, stars.

Let's all be David Bellamys. Fight for the positive. Strive for joy. Embrace opportunity. Stop claiming to be victims. Loathe negativity and envy. Live life, live long, and prosper!

Flynn
22-Jan-13, 10:34
Here's what David Attenborough has to say. (he's the rather more well-known and travelled naturalist than Bellamy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 11:31
Ignorance is bliss.

Its irrelevant what Attenborough or Bellamy say. Science isnt about opinions and doenst care what you think nor how many awards of viewers you have/had. Such thinking belongs in the 16th century.

You deny man made climate change your a luddite and a dangerous one at that. You could easily extract ice cores yourself and see what it says with a bit if scientific knowledge. The you would be in a particularly sticky situation with your own data disagreeing with you pre-determined conclusions.

Far to much time is wasted on such ignorance when we have a real pressing issue that needs attention. Not spent on the anti-science crowd.

Flynn
22-Jan-13, 11:36
Ignorance is bliss.

Its irrelevant what Attenborough or Bellamy say. Science isnt about opinions and doenst care what you think nor how many awards of viewers you have/had. Such thinking belongs in the 16th century.

You deny man made climate change your a luddite and a dangerous one at that. You could easily extract ice cores yourself and see what it says with a bit if scientific knowledge. The you would be in a particularly sticky situation with your own data disagreeing with you pre-determined conclusions.

Far to much time is wasted on such ignorance when we have a real pressing issue that needs attention. Not spent on the anti-science crowd.


Attenborough was saying climate change is due to human activity. I'm guessing you didn't watch the video.

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 12:22
Let me tell you a story....

Late 1930's, Germany. The Nazi party presents a letter signed by hundreds of physicists (Germanys contribution in this field over a 50 year period ending around this time is utterly enormous) including names such as Max Planck that declares relativity to be false. Einstein had of course criticised the nazis for their anti-semitism and went to America.

Einstein laughed. The entire world could sign the letter and it would make no difference to whether relativity was a fact or not. Yet if one man could produce an experiment to show it was false it would all come crashing down.

The moral of the story is this.....opinions are irrelevant in the face of facts. You can deny the sun exists all you want and it has no bearing on the observable, testable data. If someone influential's opninion agrees or disagrees with you it makes no difference to the truth of a statemtn, astruth isnt established by opinion, its established by fact.

macadamia
22-Jan-13, 12:35
"Facts" in the context of climate change are pieces of empirical and infallible evidence which are at first gathered and then compiled. We rely on the practitioners to ensure that these facts are retrieved and assembled without prior agenda. It is the extrapolations by fallible man which cause the "I'm right and you're wrong" part of the "debate". These extrapolations can be subject to personal, commercial, scientific, philosophical or political pressures. We laymen are in thrall to whosoever's voice is currently the most strident. Given that the media will generally prefer a negative to a positive story - bad news instead of good news - I think it is fair to say that the "climate change" evangelists are currently winning. I will bet my shirt and my late grandmother's false teeth that the current thinking will be modified/changed/turned on its head.

As a famous BBC journalist (I have forgotten his name) once said "truth is 3 dimensional".

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 13:03
These extrapolations can be subject to personal, commercial, scientific, philosophical or political pressures.

################################################## #######################

Here is the heart fo the issue. Lets focus on this wee gem. Do you:

1: Have any evidence to say the millions of pieces of data collected have been tampered with?
2: Have any evidence the scientific journals these findings are published in are subject to these pressures?
3: Is the planet Venus and extrapolation or is it a real place with real weather?
4: What are "Scientific pressures" if not the pressure to find out the truth about a phenomenon?

macadamia
22-Jan-13, 13:14
weezer, I do so like it when you get intellectually stroppy. My answers.

1. No. Have you? Apart from what you've read/been told? By scientists, who as humans can be fallible?
2. No. Have you any evidence that they are not? Apart from believing scientists? Who (see 1) are human, and therefore fallible.
3. Venus is a real place with real weather. From which, facts may be empirically discovered and collated. And then placed into a context which may or may not have a prior agenda. By humans, who are fallible.
4. Scientific pressure may also be an urgent perceived need to establish or verify a pre-conceived agenda. By human scientists, who might occasionally be fallible.

Unless you have total faith in scientists, and imbue them with God-like qualities. (Ooops! Perhaps we'd best not go in that particular direction......)

Flynn
22-Jan-13, 13:26
Let me tell you a story....

Late 1930's, Germany. The Nazi party presents a letter signed by hundreds of physicists (Germanys contribution in this field over a 50 year period ending around this time is utterly enormous) including names such as Max Planck that declares relativity to be false. Einstein had of course criticised the nazis for their anti-semitism and went to America.

Einstein laughed. The entire world could sign the letter and it would make no difference to whether relativity was a fact or not. Yet if one man could produce an experiment to show it was false it would all come crashing down.

The moral of the story is this.....opinions are irrelevant in the face of facts. You can deny the sun exists all you want and it has no bearing on the observable, testable data. If someone influential's opninion agrees or disagrees with you it makes no difference to the truth of a statemtn, astruth isnt established by opinion, its established by fact.

So you disagree with those who don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change (post #53), and now you're disagreeing with those do believe climate change is man-made. Or maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 13:29
I have total faith in the scientific method, as it is that which establishes the truth. Fallibility is irrelevant and you can use it as your favourite word until the cows come home, its the method which is the question. You simply fail to understand this. Unless you are claiming every scientist and every test had a pre-determined outcome, then your argument is moot.

Let me ask you the simplest possible question I can. Does the sun exist and shine on earth?

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 13:36
So you disagree with those who don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change (post #53), and now you're disagreeing with those do believe climate change is man-made. Or maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?


What??

Maybe my point is a bit nebulous. I'll rephrase:

OPINIONS DO NOT MATTER TO FACTS.

macadamia
22-Jan-13, 13:41
The sun exists and shines on earth. I know this to be true. I have observed it. I might be persuaded that I am the victim of a global mass-hypnosis, by scientists, who continue to be fallible.

You claim to have "faith" in the scientific method. In other words, you have total belief in something you haven't yourself observed or comprehended in its totality. (Strange you belittle faith in other contexts....!) Fallibility IS relevant. Many thought the sun revolved around the earth. It was fact. While it lasted. And then wasn't.

Fallibility is not irrelevant just because you say it is. The "method" you espouse is malleable. I am NOT claiming every scientist and every test had or had a pre-determined outcome, only that some patently have over the centuries. Which makes all of them potentially fallible, even the dead honest ones who followed the rules to the letter.

M Swanson
22-Jan-13, 15:08
Well, I've just read through the thread and notice that Mac is the only one who enters political points in the discussion. Maybe Weezer is so blinded by science that he considers this an irrelevancy too?

Weez writes as though there's a scientific consensus on man made global warming, which isn't true! So much of the 'facts' we receive is given by reports from the IPCC, which are passed on to us by the media they dominate. How many of the 3000 Panelists are scientists, as opposed to political appointees? Have you checked recently W? You maybe surprised. Or, maybe you consider that too is irrelevant?

Do you believe that a petition signed by over 1700 scientists, debunking AGW tells us anything? And why has some of them been forced to sue in order to have their name removed from the IPCC list? Strange! This reeks to me of a political agenda more than a scientific one. And who benefits from keeping the people in a state of fear? Isn't this just yet another example of undermining the rights of people in the name of keeping us all safe?

Mac wrote of "social engineering," and I believe this is just another example of the ambitions of the small elite who want to impose globalisation on the world. Nazism, Communism and liberalism may differ to a small extent in their ideological beliefs, but for me the end results are almost identical. But the present ultimate power seekers are the most dangerous of all, imo. I believe science is being used as a tool to achieve their goals. It was Blair's "Third way," and Brown's "New World Order."
It's not just them though. Most politicians have signed on the dotted line to join this club. Science is just being called in, with all its' models and lack of real proof, to bolster the effort. That's how I read it anyway.

Flynn
22-Jan-13, 15:53
Well, I've just read through the thread and notice that Mac is the only one who enters political points in the discussion. Maybe Weezer is so blinded by science that he considers this an irrelevancy too?

Weez writes as though there's a scientific consensus on man made global warming, which isn't true! So much of the 'facts' we receive is given by reports from the IPCC, which are passed on to us by the media they dominate. How many of the 3000 Panelists are scientists, as opposed to political appointees? Have you checked recently W? You maybe surprised. Or, maybe you consider that too is irrelevant?

Do you believe that a petition signed by over 1700 scientists, debunking AGW tells us anything? And why has some of them been forced to sue in order to have their name removed from the IPCC list? Strange! This reeks to me of a political agenda more than a scientific one. And who benefits from keeping the people in a state of fear? Isn't this just yet another example of undermining the rights of people in the name of keeping us all safe?

Mac wrote of "social engineering," and I believe this is just another example of the ambitions of the small elite who want to impose globalisation on the world. Nazism, Communism and liberalism may differ to a small extent in their ideological beliefs, but for me the end results are almost identical. But the present ultimate power seekers are the most dangerous of all, imo. I believe science is being used as a tool to achieve their goals. It was Blair's "Third way," and Brown's "New World Order."
It's not just them though. Most politicians have signed on the dotted line to join this club. Science is just being called in, with all its' models and lack of real proof, to bolster the effort. That's how I read it anyway.

"nazism, communism, liberalism…' You missed out Theocracy.

Flynn
22-Jan-13, 15:57
Suggest the deniers go to this link and learn something.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

macadamia
22-Jan-13, 16:43
"The deniers".

I have railed against the use of that particular word, as it is charged with the most oppressive and heavy negative associations. The only other area of human history and experience in which it has ever been used is with regard to the Jewish genocide conducted by the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s. It implies moral degeneracy as well as simply being wrong.

It is also absolute, not taking into account those who have doubts about the statements postulated by bodies of scientists, as well as those who see the facts presented in a different perspective. You have the absolutists, the cyclicalists, the accidentalists, the serendipitists, and the complete negativists. Sadly, all those categories outside of absolutists tend to be corralled under the same "deniers" banner.

Never has such an emotive word been used by those espousing an allegedly scientific approach, to the fear, harm and injury of the population at large.

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 17:02
The sun exists and shines on earth. I know this to be true. I have observed it. I might be persuaded that I am the victim of a global mass-hypnosis, by scientists, who continue to be fallible.

You claim to have "faith" in the scientific method. In other words, you have total belief in something you haven't yourself observed or comprehended in its totality. (Strange you belittle faith in other contexts....!) Fallibility IS relevant. Many thought the sun revolved around the earth. It was fact. While it lasted. And then wasn't.

Fallibility is not irrelevant just because you say it is. The "method" you espouse is malleable. I am NOT claiming every scientist and every test had or had a pre-determined outcome, only that some patently have over the centuries. Which makes all of them potentially fallible, even the dead honest ones who followed the rules to the letter.

Id suggest you read your posts back before you post them......

The sun exists. Lets say I'm blind and never go outside. Is it a fact the sun doesnt exist to me as I so sincerely believe? Your stuck until you realise you have just asked me the same question and its subjective answer answer is irrelevant in the face of facts.

The scientific method is the process that accounts for scientific falability. Its there to ensure it cant be squewed and that data is testable and not subjective to interpretation. That's the very nature of it, to account for the fact that maybe, just maybe, somone may try and fudge things. Any claim otherwise is both dumb and disingenuous on your part. You know this.

And M Swanson, you sound like the evolution deniers in the states, that its only a theory and there is no scientific consensus. There is, it was sealed years ago and no amount of bleating otherwise will change it.

Here is the IPCC outline on consensus....from 2004. Not 1 single peer reviewed article published that denied climate change due to human activities. Not 1. Now think.....what possible method could account for this imbalance? To my mind its wither 1 enormous scientific conspiracy or........the scientific method.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

macadamia
22-Jan-13, 17:17
My dear Weezer - it ill behooves you to move into the world of sophistry. You're much better off with your own brand of logic, the thrust of which appears to be predicated on the inalienable truth that you are always right, and everybody else disagreeing with you must be wrong. You may conjure up pictures of a blind man's sun, or indeed Schroedinger's cat, (actually, I am acquainted with Dr. John Gribbin, whose writings on the subject have long been an engrossing topic of conversation), but it always easy to recognise a chap who changes the subject once he has been found wanting.

Scientists can be wrong, whatever holiness, wholesomeness, or holistic purity you attribute to their methods which were designed by....er....human scientists. And therefore fallible. It's rather like the Social Services serving up their diabolical and inhumane dogma masked as "best practice" which results in dead children from time to time. "Best practice" like "the scientific method" is a contrivance to render its practitioners free from blame for the lapses and errors which occur in their thinking. It removes consequences for their actions.

"I was following the scientific method", alongside "I was following best practice", is up there with that other great saying "I was only following orders".

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 18:18
What an inane answer. Infact it was'nt even an answer at all....

Let me ask you this then. 99.9% say one thing based on this body of evidence. What do you say? Does rising CO2 levels have and impact on climate?

M Swanson
22-Jan-13, 18:24
Weezer, I note that you linked me to the IPCC consensus of 2004 ...... prior to the 2005 Freedom of Information Act. I can't help wondering how much 'political muscle,' it took to manufacture the consensus. You may be interested in this article in the Washington Times on 'Hiding the Evidence of Global Cooling,' in 2009. I notice that most of my questions have gone unanswered. Irrelevant, I guess! Not to me and I'm sure many other laymen.

Just imagine what difference an injection of £18 Billion, per annum, would make to British Manufacturing, instead of investing it in what some folks consider to be the biggest con in Man's history.

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/)

Rheghead
22-Jan-13, 18:39
Just imagine what difference an injection of £18 Billion, per annum, would make to British Manufacturing, instead of investing it in what some folks consider to be the biggest con in Man's history

What costs £18 billion per annum? :eek:

billmoseley
22-Jan-13, 18:42
What costs £18 million per annum? :eek: keeping the org going?

macadamia
22-Jan-13, 18:48
If my "inanities" eventually expose your partial and partisan knowledge for what it is then my work here is complete. To answer your question. If 99.9% of people say one thing, then I would posit the same response that Einstein gave the Nazis re. their rejection of his Theory of Relativity.. And 99.9%? A little human intervention and aggrandisation to support your question - why not 99.87%, or 84.2% ?either would have sounded more authentic than the 99.9% you plucked from the air, and which is patently not so. As to your grammatically inaccurate second question "Does rising CO2 levels have and impact on climate?" - my dear chap, I don't honestly KNOW. I am told, usually by the morbid sort of doom-mongering cove who tends to occupy the margins of society that this is so, but I am unsure of the consequences of this, as there are so many variations, mostly from this particular sector of negitavists. One school predicts the end of the world as we know it, whilst others espouse a lingering malaise which will change all life on earth beyond recognition. Sadly, there still seems to be a group who maintain that yes, indeed, CO2 levels continue to rise, but that this is cyclical, and there are offsets which may help control the overall situation.

In the mean time, take note of the following: I do not claim to be right in every thing I suggest. It is not my mission to be right. Merely to observe that most people, and indeed bodies of people, who claim to know the absolute infinite and logical truth are inevitably not quite as complete in their thought processes as they might wish to be. It worries me that they see their fallible partial rightness as righteousness: that somehow they are superior to those not clever enough to follow their arguments: and as existing somehow on a higher spiritual plane than us earthworms playing aimlessly in the dust.

Some may mistake this as arrogance, which I do not imply. Others might be dangerously closer to the mark if they implied inadequacy, but I would not care to underwrite that school of thought, either.

As I have mentioned in other contexts, a little humility goes a long way......

M Swanson
22-Jan-13, 18:48
What costs £18 million per annum? :eek:

Direct quote from the Energy Tribune. "The UK passed its infamous Climate Act, the first of its kind in the world. It was widely touted as the “most expensive legislation in history”. The Act effectively committed the UK to foot an annual extra ‘de-carbonising’ spending bill of over £18 billion every year for the next 40 years. It’s the kind of government spending action the UN IPCC is urging on all governments, especially in the developed world, even in the face of the current global economic crisis."

M Swanson
22-Jan-13, 18:49
keeping the org going?

What???? And I make my contributions for nothing, Bill? Who do I write to about this? :lol:

Rheghead
22-Jan-13, 18:53
Direct quote from the Energy Tribune. "The UK passed its infamous Climate Act, the first of its kind in the world. It was widely touted as the “most expensive legislation in history”. The Act effectively committed the UK to foot an annual extra ‘de-carbonising’ spending bill of over £18 billion every year for the next 40 years. It’s the kind of government spending action the UN IPCC is urging on all governments, especially in the developed world, even in the face of the current global economic crisis."

I wish! Words and actions are 2 very different things. The Renewable Obligation only provides £30 billion but that is over 30 years and already folks are moaning.

Rheghead
22-Jan-13, 18:55
God wins law over the ill-informed.

M Swanson
22-Jan-13, 19:07
Also a useful tool, sometimes used by the high and mighty to introduce censorship.

Rheghead
22-Jan-13, 19:19
Come to think of it, I think Energy Tribune must have just quoted £18 billion as this equates to about 1% of UK GDP which Lord Stern says is the percentage of global GDP per year needed to sort out Climate Change. I do not think it is correct because many environmental groups say the climate Change Act falls too short of what is really needed.

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 22:03
If my "inanities" eventually expose your partial and partisan knowledge for what it is then my work here is complete. To answer your question. If 99.9% of people say one thing, then I would posit the same response that Einstein gave the Nazis re. their rejection of his Theory of Relativity.. And 99.9%? A little human intervention and aggrandisation to support your question - why not 99.87%, or 84.2% ?either would have sounded more authentic than the 99.9% you plucked from the air, and which is patently not so. As to your grammatically inaccurate second question "Does rising CO2 levels have and impact on climate?" - my dear chap, I don't honestly KNOW. I am told, usually by the morbid sort of doom-mongering cove who tends to occupy the margins of society that this is so, but I am unsure of the consequences of this, as there are so many variations, mostly from this particular sector of negitavists. One school predicts the end of the world as we know it, whilst others espouse a lingering malaise which will change all life on earth beyond recognition. Sadly, there still seems to be a group who maintain that yes, indeed, CO2 levels continue to rise, but that this is cyclical, and there are offsets which may help control the overall situation.

In the mean time, take note of the following: I do not claim to be right in every thing I suggest. It is not my mission to be right. Merely to observe that most people, and indeed bodies of people, who claim to know the absolute infinite and logical truth are inevitably not quite as complete in their thought processes as they might wish to be. It worries me that they see their fallible partial rightness as righteousness: that somehow they are superior to those not clever enough to follow their arguments: and as existing somehow on a higher spiritual plane than us earthworms playing aimlessly in the dust.

Some may mistake this as arrogance, which I do not imply. Others might be dangerously closer to the mark if they implied inadequacy, but I would not care to underwrite that school of thought, either.

As I have mentioned in other contexts, a little humility goes a long way......

Oh its partial alright...partial to taking on such mindless nonsense as has been posted here. The 99.9% was a deliberate attempt to incite such a response. Childish but effective. its 100%. It is cyclic. its happened 10000 faster and is now double the highest ever recorded.

As for you not knowing CO2 has an effect omn the climate, if such simple stuff is beyond you (and I imagine it is simply becuase you never bothered to go and find out yourself rather than it being too complicated) then you really shouldnt have an opinion on it at all as basic physics is at the heart of the argument, namely the higher the atmospheric content of some gases (CO2 the main one here) the higher the termperature as more infrared ratiation is absorbed. Unless that basic tennent of physics is wrong (you can test it yourself with a vacuum chamber, thermometer and some Co2, or methane, or check out Venus 500 centrigrade days, with 96% of its atmosphere being CO2) then your in the sticky quandry that any attempt to argue it wont warm the planet defy's the laws of physics, laws which you evidently know nothing off.

And lastly, dont ever quote the washington times. Its a conservative mouthpiece that has such a scientific stance it denies evolution (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2012/mar/17/richard-dawkins-ape/)

Try reading actual scientists WORK on climate change, with ice cores, with CO2 monitoring, and then partake in it yourself. There really isnt an opintion to be had on i, its a fact.

weezer 316
22-Jan-13, 22:18
Observe, please. Richard Feymann on the scientific method, He explains it better then I ever could.

All the climate science you deny has been through this process umpteen times......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

ywindythesecond
22-Jan-13, 23:17
Suggest the deniers go to this link and learn something.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Everyone should definitely read Christopher Booker's "The Real Global Warming Disaster""

ywindythesecond
22-Jan-13, 23:36
Observe, please. Richard Feymann on the scientific method, He explains it better then I ever could.

All the climate science you deny has been through this process umpteen times......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

I watched that and it was very interesting. More interesting was that he does not claim that anything is right. He is much less convinced of proof beyond doubt than you appear to be advocating.

M Swanson
22-Jan-13, 23:59
It's all about theories and models. I can't see any real proof that global warming is Man made. And what difference can we make anyway? China and the US issue 50% of the worlds' pollution. Break that figure down and the USA has 5% of the worlds' population, 25% of the worlds' CO2 emissions and the UK has 1% of the worlds' population, 2% of the worlds' C02 emissions. What difference can any of us make when pitted against the powerful forces of Nature? There's billions spent on this global warming obsession, that I would think a great many of us believe would be much better spent elsewhere. What difference do the scientists think ANY action we take, will make? I'd like an answer to that one, please!

Isn't Mars 95% CO2? Does it get any global warming?

Will Obama sign the Kyoto Agreement this time round? Hmmmmmm.

macadamia
23-Jan-13, 00:06
Dear Weezer,

From your "reply" to my latest - another bout of self-justification highlighting only those parts of my ramblings which you had the knowledge to refute - it appears by the number of basic spelling , grammar, and typo mistakes that you were so het up you rushed through your answer. You appear to be angry, which is a start. You persist in thinking I am merely an uneducated fool at whom you can throw your second-hand facts, and that I will gratefully accept these crumbs from the Master's table. Not so. The Court of Macadamia is in session, and is now hearing evidence both for the defence and for the prosecution. The judge has an open mind, and will not be swayed by hysterics mouthing statistics at him. You imply that since the whole world knows that climate change is man-made, my not acceding to this opinion makes me anti-social, indeed, almost inhuman. (as well as inane, brain-dead, a moron, let's save time here!).

My dear fellow, let's cut to the chase . Your peevish attempts to push your agenda cut little ice with this department. Mankind is taking, and will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure its survival up until it is no longer fit for purpose. There is nothing to be gained by presenting a permanent vision of Armageddon. It is merely a vote of no confidence in mankind's innate ability to invent, subvent, adopt, evolve, fight, flee, negotiate and conquer within his environment. This is the excitement and adventure of surviving life.

One last plea - a touch of humility, and please stop calling me an idiot. Or at least my arguments.

Rheghead
23-Jan-13, 15:20
I can't see any real proof that global warming is Man made.

You aren't going to get absolute certainty and proof, go read the Bible if you want that.

It is funny, to me at least, that when climate contrarians claim at great lengths that it is natural greenhouse gases that are causing climate change like volcanoes etc, then there is no issue with the science about how greenhouse gases are causing global temperature rise. But when climate scientists go to great lengths to show that most of rise ingreenhouse gases are man made in origin then the contrarians claim that the science is wrong.

In essence, the problem is twofold why the contrarian view is unconvincing, firstly, what is causing global temperatures to rise? And if man made greenhouse gases are not causing climate change, then why aren't they?

Flynn
23-Jan-13, 15:30
It's all about theories and models. I can't see any real proof that global warming is Man made. And what difference can we make anyway? China and the US issue 50% of the worlds' pollution. Break that figure down and the USA has 5% of the worlds' population, 25% of the worlds' CO2 emissions and the UK has 1% of the worlds' population, 2% of the worlds' C02 emissions. What difference can any of us make when pitted against the powerful forces of Nature? There's billions spent on this global warming obsession, that I would think a great many of us believe would be much better spent elsewhere. What difference do the scientists think ANY action we take, will make? I'd like an answer to that one, please!

Isn't Mars 95% CO2? Does it get any global warming?

Will Obama sign the Kyoto Agreement this time round? Hmmmmmm.

Why don't you pray for it to sort itself out? That'll work, right?

weezer 316
23-Jan-13, 16:08
It's all about theories and models. I can't see any real proof that global warming is Man made. And what difference can we make anyway? China and the US issue 50% of the worlds' pollution. Break that figure down and the USA has 5% of the worlds' population, 25% of the worlds' CO2 emissions and the UK has 1% of the worlds' population, 2% of the worlds' C02 emissions. What difference can any of us make when pitted against the powerful forces of Nature? There's billions spent on this global warming obsession, that I would think a great many of us believe would be much better spent elsewhere. What difference do the scientists think ANY action we take, will make? I'd like an answer to that one, please!

Isn't Mars 95% CO2? Does it get any global warming?

Will Obama sign the Kyoto Agreement this time round? Hmmmmmm.

You would like an answer...So you dont bother to learn the basic physics underpinning it, you ignore the evidence science has presented, evidence you in principle can go and find yourself if you wished, and have no idea what impact it would have on us or earth..............You then dismiss it all anyway.

To put it another way what you just said, global warming could hit you in the face and you wouldnt know what it was!

Heres one effect......A country is disappearing. Tuvalu's govt have bought large tracts of land in New zealand as their island will be under the sea by 2035. Sea water now floods large parts of their island at high tide, and this has only happened in the past 15 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tuvalu

How about the ice sheet at the poles? Do you know of any natural processes other than an increase in temperature that melts ice, with more and more melting every year? Can you explain why its shrinking, without guessing, and will disappear entirely in summer by 2040 at the north pole?

M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 17:06
Now, Now, Weezer. You haven't actually answered one of the questions I asked, but if you can't you can't! Or won't, of course. I don't think any the less of you.

You do come across as awfully fearful and I'm sorry about that. Even if a miracle should happen and tomorrow its proven that a large part of Global warming is Man-made, how will the planet be saved? What difference has Britain's reduction of CO2 emissions made? Life's to be lived and that's exactly what I do! :cool:

Another two for you to step-over, Weezer?

weezer 316
23-Jan-13, 17:12
What difference will it make? Well not much but it is a start and shows we aint the nation of ignoramouses we are slowly turning into it seems. Our energy will also be cheaper than anyone elses, and more effiencent.

And there you got again.....no miracle needed. Its been proven you simply havent bothered to get even a basic understadning of it or the issues involved as evidenced by the previous posts.

Not a clue, nor do I care, how I come accross. Fearful though would be the very last thing I would describe myself as, perhaps only before tall

M Swanson
23-Jan-13, 17:28
Okay, Lofty, I now have one of the questions answered! I'll settle for that and keep plugging away with my research! Thanks Weezer. :)

Flynn
23-Jan-13, 20:16
Watch 62 years of climate change in 13 seconds: http://exp.lore.com/post/41285996229/62-years-of-climate-change-in-13-seconds

Flynn
23-Jan-13, 20:25
How about the ice sheet at the poles? Do you know of any natural processes other than an increase in temperature that melts ice, with more and more melting every year? Can you explain why its shrinking, without guessing, and will disappear entirely in summer by 2040 at the north pole?

It isn't just at the poles the melting is happening. Greenland is now losing its ice mass: http://news.yahoo.com/modern-greenland-melt-echoed-126-000-old-ice-181047645.html

Neil Howie
23-Jan-13, 23:44
Everyone should definitely read Christopher Booker's "The Real Global Warming Disaster""

Let's hope his views on Global Warming are slightly better informed than his views on passive smoking, asbestos and BSE? Wiki here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker)

Couldn't even get the opening quote right!

ywindythesecond
24-Jan-13, 09:33
Let's hope his views on Global Warming are slightly better informed than his views on passive smoking, asbestos and BSE? Wiki here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker)

Couldn't even get the opening quote right!
You won't know unless you read it. (Christopher Booker's book "The real Global Warming Disaster") It isn't actually about his views, it is a fully referenced document about the process of fiddling the evidence to give the desired answer.

Rheghead
24-Jan-13, 09:41
Reputation is everything, mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker

Flynn
24-Jan-13, 11:00
Reputation is everything, mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker

Am I invisible or something? I posted this waaaay back in post #49. ;)

Rheghead
24-Jan-13, 13:19
You are certainly not invisible even though he doesn't post very often now.

secrets in symmetry
26-Jan-13, 01:18
"The deniers".

I have railed against the use of that particular word, as it is charged with the most oppressive and heavy negative associations. The only other area of human history and experience in which it has ever been used is with regard to the Jewish genocide conducted by the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s. It implies moral degeneracy as well as simply being wrong.

It is also absolute, not taking into account those who have doubts about the statements postulated by bodies of scientists, as well as those who see the facts presented in a different perspective. You have the absolutists, the cyclicalists, the accidentalists, the serendipitists, and the complete negativists. Sadly, all those categories outside of absolutists tend to be corralled under the same "deniers" banner.

Never has such an emotive word been used by those espousing an allegedly scientific approach, to the fear, harm and injury of the population at large.Yes, deniers.

Deniers, because they deny global warming.

Some deny it because it doesn't fit in with their everyday experience, their political beliefs, or their religion.

Some deny it for money.

Some deny it because the newspaper they write for denies it. Or because its owner, editor or readership denies it.

Some deny it because they don't know anything about it.

Some have tried to look at the evidence, but they don't understand it, so they deny it.

Some have looked for fellow deniers on the internet. They've found some lunatics who deny it and write about it. That's good enough for them.

Some deny it to stirrup debate on forums.

Some deny it because they're too stupid to do anything else.

Some deny it because they are liars. Like Judas was.

Some deny it because they're intellectually lazy. They could understand it if they put their minds to it, but they can't be bottomed.

Which sort of denier are you?

ywindythesecond
26-Jan-13, 01:56
Yes, deniers.

Deniers, because they deny global warming.

Some deny it because it doesn't fit in with their everyday experience, their political beliefs, or their religion.

Some deny it for money.

Some deny it because the newspaper they write for denies it. Or because its owner, editor or readership denies it.

Some deny it because they don't know anything about it.

Some have tried to look at the evidence, but they don't understand it, so they deny it.

Some have looked for fellow deniers on the internet. They've found some lunatics who deny it and write about it. That's good enough for them.

Some deny it to stirrup debate on forums.

Some deny it because they're too stupid to do anything else.

Some deny it because they are liars. Like Judas was.

Some deny it because they're intellectually lazy. They could understand it if they put their minds to it, but they can't be bottomed.

Which sort of denier are you?

I don't suppose there is any room for negotiation?

Rheghead
26-Jan-13, 11:49
Yes, deniers.

Deniers, because they deny global warming.

Some deny it because it doesn't fit in with their everyday experience, their political beliefs, or their religion.

Some deny it for money.

Some deny it because the newspaper they write for denies it. Or because its owner, editor or readership denies it.

Some deny it because they don't know anything about it.

Some have tried to look at the evidence, but they don't understand it, so they deny it.

Some have looked for fellow deniers on the internet. They've found some lunatics who deny it and write about it. That's good enough for them.

Some deny it to stirrup debate on forums.

Some deny it because they're too stupid to do anything else.

Some deny it because they are liars. Like Judas was.

Some deny it because they're intellectually lazy. They could understand it if they put their minds to it, but they can't be bottomed.

Which sort of denier are you?

Agree 100%, I've come across everyone of those.

macadamia
26-Jan-13, 12:00
Not as far as "secrets" is concerned. He is an absolutist, and therefore hackles will always rise when any other shade of opinion not entirely in line with his own belief is raised. He still doesn't understand that even if I agreed that "climate change" is largely a) incontrovertible fact and b) principally man-made, I would STILL object to the use of the particular word "Deniers" because of its contextual meaning.

I would agree if he were to use words like "avoiders", "abjurers", "nay-sayers", even "idiots who insist on their nonsense being true" - but please let us leave the word "denier" in the deeply meaningful context where it best resides.

secrets in symmetry
27-Jan-13, 00:02
Not as far as "secrets" is concerned. He is an absolutist, and therefore hackles will always rise when any other shade of opinion not entirely in line with his own belief is raised. He still doesn't understand that even if I agreed that "climate change" is largely a) incontrovertible fact and b) principally man-made, I would STILL object to the use of the particular word "Deniers" because of its contextual meaning.

I would agree if he were to use words like "avoiders", "abjurers", "nay-sayers", even "idiots who insist on their nonsense being true" - but please let us leave the word "denier" in the deeply meaningful context where it best resides.Yes, deniers.

Deniers deny the fate the planet will meet if climate change gets much worse, just like wartime holocaust deniers refused to believe man could treat his fellow man in such an inhuman fashion.

There are no hackles, no absolutism, and no arbitrary beliefs. There is only science. And the Nutty One saw that Science was good, and he became a Believer.

macadamia
27-Jan-13, 00:09
There is not only science. There is love, life, mystery, fun, eating, drinking, romance, faith, anger, laughter and so very much more. Your reductio ad absurdum "There is only science" is a silly remark to make. I guess (having been hoist by my own petard) that you must be a "me-denier". As me, I am not offended. The world is big enough for both of us!

Rheghead
27-Jan-13, 00:10
Yes, deniers.

Deniers deny the fate the planet will meet if climate change gets much worse, just like wartime holocaust deniers refused to believe man could treat his fellow man in such an inhuman fashion.

There are no hackles, no absolutism, and no arbitrary beliefs. There is only science. And the Nutty One saw that Science was good, and he became a Believer.

Yes, the kernel of truth looked good and was good!!

Rheghead
27-Jan-13, 00:11
There is not only science. There is love, life, mystery, fun, eating, drinking, romance, faith, anger, laughter and so very much more. Your reductio ad absurdum "There is only science" is a silly remark to make. I guess (having been hoist by my own petard) that you must be a "me-denier". As me, I am not offended. The world is big enough for both of us!

All explained by science.

secrets in symmetry
27-Jan-13, 00:12
There is not only science. There is love, life, mystery, fun, eating, drinking, romance, faith, anger, laughter and so very much more. Your reductio ad absurdum "There is only science" is a silly remark to make. I guess (having been hoist by my own petard) that you must be a "me-denier". As me, I am not offended. The world is big enough for both of us!Have you been watching Feynman lol?

You are a Nut, are you not?

macadamia
27-Jan-13, 00:21
Guilty as charged. But in my insanity I watch news bulletins and read newspapers with relatively oodles of "sane"candidates for the rubber room acting out their seriousness in the public gaze. Like the animals in the zoo, one is permanently asking the question who is watching who. Or whom, already! It is a matter of permanent amazement to me that an entire sector of the population can be so patently morally bankrupt, and still continue to function as human beings. It is only because of the prevailing fashions of the age. In three hundred years time, we'll all be back to worshipping a golden calf, smoking eighty a day, and driving our hovercraft under the influence of Soylent Green, whilst wearing uniform and burning books.

Then I find myself smiling. I guess I escaped having to do that. Life here in Brigadoon is SO much more simple and rewarding. And cheap. Thought is free.

Flynn
28-Jan-13, 11:46
If the Clathrate gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis) goes off, we'll all be living in interesting times.