Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.
Printable View
Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.
Absolutely, and there's nothing we can do to stop it in it's tracks. The difference we, as a race, have made on the global climate change is negligible, and will continue to be negligible.
This whole Man-made Global Warming is a myth, perpetuated by money-hungry reactionaries in Government and their chosen 'advisors'.
Have a read here, and learn about Multi-Decadal Oscillation.
I've really no desire to get into another one of these debates, that being said:
As a fan of science and reason, I question Al Gore and his ilk; the environmentalist movement seems to have been taken over by political groups pushing social agendas, they doctor reports, intimidate and generally act like fundamentalists.
Just to be clear based on what I've read - I believe the climate is changing as it has done so naturally in the past and that human influence is negligible.
Rather than me paraphrasing I offer these as a rebuttal to An Inconvenient Truth.
Penn & Teller: Bullshit - being green (Google Video - 28 minutes)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video - 1 hour 16 minutes)
EDIT: I should probably add that I do believe we should research alternative forms of energy and recycling, but thats just because research in itself is good and we may find something more efficient or cheaper.
I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish. :lol:
See now you're acting just like a creationist, its just like watching Stavro argue the existence of god.
My sources are proper science... not pseudo-science how can my sources sell stuff they basically say everything is all right. I never believed in it before the recent scandal and I'm so confident in my position and the evidence that I'll even give the guy a pass on that one situation.
It is your sources that use scare tactic headlines to sell
It is your sources where supposed teams of scientists are stacked with liberal arts majors
It is your sources, that when they do have proper scientists, doctor reports and then don't allow people to remove their names
It is your sources that have been peddling the same stuff repackaged since the 1900's
I take great offence that you assume I haven't researched and read and that your point is correct because you believe it, I look critically and skeptically on everything.
I'd personally like to stick it to large monolithic energy companies, but thats a political opinion, the science just isn't there.
You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation? This has been known since 19th century. In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly. What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere? It isn't really rocket science.
Climate change clearly isn't tosh, the climate has consistently been changing. A fact I'm happy to accept.
The headlines and scandal I'm not subscribing too is that we need to handover more taxpayers money to large corporations under the guise of subsidies.
Even in Caithness we have residents brokering deals to cash in on subsidies, ahem, sorry, to make deals to save the planet.
And then fly off round Europe in a private jet.
Now if you take your headlines (based on scientific fact of course) aviation is apparently the single most contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and we're all gonna get taxed if we want to take a flight shared with a few hundred other people.
But, if you have your own windfarm subsidised from our taxes you can fly around in your own comfort tax free :cool:
Hmmmm
I'd go with the facts too. If you can actually find them.
Wow I've been quoted out of context again, I was clearly talking about about a body of evidence designed to make a particular point and not the nature of CO2 - a vast majority of which comes from volcanoes, forest fire and plant decay ... so many parallels with another thread... I'm just bowing out at this point. I'm not qualified to deal with this particular level of stupidity.
between the turds on the carpet and 'fudge factors' in the computer climate model programs something is really beginning to hit the fan! Lmao. Lots of uncomfortable i told you sos' and job vacancies at the cru coming soon! Www.climaterealists.com
I so wish my late husband was around to answer this thread. He was an environmental scientist. He often used to say that many people that 'talk' on the 'Global Warming' issue had it all wrong it was 'Climate Change' for a start and that many others simply failed to understand the subject and should not be allowed to speak on the subject in public. In his working life he was part if IPPC BAT and IPTS and JRC. If any is interested in his work mail me and I will give you his name to google. He did not blow his own trumpet, a shy man who left an amazing legacy to us all. ( These are not my words but those of work colleagues all over the world)
The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph.
Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels.
Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever.
Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence.
How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth.
When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.
I'm no that bothered about Global warming. I know this back end has been the mildest in caithness for a long time so I'm all for it. Whats interesting here though is how I am beginning to swing with the conspiracy theorists. Normally I wouldnt touch them with a barge pole against the scientists but I think the nos have it, the nos have it. ;)
Very sad or it's a wind up. :lol: And it's working... [para] [smirk]
I don't think anyone is shrugging it off as if nothing is changing and all is tickety boo.
The climate is changing and we all need to be aware of that. Humankind is spewing out all sorts of emissions and we need to do something about it also.
However I don't see myself as a conspiracy theorist but, as with many things, money is blurring the issue. And one thing I do know a little about is what happens when money becomes involved in research of any kind, for or against.
You pay for the results you want.
It's a long standing game in business, introduce "independent" research via politicians which suggest something bad is going to happen unless we throw money at it.
Where does the money come from? You, me, average bloke n' wifey getting taxed on something.
Where does the money go? To the corporations providing the equipment and services to prevent the bad stuff from happening.
Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can keep money moving and create jobs etc.
Being seen to be "Green" is fashionable and media friendly, so it's worth the likes of Asda Walmart to join the subsidy party and fly half way around the world in a nice big CO2 belching jet to look for prime chunks of Caithness & Sutherland to carve up so they can cash in on the grants from the govt to plant windmills.
They can then tell all their customers ('cept up 'ere) that they are a jolly nice company concerned about the planet.
Double bonus, they can count the windfarm twice to get more money from the gov'ts. Once in the UK and again in the US.
Funny, while out the other day out of 7 windymills I saw only 1 was turning, quite a windy day too.
The're not very reliable either.
Ooh yeah, Acid rain.
I did wonder what happened to that one.