Global Warming Do You Care?

[pantarei]

Spee and most other flat earther posters doubting the causes and mechanisms AGW on this thread are just plain ignorant of mainstream science and want to hear a theory that fits their own indivdual worldview and prejudices and it is probably too late to convince them any differently HS Mauberly. That is why I saw it was rather a waste of time and effort and gave up some 3 or 4 pages ago.

Nakhonsi Sean and Chloe are something rather different and present a pseudo-scientific front to feed dubious weblinks and ridiculous, outrageous statements to the likes of Spee, most of which have just served to get yours and Wilko's blood pressure up. Cool down and consider. The kind of claims that Chloe wrote down are just so extreme, I'm sure she is actually being paid by the oil industry or one of the neo-con institutes (e.g. Marshall) so prolific and flush with oil bucks in the States at the moment, that they're as sure to have local outlets in Thailand as McDonald's. They're in all likelihood being paid to write this crud of the first order. No proof. Just a hunch based on empirical observation.

Don't feel you have to deny or confirm.

I have read very few posts on this thread but this one caught my attention:

Plachon: “flat earther posters doubting the causes and mechanisms AGW on this thread are just plain ignorant of mainstream science and want to hear a theory that fits their own indivdual worldview and prejudices”.

Progress in science is generally made by non-conformists, not by mainstream scientists. Science is not politics; consensus and “mainstream” are irrelevant. Galileo, Einstein, etc., etc were not “mainstream” scientists and did not need approval from the mainstream. Only an extreme ignoreanus would invoke mainstream opinion in a discussion concerning science.

Here is an excerpt from a testimony on the use of “mainstream science” in global warming given by Professor Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur):

<<A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious `science` is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of ``experts.`` I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a `consensus of the world`s top scientists` on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.>>

Source:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2wee...0060505_26.html

Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control.

<< [Reiter] was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he "found [himself] at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] speciality". After resigning he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report.>>

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter

====================================================

Plachon: <<The kind of claims that Chloe wrote down are just so extreme, I'm sure she is actually being paid by the oil industry or one of the neo-con institutes (e.g. Marshall) so prolific and flush with oil bucks in the States at the moment, that they're as sure to have local outlets in Thailand as McDonald's. They're in all likelihood being paid to write this crud of the first order. No proof. Just a hunch based on empirical observation.>> WOW!!!

Interesting – only a hunch-meister can be confident (“I’m sure”) in making a statement with NO PROOF whatsoever.

What is the empirical observation the hunchman’s hunch was based on?? If the hunchman has a hunch that the “heretics” are paid by big oil/neocons, why can’t I not have a hunch that the hunch-meister is being paid by Uncle Al Gore or the UN to post his primitive crud?? Are hunchman’s hunches more accurate than a non-hunchman’s hunches?

Al Gore's next act: Planet-saving VC

The recovering politician is teaming with a legendary venture capitalist and bigtime moneyman to make over the $6 trillion global energy business. CNN

<<They argue that to halt global warming, nothing less will be required than a makeover of the $6 trillion global energy business. Coal plants, gas stations, the internal-combustion engine, petrochemicals, plastic bags, even bottled water will have to give way to clean, green, sustainable technologies. "What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo project, and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally," Gore continues. "It'd be promising too much to say we can do it on our own, but we intend to do our part.">>

source: http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsm...leiner.fortune/

Well, how much of the $6 trillion will end up in Uncle Al’s Swiss bank account?? The oil companies and the neo-cons should take lessons from the real Con Artist on how to pull off a global mega-rip off.

Oh, by the way – let’s take a look at Uncle Al’s science background.

<<For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.>>

source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...37397-2000Mar18

As far as I know, the Washington Post is not run by neocons or oil companies, no? =============================================================

<<On Friday's 20/20, ABC's John Stossel presented the views of scientists who dissent from the Al Gore view of global warming, including two former members of the IPCC -- the committee which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. These scientists disagreed with the selection process of the committee's members and some of its conclusions. The ABC host disputed some of the claims in An Inconvenient Truth, and even presented the view that increased carbon dioxide levels are the result of global warming, rather than the cause, as he took on Gore's famous graph from the movie: "But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this.">>

GORE: There is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others-

STOSSEL: The most impressive demonstration in Mr. Gore's movie is the big graph of carbon dioxide levels.

GORE: Here's what the temperature has been on our Earth. Now, one thing that kind of jumps out at you is: Did they ever fit together?

STOSSEL: My goodness! I knew that carbon dioxide's thought to amplify temperature increases, but this shows a clear cause and effect. For 600,000 years, when carbon rose, so did temperature. It suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this. Why should he when he and others say-

GORE: The debate's over.

Source: http://www.bridgerland.com/Forums/tabid/60...ic/Default.aspx

I assume that the hunchman would love to answer the following questions: (1) how was the “famous” graph of temperature vs carbon-dioxide levels generated (both the data and the graph) ? and (2) why has Uncle Al decided that the debate was over once the reporter challenged his conclusion??

I look forward to the hunchman’s post with a detailed interpretation of Uncle Al’s CO2-temperature graph. After seeing hunchman’s interpretation, I will post 2 hypotheses (not mine) that that would force Uncle Al to use his cretinous "the debate's over".

============================================================

Recent global warming is real. However, the Earth had experienced thousands and thousands of climatic cycles long before homo sapiens evolved. The unresolved issue is the human contribution to GW. IMO, the fact that the “believers” are unwilling to have an open and honest debate (NOT hide behind the ridiculous phrase: “the debate is over”) with the “heretics” implies that the believers do not have sufficient evidence for their claims. Another important issue is the fact that believers throw around many numbers – increase of temperature with time, 20.0 feet of sealevel rise, etc. How were the numbers generated?? Only imbeciles can believe these numbers. Anybody who is even vaguely familiar with modeling various Earth’s processes is aware that much of the input is based on assumptions, not on “hard” numbers/algorithms. The point is that many processes are not understood. If the calibration model is incorrect because of insufficient real data, how can future processes be forecasted? The input data can be easily manipulated to obtain a convenient outcome and get another grant. Scientists who get inconvenient conclusions are obviously stupid and/or bribed by big oil/neocons and do not deserve any grants from the Diss-United Nations and politically-correct science foundations.

There is no doubt that humans pollute the Earth. Before spending (wasting?) $6 trillion, some initiatives can be implemented to significantly reduce pollution. The cheapest and most effective approach is to implement a well-thought out conservation and recycling program (including a ban on SUVs) plus population control (?). Humans pollute the Earth - the fewer humans, the less pollution. Not convenient? Obviously, a $6 trillion rip off is more convenient. Hypotheses on anthropogenic GW have to be subjected to rigorous and honest scientific scrutiny to ensure that the grandiose plans of the Great Scientist “Al Ignor-Anus the First” make any sense. “The debate is over” is nonsense – there has never been an honest debate, but there is ample evidence that intimidation and threats are used to silence the “heretics”. BTW, there is unequivocal evidence that Gore has been actively involved in political suppression of REAL science.

[candoman89]

Global warming..............

snore snore

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[gzu88bv]

I just do not care about this Global Warming BS, but I definitely care about Pollution as such.

[altman]

STOSSEL: The most impressive demonstration in Mr. Gore's movie is the big graph of carbon dioxide levels.

GORE: Here's what the temperature has been on our Earth. Now, one thing that kind of jumps out at you is: Did they ever fit together?

STOSSEL: My goodness! I knew that carbon dioxide's thought to amplify temperature increases, but this shows a clear cause and effect. For 600,000 years, when carbon rose, so did temperature. It suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first.

no, it did not.

look at the graph.

blue is temperature. red is CO2. the time goes from left to right. past to present.

blue lags red. temperature follows CO2.

it is no wonder that Gore chose not to get into a debate about the obvious.

and for those who did not see the movie, the very large red line going up off the top of the chart is CO2 levels. the lower yellow mark is today's level. the yellow mark that is off the top of the chart is the level that is generally accepted by the scientific community as to be expected within 50 years.

since temperature does follow CO2, and never in the past 600,00 years has CO2 been so high, i can only wonder where the temperature will be in the very near future.

[HS Mauberley]

Pantarei – What a heated little post. Your criticism seems to fall into the falling areas. It should be noted that these have been and continue to be refuted on countless websites every hour of every day. The most cursory investigation – at least one motivated by an interest in facts, rather than one motivated by a desire to reinforce one’s prejudices – would reveal the following:

1. Science moves forward by the action of lone superheroes like Galileo and Einstein

Crap. Now that climate change denial is firmly on the scientific fringe, this ‘criticism’ is really the only option for those who wish to maintain at least the pretence that science is on their side. Of course Galileo and Einstein – and others – were extraordinary but it’s just not true to pretend that this is the model of modern science. More importantly, it’s simply fallacious reasoning to suggest that if progress has been made by lone individuals, all progress must be made by lone individuals. The human genome project is the work of hundreds of scientists in dozens of centres around the world. Does this make its work flawed? Of course not and it’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

2. IPCC process is flawed

Partly true but in the opposite direction. Because all participants in the drafting of the IPCC reports must agree, the contents are inherently conservative. Like all such reports, they represent the minimum which everyone can agree with. Recent work supports the idea that in some areas its forecasts have been gross underestimates (for example, work by James Hansen at NASA shows that the rate at which the Greenland ice shelf is melting is much faster than anticipated in previous IPCC reports.) What’s more, the process is open to political pressure. It’s well know that America and its Gulf allies have repeatedly watered down reports.

3. Personal criticism of Al Gore

Pointless and stupid. There’s no need to address this.

4. Criticism of Al Gore by a TV presenter

Dealt with comprehensively here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-temp-and-co2/

5. Grants

This gets trotted out over and over again despite the fact that there’s no evidence of its being true. The BBC recently carried out a little study on this and could find no support for the claim. In fact, given the claims made in point 1 (that progress in science is made by lone individuals, apart from the science establishment) this claim seems somewhat contradictory.

Something which might be of interest to climate sceptics is an article on the BBC entitled “Understanding the climate ostrich” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081882.stm Know thyself.

[plachon]

Oh dear, here we go again.........

For the benefit of Panterei, mogoso and a few others........

Back in the 1970's when James Lovelock, Charles Keeling and a handful of other pioneer (some maverick) climate scientists were taking the measurements and doing the maths which suggested a close correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature and were hypothesising that manmade contributions of CO2 and other pollutants could be leading to an enhanced "greenhouse effect", their findings and concerns were mostly dismissed as fringe science, not worthy of mainstream acceptance. However, with each passing year the data came pouring in and tended to support their case, while the power of computers increased allowing analysis of more complex relationships and scenarios.

Eventually, in the late 1980s and 90s the early canary warnings were taken more seriously and transformed into more "mainstream" science acceptance, despite strong opposition and obfuscation by the "science is not crisp" brigade that dominated US rightwing politics and controlled vast amounts of research funding, depserate to reduce pressure to reform on the dominant oil industry, with its legions of lobbyists, politicians and tame scientists working overtime to discredit the growing concensus. After all, there was an awful lot at stake.

However, independent scientists and those working for governments worldwide in the IPCC and other national climate research bodies could not be fooled by the minority of refuseniks and doubters, who gradually resorted to increasingly deperate measures and tactics to put their ever more extreme views across. Sowing seeds of confusion to a public sceptical of "science" in general, increases in taxes and government interference in private affairs in any fora they could was one tactic still left open to them. The result of this campaign (successful up to a point, in that a minority of the general public is very confused about the whole issue), can be seen clearly in this thread, which would provide a research student a lovely little thesis in the dynamics of doubt and extreme misinformation dissemination (cue Chloe's little gems, such as we're leaving this world a better place by pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).

We've been comparing the doubters to flat earth believers, but maybe this is a mistaken analogy, as there are so few if any, who still cling to this belief today as to be truly insignficant. But Creationists would be a far better analogy, as they form a sizable minority and possibly majority (?) in some mid-west States as to be quite a force to be reckoned with. And of course they hold dearly in their ranks a number of scientists (real and imagined), who are dutifully rolled forward (and provided healthy research grants) to disprove and discredit the theory of evolution. They are humoured in the mainstream press occasionally and given free reign in religious and other extreme media on a regular basis. My father laps this kind of stuff up when he reads the Catholic Herald and thinks dinosaurs and fossils are some kind of left-wing plot to disprove God. In this sense he is not much different from Spee and the OP who are desperate for anything with a resemblance to "authoritative science" to confirm their prejudices. However, he lacks a basic grounding in science to be able to understand the physics and chemistry involved and is too old now in any case to change his worldview. Pointless arguing with this type.

Others understand the basic science, but are either uneasy with the mainstream concensus for whatever reason (ideological or religious) and enjoy objecting, or are paid directly or indirectly to do so. I would love to see some figures on the number of oil industry lobbyists and pet campaigners employed in SE Asia. However, I won't hold my breath about anyone either holding or being prepared to release this data.

By the way, Panterei, the "hunch" comment was meant to be ironic. As you point out, a hunch like James Lovelock had has to pass a long series of peer review and scrutiny before it enters the mainstream. Thus, I will not state with any certainty that Chloe down on Sathorn or Nakhonsi Sean work in some shape or form with or for institutions that actively try to discredit the anthropomorhpic global warming mainstream science consensus. They would be unlikely to admit it if they were and anyone can deny their profession when it is a cause of some conflict of interest, so they should not be put on the spot.

When all is said and done, rational people will do their own background reading and make up their own minds on the causes and solutions to global warming and climate change.

[gregb]

What's more likely is that peak-oil (and, worse, peak-gas which is breathing down our necks) will precipitate a massive increase in coal-based energy (CTL, for example). Unfortunately, as far as the climate is concerned this will be an absolute disaster...

This is EXACTLY the point that needs serious consideration. All other questions pale beside this one. My feeling is that there is no escaping this. Peak oil will cause a supply constrained economy and global recession. In this environment, ANY energy source will be exploited to its maximum, and coal is the only one that has any hope of scalability.

Sequestration technologies will not be used. They're available today, and they aren't. Nobody wants to pay for them. End of story. They are too expensive and during an economic recession/depression with lack of vision into the future and shrinking capital available for investments, these kinds of technologies will simply be ignored.

So we can assume that any coal available will be used. Now, how much coal is really available? How quickly can we scale up production? Is it really the disaster we think, or is the problem with using coal so difficult that it simply doesn't matter? Politically, I think it is a lost cause to try and stop the use of coal. During the economic recessions caused by energy depletion, people simply won't care. This is human nature....the tragedy of the commons.

An honest assessment of global warming can not simply brush aside these issues. These are the ONLY issues. If use of coal turns out to be too difficult in practice, then we can stop wasting money on looking at this aspect of climate change and put it somewhere else where it generates more utility. On the other hand, if it is really true that there is more coal than we think, AND it is possible to scale it during a timeframe that causes an ecological disaster, then that message is extremely important.

The failure to address this fundamental issue makes the rest of the science uninteresting. I can create lots of computer models of different systems, but if they don't reflect the world we live in, why spend my time with it?

Again, everything in the global warming debate eventually comes down to this:

Once energy depletion forces the substitution of coal for oil (that's not an if, that's a when), how fast can coal be scaled? What will the likely net depletion/growth rate of carbon emissions be post peak while oil production is declining and coal use is increasing? Finally, what are the expected effects in this scenario?

That's the only one that really counts in my book. The rest is just useless political posturing. When scientists get serious and start investingating that, then they will have my attention.

BTW, my own opinion is that everyone over estimates the ability to substitute coal for oil. The depletion rate of oil IMHO will dramatically outweigh the increased use of coal. The capital investments for CTL plants are simply too extreme to make any serious impact. An entire economy would need to be rebuilt just to supply the FT reactors before anyone could even consider building CTL plants in mass. The engineering challenges are enormous. It won't happen. This is my prediction. Let's all get together again in 50 years to find out how I did.

For electric production, coal could with a little effort replace natural gas plants around the world. The question here becomes, during the period of extreme economic hardship, will anyone actually demand more of the electric grid, or will demand actually decrease? Remember, economies will be contracting. Historically this means less use of electricity.

These are very serious questions deserving very serious study. Everyone, including me, has theories, beliefs and anecdotal stories. Nobody has a strong, scientific argument to support their position. Until the climate change community stops preaching armeggedon and gets serious about looking at global realities, it's just a political excercise wasting taxpayer money. (I'm not saying the final result isn't armeggedon, but the current models simply don't represent reality so we have no way of knowing.)

And don't tell me all of this is new information that climate scientiests didn't know about 10 years ago. Peak oil has been obvious for decades, its just been a political sore point. Even now governments don't want to talk about it. The consequences are too gruesome. The only excuse for it not being included as a possibility in the models is political interference.

[gregb]

There is an interesting paper on this topic which I just came across.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/submit...cha_Hansen.html

They touch on this subject. Unfortunately, rather than running a full range of options, they basically assume that the overly optimistic government statistics are in fact the base case. They do have an interesting case d) which they call "Less Oil Reserves". Under their assumptions for coal emissions in this model they show max levels reaching 430 ppm right around 2040 and declining thereafter.

This is more of the kind of work which needs to be done. Now, what they need to do here is start with their "Less Oil Reserves" model, remove the politically unlikely model for coal that they assume, and start to run various models of coal usage around this. The first thing everyone needs to understand is that coal reserves, just like oil reserves, are probably inflated.

Of course, they give no justification for their selected coal usage model other than business as usual followed by political attempts at sequestering. As I've stated previously, I don't believe this has a chance of actually succeeding in an energy supply constrained world during a serious global economic recession. It might sound nice, just like butterflys and rainbows, but I want to stick with high probability events, and once we have a realistically probable picture then start to guage the impact on the environment.

This is at least a step in the right direction. Hope to see more of this. There is some interesting work here which is worthy of consideration.

[plachon]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO expressing concern about the impacts of climate change on the poor of Sub-Saharan Africa and how it appears that human-induced climate change trends may be irreversible by now. And a leading discussion point on Question Time with Richard Dimbleby concerned global warming and EU legislation.

Meanwhile my daughter learns about climate change and global warming in the Year 7 science curricula.

To be a climate change sceptic in UK must be a rather lonely fringe it seems. Better move out to Thailand now, where there's a bunch of other like-minded people who'll listen to your rants on the BBC, Al Gore, lefties, greenies, bloody scientists, eh?

[Spee]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO expressing concern about the impacts of climate change on the poor of Sub-Saharan Africa

What a big stinky steaming pile of steer manure! Millions of imporverished people who have no shelter, no food, no clean water, no medical care, no education, no future and are being killed or otherwise discriminated against by their central governments or out of control militias, don't give two sh*ts about climate change. How 'about this group of high-minded EU legislators doing something to help these people survive into next year?

Meanwhile my daughter learns about climate change and global warming in the Year 7 science curricula.

Further evidence that some segments of the teaching population are intent on pushing a political agenda to brainwash the next generation, rather than educating children with the fundamentals from which they may one day make their own decisions. It's borderline child abuse.

[wilko]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO expressing concern about the impacts of climate change on the poor of Sub-Saharan Africa

What a big stinky steaming pile of steer manure! Millions of imporverished people who have no shelter, no food, no clean water, no medical care, no education, no future and are being killed or otherwise discriminated against by their central governments or out of control militias, don't give two sh*ts about climate change. How 'about this group of high-minded EU legislators doing something to help these people survive into next year?

Meanwhile my daughter learns about climate change and global warming in the Year 7 science curricula.

Further evidence that some segments of the teaching population are intent on pushing a political agenda to brainwash the next generation, rather than educating children with the fundamentals from which they may one day make their own decisions. It's borderline child abuse.

Mr Spee - why do you think these "wars" and "famine" are breaking out every where?

People are fighting for power, power to control land with ever-decreasing resources - such as water, oil etc and this is all linked to CLIMATE CHANGE.

Edited November 18, 2007 by wilko

[lordofdelusion]

Here's alink to todays UN panels findings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_...ange_conference

I've had to listen to the right wing in the US for years fighting science for the benefit of big business. But then they are also the ones who insist on teaching the creation myth in science classes over evolution. Here are a couple of quotes from the article.

VALENCIA, Spain - Global warming is "unequivocal" and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an average rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world's top climate experts warned Saturday in their most authoritative report to date.

Chief U.S. delegate Sharon Hays said doubts have been dispelled. "What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call late Friday. She did not indicate that Washington would abandon its policy of voluntary emission cuts.

If the Bush administrations delegate said the above, then I'm afraid it's already too late.

[mogoso]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO

To be a climate change sceptic in UK must be a rather lonely fringe it seems. Better move out to Thailand now, where there's a bunch of other like-minded people who'll listen to your rants on the BBC, Al Gore, lefties, greenies, bloody scientists, eh?

Its better to be on the fringe and be correct than to be part of the myrmidons following the pied piper. No ones ranting about Al Gore, his use of half baked ideas and outright lies to gain a peace prize, his idea of cutting back on his "carbon footprint" is to buy carbon offsets rather than cutting back on his life style, lend an clownishness to the man. How many houses do you need.

I hope to be around in 20 years laughing at how foolish most folks were when they realize they've been duped

[wilko]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO

To be a climate change sceptic in UK must be a rather lonely fringe it seems. Better move out to Thailand now, where there's a bunch of other like-minded people who'll listen to your rants on the BBC, Al Gore, lefties, greenies, bloody scientists, eh?

Its better to be on the fringe and be correct than to be part of the myrmidons following the pied piper. No ones ranting about Al Gore, his use of half baked ideas and outright lies to gain a peace prize, his idea of cutting back on his "carbon footprint" is to buy carbon offsets rather than cutting back on his life style, lend an clownishness to the man. How many houses do you need.

I hope to be around in 20 years laughing at how foolish most folks were when they realize they've been duped

Yeah....like this guy's going to come on TV and say

"Sorry folks - APRIL FOOL!...heh, Mogoso well done! Here's your lolly!

[xyborg]

<br />

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO expressing concern about the impacts of climate change on the poor of Sub-Saharan Africa

<br />What a big stinky steaming pile of steer manure! Millions of imporverished people who have no shelter, no food, no clean water, no medical care, no education, no future and are being killed or otherwise discriminated against by their central governments or out of control militias, don't give two sh*ts about climate change. How 'about this group of high-minded EU legislators doing something to help these people survive into next year?<br /><br />

Meanwhile my daughter learns about climate change and global warming in the Year 7 science curricula. <img src="style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

<br />Further evidence that some segments of the teaching population are intent on pushing a political agenda to brainwash the next generation, rather than educating children with the fundamentals from which they may one day make their own decisions. It's borderline child abuse.<br />

<br /><br /><br />Mr Spee - why do you think these "wars" and "famine" are breaking out every where?<br />People are fighting for power, power to control land with ever-decreasing resources - such as water, oil etc and this is all linked to CLIMATE CHANGE.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Greed I think.

[xyborg]

At the end of all the arguing you have to remember TIME how old are the oldest records using Ice cores or any other method?? Age of planet about 4.7 billion years, age of man on earth?? a few million. If you have records going back 20 million years even then its just a tiny fraction of the total earth history. Would you base any other argument on such a small sample?

[xyborg]

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole"

Can you prove to me this does not effect temperatures on Earth? What if it did???? We dont even know what it is??

[xyborg]

Then there is this report http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

[Doza]

The problem is, we can't afford to risk sitting back and continuing to polute the atmosphere with GHGs such as CO2 because we aren't 100% sure about the full impact on the climate man has. If we wait for every scientist to agree on it - it could be too late! We need to take action now because there is enough evidence to suggest a very strong link. Its crazy to sit back and say we don't need to worry about it because we can't imfluence the climate. The greenhouse effect is very simple. GHGs are important and keep us warm. Too many will easily make us too warm.

There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.

Climate remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

Some of the smartest words from one of the traditionally slowest companies to act on the issue....ExxonMobil

And no, reducing emissions does not have to mean economic disaster.

[HS Mauberley]

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole"

Can you prove to me this does not effect temperatures on Earth? What if it did???? We dont even know what it is??

What is the point? Having exchanges like this with climate change deniers is like having an argument on the relative merits of deontological and consequentialist ethics with a 5-year old; whatever you say you’re going to make no progress. Yeah you win, dark matter (so named because it neither emits nor reflects electo-magnetic radiation) is the cause climate change. Please tell me that you don't have children. On the plus side, you've achieved the improbable feat of making Chloe's psychotic outbursts seem reasoned.

[plachon]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO expressing concern about the impacts of climate change on the poor of Sub-Saharan Africa

What a big stinky steaming pile of steer manure! Millions of imporverished people who have no shelter, no food, no clean water, no medical care, no education, no future and are being killed or otherwise discriminated against by their central governments or out of control militias, don't give two sh*ts about climate change. How 'about this group of high-minded EU legislators doing something to help these people survive into next year?

The World Health Organisation has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union, so I don't follow your logic Spee. Somebody help the lad out, because I'm at a loss with imbeciles like this.

Meanwhile my daughter learns about climate change and global warming in the Year 7 science curricula.

Further evidence that some segments of the teaching population are intent on pushing a political agenda to brainwash the next generation, rather than educating children with the fundamentals from which they may one day make their own decisions. It's borderline child abuse.

It's not "some segments of the teaching population" or anything to do with politics Spee. Britain is a little bit more mature than that. It's adult science teachers with degrees in science all over the UK teaching about the basics of climate science and global warming. They don't seem to have a problem about it - why do you? If you think it is "borderline child abuse" there are clear laws about that, so why not take your case to your local MP and ask him/her to take it up.

[thaipete]

I think they should start taxing fresh air ! That wouldn't affect people living in Bangkok though

Seriously though, I don't give a flying one, I'll be long gone by the time the planet starts to rot, and I don't intend on having any kids

Selfish, but honest !

So true Roo, all the complainers here will still get in their cars and drive to the local store

[thaipete]

many enviromentally correct cars etc. have been invented buy are shelved by governments who thrive on collecting the money from gas

[xyborg]

<br />

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole"<br /><br />Can you prove to me this does not effect temperatures on Earth? What if it did???? We dont even know what it is??

<br /><br />What is the point? Having exchanges like this with climate change deniers is like having an argument on the relative merits of deontological and consequentialist ethics with a 5-year old; whatever you say you're going to make no progress. Yeah you win, dark matter (so named because it neither emits nor reflects electo-magnetic radiation) is the cause climate change. Please tell me that you don't have children. On the plus side, you've achieved the improbable feat of making Chloe's psychotic outbursts seem reasoned.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Likewise

[xyborg]

<br />

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole"<br /><br />Can you prove to me this does not effect temperatures on Earth? What if it did???? We dont even know what it is??

<br /><br />What is the point? Having exchanges like this with climate change deniers is like having an argument on the relative merits of deontological and consequentialist ethics with a 5-year old; whatever you say you're going to make no progress. Yeah you win, dark matter (so named because it neither emits nor reflects electo-magnetic radiation) is the cause climate change. Please tell me that you don't have children. On the plus side, you've achieved the improbable feat of making Chloe's psychotic outbursts seem reasoned.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I dont have children (should make you happy) and dont have to resort to insults becauseI dont believe in your arguments for global warmings causes

[xyborg]

<br />The problem is, we can't afford to risk sitting back and continuing to polute the atmosphere with GHGs such as CO2 because we aren't 100% sure about the full impact on the climate man has. If we wait for every scientist to agree on it - it could be too late! We need to take action now because there is enough evidence to suggest a very strong link. Its crazy to sit back and say we don't need to worry about it because we can't imfluence the climate. The greenhouse effect is very simple. GHGs are important and keep us warm. Too many will easily make us too warm.<br /><br /><i>There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.<br /><br />Climate remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. <b>The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks,</b> keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. </i><br /><br />Some of the smartest words from one of the traditionally slowest companies to act on the issue....ExxonMobil<br /><br />And no, reducing emissions does not have to mean economic disaster.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I dont think so I think these companies now see a majority believing in us as the cause and see that this majority is the only way to increase their profits no doubt they will bring out some product they claim is enviro friendly just like the dumb rail companies in the uk saying to go on the train its so green as its electric???? Or the electric companies telling us their power is eco friendly because they use natural gas to power the turbines. It has become big business, very big.

[xyborg]

<br />

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole"<br /><br />Can you prove to me this does not effect temperatures on Earth? What if it did???? We dont even know what it is??

<br /><br />What is the point? Having exchanges like this with climate change deniers is like having an argument on the relative merits of deontological and consequentialist ethics with a 5-year old; whatever you say you're going to make no progress. Yeah you win, dark matter (so named because it neither emits nor reflects electo-magnetic radiation) is the cause climate change. Please tell me that you don't have children. On the plus side, you've achieved the improbable feat of making Chloe's psychotic outbursts seem reasoned.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I have never denied climate change I am denying our influence on it but you seem lost in your hatred for my or other "deniers" point of view. I shall desist so you dont have a coronanry.

[plachon]

<br />The problem is, we can't afford to risk sitting back and continuing to polute the atmosphere with GHGs such as CO2 because we aren't 100% sure about the full impact on the climate man has. If we wait for every scientist to agree on it - it could be too late! We need to take action now because there is enough evidence to suggest a very strong link. Its crazy to sit back and say we don't need to worry about it because we can't imfluence the climate. The greenhouse effect is very simple. GHGs are important and keep us warm. Too many will easily make us too warm.<br /><br /><i>There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.<br /><br />Climate remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. <b>The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks,</b> keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. </i><br /><br />Some of the smartest words from one of the traditionally slowest companies to act on the issue....ExxonMobil<br /><br />And no, reducing emissions does not have to mean economic disaster.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I dont think so I think these companies now see a majority believing in us as the cause and see that this majority is the only way to increase their profits no doubt they will bring out some product they claim is enviro friendly just like the dumb rail companies in the uk saying to go on the train its so green as its electric???? Or the electric companies telling us their power is eco friendly because they use natural gas to power the turbines. It has become big business, very big.

I know it's big, VERY BIG! and we should be scared, VERY SCARED! Oh, the gall of those nasty, big electricity companies using marketing to tell us dumb sheep consumers to switch to "green power". Whatever next? Car companies telling us to buy their cars as they have catalytic converters or do less mpg than other brands? Bus companies urging us to take the bus instead or our car? Or media moguls telling their staff to adapt their worldviews to a new green reality. And it's all a big capitalist conspiracy to make us believe in the global warming lie, which as we all know was all made up by Al Gore and a hidden clique of muesli-munching, sandal-wearing, long-haired hippies, in their secret HQ hidden under Stonehenge. But we're too smart for them here on TV, eh? We've exposed their devious tricks and theories as lies. We sceptics won't be fooled any longer!!!!!!

[plachon]

And on the subject of the oft-cited bias in climate change research, somebody has tested this for validity and found little:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

"But oh no! I can't read that! It's on the BBC's website and we all know they're biased and part of the left-wing/capitalist/UK aristocratic/Gorian/greenie plot to force us to believe in AGW". You can't fool Xyborg and friends, they know a trick when they see one.

[plachon]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO

To be a climate change sceptic in UK must be a rather lonely fringe it seems. Better move out to Thailand now, where there's a bunch of other like-minded people who'll listen to your rants on the BBC, Al Gore, lefties, greenies, bloody scientists, eh?

Its better to be on the fringe and be correct than to be part of the myrmidons following the pied piper. No ones ranting about Al Gore, his use of half baked ideas and outright lies to gain a peace prize, his idea of cutting back on his "carbon footprint" is to buy carbon offsets rather than cutting back on his life style, lend an clownishness to the man. How many houses do you need.

I hope to be around in 20 years laughing at how foolish most folks were when they realize they've been duped

Oh yes, I'm sure the vast majority of the world's scientists, the UN, numerous captain's of industry and mass media, Al Gore and now, even Gordon Brown and the British government (a G7 nation no less) will all be gnashing their teeth and clenching their fists in 20 years time thinking how stupid they look, having been duped over the causes of global warming and if only they'd listened to mogoso, Spee, Xyborg, Chloe and Nakhonsi Sean then they could have saved themselves the embarrassment of these announcements by not reigning in CO2 emissions.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20071119/tuk-...-dba1618_1.html

They'll be saying, "Darn, how we wished we'd ignored the pesky climate scientists and gone with the sceptics like Chloe who told us it was postively good to pour CO2 into the atmosphere and pollute the world."