Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Best to ignore the angry chav

Sure, if faked pictures and name-calling doesn't work then you've clearly not nothing else to go on.

The earth is on track to becoming the hottest it has been at any time in the past 11,000 years, a period spanning the history of human civilisation, a study says.

Based on fossil samples and other data collected from 73 sites around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct the history of the planet's temperature from the end of the last Ice Age around 11.3 millennia ago to the present.

They have determined that the past 10 years have been hotter than 80 per cent of the past 11,300 years.

Earth to be hottest in millennia: study

Reid Bryson

"Honors and awards

Bryson was made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program in 1990.[2]
[edit]Views

Bryson's main contribution to the debate on climate change was the idea of "the human volcano" causing global cooling, via an increase in aerosol loading.[2] This idea was sparked in 1962 by his own observation, while flying across India en route to a conference, that his view of the ground was blocked not by clouds but by dust. At the time, the instrumental temperature record did not show unambiguous warming and the view that the earth might be cooling, and heading for further cooling, was not unreasonable. Others, including Hubert Lamb, who created a Dust Veil Index,[3] thought volcanoes were more responsible for global-scale aerosol.[4]
In later years, when it was clear that the climate was indeed warming, Bryson argued that while climate change and a global increase in temperature are real, he did not believe that they are caused by human activity. Rather, he argued that they are part of natural global climate cycles, particularly the end of the Little Ice Age:
"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd," Bryson continues. "Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Anyway, how is it possible that most of the old crony "scientists" were warning about an Ice Age in the 1970's, are now warning against Death By Global Warming now? Better computers to fake their models perhaps? lol

Climate change on Earth has been happening for millions of years and will continue. Currently in a warming phase but not to worry this too shall pass. In few million years another ice age will peak leaving a good portion of northern and southern hemispheres under an ice cap. No doubt a "brown movement" will emerge claiming it must be stopped by creating a greenhouse effect. Burning more fossil fuels will be en vogue.

Whether or not human-induced warming will pass is unknown and depends on climate sensitivity, how much carbon is eventually released (if, for example, the tar sands and shale oil are completely burnt and whether or not this pulls the trigger on the clathrate gun), where the equilibrium points in the climate system are, and so on. It's possible that we could trigger a Venus-type hothouse world from which there is essentially no going back. My understanding is that this is not a likely outcome (though Hansen claims it's a certainty if we burn all our fossil carbon) but it's not an impossibility. And burning fossil fuels doesn't only warm the planet, it also acidifies the oceans (which is going on right now) so using it to reverse some imagined future cooling would be the height of stupidity. This is because oceanic acidification inhibits shell-formation and that has massive knock-on consequences for the whole oceanic food chain.

Everything I've looked at indicates the climate is warming and Co2 is a factor. Our burning of fossil fuels contributes to an increase in Co2. Fair enough but even if us humans completely eliminated our contribution to the green house effect, the Earth will do what it has always done. Warm and then cool and there is not a damn thing us puny humans can do to stop it.

This is an extremely common misunderstanding. There is a massive difference between the speed of warming which occurs naturally and that which has anthropogenic origins so trying to draw some kind of equivalence between the two is ridiculous. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was, until the current era, the most extreme warming event in the planet's history. It happened 50-odd million years and lead to warming of 6 to 9 degrees (which, if it happened again, would have unbelievably dire consequences for almost everybody who was unfortunate enough to be alive). This took place over 10,000 - 20,000 years. On current trends, we're looking at that level of warming over a few hundred years, though there are also low probability forecasts of that level of warming happening by the end of this century. This is the difference between the planet being punched in the face and a fist shooting into the planet's face at 1000 miles an hour. So all warming is not equal and while the planet will get slapped whatever we do, we are choosing to shoot it with a fucking howitzer. This is our responsibility and something over which we have a choice.

The biggest value the greens bring is the development of renewable energy sources. Eliminating our dependance on non renewable, finite energy sources is far more important to our long term survival as a species than the folly we can reverse climate change as some would have us believe.

Again, this is wrong. Renewable energy would be good but it's not a necessity. Modern humans got by for tens of thousands of years without solar panels and wind turbines. They've never got by without a habitable planet. And, again, we can stop the warming which we are causing and that is a wholly different thing from stopping the planet's climate changing over multi-million year timescales.

Well it's time for Nuclear power then - I assume all of the Gore Worshippers will allow Iran to have their nuclear power stations then? Be out in the streets supporting that?

"clathrate gun" - it's a theory. It's a hypothesis. It's the name given to a potential result as modelled. Why is it called a "gun" as opposed to the Kennett, Cannariato, Hendy, and Behl Hypothesis for Methane Release or something similar? Well where is the fear factor in that.

Now, I wonder if, having popped in some different junk into the computer model, this same model could argue that the released gas in is replaced with water, and as such the sea level will fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No more water!!!!!!!!!!!!! What about the fish? ????????????? The Dolphins????? Save the whales!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a serious note, I would willingly accept all of this junk science from the climate fear camp and all of this stuff if two things happened;

1) No tax / no carbon credits - no enrichment of any sort by / of any government / world agency / Individuals / Bankers / Banking group happened by trying to "green" the world.
2) Al Gore left the scene and gave all of the money he has made from it back to the cause. There are thousands of people fighting causes in the world for free. Him earning 300m USD from this is the biggest illustration that it is all bullshit and quite frankly, it is nauseating.

^Have you written Mr. Gore with your offer?

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Again, this is wrong. Renewable energy would be good but it's not a necessity.

When existing finite energy sources are gone, it will certainly be a necessity. Of course by then it will be too late.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

This is an extremely common misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding being climate is not warming or Co2 does not contribute to warming?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Well it's time for Nuclear power then

For the moment it is the most practical energy alternative to offset fossil fuel energy sources. Aside from probs containing spent nuclear fuel it is not renewable.

Originally Posted by robuzo

^Have you written Mr. Gore with your offer?

I think he has reecived this message before from many others. He doesn't care though as he is making too much money. I wonder if he still travels about with his fridge full of blood?

When existing finite energy sources are gone, it will certainly be a necessity. Of course by then it will be too late.

Assuming culturally modern humans appeared 40,000 years ago, we've enjoyed high-energy lifestyles for a lot less than 1% of our history. Lots of people still don't. It would be nice to have an energy-intensive lifestyle but it's not a necessity (and, in fact, in any likely future, it's not a possibility, at least from the standpoint of the early 21st century). What's much more important than maintaining high-energy inputs is a stable environment. That seems obvious to me.

Misunderstanding being climate is not warming or Co2 does not contribute to warming?

Sorry. I should have been clearer. The misunderstanding that there is some continuity between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. We are releasing carbon at a rate greater by an order of magnitude than the previous fastest release. That is a massive difference.

Originally Posted by pseudo

"clathrate gun" - it's a theory. It's a hypothesis. It's the name given to a potential result as modelled. Why is it called a "gun" as opposed to the Kennett, Cannariato, Hendy, and Behl Hypothesis for Methane Release or something similar? Well where is the fear factor in that.

Ha ha! Fantastic stuff. Anyway, nice to see you are reading my posts. What's the answer? 1, 2, or 3?

I wonder if he still travels about with his fridge full of blood?

I heard that he's replaced it with essential oil extracted from the corpses of 13-year-old Peruvian virgins. You get it with Nectar points when you buy carbon credits. I thought you would know this.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Religion to a degree has failed, and what better way is there to get everyone and all religions on board to fear the end of the world due to climate change.

Ahh, so there's some shadowy cabal that has co-opted the world's scientific community in a nefarious plot to drive everyone to... religion??

^So you deny that climate change is a belief of some sort. Is this knowledge not passed on from those you believed to be in the know? Do we not put some sort of blind faith in these people?

Once again, you're trying to turn a comment into a conspiracy relation.

Religion to a degree has failed, and what better way is there to get everyone and all religions on board to fear the end of the world due to climate change.

What better way is there to get people to shut down their critical faculties than to label everything you don't like or understand 'religion'. This is a question of data and theories to describe that data. There's nothing religious about it. What does come much closer to religion are: facile and asinine comments about people tangentially involved in the science; claims that we couldn't change the climate because we're too small; rubbish about conspiracies; a preference for simplistic, easily-understood explanations over the complex and involved; an overwhelming desire to believe facts about the world which preserve self-image over those which actually explain it, and so on. No doubt those who accept the science shade off into religious belief but those who reject it do so for motives which are far closer to religion than they are to science. And if you want evidence, read this thread.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

So you deny that climate change is a belief of some sort. Is this knowledge not passed on from those you believed to be in the know? Do we not put some sort of blind faith in these people?

Lots of things are beliefs: for instance I currently believe that I am hungry; that my wife and kids love me; and that the Highlanders are going to crush the Cheetahs in the rugby this weekend.

None of those things are remotely like a 'religious belief'... With the possible exception of the last one... But even then that's based mostly on empirical and objective reasoning.

Originally Posted by pseudo

I would willingly accept all of this junk science from the climate fear camp and all of this stuff if two things happened;

1) No tax / no carbon credits - no enrichment of any sort by / of any government / world agency / Individuals / Bankers / Banking group happened by trying to "green" the world.
2) Al Gore left the scene and gave all of the money he has made from it back to the cause. There are thousands of people fighting causes in the world for free. Him earning 300m USD from this is the biggest illustration that it is all bullshit and quite frankly, it is nauseating.

That's quite an admission. You'd accept a scientific proposition if it has no consequences for your tax bill and if someone you don't like stops saying it. You do know what 'science' is, don't you? The truth of these propositions is not a function of whose mouth they come out of or how much it's going to cost you. Evolution wouldn't be false if it doubled the cost of a pint of milk or if Darwin had been a raging anti-Semite with a taste for bestiality. But at least your honesty shows the absurd stupidity of those who scream loudest about 'junk science'.

^You seem the type that believes all those that are in denial toward climate change foul the Earth. As I've said in another thread I can bet your bottom dollar I do more than many preachers of this flawed science. We can all provide data which is for and against, but it's up to you to take your pick. But for me, my gut tells me this is wrong. I just cannot believe the hypocrisy of these people. They tell us we are in a sinking ship and that taxes and carbon taxes will plug the holes and be the solution to all our troubles.

Commercialism also tells a completely different story. We can all argue about each and every country's GDP and how important it is. But what about manufacturing over the recent years. More economical cars for instance which we are coerced into replacing every 6 months or year.. What about the production of these vehicles and cars existing prior. It's not as if they are destroyed to further limit their impact on the planet! Normally a person will sell their car (passing the buck) or they may keep it. And what for electronics and the production that's involved to make new models every 6 months etc?

The owners of these companies tend to sit round the same table with politicians pushing climate change.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

So you deny that climate change is a belief of some sort. Is this knowledge not passed on from those you believed to be in the know? Do we not put some sort of blind faith in these people?

Lots of things are beliefs: for instance I currently believe that I am hungry; that my wife and kids love me; and that the Highlanders are going to crush the Cheetahs in the rugby this weekend.

None of those things are remotely like a 'religious belief'... With the possible exception of the last one... But even then that's based mostly on empirical and objective reasoning.

Now you're just being silly, aren't you?

BTW. You don't believe you are hungry, you know. And why is that? Because your gut tells you so!

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Now you're just being silly, aren't you?

Sillier than trying to link a consensual scientific theory to some type of religious dogma? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

BTW. You don't believe you are hungry, you know. And why is that? Because your gut tells you so!

I believe that I am hungry because my diet is based on a strict scientifically-based regimen, calculated down to the last calorie/gram/macro nutrient, based upon my resting metabolic rate and daily calorie burn, and being that it is now 1:16hrs since the last (and 0:44min until the next) of my six daily meals I therefore believe that I am hungry because experience and knowledge tells me that I should be right about now. Or something like that.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Originally Posted by pseudo

I would willingly accept all of this junk science from the climate fear camp and all of this stuff if two things happened;

1) No tax / no carbon credits - no enrichment of any sort by / of any government / world agency / Individuals / Bankers / Banking group happened by trying to "green" the world.
2) Al Gore left the scene and gave all of the money he has made from it back to the cause. There are thousands of people fighting causes in the world for free. Him earning 300m USD from this is the biggest illustration that it is all bullshit and quite frankly, it is nauseating.

That's quite an admission. You'd accept a scientific proposition if it has no consequences for your tax bill and if someone you don't like stops saying it. You do know what 'science' is, don't you? The truth of these propositions is not a function of whose mouth they come out of or how much it's going to cost you. Evolution wouldn't be false if it doubled the cost of a pint of milk or if Darwin had been a raging anti-Semite with a taste for bestiality. But at least your honesty shows the absurd stupidity of those who scream loudest about 'junk science'.

You miss the point completely - usually the case with the climate liars. Ken Lay was involved in setting this scam running....just remember that....

Will say again - the climate is changing. Actually though, it does not matter which is true whether it is human or natural which is speeding things up, if indeed things are speeding up (it is only computer models showing this, and the peer review process is severely compromised in climate fear research). Global warming whatever its cause will disrupt much of what we as human beings do. We need to remove the fear from the debate (aka, Gore and his banker buddies) and say OK, it is happening, what will be the real impact.

Climate tax and carbon credits will have NO impact at all. All they will do is make Gore and his bank buddies richer (World bank proposed as the collection place - THE PRIVATELY OWNED world bank, you might like to note in that it is run by the PRIVATE central banks of the world).

Ignoring the heat change which is neither hear nor there, they need to be working out who will lose a few feet from the front of their country if the sea does rise and move the people who will be affected. Again, they are not doing this. This is where the investment needs to be though.

So if they are not actually planning for it happening, which everyone says it is happening, and only arguing about why, what are they doing?

They are spreading fear, generating personal wealth, and control which is their only agenda.

Now if you want a loony conspiracy theory to go with this (I know you do want one) the owners of the world (yup, you know the ones, Rothschilds, Rockefeller's etc) want to depopulate the world by 80%. The climate change dudes policies will actually achieve this for them over the next 50 years in their target areas of Asia, south America, and Africa. Happy days - Mass murder with no smoking gun

(This last part was brought to you because you expect it to be there).

You miss the point completely

The point is that you seemingly have no grasp of anything related to this topic and you also - and this is a lot worse - have no understanding of what it is for a scientific proposition to be true. And this isn't some invention or misunderstanding of mine. It's there in your own words right in front of you now.

One problem with not knowing what you're talking about is that you come out with appalling rubbish like this:

Ken Lay was involved in setting this scam running....just remember that....

Climate science dates back to the 19th century and the work of Svante Arrhenius. Ken Lay didn't invent it and he has exactly nothing to do with it. But that's all somewhat beside the point, as is the rest of your post which is just a repeat of the tedious, uninformed, paranoid drivel which you've clogged this thread up with already.

1, 2 or 3? It's a simple question so what's the answer?

The scam is making money from it, and not doing anything to combat it.

Mr Pompous Zoo man - no one says the climate is not changing. Gore CATEGORICALLY was discussing in the 90's how to make money out of it with Ken Lay. They came up with the cap and trade idea which Gore had in mind when he made 18m out his busted chicago exchange.

Climate liars constantly ignore what is in front of their noses, and when things don't go their way, they forget what they predicted.

Go and plant a forest. Go and tell the Indonesians to stop sutting their down. Go and advise the dutch to move in land a tad. Go and do something other than jam a load of rhetoric bullshit from made up models down our throats - none of the shit you bang on about matters because nothing can be done about it. The only reason this debate exists is because is generates FEAR and that in turn delivers POWER and MONEY to those running the show.

stop being so dense. If you want to, do something. Science Is Settled - the world changes and we can not do anything about it.