This is the man for climate change ~ tinyurl.com/3xthlhp (James Lovelock)
|
|
The answer is "We don't really know, but it seems more likely than not to be real and influenced by man, on balance of opinion".
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Fri 14 May 10 at 13:30
|
|
The polar bears have sunburn now I hear. Im sending my unused suncream as we speak.
|
>> The answer is "We don't really know, but it seems more likely than not to be real and influenced by man, on balance of opinion".>>
If global warming is a reality, why is it still so damn cold in the middle of May following a winter that was one of the worst in the UK for many years?
I've pointed out in the past (on a certain other website) that the Thames used to freeze over during a number of winters, leading to the famous Frost Fairs between 1608 and 1814.
Not many 4x4s, jet planes, buses etc around during those particular years.....
|
Global warming has become climate change, a much better term, however the real issue is that different issues get wrapped up together.
Q/ Is the climate changing?
A/ Yes.
Q/ Are man's actions contributing to the change?
A/ Unproven. Man's use of energy resources are unlikely to be a factor in climate change with consideration to the amount of energy radiated at the earth by the sun and the energy contained within the earth's core as heat.
Q/ Does it make sense to conserve energy and reduce combustion emissions?
A/ Yes.
|
>>Global warming has become climate change..>>
Another point I've made on several occasions. When the "experts" realised it wasn't true, they changed the wording to suit the cause....:-)
|
Stu,
I respect the smiley but the effects of overall warming are not consistent.
Edinburgh is on the same latitude as Moscow but UK has a temperate climate on account of the gulfstream so snowdrifts in Princes St are quite rare. If overall warming and loss of icecaps diverts the gulfstream UK gets colder and we might all need felt hats!!.
We're not the only part of the wrld where that logic applies so the term climate change is more accurate.
|
|
Only if it saves ME money!
|
>> I've pointed out in the past (on a certain other website) that the Thames used
>> to freeze over during a number of winters, leading to the famous Frost Fairs between
>> 1608 and 1814.
The frost fairs on the thames were more a by product of the thames flow rate and tidal rise and fall (considerably less then) than the ambient temperature.
A better visual indicator would be the sea freezing in Southern England. This it has done quite a few times every century since men first told history.
|
Come on, L'es, do you at least check your sources before disseminating this stuff? Friends Of Science is funded at least in part by the oil companies, whatever its claims to be impartial and not for profit.
When Thabo Mbeki went against scientific consensus by asserting that AIDS wasn't caused by HIV, and that it could be treated with garlic pills pushed by a charlatan, he was rightly derided. This stuff is barely any better in scientific terms -a tiny minority of scientists subscribe to these dissenting views - yet people here keep putting it up.
The most charitable construction I can put on this is wishful thinking: some here grew up in an age when car use was relatively free of cost and consequences - cheap petrol, clear roads - and scientific evidence that this can't go on for ever is regarded as a threat to be wished away. But repeating this stuff is merely mistaking a vested interest for your own.
|
|
If there is global warming and if it's being caused by the activities of mankind, why isn't something being done to limit or even reduce the size of the source of those activities. i.e. the population?
|
>> If there is global warming and if it's being caused by the activities of mankind,
>> why isn't something being done to limit or even reduce the size of the source
>> of those activities. i.e. the population?
Are you willing to be cullled?
|
|
I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
|
>> If there is global warming and if it's being caused by the activities of mankind,
>> why isn't something being done to limit or even reduce the size of the source
>> of those activities. i.e. the population?
>>
www.optimumpopulation.org/blog/?p=443
Religion, snaily, religion. Just ask the Pope or the Ayatollah and they will tell you that the supreme being forbids birth control. But if you live in a communist country like China where religion is not allowed, then the dictators can diktat that you are allowed only 1 child per family, thereby ensuring that one set of parents get replaced by one child and therefore over a century should result in halving of population.
Oh yes, before I forget, the link below is a reply to your opening post.
www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm
Last edited by: John H on Tue 18 May 10 at 13:51
|
|
I agree with Sir David Attenborough.
|
Why are our governments ONLY funding scientists who support the view that the world is warming and that man is to blame.
Just like the eat fat get fat con, the good / bad cholesterol con (they are the same) and all the others . . . .
|
That's not how science works, IJWS. Scientists don't 'support' a view; they investigate the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. You're confusing this issue with the media idea of 'balance': interview Red Party spokesman, then interview Blue Party for balance. This confusion got us into trouble when the loopy, dangerous and wrong anti-MMR campaigners were given equal billing with those who had bothered to do some proper science and understand the evidence.
The time for equal treatment of the 'sceptic' viewpoint on climate change is behind us because the principle is so well established and supported by the evidence that you might almost as well be supporting research into whether things fall upwards. But funnily enough, if the present consensus is actually wrong, that will become clear from the very work you mistakenly seem to regard as biased.
You're not alone: the British public's scientific knowledge and understanding are generally poor and the media don't help with simplistic nonsense like the Daily Mail's alternating 'cures cancer' and 'causes cancer' sensations. This in turn leads to the perception that 'the experts can't agree so I may as well carry on doing what I like'.
|
>>Just like the eat fat get fat con, the good / bad cholesterol con (they are the same)
Er, yes & no comrade ... yes Re: the eat fat get fat con, but no Re: cholesterol,
Our bodies (liver) make most of our 'essential' cholesterol, the baddie is LDL which can (and does) build up in the arteries and can form plaque resulting in a heart attack or stroke.
Eggs are another myth - I eat 15 every week :)
|
I agree with Cheddar's wording of it.
The climate has always changed, yes we may be an influence so saving fuels is a good idea (but its a good idea anyway as they're not infinite)
But the government councils et al have used climate change as a stick so much now I've become immune to the stories. Polar ice caps melting? yawn...in a week or so there'll be a report saying they've grown again.
|
The myth of global warming - Bromptonaut
