Climate Change

[Boh_So_Good]

There is no doubt now that the whole Global Warming thing is a joke based on crackpot science and cherry-picked data. The Creationism of the PC brigade.

The IPCC admitted this week that global temps have not increased since 1998. This is pretty shocking and should of been widely reported. But they still insist that Mankind is boiling the earth.

Meanwhile the USA is having an exceptionally freezing winter, China is currently under snow, Ireland is being battered with winter storms contrary to the endless media reports of our promised "warm Irish winters with all year round plant growth" - coupled to this Irish farmers announcing today that this has been the harshest winter in years.

Bottom Line: Al Gore's Hollywood fantasy movie was a load of rubbish, filled with lies and errors and typical Yank sensationalist clap-trap.

It has got to the stage now where if I hear another gob****e warning about "Man Made Global Warming" I just have to laugh.

Other than giving Civil Servants a new agenda to waste taxpayers money on, Climate Activist trips to Bali so they prevent common people from flying, as well as giving Marxist a backdoor at which they can attack the evil West, I see no reason for any objective person to pay attention to Global Warming hysteria anymore.

PS: CFC bulbs are filled with mercury in case Gormley forces them upon us in the name of saving the polar bears.

[jebus]

Bottom line: You're an uneducated buffoon

[kingdom hoop]

I see no reason for any objective person to pay attention to my hysteria anymore.



Ok, I've scrunched it up, can someone lob this in the bin now please?

Just on a point of interest for Boh_So_Good, global warming is now more commonly, and accurately, referred to as CLIMATE CHANGE. I.e. that doesn't mean Ireland turns into a glorious tropical paradise but a windswept craggy isle flailing in vain to keep its head above water.

Must say any smidge of credence I afforded your posts has now evaporated. Not that that really matters, just thought I'd let you know.

[anto1208]

The older CFC bulbs have a tiny bit of mercury in them the newer ones dont but you can't get them here !!!

I have mainly CFC bulbs i like them they last more than a few months i was constantly changing the old ones.

But This idea that the earth will boil or freeze in the next few years isnt what will happen i feel, As the ice melts the oceans will absorb more heat evoporate more water causeing more rain ( like the summer we just had ).

Thats what will catch us too much rain making it hard to grow crops other countries will get less rain making it harder to grow crops making less food available making people panic to get food meaning the rich will be able to afford it and the poor will try and rob it.

Is there Land under the north / south pole ?? i remeber watching a thing about penquins that said as the weather cooled and the ice came most animals left but they chose to stay so if the ice goes they will just live on land like they do in other parts of the world and have a easier time of it.


Im mixed on this i dont think we shoudl be wrecking the earth and even if you dont believe in global warming surely you dont want to be breathing in all that pollution now do you ? .Anyway i dont think saving the human race is all that good an idea the vast majority are parasites they are wrecking the place maybe the world would be better off wiping us out and starting on evolving the next animal to take over.

Feck it the sun is going to run out in 4 million years then we're all done for anyway .

[jebus]

Is there Land under the north / south pole ?? i remeber watching a thing about penquins that said as the weather cooled and the ice came most animals left but they chose to stay so if the ice goes they will just live on land like they do in other parts of the world and have a easier time of it.

There isn't any land, but there is quite a lot of oil, hence the non-rush by America, Canada, Russia etc. to save it




Im mixed on this i dont think we shoudl be wrecking the earth and even if you dont believe in global warming surely you dont want to be breathing in all that pollution now do you ? .Anyway i dont think saving the human race is all that good an idea the vast majority are parasites they are wrecking the place maybe the world would be better off wiping us out and starting on evolving the next animal to take over.

Feck it the sun is going to run out in 4 million years then we're all done for anyway .

I think its very arrogant of mankind to assume we can do any lasting damage to the earth. If the earth felt like it it could crush us the way kids do ant hives, I don't think we would be able to cause anything other than a few annoying insect bites in return

[kingdom hoop]

I think its very arrogant of mankind to assume we can do any lasting damage to the earth.

Sentiment, naturally, is spot on; this latest of our many wars is a war to save ourselves, mankind, dumbasses and all. Earth will be just fine for a few more million years. But if we want it to remain reasonably hospitable for our tender selves then a concerted global effort at all levels (from Bush to Boh_So_Good) is necessary to make our activities reasonably sustainable. I'm not seeing enough of that at all at the moment, which is why I started that 'future' thread, to which I must return post-haste.

As I'm here and in the mood for a philosophical muse, I think a bit of this is down to the old procrastination paradox; you know that, sometime in the future, something must be done/will happen but yet you just couldn't be arsed to start doing it now, or at the moment it's to your benefit not to take the necessary actions. A bit like smoking in that you know in the long-term it's a bad idea but you're just enjoying it too much at the moment to care. Or the student who goes out ten nights in row and then crams his essay into twelve manically-rushed hours. Madness maybe, but such examples are all too common (:o).

In other words, as we battle to sustain our species just how high and conspicuous a hurdle is the human instinct to wallow and not care much for future concerns?

[Poor Student]

Feck it the sun is going to run out in 4 million years then we're all done for anyway .

That's more like 4 billion years.

[KevB76]

That's more like 4 billion years.

Thank god !
Anto had me worried there for a sec..... :D

[Poor Student]

Thank god !
Anto had me worried there for a sec..... :D

Otherwise it was going to be a close call.:eek:

[dahamsta]

I'm leaving this open since climate change is an important subject that warrants discussion, although I've changed the thread title to make the OP look slightly less idiotic.

adam

[onceahoop]

I'm leaving this open since climate change is an important subject that warrants discussion, although I've changed the thread title to make the OP look slightly less idiotic.

adam
Bossman, you're going soft .

Climate change is important but idiotic posters on the matter deserve no mercy.

[dahamsta]

The best way to deal with idiots is to demonstrate their idiocy. Ball's in your court I reckon.

[Bondvillain]

I'm leaving this open since climate change is an important subject that warrants discussion, although I've changed the thread title to make the OP look slightly less idiotic.

adam

I read the opening post. The whole "Title changing" thang didn't work...

[Boh_So_Good]

Who said anything about Climate Change not happening. Were I am sitting now was under a mile of ice 40,000 years ago. The title of the thread was about "Global Warming" and Al Gore's hysterical polemic...GLOBAL WARMING is what they said we were getting until the global temp stopped rising in 1998.

It the notion that humans are raising world temp with C02 which remains unproven. Read the IPCC reports in full. They are all "may lead to", "is a possible issue" and so on and yet we get press confs were they come out and say that there is total scientific agreement on the issue when there isn't.

But we were here before with the whole "New Ice Age" of the 1970's.

Besides, all the other planets in the solar system have shown temp increases on par with the Earth's which suggests that the sun is the main driver. I would also like to point out to Jebus that this "uneducated buffoon" happens to be an Astronomer who has been paying attention for decades now, and not since Al Gore's Hollywood movie.

I also do not like being insulted by a moderator. Not good.

[osarusan]

GLOBAL WARMING is what they said we were getting until the global temp stopped rising in 1998.......

It the notion that humans are raising world temp with C02 which remains unproven.

Read the IPCC reports in full. They are all "may lead to", "is a possible issue" and so on and yet we get press confs were they come out and say that there is total scientific agreement on the issue when there isn't.


A link to the USA's Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html) - from their front page on the "Future Climate Change" section.

Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very likely to raise the Earth's average temperature, influence precipitation and some storm patterns as well as raise sea levels (IPCC, 2007)
as you can see, an IPCC is quoted.

Here is a link to some IPCC reports - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Here are some excerpts from the "Frequently Asked Questions" section -


What Factors Determine Earth’s Climate?
There are three fundamental ways to change the
radiation balance of the Earth: 1) by changing the incoming solar
radiation (e.g., by changes in Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself); 2)
by changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (called
‘albedo’; e.g., by changes in cloud cover, atmospheric particles or
vegetation); and 3) by altering the longwave radiation from Earth
back towards space (e.g., by changing greenhouse gas concentrations).
Climate, in turn, responds directly to such changes, as well
as indirectly, through a variety of feedback mechanisms.
The key point here is point 3.


How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change
and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing
changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases,
aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known
contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases
carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols
affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-
going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy
balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of
these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the
climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750),
the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming
influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly
exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as
solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
Look at that last sentence again - the human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes

Here are some excerpts from Section 9 - "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" -
It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without
external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known
natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the
ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural
external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.


Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the
observed global warming over the last 50 years.
(Words in italics are from the report, not my editing)


From section 10 - "Global Climate Predictions" -

Temperature Extremes
It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more
frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold
episodes are projected to decrease signifi cantly in a future warmer
climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases
in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in
the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in
growing season length.



Snow and Ice
As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent
decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance
of summer melting over winter precipitation increases. This
contributes to sea level rise as documented for the previous
generation of models in the TAR. There is a projected reduction
of sea ice in the 21st century in both the Arctic and Antarctic
with a rather large range of model responses. The projected
reduction is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project
summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission
A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century. Widespread
increases in thaw depth over much of the permafrost regions
are projected to occur in response to warming over the next
century.


I would argue that the pieces of the IPCC reports I've quoted paint a very different picture of both the existence of and reasons for climate change and global warming than you suggest, Boh so Good.

[Block G Raptor]

There is no doubt now that the whole Global Warming thing is a joke based on crackpot science and cherry-picked data. The Creationism of the PC brigade.

The IPCC admitted this week that global temps have not increased since 1998. This is pretty shocking and should of been widely reported. But they still insist that Mankind is boiling the earth.

Meanwhile the USA is having an exceptionally freezing winter, China is currently under snow, Ireland is being battered with winter storms contrary to the endless media reports of our promised "warm Irish winters with all year round plant growth" - coupled to this Irish farmers announcing today that this has been the harshest winter in years.

Bottom Line: Al Gore's Hollywood fantasy movie was a load of rubbish, filled with lies and errors and typical Yank sensationalist clap-trap.

It has got to the stage now where if I hear another gob****e warning about "Man Made Global Warming" I just have to laugh.

Other than giving Civil Servants a new agenda to waste taxpayers money on, Climate Activist trips to Bali so they prevent common people from flying, as well as giving Marxist a backdoor at which they can attack the evil West, I see no reason for any objective person to pay attention to Global Warming hysteria anymore.

PS: CFC bulbs are filled with mercury in case Gormley forces them upon us in the name of saving the polar bears.


Someone's been reading Michael Crichtons State Of Fear
Me too and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I would suggest all those who are so sure that Global Warming is an imminent threat or is even in fact a reality at all should read it before making sweeping comments like jebus here


Bottom line: You're an uneducated buffoon

[monutdfc]

So Michael Crichton knows more than 1000's of scientists who are experts in this field? Has his book been peer-reviewed? Because all of the work of the IPCC scientists has. The debate is over - climate change is happening and it is caused by human activity. In fact, there was never any debate to start with - just confusion caused by charlatans funded by Exxon and others, based on the policy of sowing confusion pioneered by the tobacco companies. When you are finished Crichton's book I suggest you read George Monbiot's "Heat", or the latest IPCC report.
Really, one book by a pop scientist and that tv programme that wasn't even by a scientist and suddenly everybody is an expert. There are 1000's of scientists the world over studying this topic and there is consensus on this.

[jebus]

Someone's been reading Michael Crichtons State Of Fear
Me too and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I would suggest all those who are so sure that Global Warming is an imminent threat or is even in fact a reality at all should read it before making sweeping comments like jebus here

I've said it before in a climate change thread and I'll say it again, even George W. has reversed his opinion on climate change, yes THE George W., so I stand by my comment, and refuse to debate this with people who are slower on the uptake than America's glorious leader. The only thing I will ask you to do is to look up images of the polar icecaps ranging from 1988-2008, if you still think global warming is an excuse to sell lightbulbs, well then there really is no hope for you to be honest

[Block G Raptor]

I've said it before in a climate change thread and I'll say it again, even George W. has reversed his opinion on climate change, yes THE George W., so I stand by my comment, and refuse to debate this with people who are slower on the uptake than America's glorious leader. The only thing I will ask you to do is to look up images of the polar icecaps ranging from 1988-2008, if you still think global warming is an excuse to sell lightbulbs, well then there really is no hope for you to be honest

I certainly do not think Global Warming is an excuse to sell lightbulbs
don't know where you got that from what I said. Ive seen the Sat Images of the Polar Icecaps. if you go back 50 or 60 years before that you'll see similar fluctuations (melting and reforming)in fact there is an equivalent ammount of Ice on antartica now as there was in the 1880's the Icecap has been expanding for the past number of years and only in more recent times has began to rescind. The Icecaps have been in constant flux for millennia, with overall average volume of Ice barely changing in centuries. or if you look at Sat images of Greenland and Iceland 1988-2008 you will see an increase in Glacial growth,for every piece of evidence "Proving" Climate change there is evidence "Disproving it" seriously research it as I have as I like to Check all sides of a story before ramming facts down peoples necks.

[monutdfc]

for every piece of evidence "Proving" Climate change there is evidence "Disproving it"
No there is not. References please (and nothing from charlatan Exxon funded organisations please).

seriously research it as I have as I like to Check all sides of a story before ramming facts down peoples necks.
Seriously, if you have researched it as you say you cannot but have found that the evidence is overwhelming; I have and it is, end of. In fact, I cannot believe I am even responding to your posts. (My wife is a meterologist with a PhD in atmospheric physics and she has the good sense to simply laugh at anybody who questions the reality of climate change. There is no question amongst anybody working in the field.)

[Block G Raptor]

There is no question amongst anybody working in the field.)

Here's One (http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/april/climate.htm)
Some More (http://www.fdrs.org/arguments_against_global_warming.html)
More World reknowned Scientists (http://cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf)

[jebus]

seriously research it as I have as I like to Check all sides of a story before ramming facts down peoples necks.

I have, and I've found people who say climate change is a smokescreen are morons to be honest



More World reknowned Scientists (http://cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf)

One of the questions they ask themselves is will the Day After Tomorrow happen, forgive me for having stopped reading at this point

[monutdfc]

Here's One (http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/april/climate.htm)
A civil engineer


Some More (http://www.fdrs.org/arguments_against_global_warming.html)
Please, I did ask for no references from Exxon-funded charlatans
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=87
(see, how clever they are at creating confusion)

More World reknowned Scientists (http://cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf)
Who are the CEI? Is this paper peer-reviewed? At least there are some references, but how do I know if they are selectively quoting? (In fairness, this one at least looks interesting and I will read it)

[Block G Raptor]

I have, and I've found people who say climate change is a smokescreen are morons to be honest



One of the questions they ask themselves is will the Day After Tomorrow happen, forgive me for having stopped reading at this point

I think you'll find it was an FAQ page as in Frequently asked questions. If enough morons ask a question then obviously they'll be compelled to answer it.

to clear things up I don't not believe that Global Warming is A. happening and/or B.Is a threat. I don't think there is enough evidence either way to know for sure . It just bug's me the Media jump on a subject and repeat Press releases verbatim as fact which is then consumed by the viewer and regurgitated.when in fact much of what is been reported as cold hard facts is still being hotly debated.
If there is a Campaign to pull the wool over our collective eyes then it is obviously not geared at selling more lightbulbs as was suggested above. I believe it would be more geared towards keeping third world countries from becoming Industrialised and competing in an already saturated market place

[monutdfc]

More World reknowned Scientists (http://cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf)
Woops, you've done it again. I asked for no references to Exxon-funded charlatans.
The CEI (who I now know are "The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace." - so an unbiased viewpoint there) has as one of its initiatives the globalwarming.org website, which features a Chris Horner, and what do you know, there he is:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=281

You see just how damn sneaky they are, giving their websites serious names with .org addresses, but they are all funded by Exxon to create confusion.
But in fact, the CEI are upfront about it; from their own website:
"The lead editorial in the December 4, 2006 edition of The Wall Street Journal, “Global Warming Gag Order—Senators to Exxon: Shut up, and pay up,” hits Sens. Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller IV's letter to ExxonMobil telling the oil company to stop funding “global warming deniers” like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While CEI has previously responded to the Snowe-Rockefeller missive, we welcome the Journal's defense of free scientific debate—and our role in it. "

[pete]

TBH I would skeptical of some of the solutions we provided with.

We are told to turn off lights when not in use but light bulbs last longer when left on (especially the florescent versions used in offices). Considering how little power lights use could more power be used in producing & transporting the bulbs?

We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce. Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them. Secondly is the carbon footprint really bigger for a cargo ship to transport food in bulk across the globe or farmer to drive his jeep across Ireland to 'farmers market' with days worth of produce? The farmers return journey is worthless while you can be sure the ship is productive on return journey...

China & India are polluting like its 1850 all ovr again so does it really matter what we do in Europe? Do we have the right to stop developing countries from polluting?

[rebs23]

Surely the best arguments for Reduce Reuse and Recycle are economic not environmental.
A Carbon Tax, CFC lightbulbs, Banning 4x4's, Congestion Charges, etc all seem very negative and punative with it seems to me anyway very little impact and in turn very few supportive measures for encouraging alternatives to oil.

The consumer changes in the west will it seems be offset by the damage caused by emerging economies anyway. Surely the answer to reducing mankinds impact on the environment will only be solved by scientists coming up with real alternatives to oil and the economic benefits therein?

[pete]

While I make an effort to recycle I wonder where it all goes. Is there a point in shipping plastic half way across the world for it to stacked in "plastic markets" ? How much ends up in landfills here too? Does the state regulate this?

:confused:

[Block G Raptor]

The consumer changes in the west will it seems be offset by the damage caused by emerging economies anyway.

Agree and what better way for the west to ensure market share than to scapegoat these countries and sign treaties preventing them doing what we done at the turn of the last century because it's "Killing the Planet". Oil Company may be spreading mis-information against Global Warming but don't for one minute think that the Scientists finding "Proof" of impending doom due to climate change are not being funded by big business that is cacking itself at the thought of competing with African and Asian companies on a level playing field

[jebus]

TBH I would skeptical of some of the solutions we provided with.

We are told to turn off lights when not in use but light bulbs last longer when left on (especially the florescent versions used in offices). Considering how little power lights use could more power be used in producing & transporting the bulbs?

We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce. Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them. Secondly is the carbon footprint really bigger for a cargo ship to transport food in bulk across the globe or farmer to drive his jeep across Ireland to 'farmers market' with days worth of produce? The farmers return journey is worthless while you can be sure the ship is productive on return journey...

China & India are polluting like its 1850 all ovr again so does it really matter what we do in Europe? Do we have the right to stop developing countries from polluting?

I'd agree with a lot of that. Minor annoyances for myself at the moment is designer eco-bags made in China(or wherever), it seems there is a new must-have one every other week. Couple that with China, India and America dragging their feet over reducing their omissions and I do see why people are wondering if changing their lightbulbs will make a difference. That said, I don't see that the Power of One campaign has done any harm whatsoever, as I do agree with the principle that if we all change one thing then we can make a difference, the problem again is whether people will do this by their own choice.

I agree completely with the idea that we should leave 3rd world produce alone is ridiculous however, and I have read pieces in the Guardian where writers have been listed as saying that we should buy 3rd World produce in one article, and we shouldn't for climate change reasons in another, that to me is where people think climate change is just another neo-left wing stick to beat us with

[dahamsta]

We are told to turn off lights when not in use but light bulbs last longer when left on (especially the florescent versions used in offices).The problem with switching lightbulbs on and off isn't to do with lifespan, but with the extra power usage of the starter in fluorescents.


Considering how little power lights useIndividual thinking.


We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce.You're told this by people who haven't thought it through. Be more selective in your advisors.


Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them.We're talking about climate change here, not charity. Focus on a topic for once in your life.

adam

[monutdfc]

Some good points above. In my view, the solutions have to implemented on a political level rather than reliance on the individual. It take political will to implement the changes required for wholesale reductions.
Biofuels are definitely not the answer. The second biggest source of greenhouse gases in recent years was deforestation, much of it in Malaysia and Indonesia where rainforests were cleared for Palm Oil plantations. (Plus, in the long run the west will pay more for biofuels than the 3rd world can pay for food.) They have a role, but a limited one.

BTW, far from wanting to stifle competition, Big Business is dying to see 3rd world countries develop as these are new markets for their goods.

[dahamsta]

In my view, the solutions have to implemented on a political level rather than reliance on the individual.No, sorry, it needs both. Climate change needs action at every level, by every person, business and politician, otherwise it's just not going to work. We have to drill it into everyone's head that we're in big trouble here, and expecting someone else to sort it out is just plain murdering our descendants.


Biofuels are definitely not the answer.Again, sorry, but no. Biofuels are not the answer on a wholesale level in Ireland, and in other countries they're causing major problems because of the greed and ignorance of people growing the crops. If you educate those people, and remove the source of greed, locally produced and used biofuels can work very well.

adam

[monutdfc]

No, sorry, it needs both. Climate change needs action at every level, by every person, business and politician, otherwise it's just not going to work. We have to drill it into everyone's head that we're in big trouble here, and expecting someone else to sort it out is just plain murdering our descendants.
Absolutely, it needs both. In editing my post before finalising I deleted the bit about individual responses helping; but there needs real political will to implement change for major reductions to happen. For example, the biggest source of greenhouse gases is power production - politicians need to make the changes here.


Again, sorry, but no. Biofuels are not the answer on a wholesale level in Ireland, and in other countries they're causing major problems because of the greed and ignorance of people growing the crops. If you educate those people, and remove the source of greed, locally produced and used biofuels can work very well.

adam
Agree, they have a role, and I have said so. But they are not the answer (and reading your post I think we are agreed on this) that some people have thought, seeing them as a silver bullet.

US and (to a lesser degree) EU policy is leading us down the road of biofuels with targets that if met would cause huge problems for world food production.

[dahamsta]

Absolutely, it needs both. In editing my post before finalising I deleted the bit about individual responses helping; but there needs real political will to implement change for major reductions to happen. For example, the biggest source of greenhouse gases is power production - politicians need to make the changes here.The energy generation thing drives me demented. We have a country literally surrounded by waves and wind, and we're talking about "the nuclear option"? And it's not just the usual ignoramuses either, even the shiny new nutjobs won't rule it out for fear of upsetting their masters. Does nobody get the whole "nuclear waste" thing? Do they even know what the phrase "half life" actually means?


Agree, they have a role, and I have said so. But they are not the answer (and reading your post I think we are agreed on this) that some people have thought, seeing them as a silver bullet.There's no silver bullet, certainly. Silver bullets are fairy stories and steorns.

adam

[monutdfc]

Does nobody get the whole "nuclear waste" thing? Do they even know what the phrase "half life" actually means?

adam
That's the problem with the current nuclear debate - it is focussed on the dangers of production (a 9-11 strike or a Chernobyl) whereas the real issue is the problem of nuclear waste

[osarusan]

Has anybody seen a documentary called The End of Suburbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Suburbia). It is a frightening look at peak oil, and the consequences.

And in case you think it was made by environmental-nutjobs, one of the contributors was an energy adviser to George Bush.

[pete]

We're talking about climate change here, not charity. Focus on a topic for once in your life.

You cannot deal with topics in isolation hence the issues with biofuels & cost of food production. See your own posts.

[dahamsta]

Proof!

[Boh_So_Good]

"global warming" stopped in 1998. Not only on earth, but on Mars, Venus and Jupiter. See that yellow ball in the sky... It's called the sun. It's made of lots and lots of fire. Some times the fire is really hot and other times it's really, really hot. It has fluctuated like this for about 6 billion years.

"Climate Change" is the phrase the Gore shower came up to cover their asses when global temps level out. "you deny Climate change!" - talk about moving the goal posts.

The term "Climate Change" is so meaningless as of course the bloody climate changes! That's not what Gore and Co were flapping their arms over it was GLOBAL WARMING.

Global Warming was and is a fraud.

QED

[osarusan]

"global warming" stopped in 1998.

Global Warming was and is a fraud.

Did you read this post I wrote (http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=868943&postcount=15) on the first page. I quoted the IPCC's you respect so much.

I'll quote them again.
(Here's the link to the IPCC reports - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html


Temperature Extremes
It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more
frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold
episodes are projected to decrease signifi cantly in a future warmer
climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases
in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in
the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in
growing season length.

Cold episodes are projected to decrease signifi cantly in a future warmer
climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. = The world will get hotter.


Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750),
the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming
influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly
exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as
solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750),
the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming
influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly
exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as
solar changes and volcanic eruptions. = the world is getting hotter and we're causing most of it. But even though you say you've read the IPCC's you encourage us to read to find the truth, you say this in your opening post in this thread -


It has got to the stage now where if I hear another gob****e warning about "Man Made Global Warming" I just have to laugh.


And finally, on your claim that we're talking about 'climate change' and you're talking about an unrelated thing called 'global warming' -

Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the
observed global warming over the last 50 years.
They even use the words "Global Warming".

[kingdom hoop]

Yeah just on the semantics, the two terms are half synonymous. Basically global warming is the general phenomenon, with climate change more about the ramifications.

In other words, climate change is the more embracing term. I wouldn't be too fussy over which is used, but if the dim-witted think global warming will solely result in a few more nice summer days then I'd favour propagating climate change so as to plant a little seed of doubt in their minds about the potential changes. Global warming just sounds a little benign. Climate change on the other hand! :eek:

Problem is, our weather system is a complex, interwoven fabric. Snag one little thread and the whole thing could spectacularly unravel. We really don't know what will happen. That's why it's so important to mitigate the effects as much as possible. The 'funny' thing is that a lot of the issues are kind of virtuous, and not so virtuous as the case may be, circles. Like where you save money by using less power, which is good. Or when you spew tonnes of carbon into the air while cutting swathes of the forests that devour so much of the nasty carbon, which is not so good.

I find the whole debate a bit over-whelming to be truthful. Can anyone comfort me and say 'yes, we're doing ok, cutting the Amazon rainforest down for profit is a good idea'?

[dahamsta]

Let's be honest, the phrase "climate change" was invented specifically to deal with people that are unable to grasp the complexities of the problem.

And by complexities I mean "slightly more difficult than 2+2". And by people I mean "morons".

adam

[Boh_So_Good]

quoted the IPCC's you respect so much.



Respect the ICPP, moi? Nope.

They are a politically motivated club of data-cherry pickers. Even their leader who flies from New York to Mumbai to watch cricket matches accepts that Global Warming ceased in 1998. However the facts do matter. Its the dogma which determines the "truth".

Last week, I watched a BBC documentary on Jim Jones "socialist, sustainable
paradise" and the appalling loss of life which it resulted in back in
1979 and it was an incredible piece of television. Compelling and very
upsetting. What it also brought home was that the most pro-Jones fanatics tended to be middle-class and above, college educated types who enforced this lifestyle using dreams of utophia first, paranoia secondly, then murder later when followers began to question the cult.

So much of the same psychological dynamic at Jonestown, you can
clearly see it again with the Al Gore/Global Warming folks. But this is even more frightening as mass media allows this to happen on a global scale
these days and people in the West are even more stupid and sheep-like
than there were back in the 1970's.

As long as there are people who want some uthopian dream and there is
a leader to exploit them it will always happen. Matters not what their
education level is. In fact, I would say the more educated a person
is, the more they are likely to lack real social intelligence and
therefore more more prone to be taken in by cult leaders types.

You can manipulate just about anyone with a false promises which play
on their insecurities, and then later paranoia.

I would not be surprised if any of the eco-projects around the world
don't end up like Jonestown. Watching the Jonestown story at the
begining it was just like these "sustainable" communities with
socialist ideals we see springing up all over with civil servants and
other middle-class easily manipulated types being controlled as soon
as their dream starts to wobble.

The whole Global Warming crowd are all potential Jonestowns in the
making.

If you listen to how Al Gore slowly and patronisingly speaks on TV or
in public, and then Jim Jones at Jonestown on the speaker system. It
is spine-chilling.

Like the Global Warming the henchmen in Jonestown (and all other
cults) was white, suburban, middle-class, college educated idealists
who were cultivated from the Hippy movement in San Francisco while
Jones was based there.

The profile of the average climate activist is the same as the average
cult member in Western societies. ie: white, suburban, middle-class,
college educated idealist.

More interestingly, and tragic (but equally typically) is that these
white kids whom Jim Jones recruited were walking around San Francisco
going on about "peace love, understanding and getting back to nature
and away from 'the Man'. These same white, suburban, middle-class,
college educated idealists last act on this earth was to slaughter
hundreds of poor inner-city African Americans with poisioned Kool-Aid
made by "the Man'.

It is quite possible, that Jim Jones eco-socialist, organic veg
growing white, suburban, middle-class, college educated idealists
slaughtered more African-Americans in a couple of hours than the KKK
did in a century. Likewise climate activist are trying to stop people
in the third world for enjoying a white, suburban, middle-class,
college educated idealists lifestyle.

Ironic isn't it.

The same people who go around looking for an ideal world, are always
driven by a deep rooted need to control others. Be it though statutory
enforcements, cults and as seen at Jonestown, mass murder in order to
maintain their self-delusion as saviours of others. Hence why so many
civil servants tend to involved in these "climate crisis"
organisations they form.

Like I said, only matter of time before we hear about a mass murder at
some eco-sustainable project populated by white, suburban, middle-
class, college educated idealists. Cults always end up like this.

Living in Ireland I would love some mild winters and even warm
summers. Problem is we have been promised "balmy Irish winters" by the
AGW brigade for about 5 year now and we just got through our coldest,
most frosty and snowy winter in the years. Seems to be happening in
most other countries as well this winter.

So who is taking the ****? People like me who say the AGW stuff is
hysterical hype, or the great AGW minds who are tell me I do not need
a winter coat anymore when I have bought 3 since the first IPCC
report? Maybe if I was a climate change activist jet setting to Bali
to 'save the earth' I might need less winter wear, but that's not my
reality most winters.

There is no proof of either god or global warming. Both are faith
based notions. Forcing AGW dogma on society is just as bad as forcing
religion on them. Without the tangible proof, leave people to insulate
their own homes, install solar panels, change to the horrible CFC
bulbs and drive hybrids if THEY CHOSE TO DO THIS. This should be a
personal choice.

Anyways a western family saving money on energy is fallacy as they
will just spend the money they saved on something else which uses
energy. So the whole concept of saving energy at the micro level is
pointless and it is in reality just transferring energy usage from
your own home to something else. This is not science. This is not
energy conservation. This is not even common sense. It's a feel-good
"eco-confessional" which superficially cleanses the carbon sins.

It's the creepy control-freak nature of the Global Warmers which
****es me off. I saw the same mentality among the catholic church big-
wigs in this country up until the 1980s. It's the same bull**** and
it's the same folk who are drawn to this notion of using AGW to
control society in the same way the catholic bishops did in the past.

Oh and like the catholic bishops, double-standards and hypocracy
appears to be a concept completely lost on the AGW crusaders. (see jet
setting to Bali in order to tell the rest of us not to fly)

To be honest, I am looking forward to a world were the weather will be
more of less what it has been for hundreds of years with normal
fluctuations and cycles. Because that's what we are getting regardless
of human or divine intervention.

[dahamsta]

You're copying (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/1652abcd91296ba9?dmode=source) and pasting (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/08ad59d3fae6e7c0?dmode=source) your posts now? Are you copying and pasting your own content, or someone elses?

It's "IPCC" btw. It's right there in the text you quoted, like 5 or 10 words back.

:rolleyes:

adam

[Boh_So_Good]

[You'll need to type that again without the language and the personal stuff, sorry. ;) --adam]

[osarusan]

how about posting some links to back up your claims?

[Boh_So_Good]

[You'll need to type that again without the language and the personal stuff, sorry. ;) --adam]

I can't recall what I posted. But no doubt it was absolutely brilliant.

The gist of it being... that the day I see a Farmer driving his tractor through Clones with his nuts half-hanging out of a thong while drinking Pina Coladas then I'll believe in Global Warming.

Is this acceptable?

[dahamsta]

It's acceptable if you want to continue looking like you don't comprehend the problem in any way, shape or form, certainly. Well done on missing the point of the debate entirely.

adam

[osarusan]

The gist of it being... that the day I see a Farmer driving his tractor through Clones with his nuts half-hanging out of a thong while drinking Pina Coladas then I'll believe in Global Warming.

Is this acceptable?
That's far more scientific than the IPCC reports. Thanks.