Global Warming - don't wait up!

You know very well that we will never get ALL scientists to belive in anything because a few will be corrupt and take money from the fossil fuel industry to lie, such as the likes of Plimer, Singer etc. Wait of 100% and you wait forever, 97% of climate scientists is good enough for me.

Man is creating the latest surge not planetary configurations which take tens of thousands of years. Just look at the timescales

Where did you hear that temperatures have never been higher? Such a claim should be rubbished.

Just for the record, are you claiming 97% of the 'scientists' you quoted then?

'Man is creating...' . This is precisely the big question mark, it is not yet the gospel you claim; a great mass, scientists among them, are still to be convinced.

QUOTE:
'Where did you hear that temperatures have never been higher? Such a claim should be rubbished' -(unquote.)

Response - WHERE DID YOU HEAR IT????


HAPPY XMAS EVERYONE.:cheers:
 
Last edited:
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

http://desmogblog.com/
 
Ok stupid question.........The earth warms up, the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, now won't we have more water evaporating and making more clouds, in turn making more rain?

What if we can't reverse the damage already done? What if the ones that say its a cycle the earth goes through are right? What if teh Mayans are right and we all die in 2012? what if, what if, what if.

All we can do as residents of this planet is do our best to eliminate pollution while NOT destroying out civilization. Then if we find out that we oopsed and its a planetary cycle, then we have a few different choices, my suggestion is hang on tight and get ready for the ride of century.
 
Ok stupid question.........The earth warms up, the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, now won't we have more water evaporating and making more clouds, in turn making more rain?

You do make a good point, it is the one genuine uncertainy in global warming and probably the only one scientists take seriously. More heat > more white clouds > more solar reflection which leads to cooler planet or at least a self regulating one.

If you look at the forcings you will see clouds are the greatest uncertainty. Look at the range on the cloud albedo bar. The few genuine climate scientists who are sceptics milk this for all its worth.

greenhouse_forcings.gif



Unfortunately warmer air holds more moisture before it condenses into clouds so it is far from clear. The latest research suggests that low-level cloud cover decreases when the sea surface gets warmer. Fewer clouds mean that more sunlight reaches Earth’s surface, leading to further warming. If true that demolishes the great last hope of the Deniers, and for the rest of us for that matter since we don't want global warming to happen!

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39908
 
Last edited:
I only got this far, but the quality of the article can be judged hence (just check my last figure!).

They tell us there is one and only one cause: carbon dioxide. But suppose there are several contributory causes acting together. And they say man is the sole culprit. But could there be other reasons? Ultraviolet solar activity, which there has been for years recently?

It's so easy to win on the science against deniers, so difficult to convince those so stubborn beyond all reason.

As Monty says it is pointless to argue, but something needs to be done. Court action against the editors, or would that be self defeating?

I will leave the forum in the wicked grasp of the Denierist propaganda machine for the next 3 days!
 
Last edited:
It's so easy to win on the science against deniers, so difficult to convince those so stubborn beyond all reason.
If that's the best reasoning the supporters of "science' can come up with, I think that you would have been better off not getting out of bed,... ever. Or are you just doing your best to lower people's opinions of science to new depths

That's nothing to do with science, it's just a great demonstration of your your lack of ability to accept the obvious.

Like the climate change debate, you haven't WON anything yet, except maybe to demonstrate your blind faith in other's fudged figures.
 
New Year 2010 alert! Del Boy needs extra blankets, first time since 1960's.

We are breaking freezing and snow records since at least 30 years. Brrr. We may touch 20 degrees below, unheard of here, I understand.

Northern Europe is doing even better, temperatures lower than any previous records in some cases.

Global warming? Don't hold your breath. Taking vitamin D to rectify lack of sun this year. Spray tan sales are booming.:shock:
 
Regarding the use of the word Denier read

Johann Hari: I wish that the climate change deniers were right

This is probably the best summary on climate change for the layperson I have ever seen, please read it, this is just a extract:

That's why I won't use the word "sceptic" to describe the people who deny the link between releasing warming gases and the planet getting warmer. I am a sceptic. I have looked at the evidence highly critically, desperate for flaws. The overwhelming majority of scientists are sceptics: the whole nature of scientific endeavour is to check and check and check again for a flaw in your theory or your evidence. Any properly sceptical analysis leads to the conclusion that man-made global warming is real. Denial is something different: it is when no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, could convince you. It is a faith-based position.

So let's – for the sake of argument – make an extraordinary and unjustified concession to the deniers. Let's imagine there was only a 50 per cent chance that virtually all the world's climate scientists are wrong. Would that be a risk worth taking? Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet? Is the prospect of getting our energy from the wind and the waves and the sun so terrible that's not worth it on even these wildly optimistic odds?



 
Last edited:
Regarding the use of the word Denier read


Johann Hari: I wish that the climate change deniers were right

This is probably the best summary on climate change for the layperson I have ever seen, please read it.



Glad you like it. Now please allow me to direct you to the most important and relevant sentence in it :-

Denial is something different: it is when no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, could convince you. It is a faith-based position.


Nicely put - and precisely why there are NO so-called "deniers" of this issue- only sceptics and questioners.
 
That is not what Hari meant, shame you still don't get it. Read the paragraph in full this time, don't try the stolen Email trick of taking sentences out of context!

That's why I won't use the word "sceptic" to describe the people who deny the link between releasing warming gases and the planet getting warmer. I am a sceptic. I have looked at the evidence highly critically, desperate for flaws. The overwhelming majority of scientists are sceptics: the whole nature of scientific endeavour is to check and check and check again for a flaw in your theory or your evidence. Any properly sceptical analysis leads to the conclusion that man-made global warming is real. Denial is something different: it is when no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, could convince you. It is a faith-based position.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/johann-hari-i-wish-that-the-climate-change-deniers-were-right-14587028.html#ixzz0byEu29Pr

All the evidence has been presented, it is all available from reputable sources, yet you still dogmatically stick to blatant propoganda sown by PR gurus from the astroturf organisations.

You Del-boy are very firmly a Denier by this definition.
 
Last edited:
And here they are

The 15 Most Heinous Climate Villains

The worst and most vile of the corporate-funded climate science deniers responsible for subverting public understanding of climate change, and risking civilization.

The science of climate change is pretty basic: humans dig up fossilized carbon to fuel power plants and internal combustion machines, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Result: greenhouse effect global heating. Around 50% of all the species on the planet are predicted to become extinct by 2100 in the CO2-as-usual model. Our own species will face drought, famine, rising tides, soaring temperatures, calamity and chaos. Hundreds of millions will become climate refugees. Billions may die from starvation, genocide and war. We have precious little time to mitigate this looming global catastrophe.

Those of us still denying the depressing facts are either tragically stupid or profoundly corrupt or both. If there’s anyone alive to write the history of corporate funded climate science denial, the following list of 15 Heinous Climate Villains will, by the sheer magnitude of death their lies wrought, make the infamous dictatorial monsters of the 20th century seem like incompetent children.....
http://www.alternet.org/environment/144990/the_15_most_heinous_climate_villains/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet_environment
 
That is not what Hari meant, shame you still don't get it. Read the paragraph in full this time, don't try the stolen Email trick of taking sentences out of context!


Please don't be quite such a prat; I read the quote in full, but each time I push the quote button, your post comes up minus the quote; the same happens this time.

As for the rest - Oh, he didn't mean that. ??? I stand by my last post, Hari makes my point for me; That is that those whose views on this subject currently oppose your own fanatic approach are nothing but sceptics and questioners, which is their right. Your new bold sentence presents his opinion, there are those who disagree, which is their right.
Thank you Hari.

All the evidence has not yet honestly presented, far from it. Some remains questioned, even from what should be reputable sources.

As for me, I do not cling to any particular view, nor to your so-called propaganda, and all the dogma is on your side. I just still have an open mind on the subject, and the more I hear from you, the more sceptical I become.

I have no time for thought-police. On that I certainly am a firm believer.

"Deniers" - what a load of mucky old spin and cobblers! Animal Farm for you.:rolleyes:
 
And here they are


THANK YOU PERSEUS - And here, in fact, is a quote, in full, from THE SAME SITE you have quoted and presented. It is your link!

So here we go - Perseus' latest proven evidence on the subject of global warming. Take a bow Perseus. Seems you are a secret entrenched 'denier' after all!.:shock:

Perseus says 'read this'! His link :-


" BUT IT'S ALL LIES, FRAUD AND RELIGIOUS JUNK SCIENCE:"-

"First of all, I accept that the vast majority of Global Warming believers are sincere people, who passionately care about saving the planet. They care so much that thousands are prepared to demonstrate, spend days at climate camps, do their utmost to prevent power stations being built, and are even prepared to go to jail.

They have had enormous success, not only in preventing power stations being built, but in convincing politicians in Governments and much of the General Public, That Global Warming is Happenning, and is caused by CO2, and the effects will be catastrophic as the planet reaches a tipping point and warms uncontrollably.

But its all lies, fraud and religious junk science.

The effects however will be catastrophic. Not because the planet is warming, and not because CO2 is a problem, but because policy makers who make long term decisions, believe the propaganda to be true, and are implementing totally disastrous policies that will literally kill Billions of People.

You may believe that such Genocide is necessary in order to save the planet, but how can you believe anything from the originators of such blatant lies.

With regards to renewable energy, well the UK Government and much of Europe are its main proponents.

The only problem is that it doesn't work at all when you most need it.

In the UK, vast numbers of conventional power stations are scheduled to be closed down, because they are old and worn out. They are being replaced by vast numbers of windmills.

Yet in the winter in the UK, sometimes there is an anti-cyclone (an area of high pressure) that lasts for as long as 3 months. This happenned in 1963, and has happenned several times over the last few humdred years. It may well be happenning now. In such conditions, there is no wind - for months. Windmills generate no energy.

2-300 years ago, we were in a mini ice age, where it was so cold for months that the Thames froze solid, and even much of the English Channel.

The UK population then was a tiny percentage of what it is now - less than 5 Million (Now over 60 Million due to mass immigration) and there was sufficient trees for wood to burn, and sufficient food stocks to keep most of the population alive.

With current policies, if we get more exceedingly cold winters, then many Millions of People will Freeze to death in The UK. The wind won't keep them warm, the supply of gas from Russia may well be cut off, and over 500 years worth of coal will be left buried in the ground whilst the old coal power stations have been dismantled and not replaced.

This is a Crime Against Humanity. The Planet is Not Short of Energy, but is Controlled By Genocidal Psychopaths who have got much of the population voting for their own extinction on propaganda of blatant proven lies.

Coal may be black horrible stuff, but it has an enormous concentration of energy. Whilst the other contaminants are already removed from coal burnt in power stations, the CO2 does not have to be removed because we need much more of it in the atmosphere. I realise this will sound luke heresy, but it is true. We Need More CO2, Not Less.

The Climate is Controlled by Activity on The Sun, which has entered a period of very low activity with hardly any Sunspots. People who observe the activity of The Sun, accurately predicted the very cold winters of the past two years, whilst the Global Warmers with their computer models got it totally wrong. They have now been proved to, not only be wrong but criminally fraudulent by the Climategate revelations.

Forget all their propaganda and educate yourself with the facts. We need to be prepared for the very worst and we should be opening up new coal mines and building new Nuclear Power Stations. The alternative is Mass Death."
 
Last edited:
Thats a reader comment below the article you *!~#!

You could send in one, I just have with the Daily Mail article, see if you can find it!

How would you feel if I lectured you about life as a child in wartorn Britain? Thats what climate scientists feel like; they do this professionally! yet politically motivated yobs are allowed equal validity in your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Thats a reader comment below the article you *!~#!

You could send in one, I just have with the Daily Mail article, see if you can find it!

How would you feel if I lectured you about life as a child in wartorn Britain? Thats what climate scientists feel like; they do this professionally! yet politically motivated yobs are allowed equal validity in your opinion.
The great difference being that of the two of you, only one was a child during the war. In this case both of you are here when this event is occurring.
 
Thats a reader comment below the article you *!~#!

Now Now - calm yourself sir!

Freedom of speech you know. After all - YOU published it here and recommended it to us. Did you not want us to read it? Is one view expressed on YOUR LINK more relevant than another?

Wake up at the back- the new ice-age may be on its way and you might miss it!
 
Now Now - calm yourself sir!

Freedom of speech you know. After all - YOU published it here and recommended it to us. Did you not want us to read it? Is one view expressed on YOUR LINK more relevant than another?

Wake up at the back- the new ice-age may be on its way and you might miss it!

Is it an opportune time to point out that "Freedom of speech" does not apply to private forums and that you started the name calling process in this thread?

As far as ice ages, don't you think you are grasping at straws here (personally I think it more likely an attempt to bait Perseus than any real attempt at discussion), what you are quoting has nothing to do with the article in the link and to continually try and insinuate that it is part of the article and therefore he has shot down his own argument is the height of an immature argument.

I can understand Perseus's frustration here but I rather than respond it is far easier to laugh about your responses in private as anyone with an ounce of intelligence will study your claims and either accept or reject them on their own.

The great difference being that of the two of you, only one was a child during the war. In this case both of you are here when this event is occurring.

Yes and you wouldn't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to climate science yet that doesn't stop you attempting to sway others from accepting information from real climate scientists, see his point yet?
 
Last edited:
Yes and you wouldn't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to climate science yet that doesn't stop you attempting to sway others from accepting information from real climate scientists, see his point yet?
You couldn't deny that i was correct in my answer could you Monty? So you had to try and have a little swipe at me on a subject totally unrelated. Then again, i guess that's pretty typical if the "Global Warming" groupies,... when the truth can't be denied change the subject.

True,... I am not a blind sycophant to this so called "science" that persists in spite of all the visible evidence.

Global warming you say? and just how many have died in Europe this winter as a result of the most severe winter in a hundred years.

The term is "Climate Change" not "Global Warming"and the earth has been doing it since it's creation, and no doubt will continue to do it long after we are dead and buried.
eww.gif

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!, it's gunna kill us all,... squark, squaarrrrk!
 
Last edited:
Is it an opportune time to point out that "Freedom of speech" does not apply to private forums and that you started the name calling process in this thread?

Back your claim by showing me just where I started 'the name calling process on this thread. Also show me where I have contravened 'Freedom of Speech'.

As far as ice ages, don't you think you are grasping at straws here (personally I think it more likely an attempt to bait Perseus than any real attempt at discussion), what you are quoting has nothing to do with the article in the link and to continually try and insinuate that it is part of the article and therefore he has shot down his own argument is the height of an immature argument.

Show me which quote has nothing to do with the article in his link.

You surely cannot be referring to the detailed rebuttal of the article he presented on HIS LINK!

Show me where I "continually try and insinuate that it is part of the article".
"The height of immature argument " must surely be to present both on the same link and expect it not to be noticed and picked up on. And the height of immature argument is also represented by this particular post of yours, which really is grasping at straws.

I can understand Perseus's frustration here but I rather than respond it is far easier to laugh about your responses in private as anyone with an ounce of intelligence will study your claims and either accept or reject them on their own.

Perseus' frustration is of his own making, and you obviously feel he is incapable of responding effectively and I would point out that you HAVE in fact responded. Also , I am delighted that you have a private laugh at my responses; I do aim to make them both effective AND entertaining, with as much tongue in cheek as the subject will allow on topic; enjoy.

Always remember that they are not claims of mine but rather arguments presented by those more knowledgable than I on the subject, and of course I expect everybody to make whatever they wish regarding them.

That is what I do myself and recommend to Perseus, rather than relying on hurled abuse at all and sundry, including newspapers, who do not rush to accept his point of view.

I you wish to defend him, you would do better to stick to the issues, rather than leaping in to attack me .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top