View Poll Results: Which statement do you agree with
Global warming is caused by humans
27
19.01%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
44
30.99%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible
65
45.77%
Global warming seems unlikely
6
4.23%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll
Global warming
Nov 29th 2009, 8:00 pm
#16
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 906
Re: Global warming
Especially with the recent news about the CRU at the University of East Anglia being caught distorting data with their computer analysis programs is it any wonder the number of skeptics is growing?
Nov 29th 2009, 8:06 pm
#17
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Global warming
Given the recent Climategate revelations (not heard of it? that's because the msm wants you not to hear about it - try googling it) I would say that the contribution of man to any change in climate - and what change in climate would that be???? is zip, nada, nothing - except for those stations which are now situated next to air conditioning vents or in the middle of bloody great tarmac car parks.
The stuff coming out of CRU is dynamite - pointing to a scam of the highest order. "Scientists" massaging the figures left right and centre to get to the outcome they want, destroying original data so no one can pick them up for it, making sure that "peer reviewed" meant reviewed by their own little select peer group. I am sure that many suspected this but voices like Christopher Monckton, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer have been howling in the wilderness until now. Even the warmanista George Moonbat (Monbiot) is accepting that these revelations are monster!
I am right behind the NO! to ETS group - taxing emissions which will have absolutely no impact on the temperature in the world at all.
OTOH, I do agree that the climate is changing - always has and always will. Australia always has been a land of droughts floods and fires and what we need to be doing, given the untenable population that we have already, is to be working on ways to ameliorate that situation the best way we can - not building more bloody school halls and letting dodgy brothers get rich off the tax payer dollar by installing batts in homes where people were too lazy to pay for their own.
Off hobby horse now - this Climategate thing has made me so damned angry!
The stuff coming out of CRU is dynamite - pointing to a scam of the highest order. "Scientists" massaging the figures left right and centre to get to the outcome they want, destroying original data so no one can pick them up for it, making sure that "peer reviewed" meant reviewed by their own little select peer group. I am sure that many suspected this but voices like Christopher Monckton, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer have been howling in the wilderness until now. Even the warmanista George Moonbat (Monbiot) is accepting that these revelations are monster!
I am right behind the NO! to ETS group - taxing emissions which will have absolutely no impact on the temperature in the world at all.
OTOH, I do agree that the climate is changing - always has and always will. Australia always has been a land of droughts floods and fires and what we need to be doing, given the untenable population that we have already, is to be working on ways to ameliorate that situation the best way we can - not building more bloody school halls and letting dodgy brothers get rich off the tax payer dollar by installing batts in homes where people were too lazy to pay for their own.
Off hobby horse now - this Climategate thing has made me so damned angry!
Ian Plimer is a liar and a nutcase with no scientific credibility whatsoever. He also happens to be a director of three different mining companies, which I am sure has NOTHING to do with his position on climate change...
Edited to say - Vash's diagram, courtesy of the New Scientist is one promulgated by the IPCC based on information gained from the CRU - where you "ignore the decline", use "tricks" to disappear data you dont want etc. What relationship it has to reality is dubious to say the least.
AGW is a scientifically established fact. This does not stop morons like Plimer from spreading their wacky religion, but it does result in some amusing revelations when the denialists' own hired scientists expose the lie!
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.
So a bunch of industry representatives set up a lobby group and tried to hide the results when their own scientists told them that global warming is true. That's the real "Climategate" - not a handful of email snippets ripped out of context.
Nov 29th 2009, 8:19 pm
#18
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 906
Re: Global warming
Oh no it has not been debunked. You may have convinced yourself it has been but the investigation is far from over.
Last edited by cranston; Nov 29th 2009 at 8:22 pm.
Nov 29th 2009, 8:27 pm
#19
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8,378
Re: Global warming
Ah here we go, all in the pay of big oil no doubt.
What about the climate scientists who are in the pay of big Green and government who demand that they get the right answers so government can levy a tax on them.
I dont see much debunking, I do see some people running very scared though.
What about the climate scientists who are in the pay of big Green and government who demand that they get the right answers so government can levy a tax on them.
I dont see much debunking, I do see some people running very scared though.
Nov 29th 2009, 8:40 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global warming
Is Climate Change happening ? Yes, no doubt about it.
Is Climate Change 100% Human caused ? No; it isn't only us, it is part nature.
Is Climate change 100% natural ? No; we are to blame for a portion.
What portion is Human caused ? No-one knows for sure.
Will taxing us at high rates reduce our portion of the cause ? That depends !
Are we prepared to cut down our electricity consumption, stop watching TV, turn off heaters and cooling, use the car less, walk more, use bikes, turn of our computers instead of sitting here talking nonsense and increasing greenhouse gasses all the time, etc ?
Is it the threat of extra tax that will make us do all that, or will we do it just to help ?
Nov 29th 2009, 8:43 pm
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global warming
Which statement do you agree with
- Global warming is caused by humans
- Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
- Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible
- Global warming seems unlikely
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is somewhere between negligible and substantial.
Nov 29th 2009, 8:49 pm
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global warming
From the results so far, these 4 are the real puzzle...
But then, only 14% seem to be really ignoring the facts, so at least 86% realise something is happening.
1 person or 3.45% = Global warming seems unlikely
3 people or 10.34% = Global warming is caused by humans
3 people or 10.34% = Global warming is caused by humans
Nov 29th 2009, 9:14 pm
#23
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Global warming
And no humans were around to cause it that time.
Is Climate Change happening ? Yes, no doubt about it.
Is Climate Change 100% Human caused ? No; it isn't only us, it is part nature.
Is Climate change 100% natural ? No; we are to blame for a portion.
What portion is Human caused ? No-one knows for sure.
Will taxing us at high rates reduce our portion of the cause ? That depends !
Are we prepared to cut down our electricity consumption, stop watching TV, turn off heaters and cooling, use the car less, walk more, use bikes, turn of our computers instead of sitting here talking nonsense and increasing greenhouse gasses all the time, etc ?
Is it the threat of extra tax that will make us do all that, or will we do it just to help ?
Is Climate Change happening ? Yes, no doubt about it.
Is Climate Change 100% Human caused ? No; it isn't only us, it is part nature.
Is Climate change 100% natural ? No; we are to blame for a portion.
What portion is Human caused ? No-one knows for sure.
Will taxing us at high rates reduce our portion of the cause ? That depends !
Are we prepared to cut down our electricity consumption, stop watching TV, turn off heaters and cooling, use the car less, walk more, use bikes, turn of our computers instead of sitting here talking nonsense and increasing greenhouse gasses all the time, etc ?
Is it the threat of extra tax that will make us do all that, or will we do it just to help ?
Previous occurrences of CO2 were due to natural events (google Siberian Traps), its not this time. We can calculate how much we've put into the atmosphere fairly easily (its fossil fuels burnt) and it dwarfs natural events (like volcanos).
Honestly, there is no real debate on this one. It got nailed down in its essentials decades back. We're only really talking about feedback mechanism now, and many of these make it worse, not better.
If you don't believe it, do some research yourself. But don't come out with junk science pushed by right wing americans - its really not at all credible.
Nov 29th 2009, 9:27 pm
#24
Banned
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,054
Re: Global warming
Those blasted Eurasians dun it:
known principally for his "early anthropocene" hypothesis, the idea that Human-induced changes in greenhouse gases did not begin in the eighteenth century with advent of coal-burning factories and power plants of the industrial era, but date back to 8,000 years ago, triggered by intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors.
William Ruddiman
known principally for his "early anthropocene" hypothesis, the idea that Human-induced changes in greenhouse gases did not begin in the eighteenth century with advent of coal-burning factories and power plants of the industrial era, but date back to 8,000 years ago, triggered by intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors.
William Ruddiman
Nov 29th 2009, 9:56 pm
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global warming
Part of the reason I use the term ignorance is because people are making statements like this.
Previous occurrences of CO2 were due to natural events (google Siberian Traps), its not this time. We can calculate how much we've put into the atmosphere fairly easily (its fossil fuels burnt) and it dwarfs natural events (like volcanos).
Honestly, there is no real debate on this one. It got nailed down in its essentials decades back. We're only really talking about feedback mechanism now, and many of these make it worse, not better.
If you don't believe it, do some research yourself. But don't come out with junk science pushed by right wing americans - its really not at all credible.
Previous occurrences of CO2 were due to natural events (google Siberian Traps), its not this time. We can calculate how much we've put into the atmosphere fairly easily (its fossil fuels burnt) and it dwarfs natural events (like volcanos).
Honestly, there is no real debate on this one. It got nailed down in its essentials decades back. We're only really talking about feedback mechanism now, and many of these make it worse, not better.
If you don't believe it, do some research yourself. But don't come out with junk science pushed by right wing americans - its really not at all credible.
Uninformed, maybe, but ignorant ?
There are experts on both sides of this, each side publicly saying the other isn't credible, yet you call people without all the answers, and questioning what they hear, 'ignorant' ?
Most people appear to be aware of the problems, but do not know the actual % involved, which is to be expected.
The 10% that say that Global warming is caused by humans, without any natural effect, bearing in mind that it has also happened before humans, are the real worry. People who talk like that will obviously bring out others who will disagree with them.
Which group did you vote in ?
- Global warming is caused by humans
- Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
Nov 29th 2009, 10:14 pm
#26
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 823
Re: Global warming
I think climate change is a natural phenomenon that is being helped along by man's burning of fossil fuels and over farming. However I also believe that what was started off as a genuine scientific study of the global climate has been hijacked by governments and big business today to create a tax on people's conscience, hence the ETS trading which will do 9/10s of f&ck all to actually reduce emissions, and only cause polluting companies to pay more tax or relocate to countries where they don't have to pay. Hence Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown etc are only going to succeed in stuffing up their own economies in the long run. As it stands the ETS is a total waste of time unless China, the US, India and everyone else in the world agree to go in it together, which is just not going to happen.
Nov 29th 2009, 10:17 pm
#27
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
Isn't it interesting that the climate change sceptics appear to be people with vested interests in making vast sums money from industries that emit lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
Surely this is just coincidental?
Surely this is just coincidental?
Nov 29th 2009, 10:20 pm
#28
A lion in your lap
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Sparta NJ
Posts: 7,605
Re: Global warming
I think climate change is a natural phenomenon that is being helped along by man's burning of fossil fuels and over farming. However I also believe that what was started off as a genuine scientific study of the global climate has been hijacked by governments and big business
Nov 29th 2009, 10:29 pm
#29
A lion in your lap
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Sparta NJ
Posts: 7,605
Re: Global warming
Ah here we go, all in the pay of big oil no doubt.
What about the climate scientists who are in the pay of big Green and government who demand that they get the right answers so government can levy a tax on them.
I dont see much debunking, I do see some people running very scared though.
What about the climate scientists who are in the pay of big Green and government who demand that they get the right answers so government can levy a tax on them.
I dont see much debunking, I do see some people running very scared though.
Over 25 years, most developed (& developing) nation governments along with all environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Sierra Club, all in one big conspiracy to alienate their voters.
What is "in it" for the governments exactly? Their voters dislike taxes and solutions for MMCC are likely to increase costs and taxes - why would a government of any flavor want to have to tell its electorate this bad news when it is clearly unpopular?
What is the motivation for all these disparate governments and NGOs to band together in a giant conspiracy like this for over a quarter of a century.
I can see why the energy companies and automotive sectors would want to rubbish MMCC - they have a clear interest in doing so just like the smoking and asbestos sectors before them, but what is in it for the other players? I can almost see something in it for the environmental NGOs as its their meat and potatoes, but I can see no sensible motivation for governments across many differing nations to be involved in this huge cover-up (or is it swindle?).
Thanks to Cape Blue
Nov 29th 2009, 10:31 pm
#30
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Global warming
I think that calling people ignorant because they say things like "Previous occurrences of CO2 were due to natural events" is over the top.
Uninformed, maybe, but ignorant ?
There are experts on both sides of this, each side publicly saying the other isn't credible, yet you call people without all the answers, and questioning what they hear, 'ignorant' ?
Most people appear to be aware of the problems, but do not know the actual % involved, which is to be expected.
The 10% that say that Global warming is caused by humans, without any natural effect, bearing in mind that it has also happened before humans, are the real worry. People who talk like that will obviously bring out others who will disagree with them.
Which group did you vote in ?
Uninformed, maybe, but ignorant ?
There are experts on both sides of this, each side publicly saying the other isn't credible, yet you call people without all the answers, and questioning what they hear, 'ignorant' ?
Most people appear to be aware of the problems, but do not know the actual % involved, which is to be expected.
The 10% that say that Global warming is caused by humans, without any natural effect, bearing in mind that it has also happened before humans, are the real worry. People who talk like that will obviously bring out others who will disagree with them.
Which group did you vote in ?
- Global warming is caused by humans
- Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
Honestly, there aren't really any experts on the other side of the debate, it really has been done and dusted for decades. Every so often someone like a electrical engineer will pipe up and get reported in the press, but its background noise. The effort today is into quantifying how bad it will be, and why it appears to be happening as fast as the worst possible case. Nobody seriously questions IF its happening anymore - at least nobody who knows about it. It would be like trying trying to claim that sunshine doesn't make you hot.
What we are seeing IS due to humans, the natural stuff is very minor in comparison and would be happening much, much slower. The worry is people have got so confused by the lies that are being spread that they don't realise this. This has been an active disinformation campaign akin to cigarettes and cancer.
As for what I voted, well isn't that obvious? The only right answer of course.
