Burbage

Here's an interesting article from the Torygraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...e-experts.html

It's extraordinary how the climate change thing has become akin to a religious dogma. One almost expects the Spanish Inquisition (rather than balanced scientific debate) for daring to suggest that it isn't a big problem.

steve`o

http://www.globalwarming.nottinghams...cientists.html

renth

All this man made global warming BS started with Margaret Thatcher to help her crush the coalminers.

It is a dogma and any dissenting views are labeled as heretic.

easty1976

Great article! Thanks for posting this.

Swerv-o

I made this point back in July last year!

Coal - Queensland's Future


Glad to see that other people are finally coming around to my way of thinking!


S

Burbage

You certainly aren't the only one who has cast a jaundiced eye at the anthropomorphic climate change lobby group. Clearly the Earth has been warmer in the recent past than it is now, in the absence of elevated CO2 levels.

During the Medieval Warm Period the Vikings were able to farm in Greenland, that's a lot warmer than today. The Little Ice Age put paid to that. The global warming lobby very conveniently fail to mention these things.

A good paper (if not necessarily a less vested interest group) is this one:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

While the organisation which publishes this web page is suspicious, it is very hard to criticise the paper itself, which is clearly written, appears to cover all the data and doesn't hide from "inconvenient truths". Unlike the IPCC report, which is broadly gibberish with no discernable clear data treatment.

If anyone who reads the paper and has anything that clearly invalidates it should let us know.

easty1976

I saw this over a week ago and was going to post it but did'nt want to be labelled a conspiracy nut; but now Burbage will probably get that label I will post it now.

http://www.thecitizen.com/node/35420

Its funny but I did'nt see this mentioned at all in the media.

Burbage

And here are the translations:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...t_translation/

johnnyx0

I know I'll probably get slain for this, but climate change is happening. Doesn't matter why or who caused it. Facts are that we live in a changing planet, with dying coral reefs, worse air pollution, a hole in the ozone (right above my house judging by my red forehead!) melting ice caps and rising sea levels. These are facts, I'm not simply repeating any hysteria. The immediate results which we can see now for Aus are hotter days and more dramatic rain patterns, which we don't need.

Yes, climate change has happened before - last time was the most recent ice-age. (Sounds like a ball of fun - doesn't it? At least we'll get cheap skiing holidays anyway)

No, we don't have 1000 years of data to prove that our current climate change is caused by humans, but lets face it - if something smells like fish, tastes like fish and looks like fish - then it's probably fish. As I say, it doesn't matter who or why it's happening; point is we have to reduce it, which we can do.

Seems like people that deny climate change are denying it because they don't want their race to be to blame for killing whole ecosystems. When you tell someone not to waste energy, it's like telling them that they have done wrong for the whole of their life, which people find very difficult to accept.

Whether we like it or not, it's up to our generation to do what we can to minimize the disruption to our ecosystem, because once it's *****ed - it's *****ed for a long, long time.

If you've got the guts to tell your grandchildren in fifty years time "Yes, we could see the signs of climate change, but we didn't want to accept it - so we just carried on killing the planet, sorry" - then go ahead and keep sticking your heads in the sand. But remember, when you stick your head in the sand, all people see is an *rse.

Rant over

Kooky.

That pretty much sums up my views, johnny.

renth

Sure we need to preserve our ecosystems, try not to pollute, not cut down old growth forest to make newspaper, stop killing whales, try to preserve animal habitats. I'm with you on all these things.

I just don't agree that "climate change" is man made. In fact the last couple of years it's getting cooler again.

A bit like with vaccinating kids, on one side you have loonies (the man made climate change lobby) and on the other you have respected scientists who have been getting very little funding and media attention..

BTW there are three things that smell like fish, one of them is fish...

Notts_bloke

Er no. Thatcher wanted to break the unions.

renth

And the coalminers union was the one she started with.

The threat of global warming was used to break the coal miner's union.

steve`o

i thought it was because the cheeky bastards went on strike every winter ?

Burbage

No one is denying that the earth is getting warmer. Perhaps if you read the paper you might be able to produce a coherent argument.

The earth is getting warmer, no one disputes this. The tenet of the paper above is that temepratures are returning to normal after the little ice age in the middle of the last millenium. 1000 years ago the earth was considerably warmer than it is now, during the Medieval Warm Period. The Vikings were able to farm Greenland (they called it greenland because it was green, not white.).

The dispute has nothing to do with the fact that the earth is warming. It has to do with the hypothesis that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is causing abnormal and accelerated warming. The paper I linked to above disputes this. If the paper is correct then the following applies:
1. Increased levels of CO2 do not cause temperatures to increase.
2. Reducing carbon dioxide output will therefore have no effect on the rate at which the planet warms.
3. Elevated levels of carbon dioxide definitely encourage plant growth, which is the base of the food chain. Therefore it is very likely that if this paper is correct and carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming then it would actually be detrimental to the environment to reduce it.

In effect the paper is saying that carbon dioxide is not the problem.

It is not saying that the earth is not heating up.