VFR

It would seem that the tide is now turning & we may at last see just what a scam this all is.
Yes of course we should strive to reduce waste/consumption & strive to stop Global Buisiness from destroying the planet in the search for the biggest profit line, but carbon offset/tax this/tax that etc etc ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ws_BlogsModule

rugbymatt

Yet the impact that Climate change is having on various Inuit tribes within the Arctic circle cannot be ignored. Peoples lives are already being impacted and their lifestyles and lives are being put in danger so I wonder if they feel there is no need to panic?

jimenato

Not so fast

From the New York Times

Dick Dasterdly

Don't panic Mr Mainwaring, don't panic.


We're all Doomed I tell ye, .... Dooooomed !!!

Saxy

Nah, it's not as good as that

VFR

For sure there is a change occurring, but some question the current thesis as to why ?

jimenato

To question it is fine but to deny it is not.

The Wall Street Journal apparently has a bit of history on this. Although they published that article by 16 scientists they refused to publish an earlier article by 255 scientists with quite another view of the situation.

And although I'm not a scientist I can see how the WSJ article is logically flawed. This part...

... is at best dubious (define 'pollutant') and in any case completely irrelevant. None of the facts stated say anything whatever about the effect of TOO MUCH carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So a rather dodgy article.

VFR

As you say you are not a scientist, but a number of the signatory's to the article are & a number of them experts in their field to say the least.


Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Madridboy

The great global warming swindle - Full version

cricketman

[QUOTE=playamonte;9880540]As you say you are not a scientist, but a number of the signatory's to the article are & a number of them experts in their field to say the least.
QUOTE]

I am a scientist. Well, at least one with a Masters and published papers, although not a PHD

I suggest you research where the scientists you listed receive most of their funding. I think you may find a lot of it comes from fossil fuel companies, motoring companies etc

There are many types of scientists. Fat ones, skinny ones, intelligent ones, stupid ones, moral ones and immoral ones

I choose to listen to those who are at the head of their field i.e. not the ones you listed. And they are unequivical that climate change is happening. There is a "scientific" debate to be had on whether we can reverse climate change, by how much and how to do so. But the climate is changing and human activity (and our current system of growth capitalism and overpopulation) is a major driver of it.

VFR

[QUOTE=cricketman;9880696] Yes indeed we should & god help the career of any that buck the current trend.

BTW what category do you fit into then from your list.

stevesainty

I am in the camp of 'there is no MAN-MADE global warming/climate change' but that is a gut instinct, I have no hard facts or scientists to trot out.

Let me offer a few reasons though of why I feel this way.

Before fossil fuels were used extensively, around 1900, the only man made pollution was perhaps the burning of other carboniferous fuels ie wood/peat.
Therefore I do not believe that a period of just over 100 years can have had such an impact.

Man only inhabits a very small portion of this earth, there are vast tracts of land where nature runs its course with plants and trees processing carbon dioxide and creating oxygen.

Up until fairly recently, 50 years ago, those people using fossil fuels in large quantities were Europeans, North Americans and parts of South America. Apart from some industry the vast majority of the Asians, Indians, and Africans could not afford/ did not need to use fossil fuels.

I am not saying that I am right, nor am I saying that we should not try to be much greener and preserve what little reserves of fossil fuels we have.

What I am saying is that I do not think that man has created this climate change. I believe it is a cyclical event that has been repeated many times before man even populated this earth. I think that we are arrogant to even think that against mother nature we could make such an impact.

My twopenn'th, for what it's worth.

cricketman

Thanks for sharing, this indicates precisely why the topic generates such confusion abong the general publish - because most people dont understand how and why climate change is caused

There are 2 main molecules - CO2 and methane, they hang around in the stratosphere and reflect the heat (radiation) that bounces back from the earth and would normally escape back out into space.

There have always been CO2 and methane in the stratosphere. However, in the past 100 years, humans have produced much higher quantaties of these molecules than existed previously - through manufacturing, industry and farming. So now there is more of them in the atmosphere and more heat is being reflected back to earth instead of excaping out to space - it really is simple

As for, humans buring fossil fuels a 100 years ago. Yes they were but in much lower quantities. There are now 6 times more humans on the planet than 100 years ago - and manufacturing and transport (the biggest contributers to CO2 levels) were at a much lower rate

Now, its hardly rocket science is it?

stevesainty

Ok cricketman I do appreciate that there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than 100 years ago, I think that is a universally accepted fact.

However I reiterate, can only 100 years, a mere speck in the eons of time, produce such a huge climatic change?

What about the time when there were huge amounts of volcanic activity, on earth spewing sulphur particles etc. surely this was more likely to bring about climate change.

I think we ought to switch the debate away from whether climate change is man made or not and concentrate on preserving what little resources we have left.

Man is never going to do without electricity in the next millenium.

We should put all our energies into finding, cheaper natural ways of producing electricity by harnessing the elements rather that spending billions tinkering with the effects of climate change.

cricketman

You have a couple of concepts a little confused

1. We are not talking about huge changes in the climate, just changes of 1-4c. However, at a 4c increase, most of the UK disappears underwater
2. Yes, volcanic activity cools the earth dramatically. In the last ice age, temperatures dropped by more than 4c. This caused a mass extinction of mammals - and wiped out the other humanid species e.g. neandathals and 7-8 others around the world
3. Yes you are correct, producing sustainable green energy is the key, along with changing our throwaway consumerist culutre - and a sharp dose of population control. If the population increases by a factor of 6 over the next 100 years, like in the did in the last 100 years, then we are DOOMED!

We need to act, the quicker the better or our grandchildren will have a miserable future and our great, great grandchildren may have no future at all.

Half of me thinks that the human race wont exist in 2,000 years time, while the other half thinks there will be a major incident in the next 100 years or so that will make us face up to reality - and humans will survive as a much less populous species living sustainably. Perhaps 500 million (12 times less than now)

What I say may seem radical, but I've studied the matter quite a bit and it doesnt look good. That is what exponential population curves do to every species from bacteria to humans! You adapt or get wiped out.

Humans are in the unique position of being able to consciously effect our own destiny, my wish is that this consciousness spreads to the people that matter!