permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/1594923
ridsdale Posted on 15/12/2009 17:05
Climate change; a vote.

If you believe something is happening caused by mankind, vote yes.

If you believe Jeremy Clarkson, vote no.



Yes.

Critical_Bill Posted on 15/12/2009 17:06
Climate change; a vote.

This is something that I honestly don't care about, and have not watched or read anything about that stupid meet up in Denmark.

bevoboro Posted on 15/12/2009 17:07
Climate change; a vote.

No. I believe climate change is a cycle.

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 15/12/2009 17:08
Climate change; a vote.

with big tyres?

rob_fmttm Posted on 15/12/2009 17:12
Climate change; a vote.

Without a doubt yes. The weight of evidence is sadly as massive as a melting ice sheet. All the oil money sponsored email hacking in the world can't really deny it.

It is now believed that climate change is oftenvery sudden and extremely dramatic. Sea Level rises and falls in the geological as well as historical past have often been sudden and cataclysmic. It takes a lot of force to carve the White Cliffs of Dover or to cut a swathe through the moors in Newtondale as water surged from a melting ice sheet over Eskdale.

It can happen virtually over night. A few too many ice bergs break off and you have a massive tsunami.

But so much evidence been dredged up from the ocean cores that even old sceptical archaeologists now believe in it.

Harry_x Posted on 15/12/2009 17:13
Climate change; a vote.

Yes .. no doubt

rt_boro Posted on 15/12/2009 17:14
Climate change; a vote.

so rob, you believe that oil companies caused the white cliffs of dover?

scooby Posted on 15/12/2009 17:17
Climate change; a vote.

"A few too many ice bergs break off and you have a massive tsunami."
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

rob_fmttm Posted on 15/12/2009 17:18
Climate change; a vote.

Yes it was a cover up between SHELL and Vera Lynn. A terrible, messy business.


kernaghanscodpiece Posted on 15/12/2009 17:18
Climate change; a vote.

Yes [^]

Old_Gregg Posted on 15/12/2009 17:20
Climate change; a vote.

Not a chance - it's just a big money making exercise for goverments.

TheBoy007 Posted on 15/12/2009 17:21
Climate change; a vote.

So rob do you believe its man made or just a natural thing as you've described has happened in the past?

HolgateCorner Posted on 15/12/2009 17:23
Climate change; a vote.

No - without a doubt no - a big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than a bit of coal burning will ever do.

The climate has always changed.

It's a load of boll***s.

Funky_Tuncay Posted on 15/12/2009 17:30
Climate change; a vote.

The key words are "caused by mankind"

So,

Are we the main cause: No.

Is climate change happening: Yes.

Will big business make a fortune off it trading carbon emission tokens: Of course.

Are people still gullible and falling for this bollox: Sadly, yes. [|)]

Old_Gregg Posted on 15/12/2009 17:31
Climate change; a vote.

I must say as well that it was a disappointingly loaded question from ridsdale to start with. Why try to ridicule one viewpoint before you start? Unless you are worried about the outcome of an unbiased vote?

rob_fmttm Posted on 15/12/2009 17:32
Climate change; a vote.

No it is man made. We are in one of those inbetween stages between ice ages. We should actually be getting colder now but we are not.

There is loads of data about sea level ups and downs and climatic changes going back thousands and thousands of years now thanks to cores taken from the bottom of the worlds oceans. So a massive body of evidence if you like of what is happening and why.

The atmosphere has been loaded with carbon before from volcanic action and that laid waste to most of the species on the planet.

No one really knows when the trigger point will be reached but geology/climatology tells us once that happens that there is no going back everything changes.

It is very frightening actually. I try not to think about it which is very bad but if the polar ice sheets keep retreating then Teesside will become the new Dogger Land - a land submerged beneath the North Sea at the last majoy climatic shift.

Anyway, I'm still blaming Dame Vera Lynn.

I should add that even when the dinosaurs were wiped out and there were volcanoes everywhere there was nothing like as much carbon in the atmosphere as now.

zaphod Posted on 15/12/2009 17:34
Climate change; a vote.

Yes, but I don't believe the catastrophic forecasts being bandied about. There are good reasons to cut back on fossil fuels and to protect the rain forests, regardless of climate effects, so we should concentrate on those.

Copenhagen will achieve nothing but a lot of noble-sounding promises, before everyone goes home & makes token gestures.

I believe that one billion or more impoverished & starving people in the here & now are much more worthy of attention than the predicted effects of climate change in 30 years' time. I'm also hopeful sea level rises will flood those ludicrous islands in Dubai.

Piggy Posted on 15/12/2009 17:35
Climate change; a vote.

Generally I can pretty much guess my opinion on something I know little about just by taking the opposite viewpoint to Clarkson.

However, with climate change I just dont care. If I need to put a jumper on or off, I'll just do it. I live at the top of a hill so rising sea levels are of little consequence for me.

I'm quite happy for others to do my worrying for me whilst I get on with stuff.

easy_livin Posted on 15/12/2009 17:36
Climate change; a vote.

Rob, you are having a laff, right.
I'm assuming your geology degree included the fact that when the valley's were formed, including Eskdale, the water forming them was solid at the time before melting slowly to form the rivers and lakes.

Old_Gregg Posted on 15/12/2009 17:37
Climate change; a vote.

Rob - I didn't get past your first line, because we are not getting warmer at all. The earth is cooling at the moment, and has been for the best part of a decade, despite carbon emissions being at an all time high. Open your eyes to the facts mate.

chorleyphil Posted on 15/12/2009 17:40
Climate change; a vote.

If all poles melted we'd be looking at a sea level rise of 5-6 inches!

Big Tsunami [cr]

Fact

MADMICK Posted on 15/12/2009 17:47
Climate change; a vote.

Whats your solution to all this climate change then rob?..higher Taxes..higher electricity?..higher..fuel..higher food costs?
If there was really any concern by the worlds governments, they would be encouraging people to do things that WOULD actually help people contribute to lower emmissions etc.
How about paying people not to have kids? how about lower electricity and gas bills for people who only use below a allowed amount and are hevily penalised for usage there after?
How about turning every other street light off after 12pm till 5am? how about monitoring Politicians gas and electricity accounts and see exactly how much THEY contribute to stopping climate change(not much id reckon)
How about football matches only been played during the summer in daylight hours?
Theres plenty of ways to help stop mans contribution to climate change but the only thing people in power think of doing is penalising the less well off masses and pampering to the more wealthy.

Its a No from me if people think humans are the sole responsiblity for climate change.

zaphod Posted on 15/12/2009 17:48
Climate change; a vote.

OG, average temperatures have plateaued since 1998, but there is no statistically significant downward trend since then.

chorley,the melting of the North Pole wouldn't raise sea levels. It's the melting of the ice caps on land, mainly Greenland & Antarctica, that would have a big effect (metres), but this would happen slowly. Sea levels have already risen by more than 6 inches in the past 50 years.

I reckon we could cope with a slow rise, by building sea defences & relocating.

onion_budgie Posted on 15/12/2009 17:57
Climate change; a vote.

Yes.
Swayed by the disappearing polar ice caps and coral reefs, Clarkson and David Attenborough who actually does know his stuff. I guess we'll all be toast by the time it really kicks in though and as usual, it will no doubt be the Third World (excluding Tyne & Weeah), which gets it worst.

number9point5 Posted on 15/12/2009 17:58
Climate change; a vote.

[^]

No

With Aloy Wheels and a BIG V8

rob_fmttm Posted on 15/12/2009 18:01
Climate change; a vote.

Have got to go now - but why on earth would you think the world is cooling?

Sea_Harrier Posted on 15/12/2009 18:04
Climate change; a vote.

An alternative view, not necessarily mine though.

Click on the "100 reasons" banner in the article.


Link: Earth is cooling ..................

Tommy_Trinder Posted on 15/12/2009 18:10
Climate change; a vote.

No... load of bol olox, it's just a natural weather cycle as posted by previous poster.

This has been dreamed up by boffins who've
got nothing better to do, and took on board by an inept government as an excuse to raise taxes.

Hercules Posted on 15/12/2009 18:22
Climate change; a vote.

Big yes from me.

Even if carbon emissions aren't causing it, theres a very good reason to reduce your carbon footprint. That being that its a finite resource with few viable alternatives.

mattrich Posted on 15/12/2009 18:25
Climate change; a vote.

100% unsure.

beattsmjk Posted on 15/12/2009 18:33
Climate change; a vote.

Noooooooooooooo!

Well maybe a little!

However, it is a fantastic way for the government to increase and invent new taxes because few people argue these facts.

I'd happily recycle, switch off lights etc if the gov't weren't trying to strictly enforce it with increased taxes.

As it is I won't do a thing to help allevate global warming whatsoever.

I also dont believe we should get our own house in order before doling out billions to other countries.

darlonorth Posted on 15/12/2009 18:37
Climate change; a vote.

Yes

Oooo Posted on 15/12/2009 18:45
Climate change; a vote.

Yes

Smoggle Posted on 15/12/2009 18:48
Climate change; a vote.

I work as an environmental scientist - and while that title doesn't make me an expert - far from it, I do try to keep up to date with the science and research involved in climate change when I can.

The climate is changing, and yes the planet has gone through many warming and cooling periods. Climate change is cyclical. However, with regards to this warming event, is man speeding up the rate of change?

My view is yes. We have pumped CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution on a massive scale - this has to have some effect, we know what atmosphere's with large amounts of greenhouse gases look like.

The problems in my opinion are:

- Governments will jump on the bandwagon - and use it as en excuse to tax us.

-No one likes to be preached at by rightious tree huggers, the green argument needs to be inclusive.

-Uncertain/differing scientific opinions... I accept climate change is man made, but different studies throw up different rates of warming (is it 2 degrees or the dreaded 6 degrees?) - obviously the variables involved are significant, but it might be wise to look at the middle ground.

- The fact it has been called "global warming" is misleading - while it may lead to warmer temperatures overall, microclimates and localised weather systems may not display a temprature rise.

I cant help thinking that winters were colder (more snow) and summers dryer when I was younger. Anyway, even if this is uncertain, even if it turns out to not be as serious as predicted... is it really so bad to try to move away from finate forms of energy and become "greener"?

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 19:11
Climate change; a vote.

YES.

If people claim they dont care then very shamefull indeed.

Living on a hill, or wearing an extra jumper wont help you im afraid. Food shortages will cripple the population as less landmass is available for agriculture, the climate becomes more volatile making crops difficult to raise. Disease, famine, displacement, all factors that will make life absolute hell.


SNOWBANDIT Posted on 15/12/2009 19:24
Climate change; a vote.

"We have pumped CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution on a massive scale - this has to have some effect, we know what atmosphere's with large amounts of greenhouse gases look like."


Weeell....maybe we have....but see reason no 33.

"33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to MOST of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere"

They have overshot their bolt as far as I'm concerned - it's all if and maybes and whatifs.

There are so many variables that effect the climate ( the Sun,volcanoes, the sea,water ,clouds etc etc ), that to put it all on poor wee CO2 is a bit simplistic in the extreme. Just not believable in any shape form or fashion.

it wasn't that long ago the self same "scientific community" was predicting an Ice Age !! So why are they to be believed this time? Utter Kack

Definately a NO for me [V]

Bukowski Posted on 15/12/2009 19:25
Climate change; a vote.

Temperatures have actually fallen by 0.05% over the last decade.

SNOWBANDIT Posted on 15/12/2009 19:26
Climate change; a vote.

....population explosion...well that's another thing altogther...and probably a sight more important IMHO

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 19:27
Climate change; a vote.

Bukowski, is that a figure for global temperature?


flaps Posted on 15/12/2009 19:36
Climate change; a vote.

Right now I think it's unlikely to be generally man made.

However, the important thing is to have an open an honest debate, which we can't have when so many people are making their careers and fortunes on the back of telling us all what we should or should not do.

George1507 Posted on 15/12/2009 19:36
Climate change; a vote.

No, absolutely and definitely not.

Is the climate changing - YES.

Has it always changed - YES.

Is man responsible - To a VERY small extent.

Percent of CO2 in the atmosphere today - 380 parts per MILLION.

Percent of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1908 - 375 parts per MILLION.

5 parts per million increase in 100 years? And that's responsible for the climate change we are seeing? Don't be ridiculous.

I don't think climate change is as rapid as people are saying either. The world is a little warmer, but not much. A very small increase. The depth of ice at the North Pole is greater today than it's been in recorded history.

And if one more person tells me that we are sinking because the Arctic is melting I'll scream. If the Arctic melted ENTIRELY it wouldn't change the depth of the oceans by even a millimetre, because it's a floating ice cap.

Global warming, the CO2 myth and the hysteria that's being whipped up is a government sponsored con.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 19:48
Climate change; a vote.

For george1507.

Here is a bit fromn the article

"Up Next

How Global Warming Works

Are climate skeptics right?

Discovery.com: Arctic Ice


But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo­re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little."




Link: Read this

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 19:49
Climate change; a vote.

"There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt."

nidge Posted on 15/12/2009 19:56
Climate change; a vote.

NOT man-made by any stretch of the imagination.

The carbon con is about taxation taxation taxation.

If it was so serious the biggest polluter on Earth (the USA) would have signed the Kyoto treaty thats been on the table for THIRTEEN YEARS. They haven't and won't because they know the truth.

Yes the world is warming up (or was until recently), but its natural. If carbon-based fuels never existed, the world would still be warming up. We've been duped to believe we're the cause. Its bollox.

Its about wealth, not health.

red_shamrock Posted on 15/12/2009 19:58
Climate change; a vote.

Put it on the TV enough and you will believe it

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 20:02
Climate change; a vote.

"If it was so serious the biggest polluter on Earth (the USA) "


You mean China right?



littlejimmy Posted on 15/12/2009 20:07
Climate change; a vote.

On balance, yes, I think we are affecting the climate and the environment. Anyone who thinks we aren't is blind.

Are the governments of the world exaggerating the threat in order to control us and impose more taxes? Most probably. They do that with most stuff.

Does the planet need saving? Nah. It will just shake us off like fleas. It's humans that are in danger...from their own stupidity. I'm sure we'll adapt and some may survive in some form or other...maybe some future form of human will be like chickens are to T-rexes. We might even end up further down the food chain one day...

Now, what happened in Corrie tonight?

nidge Posted on 15/12/2009 20:09
Climate change; a vote.

No, I meant the USA. they accounted for 36.1% of worldwide greenhouse emissions alone in the 90's. But granted China may soon overtake them.


Link: The USA Versus the Environment

littlejimmy Posted on 15/12/2009 20:10
Climate change; a vote.

Talking of China...talking of all of BRIC, really...if they consumed and polluted as much as the USA did per capita, we'd need about 3 planets. They aren't going to be allowed to, though. The fun has been had by the baby-boomer generation and it's sack-cloth and ashes time now that the oil's running out.

Perhaps.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 20:11
Climate change; a vote.

"Does the planet need saving? Nah. It will just shake us off like fleas."

part of the problem jimmy, people are just thinking about us and not about the rest of life on the planet, species of animal, plants etc which once are gone dont come back. The knock on effects are monumental with eco systems being completely eradicated.

Surely we have a responsibility to honour what we have.

littlejimmy Posted on 15/12/2009 20:18
Climate change; a vote.

I know this, SS, but I don't hold out any hope of the human race doing anything to fix the situation. Nature will sort it, one way or the other. Despite some perverse belief that we are stewards of this planet and therefore exist outside the laws of nature...we don't.

Smoggle Posted on 15/12/2009 20:22
Climate change; a vote.

I guess we'll find out... in most of our lifetimes too. Although declining glaciers and early stages of sea level rise is enough to tell me something is happening, the scientific community isn't controlled by government and is almost unanimous in fovour manmade global warming.

There are that many knock on effects and feedback loops that no-one here can say with unshakeable certainty what is going on. To say the Earth is cooling is to look at only one data set - UAH shows an overall decline, NASA and the UK Met Office have shown increases - who to believe? Anyway, a cooling trend would not disprove GW, graphs over time with so many variables rarely just go up with no stutters.

I read a study that predicted the supposedly catastrphic 6 degree rise in temperature by 2100... surely we'll notice - I mean REALLY notice beyond any doubt if that comes close to happening.

swordtrombonefish Posted on 15/12/2009 20:26
Climate change; a vote.

Climate change is happening, but man alone is not the cause, just a contributor.

However, the rape and depletion of the planets resources is a man made thing and will likely end his reign.

Smoggle Posted on 15/12/2009 20:29
Climate change; a vote.

"Percent of CO2 in the atmosphere today - 380 parts per MILLION.

Percent of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1908 - 375 parts per MILLION."

Where's that from?

I understood it was around 190ppm at the last ice age, 290ppm in 1900 following the industrial revolution, and 380ppm today?

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=462

nidge Posted on 15/12/2009 20:33
Climate change; a vote.

"Although declining glaciers and early stages of sea level rise is enough to tell me something is happening, the scientific community isn't controlled by government and is almost unanimous in fovour manmade global warming."


The scientific community that continues to push the man-made global warming theory IS invariably linked to government funding. Al Gore is a prime example. The bloke won't even debate with the scientific community that isn't shackled by governement funding and is free to tell it how it really is, because they say the complete opposite, and he won't debate with them because he knows his 'evidence' would be ripped to shreds.

Again, no one is arguing about whats happening. We can see with our own eyes that the world is getting warmer. Its the causes of it that are in question. I personally don't believe the same type of people who convinced the world Iraq had WMD's are telling us the whole truth about the CAUSES of Global Warming.


Link: Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

ridsdale Posted on 15/12/2009 20:35
Climate change; a vote.

Smoggle, do you mind me asking what your job involves and where you do it?

There is so much information on this, I suppose it is easy to find stuff to be either pro or anti. I think we are upsetting the balance of the planet and we are lucky that scientists are giving us some warning. That at least gives us a chance to reverse the situation, if we have the will.

Smoggle Posted on 15/12/2009 20:46
Climate change; a vote.

I work for a national environmental consultancy; the firm itself has many areas of expertise from multiple sectors such as construction, mining, renewables, waste etc etc. I work in the Newcastle office where our core work comes from mining and quarrying all over the north and Scotland, we're also big on renewables and waste. My own work areas are largely soils and landuse, peatlands (very important in regards to carbon/methane), quarrying operations/restoration + a bit of GIS.

It's unbelieveably easy to find "evidence" for and against climate change. It seems to e there are too many voices and it needs someone to really explain the basics for people who aren't sure and debunk all the myths... I guess people are trying to do that but it's hard to hear all the differing voices.

I fimly believe that finding greener solutions is better in the long run, global warming or no global warming.

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants Posted on 15/12/2009 20:49
Climate change; a vote.

The Earth will always change, why humans think we can alter it I don't know.

The rain in cumbria was blamed on climate change. How long do the records go back, 300 years? How many weather stations were on Shap back then? The earth has been round for millions and millions of years so we have the rainfall records for probably 0.000000000000000000000000000001% of it's life.

They were blaming climate change on jelly fish off the coast of japan that hadn't been seen for years. What was the excuse for them turning up last time?

Sea levels have rose 20cm in the maldives over the last 20 years.back in the 1950s it was actually 30cm higher than it is today.

Polar bears were apparently on the verge of extinction but their numbers are rising.

If we effect it it is minimal in my eyes.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 20:51
Climate change; a vote.

"They were blaming climate change on jelly fish off the coast of japan that hadn't been seen for years."


[:o)]

Do they drive 4x4's

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 20:55
Climate change; a vote.

None of Jonny's post was actual fact, just made up rubbish and none of it actually relevant to the topic.

Utter drivel.

ridsdale Posted on 15/12/2009 20:55
Climate change; a vote.

Thanks for that Smoggle, I guess you are a geologist.


I find it astonishing that so many have been conned by the conservative argument, the one that will benefit the global capitalists.

Just because these and global governments have hijacked the argument in order to realign global wealth does not mean the planet is not in danger.

We need to curb both population growth and consumption.

Capitalism needs more customers, so the answer has to be a society based on viable use of resources.

Smoggle Posted on 15/12/2009 20:55
Climate change; a vote.

"The scientific community that continues to push the man-made global warming theory IS invariably linked to government funding. Al Gore is a prime example. The bloke won't even debate with the scientific community that isn't shackled by governement funding and is free to tell it how it really is, because they say the complete opposite, and he won't debate with them because he knows his 'evidence' would be ripped to shreds.

Again, no one is arguing about whats happening. We can see with our own eyes that the world is getting warmer. Its the causes of it that are in question. I personally don't believe the same type of people who convinced the world Iraq had WMD's are telling us the whole truth about the CAUSES of Global Warming."

Al Gore, while a passionate and vocal believer in MMGW, isn't a scientist out in the field doing research for NGO's or even GO's who gathers evidence to prove GW. He has had holes in his arguments, but it's also fair to say that science evolves as he makes one of his crusading documentaries.

Anyway fair point about the causes, but I don't think the same intelligence for Iraq is used in GW.

Smoggle Posted on 15/12/2009 20:58
Climate change; a vote.

Ridsdale - agree with all of that [^]

I'm not a geologist as such, although I have a bit of background in it. My title is environmental scientist, but that tells you nothing really as the acoustics department have the same title! I guess soil scientist might be a bit more applicable - but i'd rather not be pigeonholed!

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants Posted on 15/12/2009 20:59
Climate change; a vote.

Splendid, all of the things i mentioned have been in the news over the past month and climate change was blamed.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 21:00
Climate change; a vote.

"Capitalism needs more customers, so the answer has to be a society based on viable use of resources. "

Words of a prophet Ridsdale [^]

Simply we dont have the resources to support a growing population, life expectancy is increasing, less disease and famine than before, we are just growing in numbers and stripping the planet whilst destroying the balance of the planet.

Even if people dont believe in climate change they should be thinking twice about the future of the planets resources. We are dependant on them and even if climate change doesnt f00k us then no oil will thin out the numbers considerably.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 21:11
Climate change; a vote.

Jonny those snippets of wonderful information which dont discuss other factors are ridiculous. Surely you dont base your global opinion on some jellyfish and a bit of rain.

The polarbears are now not hunted as much so numbers will increase, but as with all that info you kindly provided, its not really relevant to a global picture.

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants Posted on 15/12/2009 21:19
Climate change; a vote.

I read a fair bit online about the issue and think that humans have little effect on the climate. The things i mentioned were covered in the national press suggesting climate change is to blame.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 21:25
Climate change; a vote.

So stay off the press and read some real factual stuff.

Jellyfish, and thats what you have been reading [:o)]

littlejimmy Posted on 15/12/2009 21:26
Climate change; a vote.

Capitalism is completely reliant on unlimited, infinite growth. Unfortunately we live on a finite planet. The capitalist answer to poverty? Make everyone rich...bring everyone up to the Western standard of living...don't even think of reining back on our way of life....

Do the math.

ridsdale Posted on 15/12/2009 21:30
Climate change; a vote.

Maths jimmy,don't do the American math thing.

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants Posted on 15/12/2009 21:42
Climate change; a vote.

I do read factual stuff.

Just sick of every bit of rain, snow, heatwave etc being blamed on climate change.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 21:50
Climate change; a vote.

Thats the media jonny, desperate for a story, which some people love to absorb.

littlejimmy Posted on 15/12/2009 21:59
Climate change; a vote.

Sorry, dude.

ridsdale Posted on 15/12/2009 22:00
Climate change; a vote.

It's OK guys[^]

HolgateCorner Posted on 15/12/2009 22:00
Climate change; a vote.

Global Warming is now an academics led major global industry whch needs billions of pounds every year to feed it.

How much has that Copenhagen summit cost? How many government scientists and advisors have travelled there from all over the world to spout biased and massaged statistics for a week or two?

What about the carbon footprint for that event?

Who's paying for it all? I bet they haven't been eating apples and oranges while talking about saving the planet.

I'm old enough to remember the 'hole in the ozone layer' crisis. If you thought global warming was bad, you should have heard what they said about that... it terrified me when I was a kid and didn't know any better...

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 22:06
Climate change; a vote.

If you dont think 'climate change' is a relevant issue then why use a counter argument of "What about the carbon footprint for that event?"

Surely carbon footprint is irrelevant?

And bye the way the carbon footprint of china in one day is more than the increase from travel to the visit Copenhagen for the event.



ridsdale Posted on 15/12/2009 22:12
Climate change; a vote.

That depends on whether you think Copenhagen has any use whatsoever. I don't. It is a jamboree for the same class of bureaucrats and parasites that gave us the carbon trading scandal that has closed Corus.

The carbon footprint left by this talk shop of self important voices will be Jimmy Choo shaped no doubt.

It's not complicated. it does not need a meeting of the worlds most egotistical minds to solve.

Common sense, and a less consumerist economy will see us doing alright.


HolgateCorner Posted on 15/12/2009 22:18
Climate change; a vote.

Splendid stuff - I was being sarcastic about the carbon footprint for the Copenhagen event, sorry if that was not clear.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 22:22
Climate change; a vote.

HC [;)] ok mate.

People wont make the hard choices, it takes enforcement from politically agreed legislation.

To many dependant people in the world, nobody is giving anything up, infact they want more than before.

HolgateCorner Posted on 15/12/2009 22:27
Climate change; a vote.

and who can blame the Asians and Chinese for wanting the same living standards as, say, Germany, and Britain?

littlejimmy Posted on 15/12/2009 22:31
Climate change; a vote.

You can't blame them at all, HC. The way the our politicians are going about it all stinks to high heaven.

Borogeezer Posted on 15/12/2009 22:34
Climate change; a vote.

I vote for it, give me Spains climate any day

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 22:35
Climate change; a vote.

Exactly Hc nobody can blame them as they see it as the way life should be.

They dont even seem to have a choice for the most part.

"Displacement of over a million tribes and ancestral homes, ancient archeological sites and loss of nature and farmlands and potential risk of water contamination".

They are having to adapt to the western world.

We claim to be the civilized world but we are way off the mark.

SplendidStuff Posted on 15/12/2009 22:37
Climate change; a vote.

Sorry that is from the 3 gorges damn in china, over 1.2 million people displaced.

homesickblues Posted on 15/12/2009 22:46
Climate change; a vote.

YES
More info on BBC2 tonight.

Old_Gregg Posted on 15/12/2009 22:47
Climate change; a vote.

Holgate Corner - thanks for reminding me, I forgot all about the "hole in the ozone layer" bollox! Give it a few years and the "man-made climate change" bollox will be just as forgotten.

ridsdale Posted on 15/12/2009 22:49
Climate change; a vote.

Gregg, you are duller than a 1 watt energy saving bulb.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 15/12/2009 22:59
Climate change; a vote.

in what respects was the ozone hole XXXXXX Greg?

Smoggle Posted on 15/12/2009 23:14
Climate change; a vote.

Wasn't the ozone layer holes largely caused by CFC's - which we dramatically cut down on, thus preventing the holes increasing.

The holes over the poles are still there to see. Unless they're forging satelite imagary now of course.

Yawn.

homesickblues Posted on 15/12/2009 23:21
Climate change; a vote.

Find out now on BBC2
The whole debate

kernaghanscodpiece Posted on 16/12/2009 00:58
Climate change; a vote.

BBC 2 Wed 23:20

Earth: The Climate Wars
interviews with some of the key global warming sceptics

Only_Me Posted on 16/12/2009 02:25
Climate change; a vote.

No! Absolutly not!
It's a con, from start to finish. Just another way to squeeze more money out of the working man/woman.

Old_Gregg - right on the money, ( literally ) for once.

HolgateCorner - spot on!

Funky_Tuncay - You've just about got the measure of the politics involved.


Zaphod - " There are good reasons to cut back on fossil fuels and to protect the rain forests, regardless of climate effects, so we should concentrate on those."

Absolutely we must protect the rain forests. I don't go along with the climate change thing at all but basic biology tells you that we need trees to make the oxygen that we breathe, it is common sense to protect our breathing apparatus, also, we have no right as a species, to sound the death knell for millions of other species of flora and fauna.

As I have pointed out before though, shame the alarmists can't explain this one ... That the EU is directly responsible for the destruction of large amounts of rain forest. They are handing millions over to various banks, the Deutsche Bank being the largest recipient, I think, of money given with the sole intention of buying rain forest in order to plant palm oil groves. Yet it is the EU who hypocritically is trying to lead on legislation and taxes to save the planet.


Snow Bandit - good sense as always!


Flaps - " the important thing is to have an open an honest debate, which we can't have when so many people are making their careers and fortunes on the back of telling us all what we should or should not do."

The operative word there being honest. We know for a fact though that politicians don't do honest, especially when there is tax money to be thieved under false pretences, nor do the alarmists, hence the reason that they have deliberately cold shouldered any of their peers who have an opposing opinion or view. For the alarmists there is far too much money involved and at stake, not to mention the lovely jollies to the Maldives and other such places.


George 1507 - "
Global warming, the CO2 myth and the hysteria that's being whipped up is a government sponsored con."

Too true! Never were the words ' Follow the money' more apt than they are where climate change is concerned.
We are not talking pennies but billions upon billions of pounds. 90 billion alone was given out by the EU last month, that is a very nice little earner for someone. Couple that with the profits made from the palm olive groves that the EU are paying for and someone is getting a good deal but you can put your last penny on it not being you or I.



Nidge - another one with the ability to think independently.



Red Shamrock -
"Put it on the TV enough and you will believe it"

Yup, scare tactics abound. Like the latest advert that shows the puppies drowning and children being told it's their parents fault. Where will that one end - with children having to report on the parents recycling efforts?


MadMick - " Theres plenty of ways to help stop mans contribution to climate change but the only thing people in power think of doing is penalising the less well off masses and pampering to the more wealthy."

Mick, You have confused me! ( Again! [xx(] )

Although you say you're in the 'no' camp, you seem to be busy thinking of ways to help stop mans contribution? Although, as you have pointed out, there are many ways of conserving energy but is that really going to affect the earth's climate?
Even if it did, since we push out less than 3% of the worlds output of CO2, would it be worth the bother even if it did.
Why is it, that the poorest people of Britain, seem to suffer most on the back of politicians pet schemes, especially for the purpose of taxation?


S.S. - "
None of Jonny's post was actual fact, just made up rubbish "

Much the same as the info given out by the alarmists then, huh? All based on guesswork, how much money they can rake in for research and most importantly, manipulated data.

I wouldn't call his post ' made up rubbish ' that's very harsh and not in the least bit called for, ( people could say the same about your posts - as much as I agree with some of what you say, other bits could be termed conjecture, since you have quoted the IPCC, which we know has more than just a passing vested interest in spreading the climate change gospel and because we now know, just how hard they have tried to close down any reasoned debate on the subject. )
Just as he did, I heard the term climate change being bandied about during the reports from Workington btw. Regardless of there being any factual basis to the claims.

So Johnny Rondo's, keep asking questions. Don't let anyone put you off or stop you from doing so.


Smoggle - "
Wasn't the ozone layer holes largely caused by CFC's - which we dramatically cut down on, thus preventing the holes increasing. "

They were all for closing the holes completely until someone figured out that they are a necessity and without which we would be stuffed.
The science regarding C.F.C.'s should be re-examined.

homesickblues " Find out now on BBC2"

Surely you don't seriously think that Aljabeeba are going to give you the facts? Don't be silly, they are in the business of spreading propaganda for the labour party and the alarmists.


S.S. - " Food shortages will cripple the population as less landmass is available for agriculture, the climate becomes more volatile making crops difficult to raise. Disease, famine, displacement, all factors that will make life absolute hell."


"
Simply we dont have the resources to support a growing population, life expectancy is increasing, less disease and famine than before, we are just growing in numbers and stripping the planet whilst destroying the balance of the planet."

So which is it exactly, more famine or less?



You admonished Jonny_Rondos, but every day the alarmists are dishing out the drivel that people are swallowing. Sadly, there are people like Rob that swallow it hook, line and sinker without thinking things through. Johnny is right to question what he hears, more people should.
You are right in as much as we should be more responsible about stripping the earths resources, they are indeed finite but that is a separate issue. As is over population of the world.
You, as well as others amongst us, has correctly identified 2 of the most urgent concerns facing the planet but the politicians aren't discussing either of those. Why?
Prince Charles and his save the rain forest campaign, isn't even on the ball otherwise, he would have laid bare the rank hypocrisy of the Copenhagen summit.


MADMICK Posted on 16/12/2009 02:49
Climate change; a vote.

Errrrmmm cough cough...dont see my name it that role of honour[:(!][:(!]

Wasnt my post good enough for little miss Only_Me then eh![:(!]

Its ok, i can take it[cr][cr][cr][cr][:D]

Only_Me Posted on 16/12/2009 03:05
Climate change; a vote.

LOL Sorry Mick [:D],
"
Wasnt my post good enough for little miss Only_Me then eh!"

Awww Mick, of course it was. I really am sorry. I forgot to go back to your post. I was thinking about it but it did confuse me a bit. I've replied to your earlier post now but mostly in order to clarify your stance.[smi]


MADMICK Posted on 16/12/2009 03:13
Climate change; a vote.

See what i mean![:(!]

for "I forgot to go back to your post"
read....who gives a monkies about his post!![:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][cr][cr][cr][cr][:P]

br14 Posted on 16/12/2009 04:39
Climate change; a vote.

"Capitalism needs more customers"

All it needs is a few richer customers. Capitalists don't really care how wealth is distributed.

That's why oil companies will win either way.

The fuss over climate change is more than likely going to create upward pressure on prices.

The key here is that we are being conditioned to accept higher energy prices.

Oil companies are facing diminishing resources, and the finds they have are increasingly expensive to exploit. It makes obvious sense for them to maximise revenue by increasing the price on a reducing supply.

That way they can eak out their reserves for longer while maintaining their current levels of income.

"I fimly believe that finding greener solutions is better in the long run, global warming or no global warming."

And who can argue with that? It makes perfect sense.

But penalising energy use in the west is just plain stupid when it's impossible to prevent China and India from massively increasing their energy consumption.

We need to provide incentives for people to use greener solutions.

While I realise that for some climate change could have a negative impact, I have to say living in one of the cooler parts of the planet, that a slight increase in temperature wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Vast tracts of land in Canada and Russia that are currently covered in permafrost will become inhabitable and farmable.

More than enough land to provide for those that may be displaced.

We need to be providing solutions not arguing over how to tax people.

sixtyniner69 Posted on 16/12/2009 06:54
Climate change; a vote.

you will actually be able to judge when and how climate change will affect britain[rle]

should tony blair start buying up pedalos and start storing them in lock ups around the north yorks coast then it will be global warming[:D]

should vera baird move out of redcar to saltburn then it will be sea level rises[sad]

should mandelson start telling the truth then hell is going to freeze over[;)]

somethingtodowithdeath Posted on 16/12/2009 07:00
Climate change; a vote.

My vote - Yes.

littlejimmy Posted on 16/12/2009 09:15
Climate change; a vote.

I watched the Age Of Stupid last night (It was on BBC 4 the other night and I taped it). It was both scary and interesting. I'm sure there was exaggeration, but there were some very compelling facts in there, as well as shocking exposes of what oil companies get up to and sickening examples of NIMBYism.

One stat worth repeating from it: 1% of all scientists are sceptics regarding AGW. 60% of the public are sceptics.

There will never be an honest debate. That's the legacy of the internet...giving a voice to nutters and fruitcakes and then people saying that the only independent free thinkers are the ones that agree with them and so on. The sceptics cloud their arguments with contradictary facts, switching between saying that there is no warming at all...it's actually cooling, to saying the warming is happening but it's a natural cycle and so on. Classic signs of someone in denial.

I guess in the end we'll find out the hard way. I often wonder if we're worth saving.

Dibzzz Posted on 16/12/2009 09:17
Climate change; a vote.

No!

Heading into a new iceage soon, well, the next couple of thousand years.

This planet we all call home has been through cataclysmic climate changes through it's lifetime. It always ends up coming through it ok. It's all to do with Sun activity and slight deviations in orbit around the sun.

Fcuk all we can do about it, we just happen to live on the surface and are completely governed by it, we are products of it.

It's been hit by comets, meteors, huge solar flares, prolonged volcanic activity and god knows what else. The Earth was once covered in a huge dust cloud for decades after something XXXXXXted it which put paid to the dinosaurs. It's been through massive droughts, massive wet periods, and 3 or 4 iceages, there's even an argument that it was once completley covered in ice for eons and a polar shift 800million years ago.

The Cleveland hills was once under the sea, and Palm trees used to grow at Whitby, that's where we get Jet from you know?

This planet will still be here, doing it's thing long after we've gone, all it needs is another big fcuk off meteor to hit it.

And if need be it'll just shrug us off like fleas off a dogs back.

So I'd be more worried about all of the above rather than the Government spin to tax us more. It's all bullshiit!

Rant over.

j_d76 Posted on 16/12/2009 09:27
Climate change; a vote.

The problem with these TV documentaries is that they're almost always biased one way or another. The program writers have their own views on whatever subject is being discussed and that view will be pushed, either subtly or glaringly obviously.

People watch these documentaries and can literally change their opinion around 100% within 30 minutes because they can be so easily convinced.

The idea is to take on board what you're presented with, and then use this wonderful internet we all like, or even do it the old fashioned way and visit a library, to go and check the sources that are quoted, to go and check the background of the people interviewed, to go and check the statsitcs shown, for yourself to see if its got any validity to it and more importantly - can it be backed up by other independent sources?

Unfortunatley most people live in a world of apathy and can't be bothered or don't have time since x-factor, or corrie is on. They would rather have their minds made up for them. And as someone on here mentioned, show it on TV enough and people will believe anything. The greatest form of mind control is repetition.

j_d76 Posted on 16/12/2009 09:36
Climate change; a vote.

Dibzzz has pretty much nailed it. We're mere fleeting guests on ths planet. We've only been here for a fraction of the earths lifetime, we'll be a here for a fraction more, and in a billion years, the earth will still be here with no trace of humans ever having existed.

"You cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them." --Albert Einstein

Unless people wake up to whats really going on and stop being so easily led and lied to, then nothing will ever change.

Eddie_Catflap Posted on 16/12/2009 10:16
Climate change; a vote.

I find the whole thing incredibly difficult to follow. Look how many differing opinions and statistics we have on this thread alone.

I'm very dubious however that proper peer review of the data and the code used by the CRU at East Anglia has been done though. Oil company spin or not, they need to answer questions about this.

Lefty Posted on 16/12/2009 10:29
Climate change; a vote.

‘The Cleveland hills was once under the sea, and Palm trees used to grow at Whitby, that's where we get Jet from you know?’

And do you know that Britain hasn’t always been in the same geographical position on the globe? We have probably the most interesting geology of anywhere on the planet due to the huge journey around the globe that this little island has made. Much of our island actually started off in more or less the same latitude as Tierra Del Fuego.

If you go to Melvyn Bragg’s ‘In Our Time’ archive on the Radio 4 website there is a very good programme in the current series that you can listen again to.

Lefty Posted on 16/12/2009 10:54
Climate change; a vote.

There has been some interesting comments on this thread from people preaching free thinking, not swallowing the official line hook line and sinker etc. I fully agree with that, but when you are making your evaluation the bottom line is you have to back the right horse.

‘I personally don't believe the same type of people who convinced the world Iraq had WMD's are telling us the whole truth about the CAUSES of Global Warming.’

Nidge, that is probably the best comment I’ve seen you make.

You do know that it was the Bush administration who took us into Iraq on a lie, don’t you? You do know that they had already decided on a policy of invasion and then fit the evidence around that policy? You do know that a huge part of that policy was Oil? You do know that it was the Bush Administration that would not sign the Kyoto Treaty? You do know that it is the same Right Wing of the Republican Party and the Oil Companies that funds most of the Anti Global Warming lobby?

This alone, regardless of the actual merits of the scientific debate, should make you skeptical of the ‘skeptics’.

So why are you believing them again?

jiffy Posted on 16/12/2009 12:45
Climate change; a vote.

No

it is typical of the arrogance of mankind that he spouts rubbish about having the slightest impact on the natural order.

Old_Gregg Posted on 16/12/2009 13:45
Climate change; a vote.

Another "inconvenient truth" that the climate change nutters never tell us is that not only have rising CO2 levels been demonstrated not to affect global temperature, they actually have a positive effect on plant growth. Indeed, many commercial crops such as tomatoes are grown in an artificial carbon rich atmosphere to stimulate growth.

plazmuh Posted on 16/12/2009 13:59
Climate change; a vote.

NO NO NO
If you search the web you will find the stolen e/mails from a weather centre in Norfolk where they are diliberately manipulating the figures to fit the facts.
Its called climategate and its just another attemt to rob the taxpayer under falsepretences.
As I see it the Earth is a living breathing
planet and if you treat it poorly it will take its own form of action ie volcanoes hurricans ect but as for humans being to blame for global warming or cooling is a farcical idea.
The west do not want the so called underdeveloped nations using their own resources for themselves so are willing to pay them so they can STEAL them for themselves under whatever guise they deem fit
And Ridsdale every single day hundreds of planes are filling the airspace with chemtrails all you have to do is look up and you can see it with your own eyes and what do they say when you ask bugger all

ridsdale Posted on 16/12/2009 14:04
Climate change; a vote.

What are in these 'chemtrails' then?

nidge Posted on 16/12/2009 14:14
Climate change; a vote.

"You do know that it is the same Right Wing of the Republican Party and the Oil Companies that funds most of the Anti Global Warming lobby?"


Because to control the outcome of the game you need to control both sides. By the way I specifically said the "same type of people"; as in their mentality and attitude to getting what they want no matter who gets stamped on in the process.

I don't subcribe to eveything the AGW lobbiest are saying, simply for the reason I just mentioned. There is plenty of independent information out there that isn't from the AGW lobbiests. Anti-global warming is accutally a mis-leading term as it implies global warming isn't happening. It is. Its our role in it thats at question, so I wouldn't give much credence to any group or body that uses that term in their literature anyway.

boro8686 Posted on 16/12/2009 14:20
Climate change; a vote.

i think its funny that one person on the pro global warming side messes with figures convinces people that global warming is a lie when theres so much more evidence out there to prove it is happening, big business is the one to benefit if global warming is disproven so i certainly dont understand why anyone holds the belief that its a lie created by government and big business when they have both fought to suppress the idea for so long.
humans have definately affected the worlds climate.

plazmuh Posted on 16/12/2009 14:21
Climate change; a vote.

I have not the foggiest,some people believe its to actually protect the outer atmosphere
by spraying a protective layer, others believe it is a new type of reflective substance to aid in PROJECT BLUE BEAM or
PROJECT HAARP as with the laser show over Norway last wednesday evening.
Others believe its to hide things in outerspace that the governments don,t want the civilians to know about YET.
you pays yer money and take your choice fella
But don,t dismiss anything out of hand


Link: FAO RIDSDALE

Lefty Posted on 16/12/2009 14:23
Climate change; a vote.

'rising CO2 levels been demonstrated not to affect global temperature,'

Old_Gregg,

I suspect that is not true. I imagine that would be difficult to demonstrate. Have you a credible source?

It seems to me that the Scientific community on the whole do accept that there is a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature, though some argue that it is temperature that drives CO2 levels, because the data shows a time lag.


Link: CO2 - temperature time lag explained

plazmuh Posted on 16/12/2009 14:24
Climate change; a vote.

FAO BORO8686
We are talking Trillions of dollars to big busissiness not the odd million and Yes
they would lie cheat and steal for that amount of money and power

ridsdale Posted on 16/12/2009 14:28
Climate change; a vote.

That's a video of plane vapour trails isn't it?


Been there years if you had only looked up before.

boro8686 Posted on 16/12/2009 14:30
Climate change; a vote.

yes but big business gains from not having to restrict their omissions hence the reason george bush et al were so sceptical cos it could harm the biggest polluting economy per capita in the world, therefore that argument is incorrect because the issue of global warming was brought to us by scientist against big business!

nidge Posted on 16/12/2009 14:32
Climate change; a vote.

risdale, here's the difference (apparantly).

(Ignore the music LOL) [rle]


Link: chemtrails v contrails

Lefty Posted on 16/12/2009 14:34
Climate change; a vote.

Nidge,

you know that 31,000 scientist petition? Did you critically research the methodology, execution and results of that petition yourself, in a free thinking scientific method?

If so can you tell me if you had any concerns and why you rejected them?


nidge Posted on 16/12/2009 14:54
Climate change; a vote.

One of the biggest concerns is why someone like Al Gore who is the main advocate for pushing the man-made global warming agenda won't sit down and debate his case and evidence with those whose views differ. These are university professors - phd's, not crackpots off the street, yet he won't talk to them. That alone should raise an eyebrow. Why would thousands of independent scientists even bother to bring such a petition in the first place? What have they got to gain apart from clarification of the data presented?

"Did you critically research the methodology, execution and results of that petition yourself, in a free thinking scientific method?" I read enough of both arguments to make up my own mind which is sufficient wouldn't you agree? I don't take stuff on face value no matter who the source is if thats what you're implying. We're living in the information age so no one has the excuse not to ask questions and seek answers when the ones we're given through official channels are challenged by equally qualified people but only one side of the debate ever gets publicly aired.

littlejimmy Posted on 16/12/2009 15:55
Climate change; a vote.

You really have to hand it to big business, the oil companies and their puppets in the media (Jeremy Clarkson is just one of them). They have done a great job in spreading misinformation.

Cardiff04 Posted on 16/12/2009 16:08
Climate change; a vote.

global warming is big business
-higher fuel prices
-more taxes to pay
-companies selling co2 emission allocations and making millions from it

basically is it caused by mankind?... no
but we'll be blamed and someone will make a fortune [V][V][V]

Lefty Posted on 16/12/2009 17:34
Climate change; a vote.

Well, it looks to me as if we can have some legitimate concerns about this petition. Enough to be careful about spreading this horsesh it around willy nilly as if it is a clinching argument. I've seen it referred to four times on here in the last two days.

It seems as if Scientific American didn't think much of the petition.

From Wickipedia (hardly requiring extensive research)

'One of the main criticis against this list of allegded scientists, is that they're not affiliated to any organization.

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[22]

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[23] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[24]

MADMICK Posted on 16/12/2009 17:42
Climate change; a vote.

Considering this is supposed to be a vote...has anyone bothered counting them yet?[:P]

privatepile75 Posted on 16/12/2009 17:53
Climate change; a vote.

'Teesside will become the new Dogger Land'

i'd better get a 4x4[:D]

nidge Posted on 16/12/2009 19:19
Climate change; a vote.

So from the wealth of information available you chose wikipedia as your choice and cut & pasted one paragraph from it highlighting a brief criticism of the petition when it was in its infancy - one criticism which was made 12 years ago and the other when there were barely a thousand signitures on it back in 2001?

For the record and since we're into cutting and pasting, here's an update:-

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)


2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)


3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)


Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)


Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)


2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,821)

1. Chemistry (3,128)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)


2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)


3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)


Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,103)

1. General Engineering (9,834)

I) Engineering (7,281)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)


2. General Science (269)


You'd have been better off using this as your source instead of wiki - http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda


You may also find the following link interesting. Its John Coleman who founded the weather channel in the USA. His thoughts on the matter are pretty clear.


Link: John Coleman interview

SplendidStuff Posted on 16/12/2009 19:30
Climate change; a vote.

Only Me, that was one very long post there.

To respond to your points.

"Much the same as the info given out by the alarmists then, huh? All based on guesswork, how much money they can rake in for research and most importantly, manipulated data."

The 'alarmists' are the scientific community, so i wouldnt exactly say guesswork.

I also said "Food shortages will cripple the population as less landmass is available for agriculture, the climate becomes more volatile making crops difficult to raise. Disease, famine, displacement, all factors that will make life absolute hell."

And in another post i had said "Simply we dont have the resources to support a growing population, life expectancy is increasing, less disease and famine than before, we are just growing in numbers and stripping the planet whilst destroying the balance of the planet."


You asked "So which is it exactly, more famine or less?"

The answer is less famine now due to the development of agriculture hundreds of years ago, which has helped the population boom, and with the progression of climate change we will encounter widescale famine even in europe in the future.

Hope thats cleared it up.

CiscoKid Posted on 16/12/2009 19:34
Climate change; a vote.

Who's keeping score then? Let's have a running total.

PIECHUCKER Posted on 16/12/2009 19:55
Climate change; a vote.

Yes. Anyone who votes no, certainly has no concern for their grandchildren's world and is totally self centred

Cardiff04 Posted on 16/12/2009 21:43
Climate change; a vote.

no. anyone who votes yes will leave their grandchildren to inhert a world of extortionate fuel prices and unnecessary taxes, making the rich richer thanks to their grandparents gullibility [V]

Lefty Posted on 16/12/2009 23:09
Climate change; a vote.

Nidge,

Wickipedia was the first thing that came up in a google search, it is reckoned to be over 75% accurate in most things and it had some quotes from Scientific American that hadn't been removed, so I think they can be relied upon.

What this boils down to is I'm prepared to go with the opinion of the vast, vast majority of scientists, who see all of the evidence on both sides of the argument, review the methodology, the data and the conclusions, test it rigorously and believe that the likelihood - very few of them say that this is proven beyond doubt - is that the man made carbon emmissions into our atmosphere are going to have a detrimental effect on our global climate.

You can say that they are biased because many of them receive government funding. Well, most of the scientific discoveries, breakthroughs and advancements in history have been thanks to state funded research.

State funded scientists publish their research and subject it to review.

Scientists employed by corporations are often prohibited from revealing their research by confidentiality clauses. Many of the dissenting scientists are funded by corporations, such as oil companies, that have even more of a vested interest in opposing any suggested counter measures, but hey you choose to believe they are more reliable if it suits you.

The thing is, from what I can tell, the 'skeptics' come up with reasons why the majority of scientists are wrong, such as man made emmissions only account for 1% of all CO2 emmissions or that the there are periods in the earths history that have had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Well in those periods, what was the world climate like? Was it like it is now or did we have crocodiles swimming in the antartic? And 1% doesn't sound so bad, but how can they be sure 1% every year for 100 years isn't going to have a huge effect?

Finally, for all the bluster, none of these skeptical scientists have actually been able to come up with a theory explaining the mechanism behind the data we are seeing now that stands up to the scrutiny of their peers.

Now, when the evidence comes up and merits it, the scientists will change their minds. Until then, the logical position for lay people is to go with the vast majority. The alternative position is that of conspiracy theorist.

All this is not to say that the proposed responses to the projected crisis are going to be correct or ones I am in agreement with, but these solutions are more Socio-economic and political in nature than scientific.


MADMICK Posted on 16/12/2009 23:35
Climate change; a vote.

"You can say that they are biased because many of them receive government funding. Well, most of the scientific discoveries, breakthroughs and advancements in history have been thanks to state funded research"

Read...you scratch our back and we'll scratch yours[V]

One big con
Like i said before, why dont the government reward people for reducing emmisions instead of punishing people?
Lets face it, when it comes to crime, that seems the way forward with this government[V]

Holgate_Hero_And_The_Temple_Of_Doom Posted on 16/12/2009 23:36
Climate change; a vote.

timidmick posting schit [rle]

deary me!

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 16/12/2009 23:54
Climate change; a vote.

you can take your groundswell of scientific opinion and shove it up your arse. Im going with the bloke who matches stonewashed denim with a jacket.

It is very hard to understand life. No matter how intelligent we are, there will always be things we dont understand. The amount of opinion and reason and knowledge held is so vast, and so subjective, it can be very difficult to form an informed opinion on a great many things.

My way of dealing with this is to look at the leading proponents of the various viewpoints, then I will use my knowledge of those people to decide which is the right path.

Usually, with fairly binary subjects like this one, or the 9/11 conspiracies say, he groups are quite distinct.

One the one hand you will tend to have a bunch of intelligent, respected individuals, who will be experts in said field. The other group will be a bunch of XXXXXXing idiots.

For example lets take the question is Edam a good cheese. The groups may look like this:

No
Stephen Fry
Winston Churchill
Victoria Cohen

Yes
Hitler and Timmy Mallet.

Lets look at the two groups who believe climate change is man made or a natural phenomenon.

Man Made:
Loads of Scientists

Not Man Made:
Jeremy Clarkson
That XXXXXX who wrote Jurrasic Park
David Bellamy
Hitler
Chris Moyles
Vernon Kaye