[Archived] "global Warming"

[Jack]

den, i'm starting to feel really sorry for you. How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

[den]

Sooner or later, you will answer a question.

  Jack said:

den, i'm starting to feel really sorry for you. How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

16, how old are you?

[Jack]

  Quote

Jack says humans can do nothing about Global warming. [even though 95% of Global warming over the past 50 years is due to humans].

95%, You're joking aren't you.

[blue phil]

95% does seem rather a lot , Den .....

Do you think increased taxation will bring that down by ....err...half a per cent ? At best ? Even if all the governments in the world join in ?

Edited November 29, 2006 by blue phil

[Jack]

  den said:

Sooner or later, you will answer a question.

16, how old are you?

The big 40 for me. den, how does the stern report say we should tackle global warming on other planets that are also getting warmer?

[LeChuck]

  Jack said:

When you were at school did you ask your teacher to do your homework for you? Educate yourself. When my son comes home from school I don't do his homework for him.

No Jack, they didn't.

Although, when I was at school the teachers did educate us on topics they talked about, especially ones which they believed were to be of great importance.

[den]

  Jack said:

95%, You're joking aren't you.

Stern review:

This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years.

Comments Jack?

  blue phil said:

95% does seem rather a lot , Den .....

Do you think increased taxation will bring that down by ....err...half a per cent ? At best ? Even if all the governments in the world join in ?

Taxation is a different argument Phil. However, I'm sure you will be delighted to know , that at this stage - yes I would support a re-distribution of taxes to tackle the world accepted, scientific opinion [you, Jack and an oil company excepted] on climate change. I am open minded though on the subject of taxation.

Would you or Jack agree with that?

[blue phil]

I'm not in a position to judge the scientific arguments , Den and don't pretend to know enough about the subject . I am , of course , willing to entertain the idea that some scientists may have a vested interest in keeping the idea in the public eye .....

But what will any good changing or "redistribution" of the taxation system do if the oil's running out in a few decades anyway ? It's just plain nonsense by any objective viewpoint . Do you really trust the proven liar Blair to use any money raised to invest in new forms of energy ? If you do you're probably on your own .

[Jack]

Blair probably wants the money along with some council taxes to help recover from the £23 million debts that the Labour party has.

[den]

Still waiting for some kind of replies to these:

Q Jack -

The source to back up your allegations that it's simply about taxes? - apart from the oil company link you provided earlier is?

Q Stern review:

This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years.

Comments Jack?

Q Taxation is a different argument Phil. However, I'm sure you will be delighted to know smile.gif , that at this stage - yes I would support a re-distribution of taxes to tackle the world accepted, scientific opinion [you, Jack and an oil company excepted] on climate change. I am open minded though on the subject of taxation.

Would you or Jack agree with that?

Suits you to ignore the difficult bits.

Oh, I see you're back to normal.

  Quote

Blair probably wants the money along with some council taxes to help recover from the £23 million debts that the Labour party has.

Pathetic.

[Bing]

Aware of the need to save energy and seeing the possibility of reducing my bills in the process, I've been looking into getting cavity wall insulation. Got a leaflet through about a pilot scheme where grants are available so I rang up someone at the council.

Surprise surprise, grants are only available to those people on benefits.

Typical isn't it? Mr and Mrs Boneidle with their 6 delinquent kids get it (just like everything else) handed to them on a plate for nothing. Muggins here does an honest days work and has to shell out the best part of a week's wages for it. Should be used to it by now.

[American]

  den said:

Still waiting for some kind of replies to these:

Q Jack -

The source to back up your allegations that it's simply about taxes? - apart from the oil company link you provided earlier is?

Q Stern review:

This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years.

Comments Jack?

Q Taxation is a different argument Phil. However, I'm sure you will be delighted to know smile.gif , that at this stage - yes I would support a re-distribution of taxes to tackle the world accepted, scientific opinion [you, Jack and an oil company excepted] on climate change. I am open minded though on the subject of taxation.

Would you or Jack agree with that?

Suits you to ignore the difficult bits.

Oh, I see you're back to normal.

Pathetic.

Den,

The vast majority of the time these scientists have come to the wrong conclusions. Why should we believe them this time? (As Phil said, they have a vested interest. In addition, it's been shown that no matter the subject or conclusion, if a scientist goes into a study with a preconcieved notion, it will sway the results of the studies.)

Cheers!

[den]

  American said:

Den,

The vast majority of the time these scientists have come to the wrong conclusions.

Cheers!

I think they got it wrong with the internet. What a waste of time. I must have better things to do.

[colin]

  American said:

Den,

The vast majority of the time these scientists have come to the wrong conclusions. Why should we believe them this time?

Cheers!

American,

I think you rather do a disservice to the average scientist. If he/she is being funded by a tobacco company then they may just come up with the answer that "there is no link between smoking and cancer." I'll go with that one.

Why do you beleive that "the vast majority of the time these scientists have come to the wrong conclusions?" If you are not going to beleive them, then who are you going to beleive? The PR division of Exxon Oil telling you that there is no such thing as global warning?

However there does seem to be an increasing amount of evidence that global warming is here, that it is serious, and that we need to do something about it. Is the global scientific community being funded by someone to promote the pro - global warming message?

I don't think that they are. It is just telling like it sees it.

There is still a "Flat Earth Society

here

[American]

  colin said:

American,

I think you rather do a disservice to the average scientist. If he/she is being funded by a tobacco company then they may just come up with the answer that "there is no link between smoking and cancer." I'll go with that one.

Why do you beleive that "the vast majority of the time these scientists have come to the wrong conclusions?" If you are not going to beleive them, then who are you going to beleive? The PR division of Exxon Oil telling you that there is no such thing as global warning?

However there does seem to be an increasing amount of evidence that global warming is here, that it is serious, and that we need to do something about it. Is the global scientific community being funded by someone to promote the pro - global warming message?

I don't think that they are. It is just telling like it sees it.

There is still a "Flat Earth Society

here

If you look at the predictions made about global warming in the 80s ("within the next 10 years....") somewhere about 80% of them were wrong.

They are being fundeed by people who want us to believe that Global Warming is a real threat. The environmental "non-profits" are really corporations who get most of their funding by giving us these predictions.

Show me this evidence that it is here, by the way. Temperatures fell during some decades of industrial build up and rose during others. I could go on and on, but do recommend that you read "State of Fear."

[Ewood Spark]

  American said:

I could go on and on, but do recommend that you read "State of Fear."

Unbelievable Tell me American where do you go for your holidays .... Jurassic Park?

  EIEIEIO said:

I've read every single post on this thread and no body has actually managed a written in stone fact. All we have seen is figures that can be intepreted in any way that you may wish to argue. The only FACT in this is that nobody knows and we are all guessing. Those who say there is geographical proof of climate change are correct though, as the climate is changing and has changed for warmer and colder for millions and millions of years before we had even evolved.

If David Cameron hadn't made a fuss would we even be having this debate?

On page 3 of this thread I posted the following (in response to a similar call for facts by yourself) :-

  Quote

Fact 1: When I walk into my conservatory on a sunny day the temperature in there is warmer than the ambient temperature outside.

Fact 2 : The mechanism explaining the effect described in fact 1 is as follows :- Glass is transparent to short wavelength light radiation but is opaque to long wavelength infra-red radiation. Light radiation (from the sun) enters the conservatory and is absorbed by non-reflective surfaces within. This is then re-radiated as longer wavelength infra-red radiation which is now trapped by the glass.... hence the temperature rises.

Fact 3: Carbon dioxide exhibits similar properties to glass in respect to it's effect on the two types of radiation.

Fact 4: Carbon dioxide which has been locked-up in the form of various carbon compounds for millions of years is being released in an 'instant' (in geological terms).

Fact 5: Geological history demonstrates that 'sudden' environmental changes on a global scale result in mass extinctions. Adaptation due to evolution functions over geological timescales.

I tried to keep it simple ... as a sort of laymans guide to the mechanics of GW. Care to comment on any of these facts?

[MCMC1875]

Went to Manchester yesterday and noticed that trees in Deansgate and St. Ann's Square still had leaves on.......and it's December tomorrow!

[Jack]

  den said:

I think they got it wrong with the internet. What a waste of time. I must have better things to do.

Finally we agree on something. Go and read some books, education is a good thing.

[den]

  Jack said:

Finally we agree on something. Go and read some books, education is a good thing.

I'm still waiting.

Go on have a go, try to educate us. Show us how climate change over the past fifty years is nothing to do with humans. You didn't believe it, so tell us why.

Either that, or give it a rest.

[broadsword]

I've now done all my internet research and can tell you that Jack is 100% wrong.

[LeChuck]

  Jack said:

Finally we agree on something. Go and read some books, education is a good thing.

You're possibly the most horribly patronising person I've ever come across.

As you brought up the teacher/student comparison, I'm going to continue along that theme. A teacher/tutor suggests reading material that their student should read. Would you be so kind as to tell us what we should go and read to become as educated as your good self? Please don't talk about Google or any other type of searching, titles and/or website addresses please.

(I fully expect you not to reply to this by the way, just like everything else that has been put to you).

[Jack]

  Bryan said:

I've now done all my internet research and can tell you that Jack is 100% wrong.

Bryan, you've obviously been looking in the wrong places. It's all out there, try and find it.

[broadsword]

I've found it all, weighed it all up, and can tell you, you've been misinformed.

I suggest you dig a little deeper yourself. Maybe you need to brush up on your research skills. You're obviously not seeing the whole picture.

[Ewood Spark]

  Jack said:

Bryan, you've obviously been looking in the wrong places. It's all out there, try and find it.

Hey Jack your right about this internet malarky ... it's amazing what you can find out if you do a bit of digging ... I've just discovered a site claiming Elvis is alive and well and working as a live in cleaner for Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot in Cleethorpes of all places! You might be right about global warming after all.

[blue phil]

What a hoot you are , Sparky . Did you collaborate with Colin on that one ....