[Archived] "global Warming"

[LeChuck]

Also CO2's ability to trap heat becomes saturated at a certain level therefore its ability to cause global warming is limited. Mars has an atmosphere of 90% co2 and is freezing.

The Mars comment is completely irrelevant.

You said yourself that CO2 traps heat...Mars is freezing because there isn't heat there to trap, it's just too far away from the sun.

[blue phil]

No I didn't watch the programme. But may I suggest that it screened as a "shocker" just to attract an audience. Hey viewing figures and all that.

I'm quite happy to admit that there are dissenting voices. Are you content to admit that the majority of the scientific community has an accord that GW is real?

Oh dear . I really do despair at the closed minds of some people .

Try watching the programme and THEN comment using evidence that you believe disproves the theory . Talking about why the programme was shown is irrelevant .

And as I said in my previous post - and which you clearly did not read or understand properly for some reason - I'm quite willing to concede that ALL of the scientific community have an accord that GW is real . To reiterate , it is the extent of the human participation in that GW that is at question .

Science isn't all about who has the majority view or who has the fashionable view - if that was the case then Galileo and Darwen would have been lost to history (......condemned , no doubt , by non thinkers such as yourself , I'm afraid , Col) Science is about theories backed up by evidence and the documentary helped to make up my mind for the present at least . It did help that I actually watched the programme , of course.........

[Damage]

The only thing that is certain in the climate-change debate is that there are many economic and political vested interests who all try to put a favourable slant on this for their own benefits. Think about who is involved and what their motivations may be ........

- oil and energy corporations

- the nulcear lobby

- automotive industry, airlines, public transport, etc etc

- western governments hoping to put a brake on chinese economic development (and future superpower status)

- eu trying to develop back-door protectionism against "polluting" US goods

- national politiicans looking for taxation opportunities

- religions .................... blimey does homo sapiens -induced climate change debunk the god-myth?? lol

- ambitious scientists / polliticans trying to make a name for themselves (they don't bend the facts do they?)

- jealous scientists trying to embarass rivals

- media hyperbole and thirst for another story (forgot about the imminent asteroid strike?)

- the rest of us hooked on reality tv looking for a real-life fix of sensationalism and doom-and-gloom

I don't know the reality of climate change except that it does occur as a natural process and that I need an awful lot more scientific FACT before I can decide if mankind is having any significant additional effect. However I am inclined to think that reducing pollution would be a good thing.

Remember the reaction to Copernicus when he had the cheek to suggest that the earth went round the sun!

[Billy Castell]

I watched it, and it was very interesting, especially the points about Thatcher wanting to use this argument to take on the miners, and how other points of view have been squashed by the anti-carbon groups. The thing is, few of us are Professors in the relevent fields of science, and we need things explained in simple terms because of this. We get confused, as ther are many different theories about our warming climate, some of which have been funded by people or organisations with vested interests. Therefore it ends up being about which 'side' you support due to your political views, gut feeling etc. For example, many people hate Jeremy Clarkson, and see him as an irresponsible oaf who encourages a bad view on the environment, whilst some see him as a champion of libertarian values in the face of uncertain scientific principles.

[Jack]

For anyone who hasn't seen the programme and would like to, it's here.

Great Global Warming Swindle.

[Jack]

For anyone who hasn't seen the programme and would like to, it's here.

Great Global Warming Swindle.

repaired link

Edited March 19, 2007 by Alan75

[dave birch]

got you the first time Jack.

Notwithstanding any thing said, but if you were living on a Pacific Island, you'd be a bit, just a bit worried.

I acknowledge that warming and cooling happens now and then, but when the warming happens more quickly, then there has to be another influence.

All that program did was assume that things are the same now as they were 4 -5 -600 years ago and they are clearly not.

All I would say is, to every person on this earth, leave this earth for your sons and daughters in exactly the same way that it was on the day you entered this place.

Await the flak.........

[American]

If you have sons and daughters, you haven't left it the way you found it!!

[SouthAussieRover]

If you have sons and daughters, you haven't left it the way you found it!!

Quite true but I'd have had fun occasionally

[blue phil]

All I would say is, to every person on this earth, leave this earth for your sons and daughters in exactly the same way that it was on the day you entered this place.

Impossible . All those sons and daughters need jobs , feeding , clothing etc etc . How can this be done if not by exploiting the natural resources of the earth ?

The only way we can remain static is by curbing the mania for economic growth ....which in turn can only be achieved by ending population growth .

That's the bottom line ...but looking at the main item on the news today we have a concencus by Cameron and Blair that the best way forward is to change the light bulbs....

[Billy Castell]

Come on H5N1, knock off a billion people or two !!!!

[colin]

Science isn't all about who has the majority view or who has the fashionable view - if that was the case then Galileo and Darwen would have been lost to history (......condemned , no doubt , by non thinkers such as yourself , I'm afraid , Col) Science is about theories backed up by evidence and the documentary helped to make up my mind for the present at least . It did help that I actually watched the programme , of course.........

Absolutely agree 100% with that. But who was it who ridiculed and insulted Galileo & Darwin? Those bastions of scientific knowledge & self-serving entities known as the established churches. The former was under house arrest from 1633 to his death in 1642 because of his theories. The latter was reviled and insulted and caricatured as a monkey by the establishment

It doesn't take much of a leap to see who are the non-scientific detractors of GW in 2007. Established churches Big power & industry.

BTW I saw the Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" recently. It did help that I actually watched the film, of course.........

[BuckyRover]

Absolutely agree 100% with that. But who was it who ridiculed and insulted Galileo & Darwin? Those bastions of scientific knowledge & self-serving entities known as the established churches. The former was under house arrest from 1633 to his death in 1642 because of his theories. The latter was reviled and insulted and caricatured as a monkey by the establishment

It doesn't take much of a leap to see who are the non-scientific detractors of GW in 2007. Established churches Big power & industry.

BTW I saw the Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" recently. It did help that I actually watched the film, of course.........

But this documentary countered the Al Gore film. It was a direct response to it.

I have yet to hear a response to this documentary. They need a while to get their story in order im sure....

[roversmum]

Whilst I'm convinced that Global Warming is a natural process, I'm quite prepared to do my bit with recycling, light bulbs (when the type I need is available - please note, Mr Blair and Mr C) and taking care in planning journeys, etc., I'd feel a lot happier if someone trotted over to countries such as India and gave them some grief about the dreadful pollution their industrial cities make.

Edited March 12, 2007 by roversmum

[dillo_dillo]

BTW I saw the Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" recently. It did help that I actually watched the film, of course.........

I saw it , too. It's good.

Have you seen "Strange Days on Planet Earth"? That's good too.

http://www.pbs.org/strangedays/index_flash.html

[tmap]

It was a pretty good program.

It's a shame that climatologists are reduced to engaging in the same kind of sensationalist propaganda as the Al Gore loons, but imagine what it's like being the head of climate science at MIT or the co-founder of Greenpeace and being constantly told that "the debate is over".

I thought they overdid the point about cosmic rays affecting cloud formation (which sounds extremely dubious to me and a bit of research suggests I'm right), but the basic facts are there: Al Gore's central assertion that CO2 has driven temperature change throughout history is precisely wrong; temperature rises drive up CO2. And water vapour is a much more significant factor in controlling temperature than CO2, yet we still understand very little about it.

In fact, read the IPCC report yourself rather than what The Independent has to say about it; the picture is far more complex than that. There may be a strong case for taking action, as the balance of probability is still in favour of limiting CO2 emissions, but this case isn't helped by ridiculing anyone who disagrees quite reasonably with the science.

[blue phil]

It doesn't take much of a leap to see who are the non-scientific detractors of GW in 2007. Established churches Big power & industry.

Entirely ridiculous assumption . It is those scientists who question the prevailing theories who are "out in the cold" and left without the ample funding provided by governments and the UN etc ....As I mentioned earlier those scientists in the programme (which you presumably still haven't seen) received no funding from either Big Power & Industry - nor the churches for that matter . They are not in anyone's back pocket .

As for the non-scientific detractors of GW (or should I repeat yet again for your benefit the detractors of the human contribution toward GW) ......well , I can only hope that the Big Power companies knock a few quid of my bills for my contribution to their cause ...

Anyway , Col , if you ever open your mind enough to watch the programme I'll read with interest your detailed anaysis of why the theories put forward are all wrong and how it's all a Big Power and Industry conspiracy

[broadsword]

I thought the scientific community was quite consensual, ie if someone disproved another's theory then they embraced that, because it led to a furtherment of knowledge.

I haven't seen the program and can't watch it online, if someone has a link to a text article about it, it would be appreciated.

The worst thing you can do is adopt a position and become so attached to it, you can't give it up.

I had heard that there were some ideas for maintaining the ambient temperature, though. Something about exploding sulphur into the atmosphere, and another one about 9installing a giant sunscreen in space.

[BuckyRover]

I thought the scientific community was quite consensual, ie if someone disproved another's theory then they embraced that, because it led to a furtherment of knowledge.

I haven't seen the program and can't watch it online, if someone has a link to a text article about it, it would be appreciated.

The worst thing you can do is adopt a position and become so attached to it, you can't give it up.

I had heard that there were some ideas for maintaining the ambient temperature, though. Something about exploding sulphur into the atmosphere, and another one about 9installing a giant sunscreen in space.

What a brilliant idea. We are already supposedly changing the climate, let's change it some more with some crazy hair brained ideas.

If you want to protect the planet for our children, I wouldn't suggest doing anything like that.

Anyway, there was somebody from the GW Swindle on Newsnight last night, and somebody pro- carbon GW, and when he was asked if carbon drove change or was a product of climate change, he got flustered and couldn't give a proper answer.

I think you can re-watch newsnight on the Internet, so you might want to give that a watch as well.

[tmap]

What a brilliant idea. We are already supposedly changing the climate, let's change it some more with some crazy hair brained ideas.

If you want to protect the planet for our children, I wouldn't suggest doing anything like that.

Anyway, there was somebody from the GW Swindle on Newsnight last night, and somebody pro- carbon GW, and when he was asked if carbon drove change or was a product of climate change, he got flustered and couldn't give a proper answer.

I think you can re-watch newsnight on the Internet, so you might want to give that a watch as well.

Interesting.

As soon as you mention screens in space, everyone (rightly) points out that we don't know nearly enough about climate to frig about with it like that.

That's quite right, but it rather undermines the argument that spending trillions of our GDP on reducing carbon emissions by fractions of a percent is a better idea.

[broadsword]

Another thing I've read (this may be untrue as it was in an airline advertisement boasting of their green credentials), but the aero industry is responsible for 3% of carbon emissions.

why is everyone so fixated with air travel screwing up the planet when 97% of other stuff to worry about.

However, I may be wrong ...

[BuckyRover]

Another thing I've read (this may be untrue as it was in an airline advertisement boasting of their green credentials), but the aero industry is responsible for 3% of carbon emissions.

why is everyone so fixated with air travel screwing up the planet when 97% of other stuff to worry about.

However, I may be wrong ...

And at the same time increasing the capacity of airports.....

[ABBEY]

global warming..my arse...its bloody manky freezing out!

[tmap]

Another thing I've read (this may be untrue as it was in an airline advertisement boasting of their green credentials), but the aero industry is responsible for 3% of carbon emissions.

why is everyone so fixated with air travel screwing up the planet when 97% of other stuff to worry about.

However, I may be wrong ...

You are wrong. It's 2% tops.

It makes basically no difference. But it's an easy target and a Luxury.

[blue phil]

the aero industry is responsible for 3% of carbon emissions.

Well that's it , then .....I'm sticking to KitKats from now on .