Global Cooling, Its official!!

moonrakerz

Aliktren wrote: »

err, no, it hasnt, I'm not a zealot, people keep asking questions and I'm pointing them at answers, it's simply convienient for you to assume that this represents zealotry as you probably dont like the results, and if you dont like it dont read it, as I pointed out I think in my first post , had anyone provided significant evidence of an alternate theory, which I cant see they have, then the debate wouldnt be so one sided

As a said - zealotry ! I am right and every one else is wrong !

Aliktren

sticks and stones mate, dont like what I'm saying so call me a zealot,

Cardew

Cardelia wrote: »

And if you don't understand basic science like this, how can you possibly read the quoted sources and come to an informed conclusion on the issue?

One wonders then how all the world's politicians who signed the Kyoto Agreement and lay down energy conservation policies for their countries, come to an informed conclusion; or are you suggesting they all understand the science?

P.S.
Despite all derivations of the term 'CO2' used in this thread, I understood them all to mean Carbon Dioxide!

Aliktren

one hopes they were well advised, but looking round at the world thats definatly something to ponder!

uktim29

geordie_joe wrote: »

The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.

It's 5th March 2008 now and 2007 turned out to be the coldest year on record!

And you posted it as an argument in favour of global warming!!!

The met office is supposed to be the best weather predictor in the world, and they got it completely wrong.

Actually thats wrong.

It wasn't the coldest year but the highest degree of cooling compared to the previous year.

In the UK 2007 was one the 6th warmest years ever recorded. All months had above average temperatures apart from July & August.

savvy

"RedSpecs"; Blimey. Now that's what I call a heated debate! :rotfl:

I was thinking it was a very good debate, until some verge on personal remarks, which is always when a debate falls apart on this forum :rolleyes::rolleyes:

If anybody's watched the brilliant series on the Beeb recently called Earth: The Power of the Planet, then you'll know that we humans have been responsible for more change to the surface of the Earth and its climate than any other species in its entire history. So much so that scientists have declared our times to be known as the Human Era (there was a fancy name for it but I can't remember that right now). We are stripping the planet of its natural resources and dumping it unceremoniously into landfill sites. That's just the start.

I saw a programme like this back in 1992 which prompted me to recycle with earnest, and have done ever since. I've visited many landfill sites as a youngster (70's), and even back then I couldn't believe the amount of flippant waste.

There have been two types of people in this discussion: those who are aware of the issues over global warming and who see it as a priority to do something about it on both a personal and global level; and those who are totally seduced by consumerism and don't like to be told they have to slow down their consumption and waste less resources.

This is what annoys me about people saying that man hasn't made any difference, as I purport that this will feed the greed, ignorance, selfishness and flippancy that you already see from day today from so many people. What's wrong with looking after what we have while we're here, rather than ruin it for generations to come, so that others can enjoy what we have been able to.............none of us own the planet, we're merely visiting this place, and like all visitors to anywhere, I think we should maintain a certain standard!

(don't get me started on mobile phone components and the Congo). LOL I want to know now!

As the great Dr Iain Stewart (of Earth: TPotP) says: the Earth is a great survivor, it'll look after itself. Its not the planet we need to save, its us!
Never heard that before, but wierdly enough I've always thought the human race needs saving from it's greedy, destructive self

Cardelia

Cardew wrote: »

One wonders then how all the world's politicians who signed the Kyoto Agreement and lay down energy conservation policies for their countries, come to an informed conclusion; or are you suggesting they all understand the science?

I'm certain that they didn't read the primary sources, understand them and form their opinion that way. They probably read the secondary literature (IPCC reports and suchlike) and/or had presentations made to them by representatives of organisations like the IPCC which summarised the findings of the primary research. They'll also have scientific advisors as well as civil servants who will advise them on the "correct" course of action to take.

The problem with that is the spin put on the primary literature by those persons/organisations doing the reviewing/presenting/advising, not to mention the vested interests of the advisors. For example, taking the worst case scenario in a particular report and bigging it up so a layman (which, lets face it, most politicians are on almost every subject) would think that it's far more likely to happen than it actually is.

Call me cynical if you like, but I bet that most of those politicians who signed Kyoto had no scientific qualification beyond the equivalent of GCSE science. That puts them at the mercy of pressure groups who like to push their own interests - he who shouts loudest and all that. An informed conclusion? No way.

Anyway, I've said my bit. I mostly stay out of AGW issues because I don't know enough to make a judgement either way, it's just the CO2 point was bugging me.

Cardew

Cardelia wrote: »

An informed conclusion? No way.

.

Spot on!

Yet it doesn't stop laymen arguing with absolute conviction that they are correct about the perils facing us, and quoting every source available on the internet to 'prove' they are correct! This thread being a good example.

moonrakerz

savvy wrote: »

There have been two types of people in this discussion: those who are aware of the issues over global warming and who see it as a priority to do something about it on both a personal and global level; and those who are totally seduced by consumerism and don't like to be told they have to slow down their consumption and waste less resources.

This is what annoys me about people saying that man hasn't made any difference, as I purport that this will feed the greed, ignorance, selfishness and flippancy that you already see from day today from so many people. What's wrong with looking after what we have while we're here, rather than ruin it for generations to come, so that others can enjoy what we have been able to.............none of us own the planet, we're merely visiting this place, and like all visitors to anywhere, I think we should maintain a certain standard!

I actually agree with most of your post - but pray tell me - why, when I say I am sceptical about "man-made" global warming do I suddenly become someone "totally seduced by consumerism and don't like to be told they have to slow down their consumption and waste less resources. "
I too believe that man-kind is heading for a sticky end, but for a different reason.

We are told we should have wind turbines and solar panels on our roof. Where are these made, China ? China has to build a new coal fired power station every week to power the factories making these planet saving devices ! The workers go home with their wages and want to buy TVs, fridges and cars, and why shouldn't they ? they earned it. More factories to make this stuff, more power stations ................. Don't worry about the CO2, worry about the pollution, worry about stripping the Earth bare.

Don't ask me what the answer is - I don't know ! but I do know that much of the posturing that goes on amongst the "World Leaders" is done purely for their political benefit.

There are too many people on this planet, there are now more people on this planet than all those who have EVER lived here. Wheat prices have doubled this year, corn meal has quadrupled, oil rises in price every day - and people in the UK buy water in plastic bottles shipped in from Australia !!

I am sceptical about man's input to global warming for two main reasons:

1. A lot of the evidence is based on very short term studies. In historical terms it's akin to saying "it has rained for the last three days, therefore it is going to rain for ever.
2. The main proponents all have vested interests in promoting this theory. Either because it promotes their own esteem (Gore) or because it makes people think that they (Blair, Brown) are doing something that will "save the planet" - it won't !

Just because I dare to say this I become, in some people's view, a cross between Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun and Judas Iscariot.

Should I worry about man-made global warming - No ! - because man will have eaten himself out of house and home long before that has much effect or the next ice age arrives.

The only thing that will "save the planet" is a drastic reduction in the population. How that will come about; climate change (up or down), Bird Flu, a meteor strike, alien invasion - I don't know, but I probably won't be around when it happens !

Come on folks - get real !! Think about it.

Aliktren

you may well be right - population growth is the gorilla in the room, thought about that more and more as I've watched the responses on this thread wax and wane, actually its a root cause of climate change and all the other problems we have, rather than just another of those problems, interesting article on the way to work on radio 4 this morning about food supply, made for grim listening