|
U-Know! Forum » You are being Conned |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
mole 210 posts |
Nov 24, 2009, 13:24
|
||
|
Before the dawn of man, there was an indisputable history of climate change. Some of which were dramatic climatic shifts: horrendous storms, numerous ice ages, temperature extremes, huge masses of formerly fertile land converted to desert. All this is part of the rich and continuing tapestry of our planet Earth’s climate. The important point is that climate change exists without any influence of man whatsoever, and was around long before even the existence of life itself. Indeed mankind owes its very existence directly to the Earth’s episodes of climate change. Ironically much of the modern countryside (what’s left of it) is on the whole a manmade construction that in many ways can be superior to wild unrestrained growth. But it is the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution that really provided a quantum leap in mankind’s impact on the planet. Following a period of largely agricultural economy, the industrial revolution originated in Britain in the late 19th Century. This saw a dramatic expansion of manmade activity, with the steam engine, railways, electricity generation, and factory production amongst many key factors leading to the current Western modern consumer led culture. This also vastly increased the amount of man-made pollutant waste products both on ground and in the air, accompanied by increasing population and urbanisation of much of the land. By the 1970s much of the western world became increasingly urban, with concrete jungles and proliferation of manmade gadgets. Climate wise some scientists were predicting an imminent ‘Ice Age’, this was taken up by much of the media, and popular opinion was that the Earth was cooling. In fact within 20,000 years time was ‘the imminent’ projection. The point is that it can be very easy to get things dramatically wrong or misinterpreted for such a complex prediction; this is especially pertinent if this culminates in a drastic change in habits, which would with hindsight appear foolish – or worse it is quite possible that matters could be made inadvertently worse. There also appears to be a protest vogue, where certain groups of people continually protest about something. A bit of a stereotype, but such protesting individuals are more likely to come from a social science, arts, or unemployed background rather than followers of pure science in the traditional sense. The point is the postulation that man created CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions will result in global warming, is often portrayed as an indisputable scientific fact – it is not, many prominent scientists dispute this. A quick Google search of ‘List Scientists Opposing Global Warming’ will verify this. The fear of a possible Ice Age has been replaced with a fear of global warming. The theory sounds plausible enough, pollutants put into the atmosphere create a greenhouse gas effect where heat can penetrate, but cannot so easily escape, creating an escalating temperature pattern. Al Gore in his famous documentary ‘ An Inconvenient Truth’ has basically taken it as read that it is an indisputable fact that man is causing irreversible climate change by emissions of CO2 gas, and has shown graphs showing the ‘irrefutable link’ between CO2 and increasing heat. The trouble is on closer examination, the charts show CO2 lagging behind the rising temperature; this tends to support rising heat being the cause of increased CO2 levels not the other way around. It must be said at this juncture, that the author does not know for certain one way or the other the definitive impact excessive CO2 emissions have on the climate. Considering man is responsible for around 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions including water vapour, intuitively the amount appears to be minimal. The computer modelling which has been used to predict the effects of CO2 are not perfect and by no means conclusive that man created emissions will lead to cataclysmic global warming. The point is that on detailed scrutiny, this is not an exact science, and if life changing habits are the result of the global warming philosophy the science needs to provide precise reinforcement. It is quite possible to end up doing more damage through mistaken, albeit well meaning change in habits. An example is prioritising reducing CO2 emissions by burning corn and wheat products, rather than the chemically and more efficient life sustaining option of eating them! CO2 emissions can be measured or at least fairly accurately estimated, and if it can be measured it can be taxed and utilised as a means of control. ‘Climate Change’ tax provides a perfect opportunity for governments to raise revenues; any dissenters are faced with the charge of ‘destroying the planet’. However, what if this is the ultimate con? An analogy are slimming products, there is an awful lot of money being made from them – but to lose weight surely should involve the lowering food consumption, which should mean lower bills to the slimmer. In similar manner reduction of CO2 emissions should really mean strategies for lowering costs; instead governments appear to target areas which do not significantly change behaviour but bring in much in the way of income and hence cost to the general public. The current vogue in solely focussing on CO2 emissions to avert disastrous climate change is flawed in this author’s firm opinion. Notwithstanding that this strategy may be a waste of time, money and effort – or worse inherently wrong; there is a wider global view of mankind’s impact on planet Earth that appears to have taken second place in the current obsession on CO2 emissions. Pollution can take many forms, the planet’s population is increasing towards unsustainable levels, many resources are being wasted, and heritage both natural and manmade are being destroyed. This has coincided with western governments becoming ever more wasteful, bureaucratic and controlling, particularly in the UK and USA. There is a real possibility that millions of people have been suckered into a climate change ideology albeit for all the right altruistic reasons; but have inadvertently ended up as pawns to be manipulated at will by profit driven corporations and controlling governments
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Nov 24, 2009, 15:21
Nov 24, 2009, 14:41
|
||
|
"Datalite UK Limited is a thriving business that specialises in supplying picture frames and personalised gift products to customers and businesses." Yup, thats always where I'd go for accurate insightful information on climate change too. I just love it when articles attacking science have no citations, or any forms of reference. I really get excited when I read conspiracy theories about scientific research that don't even have a dataset. Oh, and.. Just wow. What an interesting company/opinion forming hybrid. Edit: Ok, cos noone else could probably be bothered to do it, and don't understand my reply, here is the source of this article http://www.datalite.org/global-warming-climate-change-ultimate-con.html and this is the companies business. http://www.datalite.org/
|
|||
head-first 214 posts |
Nov 24, 2009, 15:17
|
||
|
I'm still digesting this interesting point, but I'll pause to be pedantic for a sec. The industrial 'revolution' began much earlier than the late 19th century. The development of an industrialised infrastructure gathered momentum in the 18th century, and grew in the early 19th along with urban populations and national wealth. Hence Blake's reference to 'Dark, Satanic mills'. Sorry to be so OCD. I know this wasn't the point of your fine missive! :o)
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Nov 24, 2009, 18:33
|
||
|
Regardless of whether global warming is natural, manmade, or a combination of both, it's really happening. Migrating away from fossil fuels is a smart move, in any of the above scenarios. I don't understand the rationale behind denying global warming is real, unless, of course, you have some personal stake in keeping the coal/oil profit machine humming.
|
|||
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Nov 24, 2009, 19:15
|
||
|
Much of the climate change in the geological past was caused by continental drift. The UK (or the land mass where the UK was once situated) was once located far closer to the equator. Through geological time the land mass drifted northwards, nence the geological record goes from an equatorial tropical environment during the Carboniferous period, through desert sediments during the Permian period and up to the temperate climate of the present day. It's true that climate change has occurred in the past but we have no way of proving absolutely why that should have been. It's possible that it was due to raised levels of atmospheric CO2 after a meteoric impact. Such impacts are well documented in the geological record and caused all sorts of environmental catastrophes, e.g. the extinction of the dinosaurs, a highly successful group of animals that had existed previously for many millions of years; it could be argued they were more successful than humans, they certainly lasted for far longer than we are likely to last. Yes there may be other factors influencing climate change, but CO2 is undoubtedly a factor. I don't say that because it's fashionable to do so, I say it because I have studied science at postgraduate level and it is a scientific fact that, to my, mind, is utterly beyond doubt. And surely there are other really good reasons for reducing our CO2 emissions. The main culprits, generating electricity from fossil fuels, flying needlessly all over the planet, driving when we really could walk, are things that we should address for their own sake as well as for our 'carbon footprint'. We should DEFINITELY look to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for political and ethical reasons as well as any concerns regarding climate change. Oil comes from politically unstable parts of the world and is, as far as I can see, responsible for more bloody and brutal conflicts than religion, and that's saying something! I really don't see why people are so keen to debunk the CO2/climate change argument - yes there are a few people who will argue til they're blue in the face that the two have nothing to do with each other, but I believe that they are in the minority. For fuck's sake, why are we even ARGUING about this? We should all be looking to reduce our impact on the planet's resources come what may. (Climbs off soapbox muttering 'bring it on!' under her breath...)
|
|||
|
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Nov 24, 2009, 19:16
|
||
Yeah! And what you said!
|
|||
ratcni01 916 posts |
Nov 24, 2009, 20:28
|
||
Lol, oooh animated!
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 25, 2009, 02:39
|
||
|
Firstly, if you're going to cut and paste a long article without comment, just provide a link, and/or make it clear it's not actually your perspective. I'm guessing this tosh was posted as some sort of a response to the 'cats out of the bag' thread. For stuff on whether climate change is anthropogenic, please refer to my post of 36 hours ago. This stuff you've pasted is staggeringly ill-informed. It suggests - and I take it by inference that you agree, Mole - that climate change is not really exacerbated by humans, but that all meteorologists and climatologists are either in a conspiracy with governments or have been hoodwinked by them as part of a grand tax-raising exercise. So go o0n, tell us straight, these tens of thousands of scientists, are they corrupt or merely gullible? Against my better judgement, I feel baited into knocking over some of this tired nonsense. mole wrote: Before the dawn of man, there was an indisputable history of climate change. Yes. But the rate of change today is nothing like it was at most times in the past. mole wrote: By the 1970s much of the western world became increasingly urban, with concrete jungles and proliferation of manmade gadgets. Climate wise some scientists were predicting an imminent ‘Ice Age’, this was taken up by much of the media, and popular opinion was that the Earth was cooling. And they were, in part, right. They were considering the cooling effect of industrial emission of sulphates into the atmosphere. what they didn't factor in was the warming effect of the carbon emissions. This is why when there was a surge in industrialisation post WW2 we don't get a spike in global temperatures until there's global legislation to curb sulphates. Then temperatures go way up all of a sudden. mole wrote: such protesting individuals are more likely to come from a social science, arts, or unemployed background rather than followers of pure science in the traditional sense. Mmm-hmm. The Royal Society and its equivalent bodies in countries all around the globe. Soap dodging scum. mole wrote: many prominent scientists dispute this. A quick Google search of ‘List Scientists Opposing Global Warming’ will verify this. Check what kind of scientists they are. As I said the other day, deniers sound so grand when their names have 'professor' in front, until you find out that they're economists, geologists or astrophysicists. Show me a single peer-reviewed paper that disputes anthropogenic climate change. Just one will do. mole wrote: The trouble is on closer examination, the charts show CO2 lagging behind the rising temperature; this tends to support rising heat being the cause of increased CO2 levels not the other way around. What actually happens is CO2 rises, the temperature goes up, causing more CO2 to be released. For example, Siberian permafrost is melting, releasing methane (a potent greenhouse gas). Polar ice caps melt, meaning there's less white to reflect the sun, leading to more warming. forests dry out then burn, releasing their carbon. This is why there's such an urgency. It is widely held that the tipping point is an increase of around 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. After that, the feedback mechanisms kick in and we won't be able to stop it. A tip for you Mole, and Jshell too - when you hear something that claims to debunk an entire field of science, check your facts before believing it.
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Nov 25, 2009, 11:10
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Firstly, if you're going to cut and paste a long article without comment, just provide a link, and/or make it clear it's not actually your perspective. I'm guessing this tosh was posted as some sort of a response to the 'cats out of the bag' thread. For stuff on whether climate change is anthropogenic, please refer to my post of 36 hours ago. This stuff you've pasted is staggeringly ill-informed. It suggests - and I take it by inference that you agree, Mole - that climate change is not really exacerbated by humans, but that all meteorologists and climatologists are either in a conspiracy with governments or have been hoodwinked by them as part of a grand tax-raising exercise. So go o0n, tell us straight, these tens of thousands of scientists, are they corrupt or merely gullible? Against my better judgement, I feel baited into knocking over some of this tired nonsense. mole wrote: Before the dawn of man, there was an indisputable history of climate change. Yes. But the rate of change today is nothing like it was at most times in the past. mole wrote: By the 1970s much of the western world became increasingly urban, with concrete jungles and proliferation of manmade gadgets. Climate wise some scientists were predicting an imminent ‘Ice Age’, this was taken up by much of the media, and popular opinion was that the Earth was cooling. And they were, in part, right. They were considering the cooling effect of industrial emission of sulphates into the atmosphere. what they didn't factor in was the warming effect of the carbon emissions. This is why when there was a surge in industrialisation post WW2 we don't get a spike in global temperatures until there's global legislation to curb sulphates. Then temperatures go way up all of a sudden. mole wrote: such protesting individuals are more likely to come from a social science, arts, or unemployed background rather than followers of pure science in the traditional sense. Mmm-hmm. The Royal Society and its equivalent bodies in countries all around the globe. Soap dodging scum. mole wrote: many prominent scientists dispute this. A quick Google search of ‘List Scientists Opposing Global Warming’ will verify this. Check what kind of scientists they are. As I said the other day, deniers sound so grand when their names have 'professor' in front, until you find out that they're economists, geologists or astrophysicists. Show me a single peer-reviewed paper that disputes anthropogenic climate change. Just one will do. mole wrote: The trouble is on closer examination, the charts show CO2 lagging behind the rising temperature; this tends to support rising heat being the cause of increased CO2 levels not the other way around. What actually happens is CO2 rises, the temperature goes up, causing more CO2 to be released. For example, Siberian permafrost is melting, releasing methane (a potent greenhouse gas). Polar ice caps melt, meaning there's less white to reflect the sun, leading to more warming. forests dry out then burn, releasing their carbon. This is why there's such an urgency. It is widely held that the tipping point is an increase of around 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. After that, the feedback mechanisms kick in and we won't be able to stop it. A tip for you Mole, and Jshell too - when you hear something that claims to debunk an entire field of science, check your facts before believing it. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this, But hasn't there just been a report saying that scientists have been massging the figures for years to make it seem worse than it is? And isn't a Cambridge Uni Scientist under pressure to quit because of this? And wasn't there a report saying that Russia would be able to sale through the North Pole in 2 years time published in 1938? Hey, feel free to attack me for this.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Nov 25, 2009, 13:21
Nov 25, 2009, 13:02
|
||
|
pooley wrote: But hasn't there just been a report saying that scientists have been massging the figures for years to make it seem worse than it is? When you say report, do you mean media report or scientific report? Certainly, the hacked emails from University of East Anglia show people pushing to alter some data and suppress unfavourable stuff. but that's three or four people at the University of East Anglia. I's kind of like saying cos my cornershop sell ciggies to kids that all retailers are fraudulent. pooley wrote: And wasn't there a report saying that Russia would be able to sale through the North Pole in 2 years time published in 1938? I've not heard of that. But assuming that you're entirely correct, it doesn't change anything. I'm sure there are single reports claiming all kinds of disastrous or rosy scenarios. We have to ask what the level of proof is, and what the scientific consensus is. The thing with climate change, as opposed to individual reports from 80 years ago, is that for twenty years, we've had tens of thousands of scientists of expertise adding their data to the pile at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, specifically to get an objective source of credible information. This is not about a couple of studies or a couple of people. And then, because of the need for scientific consensus followed by the need for political consensus, the wording of the conclusions of the IPCC gets diluted. Far from being better than predicted, most of the effects of climate change we're seeing are happening faster and worse than predicted. In its last report (2007) the IPCC said that some models of Arctic sea ice said 'late-summer sea ice is projected to disappear almost completely towards the end of the 21st century'. The rate has accelerated and the current consensus is it will be ice-free in summer within 20 years, most of the thinning happening in the next 10. This isn't about polar bears, it's about all of us. The Arctic permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the entire atmosphere. When that melts, we're toast. There's been a report just issued, The Copenhagen Diagnosis, as a sort of update to the IPCC's last report, as at two years old that is already a little out of date. http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/ Among other things it shows: - The ice sheets are both losing mass (and hence contributing to sea level rise). This was not certain at the time of the IPCC report. - Arctic sea ice has declined faster than projected by IPCC. - Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to track the upper bounds of IPCC projections. - Observed global temperature changes remain entirely in accord with IPCC projections, ie an anthropogenic warming trend of about 0.2 degrees per decade (with superimposed short-term natural variability). - Sea level has risen more than 5 centimetres over the past 15 years, about 80 percent higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Really mate, I'd love it to be bollocks. I'd love to find out we're safe and get on the next plane to Barbados. But the overwhelming evidence from people who know what they're talking about says the opposite. And, scary as that is, it's a lot more scary that people are blanking it or denying it. It's like seeing the kitchen on fire and going 'we're not insured! We can't handle the idea of the house burning down!' and so hiding behind the sofa saying that it's all alright as fire sweeps through the house instead of getting buckets of water. We have to act on what we can be sure of, and enact the precautionary principle; that is, if there's a likelihood of something happening that can't be undone, act as if it will happen until there's reasonable evidence that it won't. We still have a chance to stop climate change before the tipping point, but the odds are tilting against us all the time.
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
