Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Go back and read what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read what you said. You just said it again. That changes to very low levels of lots of things can have huge consequences is so obvious it hardly needs stating. Several examples have been offered here. There are many many cases of substances with very low levels that play a key role in complex systems. Just saying that you don't believe that CO2 can have any consequence because there is so little of it is meaningless.

And how has this information been hidden? I just googled for 'CO2 levels'. The very top hit is a BBC article, paragraph 2 says:

BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.

It even spells out ppm for you!!

Where is the conspiracy? Where is the hiding of the actual levels ?
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

As far as I'm concerned the major issue is the presentation of the whole issue by the government and the mixed messages it sends.

They run endless advert about recycling and about web pages that can calculate your CO2 foot print. What they never mention is that it's infinitely better not to consume in the first place.

Yes you can reduce your CO2 output by replacing your car/appliances with more efficient ones but their calculators never take into account the CO2 produced by the manufacture/transport of the new ones and the disposal of the old ones.

When you bring cars into the equation and realise that the older, supposedly more polluting, older one would probably still be on the road in someone elses hands then it's a double whammy.

My car produces double the CO2 of the average family car and over three times as much as the Prius. But as I do one sixth of the mileage of the average person I actually pollutle far less. And as I know the car "pollutes" that much (not too mention the cost) I am never tempted to pop down the shops in it, I've got legs for that. If it cost peanuts to run like my daughters car then I expect I would use it far more and hence pollute more.

So whats the conclusion of all this rambling? The Government is more interested in getting your money than anything else. Running campaigns to get us to buy less useless junk would decrease tax revenues.

By the way, what about that stupid lenor advert? Take x thousand lorries off the road by buying their concentrated product? How about not buying a fabric softener in the first bloody place!

All their tax ideas are not based on consumption but rather ownership. Own a big car? Pay loads of tax. It doesn't matter if you do 2k a year and your Prius owning neighbour does 20k you must be polluting more.

Same with their proposals for house taxes. Oh, your house is 100 years old its inefficient compared to that nice new house so we'll charge you more tax. Never mind that you heat it to 17 degrees and that other lot insist on walking around in shorts and t-shirts in their house and have it at 30 degrees constantly.

No, until the Government does something that makes sense rather than being yet another way of fleecing people I will carry on believing that man-made climate change is just another way of keeping us in a "State of Fear".
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

I agree with everything you say until your final sentence. I don't follow that logical step. Of course the politicians are taking advantage of GW for their own ends - that's what politicians do isn't it?

But it does not mean that the whole thing is a conspiracy. Do you not think it is possible that a genuine issue is being cynically hijacked and misrepresented by vested interests? If you imagine for a moment that MMGW was an absolute fact, how do you think politics and industry would respond ? Exactly as they are. That doesn't mean it is proven , it doesn't mean it's a myth, it just means that everyone is trying to benefit from it.
 
Re: When logical argument fails... resort to abuse?

Yes but this only serves to illustrate that the unbiased nature of the very comprehensive report. Your extracts present a selective distorted view of its conclusions. If you have read it all you would know that the overall conclusion was that there is a disproportionate amount of global warming which can be correlated with the increase in carbon emissions from the start of the industrial revolution and especially since global industrialisation from the 1920s onward as shown in Sgier's graph. Any scientist will tell you that it is indeed difficult to "prove" anything without a practical experimental demonstration. It is however impossible to escape the conclusion that the known increase in carbon emissions when fed into a computer model of the effect expected by that increase, results in a close correlation which cannot be explained otherwise unless you believe the whole thing is a conspiracy by the worlds scientific community for some ulterior motive of their own. Thats why I said that the majority of informed or educated opinion is in favour of the argument. It was Lakesailor who used the word "thick". Not I. I do however think that there will always be a body of opinion that is neither educated or informed on any subject that are very vociferous but do not give any credible alternative argument and only resort to ridicule and abuse in the absence of any other tactics. It's up to you lot to decide if that's "thick" or not!
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Absolutely! Politicians will react acorrding to their own motivations but this does not mean the science is wrong. Personally I think there is a growing environmental hysteria that is being taken advantage of by business intent on selling domestic solar panels, low energy light bulbs that you can't dim, and politicians using it as an excuse for tax increases, but the fact remains that the only credible explanation for the disproportionate and unprecidented global warming over recent years is that it is man made.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

All of which illustrates that the ostriches are trying to justify hiding their heads in the sand without having to think about the problem in detail (does anyone know if ostriches actually do that by the way or is it another urban myth?)
If anyone is going to argue against the logical conclusions drawn by the scientific community at large they should at the very least get their own facts straight first. I haven't heard one logical argument put that explains the unprecidented increase other than that it is directly correlated with man made emissions during the period in question.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

I have found this

Cold Facts

an interesting read.

There appear to be 3 major groups of MMGW proponents:-

1) Politician who see it as another way to control the population.
2) Scientists to whom it is providing an income.
3) "Greens" for which it appears to be the politics of envy...I can't afford the big house/car/boat/holidays like you so I must find ways to stop you having them.

Like many on here, I am anti waste and polution etc. just not convinced about the truth of MMGW.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Even if GW is not caused by the changes in the atmosphere since the time of the Industrial revolution ('it's just a coincidence'), then it's still a dangerous problem if only because of the increased incidence of extreme events. And GW is not the only environmental challenge: add desertification, habitat destruction, biomass destruction in the worlds oceans to the various ways in which our use of the earth's resources is radically exceeding the planet's capacity. So, even at that most cautious, uninflammatory formulation, we all have a responsbility to look at our own individual, day-by-day actions and decisions.

Of course politicians come up with some weird decisions and some apparently perverse incentives. But they are also trying to shift the behaviour of people who continue to insist on their apparent human right to drive half a mile to shops/school/work/gym, to refuse to wash things like plastic trays and tin cans to enable recycling, and to keep their houses at tropical temperatures in a bBritish winter. This thread itself illustrates the impossiblity of doing what many of us believe is necessary because of the determined consumerism of others.

I'd definitely at the tree-hugging end of the scale: I've gathered more sense and company from trees than from some of the incredibly dismal posts in this thread.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

A general comment - not directed to any particular poster.

How many scientists do you know? Of those, how many of them would you say were susceptible to 'herd instinct', were incapable of independent thought and of expressing contrary views to a generally held conclusion?

I don't know many scientists, especially at top levels. Those few I do know are ornery critters and tell the facts they have been convinced of by evidence and observation, rather than what they are expected to say.

Amongst climate scientists, the overwhelming concensus is a) that climate change is already happening, b) that is in part - if not in whole - caused by a man-made increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and c) that there are feedback systems at work which are likely to accelerate climate change.

Given that any one of these scientists knows a great deal more about climate science than all of us put together, and that almost all of them (over 95%* by most reckonings) are broadly in agreement on the principles, if not all of the details of the climate change event, I'm astonished that laymen can assume, knee-jerk-style, that they are wrong.

Sadly, I think the only people being fooled around here are those striking a contrary p-o-v about the scientific consensus.

By all means question the motivations of big business and big government, and argue about what are the best remedial measures, but don't deny the fact that climate change is happening and that all fingers point at fossil-fuel-burning mankind being responsible for at least a major part of it.

*For the sake of argument, let's assume that eventually those scientists who disagree are proved right. If so, what has mankind got to lose from acting on the advice of the majority, until the minority is proved right? As far as I can see, we might lose a few decades of economic growth at today's levels; we might have to rein back our consumption-centric lifestyles by a couple of percentage points. It strikes me that that would be a very good-value insurance policy.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

A general comment - not directed to any particular poster

So what?
Why is it so important to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet?
Why should I have to change my views because you feel I haven't quizzed every scientist available?
Why should I have to prove to anyone that I have read and digested every report and have come to a balanced decision?
Why do zealots always seek to convert non-believers?
Why do those who wish to err on the side of safety always want everyone to agree with them?

So many whys, so little time.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
For the sake of argument, let's assume that eventually those scientists who disagree are proved right. If so, what has mankind got to lose from acting on the advice of the majority, until the minority is proved right? As far as I can see, we might lose a few decades of economic growth at today's levels; we might have to rein back our consumption-centric lifestyles by a couple of percentage points. It strikes me that that would be a very good-value insurance policy.

[/ QUOTE ] Another excellently made point Ken - that will no doubt be totally ignored by the smugs on here who are prepared to gamble their grandchildrens' futures on being right.

Has anyone here thought through the implications of the current worst-case scenarios, where runaway melting of the ice caps leads to rises in sea level of several feet over the next 50-100 years? It probably won't happen, but if it did we could be looking at loss of life and disruption on scale that has never been seen in a civilised country, with hundreds of thousands of deaths and generations of homelessness, disease and misery for perhaps millions more. It would make what happened in New Orleans look like a picnic.

Might not happen. Probably won't happen. But if there is a tiny possibility that it could, and we can do something to mitigate it, then shouldn't we make the effort?
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]

Might not happen. Probably won't happen. But if there is a tiny possibility that it could, and we can do something to mitigate it, then shouldn't we make the effort?

[/ QUOTE ] The summary from the Health and Safety Executive handbook.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Might not happen. Probably won't happen. But if there is a tiny possibility that it could, and we can do something to mitigate it, then shouldn't we make the effort?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The summary from the Health and Safety Executive handbook.


[/ QUOTE ] An odd observation - are we to take it that you disapprove of the HSE across the board then?
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Those few I do know are ornery critters and tell the facts they have been convinced of by evidence and observation, rather than what they are expected to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand of the scientific process, most scientists are not willing to publish until they are convinced that their work is correct and as a corrolary of that, other scientist will not challenge a published work unless they have strong grounds to believe that it is wrong. Due to the huge amount of data (and cost of analysis and study) involved in MMGW including looking at data extending back before recording began, the chances of "reputable" scientists being able to produce evidence that the original research is wrong is very small.
Once work is "approved" then the work takes on a different status as being peer approved. At that point the work is seen as fact and used as the basis of approving future work. To contradict a theory at this stage becomes a "do or die" activity for any scientist. If it can be successfully shown to be wrong then the scientist is made for life, if the proof against isn't quite convincing then the scientist is probably ruined.

My final point is that this is all being decided by committee, most of the statements coming from the scientists are crouched in probabilities, caveats and assumptions which never appear to make it to the outpourings of the IPCC. As a previous posted said, if the government used the scientific evidence with caveats and made (unpopular) decisions that would help reduce emission of many polutants (rather than just Tax), then I for one would be more receptive to some of the messages. Scare stories and Tax Rises bring out the cynic in me.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

Me and the rest of Britain who can't see why a road has to be coned off and temporary traffic lights installed so that a man can strim a grass verge..

Most of the pro MMGW seem to be able to argue any point, however miniscule or throwaway.

Witness the last post by Webcraft.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the pro MMGW seem to be able to argue any point, however miniscule or throwaway.

Witness the last post by Webcraft.

[/ QUOTE ] And some of us will keep arguing to the bitter end because we think people like you are a menace. What is your problem with having to wait a few minutes at a red light so some poor sod with a strimmer doesn't spend his entire working day loking over his shoulder and twitching nervously?

Everyone agrees that H&S does tend to go over the top in some areas, but to condemn it across the board is as irrational as your ostrich-like attitude to climate change and speaks volumes about the thinking behind and validity of your arguments.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

I am as you may be aware very sceptical of the science put forward for GW,
The trouble is there seems to be hard science with scientific data to back up the non GW effects of CO2 & very little on the pro side, yes there are a lot of " it expected to be..." or "An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause" etc etc. but not a lot of hard science. The
[ QUOTE ]
I have found this

Cold Facts

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a scince based report & has some very interesting science & graphs.

In any case I along with most sensible people agree that we are polluting the planet with rubbish & we are misusing fossil fuels & like a no of forumites, I have seen & experienced the unbelievable pollution/over fishing of some seas but none of that is proven to cause global warming.

Whatever the case I do feel that the so called pro GW camp comprising: of The Government ( hmmm some great scientists there!) The Tabloid press (Only reporting this because of our altruistic policy & even if we loose circulation we will not sensationalise the news!) Etc. Etc. are only jumping on the band wagon for there own selfish ends.

I am positive that most of the supporter of GW science including friends of the earth, etc. do not have an agenda but are truly concerned, but have absolutely no idea how too convince the general punters.

Scare tactics will sometimes work but will eventually bore the pants off the majority, or even cause a backlash, as is evident from some of the comments on here.

What we ALL have to do is except that we are polluting the environment & then be innovative in getting sensible cleaning up programmes in place. NOT charging a bin tax or getting more legislation to Tax fuel inefficient cars, this only puts Joe public's back up, & gives the right wing press something to scare the public with.

Stop all the unproven science re Man made CO2, basically most of the public really couldnt care a stuff about global warming. So we have to get some sensible plans in place to start cleaning up & the sooner that we can all work together to this end then the GW debate will go away & we can really do something more positive to help stop pollution.

poter
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

C'mon gents - this is getting a bit personal.

We all agree that the anti-climate change lobby are close minded bigots, and that the pro-climate change lobby are proselytizing do-gooders with an envy complex. Let's leave it at that!
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything you say until your final sentence. I don't follow that logical step. Of course the politicians are taking advantage of GW for their own ends - that's what politicians do isn't it?

But it does not mean that the whole thing is a conspiracy. Do you not think it is possible that a genuine issue is being cynically hijacked and misrepresented by vested interests? If you imagine for a moment that MMGW was an absolute fact, how do you think politics and industry would respond ? Exactly as they are. That doesn't mean it is proven , it doesn't mean it's a myth, it just means that everyone is trying to benefit from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea if MMGW is real or not in truth. I am not qualified enough to judge the data.

What I can do is to draw conclusions based on the behaviour of the Government.

Given the speed at which they ban things that are (in the MMGW is real camp) infinitely less damaging I cannot believe that the problem is as bad as it might appear.

If it was a concrete fact I sincerely believe that the Goverment would act differently. I would hate to think that there reaction to a meteor on course to hit the Earth would be to introduce loads of totally illogical taxes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top