ripped off from someone else (the latest global warming debate)

HaloBurn · **Dad** Yarrr...

ripped off from someone else (the latest global warming debate)

stevo · UK Ambassador to the Antipodes

RE: ripped off from someone else

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Not if you're a mutant with gills, mate. Then water presents no problems at all.

Halo - that made me laugh a bit. Then I stopped. And then I started again.

JonnyStead · **"I'm Lois!"**

I almost cant wait for 20 years down the line when it turns out that man induced global warming is a load of old knackers...

Now, where can I get some cheap diesel...?

stevo · UK Ambassador to the Antipodes

You could be right but I'm sure thats what the creationist are saying about Darwinism...

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Oooh. The gloves are off!

HaloBurn · **Dad** Yarrr...

Actually that's an interesting point most of the global warming alarmists are akin to your avarage godbotherer insofar as ego ("having a special place in heavan by spreading gods word" & "saving the planet") goes - often regardless of what the science actually says on the matter.

However I think the whole carbon thing is a load of bollocks I read an interesting article that says that carbons global warming potential can only affect a 0.5 - 1.0 degree change in temprature becuase of its ability to absorb infrared wavelengths in it particular band because the amount of radiation does not change and the existing carbon has absorbed the majority of the existing wavelenghts. It was put that doubling the amount of carbon was like doubling the number of shades you put over a window on a sunny day - at some point double the number of blinds will make no more difference to the darkness in the room.

or something like that jdkgoof

Short Santa · **For entertainment purposes only!**

wrong, wrong, wrong, you're all wrong, climate change does exist

(my job depends on it....)

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Climate change does exist, you're right. Hence the odd ice age we've had in the past. But I'm pretty certain that it exists as part of a natural cycle thats unlikely to be significantly affected by us. I've never seen any evidence that convinced me otherwise.

That said, I don't see a problem with tidying up a bit and being more efficient with our energy. That's just common sense.

-- Edited by ddvmor at 22:29, 2007-06-08

Short Santa · **For entertainment purposes only!**

Phew, thanks dude

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Glad to be of service!

stevo · UK Ambassador to the Antipodes

Its interesting that people read an article or watched a Tv show that caused them to question whether human activity has any effect on the planets climate...

The overwhelming body of scientic opinion states that we are having a negative impact on the planets atmosphere and the planets ability to regulate temperature.

Sure ice ages do occur naturally as do warming periods but at no point in the last 600,000 years has the atmosphere been changed so radically so quicky, so there.
jdkwibble

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

stevo wrote:
Its interesting that people read an article or watched a Tv show that caused them to question whether human activity has any effect on the planets climate

Hmm... so this:

stevo wrote:
The overwhelming body of scientic opinion states that we are having a negative impact on the planets atmosphere and the planets ability to regulate temperature...at no point in the last 600,000 years has the atmosphere been changed so radically so quicky, so there.

Didn't come from an article or TV show. Presumably Al Gore is beyond reproach.

I'm unconvinced on a number of points, not least of which that the scientific community is in agreement. I've seen lots of documentaries, articles and literature trying to convince me that I'm responsible for global warming and overall, I just get this uncomfortable feeling, very similar to th one I get when a Jehovas Witness knocks on the door. I'm not seeing anything convincing. Lots of pretty graphs and famous people jumping on the band wagon isn't enough, I'm afraid.

I love it when we get all serious and have a debate. I'm gonna stick a poll at the top of this. Polls are good!

stevo · UK Ambassador to the Antipodes

RE: ripped off from someone else (the latest global warming debate)

Short Santa · **For entertainment purposes only!**

The scientists (apart from those funded by the oil lobbies) do seem to have reached a consensus.

Even our American friends agree - when I went to Washington (see posts passim) the civil servants and politicians I met all acknowledged they had to do something, the big question was what?

I was there promoting some sort of cap and trade system, which they liked assuming it would continue to allow coal burn (which is possible), but there are alternatives - we've had a very successful system of voluntary energy efficiency agreements in the Uk since 1999, as well as a cap and trade system (imposed by the EU in 2005)

JonnyStead · **"I'm Lois!"**

Sorry dude - gotta wade in on this one with a bit of fact based sense before we throw the baby out with the bath water here...

To doubt that we are having an impact on the planets climate is to assume that all the pollution, deforestation and general raping of the planet is having no effect whatsoever.

This is only as dangerous as assuming that we are having an impact. Remember it was only in 1975 that the worldwide "Global cooling" campaign was in full swing because the trend of the earths temperature at that point was downwards! lets give it a few years ok?

-We have measured an atmospheric change in the carbon dioxide composition of the air that surounds us.

I'm sure we have - after all when temperatures rise (say because of sun activity) the oceans produce more CO2 - no dispute there.

-We know that there is a link between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures.

Quite right - when temperatures rise - oceans produce more CO2 - there is indeed a link.

-We know that as a consequence of industry, transport, agriculture we are poducing CO2 and pollution in ever greater volumes-just wait until China and India go into full swing.

China is in full swing and India has been for about 25 years - you should see Mumbai - its a peach - I know cause my company owns a big chunk of it. The amount of CO2 man puts into the atmosphere though is firstly tiny and secondly is the same CO2 that has always existed on earth - we're not making any new stuff!

Its not just Al Gore (although his documentary proposes an extremely convincing and compelling argument). Ask anyone in the Uk over the age of 75 if the weather patterns have changed in their lifetime and they'll tell you they remember 4ft of snow every year around christmas. The last time we had that in Bristol at any rate was in 1983.

Not disputed - but ask someone from 1850 and they will tell you that you could grow wine in London back then because it was WARM ENOUGH!!!! thats why we have Vine Street and Vineyard lane in London, man! - THERE WERE VINYARDS THERE!

The water companies in oz acknowledge that the climate in WA has become colder and alot drier hence our water crisis.

And? Climate cycles around the world - always has - in 1976 we had a 16 week drought and the longest hot summer on record - yes, 30 years ago.

Mankind does have a planetary impact on the atmosphere, just look at the hole we created in the ozone layer over Antartica which was caused by the industrial use of CFC's...

CFCs are not CO2 - CFCs are artificial and our use of them was wrong. However - at the time scientist said this hole would NEVER heal up - its currently shrinking. The earth is tougher than people think and scientists know jack shit.

There are articles put out there to say that its all natural cycles etc, and this does put doubt in peoples minds..some of these articles come directly from the fossil fuel lobby..its similar to the tobacco companies telling people that their products were healthy in the '50s.

Dude its the fossil fuel lobby that is pedalling global warming! they are running out of product and whats left is in unstable regions of the world - you wanna drill for oil in Iran? Not me ta. They have to switch people into other sources fast and its mega expensive to develop that technology so quickly - so how do you do it? Get the tax payer to pay. How many times have you seen a government build an insanely expensive bridge or a tunnel just to sell it off to a company that then puts a toll on it - same principle.

I'm a bit of a doubting thomas myself on most theories but this one seems so overwhelmingly obvious, ie that there's a linkage between human industrial activity and climate..

It just simply isnt the case - its business - and if you still doubt it sit down, calmly and work out how much energy it takes to recycle a plastic cup or bottle or produce a litre of ethanol for that matter - none of this makes any sense in reality once you apply pounds and pence to it other than someone is getting rich off it - and in this world, thats all that matters.

...by the way, I dont think I can blame you personally for climate change Dazza, but at least you agree that we should clean up our act.

I think its the scare mongering hot air like this thats heating the planet dont you? Nothing personal mate - but this global warming thing is Emporers new clothes on a global scale and I wish, just wish people would look into this stuff for themselves. Al Gore is pissed with the Oil companies because they refused to fund his second run at George Bush - plain and simple and now he's sticking it to them - really thats all it is!

-- Edited by JonnyStead at 20:34, 2007-06-09

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Boys, boys!

It was that comment about Darwinish that did it, I think. It was all peachy 'til then!

I'm looking forward to the next time Mt St Helen's goes up. Greenpeace will be there right before the eruption with their placards! Not afterwards, though... he he he...

sha76jam · Cpt Acorn Short of An Oaktree

Hmmm, so in your well reasoned theory Mr Stead, you state that "Dude its the fossil fuel lobby that is pedalling global warming!", yet also "Al Gore is pissed with the Oil companies because they refused to fund his second run at George Bush - plain and simple and now he's sticking it to them" & you claim there's holes in the arguments of those who do believe in a man-made climate change?

I hope no-one's putting any faith in the "science" of the recentish Channel 4 "documentary" arguing against man effecting climate? I found an interview with the scientist who was suing for misrepresentation quite interesting!

JonnyStead · **"I'm Lois!"**

sha76jam wrote:

Hmmm, so in your well reasoned theory Mr Stead, you state that "Dude its the fossil fuel lobby that is pedalling global warming!", yet also "Al Gore is pissed with the Oil companies because they refused to fund his second run at George Bush - plain and simple and now he's sticking it to them" & you claim there's holes in the arguments of those who do believe in a man-made climate change?

Wouldnt be the first time someone inadvertently helped those they were intending to harm wink

HaloBurn · **Dad** Yarrr...

Before I get into my heresy Id like to state that I'd been led to believe that climate change was a man-made situation, before I looked into the issue I was sold on man-made CO2 as being the cause of global warming. Now I dont think thats true, some people may think that makes me an uninformed fool ignorant of the facts of the issue in the face of an overwealming scientific consensus so I will simply give my point of view.

Now that I have looked into a bit of the science I think we are being mislead for political and taxation reasons.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The above link gives a more reasonable scientific account of the situation and the fact is that of all greenhouse gases water vapour accounts for 95%, 99.99% of which is naturally occuring.

Co2 only accounts for 3.618% of greenhouse gas with man made Co2 only accounting for 0.117%. Even if we reduce emissions by the Koyoto proposed 30% - it's a fart in the wind compared to the natural effect of water vapour which is never properly represented in the official statistics even if we reduced by 30% Co2 we would still not effect natural climate change and shock horror the Earth naturally has a cycle of warming and cooling.

Anyone who cites the IPCC as a counter source for any skeptical approach to looking at climate change should remember that the IPCC is a part scientific and part political panel, at present a lot of the scientists who contributed to the latest report are unhappy with the editing of the data the politicians then proceeded to do before it was published.

The following documentaries are also worth a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...earch=Se arch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXc9H5JSyow

Most of all the position that man-made CO2 is the driving force behind climate change is because if it isnt then there is no money to be made. Lets take a look at the Golden boy of this position Mr Al Gore chairman of the board of the Alliance for climate protection who stand to make a lot of money from the Live Earth gigs coming up. The Alliance for climate protection is a charity with the sole aim of:

Our mission is to persuade the American people and people elsewhere in the world of the importance and urgency of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis.

Al Gore is also chairman of the board of Generation Investment Management this is the same company he founded but also the one he buys his carbon offsets from (Or should I say stock options he calls carbon offsets?). Can anyone else see the conflict of interest here Mr Gore cant sell carbon offsets if there is doubt about what is driving global warming so we are paying for his marketing via the Alliance for climate protection.

Finally the following book gives what I feel is the best view of what drives global warming its called The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change.

Oh and this has tons of stuff for the more skeptical amoung us http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/06/dr-reid-bryson-father-of-modern.html

HaloBurn · **Dad** Yarrr...

Erm so sorry for the deep ranty nature of this biggrin

stevo · UK Ambassador to the Antipodes

Oh dear oh dear- well its all in good fun and there's no offense intented..human beings wouldn't have probably very far by agreeing with each other about everyting...

But I prefer to agree with:-

The Stern Report
The United Nations climate commission
The G8
99.9% of scientists

rather than:-
The producers of a ropey channel 4 doco
1970's scientists
The 'carbon for life brigade'.
Victorian Londoners
The belief that Al Gore has a grudge with the oil companies

It would be fantastic if you anti climate change naysayers were correct-fantastic but do you really want to take the risk of doing absolutely nothing???

You're like those dudes on Krypton with the shiney suits at the beginning of Superman 1 who insisted every thing was going to be fine... biggrin

PS. The burning of hydrocarbons is the reason that carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere..as you know hydrocarbons exist in liquid form and Co2 is a gas...

'Scientist dont know jack shit'. Priceless.
idea

-- Edited by stevo at 03:40, 2007-06-10

JonnyStead · **"I'm Lois!"**

stevo wrote:

The Stern Report
Stern is an economics expert - he is basing his modelling on others research. The primary goal of any government is to build a strong economic foundation to enable them to pay for services.

The United Nations climate commission
Who pays for the UN?

The G8
Who pays for the G8?

99.9% of scientists
Simply not the case. Thats a nonsense statistic and you just made it up and looked silly doing it. Actually the scientific community is split on this as they are on almost all issues. The proGW brigade happen to have the funding and the access to the airwaves.

rather than:-
The producers of a ropey channel 4 doco
1970's scientists
The 'carbon for life brigade'.
Victorian Londoners
The belief that Al Gore has a grudge with the oil companies

Time will tell my friend - I dont know what you do for a living Steve and it probably doesnt matter - I though, mix on a pretty regular basis with some of the top lawyers and top executives in the most respected financial city on the planet. I'm not one of them or even close but I get to talk to them A LOT. And if there is one thing I can guarantee you - its that there is the TRUTH and then there is the truth you're gonna hear about. I'm not citing examples because I like my job - but when you mix with people like this - you learn to smell the bullsh*t a little earlier in the wind.

It would be fantastic if you anti climate change naysayers were correct-fantastic but do you really want to take the risk of doing absolutely nothing???

That is EXACTLY what they're banking on! Its the reason why we have an insurance industry. If people just sat down and worked out how much they paid in premiums over their lifetime vs the amount the claimed they'd realise their is no need for it. Well done Steve - you're starting to work this out!

PS. The burning of hydrocarbons is the reason that carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere..as you know hydrocarbons exist in liquid form and Co2 is a gas...

Look at the ratios dude not just the headlines.

'Scientist dont know jack shit'. Priceless.

Sugar is good - no hang on sugar is bad,

use sweetners - NO! DONT use sweetners,

being overweight is bad for you - no you should be your natural
weight its safer - No WAIT!, obesity kills

the whole in the ozone is permanent - no wait, its closing up,

Its better for smokers to smoke occasionally during pregnancy because the stress of giving up is harmful to the baby - no WAIT! dont smoke ANYTHING during pregnancy its lethal to the baby!

You should take multivitamins - NO WAIT! dont because they'll knock five years off your life.

And my personal favourite and this ABSOLUTELY TRUE - a few years ago scientist finished mapping 5% of the human genome and said that the whole thing was done. When they were asked by a journalist about the other 95% you know what your precious scientists said? "Oh, thats redundant - it doesnt do anything"

Your faith in other human beings desparately scraping around for funding and pretty much happy to say whatever the guy writing the cheques wants them to say? - priceless.

I'm done with this now - I can only give you the facts - its what I call a "The sky is blue argument Steve" I can tell you the sky is blue - you wanna keep banging on that its red thats fine by me - it doesnt change the fact that the sky is blue.

-- Edited by JonnyStead at 09:01, 2007-06-10

stevo · UK Ambassador to the Antipodes

Hmmm, I can see you're not a man who can take being challenged very easily Mr Stead...must come with your really important job and mixing with all those insurance clerks and legal types and forming unshakable scientific assumptions based on your conversations with them...

I prefer to base my observations and opinions on reality...but I guess time will tell...

Its a shame we couldnt have a reasonable argument without people getting hot under the collar biggrin

Now, lets not get off on the wrong foot here my friend-lets agree to disagree on this one shall we? Lifes too short...

jdkthumb

sha76jam · Cpt Acorn Short of An Oaktree

Ok, so I'll admit that the stuff I learnt about climate for my degree is a) a little rusty by now & b) a little out of date, however, I think there are a couple of things that still apply:

1. It's a hugely complicated subject, this means:
a. Scientists still don't really know what's going on
b. Anything you've read has been hugely over-simplified (assuming it hasn't included the combined interaction of the sun, the sea, plants, animals, geothermal activity, etc & various human activities. I'm making the assumption that no-one here is regularly studying scientific journals & weigh up the 2 sides of the argument for themselves.).

2. I'll agree that the amount of CO2 we put out & all the other crap we're doing (deforestation, water pollution, etc) on their own will not cause global warming. That's not the issue as far as I'm concerned. There are various positive & negative feedback cycles that effect climate change & it may not need much to tip the balance. No-one is able to predict just what it would take to do it, but do we really want to risk being responsible? http://physics.indiana.edu/~brabson/p310/feedback.html has quite a good summary of some of the different cycles & how they interact.

Personally I stick to a simplistic approach: stick a load of crap into into the atmosphere & one way or another it's going to get screwed up.

Oh, & by the way, we may want to start calling it climate change rather than warming, as one possible outcome is the UK entering a new glacial period (nope, not a new ice age, as far as I'm aware nobody has declared the current one over, we're just in a nice interglacial period).

HaloBurn · **Dad** Yarrr...

we are skipping the major issue how much CO2 is produced in the production of Jammie Dodgers?

And how much methan do they cause us to produce after eating them?

-- Edited by HaloBurn at 16:16, 2007-06-11

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

I thought they grew on trees...

HaloBurn · **Dad** Yarrr...

nah your thinking of jaffa cakes

ddvmor · **I am the Jammie King!**

Ah.

I was sure I saw a PYO JD sign the other day...

bonniepirateanne · Date: Jun 12, 2007

What exactly is your job Stead.. are you a sandwich delivery boy in London town?