Global warming huh?

[Daniel]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... tists.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html)

http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/Discus-throwers-steal-show-at-the-Czech-National-Championships-Athletics-news-80691.jpg

[Rollo]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/a ... es/4945174 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/an-tuvalu-pm-calls-for-urgent-attention-to-climate-change-issues/4945174)
Tuvalu's Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga is urgently calling for global leaders to commit to addressing climate change.
The issue was a major focus of last week's Pacific Island Forum leaders meeting in Majuro, where many delegates expressed concern that the issue is slipping in prominence on the international agenda.
Mr Sopoaga has called on major greenhouse gas emitters to follow the lead of smaller Pacific nations in battling climate change.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/ki ... under/590/ (http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/kiribati-a-nation-going-under/590/)
The waves are slowly seeping over Kiribati, which is at the frontline of the climate-change-induced rise in sea levels striking low-lying nations all over the world. Formerly part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands — a British protectorate until the mid 1970s — Kiribati is lower, frailer and more defenceless. It may be the first nation to enter an end game against climate change.
Kiribati’s leaders now face wrenching questions: How many of its 100,000 people will need to leave? Where will they go? How will it feed those remaining? And, as its islands become uninhabitable, can Kiribati remain a nation at all?

Yeah, climate change and global warming is a fib. That's why the people of Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands etc are all a bunch a whiners and should just accept the complete evacuation of their countries due to rising sea levels by the end of the decade as something else.

Who's going to tell these people that they all wussy and that they just need to suck it up? I guess that you just have to take the good with the total destruction of your home. How difficult is it to push a lean-to up a hill anyway? Especially if the whole hill is under water.

[Daniel]

Rollo, I was merely presenting some new and seemingly fairly credible evidence?

Islands have always come and gone, such is nature, to assume that the planet was going to stay in some static state is just silly.

[Starter]

I guess in this case if we give the islanders a raft of sh*t about it, it could actually be helpful. :D

[steveaki13]

Rollo, I was merely presenting some new and seemingly fairly credible evidence?

Islands have always come and gone, such is nature, to assume that the planet was going to stay in some static state is just silly.

While I think nations should still be taking this issue as one of the leading issues of world politics, due to the way these small nations have less time to fight it than others.

It has always amused me (ironic) that people often assume that evolution and change are something that only happened in the past. People forget that the planets climate will forever change no matter what humans do and sea levels will change and land masses will move and assume in a modern world everything will remain the same.

Anyway It is something that needs looking into for the sake of the people and their countries but there can not always be a solution.

[555-04Q2]

It's always amazed me how people can build homes, towns, cities etc in known flood paths, tsunami prone seafront areas, next to volcano's, on earthquake fault lines, tornado frequented planes etc.

[steveaki13]

In the UK more and more houses are being built on marshland or flood plains. Which is very stupid. They think if they build a wall or barrier that's it, but low and behold it floods elsewhere.

I suppose in some cases building near a volcano has been useful as the land will be fertile. For farming or whatever, but you have to do so knowing the risks. To just build whole towns near Volcano's and seem to have no idea that its problem is strange.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Rollo, I was merely presenting some new and seemingly fairly credible evidence?

Islands have always come and gone, such is nature, to assume that the planet was going to stay in some static state is just silly.


Agree. It's all cyclic. The climate was steadily getting colder from 4th to 17th century AD. Then it warmed quite a bit in 18th century, then in early 19th century it became colder yet again. I read memoirs of people who were born in late 18th century but then lived most of their lives in 19th. Their memoirs are full of nostalgia about the excellent weather and rich harvests in their childhood, which no longer were the case by 1800.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So F1 can move back to V10s now?

[BleAivano]

Sure the climate have cycles but that doe not mean that the humans have not affected the climates.

But then why is this guy more right then those who say that there are a global warming?
In the ends it's down to which scientist you want to believe and also who paid the scientists reports.
You know this little thing called lobbying.

Then question is Professor Judith Curry, who is she and for who is she working?
What is her background? Who sponsors her research? Environmentalists? Oil companies?
Before we know, I would take her report with a large grain of salt.

[Starter]

Then question is Professor Judith Curry, who is she and for who is she working?
What is her background? Who sponsors her research? Environmentalists? Oil companies?
Before we know, I would take her report with a large grain of salt.
Those are very good questions which should be asked of all research and "reports" no matter what side they take.

[anthonyvop]

Yeah, climate change and global warming is a fib. That's why the people of Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands etc are all a bunch a whiners and should just accept the complete evacuation of their countries due to rising sea levels by the end of the decade as something else.
.

No.

They are a bunch of failed states that are now using a sympathetic press to extort money from more productive nations.

Half of the Marshall Islands GNP is a Hand out from the USA. Kirabati's GNP is propped up by Australia, NZ, Taiwan and the World bank among others. And Tuvalu's economy is a Socialist workers paradise. Over 65% of the employed work for the Government.

I will cut Tuvalu some slack as it is so isolated that it is hard to exploit even tourism.

[555-04Q2]

So F1 can move back to V10s now?

Yes and V12's ;) The "man made global warming" cr@p is all about conning us so they can put more taxes on us in the name of "green taxes" or "carbon taxes". It's all a load of bulls#!t.

[BleAivano]

[quote="Brown, Jon Brow":fj2cgq6v]So F1 can move back to V10s now?

Yes and V12's ;) The "man made global warming" cr@p is all about conning us so they can put more taxes on us in the name of "green taxes" or "carbon taxes". It's all a load of bulls#!t.[/quote:fj2cgq6v]

Is it? How do you know that it is not your claim that is b*s*?
I am pretty sure that man made pollution does affect the climate, it does pollute the air, ruining forests and lakes and etc...

[555-04Q2]

[quote="Brown, Jon Brow":1z4qyvh9]So F1 can move back to V10s now?

Yes and V12's ;) The "man made global warming" cr@p is all about conning us so they can put more taxes on us in the name of "green taxes" or "carbon taxes". It's all a load of bulls#!t.

Is it? How do you know that it is not your claim that is b*s*?
I am pretty sure that man made pollution does affect the climate, it does pollute the air, ruining forests and lakes and etc...[/quote:1z4qyvh9]

Trust me it's a load of bull just to get more of your hard earned money through taxes. The cutting down of trees/rainforests would have more to do with "man made global warming" than driving your car to work everyday does. Hell, the worlds cattle population expels more CO2 than all our cars do, yet we don't see a tax on cattle's arses now do we?

For millions of years the earth has been warming and cooling, warming and cooling, this is a proven fact that can be seen in the ice layers and rock formation layers around the world that record the worlds climate changes.

Don't believe all the cr@p your local politician tells you about saving the world, they just want your money and your vote, period.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Yes and V12's ;) The "man made global warming" cr@p is all about conning us so they can put more taxes on us in the name of "green taxes" or "carbon taxes". It's all a load of bulls#!t.

Is it? How do you know that it is not your claim that is b*s*?
I am pretty sure that man made pollution does affect the climate, it does pollute the air, ruining forests and lakes and etc...[/quote]

Trust me it's a load of bull just to get more of your hard earned money through taxes. The cutting down of trees/rainforests would have more to do with "man made global warming" than driving your car to work everyday does. Hell, the worlds cattle population expels more CO2 than all our cars do, yet we don't see a tax on cattle's arses now do we?

For millions of years the earth has been warming and cooling, warming and cooling, this is a proven fact that can be seen in the ice layers and rock formation layers around the world that record the worlds climate changes.

Don't believe all the cr@p your local politician tells you about saving the world, they just want your money and your vote, period.[/quote]

Where's the heck is the "like" button?

[555-04Q2]

Where's the heck is the "like" button?

I know it's gone fishing obviously :laugh:

Hey Mark, what the feck have you done with our button boet?

[Bagwan]

Trust me it's a load of bull just to get more of your hard earned money through taxes. The cutting down of trees/rainforests would have more to do with "man made global warming" than driving your car to work everyday does. Hell, the worlds cattle population expels more CO2 than all our cars do, yet we don't see a tax on cattle's arses now do we?

For millions of years the earth has been warming and cooling, warming and cooling, this is a proven fact that can be seen in the ice layers and rock formation layers around the world that record the worlds climate changes.

Don't believe all the cr@p your local politician tells you about saving the world, they just want your money and your vote, period.[/quote]

Your last sentence is correct , 555 , but not for the reasons you give .

Around here , the government above says wind turbines are great things , but our local politicians are local people , and the locals see them as the enemy .
They don't see them as the natural gas/big oil guys they are , but fight the battle on the health front , saying turbines make people sick .

Certainly , we see in the historical records , that there have been many changes in mean temperature , and through archaeological study , we see evidence of many more .
We see , though , that many times the change is caused by a major event , like a volcano eruption , or a meteorite hit .

Our event is happening over a couple of hundred years , which is a very short length of time in the grand scheme of things .
Since we started burning sequestered carbon , the world has changed .

Take the sahara desert as an example . The eastern seaboard of the US produces enough small carbon particulate now , that the monsoon season that started every spring off , hasn't happened for over twenty years .

Sure , you can't trust the politicians , and the scientists are often being financed by the bad guys , but when you look around you , is it the same as when you were a kid , weather-wise ?

Petrochemicals are a bit like tobacco . We need to fight to get them to admit it's bad for us .

They are really fracking bad for us .

And , we don't need them .

[555-04Q2]

Your last sentence is correct , 555 , but not for the reasons you give .

Around here , the government above says wind turbines are great things , but our local politicians are local people , and the locals see them as the enemy .
They don't see them as the natural gas/big oil guys they are , but fight the battle on the health front , saying turbines make people sick .

Certainly , we see in the historical records , that there have been many changes in mean temperature , and through archaeological study , we see evidence of many more .
We see , though , that many times the change is caused by a major event , like a volcano eruption , or a meteorite hit .

Our event is happening over a couple of hundred years , which is a very short length of time in the grand scheme of things .
Since we started burning sequestered carbon , the world has changed .

Take the sahara desert as an example . The eastern seaboard of the US produces enough small carbon particulate now , that the monsoon season that started every spring off , hasn't happened for over twenty years .

Sure , you can't trust the politicians , and the scientists are often being financed by the bad guys , but when you look around you , is it the same as when you were a kid , weather-wise ?

Petrochemicals are a bit like tobacco . We need to fight to get them to admit it's bad for us .

They are really fracking bad for us .

And , we don't need them .

Well I have to disagree with you to a certain point. The weather where I live is the same it has been for as long as I can remember for the 36 years I've been on this planet. This winter we have been warmer than usual, but last winter we had a much colder than normal one. Summer the year before that was cooler than normal too. Can someone explain that to me if we are supposed to be getting warmer each year?

The earth's climate is controlled by several factors...how many trees there are on the planet to consume CO2 and expel O2, the sea temperature, the angle of the earth in relation to the sun on its axis (which as was recently discovered is changing by the way), how many animals fart each day, how much of the suns radiation is kept in our atmosphere by cloud cover etc etc. Man is such a small part of this integral group of climatic changing influences even with all our factories, cars, planes etc that I find it (not impossible) but highly unlikely that we can give ourselves enough credit to change such a large beast at the earths climate. We are not gods, not yet at least.

The politicians, greenies, hippies etc jumped on the bandwagon a long time ago and somewhere, somehow, some idiots started to believe all the hype and impending doom and gloom that processes were started that are now trying to force us into believing that we need to change our lives dramatically to curb "damage done". I for one will not fall for it, I may have to grudgingly pay CO2 taxes as it is now law, but it doesn't mean I have to believe it or be happy with it.

[Bagwan]

Your last sentence is correct , 555 , but not for the reasons you give .

Around here , the government above says wind turbines are great things , but our local politicians are local people , and the locals see them as the enemy .
They don't see them as the natural gas/big oil guys they are , but fight the battle on the health front , saying turbines make people sick .

Certainly , we see in the historical records , that there have been many changes in mean temperature , and through archaeological study , we see evidence of many more .
We see , though , that many times the change is caused by a major event , like a volcano eruption , or a meteorite hit .

Our event is happening over a couple of hundred years , which is a very short length of time in the grand scheme of things .
Since we started burning sequestered carbon , the world has changed .

Take the sahara desert as an example . The eastern seaboard of the US produces enough small carbon particulate now , that the monsoon season that started every spring off , hasn't happened for over twenty years .

Sure , you can't trust the politicians , and the scientists are often being financed by the bad guys , but when you look around you , is it the same as when you were a kid , weather-wise ?

Petrochemicals are a bit like tobacco . We need to fight to get them to admit it's bad for us .

They are really fracking bad for us .

And , we don't need them .

Well I have to disagree with you to a certain point. The weather where I live is the same it has been for as long as I can remember for the 36 years I've been on this planet. This winter we have been warmer than usual, but last winter we had a much colder than normal one. Summer the year before that was cooler than normal too. Can someone explain that to me if we are supposed to be getting warmer each year?

The earth's climate is controlled by several factors...how many trees there are on the planet to consume CO2 and expel O2, the sea temperature, the angle of the earth in relation to the sun on its axis (which as was recently discovered is changing by the way), how many animals fart each day, how much of the suns radiation is kept in our atmosphere by cloud cover etc etc. Man is such a small part of this integral group of climatic changing influences even with all our factories, cars, planes etc that I find it (not impossible) but highly unlikely that we can give ourselves enough credit to change such a large beast at the earths climate. We are not gods, not yet at least.

The politicians, greenies, hippies etc jumped on the bandwagon a long time ago and somewhere, somehow, some idiots started to believe all the hype and impending doom and gloom that processes were started that are now trying to force us into believing that we need to change our lives dramatically to curb "damage done". I for one will not fall for it, I may have to grudgingly pay CO2 taxes as it is now law, but it doesn't mean I have to believe it or be happy with it.

Much warmer one year , and much colder another is a sign of the extreme swings that we have been told to expect , as a result of changing weather patterns as the world warms .
So , as you state the weather there to be different from the usual , it is clear you do see some difference .

In a way , stating the issues that are facing us are due to "global warming" has been a good explanation of exactly what is happening , but has also been confusing for many , as local weather for us is not necessarily warmer .


The situation is portrayed as all "doom and gloom" for good reason , but that's all part of the game , too .
On one hand , we need to be shaken to our senses .
On the other , more oily hand , we are being taught that there is no real alternative to the crude present day .

You mentioned the biggest answer to this crisis , yourself , when you talked about those farting animals .
That is methane , or as the corporates say , "natural gas" .

[555-04Q2]

Much warmer one year , and much colder another is a sign of the extreme swings that we have been told to expect , as a result of changing weather patterns as the world warms .
So , as you state the weather there to be different from the usual , it is clear you do see some difference .

In a way , stating the issues that are facing us are due to "global warming" has been a good explanation of exactly what is happening , but has also been confusing for many , as local weather for us is not necessarily warmer .


The situation is portrayed as all "doom and gloom" for good reason , but that's all part of the game , too .
On one hand , we need to be shaken to our senses .
On the other , more oily hand , we are being taught that there is no real alternative to the crude present day .

You mentioned the biggest answer to this crisis , yourself , when you talked about those farting animals .
That is methane , or as the corporates say , "natural gas" .

I'm not going to go further into the whole climate temperatures thing again as I still believe it's a load of you know what. I'll leave it at that.

With regards to fossil fuels vs alternatives. Besides nuclear power, there is no current viable alternative to crude oil for powering our transport industry or coal to power our cities. Wind farms are not viable, just ask California. Solar is not viable, yet, but they are making progress. The ocean's tidal and wave power is yet to be fully exploited. Fossil fuels are here to stay for a long while yet, probably the rest of the 21st century. If you take into account the pollution created just in the manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric cars, fossil fuel cars are, in fact, still "greener". There are pro's and con's to every situation.

[Bagwan]

Much warmer one year , and much colder another is a sign of the extreme swings that we have been told to expect , as a result of changing weather patterns as the world warms .
So , as you state the weather there to be different from the usual , it is clear you do see some difference .

In a way , stating the issues that are facing us are due to "global warming" has been a good explanation of exactly what is happening , but has also been confusing for many , as local weather for us is not necessarily warmer .


The situation is portrayed as all "doom and gloom" for good reason , but that's all part of the game , too .
On one hand , we need to be shaken to our senses .
On the other , more oily hand , we are being taught that there is no real alternative to the crude present day .

You mentioned the biggest answer to this crisis , yourself , when you talked about those farting animals .
That is methane , or as the corporates say , "natural gas" .

I'm not going to go further into the whole climate temperatures thing again as I still believe it's a load of you know what. I'll leave it at that.

With regards to fossil fuels vs alternatives. Besides nuclear power, there is no current viable alternative to crude oil for powering our transport industry or coal to power our cities. Wind farms are not viable, just ask California. Solar is not viable, yet, but they are making progress. The ocean's tidal and wave power is yet to be fully exploited. Fossil fuels are here to stay for a long while yet, probably the rest of the 21st century. If you take into account the pollution created just in the manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric cars, fossil fuel cars are, in fact, still "greener". There are pro's and con's to every situation.

A load of "you know what" is what we've got , and that load of "you know what" is the answer .
Did you miss that in my post ?

You didn't include it in your list .

If all those fossil fueled cars were burning non-fossil methane , we could solve the issue of bringing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere .

[D-Type]

Global warming and pollution effects are not necessarily the same thing.

[airshifter]

Global warming and pollution effects are not necessarily the same thing.

That seems to change depending on which scientist you think is correct on the matter.

The way I see it, if science can't even begin to agree on what the real causes are, we can't do much to change it other than guess. It's similar to attempting to treat an illness that you can't identify. There may be medicine that will cure it, but there may be medicine that will make it worse as well.

[555-04Q2]

Global warming and pollution effects are not necessarily the same thing.

That sir is a very good point :up:

[555-04Q2]

We're more than 3 degrees cooler overall this Spring so far compared to our average for the month of September. Thought we were supposed to be warming up with all the pollution and global warming we're supposedly causing. Obviously not! :laugh:

Hey government, can I have my bloody carbon taxes back please :angryfire

[Rollo]

Just to review the original article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... tists.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html)
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
- The Telegraph, 8th Sep 2013

So I found that Mail on Sunday's article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... wrong.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.

- Mail On Sunday, 15th Sep 2013

There's a problem, the Mail had compares one period of 15 years from 1990 in one report, with another of 60 years from 1951. If the Mail had bothered to check its facts:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... tions.html (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html)
The linear predicted trend over the past 50 years of 0.12°C is in line with the observed trend of 0.13C from the IPCC's 2007 report.

Ergo, the Mail didn't do its fact checking, the Telegraph didn't do any fact checking either.

[Spafranco]

I guess in this case if we give the islanders a raft of sh*t about it, it could actually be helpful. :D

Hey, look at that. The guy that got gluton or gluston to be banned for using an asterisk as a letter to disguise the intended one is now using it at will. Now, should he have this gluston or gluton reinstated?
Isn't that like committing a crime which in fact was not but the prosecutor and judge thought it was and you got a hefty fine. Then it's discovered one was innocent afterall and the accused was given an award:)

[Spafranco]

We're more than 3 degrees cooler overall this Spring so far compared to our average for the month of September. Thought we were supposed to be warming up with all the pollution and global warming we're supposedly causing. Obviously not! :laugh:

Hey government, can I have my bloody carbon taxes back please :angryfire
Why not read some of the scientific studies and not post until you understand the scope of how this whole sequence of warming and cooling occurs.
An example you may understand. It heats up before it snows. Did you know that?

[Spafranco]

Global warming and pollution effects are not necessarily the same thing.

Of course pollution is not the same as global warming. A hydrogen atom on it's own has no effect on an area around it. Now, supply some oxygen and voila you get water when a second hydrogen atom combines.

[Spafranco]

Yeah, climate change and global warming is a fib. That's why the people of Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands etc are all a bunch a whiners and should just accept the complete evacuation of their countries due to rising sea levels by the end of the decade as something else.
.




I will cut Tuvalu some slack as it is so isolated that it is hard to exploit even tourism.

They are a bunch of failed states that are now using a sympathetic press to extort money from more productive nations.

Half of the Marshall Islands GNP is a Hand out from the USA. Kirabati's GNP is propped up by Australia, NZ, Taiwan and the World bank among others. And Tuvalu's economy is a Socialist workers paradise. Over 65% of the employed work for the Government.

Tell me exactly what a "Socialist Workers Paradise" is? Then tell what is wrong with it. Curious.

[Spafranco]

Much warmer one year , and much colder another is a sign of the extreme swings that we have been told to expect , as a result of changing weather patterns as the world warms .
So , as you state the weather there to be different from the usual , it is clear you do see some difference .

In a way , stating the issues that are facing us are due to "global warming" has been a good explanation of exactly what is happening , but has also been confusing for many , as local weather for us is not necessarily warmer .


The situation is portrayed as all "doom and gloom" for good reason , but that's all part of the game , too .
On one hand , we need to be shaken to our senses .
On the other , more oily hand , we are being taught that there is no real alternative to the crude present day .

You mentioned the biggest answer to this crisis , yourself , when you talked about those farting animals .
That is methane , or as the corporates say , "natural gas" .


I'm not going to go further into the whole climate temperatures thing again as I still believe it's a load of you know what. I'll leave it at that.

With regards to fossil fuels vs alternatives. Besides nuclear power, there is no current viable alternative to crude oil for powering our transport industry or coal to power our cities. Wind farms are not viable, just ask California. Solar is not viable, yet, but they are making progress. The ocean's tidal and wave power is yet to be fully exploited. Fossil fuels are here to stay for a long while yet, probably the rest of the 21st century. If you take into account the pollution created just in the manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric cars, fossil fuel cars are, in fact, still "greener". There are pro's and con's to every situation.

It is now 2013 and reading what I have it is no wonder that people all over the wold are laughing at us. We have guys writing on this forum of non- fossil fuel methane. There is no such thing. Converting methane to use as a alternative fuel would be a total disaster. More destructive than CO2. If you are so much in denial , read a little more about the consequences that will occur in the next fifteen to twenty years if methane is exposed to the atmosphere. Methane is a gas. It is not formed by the decay of plants and animals.

Greenland, if it loses it's top layers of ice and methane escapes, then in your lifetime you will be a victim of the effects of methane on the environment.
More than 4 trillion tonnes of ice from Greenland and Antarctica has melted in the past 20 years and flowed into the oceans, pushing up sea levels, according to a study that provides the best measure to date of the effect climate change is having on the earth's biggest ice sheets. The scientific journal has the data.

The research involved dozens of scientists and 10 satellite missions and presents a disturbing picture of the impact of recent warming at the poles. This in itself is pretty scary and when I read posts about the warming and cooling of the planet that has gone on for eon's it makes me sad. Are people that stupid. Are they reading this Inhoff idiot? Made a fool of the US at a climate meeting of the top nations. Called it a hoax when the evidence is so overwhelming a five year old would understand.
Yes, we do have ebbs and flows with the weather, but what we do not have or have never had is the time between each event.

[donKey jote]

Methane is a gas. It is not formed by the decay of plants and animals.

yes it is :)

[Bagwan]

It is now 2013 and reading what I have it is no wonder that people all over the wold are laughing at us. We have guys writing on this forum of non- fossil fuel methane. There is no such thing. Converting methane to use as a alternative fuel would be a total disaster. More destructive than CO2. If you are so much in denial , read a little more about the consequences that will occur in the next fifteen to twenty years if methane is exposed to the atmosphere. Methane is a gas. It is not formed by the decay of plants and animals.

Greenland, if it loses it's top layers of ice and methane escapes, then in your lifetime you will be a victim of the effects of methane on the environment.
More than 4 trillion tonnes of ice from Greenland and Antarctica has melted in the past 20 years and flowed into the oceans, pushing up sea levels, according to a study that provides the best measure to date of the effect climate change is having on the earth's biggest ice sheets. The scientific journal has the data.

The research involved dozens of scientists and 10 satellite missions and presents a disturbing picture of the impact of recent warming at the poles. This in itself is pretty scary and when I read posts about the warming and cooling of the planet that has gone on for eon's it makes me sad. Are people that stupid. Are they reading this Inhoff idiot? Made a fool of the US at a climate meeting of the top nations. Called it a hoax when the evidence is so overwhelming a five year old would understand.
Yes, we do have ebbs and flows with the weather, but what we do not have or have never had is the time between each event.

It's alright , Spafranco , you can outright name me as the laughable one who is claiming methane is natural gas .
It was me . It was me .

People have been tellin' us hippies that we should compost all these years and we should have been digesting instead .
Chucking the coffee grounds and the kitchen and garden waste in an pile has been great for the garden , but sadly , not as great for the earth .

Folks with dirt floors are , and have been using methane to heat homes for a long time , but we in the "developed" world , shun the idea in favour of fossils .


I'm not here to make anyone look foolish , but , you should do a little googling , Spafranco .
I think you'll find that natural gas is predominantly methane .


The biggest reason non-fossil methane is not more utilized is perhaps that more people haven't googled it .

You see , it's a no-win for big oil .

But , it's a big win for us if we do figure it out .
Start with the fact that it's all around us .

Every sewage plant could produce free fuel with a retrofit .
That pays for the treatment , selling at discounted rates to residents , and frees the town or city of fuel costs if they convert vehicles to gas .
That gas or diesel that would have been burned , isn't , and methane that would have been released into the atmosphere as such , isn't .

If you burn gas created in the atmosphere , it creates a loop , instead of adding to the mix with sequestered fossil carbon brought back to the surface by evil methods like fracking .

It's fart power , man .
It's the future .

[Spafranco]

Methane is a gas. It is not formed by the decay of plants and animals.

yes it is :)

Donkey, I defer to your correction. I should read before I post. I meant to state "not only formed" instead of what I wrote. I stand corrected, and wish to apologize for apparent pompousness.
Methane can and is produced without the biological decay. I hope that makes sense.

[Spafranco]

It is now 2013 and reading what I have it is no wonder that people all over the wold are laughing at us. We have guys writing on this forum of non- fossil fuel methane. There is no such thing. Converting methane to use as a alternative fuel would be a total disaster. More destructive than CO2. If you are so much in denial , read a little more about the consequences that will occur in the next fifteen to twenty years if methane is exposed to the atmosphere. Methane is a gas. It is not formed by the decay of plants and animals.

Greenland, if it loses it's top layers of ice and methane escapes, then in your lifetime you will be a victim of the effects of methane on the environment.
More than 4 trillion tonnes of ice from Greenland and Antarctica has melted in the past 20 years and flowed into the oceans, pushing up sea levels, according to a study that provides the best measure to date of the effect climate change is having on the earth's biggest ice sheets. The scientific journal has the data.

The research involved dozens of scientists and 10 satellite missions and presents a disturbing picture of the impact of recent warming at the poles. This in itself is pretty scary and when I read posts about the warming and cooling of the planet that has gone on for eon's it makes me sad. Are people that stupid. Are they reading this Inhoff idiot? Made a fool of the US at a climate meeting of the top nations. Called it a hoax when the evidence is so overwhelming a five year old would understand.
Yes, we do have ebbs and flows with the weather, but what we do not have or have never had is the time between each event.

It's alright , Spafranco , you can outright name me as the laughable one who is claiming methane is natural gas .
It was me . It was me .

People have been tellin' us hippies that we should compost all these years and we should have been digesting instead .
Chucking the coffee grounds and the kitchen and garden waste in an pile has been great for the garden , but sadly , not as great for the earth .

Folks with dirt floors are , and have been using methane to heat homes for a long time , but we in the "developed" world , shun the idea in favour of fossils .


I'm not here to make anyone look foolish , but , you should do a little googling , Spafranco .
I think you'll find that natural gas is predominantly methane .


The biggest reason non-fossil methane is not more utilized is perhaps that more people haven't googled it .

You see , it's a no-win for big oil .

No need to be contentious. I erred on my writing of the post and merely omitted a word. I explained that to Donkey. As it stood I was of course incorrect.
What I should have stated but had believed I had is that methane gas can and is formed by unstable gases and a combination of these gases will produce methane. I don't need to Google but I get your point and my post was thoroughly misleading.
But , it's a big win for us if we do figure it out .
Start with the fact that it's all around us .

Every sewage plant could produce free fuel with a retrofit .
That pays for the treatment , selling at discounted rates to residents , and frees the town or city of fuel costs if they convert vehicles to gas .
That gas or diesel that would have been burned , isn't , and methane that would have been released into the atmosphere as such , isn't .

If you burn gas created in the atmosphere , it creates a loop , instead of adding to the mix with sequestered fossil carbon brought back to the surface by evil methods like fracking .

It's fart power , man .
It's the future .

[donKey jote]

Methane can and is produced without the biological decay. I hope that makes sense.

No probs, of course it makes sense.

The methane that might escape uncontrolled from clathrates due to global melting ( ;) :p) was produced by organic decay.
I think Baggy's fart power is intended for controlled burning and so long it remains controlled, is less evil than burning fossil hydrocarbons.

[edit]I just saw your reply above. Not sure what you mean by unstable gases for the production of methane. CO2 could be combined with "unstable" hydrogen to produce methane and water for example, but this is an industrial process which takes place at high temperatures and not what Baggy has in mind.

[steveaki13]

I saw a report on the BBC news yesterday discussing Global Warming and it was stated that actually the average global temperature in the last 15 years hasn't increased, so maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

[Rollo]

I saw a report on the BBC news yesterday discussing Global Warming and it was stated that actually the average global temperature in the last 15 years hasn't increased, so maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

Or maybe someone was just selective with their data set:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticFrame.jpg

Also, about 15 years ago... Mount Pinatubo erupted:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mt.+Pinat ... a012467057 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mt.+Pinatubo's+cloud+shades+global+climate.-a012467057)

Pinatubo increased the Earth's albedo for a while, that is the reflective quality of the atmosphere with respect to heat and light inputs. At some point, that must dissipate and the adiabatic lapse rate.
Incidentally, emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and assuming that that gas doesn't escape into space, should in theory increase the relative pressure inside the system. Increase pressure on a quantity of gas (or make its volume smaller) and its temperature should increase, subject to Boyle's Law.

[Starter]

Or maybe someone was just selective with their data set:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticFrame.jpg

Also, about 15 years ago... Mount Pinatubo erupted:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mt.+Pinat ... a012467057 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mt.+Pinatubo's+cloud+shades+global+climate.-a012467057)

Pinatubo increased the Earth's albedo for a while, that is the reflective quality of the atmosphere with respect to heat and light inputs. At some point, that must dissipate and the adiabatic lapse rate.
Incidentally, emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and assuming that that gas doesn't escape into space, should in theory increase the relative pressure inside the system. Increase pressure on a quantity of gas (or make its volume smaller) and its temperature should increase, subject to Boyle's Law.
It should be remembered that in discussing Earth's climate you need to realize that only long term counts. A human lifetime is not long term when talking about the climate. There are too many variables which can affect short term results, volcanoes being one of them.

I would agree that world temperatures seem to be increasing. I am not convinced that human action is a major cause or I should say I am not convinced yet. There have been way too many swings in world mean temperatures in the past, particularly when humans weren't around to blame it on.

Regardless of cause though its gonna be tough on coastal dwellers should the trend continue.

[555-04Q2]

We're more than 3 degrees cooler overall this Spring so far compared to our average for the month of September. Thought we were supposed to be warming up with all the pollution and global warming we're supposedly causing. Obviously not! :laugh:

Hey government, can I have my bloody carbon taxes back please :angryfire
Why not read some of the scientific studies and not post until you understand the scope of how this whole sequence of warming and cooling occurs.
An example you may understand. It heats up before it snows. Did you know that?

:erm: The world was heating up and cooling down for millions of years before humans came along. Its a natural occurrence, not global warming by humans.

And are you referring to the brilliant scientists who change their opinions at every whim, who cannot conclusively confirm X, Y or Z is the reason? They say, "we're pretty sure it from A, B or C but we can't 100% confirm that." No thanks, I use logic to ascertain what is going on in the world around me, not the opinion of another human being who's job depends on convincing everyone that something is so.

[Spafranco]

[quote="555-04Q2":3u2gdane]We're more than 3 degrees cooler overall this Spring so far compared to our average for the month of September. Thought we were supposed to be warming up with all the pollution and global warming we're supposedly causing. Obviously not! :laugh:

Hey government, can I have my bloody carbon taxes back please :angryfire
Why not read some of the scientific studies and not post until you understand the scope of how this whole sequence of warming and cooling occurs.
An example you may understand. It heats up before it snows. Did you know that?

:erm: The world was heating up and cooling down for millions of years before humans came along. Its a natural occurrence, not global warming by humans.

And are you referring to the brilliant scientists who change their opinions at every whim, who cannot conclusively confirm X, Y or Z is the reason? They say, "we're pretty sure it from A, B or C but we can't 100% confirm that." No thanks, I use logic to ascertain what is going on in the world around me, not the opinion of another human being who's job depends on convincing everyone that something is so.[/quote:3u2gdane]

Not one scientist of note and only the few with a vested interest in fossil fuel companies that employ them are the malcontents who as scientists should be ashamed as they are charlatans.
Scientists are not out there to just show you what is happening for a reason that would inflate their ego. Their main purpose vis- a- vie the climate change which you seem totally oblivious to why it is a very important and a critical topic today is that they are striving, not just to find the reason why, they know why, but because since they understand they are trying to come up with ways to cope with it and determine if the trend continues.
Why not take a book and read about storm patterns and why they are so significant now. The reason is simple. They are vastly more severe than they have ever been since they have been recorded. Man, I would love to know just what it is that has you in doubt and making statements that are completely incorrect. Name five eminent climatologists, peer acknowledged as experts in their fields who have studied and now have changed their minds. I am just looking for three.

[Tel 911S]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/c ... th-errors/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/)

If you are looking for some names ,try the Oregon Petition . Over 30,000 people with accredited scientific backgrounds signed that , protesting about the lies being spread by the people trying claim that AGW was happening .

[donKey jote]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

If you are looking for some names ,try the Oregon Petition . Over 30,000 people with accredited scientific backgrounds signed that , protesting about the lies being spread by the people trying claim that AGW was happening .

wattsupwiththat?

http://i46.tinypic.com/hv9ul3.gifhttp://i46.tinypic.com/hv9ul3.gifhttp://i46.tinypic.com/hv9ul3.gif

...over 30.000 accredited active climatologists or any old donkey with a PhD in underwater basket weaving?

What are these alleged lies that you are so upset about? How do they affect YOU ?

[Tel 911S]

The IPCC is a political organisation . Here is a link about one of its top officials admitting that their aim is take money from the rich countries & distribute to the third world , [ after they have had a large cut from it of course ]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/i ... %E2%80%9D/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/)

So all of the IPCC s propaganda has been about raising taxes . In the UK our energy bills are going up by 30% at the moment to pay for "Green " taxes .
So unless you live in the third world , you are paying as well . Although you might not realise it .

As for the lies , all of warmists predictions have proved to be wrong , so they are now just lying to try to save face .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/g ... nsus-hoax/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/)

[donKey jote]

So your problem is with the politics :dozey:
You can't really blame the science for your taxes now, can you?

Who exactly are these warmists you refer to and which of their predictions have in your view been proven wrong by the likes of Watts et al.?

[donKey jote]

So your problem is with the politics :dozey:
You can't really blame the scientists for your taxes now, can you?

Who exactly are these warmists you refer to and which of their predictions have in your view been proven wrong by the likes of Watts et al.?

[Tel 911S]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/g ... nsus-hoax/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/)

If you had bothered to read the above link , it does list a lot of the predictions that have been proved wrong .
The scientists who are making these predictions are being employed by the IPCC to try to find anything that might support the politicians reasons for raising taxes . One of the main science organisations employed by the IPCC is the University of East Anglia , [in the UK ] , which is where the "Climategate " Emails came from .
They are a whole lot of communications between scientists explaining how to fake figures & manipulate data to try to give the results that the politicians wanted . Link to some of them here .
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/gr ... emails.pdf (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf)

[donKey jote]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/

If you had bothered to read the above link , it does list a lot of the predictions that have been proved wrong .
The scientists who are making these predictions are being employed by the IPCC to try to find anything that might support the politicians reasons for raising taxes . One of the main science organisations employed by the IPCC is the University of East Anglia , [in the UK ] , which is where the "Climategate " Emails came from .
They are a whole lot of communications between scientists explaining how to fake figures & manipulate data to try to give the results that the politicians wanted . Link to some of them here .
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/gr ... emails.pdf (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf)
I have looked at your links, have you bothered to look past your links?
I'd take Watts as seriously as I take the Daily Mail for unbiased facts on immigration, for example.
Again... What predictions in particular are you getting at?

The IPCC employs the UEA? Where do you get that from?
As for the "climate gate" affair, it is clearly malicious... On part of the skeptics!

[Tel 911S]

Can you run that past me again . Are you saying that scientists lying & manipulating figures is all the fault of the skeptics .

[Tel 911S]

If you don,t want to believe in Watts , how about the data sets from - UAH GISS HadCRUT RSS .
They are the ones that IPCC uses . And they all show that global warming has stopped for the last 16 years .
Along with the actual NASA [ not the amended one ] data which shows that sea level isn,t rising , & that Antarctic ice levels are at an all time high , & that this year the Arctic ice has shown a huge increase .
http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-Wes ... ght/113788 (http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice---yachts-caught/113788)
A few years ago IPCC [ or its paid scientists ] said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013.

So what did that leave the IPCC for its latest report .Only Cooks 95% consensus paper .This was rejected by most scientific journals as a work of fiction, so the IPCC invented a fake scientific magazine to publish it so they could claim authenticity .
Here is a report on Cooks paper
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/c ... th-errors/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/)

[donKey jote]

no, I'm saying that the skeptics interpret a selection of hacked emails as wholesale lying and manipulation by scientists as part of a world conspiracy to do you out of your hard earned taxes (I think that's your affliction, is it?).

A stash of hacked emails released a week before Copenhagen, and years later another stash from the same hack released a week before the next conference... not in the slightest bit fishy, what?

[donKey jote]

If you don,t want to believe in Watts , how about the data sets from - UAH GISS HadCRUT RSS .
They are the ones that IPCC uses . And they all show that global warming has stopped for the last 16 years .
Along with the actual NASA [ not the amended one ] data which shows that sea level isn,t rising , & that Antarctic ice levels are at an all time high , & that this year the Arctic ice has shown a huge increase .
http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-Wes ... ght/113788 (http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice---yachts-caught/113788)
A few years ago IPCC [ or its paid scientists ] said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013.

So what did that leave the IPCC for its latest report .Only Cooks 95% consensus paper .This was rejected by most scientific journals as a work of fiction, so the IPCC invented a fake scientific magazine to publish it so they could claim authenticity .
Here is a report on Cooks paper
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/c ... th-errors/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/)

IPCC [and it's paid scientists ]... do check how IPCC works and then tell me how many scientists are on it's payroll.
http://ipcc.ch/organization/organizatio ... khfsBDe7PU (http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#.UkhfsBDe7PU)

I thought global warming was supposed to be a global long term trend, certainly longer than 15 years. You paint a picture in which the climate scientists are denying / hiding / unaware of the data on the last 15 years.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images ... ep2013.pdf (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf)
-> Page 22 Figure SPM.1 a : for all the world to see. Global surface temperature flatlining! Damn call the UEA, they failed to fudge the data this time and it's out there for all to see and judge ! Except the last 15 years don't invalidate any of the predictions so far... :dozey:

The latest IPCC report was only left with your Cooks paper? Suit yourself.

[Tel 911S]

And as for your Daily Mail hate thing , nobody could be less trustworthy than the BBC
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012 ... te-policy/ (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/28-gate-bbc-crisis-deepens-in-exposure-of-rigged-and-unlawful-climate-policy/)

[donKey jote]

And as for your Daily Mail hate thing , nobody could be less trustworthy than the BBC
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012 ... te-policy/ (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/28-gate-bbc-crisis-deepens-in-exposure-of-rigged-and-unlawful-climate-policy/)
not even John O'Sullivan? :laugh:

[Tel 911S]

Also , I have read IPCC publications , and if you want to believe in them , then that is up to you . But Watts is up to peer scrutiny , unlike scientific data used by the IPCC , which somehow seems to be exempt from the FOI act .

[donKey jote]

Also , I have read IPCC publications , and if you want to believe in them , then that is up to you . But Watts is up to peer scrutiny , unlike scientific data used by the IPCC , which somehow seems to be exempt from the FOI act .

Oh please. :rolleyes:

First of all, I don't particularly want to believe anybody, but I would certainly give the experts more credence than the likes of Watts.

Exempt from FOI act now... Do you really believe anybody should be allowed to misuse the FOI act to continously harass their pet peeve scientists to hand over their data?
Personally, as a scientist, I still think the scientist's time is better spent investigating than dealing with such hindrances. I'm all for transparency, but I don't think the skeptics agenda is really about transparency. Unfortunately, it suits them even better to not obtain the data and be able to cry foul.

[555-04Q2]

but I would certainly give the experts more credence than the likes of Watts.

They aren't experts. They are people employed to try and prove the cases for their bosses who pay their inflated salaries. What would you do? That's right donkey, you'll bullsh!t everyone to do what your bosses asked for ;)

[donKey jote]

[quote="donKey jote":9y5gdo6s]but I would certainly give the experts more credence than the likes of Watts.

They aren't experts. They are people employed to try and prove the cases for their bosses who pay their inflated salaries. What would you do? That's right donkey, you'll bullsh!t everyone to do what your bosses asked for ;)[/quote:9y5gdo6s]

inflated salaries in academia? I don't think so :dozey:

or are you talking about those scientists employed by private (e.g. oil? ;) ) industry...

[Spafranco]

[quote="555-04Q2":zd7bdcg9][quote="donKey jote":zd7bdcg9]but I would certainly give the experts more credence than the likes of Watts.

They aren't experts. They are people employed to try and prove the cases for their bosses who pay their inflated salaries. What would you do? That's right donkey, you'll bullsh!t everyone to do what your bosses asked for ;)[/quote:zd7bdcg9]

inflated salaries in academia? I don't think so :dozey:

or are you talking about those scientists employed by private (e.g. oil? ;) ) industry...[/quote:zd7bdcg9]

I would say that the big oil companies have hacked the morals and ethics of the scientists in the oil industry. Of that I couldn't agree more.

[D-Type]

As I see it, global warming is a reality. In the cycles of long term climate change we are in a phase where temperatures are increasing. On the back of that, man made influences are adding to the temperature rise - burning fossil fuels (fireplaces, cookers, cars, trains, aircraft etc), creating greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane), waste heat from power generation (nuclear and fossil fuel burning).
The effect of global warming (and global cooling for that matter) is to change climatic patterns. Locally this can mean cooling, eg melting icecaps could push the Gulf Stream further south leading to cooling in Britain and Scandinavia. We have seen the knock-on effects around the world when the El Nino shift occurs - but it isn't clear whether the shift is the cause or the effect of other changes.

[donKey jote]

teehee just searched the report and it turns out a mate of mine is indeed cited in it...
that's it, I'm well and truly biased (apart from being 95% right of course :bandit: ) and outta here ! :D

skeptic bonus: he's currently teaching at the UEA http://i46.tinypic.com/hv9ul3.gifhttp://i46.tinypic.com/hv9ul3.gifhttp://i46.tinypic.com/hv9ul3.gif

[555-04Q2]

[quote="555-04Q2":3d9feuix][quote="donKey jote":3d9feuix]but I would certainly give the experts more credence than the likes of Watts.

They aren't experts. They are people employed to try and prove the cases for their bosses who pay their inflated salaries. What would you do? That's right donkey, you'll bullsh!t everyone to do what your bosses asked for ;)[/quote:3d9feuix]

inflated salaries in academia? I don't think so :dozey:

or are you talking about those scientists employed by private (e.g. oil? ;) ) industry...[/quote:3d9feuix]

I have a friend who I went to school with that is a scientist and he gets paid very, very well. He also gets huge grants from "investors" from the public and private sectors to carry out research. It has to be said, he has revealed a lot to me over the years as to what "real scientific research" is all about. It's about what the people in the know want you to know, not what you really need/should know. Sad, but true.

[BDunnell]

I have a friend who I went to school with that is a scientist and he gets paid very, very well. He also gets huge grants from "investors" from the public and private sectors to carry out research. It has to be said, he has revealed a lot to me over the years as to what "real scientific research" is all about. It's about what the people in the know want you to know, not what you really need/should know. Sad, but true.

Ah, yes, so that invalidates all scientific/academic research. They're all paid to come up with the 'right' results because your friend says so.

What utter rot. I know it happens, but to tar all with the same brush on the basis of anecdotal information provided by one person indicates why you're not a scientist or academic yourself.

[555-04Q2]

I have a friend who I went to school with that is a scientist and he gets paid very, very well. He also gets huge grants from "investors" from the public and private sectors to carry out research. It has to be said, he has revealed a lot to me over the years as to what "real scientific research" is all about. It's about what the people in the know want you to know, not what you really need/should know. Sad, but true.

Ah, yes, so that invalidates all scientific/academic research. They're all paid to come up with the 'right' results because your friend says so.

What utter rot. I know it happens, but to tar all with the same brush on the basis of anecdotal information provided by one person indicates why you're not a scientist or academic yourself.

I never painted them all in the same light, don't put words in my mouth, I mentioned one person whom I have close contact with. Plus, he's one of my closest friends who regularly visits my family and vice versa so why would he bullsh!t me?

The point simply is: the source of your funding provides the end result. In other words, "researchers/scientists/doctors" etc employed by the oil companies will tell you "X". Then "researchers/scientists/doctors" etc employed by the government will tell you "Y". Then "researchers/scientists/doctors" etc employed by the private sector will tell you "Z". etc, etc, etc, etc,etc.

Oil is fine don't listen to the government. Oil is bad don't listen to the oil companies. Cow's don't fart don't listen to the farmer. At the end of the day it's all a load of bullsh!t. Fact.

[Malbec]

I have a friend who I went to school with that is a scientist and he gets paid very, very well. He also gets huge grants from "investors" from the public and private sectors to carry out research. It has to be said, he has revealed a lot to me over the years as to what "real scientific research" is all about. It's about what the people in the know want you to know, not what you really need/should know. Sad, but true.

Depends on your definition of 'very very well' I suppose.

I do research in my field, its unpaid except in terms of departmental 'honour' and reputation. I also review papers for a journal again in my field. I'm paid by vouchers for the publishing house's other publications, none of which I find interesting so its effectively unpaid.

Not surprisingly I'm not exactly prolific but certainly in medicine its very very difficult to get funding that actually makes a difference to your quality of life, those that take time out to do it full time are certainly unable to match the income they had practicing medicine.

A professor I work with gets a large amount of funding from various sources including private companies and charities. Almost all of it actually goes towards the research, the most he's been able to get out of it in person are upgrades from economy to business class (which he uses to write the talks he has to give at the other end) and a nice hotel. As for skewing the data in favour of the sponsor's interests that isn't as common as you portray. Reputations take a lifetime to build up and an instant to destroy, bias can be detected by peers and there is little you can ever do to banish the belief that you're a sponsor whore.

[BDunnell]

Depends on your definition of 'very very well' I suppose.

I do research in my field, its unpaid except in terms of departmental 'honour' and reputation. I also review papers for a journal again in my field. I'm paid by vouchers for the publishing house's other publications, none of which I find interesting so its effectively unpaid.

Not surprisingly I'm not exactly prolific but certainly in medicine its very very difficult to get funding that actually makes a difference to your quality of life, those that take time out to do it full time are certainly unable to match the income they had practicing medicine.

A professor I work with gets a large amount of funding from various sources including private companies and charities. Almost all of it actually goes towards the research, the most he's been able to get out of it in person are upgrades from economy to business class (which he uses to write the talks he has to give at the other end) and a nice hotel. As for skewing the data in favour of the sponsor's interests that isn't as common as you portray. Reputations take a lifetime to build up and an instant to destroy, bias can be detected by peers and there is little you can ever do to banish the belief that you're a sponsor whore.

If we still had the facility to 'like' posts I would do exactly that here. Well said. Nice to see someone sticking up for academia.

[donKey jote]

If we still had the facility to 'like' posts I would do exactly that here. Well said. Nice to see someone sticking up for academia.

^^^ like ;)

That is more like the academia I knew before legging it to industry.
Except for the travelling in business class bit :eek:

[Malbec]

Except for the travelling in business class bit :eek:

Yeah well in that particular case the guy was at work until Monday evening, took a plane to San Francisco Monday night, delivered his talk on Tuesday afternoon and was back at work in London Thursday morning so can't begrudge him that!

[Bagwan]

I believe that it isn't that the science is necessarily tainted in the sense that the data is falsified , or anything so nefarious as to destroy a reputation .
Rather , it can be that the data collection is skewed , sometimes by the mandate of the experiment , or the cherry-picking of the results reported in the final paper .

But , more often , it comes down to scientific research never seeing the light of day if it doesn't suit the agenda of those who foot the bill .

[Malbec]

But , more often , it comes down to scientific research never seeing the light of day if it doesn't suit the agenda of those who foot the bill .

That depends.

Most scientific research is done in areas that simply don't have that much political or financial interest with little pressure to publish or not publish. IMO the reason almost all (but not all) research doesn't get published is more due to failure to be of a sufficient quality to be publishable. I've rejected papers for many reasons, failure to write in decent English is one, blatant plagiarising is sadly another but most were due to serious flaws in either the research or the statistical handling of the results.

That said I had dinner with an epidemiologist doing research in the Fukushima area. After the tsunami and nuclear reactor problems many Japanese universities sent teams to measure radiation and its effects on flora and fauna. Most have given up because if the results show little to no effect the antinuclear lobby threatens and cajoles them into withdrawing their publications and if the results show a greater than expected effect then the government applies pressure.

She highlighted another problem. Because the world is only interested in the radiation effects, which she feels are too small to have a measurable effect, it is next to impossible to get funding for research on what is really causing problems, ie asbestosis secondary to all the destroyed housing or increased cardiovascular and psychiatric problems caused by people scared of radiation and therefore staying indoors or living in temporary housing.

[Tel 911S]

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012 ... look-away/ (http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/science-misconduct-skyrockets-as-governments-and-media-look-away/)

Yes , I am sure that not all scientists are as honest as the Socialist spin doctors & Eco - fraudsters .

[BDunnell]

But , more often , it comes down to scientific research never seeing the light of day if it doesn't suit the agenda of those who foot the bill .

Did you even read Malbec's post before writing that?

[Bagwan]

But , more often , it comes down to scientific research never seeing the light of day if it doesn't suit the agenda of those who foot the bill .

That depends.

Most scientific research is done in areas that simply don't have that much political or financial interest with little pressure to publish or not publish. IMO the reason almost all (but not all) research doesn't get published is more due to failure to be of a sufficient quality to be publishable. I've rejected papers for many reasons, failure to write in decent English is one, blatant plagiarising is sadly another but most were due to serious flaws in either the research or the statistical handling of the results.

That said I had dinner with an epidemiologist doing research in the Fukushima area. After the tsunami and nuclear reactor problems many Japanese universities sent teams to measure radiation and its effects on flora and fauna. Most have given up because if the results show little to no effect the antinuclear lobby threatens and cajoles them into withdrawing their publications and if the results show a greater than expected effect then the government applies pressure.

She highlighted another problem. Because the world is only interested in the radiation effects, which she feels are too small to have a measurable effect, it is next to impossible to get funding for research on what is really causing problems, ie asbestosis secondary to all the destroyed housing or increased cardiovascular and psychiatric problems caused by people scared of radiation and therefore staying indoors or living in temporary housing.

It's very much like a debate , where you do need to know the other side , but you aren't obligated to spout it if it doesn't suit your argument .
But , in the sense that the supporter can pull the funding if it looks to be saying the opposite of what they want to hear , it certainly sets up a situation that can produce pretty sketchy results .
I would imagine that at least a portion of the research could , in a sense , be seen as "grasping at straws" , as some of the more far fetched ideas might be tested , to try to get results seen as positive to the sponsor's agenda .

[Bagwan]

But , more often , it comes down to scientific research never seeing the light of day if it doesn't suit the agenda of those who foot the bill .

Did you even read Malbec's post before writing that?

Did you even read his answer before writing that ?

[555-04Q2]

I believe that it isn't that the science is necessarily tainted in the sense that the data is falsified , or anything so nefarious as to destroy a reputation .
Rather , it can be that the data collection is skewed , sometimes by the mandate of the experiment , or the cherry-picking of the results reported in the final paper .

But , more often , it comes down to scientific research never seeing the light of day if it doesn't suit the agenda of those who foot the bill .

Someone with a bit of common sense that finally seems to understand how it really works. Good post :)

[Spafranco]

I have a friend who I went to school with that is a scientist and he gets paid very, very well. He also gets huge grants from "investors" from the public and private sectors to carry out research. It has to be said, he has revealed a lot to me over the years as to what "real scientific research" is all about. It's about what the people in the know want you to know, not what you really need/should know. Sad, but true.

Ah, yes, so that invalidates all scientific/academic research. They're all paid to come up with the 'right' results because your friend says so.

What utter rot. I know it happens, but to tar all with the same brush on the basis of anecdotal information provided by one person indicates why you're not a scientist or academic yourself.
I find the post written by BDunnell amusing and have to validate everything he has said. Utter rot he said. How true! The Charlatans like O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity along with the Coultergeist and her minions have people like 555-04Q2 salivating when they hear the denials by these clowns that I would guarantee that if I pick them along with Glenn Beck and the other huge percentage of non-believers they would not be able to measure the method for determining the amount of rain or snow that fell over a period of time. "golllleeee, they waas 6 foot uh water in the house" 6 fooot in 24 hours"

Why are we in a total mess in the US? It is not President Obama. It is the No Bill will ever pass Congress led by the mighty Republicans. These evangelical, fundamentalist so called Christians will boo president Obama because of one thing. Health care. I am fed up with this constant moral hypocrisy that permeates my country where freedom is based upon guns and keeping those nasty scoundrels from Mexico out 'cause they cost a fortune and mow my lawn(oops, they can come in on Wednesdays) anyway.
This whole climate change non-debate kept alive by people like Inhofe who was laughed out a summit in Europe last year when he presented reasons why it was so. Elementary to say the least.
I read Dunnell and Jag Warriors posts along with the person with the yellow face on the side of his profile because I know I will receive some educated , rational response to the questions of the day.
The most recent study by Gallup state that over 40% of Americans believe the earth is 10,000 years old. That the great flood occurred and that Noah had all of the animals and insects in an Ark. Did any of these 40% ever think about the number of issues that would have to be just correct for this to be achieved? One alone for me would be to ask them where they would put the 98% of extinct animals at that particular time. What they are thinking of now is 2%. Laughable. Lastly, what about interbreeding?

[Malbec]

It's very much like a debate , where you do need to know the other side , but you aren't obligated to spout it if it doesn't suit your argument .
But , in the sense that the supporter can pull the funding if it looks to be saying the opposite of what they want to hear , it certainly sets up a situation that can produce pretty sketchy results .
I would imagine that at least a portion of the research could , in a sense , be seen as "grasping at straws" , as some of the more far fetched ideas might be tested , to try to get results seen as positive to the sponsor's agenda .

Its too simplistic to view it as a debate IMO.

In most fields of science which are in the public arena (and remember that a lot of scientific research is not made public at all, usually corporate or defence related) the main figures know each other. There is intense rivalry but also knowledge about the other researchers' backgrounds so corporate sponsorship is often quickly found out. If someone is found to be a sponsor whore then not only is their reputation sullied their research is scrutinised much more carefully by their peers who edit the journals they are published in. Life and finding further funding can become very difficult. Funding is also more complex than you make out, it is rare that there is a single sponsor for any research, most projects will be funded from a variety of sources, some corporate, some state funds or using money already available within the institution and others from charities.

Again in most fields of science the methodology of the study has to be clearly set out so others can try and replicate your results. I will reject papers that do not specify the exact make and model, even the software update version of all equipment and software used in the study. People often do try and replicate other research group's findings if only so they can build on it and move the research forwards. If other groups cannot replicate results from a particular paper then that raises suspicions automatically.

It is very difficult for outsiders to separate the wheat from the chaff. I have my own opinions about global warming for example but I don't share it because I don't know enough about the field, the capabilities of the particular institutions involved or the quality of the key research studies to ensure that my opinion is something to take seriously. I read posts on this thread like "global warming doesn't exist because chart b on website x says so" which indicates not only that the writer is ignorant of the scientific process, they have no insight into how little they understand which is sad because there are plenty of good books out there to help people understand how to critique a scientific paper.

Unfortunately threads like these prove a point that people tend to not look at information that doesn't fit their own worldview objectively but prefer to dismiss it. I note the posts dismissing 'science' and 'scientists' with the writers seemingly oblivious that just about everything in their lives has been designed and built using knowledge derived from the same scientific process they deride when it comes to climate change.

[donKey jote]

another excellent post malbec. It's nice to read someone who knows what they're talking about :p :bandit:

[Bagwan]

It's very much like a debate , where you do need to know the other side , but you aren't obligated to spout it if it doesn't suit your argument .
But , in the sense that the supporter can pull the funding if it looks to be saying the opposite of what they want to hear , it certainly sets up a situation that can produce pretty sketchy results .
I would imagine that at least a portion of the research could , in a sense , be seen as "grasping at straws" , as some of the more far fetched ideas might be tested , to try to get results seen as positive to the sponsor's agenda .

Its too simplistic to view it as a debate IMO.

In most fields of science which are in the public arena (and remember that a lot of scientific research is not made public at all, usually corporate or defence related) the main figures know each other. There is intense rivalry but also knowledge about the other researchers' backgrounds so corporate sponsorship is often quickly found out. If someone is found to be a sponsor whore then not only is their reputation sullied their research is scrutinised much more carefully by their peers who edit the journals they are published in. Life and finding further funding can become very difficult. Funding is also more complex than you make out, it is rare that there is a single sponsor for any research, most projects will be funded from a variety of sources, some corporate, some state funds or using money already available within the institution and others from charities.

Again in most fields of science the methodology of the study has to be clearly set out so others can try and replicate your results. I will reject papers that do not specify the exact make and model, even the software update version of all equipment and software used in the study. People often do try and replicate other research group's findings if only so they can build on it and move the research forwards. If other groups cannot replicate results from a particular paper then that raises suspicions automatically.

It is very difficult for outsiders to separate the wheat from the chaff. I have my own opinions about global warming for example but I don't share it because I don't know enough about the field, the capabilities of the particular institutions involved or the quality of the key research studies to ensure that my opinion is something to take seriously. I read posts on this thread like "global warming doesn't exist because chart b on website x says so" which indicates not only that the writer is ignorant of the scientific process, they have no insight into how little they understand which is sad because there are plenty of good books out there to help people understand how to critique a scientific paper.

Unfortunately threads like these prove a point that people tend to not look at information that doesn't fit their own worldview objectively but prefer to dismiss it. I note the posts dismissing 'science' and 'scientists' with the writers seemingly oblivious that just about everything in their lives has been designed and built using knowledge derived from the same scientific process they deride when it comes to climate change.

Thanks for that .
It's nice to get a well reasoned reply .

I'm not sure I agree in one sense , though .
I understand you not wanting to give an opinion on something you don't feel you know enough about , but when is enough information reached before one can state an opinion ?

That is to say , is it not a right someone inherently has , with the information one gleans from one's experience ?
One should always be willing to change one's opinion as more data comes in , shouldn't one ?
Isn't that , after all , what scientific research is kinda all about ?


Now , that said , the scientific community is far more versed in the exploits of the various scientists out there that the masses , so , does that not negate some of the issue , when the propaganda produced doesn't fit the normal vetting , and companies dictate results , but the news still gets to the public , or doesn't , as the case may be ?
The public is used to a quick soundbite .

Is there any pattern of re-employment that you see , when science makes a score for those companies ?

I really appreciate your answers here .
I have a lot of respect for scientists , but obviously , I guess , a lot of loathing of the corporates .

[Malbec]

It's nice to read someone who knows what they're talking about :p :bandit:

huh? I wouldn't go that far! ;)

[Malbec]

Thanks for that .
It's nice to get a well reasoned reply.

Well I've seen how you've managed to keep your head in threads which have gone way beyond abusive so only too happy to return the favour.


I'm not sure I agree in one sense , though .
I understand you not wanting to give an opinion on something you don't feel you know enough about , but when is enough information reached before one can state an opinion ?

That is to say , is it not a right someone inherently has , with the information one gleans from one's experience ?
One should always be willing to change one's opinion as more data comes in , shouldn't one ?
Isn't that , after all , what scientific research is kinda all about ?

Interesting point, I suspect our differing attitudes towards this are to do with our backgrounds.

For myself, scientific research and papers are something I use to base professional decisions on that will impact on people's lives and our institution's financial status. I would argue that is true for most people who either perform research or use information from it in other fields too. I cannot devolve my mindset when I read scientific papers in my field from that in other fields. Thus if I do not feel completely familiar with a subject and the background from which the research emerges I'd rather keep my mouth shut.

However I do understand that there are many outside observers like yourself who are curious and read a lot of what is out there and of course I wouldn't dare to tell you that you should keep your mouth shut too. It is good and healthy that research of all kinds is viewed with scepticism but people should also be aware that if there is consensus there is a reason for it and that dissenting views need to be checked for sincerity and for the quality of the research they use to back their viewpoint up.


Now , that said , the scientific community is far more versed in the exploits of the various scientists out there that the masses , so , does that not negate some of the issue , when the propaganda produced doesn't fit the normal vetting , and companies dictate results , but the news still gets to the public , or doesn't , as the case may be ?
The public is used to a quick soundbite .

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here.

When I see how research is presented in the media I see several problems. Firstly portrayal of scientific research is often a case of the blind leading the blind. Few media outlets employ scientifically trained journalists who can truly understand the veracity of the PR 'science' bumpf they are bombarded with on a daily basis, and they know that very little of the public they sell to understand it either. Companies know this too, hence why they bombard journos with PR rubbish in the form of funny scientific research that is quite likely to be completely fictional (like the "scientists claim October 5th is the most dangerous day of the year for home accidents" in a paper sponsored by the British home insurance companies association and the like). I can guarantee you that in very late November or the first week of December you will see some very pretty colourful radiology imaging in the newspapers that sounds futuristic. Why? Because the RSNA meeting will be held December 1-6 this year and many radiological equipment makers will target the world's largest radiology conference with tons of PR including convincing newspapers that their latest kit will move on imaging into the next century and beyond. Since few papers will have a radiology expert on their books to tell them that there is nothing new in the pictures they will likely publish some of the pictures they are supplied as it makes up free column inches.

All I can say is that top decision makers will probably be getting a filtered but relatively balanced summary of the current state of affairs when it comes to climate change, but of course any decisions they make will be coloured heavily by their preconceptions of the topic and maybe any financial or political interests they may have. This summary may well differ significantly from what the public is fed from media outlets each trying to put their own political spin on the subject.

[Bagwan]

Thanks for that .
It's nice to get a well reasoned reply.

Well I've seen how you've managed to keep your head in threads which have gone way beyond abusive so only too happy to return the favour.


I'm not sure I agree in one sense , though .
I understand you not wanting to give an opinion on something you don't feel you know enough about , but when is enough information reached before one can state an opinion ?

That is to say , is it not a right someone inherently has , with the information one gleans from one's experience ?
One should always be willing to change one's opinion as more data comes in , shouldn't one ?
Isn't that , after all , what scientific research is kinda all about ?

Interesting point, I suspect our differing attitudes towards this are to do with our backgrounds.

For myself, scientific research and papers are something I use to base professional decisions on that will impact on people's lives and our institution's financial status. I would argue that is true for most people who either perform research or use information from it in other fields too. I cannot devolve my mindset when I read scientific papers in my field from that in other fields. Thus if I do not feel completely familiar with a subject and the background from which the research emerges I'd rather keep my mouth shut.

However I do understand that there are many outside observers like yourself who are curious and read a lot of what is out there and of course I wouldn't dare to tell you that you should keep your mouth shut too. It is good and healthy that research of all kinds is viewed with scepticism but people should also be aware that if there is consensus there is a reason for it and that dissenting views need to be checked for sincerity and for the quality of the research they use to back their viewpoint up.


Now , that said , the scientific community is far more versed in the exploits of the various scientists out there that the masses , so , does that not negate some of the issue , when the propaganda produced doesn't fit the normal vetting , and companies dictate results , but the news still gets to the public , or doesn't , as the case may be ?
The public is used to a quick soundbite .

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here.

When I see how research is presented in the media I see several problems. Firstly portrayal of scientific research is often a case of the blind leading the blind. Few media outlets employ scientifically trained journalists who can truly understand the veracity of the PR 'science' bumpf they are bombarded with on a daily basis, and they know that very little of the public they sell to understand it either. Companies know this too, hence why they bombard journos with PR rubbish in the form of funny scientific research that is quite likely to be completely fictional (like the "scientists claim October 5th is the most dangerous day of the year for home accidents" in a paper sponsored by the British home insurance companies association and the like). I can guarantee you that in very late November or the first week of December you will see some very pretty colourful radiology imaging in the newspapers that sounds futuristic. Why? Because the RSNA meeting will be held December 1-6 this year and many radiological equipment makers will target the world's largest radiology conference with tons of PR including convincing newspapers that their latest kit will move on imaging into the next century and beyond. Since few papers will have a radiology expert on their books to tell them that there is nothing new in the pictures they will likely publish some of the pictures they are supplied as it makes up free column inches.

All I can say is that top decision makers will probably be getting a filtered but relatively balanced summary of the current state of affairs when it comes to climate change, but of course any decisions they make will be coloured heavily by their preconceptions of the topic and maybe any financial or political interests they may have. This summary may well differ significantly from what the public is fed from media outlets each trying to put their own political spin on the subject.

I believe you did understand what I meant in my twisted way of saying it .

Once the data gets to the public , it's often "twisted" as well , sometimes just by the semantics of the words used .
It's that "political spin" you mention .
That "spin" is where I picked up the idea of relating debate to this .

For example , it does appear that the last 15 years are a cooling trend , if you disregard that 1998 was an overly warm spike on the graph .
A longer data set says you are off-track , but it has set up a spat of debating amongst the public out here in the less versed world .
I guess it's a case of "Figures don't lie , but liars can figure" situation .
You come from the "good science " end of things , and I , from the "hard to tell good science from propaganda " end .
You get dry data , and I get engineered soundbites , but in the end , we are both skeptics .

[Malbec]

I believe you did understand what I meant in my twisted way of saying it .

Once the data gets to the public , it's often "twisted" as well , sometimes just by the semantics of the words used .
It's that "political spin" you mention .
That "spin" is where I picked up the idea of relating debate to this .

For example , it does appear that the last 15 years are a cooling trend , if you disregard that 1998 was an overly warm spike on the graph .
A longer data set says you are off-track , but it has set up a spat of debating amongst the public out here in the less versed world .
I guess it's a case of "Figures don't lie , but liars can figure" situation .

You can sidestep a lot of this nonsense by looking at meta-analyses, papers that basically take as much data out there as possible on a given area and crunch it all together to find the overall pattern. If you read the inclusion criteria carefully you can decide whether the writers are biased and whether there are any significant flaws to the paper and therefore whether the conclusion can be taken seriously. These are statistically very powerful studies and should be taken seriously.


You come from the "good science " end of things , and I , from the "hard to tell good science from propaganda " end .
You get dry data , and I get engineered soundbites , but in the end , we are both skeptics .

I'm no scientist, I just know how to read a paper and assess whether a study has been well-performed or not. My own research history is embarrassingly sparse. The only reason I waded into this thread was because I didn't like to see a whole field full of people paid peanuts whilst working bloody hard being attacked simply because some people don't like what they read about climate change.

[Bagwan]

I believe you did understand what I meant in my twisted way of saying it .

Once the data gets to the public , it's often "twisted" as well , sometimes just by the semantics of the words used .
It's that "political spin" you mention .
That "spin" is where I picked up the idea of relating debate to this .

For example , it does appear that the last 15 years are a cooling trend , if you disregard that 1998 was an overly warm spike on the graph .
A longer data set says you are off-track , but it has set up a spat of debating amongst the public out here in the less versed world .
I guess it's a case of "Figures don't lie , but liars can figure" situation .

You can sidestep a lot of this nonsense by looking at meta-analyses, papers that basically take as much data out there as possible on a given area and crunch it all together to find the overall pattern. If you read the inclusion criteria carefully you can decide whether the writers are biased and whether there are any significant flaws to the paper and therefore whether the conclusion can be taken seriously. These are statistically very powerful studies and should be taken seriously.


You come from the "good science " end of things , and I , from the "hard to tell good science from propaganda " end .
You get dry data , and I get engineered soundbites , but in the end , we are both skeptics .

I'm no scientist, I just know how to read a paper and assess whether a study has been well-performed or not. My own research history is embarrassingly sparse. The only reason I waded into this thread was because I didn't like to see a whole field full of people paid peanuts whilst working bloody hard being attacked simply because some people don't like what they read about climate change.

I'm afraid my cynical mind goes straight to the idea that the data that the meta-analyses cover are skewed to some degree by the exclusion of info that doesn't conform to the push of the company that pays .
Inclusion criteria can only cover included studies , and if they aren't written up , or are poorly done , good , relevant concepts can be spun .
It's dirty , but it's free enterprise , so , somehow it's OK .

Ha ! I see it now !
You must work for the man , and are trying to brainwash me , dude .
It'll never work cuz I'm wearing my tinfoil hat as I write this .
Get outa my head !


OK , well , it's not that bad in my head , but I certainly am a skeptic when it comes to big ideas that seem to work to make the masses happy .
Someone behind the curtain always seems to be making a boatload of cash from making the idea look good .

[Spafranco]

I believe you did understand what I meant in my twisted way of saying it .

Once the data gets to the public , it's often "twisted" as well , sometimes just by the semantics of the words used .
It's that "political spin" you mention .
That "spin" is where I picked up the idea of relating debate to this .

For example , it does appear that the last 15 years are a cooling trend , if you disregard that 1998 was an overly warm spike on the graph .
A longer data set says you are off-track , but it has set up a spat of debating amongst the public out here in the less versed world .
I guess it's a case of "Figures don't lie , but liars can figure" situation .

You can sidestep a lot of this nonsense by looking at meta-analyses, papers that basically take as much data out there as possible on a given area and crunch it all together to find the overall pattern. If you read the inclusion criteria carefully you can decide whether the writers are biased and whether there are any significant flaws to the paper and therefore whether the conclusion can be taken seriously. These are statistically very powerful studies and should be taken seriously.


You come from the "good science " end of things , and I , from the "hard to tell good science from propaganda " end .
You get dry data , and I get engineered soundbites , but in the end , we are both skeptics .

I'm no scientist, I just know how to read a paper and assess whether a study has been well-performed or not. My own research history is embarrassingly sparse. The only reason I waded into this thread was because I didn't like to see a whole field full of people paid peanuts whilst working bloody hard being attacked simply because some people don't like what they read about climate change.

Malbec, you write a good post with some interesting meandering pertaining to the work of scientists, then you state that you are not a scientist. That has me a little confused. How do you review with adequate knowledge the complexity of even the most simplistic reasoning, of let's say evolution. Our tie in with the great apes and the DNA structure which proves our lineage. What type of papers are you critiquing? You state that you do not have a formed opinion on Global Warming because , I believe you said you do not have enough knowledge of it.
As a person who states he is not a scientist how are you able to asses a paper on say the migration of the tiny hummingbird? If a scientist states that the earth is warming and that two thirds of the ice has melted in Greenland evidenced by photographic material and scientific research by climatologists are you still in doubt that there is a warming effect taking place?
Methane is just below the permafrost line. If it escapes which will happen if we do nothing, are you still in doubt?
How is something rationalized by you? that EMC2 is not something that Einstein came up with? That is in fact true. He did not come up with E=mc2. However, I bet you believe it.
I am in a little bit of a conundrum when someone that states they are not a scientist is tasked at making judgements on scientific papers. What are the studies that these papers are referring to and how do you know what is correct and what is totally incorrect.
Please don'[t take offense. I'm curious.

[donKey jote]

that Antarctic ice levels are at an all time high , & that this year the Arctic ice has shown a huge increase .
Really? :andrea:
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arctic-sea-ice-year.html

This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. All of the seven lowest extents have occurred in the last seven years, since 2007.


In contrast to 2012, when sea ice reached a new record low in the satellite record, cooler conditions in the Arctic this summer helped to retain more sea ice.
[... but ;) ...]
Arctic sea ice, however, continues to be thinner than in past years, as confirmed by direct satellite observations and estimates of ice age, and therefore more vulnerable to breakup by storms, circulating currents, and melt.

:sailor: :dork:

[Tel 911S]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFpzaQPKC54

Farage at the EU. But as he is not a Socialist , no doubt the Eco-wacko,s will try to disprove the NASA data showing the huge increase of the Artic ice

[Tel 911S]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/ ... on-record/ (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/)

More data on Arctic ice increase . But these are only facts , so will get explained away as proof of global warming , somehow .????

[Spafranco]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

More data on Arctic ice increase . But these are only facts , so will get explained away as proof of global warming , somehow .????

I don't know or care what your stance is. Fact is, no scientists are arguing that there is more ice now at the COASTAL area. That is how it occurs. Inland there is not the same level.

[Tel 911S]

Don,t understand your point . The Arctic is an Ocean , there is no inland.

[donKey jote]

Really? :andrea:
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arctic-sea-ice-year.html

This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. All of the seven lowest extents have occurred in the last seven years, since 2007.


In contrast to 2012, when sea ice reached a new record low in the satellite record, cooler conditions in the Arctic this summer helped to retain more sea ice.
[... yes, but surface area is one thing, ice volume another ;) ...]
Arctic sea ice, however, continues to be thinner than in past years, as confirmed by direct satellite observations and estimates of ice age, and therefore more vulnerable to breakup by storms, circulating currents, and melt.

:sailor: :dork:

if you prefer to trust that pompous git Farage suit yourself.
Here you have the NASA data you refer to straight from NASA
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:71klwgxWS44J:www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-in-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de&lr=lang_en|lang_es&client=firefox-a
sigh

[donKey jote]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

More data on Arctic ice increase . But these are only facts , so will get explained away as proof of global warming , somehow .????

This shows exactly how your conspiracy websites work. :dozey:
The facts in his article are presented in such a way as to confuse you, and they clearly have :laugh:

The yearly INCREASE is not the same as the minimum extent in that year.
As 2012 was an all time minimum (in the words of your websites "the lowest level on record" ;) ), it's not abnormal that the delta 2013-2012 is the largest on record.
What your website conveniently ignores, is NASA's data about the 7 lowest levels on record all being in the last 7 years !

sheesh :dork:

[Tel 911S]

So, although Al Gore & the IPCC said that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, and the NASA data shows the largest ice growth on record , it is all a conspiracy , [ not IPCC lies ] , and all of your references are true & everyone who disagrees with you are wrong .??????????????????????

[donKey jote]

So, although Al Gore & the IPCC said that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, and the NASA data shows the largest ice growth on record , it is all a conspiracy , [ not IPCC lies ] , and all of your references are true & everyone who disagrees with you are wrong .??????????????????????

Is NASA in on your conspiracy? Look at all their data and comments, on their sites, instead of only lapping up the cherry picked junk at places like Watts et al.

From the NASA link above (actually a google cache as Obama has currently shut the US down :p ):
"This year's sea ice extent is substantially higher than last year's record low minimum. On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average minimum extent from 1981 to 2010."
Largest growth on record, but still the "Arctic Sea Ice Minimum in 2013 is Sixth Lowest on Record".

The real data is out there, but it's certainly up to you to carry on being a donkey, if that's what you wish :laugh:

[Spafranco]

Don,t understand your point . The Arctic is an Ocean , there is no inland.
Excuse me. I was referring to all ares covered by ice , snow etc. Greenland, Labrador etc.

[Tel 911S]

Well, talking of Greenland , in 1932 [ or 1933 ] the hottest summer on record , the glacier melted back & revealed a Viking farming community that had been covered by the ice for 800 odd years .
That has been covered by the glacier again , & in the last few years archaeological investigations have had to go a long way through the ice to to find it again .
When the Vikings landed there a thousand years or so ago , it was called Greenland because it was not covered with ice .
But that fact was totally ignored by Mann in his infamous " Hockey Stick " graph which tried to claim that the MWP did not exist . .Manns hockey stick has now been so discredited that even the IPCC are too ashamed to use it any more .

[Spafranco]

Well, talking of Greenland , in 1932 [ or 1933 ] the hottest summer on record , the glacier melted back & revealed a Viking farming community that had been covered by the ice for 800 odd years .
That has been covered by the glacier again , & in the last few years archaeological investigations have had to go a long way through the ice to to find it again .
When the Vikings landed there a thousand years or so ago , it was called Greenland because it was not covered with ice .
But that fact was totally ignored by Mann in his infamous " Hockey Stick " graph which tried to claim that the MWP did not exist . .Manns hockey stick has now been so discredited that even the IPCC are too ashamed to use it any more .

Tel, I am a little confused with what your beliefs tend to be. Donkey has shown exactly why Global Warming IS factual.

Are you a denier or just someone who will not accept facts and the overwhelming acceptance of the worlds scientists who state that the threat posed is real and man is the culprit.

What is it you believe Is it that everything is as it was and a natural cycle is occurring? Then you will be asked to expalin not the number of storms but the ferocity of them where there is no equal. The last one we had here was Sandy. Have you seen the destruction caused?

[Tel 911S]

There is no proof that global warming is real . That is why the vast majority of people , the media , & most scientists [ despite Cooks unbelievable 97% concensus claim] do not believe the lies that are being told .
Manns hockey stick , Gores " Inconvenient load of lies "every claim that the Eco fraudsters have made , getting hotter , no more hard winters , Arctic ice all gone , none of these have any basis in fact .
Even your claim of more Hurricanes is shown to be totally wrong besides the fact that meteorologists say there is no link with "Global warming " & the number of storms .
So I believe in the facts , not a load of lies spouted by socialists & Eco -wackos .

No warming for 16 years , " Oh , it is hiding in the deep Oceans " . Even schoolchildren know that that is a Physical impossibility as warm water rises .

It is usually easy to tell when the liars know that their arguments are not being believed , because that is when they start personal attacks on anyone who does not believe them , like calling them deniers .

[donKey jote]

Eco fraudsters, socialists, Eco -wackos... well done, you have further discredited yourself. As if posting a Farage link wasn't enough :laugh:
You say you believe "the facts" but are clearly not interested in looking past your conspiracy theory soundbites... your choice ! :sailor:

BTW you're still missing "CO2 is plant food" and "Dinosaurs farted just as much as cows". Shame chuck34 hasn't resurfaced for this thread... he could surely fill you in on a few more :D

[Bagwan]

There is no proof that global warming is real . That is why the vast majority of people , the media , & most scientists [ despite Cooks unbelievable 97% concensus claim] do not believe the lies that are being told .
Manns hockey stick , Gores " Inconvenient load of lies "every claim that the Eco fraudsters have made , getting hotter , no more hard winters , Arctic ice all gone , none of these have any basis in fact .
Even your claim of more Hurricanes is shown to be totally wrong besides the fact that meteorologists say there is no link with "Global warming " & the number of storms .
So I believe in the facts , not a load of lies spouted by socialists & Eco -wackos .

No warming for 16 years , " Oh , it is hiding in the deep Oceans " . Even schoolchildren know that that is a Physical impossibility as warm water rises .

It is usually easy to tell when the liars know that their arguments are not being believed , because that is when they start personal attacks on anyone who does not believe them , like calling them deniers .

May I ask for whom you work ?
I'm just looking for a reason you seem to trust some scientists and don't trust others .

[Starter]

May I ask for whom you work ?
I'm just looking for a reason you seem to trust some scientists and don't trust others .
i don't think that's unreasonable. Scientists are people and have all the traits other people do. Some are honest, some aren't. Some have agendas and others don't. Some are smarter and/or more insightful than others. Some are lackeys to their employers and some aren't. Some get married to an idea and others are more open to different things.

So it's not so much whether a scientist says something is a fact or not, it's what is the context of that pronouncement. Even a majority of scientists have been proven wrong many times over the years on many different subjects. So a little healthy skepticism is a very good thing - until more proven facts are in evidence (speaking in general and not just about the topic of this thread).

[Bagwan]

May I ask for whom you work ?
I'm just looking for a reason you seem to trust some scientists and don't trust others .
i don't think that's unreasonable. Scientists are people and have all the traits other people do. Some are honest, some aren't. Some have agendas and others don't. Some are smarter and/or more insightful than others. Some are lackeys to their employers and some aren't. Some get married to an idea and others are more open to different things.

So it's not so much whether a scientist says something is a fact or not, it's what is the context of that pronouncement. Even a majority of scientists have been proven wrong many times over the years on many different subjects. So a little healthy skepticism is a very good thing - until more proven facts are in evidence (speaking in general and not just about the topic of this thread).

I wasn't clear in what I said as I was trying to be too neutral , whilst trying to elicit an honest response .
What you say is true .

But , I was more interested in why Tel 911S is so automatically against those he sees as "socialists and Eco -wackos" .

[555-04Q2]

Damn I just farted, I'm contributing to the "heating up" of our planet :p:

Now the government can charge me more "green" taxes ;)

[donKey jote]

Now the government can charge me more "green" taxes ;)

and with these taxes on your hard earned wages, give their "liberal" renewables industry an unfair advantage against the "poor" old fossil fuel industry, thus stifling innovation, free competition and the free market ;) :devil: :andrea: :p

[555-04Q2]

[quote="555-04Q2":1neuvisq]
Now the government can charge me more "green" taxes ;)

and with these taxes on your hard earned wages, give their "liberal" renewables industry an unfair advantage against the "poor" old fossil fuel industry, thus stifling innovation, free competition and the free market ;) :devil: :andrea: :p[/quote:1neuvisq]

The fossil fuel industry started by itself from scratch, without needing assistance from taxes on the people, so why can't the "greenies" do the same? ;)

[Spafranco]

There is no proof that global warming is real . That is why the vast majority of people , the media , & most scientists [ despite Cooks unbelievable 97% concensus claim] do not believe the lies that are being told .
Manns hockey stick , Gores " Inconvenient load of lies "every claim that the Eco fraudsters have made , getting hotter , no more hard winters , Arctic ice all gone , none of these have any basis in fact .
Even your claim of more Hurricanes is shown to be totally wrong besides the fact that meteorologists say there is no link with "Global warming " & the number of storms .
So I believe in the facts , not a load of lies spouted by socialists & Eco -wackos .

No warming for 16 years , " Oh , it is hiding in the deep Oceans " . Even schoolchildren know that that is a Physical impossibility as warm water rises .

It is usually easy to tell when the liars know that their arguments are not being believed , because that is when they start personal attacks on anyone who does not believe them , like calling them deniers .

Tel, you must be a very young person. And, I did not say there would be more storms. What I said was that the ferocity of the storms was greater and more violent.
Get it through your head young man/woman. Global Warming is a FACT.

[555-04Q2]

"Man made" global warming can be likened to the Y2K scare pre the new millennium...a load of bullsh!t that people will one day realise was just a big scam to take your hard earned money.

[Spafranco]

"Man made" global warming can be likened to the Y2K scare pre the new millennium...a load of bullsh!t that people will one day realise was just a big scam to take your hard earned money.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That does not make your opinion correct. What it does is in your case put the onus on you to prove that Global warming as a result of CFC's and the like has caused this dangerous situation.

[Tel 911S]

As some seem interested , I am an engineer , & have been for over 40 years . Therefore I work with facts , which have to be checked , as if they wrong , then the project I am working on, will not work , fit the parameters , or break down .
So when I see scientists saying things that are proved to be wrong [Jones , Mann , Cook , Hansen , & stretching a point Gore ] I think , where is the checking of their so called facts .
There is no checking , & most of their data is then hidden & covered up from FOI requests , so that peer review is not possible .[ Some of the Climategate Emails have had advice to other scientists on how to keep their figures secret so that they could not be checked by FOI requests or Independant scientists ]
With all of the weather that has happened [ the world was hotter 1000 years ago than now , there has been no warming for over 16 years ] the only thing they have left is their climate modelling , which most people know is a case of GIGO.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ ... onfes.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html)

Link to Jones [ Climategates UEA ] admitting that MANNs "Hockey Stick " graph was a fraud

[Spafranco]

As some seem interested , I am an engineer , & have been for over 40 years . Therefore I work with facts , which have to be checked , as if they wrong , then the project I am working on, will not work , fit the parameters , or break down .
So when I see scientists saying things that are proved to be wrong [Jones , Mann , Cook , Hansen , & stretching a point Gore ] I think , where is the checking of their so called facts .
There is no checking , & most of their data is then hidden & covered up from FOI requests , so that peer review is not possible .[ Some of the Climategate Emails have had advice to other scientists on how to keep their figures secret so that they could not be checked by FOI requests or Independant scientists ]
With all of the weather that has happened [ the world was hotter 1000 years ago than now , there has been no warming for over 16 years ] the only thing they have left is their climate modelling , which most people know is a case of GIGO.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ ... onfes.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html)

Link to Jones [ Climategates UEA ] admitting that MANNs "Hockey Stick " graph was a fraud

Thanks Tel. A good debate is healthy would you not agree? In the field I work in and associate fields (it appears as though some believe I am posing as a psychologist) but since they did not name me specifically I would have to prove to them that what they say is directed. I am in a serious field but for the sake of conversation and not to be ridiculed for my bad typing and forgotten words, I will not state which area. Suffice it to say that I am pretty much informed. Intelligent , well that is subjective :) I have had read many articles on this issue and it is without a doubt occurring. Al Gore was on the money about the danger to the polar bear due to the thaw in the arctic. There is a bountiful of evidence such as flowers blooming in the fall in Vienna and many more anecdotal examples.
You mentioned Climategate E-Mails. You do know that was a hoax? I hope you do.
As an engineer, you are seeing what everyone else with any type of background in the sciences is aware of but you refute it. So, please explain why Greenland is one of the most dangerous locations for the human race as it rapidly loses ice? Granted, and this was not unexpected,the ice does return but in lesser degrees(pun) than before and lasts for shorter periods. The polar bear population is shrinking. Seals are not forced farther out in the ocean and that creates a dual crisis for the polar bear.

[Tel 911S]

The only money Al Gore is on is the Billions he hopes to get from his Carbon trading business if he can convince the world that Global warming is real .
His film was being shown in the schools here in the UK to try to brainwash the children , until a concerned school governer & parent went to the high court [ where it becomes illegal to tell lies ] , & the court judged that it could not be shown to the children anymore unless they were told that it was not true .
As for the Climategate Emails , they are the most damning indictment of the lying & false figures of the AGW advocates that every Global Warming believer is going to try to discredit them , except for the fact that some of the participants in the Emails have admitted that they are true . { So some scientists have a conscience at least }

[Malbec]

As some seem interested , I am an engineer , & have been for over 40 years . Therefore I work with facts , which have to be checked , as if they wrong , then the project I am working on, will not work , fit the parameters , or break down .
So when I see scientists saying things that are proved to be wrong [Jones , Mann , Cook , Hansen , & stretching a point Gore ] I think , where is the checking of their so called facts .
There is no checking , & most of their data is then hidden & covered up from FOI requests , so that peer review is not possible .[ Some of the Climategate Emails have had advice to other scientists on how to keep their figures secret so that they could not be checked by FOI requests or Independant scientists ]
With all of the weather that has happened [ the world was hotter 1000 years ago than now , there has been no warming for over 16 years ] the only thing they have left is their climate modelling , which most people know is a case of GIGO.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ ... onfes.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html)

Link to Jones [ Climategates UEA ] admitting that MANNs "Hockey Stick " graph was a fraud

Instead of linking to websites aimed at laypeople give me the key papers that support your hypothesis with a list of their impact factors.

[Spafranco]

The only money Al Gore is on is the Billions he hopes to get from his Carbon trading business if he can convince the world that Global warming is real .
His film was being shown in the schools here in the UK to try to brainwash the children , until a concerned school governer & parent went to the high court [ where it becomes illegal to tell lies ] , & the court judged that it could not be shown to the children anymore unless they were told that it was not true .
As for the Climategate Emails , they are the most damning indictment of the lying & false figures of the AGW advocates that every Global Warming believer is going to try to discredit them , except for the fact that some of the participants in the Emails have admitted that they are true . { So some scientists have a conscience at least }

Is that a fact???? The courts mandated in GB that unless you tell the students in High School that Al Gore's film is a lie then it can't be shown. I find that incredulous. There are so many alarming aspect to what you just posted that it is almost hideously comparable to a Fascist ruling. I would love to hear from other British posters on this topic.

[Tel 911S]

As you say , controlling the news & media is something the Fascists & other socialist organisations try to do .
But the UK justice system is supposedly immune from political interference , & works with evidence and facts . So the fact that Al Gores film is not true made them arrive at the decision to stop it being shown in schools unless the children were told it was not true .
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)

Link to details of some of the films errors / lies .

[donKey jote]

As you say , controlling the news & media is something the Fascists & other socialist organisations try to do .
But the UK justice system is supposedly immune from political interference , & works with evidence and facts . So the fact that Al Gores film is not true made them arrive at the decision to stop it being shown in schools unless the children were told it was not true .
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)

Link to details of some of the films errors / lies .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe ... _Brenchley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley)

[555-04Q2]

Well we continue to have one of the mildest Springs in living memory here. The average temperature has been about 2 - 3 degrees below what we normally experience this time of the year. Maybe we are actually having Global Cooling and not warming? :p:

[D-Type]

Not necessarily. A climate change affects the pattern of currents and you may be in a situation where a warm current moving further south allows a cold current to come ashore and drop temperatures in Natal. I don't know anything about the Indian Ocean currents so can't say if this could be happening there.

I have seen a well-reasoned piece saying that global warming in the Arctic might displace the Gulf Stream further north warming Newfoundland, Iceland, the north of Norway and round to Murmansk and Archangel but leading to cooling of Britain as it would get less benefit from the Gulf Stream.

And then there's the global effects of an El Nino reversal which have been well documented in recent years.

[555-04Q2]

Either way, I'm enjoying the cooler weather :) We normally are pretty warm already by now so the cool weather is going down well with us this side :D

[Spafranco]

"Global cooling" is a fact. D-Type explains it very well.It seems that the education system at 29.8833° S, 31.0500° E is lacking.

[SGWilko]

Given the age of the earth, and that our existence on this planet is but a mere 'millisecond' in that timeframe, can we really be sure that we are the cause of global warming, or is it that - humans or no humans - the earth would have gone through this warming cycle anyway?

[D-Type]

I think that is the case. But the increase of CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels can't have helped if we are going through a period of climate change.

I do suspect that some government and international agencies are in fact more concerned about fossil fuel consumption. CO2 emissions ara good measure of consumption and reducing 'Global Warming' is considered a more acceptable policy than reducing 'Global Consumption'.

Don't be too hard on the South African education system - they should be teaching South African Geography and Climate - not Western European, North American, or Pacific rim. But I suspect that the experts don't yet fully understand the relationship between global and local climate effects.

[Spafranco]

Given the age of the earth, and that our existence on this planet is but a mere 'millisecond' in that timeframe, can we really be sure that we are the cause of global warming, or is it that - humans or no humans - the earth would have gone through this warming cycle anyway?
Most things are cyclical in terms of weather , seasons etc. What can't be dismissed is that there is conclusive evidence agreed upon by the preeminent scientists in this field on a worldwide basis.
The actual frustration for these scientists is that so many people just do not want to read the scientific data gathered all over the world and agreed upon that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
Tel as an engineer has me dumbfounded as most engineers that I know and am friends with never ever make statements such as Tel has without really reading up on the data that is available.
Methane gas coming to the surface in Greenland is a huge concern. It's impact would be greater than CO2 emissions, yet it is happening.
Like him or not, Al Gore detractors are in most those that do not agree with him politically. This is dangerous.
I also would like to hear the explanation as to why he made the statement "Fascists and other socialists". Fascism is a right wing ideology. Socialism is left. How do you compare their beliefs?

[SGWilko]

Methane gas coming to the surface in Greenland is a huge concern. It's impact would be greater than CO2 emissions, yet it is happening.

Would that not happen had humans not existed anyway?

[steveaki13]

Given the age of the earth, and that our existence on this planet is but a mere 'millisecond' in that timeframe, can we really be sure that we are the cause of global warming, or is it that - humans or no humans - the earth would have gone through this warming cycle anyway?

Spot on.

A lot of people on TV (non experts) and people I speak to, seem sure that earth has only been in existence for 2 million years (not really but you get what I mean). They don't think about the longer term past and future and seem to assume things stay the same if we are not here.

Although as D-Type said. Human CO2 cant help the situation, its a smaller part of a bigger cycle. IMO.

[Spafranco]

Methane gas coming to the surface in Greenland is a huge concern. It's impact would be greater than CO2 emissions, yet it is happening.

Would that not happen had humans not existed anyway?

No, it would not. The release of methane would be as a result of the CFC's , CO2 and other gases. It is caused by the emissions of countries such as our own (unfortunately) who, if following the dictates of the Kyoto summit would have given pause to countries like India and China from acting as they do without any type of provisions in place.

[steveaki13]

This is one major issue with the human aspect.

The western world if you like, did all this industrial development 200-100 years ago and didn't know better, now they are trying hard to stop putting out these emissions, but now we have countries like India and China still going through the exact same Industrial development now.

Hard to see how the west preach at the others to stop their country progressing. Those nations will have no interest.

Its a tough question which developed nations face.

[555-04Q2]

This is one major issue with the human aspect.

The western world if you like, did all this industrial development 200-100 years ago and didn't know better, now they are trying hard to stop putting out these emissions, but now we have countries like India and China still going through the exact same Industrial development now.

Hard to see how the west preach at the others to stop their country progressing. Those nations will have no interest.

Its a tough question which developed nations face.

Very true Steve :) While you could maybe understand the West wanting the East to tone down their emissions, it is a bit difficult to try and hold them back from developing the way the West did in the 20th century. It's a catch 22 situation where the one says please stop doing this and the other says but you did it so why cant we.

In the end, no one is right or wrong here. It's just a question of time before the East is developed like the West is and they can then look at emission reductions to fall into line with the rest of the world. I say let them be for now so they can also benefit from their economic progress :)

[donKey jote]

To be honest, I currently see the West more intent on holding back in the development of renewables.
Solar cells? Ask China, not the US.
When it comes to cleaner energy, China is building more nukes than anybody else, while Germany is shutting down thanks to the tree huggers.
I wonder what the per cápita emmisions look like...

[555-04Q2]

To be honest, I currently see the West more intent on holding back in the development of renewables.
Solar cells? Ask China, not the US.
When it comes to cleaner energy, China is building more nukes than anybody else, while Germany is shutting down thanks to the tree huggers.
I wonder what the per cápita emmisions look like...

Well not at the moment, the East, China more specifically, are opening up massive coal mines on an unprecedented scale. You just have to look at their cities to see that they are 10 times more pollutant than the worst Western cities like Los Angeles. When I last went to China I was at 4 of their major cities and all were smelly and smoggy. In Beijing, I didn't see the sky once in the 4 days I was there! Construction dust also contributed to this problem.

[SGWilko]

Well not at the moment, the East, China more specifically, are opening up massive coal mines on an unprecedented scale. You just have to look at their cities to see that they are 10 times more pollutant than the worst Western cities like Los Angeles. When I last went to China I was at 4 of their major cities and all were smelly and smoggy. In Beijing, I didn't see the sky once in the 4 days I was there! Construction dust also contributed to this problem.

Well, here in the UK during the Industrial Revolution, we were famed for our 'pea soup' smogs. Heck, even a certain type of moth evolved from cream wings to dirty brown to blend in with the filthy surroundings.......

[555-04Q2]

Well not at the moment, the East, China more specifically, are opening up massive coal mines on an unprecedented scale. You just have to look at their cities to see that they are 10 times more pollutant than the worst Western cities like Los Angeles. When I last went to China I was at 4 of their major cities and all were smelly and smoggy. In Beijing, I didn't see the sky once in the 4 days I was there! Construction dust also contributed to this problem.

Well, here in the UK during the Industrial Revolution, we were famed for our 'pea soup' smogs. Heck, even a certain type of moth evolved from cream wings to dirty brown to blend in with the filthy surroundings.......

Sounds real charming :p:

[Bagwan]

Well not at the moment, the East, China more specifically, are opening up massive coal mines on an unprecedented scale. You just have to look at their cities to see that they are 10 times more pollutant than the worst Western cities like Los Angeles. When I last went to China I was at 4 of their major cities and all were smelly and smoggy. In Beijing, I didn't see the sky once in the 4 days I was there! Construction dust also contributed to this problem.

Well, here in the UK during the Industrial Revolution, we were famed for our 'pea soup' smogs. Heck, even a certain type of moth evolved from cream wings to dirty brown to blend in with the filthy surroundings.......

That pea soup is a good example of how local weather can be affected by local activity .
During the Twin Tower no fly situation , after three days of open skies over LAX , the temperature went up , if I recall correctly , 4 degrees from normal .

The burning of carbon puts a lot of particulate into the atmosphere , and often , that can have a mitigating effect on the warming cycle locally , as , simply , the rays of the sun do not hit the earth , filtering through the particles .

We have a loss of the monsoon season in the northwest Sahara , as a result of carbon particulate from the eastern seaboard of the USA , for the 20 or so years .
That's getting pretty close to being a specific example of global shift in climate , rather than just local weather .


There are many examples throughout the life of the planet where the climate has changed as a result of things like volcanoes and meteorite hits , and these are mostly specifically related to the amount of particulate shading the earth surface .
Knowing that ice ages have resulted from these events where catastrophic loss of life has occurred should make us think about local issues like a red sky at night .
If we can cause such local devastation , why is it so hard to believe we could be doing the same thing all over the planet ?
Because , we are .

Leave sequestered carbon where it is .
There's plenty enough already in the cycle to keep us going until the next meteorite hits .

[555-04Q2]

If we can cause such local devastation , why is it so hard to believe we could be doing the same thing all over the planet ?
Because , we are .

It is easy to cause small scale local problems because, lets face it, it a relatively small area we are talking about. I don't think anyone, even myself who is a staunch opponent to the "man made global warming" con that is being used to suck us dry with carbon/green taxes, will argue that most of our large cities are polluted.

But herein lies the problem (or at least my problem with current theories). If you look at the earth and the footprint man has on it, we directly cover less than 5% of it (take into account the ocean, deserts etc which cover over 80% just by themselves). Take then the fact that there is a few kilometres up to our atmosphere and the volumetric area of air/area on earth compared to the emissions we release is massive. I don't know the figures but I'm pretty sure that we release less than 1% emissions compared to the earths total atmosphere. And this is before we take into account natures natural processing of CO2's etc. There is irrefutable proof that the earth has warmed and cooled dramatically long before man came along.

There are more realistic factors that affect our planets temperatures namely the increase in sun spots, solar wind releases from our sun, major volcanic eruptions like the unpronounceable one we recently experienced etc. I will not deny that we pollute our cities, but to think that we can change and affect an entire planet? We are an arrogant species are we not? :)

To further make me a sceptic, the "experts" all have different views, opinions, research results, conflicts etc that contradict each other. Until irrefutable proof is laid at my door, I will continue to rue our governments that are taxing us in the name of "saving the world". When someone finally manages to provide the irrefutable proof that we are the cause of global warming, I will admit I am wrong and eat my shirt. Until then, we can just keep on speculating and getting nowhere, while the government taxes us a little more :)

[Tel 911S]

Given the age of the earth, and that our existence on this planet is but a mere 'millisecond' in that timeframe, can we really be sure that we are the cause of global warming, or is it that - humans or no humans - the earth would have gone through this warming cycle anyway?
Most things are cyclical in terms of weather , seasons etc. What can't be dismissed is that there is conclusive evidence agreed upon by the preeminent scientists in this field on a worldwide basis.
The actual frustration for these scientists is that so many people just do not want to read the scientific data gathered all over the world and agreed upon that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
Tel as an engineer has me dumbfounded as most engineers that I know and am friends with never ever make statements such as Tel has without really reading up on the data that is available.
Methane gas coming to the surface in Greenland is a huge concern. It's impact would be greater than CO2 emissions, yet it is happening.
Like him or not, Al Gore detractors are in most those that do not agree with him politically. This is dangerous.
I also would like to hear the explanation as to why he made the statement "Fascists and other socialists". Fascism is a right wing ideology. Socialism is left. How do you compare their beliefs?

Are you trying to say that the National Socialists party are right wing . I know that most Marxists call anyone they disagree with right wing , but the Marxist socialists & the National socialists were once great allies , just because they fell out does not make the National socialists [ Fascists] right wing .

[Spafranco]

Given the age of the earth, and that our existence on this planet is but a mere 'millisecond' in that timeframe, can we really be sure that we are the cause of global warming, or is it that - humans or no humans - the earth would have gone through this warming cycle anyway?
Most things are cyclical in terms of weather , seasons etc. What can't be dismissed is that there is conclusive evidence agreed upon by the preeminent scientists in this field on a worldwide basis.
The actual frustration for these scientists is that so many people just do not want to read the scientific data gathered all over the world and agreed upon that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
Tel as an engineer has me dumbfounded as most engineers that I know and am friends with never ever make statements such as Tel has without really reading up on the data that is available.
Methane gas coming to the surface in Greenland is a huge concern. It's impact would be greater than CO2 emissions, yet it is happening.
Like him or not, Al Gore detractors are in most those that do not agree with him politically. This is dangerous.
I also would like to hear the explanation as to why he made the statement "Fascists and other socialists". Fascism is a right wing ideology. Socialism is left. How do you compare their beliefs?

Are you trying to say that the National Socialists party are right wing . I know that most Marxists call anyone they disagree with right wing , but the Marxist socialists & the National socialists were once great allies , just because they fell out does not make the National socialists [ Fascists] right wing .
Are you speaking of the Nazi's? If you for one moment think they were of a left wing ideology based upon their name you are sadly mistaken.
The one fascist that I can think of that had no identifiable bent was Pol Pot. He opposed everything.

[Tel 911S]

I also would like to hear the explanation as to why he made the statement "Fascists and other socialists". Fascism is a right wing ideology. Socialism is left. How do you compare their beliefs?[/quote]

Are you trying to say that the National Socialists party are right wing . I know that most Marxists call anyone they disagree with right wing , but the Marxist socialists & the National socialists were once great allies , just because they fell out does not make the National socialists [ Fascists] right wing .[/quote]
Are you speaking of the Nazi's? If you for one moment think they were of a left wing ideology based upon their name you are sadly mistaken.
The one fascist that I can think of that had no identifiable bent was Pol Pot. He opposed everything.[/quote]

The Nazis , Fascists ,or as they were properly known , National Socialist party , at one time [ until operation Barbarossa ] all allies with the communist / marxist socialists . All shared a similar ideology , and the fact that they became enemies did not change their whole ideology .
There is a clue in the name of National socialists , but you never seem to let actual facts like that get in the way of your point of view .

[Bagwan]

If we can cause such local devastation , why is it so hard to believe we could be doing the same thing all over the planet ?
Because , we are .

It is easy to cause small scale local problems because, lets face it, it a relatively small area we are talking about. I don't think anyone, even myself who is a staunch opponent to the "man made global warming" con that is being used to suck us dry with carbon/green taxes, will argue that most of our large cities are polluted.

But herein lies the problem (or at least my problem with current theories). If you look at the earth and the footprint man has on it, we directly cover less than 5% of it (take into account the ocean, deserts etc which cover over 80% just by themselves). Take then the fact that there is a few kilometres up to our atmosphere and the volumetric area of air/area on earth compared to the emissions we release is massive. I don't know the figures but I'm pretty sure that we release less than 1% emissions compared to the earths total atmosphere. And this is before we take into account natures natural processing of CO2's etc. There is irrefutable proof that the earth has warmed and cooled dramatically long before man came along.

There are more realistic factors that affect our planets temperatures namely the increase in sun spots, solar wind releases from our sun, major volcanic eruptions like the unpronounceable one we recently experienced etc. I will not deny that we pollute our cities, but to think that we can change and affect an entire planet? We are an arrogant species are we not? :)

To further make me a sceptic, the "experts" all have different views, opinions, research results, conflicts etc that contradict each other. Until irrefutable proof is laid at my door, I will continue to rue our governments that are taxing us in the name of "saving the world". When someone finally manages to provide the irrefutable proof that we are the cause of global warming, I will admit I am wrong and eat my shirt. Until then, we can just keep on speculating and getting nowhere, while the government taxes us a little more :)

While we may be tiny in stature , the key point in all this is that our tiny effect is accumulative .

Many moons ago the trees and other vegetation that broke down and resulted in the stores of coal , oil , and gas beneath the surface , gave us an environment in which we could live .
We have been bringing it to the surface for a relatively short amount of time , but the effects are clear .

Mind you , "clear" is not the best way to describe the issue .
We seem only to notice the lack of clarity when it's in it's most concentrated state , in the tens of thousands of cities around the world .

Is it a little short sighted(sorry) to not think there is some effect to the same amount of atmospheric pollution as it diffuses into the larger environment , especially since it's been getting more acute since the dawn of the industrial revolution ?

It is irrefutable that there is a vast amount more carbon on the surface now as a result of our mining and drilling , and scientists are currently working on ways the sequester it below the surface .


I think , really , the biggest issue we have is not our physical environment at all .
The single , largest commodity traded on our planet is oil .
"Traded" is the key word .
Money is the problem .

To keep the money flowing , the press is controlled , and the problem becomes lost in the debate .

Just a short while ago , thousands of scientists marched in lab coats in protest on our capital city , Ottawa , because they felt that government policy was muzzling science .
Had I not heard a discussion about this on CBC radio , I would have been quite unaware , as I looked to find it in the newspapers , and didn't find it on the front page , if I found it at all .
During the discussion , the idea that many of the changes seemed to directly favour the oil men , most often being by the removal of environmental law "road blocks" to emerging technology was brought up by a number of people from the scientific community .

And , we get Cennovus commercials on TV that laud how wonderful our scientists are for figuring out a way to get really difficult to attain petrochemicals out of deep in the earth . That's just a little ironic .
Add in a little more irony when you think that each of those scientists fart enough methane during the day to cook their eggs the next morning , without having to figure out how to get it out of the sand .

[Spafranco]

I also would like to hear the explanation as to why he made the statement "Fascists and other socialists". Fascism is a right wing ideology. Socialism is left. How do you compare their beliefs?

Are you trying to say that the National Socialists party are right wing . I know that most Marxists call anyone they disagree with right wing , but the Marxist socialists & the National socialists were once great allies , just because they fell out does not make the National socialists [ Fascists] right wing .[/quote]
Are you speaking of the Nazi's? If you for one moment think they were of a left wing ideology based upon their name you are sadly mistaken.
The one fascist that I can think of that had no identifiable bent was Pol Pot. He opposed everything.[/quote]

The Nazis , Fascists ,or as they were properly known , National Socialist party , at one time [ until operation Barbarossa ] all allies with the communist / marxist socialists . All shared a similar ideology , and the fact that they became enemies did not change their whole ideology .
There is a clue in the name of National socialists , but you never seem to let actual facts like that get in the way of your point of view .[/quote]
Tel, this should be another thread. I will answer part of what you claim and my surprise that you , an engineer believes that the Nazi's were a socialist left wing party. Something very clear to anyone that has been educated beyond high school would know. I'm sorry that it seems as though I am insulting you but believe me, I am not. Simply pick up one of the most read and acknowledged books written by William Shirer call The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It is used as a reference in colleges throughout the world as being one of the most well studied and written pieces of work with reference to Academia.
You , an educated engineer would know that the name Nazi existed before Hitler. You would also know that the GDR was not very democratic, the Republicans of Franco's era were socialist left wing and the IRA were the same.
Simply, these names do not represent hold weight to your argument.
You stated that the Facists at the time worked with the Russians. Hitler was the Fascist. A ultra right wing little man that used the people and their powerlessness to get to the top. He was not an ally of Russia. He just never worked with them until he invaded. Barbarossa was a long way in the future. So your argument at that time was he changed from a lefty to a righty?

[Bagwan]

Yeah , come on , you guys .
The mean temperature of the earth has just gone up .000645 degrees C in the time you guys have been talking about some political stuff .

Focus , focus !

We're talkin' global warming here .

UNLESS , what yer trying to say is that it was either them ratso Nazis or them pesky Ruskies what's responsible fer this global warmin' thang .
That's it , isn't it ?

[BDunnell]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

[Rollo]

Global warming isn't real. The Liberal Party are going to abolish the Carbon Tax because it isn't real. Tony said it's not real therefore it's not real.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive ... 5809567009 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/the-town-that-turned-up-the-temperature/story-e6frgczf-1225809567009)
"The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us."
- Tony Abbott (now our PM), as quoted in The Australian, 12 Dec 2009

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/a ... cord.shtml (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml)
In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:
Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013
- Bureau of Meteorology.

Oops.

[Spafranco]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

We need people with not necessarily a complete knowledge of why or why it is not occurring. That is Global Warming. I am a firm believer in it and people like you with an articulate delivery need to contribute.
BDunnell, I we have senators and congressmen that do not believe this is a fact that there is o such thing as Global Warming. The same people that believe that the earth is 5-6 thousand years old. That do not believe in CD (Carbon Dating) and it is people like these that have us as a nation falling rapidly behind in so many areas of the sciences.
We need people like you that can state as I am sure you can having viewed your posts for some time and whether you believe in Global Warming or not I can be satisfied that the argument you put forth would be measured and intellectual.

[Spafranco]

Yeah , come on , you guys .
The mean temperature of the earth has just gone up .000645 degrees C in the time you guys have been talking about some political stuff .

Focus , focus !

We're talkin' global warming here .

UNLESS , what yer trying to say is that it was either them ratso Nazis or them pesky Ruskies what's responsible fer this global warmin' thang .
That's it , isn't it ?
Bagwan, I might be getting another call...so be careful. Seriously, I did state to Tel that the discussion belongs elsewhere when I replied. My response to him is half way down the page.
You may be getting a call from one of our many clandestine operators soon. Two rings on your phone, a text message that is cryptic, a e-mail, also cryptic, a Twitter comment , you guessed, cryptic and some others. I forgot, the tin foil message. so be ready. Your work is not over yet.

[555-04Q2]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

Knowledgeable? I use good old common sense to make up my own mind. Some of us aren't sheep that believe all the bullsh!t that the "knowledgeable" spout out to the bowing masses ;)

[Tel 911S]

Ok , I will ignore the arguing with the trolls ,and just rely on scientists .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... pfMM3bVbhQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JpfMM3bVbhQ)

And this one is by Dr Henrik Svensmark , one of the leading climatologists in the world .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xstzCXSMH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VxstzCXSMH0)

[555-04Q2]

Without the whole "man made global warming" propaganda governments are spouting out, they would not be able to tax us for their "green" policies. "Man made global warming" propaganda is here to stay as long as there is a buck to be made from it for our esteemed cabinetry.

[555-04Q2]

Global warming isn't real. The Liberal Party are going to abolish the Carbon Tax because it isn't real. Tony said it's not real therefore it's not real.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive ... 5809567009 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/the-town-that-turned-up-the-temperature/story-e6frgczf-1225809567009)
"The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us."
- Tony Abbott (now our PM), as quoted in The Australian, 12 Dec 2009

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/a ... cord.shtml (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml)
In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:
Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013
- Bureau of Meteorology.

Oops.

In the distant past when our ancestors lived in caves there were similar weather anomalies that occurred, yet there was no way to record them. The same can be said for the opposite with weather anomalies that meant a cooler earth. This is a natural cycle that the earth goes through and will continue to go through well after we are all extinct :)

[SGWilko]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

What I think this thread does demonstrate is the mistrust and suspicious view many have towards the theories of glabal warming.

Personally, I believe what we are experiencing is natural climate change, and that this will ultimately set the scenes for the next ice age. This will all but wipe out the human population, and allow a re-boot of the climatic cycle.

Global warming is real, but I do not think is the cause of climate change, more a contributor.

[555-04Q2]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

What I think this thread does demonstrate is the mistrust and suspicious view many have towards the theories of glabal warming.

Personally, I believe what we are experiencing is natural climate change, and that this will ultimately set the scenes for the next ice age. This will all but wipe out the human population, and allow a re-boot of the climatic cycle.

Global warming is real, but I do not think is the cause of climate change, more a contributor.

Great post sir :)

[SGWilko]

^^
Me, or Ben? - it is rare for Ben to post anything other than a decent contribution IMO.

[555-04Q2]

^^
Me, or Ben? - it is rare for Ben to post anything other than a decent contribution IMO.

Was aimed at you :) I disagree with Ben's thought pattern ;)

[Starter]

Global warming is real, but I do not think is the cause of climate change, more a contributor.
This is also my take on it. We [u]may[u] be the second biggest part, behind natural cycles, but we are not the primary cause. A couple of good volcanic eruptions over the next few years could cool things down nicely for a while - and that would show just where exactly mankind stands in the pecking order of importance to planet Earth. Having said that, it isn't going to help folks who live on the world's shorelines as things get warmer.

[Bagwan]

Am I , then , to believe that we are having no deleterious effect on the planet at all ?
Should I just buck up and buy a new parka ?

That's the problem I have with all this .

I see us screwing up all over , making the world a toxic place to live .

All around me , the propaganda machine has got farmers tile draining their fields , to eke out a few more acres of arable land to feed the masses , not realizing they are throwing all the fine chemicals they feed to crops into the river at faster and faster rates .

We see entire stands of trees decimated because bugs that used to be wiped out by the cold , can survive now .

You can see from space , what used to be the Aral sea , now the Aral salt flats .

A tenant of mine , from Arkansas , in a heavy fracking area , has around twenty earthquake tremors a month now , instead of one or two just a few years ago .
I know that's kind an aside here , but it does demonstrate that we can certainly affect our planet .


The basic thing that I get from those videos is that I am , indeed , correct in believing that there are multiple agendas out there .
Mistrust can sometimes be well placed .

And , while all argue whether we are screwing up , we are screwing up , and really badly in some areas .

I've noticed just in the last twenty years , that our rivers fill faster and run higher , and our are far more foamy from , presumably the increase in nitrate fertilizer runoff .
It's snowy this morning here , so perhaps the river will get a bit of a break from the nitrates for a while , but it's not reason to become happy all of sudden that we're not screwing up .

Perhaps we're not quite on the scale of volcano for the amount of carbon and other particulate we spew yet , but we must be approaching it at some rate .

It is all a balancing act , to some degree , and we are not seemingly striving at all to maintain it , or so it seems to me .

[Starter]

If you are truly concerned about global pollution, then there is only one possible answer. Population control. The planet around us can absorb all kinds of man made trash and effluvia. As well as the clearing of land for food production. Up to a point. I don't believe we have reached that point yet, but we are certainly closer now than at any time before. Mankind can not breed unrestrained forever. Optimum worldwide population levels were probably reached twenty years ago. As world wide health care improves it only gets worse. There was a slight safety valve in the high mortality rates in parts of the world, Those are being removed as more attention is focused on the poorer parts and overall health improves. China had a clear picture with it's "one child" policy.

That's a message which 98% of people do not want to hear and will go to great lengths to suppress.

[steveaki13]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

What I think this thread does demonstrate is the mistrust and suspicious view many have towards the theories of glabal warming.

Personally, I believe what we are experiencing is natural climate change, and that this will ultimately set the scenes for the next ice age. This will all but wipe out the human population, and allow a re-boot of the climatic cycle.

Global warming is real, but I do not think is the cause of climate change, more a contributor.

Great post, I am intrigued though as to the process you think will wipe out a decent percentage of humans. I mean it seems a wide belief or assumption that humans are here to stay, which I think is laughable really when you think of the timescale left of earth and how long Modern Humans have existed.

I think technically we are still only just exiting an ice age so this could also be a factor in rising temperatures

[SGWilko]

Great post, I am intrigued though as to the process you think will wipe out a decent percentage of humans. I mean it seems a wide belief or assumption that humans are here to stay, which I think is laughable really when you think of the timescale left of earth and how long Modern Humans have existed.

I think technically we are still only just exiting an ice age so this could also be a factor in rising temperatures

Well, we seem to have become reliant on transport. If we become icebound, we will cease to be able to function; feeding the population will be impossible. Mass famine will claim the majority.

Probably!

[D-Type]

Looking at the above few posts, I think there is some cross-fertilized thinking going on. To explain: there are several related topics and in some cases I think posters are confused in their own minds about which particular topic/question they are talking about. (And I accept the comment that in pointing a finger at someone , I am pointing three at myself).

Here's a few questions that have been raised (in no particular order):
1. Is climate change real?
2. Is global warming real?
3. Has global warming caused climate change?
4. Is climate change happening anyway and global warming is simply adding to it?
5. Are politicians jumping on the bandwagon and using global warming, or people's fear of it, to further their own aganda?
6. Are some scientists (or academics if you prefer to include those who are really non-scientists) using the global warming debate to further their own careers - both those arguing pro- and against- questions (1)-(4)
7. Because of question (6) should we ignore all scientists, experts, knowledgable people, researchers, etc. and simply trust in our own judgement or common sense?
8. Can any of us make a judgement on their own without at least some knowledge of the facts? (note I said judgement and not opinion)
9. Is pollution more of a problem than global warming?
10. Can we consider that global warming is just one aspect of the effects of pollution, principally heat pollution and the generation of greenhouse gases?
11. Is population growth more of a problem than global warming?
12. Is population growth related to or caused by creating global warming?
13. Is population growth caused by global warming?
14. Is industrial development the cause or the solution to the global warning problem?
15. Is there an answer?

I was trying to get to 20 questions but ran out of steam. I think that several of these are actually the same question asked in different ways.They summarise as two questions that most of us are worried about:

(1) How true are reports and claims regarding the effects of industrialisation on climate including global warming?

(2) Who can we trust to give us a truthful answer to this question?

[Spafranco]

Ok , I will ignore the arguing with the trolls ,and just rely on scientists .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... pfMM3bVbhQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JpfMM3bVbhQ)

And this one is by Dr Henrik Svensmark , one of the leading climatologists in the world .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xstzCXSMH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VxstzCXSMH0)

Here we go again. Are you pointing a finger at me? You should know you were the person that has politicized this thread.

[D-Type]

Ok , I will ignore the arguing with the trolls ,and just rely on scientists .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... pfMM3bVbhQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JpfMM3bVbhQ)

And this one is by Dr Henrik Svensmark , one of the leading climatologists in the world .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xstzCXSMH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VxstzCXSMH0)

Here we go again. Are you pointing a finger at me? You should know you were the person that has politicized this thread.

Folks,
Can I ask you to please ignore this post to avoid dragging this thread off topic.
[/Moderator}

[Bagwan]

Looking at the above few posts, I think there is some cross-fertilized thinking going on. To explain: there are several related topics and in some cases I think posters are confused in their own minds about which particular topic/question they are talking about. (And I accept the comment that in pointing a finger at someone , I am pointing three at myself).

Here's a few questions that have been raised (in no particular order):
1. Is climate change real?
2. Is global warming real?
3. Has global warming caused climate change?
4. Is climate change happening anyway and global warming is simply adding to it?
5. Are politicians jumping on the bandwagon and using global warming, or people's fear of it, to further their own aganda?
6. Are some scientists (or academics if you prefer to include those who are really non-scientists) using the global warming debate to further their own careers - both those arguing pro- and against- questions (1)-(4)
7. Because of question (6) should we ignore all scientists, experts, knowledgable people, researchers, etc. and simply trust in our own judgement or common sense?
8. Can any of us make a judgement on their own without at least some knowledge of the facts? (note I said judgement and not opinion)
9. Is pollution more of a problem than global warming?
10. Can we consider that global warming is just one aspect of the effects of pollution, principally heat pollution and the generation of greenhouse gases?
11. Is population growth more of a problem than global warming?
12. Is population growth related to or caused by creating global warming?
13. Is population growth caused by global warming?
14. Is industrial development the cause or the solution to the global warning problem?
15. Is there an answer?

I was trying to get to 20 questions but ran out of steam. I think that several of these are actually the same question asked in different ways.They summarise as two questions that most of us are worried about:

(1) How true are reports and claims regarding the effects of industrialisation on climate including global warming?

(2) Who can we trust to give us a truthful answer to this question?

Question one rather depends on the answer to number two , if you know the answer , that is .

And , scientifically speaking , it's a little hard to determine whether we are having any effect at all , without another "control" planet revolving around our sun with us with which to compare in the experiment .

There are lots of theories from which to chose .

[Spafranco]

Again as predicted by all the scientists that people who doubt what is going on should be taking heed of before it gets to the point of no return. The fact that the Philippines was hit so hard by this record breaking typhoon was predicted years and years ago.
I'm sure there are many on the forum that were either too young or were not even born to remember the fact that the ozone layer weakening and then a hole forming was as is the current situation caused by the carbon dioxide (co2). At the time the ozone layer was weakening there was a measure proposed by the scientific community that better take certain precautions or we will face a catastrophe. Chlorofluorocarbons were a serious danger to the environment and as a result the disposal of refrigerators, the implementation in many states , emissions test and in some countries banning the burning of certain fuels. Disposing of any item that may leak carbon dioxide was not greeted with any hue and cry. In fact it was, at that time accepted as fact that the identified culprit along with the devastation of the Rainforests was a serious threat to our planets survival.
Now we see that it was a justified and not an alarmist position as has been proven over the years. So what has changed the dynamic? Politics.

[webberf1]

Only just lurked right onto the end of this thread, but lol spafranco.

Ozone depletion via CFCs had nothing to do with carbon dioxide. The erosion of ozone occurs when chlorine atoms break free from the CFC molecules due to ultraviolet light in the high Arctic and Antarctic atmosphere, and the chlorine gas reacts to destroy ozone.
The whole process has little, if anything to do with CO2 or global warming - in fact the process requires extremely cold atmospheric temperatures to occur (e.g. why the holes are over the poles) - so global warming might have in fact slowed the erosion down.

As with politics: you're low on facts, high on comedy value.

[BDunnell]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

We need people with not necessarily a complete knowledge of why or why it is not occurring. That is Global Warming. I am a firm believer in it and people like you with an articulate delivery need to contribute.
BDunnell, I we have senators and congressmen that do not believe this is a fact that there is o such thing as Global Warming. The same people that believe that the earth is 5-6 thousand years old. That do not believe in CD (Carbon Dating) and it is people like these that have us as a nation falling rapidly behind in so many areas of the sciences.
We need people like you that can state as I am sure you can having viewed your posts for some time and whether you believe in Global Warming or not I can be satisfied that the argument you put forth would be measured and intellectual.

But how can it be, when I am not a climate scientist?

It would take someone astonishingly naive to believe that a lot of the stuff we pump into the atmosphere isn't harmful — I mean, if it's not, why don't we all inhale car exhaust every minute of our lives? — but I have no specialist knowledge to contribute. Therefore, why should I bother?

[BDunnell]

Knowledgeable? I use good old common sense to make up my own mind. Some of us aren't sheep that believe all the bullsh!t that the "knowledgeable" spout out to the bowing masses ;)

An incredibly arrogant statement. Also, an incredibly worrying one. There is no substitute for genuine knowledge. I believe that only someone envious of those with it, or able to acquire it, would spout such nonsense.

[BDunnell]

If you are truly concerned about global pollution, then there is only one possible answer. Population control.

One could simply use less energy. It would at least make a contribution. It would also save you money.

The trouble with you and your ilk in North America is that you view energy consumption almost as a competition. To you, more energy use = good. Less energy use = bad.

[webberf1]

Overall I very much agree with Bdunnell.
Even if you don't believe in human-caused global warming, you'd have to be genuinely stupid to not recognise the massive benefits of reducing fossil fuel consumption and reducing emissions in the process. Just to name a few:
*Preventing further carbonised acidification of our oceans which has highly detrimental effects on fish stocks
*Improving air quality - the lack of which costs billions in health spending and lowers general quality of life
*Creating more efficient industry which uses less energy to get the same output, greatly improving profitability.
*Lowering of family budget allocated to energy and fuel spending, improving quality of life.
*The massive geopolitical and geostrategic benefits of being less dependent on places like the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya, etc.

There's no ifs or buts about it, you'd have to be STUPID not to see the urgent need for reducing fossil fuel consumption.

[D-Type]

Well put. There's one more reason we should reduce fossil fuel consumption:
"The supply of fossil fuels is limited. One day it will be exhausted. What will we do then?"

And looking at the problem overall. The earth, or nature, exists in a state of balance:
- "The heat gained by the sun is balanced by the heat lost in radiation to outer space"
- "The amount of ice in the ice caps lost to melting glaciers and icebergs is balanced by precipitation onto the icecaps andfreezing of the sea under them"
- "Carbon dioxide produced by the respiration of animals and plants (and maybe even power plants) is balanced by the carbon dioxide absorbed by pants and photosynthesized (is that a word?) to release its oxygen."
- "The number of fish we eat is balanced by the birth rate of fish in the sea, lakes and rivers"
- "Chemicals in the soil that are absorbed by plants are balanced by those in the excreta of animals further up the food chain"
- Even "Carbon dioxide in geological ages past was captured by plants that became fossil fuels is balanced by the carbon dioxide released by burning them in fireplaces, cars or power plants"
- etc

These closed chains or balances are elastic and possess some resilience. The problem comes if we exceed this elastic limit. And in some cases we are getting close. Call the problem what you will: extinction of animal species, [human] population growth, pollution, acid rain, holes in the ozone layer, greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change, increased radiation levels or any other effect of mankind's actions. These are all symptoms of the same thing:
"Mankind must become more aware and limit the extent that we upset natural balances".

You, me, the affluent countries consuming excess energy and food, third world countries that are industrialising and are so desparate to do so that they are ignoring pollution controls, down to the African peasantss collecting firewood faster than trees can grow and replenish the supply and causing desertification, we must all do our bit to restore some of the balances we have upset.

Final cliché: "Every little helps"

[Spafranco]

Only just lurked right onto the end of this thread, but lol spafranco.

Ozone depletion via CFCs had nothing to do with carbon dioxide. The erosion of ozone occurs when chlorine atoms break free from the CFC molecules due to ultraviolet light in the high Arctic and Antarctic atmosphere, and the chlorine gas reacts to destroy ozone.
The whole process has little, if anything to do with CO2 or global warming - in fact the process requires extremely cold atmospheric temperatures to occur (e.g. why the holes are over the poles) - so global warming might have in fact slowed the erosion down.

As with politics: you're low on facts, high on comedy value.

Now moderators, owners posters etc. Please note that it is not me that has initiated this attempt at provoking a reaction. Just for the record.

Webber, cheap shots such as the one you have made and your very ill conceived opinion of my post should not even be addressed. On the other hand you have taken what I posted and did what? You made an argument to make yourself look good by insinuating that I said something that I did not say.

[Spafranco]

However, CFCs (and their alternatives) function in energy-dependent systems or processes, and energy consumption in each of these specific applications can also affect CO2 emissions linked to electricity or fossil fuel use. The DIRECT chemical greenhouse gas emission effect must be seen therefore, not in isolation, but together with the INDIRECT energy-related CO2 emissions of the systems in which they are used.

Webber, when you read the above^DOE conclusion. Also the upper case statements letters are in their summary not mine.

Read a post in it's entirety before you take cheap shots. In addition without carbon, chlorine would not be in abundance in the atmosphere/stratosphere as it was in the 70's and early 80's.

[Spafranco]

This sort of thread, full largely of spectacularly ill-considered nonsense put forward by people with no specialist knowledge to bear yet who think they know better than the knowledgeable, is one of the reasons I've been spending less and less time on here of late.

We need people with not necessarily a complete knowledge of why or why it is not occurring. That is Global Warming. I am a firm believer in it and people like you with an articulate delivery need to contribute.
BDunnell, I we have senators and congressmen that do not believe this is a fact that there is o such thing as Global Warming. The same people that believe that the earth is 5-6 thousand years old. That do not believe in CD (Carbon Dating) and it is people like these that have us as a nation falling rapidly behind in so many areas of the sciences.
We need people like you that can state as I am sure you can having viewed your posts for some time and whether you believe in Global Warming or not I can be satisfied that the argument you put forth would be measured and intellectual.

But how can it be, when I am not a climate scientist?

It would take someone astonishingly naive to believe that a lot of the stuff we pump into the atmosphere isn't harmful — I mean, if it's not, why don't we all inhale car exhaust every minute of our lives? — but I have no specialist knowledge to contribute. Therefore, why should I bother?[/quote


You read. I'm sure that you form your opinions based upon facts that can be authenticated.

What I am speaking of is that you do not make statements that bash another posters conclusions when it is clear or vaguely clear to others that step one leads to step two and so on.
I posted about CO2 in the atmosphere and CFC's in the 70's. I did not write it as clearly as I should have. Straight away in comes someone else that will claim I am the bad guy if I react to the deliberate taunt.
You don't. You might, based upon your own reading and conclusions point out or ask for clarification which this poster could have done when attacking my post.
My naivete was my thinking that a conclusion from my post would be plain to others. You can't omit C02 even with the CFC's in evidence as the definitive cause of the damage of the ozone layer in the seventies, but, as recently seen as a combination. Something that the other individual did not care to ask. Just attack me for what I said after googling.

[airshifter]

Here is the way I see it. Many of the worlds top experts can't agree on the causes of global warming, and they are the experts on the issue. From everything I've seen, most have done the same as the average person, finding enough evidence to substantiate their point of view and often ignoring all other points of view. This also seems to include political and private sector influences which lead them to their findings.

Climate change has been taking place for a long time, now proven through science to have been taking place well before modern recorded history. What we don't know it most cases are the exacts about what influenced the times or more rapid changes. So the scientists argue, and we (the public masses) argue based on which scientists we think are correct. When in fact we must know that not all of them are correct. :laugh:

Like many here have pointed out, reducing consumption of fossil fuels certainly can't hurt, and might even help in this situation. And regardless of climate change at some point we will run out of fossil fuels. So I do what I can to reduce energy use for this and other reasons. I also voluntarily pay a premium on my electric bill to ensure some of my energy comes from alternative sources, and part of that money goes to alternative source research.



There are a great number of studies that show that a more intelligent sector of the population is also more reliant on energy, as it's often the way we educate ourselves. If we lived in huts and drew pictures on the ground we wouldn't use as much energy, and hunting and farming would save energy as well, but keep us from having as much time to draw pictures on the ground to educate ourselves.

Maybe if we all just turned our computers off and dumbed down some the problem would solve itself, or get worse, but in any case we would be too clueless to know or care. :D

[555-04Q2]

Knowledgeable? I use good old common sense to make up my own mind. Some of us aren't sheep that believe all the bullsh!t that the "knowledgeable" spout out to the bowing masses ;)

An incredibly arrogant statement. Also, an incredibly worrying one. There is no substitute for genuine knowledge. I believe that only someone envious of those with it, or able to acquire it, would spout such nonsense.

Like I said in an earlier post, are we not an arrogant species? I think we are, but not for the reason you suggest.

As for "genuine knowledge" :shock: Let's get something straight now B, these experts with "genuine knowledge" don't have the faintest clue as to what is really happening at the moment. They know as much as you and I do merely by looking out our windows and reading our thermometers. This is backed by the conflicting results and opinions of these supposedly "knowledgeable" experts. I would sooner call them "well paid bullsh!tters".

No thanks, I stick with my good old common sense thank you very much. It has stood me very, very well in the 36 years I have been on this rock. And I will continue to hate the fact that our governments are taxing us to death with "green taxes". You must love being taxed for nothing, being a believer and all?

[555-04Q2]

Here is the way I see it. Many of the worlds top experts can't agree on the causes of global warming, and they are the experts on the issue. From everything I've seen, most have done the same as the average person, finding enough evidence to substantiate their point of view and often ignoring all other points of view. This also seems to include political and private sector influences which lead them to their findings.

Climate change has been taking place for a long time, now proven through science to have been taking place well before modern recorded history. What we don't know it most cases are the exacts about what influenced the times or more rapid changes. So the scientists argue, and we (the public masses) argue based on which scientists we think are correct. When in fact we must know that not all of them are correct. :laugh:

Like many here have pointed out, reducing consumption of fossil fuels certainly can't hurt, and might even help in this situation. And regardless of climate change at some point we will run out of fossil fuels. So I do what I can to reduce energy use for this and other reasons. I also voluntarily pay a premium on my electric bill to ensure some of my energy comes from alternative sources, and part of that money goes to alternative source research.



There are a great number of studies that show that a more intelligent sector of the population is also more reliant on energy, as it's often the way we educate ourselves. If we lived in huts and drew pictures on the ground we wouldn't use as much energy, and hunting and farming would save energy as well, but keep us from having as much time to draw pictures on the ground to educate ourselves.

Maybe if we all just turned our computers off and dumbed down some the problem would solve itself, or get worse, but in any case we would be too clueless to know or care. :D

Good post :)

Science is just best guess, that's all it really is, best guess. That's why we have theories, thesis's etc that these researchers and scientists do. It's to come to an "educated" guess on the topic they are researching, not facts.

[SGWilko]

hate the fact that our governments are taxing us to death with "green taxes".

Whilst the sentiment for levying a green tax is correct, while we are still p!55!ng in the wind given the clag China and the developing countries are chugging out it seems a bit pointless.

If we did not endlessly cut down vast swathes of rainforests etc - either for agriculture of housing - then the planet would be better able to regulate the CO2.

Population explosions don't help. Back in the 'bad old days', sick kids died along with the other unwell amongst us. Sad but true. It has only been the scientific breakthroughs in the last 100 years on medicine that have provided for this mass population expulsion.

But, nature is fighting back. Bacteria and viri are developing immunity to many drugs. We just need to accept this.

[donKey jote]

Like many here have pointed out, reducing consumption of fossil fuels certainly can't hurt, and might even help in this situation. And regardless of climate change at some point we will run out of fossil fuels. So I do what I can to reduce energy use for this and other reasons. I also voluntarily pay a premium on my electric bill to ensure some of my energy comes from alternative sources, and part of that money goes to alternative source research.

and here is the common ground almost all of us would be able to agree on :)




hate the fact that our governments are taxing us to death with "green taxes".

Whilst the sentiment for levying a green tax is correct, while we are still p!55!ng in the wind given the clag China and the developing countries are chugging out it seems a bit pointless.

If we did not endlessly cut down vast swathes of rainforests etc - either for agriculture of housing - then the planet would be better able to regulate the CO2.

Population explosions don't help. Back in the 'bad old days', sick kids died along with the other unwell amongst us. Sad but true. It has only been the scientific breakthroughs in the last 100 years on medicine that have provided for this mass population expulsion.

But, nature is fighting back. Bacteria and viri are developing immunity to many drugs. We just need to accept this.
SGWilko, I guess you have iPlayer over there ;) :andrea: ...
here's a program you might find interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j
alternatively you could take the test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24836917) ...

Rosling addresses some of our misconceptions about the population bombs or China's contribution to energy (over)consumption :)

[SGWilko]

SGWilko, I guess you have iPlayer over there ;) :andrea: ...
here's a program you might find interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j
alternatively you could take the test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24836917) ...

Rosling addresses some of our misconceptions about the population bombs or China's contribution to energy (over)consumption :)

An interesting watch, but it glosses over quite a bit.

If Africa is to host 4 or 5 billion, a vast swathe of land will be used up for housing and infrastructure. Then there will be the power and water requirements etc, which were conveniently omitted. So all this land for agriculture is a bone of contention.

As for population, more people are having less kids. If the average is 2.5 0r 2.2 or whatever, that's still a doubling of the effective population (given we are all living longer).

And basing Bangladesh reproduction habits on a couple of families is quite a bit of poetic license.

But the graphics were good and well presented and shows we are all getting less poor. :)

NB - I'm on the lookout for the worlds credit cards, know I now its PIN is 1145..........

[555-04Q2]

SGWilko, I guess you have iPlayer over there ;) :andrea: ...
here's a program you might find interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j
alternatively you could take the test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24836917) ...

Rosling addresses some of our misconceptions about the population bombs or China's contribution to energy (over)consumption :)

An interesting watch, but it glosses over quite a bit.

If Africa is to host 4 or 5 billion, a vast swathe of land will be used up for housing and infrastructure. Then there will be the power and water requirements etc, which were conveniently omitted. So all this land for agriculture is a bone of contention.

As for population, more people are having less kids. If the average is 2.5 0r 2.2 or whatever, that's still a doubling of the effective population (given we are all living longer).

And basing Bangladesh reproduction habits on a couple of families is quite a bit of poetic license.

But the graphics were good and well presented and shows we are all getting less poor. :)

NB - I'm on the lookout for the worlds credit cards, know I now its PIN is 1145..........

Simply put, people need to have 2 kids or less. That way populations remain static or regress slightly. I don't see the need for people having 5, 6, 7 kids etc. It's ridiculous! And the third world is pomping itself into even further trouble. Over here we have unemployed parents having 10 kids then complaining that they can't support them! WTF is up with that?

The other problem we have is as the population grows, it exponentially grows faster as there are more people having kids each year and the snowball effect is we cant keep up with the growing demands. There are plenty of resources in this world for our current population plus more, the problem it getting those resources to said population in a usable form and timeous manner.

[donKey jote]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ny-30.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020801/Britains-youngest-grandparents-Shem-Davies-granddad-29-Kelly-John-granny-30.html)

[555-04Q2]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020801/Britains-youngest-grandparents-Shem-Davies-granddad-29-Kelly-John-granny-30.html

Surreal!