Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Some observations.

1. No one would listen to what any scientists say on any subject. How many people cut back on smoking, drinking, excess eating just cos a few scientists say it is bad for you?  If money is/needs to be spent it has to get "political".

2. Regardless of whether you believe that mankinds efforts at mussing up the planet with pollution etc don't have any negative effects, it is irrefutable that it is getting hotter. When was the last time that the Thames froze up? It used to do that regularly until maybe a hundred years ago. The last Ice Age was only 10,000 years ago. Sooner or later it will start cooling down again for the next ice age.

3. Personally I think mankind has developed an absolutely giant ostrich head in the sand approach to ALL the bad things he (it is mostly men) is doing to the planet. Witness the "British sending of toxic waste to Brazil" scam as just one everyday example. Most people don't give a damn. It has to get "political" to curtail such things. 

4. The people of Africa or indeed anywhere else where lack of water or food or medicine is an everyday issue should concern everyone of us. I welcome  Oxfam jumping into the debate. Perhaps if the taps were turned off in the UK regularly for indeterminate periods of time people would be more understanding?

5. One for Nickbat. Apparently the birth rate is up in Britain according to the news. So i was right, the worlds population is increasing even in the "West". Recessions are good for population increases!

Anyway time to bury my head in the (hot) sand, tarra a bit

El Varche

Varche, maybe you will find this article enlightening. It is by Professor Will Alexander - who actually lives lives in Africa.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/climate-alarmism-is-a-runaway-fire-by-professor-will-alexander/

[Banjax]

proves tha adage you can find anything on the net if you look 

i agree there may be a debate to be had about how much we affect the climate, i don't think you can have a debate about whether or not we affect it surely?

name one, just one piece of research Nickbat, that states we don't affect the climate at all. there isn't any. now we can argue over degrees 

[Dishevelled Den]

Varche, maybe you will find this article enlightening. It is by Professor Will Alexander - who actually lives lives in Africa.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/climate-alarmism-is-a-runaway-fire-by-professor-will-alexander/

...an interesting article indeed Nick but I have to say that I feel a rant coming on after reading this part of it;

We have just four months to secure the future of our planet. If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.

Such alarmist tosh devalues any reasoned debate on the merits of the argument

[Banjax]

here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)

Nasa's figures are not their own, they come from the UN IPCC.

"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F).

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

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

Debate over? No, Bannjaax, it's only just beginning.

and the IPCC collate their report from gathering data across a wide spectrum of respected scientific studies, but no, a few cranks shouting about how theres no problem has about as much weight 

your argument about differences in temperature, the differences you're quoting took millions of years to adjust, what we've done in the last 100 years is comparable - you've made my point for me - cheers Nick 

[Nickbat]

proves tha adage you can find anything on the net if you look 

i agree there may be a debate to be had about how much we affect the climate, i don't think you can have a debate about whether or not we affect it surely?

name one, just one piece of research Nickbat, that states we don't affect the climate at all. there isn't any. now we can argue over degrees 

Humanity affects the environment, so do flora and fauna. No one is arguing that. As far as tempertaure is concerned, a good deal of the recorded rise in recent times (which is pretty minimal anyway) can be accounted for by urbanisation. For example, London is obviously warmer now than it ever has been because of the amount of concrete and tarmac. Additionally, many of the world's temperature-gathering stations are sited at airports which have not increased in physical size (hence more concrete/tarmac), but have increased jet movements.

There is NO empirical evidence that mankind is causing a shift in climate of any significance. Indeed, such effects that we have, on a local scale, have probably been beneficial in terms of less frost damage. 

[Nickbat]

here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)

Nasa's figures are not their own, they come from the UN IPCC.

"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F).

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

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

Debate over? No, Bannjaax, it's only just beginning.

and the IPCC collate their report from gathering data across a wide spectrum of respected scientific studies, but no, a few cranks shouting about how theres no problem has about as much weight 

your argument about differences in temperature, the differences you're quoting took millions of years to adjust, what we've done in the last 100 years is comparable - you've made my point for me - cheers Nick 

Maybe it's me, but I haven't a clue what the highlighted text means.  :-?

[Nickbat]

Varche, maybe you will find this article enlightening. It is by Professor Will Alexander - who actually lives lives in Africa.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/climate-alarmism-is-a-runaway-fire-by-professor-will-alexander/

...an interesting article indeed Nick but I have to say that I feel a rant coming on after reading this part of it;

We have just four months to secure the future of our planet. If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.

Such alarmist tosh devalues any reasoned debate on the merits of the argument

Indeed, Zulu. The highlighted text comes form the mouth of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Four months? That's the time until the Copenhagen Summit. 

If your blood pressure's up to it, read this - our very own chief government adviser. (Also read the comments, showing that the majority don't seem to buy this cobblers!  ).

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/08/which-is-first-chicken-little-or-the-perfect-storm.html

[Dishevelled Den]

Indeed, Zulu. The highlighted text comes form the mouth of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Four months? That's the time until the Copenhagen Summit. 

If your blood pressure's up to it, read this - our very own chief government adviser. (Also read the comments, showing that the majority don't seem to buy this cobblers!  ).

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/08/which-is-first-chicken-little-or-the-perfect-storm.html

...cobblers?  It’s utter 'dangle berries' to be blunt. 

The way figures are bandied about with such certain authority would be amusing if it were not so prejudiciously appalling.

With the technological prowess available to those who try to predict the weather pattern for the coming week there remains a distinct lack of accuracy in their utterances.

Bearing that in mind how in the name of the Lord does an individual like this even countenance attempting to predict what is likely to happen 20 years in the future.

The premise seems to be that between now and then there will be no progress toward developing new technology to help deal with the various problems he envisages.

To say that this was an incredible stance for such a figure to take is to state the obvious.

[Banjax]

here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)

Nasa's figures are not their own, they come from the UN IPCC.

"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F).

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

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

Debate over? No, Bannjaax, it's only just beginning.

and the IPCC collate their report from gathering data across a wide spectrum of respected scientific studies, but no, a few cranks shouting about how theres no problem has about as much weight 

your argument about differences in temperature, the differences you're quoting took millions of years to adjust, what we've done in the last 100 years is comparable - you've made my point for me - cheers Nick 

Maybe it's me, but I haven't a clue what the highlighted text means.  :-?

maybe referencing levels of CO2 millions of years ago helps you sleep, the planet at that time was undergoing huge changes in the atmosphere a very volatile period and yet in our short industrialised time, we've had a much greater impact


i'm not sure what point you're making myself, other than the atmosphere was different millions of years ago? we should be looking at whats happening now and ways to slow it down. now this is where we agree Nickbat - one more time - we cannot do anything to stop what we're doing to the environment, nor should we spend billions on fruitless measures that don't go far enough - whilst i totally agree theres some terrible, alarmist articles on climate change - (i agree with you and zulu on that) just because a few cranks go to far, doesn't dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence that points to industrialisation being a significant factor in recent climate change.

i smoke. i know it's bad for me. all medical evidence would appear to suggest that smoking can cause a number of fatal diseases and yet, within a few minutes i could cut and paste reams of websites stating that smoking is harmless - doesn't mean i dismiss all the medical science - and it still doesn't mean i've given up smoking

my point (i'm getting to one!) is that i know without doubt we're affecting our own atmosphere and i know we should be doing something, but i also know i don't worry about it significantly enough to actually do anything 

it's like me trying to prove to you that God doesn't exist - all evidence and science is behind me and yet if you believe in God no reason will suffice - you'll simply choose to believe what you like - and thats fine by me  8-)
 

[webby23]

I have a simple (some may say selfish) attitude to the whole climate change/environment thing.....

When all the preaching politicians and patronising pop/rock "stars" give up their Jaguars, Bentleys, Ferraris and private jets then they can come and tell me what I need to do to help.....

Until that day, which coincidentally is the same day pigs will fly, I will keep the V6 and take everything they say with more than just a pinch of salt.....

 

 

[Dishevelled Den]

maybe referencing levels of CO2 millions of years ago helps you sleep, the planet at that time was undergoing huge changes in the atmosphere a very volatile period and yet in our short industrialised time, we've had a much greater impact


i'm not sure what point you're making myself, other than the atmosphere was different millions of years ago? we should be looking at whats happening now and ways to slow it down. now this is where we agree Nickbat - one more time - we cannot do anything to stop what we're doing to the environment, nor should we spend billions on fruitless measures that don't go far enough - whilst i totally agree theres some terrible, alarmist articles on climate change - (i agree with you and zulu on that) just because a few cranks go to far, doesn't dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence that points to industrialisation being a significant factor in recent climate change.

i smoke. i know it's bad for me. all medical evidence would appear to suggest that smoking can cause a number of fatal diseases and yet, within a few minutes i could cut and paste reams of websites stating that smoking is harmless - doesn't mean i dismiss all the medical science - and it still doesn't mean i've given up smoking

my point (i'm getting to one!) is that i know without doubt we're affecting our own atmosphere and i know we should be doing something, but i also know i don't worry about it significantly enough to actually do anything

it's like me trying to prove to you that God doesn't exist - all evidence and science is behind me and yet if you believe in God no reason will suffice - you'll simply choose to believe what you like - and thats fine by me  8-)
 

does that make you a lazy bugger then bj

I can agree with you on many things bj - and on the point of how we as a race have affected the resources of the planet in recent industrialised times - I'm bound to agree that damage has undoubtedly been done.

I'm also comfortable with the notion that this industrial process must have done, and is doing, something to the atmosphere of the planet.  That coupled with the resulting activity of the inhabitants of the globe has conspired to bring us to the present point of concern.

What I can't accept however is the evangelical adherence of the so-called experts in the field of planetary climate change to a dogma that is by no means sustained by credible scientific debate.

Until that debate is approached sensibly and with a degree of balance, we will continue to see this matter seized upon by those who have a vested interest in the accumulation of wealth as a result of these dubious assertions.

[Banjax]

maybe referencing levels of CO2 millions of years ago helps you sleep, the planet at that time was undergoing huge changes in the atmosphere a very volatile period and yet in our short industrialised time, we've had a much greater impact


i'm not sure what point you're making myself, other than the atmosphere was different millions of years ago? we should be looking at whats happening now and ways to slow it down. now this is where we agree Nickbat - one more time - we cannot do anything to stop what we're doing to the environment, nor should we spend billions on fruitless measures that don't go far enough - whilst i totally agree theres some terrible, alarmist articles on climate change - (i agree with you and zulu on that) just because a few cranks go to far, doesn't dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence that points to industrialisation being a significant factor in recent climate change.

i smoke. i know it's bad for me. all medical evidence would appear to suggest that smoking can cause a number of fatal diseases and yet, within a few minutes i could cut and paste reams of websites stating that smoking is harmless - doesn't mean i dismiss all the medical science - and it still doesn't mean i've given up smoking

my point (i'm getting to one!) is that i know without doubt we're affecting our own atmosphere and i know we should be doing something, but i also know i don't worry about it significantly enough to actually do anything

it's like me trying to prove to you that God doesn't exist - all evidence and science is behind me and yet if you believe in God no reason will suffice - you'll simply choose to believe what you like - and thats fine by me  8-)
 

does that make you a lazy bugger then bj

I can agree with you on many things bj - and on the point of how we as a race have affected the resources of the planet in recent industrialised times - I'm bound to agree that damage has undoubtedly been done.

I'm also comfortable with the notion that this industrial process must have done, and is doing, something to the atmosphere of the planet.  That coupled with the resulting activity of the inhabitants of the globe has conspired to bring us to the present point of concern.

What I can't accept however is the evangelical adherence of the so-called experts in the field of planetary climate change to a dogma that is by no means sustained by credible scientific debate.

Until that debate is approached sensibly and with a degree of balance, we will continue to see this matter seized upon by those who have a vested interest in the accumulation of wealth as a result of these dubious assertions.

you know - i'd retaliate for that slight on my character zulu - but i can't be bothered 

i agree that the more fundamentalist greenies don't really help in these matters but don't let that cloud your judgement - my take on it that we've done nothing since the 60's and we're desparately playing catch-up, but it's a case of too little too late i'm afraid and unfortunately its not us in the west but the 3rd world who will bear the brunt of any consequences 

[Dishevelled Den]

you know - i'd retaliate for that slight on my character zulu - but i can't be bothered 

i agree that the more fundamentalist greenies don't really help in these matters but don't let that cloud your judgement - my take on it that we've done nothing since the 60's and we're desparately playing catch-up, but it's a case of too little too late i'm afraid and unfortunately its not us in the west but the 3rd world who will bear the brunt of any consequences 

...I have a particular view on that but will need to expand later as I'm trying to get Word 97 to work on this box but it's messing me about a bit, so if I'm not back later you'll know that I've given it the malkey and will be box-less :-/ :-/

[Banjax]

you know - i'd retaliate for that slight on my character zulu - but i can't be bothered 

i agree that the more fundamentalist greenies don't really help in these matters but don't let that cloud your judgement - my take on it that we've done nothing since the 60's and we're desparately playing catch-up, but it's a case of too little too late i'm afraid and unfortunately its not us in the west but the 3rd world who will bear the brunt of any consequences 

...I have a particular view on that but will need to expand later as I'm trying to get Word 97 to work on this box but it's messing me about a bit, so if I'm not back later you'll know that I've given it the malkey and will be box-less :-/ :-/

i shall wait with baited breath 

[Varche]

Of course the third world will bear the brunt of it. They always do and always will do. The rich people (that is us 1st worlders) will alwayslookafter themselves at the expense of others. I am afraid that is human nature. Even and when we have made the planet uninhabitable for current living practices the rich will ensure they have somewhere to live. Maybe that is part of the life of the earth.

it is clear that there are sufficient people out there who don't believe mankind is doing anything bad to the planet perhaps they could join the flat earthers whose numbers have apparently dwindled quite dramatically. More info at www.the flatearthsociety.org