Print

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

[Chris_H]

I've only watched half of the programme but it is fascinating and I agree with Lizzie's comments.

My simplistic take on the subject is that in the past, mankind has lived on the assumption that atmosphere and the oceans are so large that you can throw stuff into them and it will get 'lost' because they are so big.  A simple examination of increasing population and increasing production of waste must cause us to at least look into the degree to which our earth systems can cope with such pollution.

Then we see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and I am abruptly reminded that one area of pollution is demonstrably NOT being handled as we might wishfully dream.  And I haven't heard anyone claim that this one is caused by the sun's cycles.

As for why so many of the population don't see the argument for AGW?  I guess it's because there is a personal price to pay if it's true.  So human. :-?

[Dishevelled Den]

  So human. :-?

That's the trouble with humanity Chris.

Some will be ambivalent, some careless, some evil, some calculating, some far-seeing, some insular, some will accept anything they're told because they can’t be bothered investigating any matter for themselves and, sadly, many others will try to profit at any available opportunity.

So I think it is quite right for those of us are concerned that profit will be made from the coming glut of regulations into how each and everyone of us lives our lives to question those who would propose such change.

There are also those of us who do try to be responsible in how we treat the environment and attempt to have as little impact on it as possible (whilst continuing to breathe)

I think that an admirable human trait.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I've only watched half of the programme but it is fascinating and I agree with Lizzie's comments.

My simplistic take on the subject is that in the past, mankind has lived on the assumption that atmosphere and the oceans are so large that you can throw stuff into them and it will get 'lost' because they are so big.  A simple examination of increasing population and increasing production of waste must cause us to at least look into the degree to which our earth systems can cope with such pollution.

Then we see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and I am abruptly reminded that one area of pollution is demonstrably NOT being handled as we might wishfully dream.  And I haven't heard anyone claim that this one is caused by the sun's cycles.

As for why so many of the population don't see the argument for AGW?  I guess it's because there is a personal price to pay if it's true.  So human. :-?

Very glad Chris you found the half of the programme you watched fascinating . 

I would strongly recommend you watch the other half though when you have the time as there are so many different highly interesting observations being discussed throughout.

You mention the fact that no one mentions the Sun as the cause, and I don't know if you saw the part were indeed the chief NASA scientist ruled out any connection with the Sun causing the current climate change.

The point about human activity was highly important in my mind, and as you say Chris us humans will have a price to pay.  The fact mankind is producing 7 gigaton of carbon emmissions per year compared to just 1 gigaton produced naturally is something surely no one should ignore.  That point is of course what the world's political leaders and top scientists are tackling, much to the dismay of some humans!

[Nickbat]

I've only watched half of the programme but it is fascinating and I agree with Lizzie's comments.

My simplistic take on the subject is that in the past, mankind has lived on the assumption that atmosphere and the oceans are so large that you can throw stuff into them and it will get 'lost' because they are so big.  A simple examination of increasing population and increasing production of waste must cause us to at least look into the degree to which our earth systems can cope with such pollution.

Then we see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and I am abruptly reminded that one area of pollution is demonstrably NOT being handled as we might wishfully dream.  And I haven't heard anyone claim that this one is caused by the sun's cycles.

As for why so many of the population don't see the argument for AGW?  I guess it's because there is a personal price to pay if it's true.  So human. :-?

Very glad Chris you found the half of the programme you watched fascinating . 

I would strongly recommend you watch the other half though when you have the time as there are so many different highly interesting observations being discussed throughout.

You mention the fact that no one mentions the Sun as the cause, and I don't know if you saw the part were indeed the chief NASA scientist ruled out any connection with the Sun causing the current climate change.

The point about human activity was highly important in my mind, and as you say Chris us humans will have a price to pay.  The fact mankind is producing 7 gigaton of carbon emmissions per year compared to just 1 gigaton produced naturally is something surely no one should ignore.  That point is of course what the world's political leaders and top scientists are tackling, much to the dismay of some humans!

I meant to pick up on this point earlier. Today's article by Booker in the DT has reminded me to dig out the thread.

With respect to the highlighted words:

This was so much the message they wanted that Nurse invited him to confirm that human emissions are seven times greater than those from all natural sources. This was mind-boggling. It is generally agreed that the 7 billion tonnes of CO2 due to human activity represent just over 3 percent of the total emitted. That given off by natural sources, such as the oceans, is vastly greater than this, more than 96 per cent of the total.

One may argue about the "carbon cycle" and how much CO2 the oceans and plants reabsorb. But, as baldly stated, the point was simply a grotesque misrepresentation, serving, like many of the programme's other assertions, only to give viewers a wholly misleading impression.

..and a few were, indeed, misled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html

Oh, and I recommend the last part of the article which asks whether the Met's temperature data was "adjusted" to make 2010 the warmest, as claimed.  

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I've only watched half of the programme but it is fascinating and I agree with Lizzie's comments.

My simplistic take on the subject is that in the past, mankind has lived on the assumption that atmosphere and the oceans are so large that you can throw stuff into them and it will get 'lost' because they are so big.  A simple examination of increasing population and increasing production of waste must cause us to at least look into the degree to which our earth systems can cope with such pollution.

Then we see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and I am abruptly reminded that one area of pollution is demonstrably NOT being handled as we might wishfully dream.  And I haven't heard anyone claim that this one is caused by the sun's cycles.

As for why so many of the population don't see the argument for AGW?  I guess it's because there is a personal price to pay if it's true.  So human. :-?

Very glad Chris you found the half of the programme you watched fascinating . 

I would strongly recommend you watch the other half though when you have the time as there are so many different highly interesting observations being discussed throughout.

You mention the fact that no one mentions the Sun as the cause, and I don't know if you saw the part were indeed the chief NASA scientist ruled out any connection with the Sun causing the current climate change.

The point about human activity was highly important in my mind, and as you say Chris us humans will have a price to pay.  The fact mankind is producing 7 gigaton of carbon emmissions per year compared to just 1 gigaton produced naturally is something surely no one should ignore.  That point is of course what the world's political leaders and top scientists are tackling, much to the dismay of some humans!

I meant to pick up on this point earlier. Today's article by Booker in the DT has reminded me to dig out the thread.

With respect to the highlighted words:

This was so much the message they wanted that Nurse invited him to confirm that human emissions are seven times greater than those from all natural sources. This was mind-boggling. It is generally agreed that the 7 billion tonnes of CO2 due to human activity represent just over 3 percent of the total emitted. That given off by natural sources, such as the oceans, is vastly greater than this, more than 96 per cent of the total.

One may argue about the "carbon cycle" and how much CO2 the oceans and plants reabsorb. But, as baldly stated, the point was simply a grotesque misrepresentation, serving, like many of the programme's other assertions, only to give viewers a wholly misleading impression.

..and a few were, indeed, misled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html

Oh, and I recommend the last part of the article which asks whether the Met's temperature data was "adjusted" to make 2010 the warmest, as claimed.  

The words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy.  I know who I believe first.

[albitz]

We can (and probably will) argue about the rights and wrongs of this subject for forever and a day, but I think there is a great danger in watching Tv programmes etc. and accepting them at their word, assuming the contributors are as expert as their job title suggests and believing they are as honest and objective as they are being peresented.
The only hope of getting near the truth imo, is to study as much available info as possible from all perspectives and try to use best judgement as to where the truth is likely to lie.
Personally, I am still extremely sceptical about the whole man made global warming theory.

[Nickbat]

The words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy.  I know who I believe first.

  The old "appeal to authority" defence doesn't really work here, Lizzie:

If you think that human CO2 emissions are far larger than natural CO2 emissions, then you have indeed been sorely misled. But that was the aim.

"Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.

Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions."

DEFRA/ARIC Teaching Pack for Key Stage 4 and A Level.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html

If you add in the 57% from the oceans, you'll see that Booker is right with the maths.

You've been suckered, methinks.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

We can (and probably will) argue about the rights and wrongs of this subject for forever and a day, but I think there is a great danger in watching Tv programmes etc. and accepting them at their word, assuming the contributors are as expert as their job title suggests and believing they are as honest and objective as they are being peresented.
The only hope of getting near the truth imo, is to study as much available info as possible from all perspectives and try to use best judgement as to where the truth is likely to lie.
Personally, I am still extremely sceptical about the whole man made global warming theory.

I thoroughly agree Albs, and as I for one have not taken this on board as my personal crusade I will not be arguing it to death as, frankly, I do not know all the answers!

As for listening to one person, I agree on that as well Albs.  With that last post I was simply answering Nick on his comparison of the NASA scientists 'facts' and the Daily Telegraph journalist views on it all.  I was just basically saying I would sooner listen and accept the facts of a NASA scientist than a DT journalist!

In terms of the whole argument I have spent my life watching man pollute and abuse the Earth.  I have listened, watched, and read most of the arguments for and against what man has done or not.  I have debated at university on this subject, where I must say the learned academics of the staff who have studied the subject argue very much that a) global warming is taking place b) the climate is changing dramatically c) man has had a great influence on the climate d) change is required. 

Therefore my grounding for saying that I am inclined to now believe man is responsible for the speed of climatic change, on top of anything nature intended, is based on a wide and comprehensive input of data, not just one TV statement by a NASA scientist no  matter how compelling it was.  It added to the picture, but is just one part of many sources of data gleaned over decades.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

The words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy.  I know who I believe first.

  The old "appeal to authority" defence doesn't really work here, Lizzie:

If you think that human CO2 emissions are far larger than natural CO2 emissions, then you have indeed been sorely misled. But that was the aim.

"Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.

Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions."

DEFRA/ARIC Teaching Pack for Key Stage 4 and A Level.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html

If you add in the 57% from the oceans, you'll see that Booker is right with the maths.

You've been suckered, methinks.

A case of lies.... damn lies.... and statistics... I think. ;)I'm with Lizzie on this one..... .....and she does not strike me as being particularly gullible either Nick...

[Nickbat]

The words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy.  I know who I believe first.

  The old "appeal to authority" defence doesn't really work here, Lizzie:

If you think that human CO2 emissions are far larger than natural CO2 emissions, then you have indeed been sorely misled. But that was the aim.

"Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.

Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions."

DEFRA/ARIC Teaching Pack for Key Stage 4 and A Level.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html

If you add in the 57% from the oceans, you'll see that Booker is right with the maths.

You've been suckered, methinks.

A case of lies.... damn lies.... and statistics... I think. ;)I'm with Lizzie on this one..... .....and she does not strike me as being particularly gullible either Nick...

Respiration: 38%
Oceans: 57%
Deforestation: 1%
Fossil fuels/cement: 4%

What lies are you on about? Sorry if the facts offend. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The words spoken were from a chief NASA scientist fully armed with the studied facts Nick, not a journalist and auther trying to sell copy.  I know who I believe first.

  The old "appeal to authority" defence doesn't really work here, Lizzie:

If you think that human CO2 emissions are far larger than natural CO2 emissions, then you have indeed been sorely misled. But that was the aim.

"Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.

Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions."

DEFRA/ARIC Teaching Pack for Key Stage 4 and A Level.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html

If you add in the 57% from the oceans, you'll see that Booker is right with the maths.

You've been suckered, methinks.

You are off on one again Nick!   Just because someone has a different viewpoint than you does not make them a lesser mortal to you!  It certainly does not prove that they have been suckered!!   You are again being very condescending to someone who does not accept all of your posted "facts", even when you quote a TD journalist!!

Please see my previous post and answer to Albs for a full account of how I stand where I do!

I think my posts on this subject with you involved are over Nick.   Just because I do not think like you does not make me wrong, right, or indifferent.

[albitz]

One thing I have observed from these threads is that Nick tries as much as is possible to deal in facts, or at least data from sources which are as reliable as he can find. The people arguing the opposite case, afair rarely present any facts or data to counter this. The arguments tend to be wide sweeping statements and opinions with little if anything to back them up.
Could one of the reasons for this be that so much of the data produced to back up the global warming case has been disproved and discredited ?
Btw, I also note with interest that people fall into the trap of joining pollution/AGW together. They are not the same thing. I am and always have been against pollution of the planet,only a fool or someone with a large vested interest could argue otherwise, but it doesnt follow that we are destroying the planet by emitting co2, they are two different issues.
I think we would be wise to worry more about large scale deforestation - some of which is being carried out to help produce biofriendly fuels - utter madness.

[Nickbat]

You are off on one again Nick!   Just because someone has a different viewpoint than you does not make them a lesser mortal to you!  It certainly does not prove that they have been suckered!!   You are again being very condescending to someone who does not accept all of your posted "facts", even when you quote a TD journalist!!

Please see my previous post and answer to Albs for a full account of how I stand where I do!

I think my posts on this subject with you involved are over Nick.   Just because I do not think like you does not make me wrong, right, or indifferent.

Lizzie, I was merely pointing out that human CO2 emissions DO NOT exceed natural emissions. That is a fact. The NASA chap may have been trying to fudge the issue by combining debatable sequestration rates, no one knows, but what is certain is that you and many others came away with the belief that man-made CO2 outstrips natural. Which is simply untrue.

I bang on about this subject because, although I believe I am a good steward of the environment in my personal life and am keen to see our wonderful countryside and wildlife protected, the global warming narrative is used as a thin veneer for anti-Western, anti-capitalist propaganda. That is why nothing is allowed to question the mantra. It is junk science for political ends, IMHO.

Oh, and why is the UN so anti-capitalist?* Oh, yes, that would be for "environmental" reasons. The fact is that western democracies have the cleanest lands, environmentally-speaking. 

*http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/un-sec-gen-capitalism-is-environmental-suicide-says-we-need-a-revolution/

 

[unlucky alf]

Sir Paul Nurse used to work at the UEA so that might explain why Phil Jones was quite happy to be interviewed by him, but when it came to the FOI requests he wasnt so obliging, strange one that.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

You are off on one again Nick!   Just because someone has a different viewpoint than you does not make them a lesser mortal to you!  It certainly does not prove that they have been suckered!!   You are again being very condescending to someone who does not accept all of your posted "facts", even when you quote a TD journalist!!

Please see my previous post and answer to Albs for a full account of how I stand where I do!

I think my posts on this subject with you involved are over Nick.   Just because I do not think like you does not make me wrong, right, or indifferent.

Lizzie, I was merely pointing out that human CO2 emissions DO NOT exceed natural emissions. That is a fact. The NASA chap may have been trying to fudge the issue by combining debatable sequestration rates, no one knows, but what is certain is that you and many others came away with the belief that man-made CO2 outstrips natural. Which is simply untrue.

I bang on about this subject because, although I believe I am a good steward of the environment in my personal life and am keen to see our wonderful countryside and wildlife protected, the global warming narrative is used as a thin veneer for anti-Western, anti-capitalist propaganda. That is why nothing is allowed to question the mantra. It is junk science for political ends, IMHO.

Oh, and why is the UN so anti-capitalist?* Oh, yes, that would be for "environmental" reasons. The fact is that western democracies have the cleanest lands, environmentally-speaking. 

*http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/un-sec-gen-capitalism-is-environmental-suicide-says-we-need-a-revolution/

 

Jesus Nick.....You see conspiracy everywhere... :-/..You have your views and that is your prerogative.......but you tend to see your side of the argument and ONLY your side of the argument... :-/