Schools

[tnimble]

In addition not one of the major computer scenarios predicted the current downward temp trend.

And yet a week or so ago it was on Dutch television it was said this year the Dutch weather was considerable warmer than previous years, and the European temperature is rising the fastest compared to the rises measured globally.

Mind that the global temperature has dropped more than considerable!

This year we had pretty cold summer. Following all the weather reports (where they show the average temperature for that day of year over the last 100 odd years) this years winter was a little warmer, the spring was considerable cooler, late spring the temperature was abnormal high, the first part of summer was normal the rest of summer has been considarable cooler..

How does that all add up? NOT. It all depends on who is speaking for who and what agenda.

 

[MikeG.]

Roy,

I was just going to post then ignore responses, but I can't let your last line go by.

The current global temperature trend is upwards, not downwards as you stated. Since records began in 1870, the hottest eleven individual years have been in the last 12 years. Don't confuse global temperatures with UK temperatures.

Given that there is currently a natural trend for slightly cooler climate (wobble in the earth's axis, solar activity), the fact that we are currently in the warmest period for the last 140 years should lead even the most sceptical to start thinking.

Furthermore, all of the climate modelling has erred on the optimistic side so far. We are at the top end of the ranges of predictions for the rate of temperature rise etc.

Now, however spurious your arguments you cannot goad me into any further responses.......there's none so blind as those who won't see.

Mike

 

[Smudger]

It seems to me that every time we get anyone harping on about CC they always seem to have loads of letters after there name and a leading authority on the subject.
Now when someone says its not man made etc etc they get branded a *****, surely to have a balanced discusion on any subject you have to have at least two points of view :?:

Martin

But Martin, this is a fallacy.
If you go to a doctor because you are ill, do you choose one who is well qualified and eminent in his field, or a man off the street who has no knowledge but strong opinions? Which one would give you advice you could trust?

Remember how those people got the letters after their names - they don't come from cornflake packets.

Why does there have to be a 'discussion' on every topic? Should there be a discussion on whether or not robbery and murder are good or bad things? Or do we agree that they are bad things and discuss what we are going to do about it?

 

[Smudger]

Mmmm..scary given that, from what I can gather, most education is now slanted in favour of passing SAT tests with multi-choice questions and any concept of evaluating the pro's and con's of the why's and wherefore's of anything has long gone out of the window.

Not true.

 

[Peter T]

Why only go back to 1870?

If you go back far enough this part of the world was sub-tropical!

People like Paul Ehrlich and Lowell Ponte have been predicting global catastrophe since the 60's, all of which has proved to be nonsense, and yet we are still expected to take heed of idiots like these.

 

[Digit]

I am not mistaking UK with world temps my friend. The climate IS warming, no argument.
Man made?
Of course the world is warming, it has been warming since the middle of the 19 Century.
According to NASA, and others, the world's temp is now no different to the mid 1980s. This using satellite info.
BUT that does NOT alter the fact that the seas haven't risen by anywhere near the doom sayer's predictions, the temp figures, along with sea level predictions have repeatedly been down sized.
The Earth has been colder and warmer in the recent past, it has had higher CO2 levels also.
Are you aware that two European settlements have recently been revealed by retreating glaciers. This means that within modern European history mountains were occupied to higher levels than they currently are.
To me that argument is NOT whether the planet is in a long term warming trend, it is are we responsible?
But to return to my original question. What are the schools going to teach? Al Bore's DVDs were banned from schools by the British courts recently as being biased and based on poor science, the challenge was mounted by those who produced sufficient evidence to win the case.
I also repeat that the IPCC fiddled the original graphs to eliminate known climate variations, that they have had to withdraw the 'Hockey Stick'. Are these the people you wish to believe?

Roy.

 

[tnimble]

The current global temperature trend is upwards, not downwards as you stated. Since records began in 1870, the hottest eleven individual years have been in the last 12 years. Don't confuse global temperatures with UK temperatures.

Given that there is currently a natural trend for slightly cooler climate (wobble in the earth's axis, solar activity), the fact that we are currently in the warmest period for the last 140 years should lead even the most sceptical to start thinking.

No it aint, yes it is, don't have to and no it should not strictly.

There is a gradual rise in temperature, however such rises in temperature have cured throughout the history (there has been a lot of study on that subject to see how life evolved on earth, etcetera) Also the much more significant rises have cured in the past without us being there with all our stress on the environment. The extremeness of the last decade, the rate of metling of polar ice seems to have a very direct relation to the enormous amount of solar activity with temperature spikes just after large eruptions on the sun.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there is no CC, there is, but its less related or even not related at all to the terrible things we do on this platen than what politicians and some scientists claim. If you want to change (ad we have to, we're barbaric) do it for the right reasons.

 

[Digit]

Peter. When I first started to study this matter, back in the 70s, the same people were using the same info to argue for an ice age within a human lifetime!
The Russians were even planning to melt the northern polar cap to prevent it!
This may interest posters...

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/200 ... arison.gif

The upper one is the IPPC's fiddled version and the lower one is the original.
Here is my source.
David R. Legates is Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

He seems to be from the usual big-oil funded circle so beloved of the Republican political elite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates

 

[MIGNAL]

He seems to be from the usual big-oil funded circle so beloved of the Republican political elite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates

Him n' George W. Still, rather them than all those thousands of scientists picking the pockets of various goverments. I guess if they weren't in receipt of these grants they'd all be signing on the dole.

 

[Digit]

That doesn't make him wrong Jake or anybody else right. I have other authors if you wish and do you have any evidence for that?

Roy.

 

[Peter T]

I guess if they weren't in receipt of these grants they'd all be signing on the dole.

We can only hope!!

 

[Jake]

I didn't write that /\

It doesn't of itself make him wrong, but I always find it amusing that MMCC 'disbelievers' view MMCC as a big business/government conspiracy, ignoring the fact that the minority of scientists who have lost the argument are almost entirely funded by erm big business and (US) government.

Evidence? I don't think it is much of a secret that Marshall and so on are funded by big oil. They have a right to fund whatever research they like - it's a shame (in my view) that they were allowed to have such a poisonous hold on government policy in the states- but thankfully that looks likely to change even under McCain.

 

[Good Surname or what ?]

I can hardly believe some of what I have read on this thread.

I've been 30 years in the oil business. I currently sell software used to model the earth and help find/produce oil & gas. My customers are the world's leading oil companies.

Let me assure you that even in "big oil" the consensus amongst scientifically educated people is that the production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) contributes to the greenhouse effect which contributes to "global warming". The naysayers are so few as to be statistically insignificant.

 

[Digit]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 051607.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rming.html

Insignificant?

Roy.

 

[Good Surname or what ?]

Roy,

Note I said that amongst scientists in "big oil" the naysayers are statistically insignificant. There will continue to be some vested interests that deny it. No doubt some believe, but publicly deny for their own reasons.

Whether you or anybodyelse "believes" in man-made climate change is largely irrelevant. If it's true, we probably can't do anything much to slow or stop it now. But that doesn't mean we should not try.

Whatever happens "we" will continue to exploit the world's fossil fuels until they are exhausted because the cost of change is too great. However, I believe we have already reached "peak oil" so change will soon be forced on us. You might find this interesting http://www.chrismartenson.com/peak_oil

For what it's worth I try to use the earth's resources sparingly - though I do drive a 3.2L car . I drive it sensibly, turn off the tap when I clean my teeth and compost and recycle my waste - much as I have since the early '80s. On the other hand I fly to Africa monthly - so have a HUGE carbon footprint.

Perhaps overall your lifestyle may be "greener" than mine. However, in my experience, with climate change naysayers it's often a desire to avoid change in their own behaviour/contribution that drives the denial, rather than rigorous scientific analysis, and they search for evidence to support their entrenched view.

I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong; for our grandchildren's sake.
Phil

 

[Digit]

I look at this way Phil. Climates will change whatever we do, I do not believe that we are the prime movers in the present trend.
Aside from all of that I can give a thousand good reasons for reducing pollution, litter and waste in general.
What I object to is governments, and other bodies, jumping onto a revenue raising band wagon.
An example, we must re-cycle X percentage of household waste 'cos we are running out of landfill sites.
That is a direct lie!

Roy.

 

[tnimble]

He seems to be from the usual big-oil funded circle so beloved of the Republican political elite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates

I hope I don't spoil the suprice, but each and every scientist and scientific body is and has been funded by industry. The only chnage is that nowadays also universities are partle / about mainly funded by industry. The current amout of bias on the research done is less than before. To name of the peaksare the high days of Bell Labs, AT&T, Xerox Parc, Philips Natlab etcetera.

Its when government starts to fund research and form study groups we must start to be aware. Their funds are only put into action is they really really need to have it researched or need a 'scientific' result to back something up or sway away something that not fits in the 'bigger plan'.

 

[tnimble]

I look at this way Phil. Climates will change whatever we do, I do not believe that we are the prime movers in the present trend.
Aside from all of that I can give a thousand good reasons for reducing pollution, litter and waste in general.
What I object to is governments, and other bodies, jumping onto a revenue raising band wagon.
An example, we must re-cycle X percentage of household waste 'cos we are running out of landfill sites.
That is a direct lie!

Roy.

Hear hear!

Mind i'm vegan, don't own a car and don't want to, i've the least amount of household garbage of the whole street (and that includes shavings, trowing them away I find a difficult task, but I have to at the moment due to circumstance I can't use them or recycle them).

I've a long list of thing that should change in this world. A world in which I'm ashamed of being a member of mankind. And that not only because of the gross environmental misdoings.

 

[gatesmr2]

Think you misunderstood or i did not put it quite right Smudger

What i meant was simply if you see anyone on TV or in a newspaper talking about how CC change affects us, how we are all doomed etc etc they are certified un-questionable world leaders on the subject.

Then they tend to offer up some poor sod from a big oil, manufacturing or some other large compamy with an equally large carbon footprint to reply.

Just think it would be nice to have an even discusion, with figures you can make it seem like the moon is in fact father away than the sun, rabbits are planning world domination, or in fact the government really does do what they think is best for us.

Why does it seem we that the more we find out the less we really know :?

Think the term divide and conquer comes to mind :?:

Martin