the great global warming swindle

[Anonymous]

well, jacob as usual, you make pedantic statements, and then
conclude with the phrase that it is actually a hypothosis, well strike me down with a feather, that is not what we are being told by allegedly "the good and the great" we are told that categorically it is true.

There is no categorical or absolute truth in science - it's all theory and hypothesis confirmed or otherwise by experimental or other data. You only get absolute truth in religion (until you see another light!).

snip i want cold hard real world facts.

What for you would constitute "cold hard real world facts" apropos climate change hypotheses? There seems to be a vast amount of cold (warming!) hard facts on this subject, which bits are missing? What would convince you?

cheers
Jacob

 

[Anonymous]

What sort of proof would you want?

cheers
Jacob

I'd like to see a long term set of data that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and changes in global temperature. I'd like to see evidence that CO2 production leads temperature variation.

Gill

Oh that's easy - just read the research it's all there. Thats what the whole issue is about :roll: :roll: Where have you been? :lol:
Start with the hockey stick graph, look at ice core research, and so on and on and on . Many hours of (un)happy reading!

cheers
Jacob :lol:

 

[engineer one]

ok jacob but what about "global warming" in the 1420's????

paul :wink:

 

[Gill]

Mr Grimsdale

You know what evidence I'm looking for. If it is there, where is it? Don't just say, "It's out there, look harder". I've looked for it and I can't find it although I can find evidence to the contrary. Believe me, I want to find the evidence you're describing - it would be so much more comforting if I could find it and accept its credibility.

Gill

 

[Anonymous]

ok jacob but what about "global warming" in the 1420's????

paul :wink:

What about it? You weren't there then were you? If not then you don't have any "cold hard real world facts" so it means nothing to you and presumably didn't happen as far as you know.

cheers
Jacob

 

[Anonymous]

Mr Grimsdale

You know what evidence I'm looking for.

No I don't - I've really no idea, there seems to be evidence in plenty out there.
You seem to want a much higher standard of proof/evidence than the majority of the scientific community.
You must think that a bit of evidence is missing. Which bit? If we knew what you wanted we could help you find it!
Er - I've got to go off and do a bit of work so won't be replying to anything for some time! See yer later.:lol:

cheers
Jacob [/quote]

 

[engineer one]

no jacob you are wrong since the concept by many scientists is to ignore things which did happen 600 years ago, and state that it has never happened before. :?

paul :wink:

 

[Benchwayze]

Says Ike, who seems to drive a four-wheel 'off-road' vehicle. :lol:
John

 

[Benchwayze]

What sort of proof would you want?

cheers
Jacob

I'd like to see a long term set of data that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and changes in global temperature. I'd like to see evidence that CO2 production leads temperature variation.

Gill

That data was presented in the program last week. It showed that temperatures went down, during a period of high, economic 'boom' 1940 - 1970/ish. After the boom slowed, temperatures rose. The opposite of the scenario we are supposed to believe.
John

 

[engineer one]

there is still one massive piece of maths that everyone seems to dismiss.
CO 2 represents about 1/2% of total atmospheric gases. no one has yet shown which gases are displaced by the extra production of CO2, and what the real effect of this is.

remember in the nineties we were all told to replace our fridges because the freon in them was making holes in the ozone layer. well one fridge mountain later has the effect reduced?? don't seem to hear much about it these days :?

when everybody says i am wrong, but they do so by ignoring my questions then i wonder who is actually right :roll:

paul :wink:

 

[Gill]

That data was presented in the program last week... The opposite of the scenario we are supposed to believe.
John

That's very much what I'm driving at, John. If this data is erroneous or controversial, I'd expect a corrected version to be published somewhere. The absence of a rebuttal is significant in itself.

Paul - The BBC certainly reported last year that the hole had stopped widening and scientists are predicting that it will be 'cured' within sixty years. However, this information might now be out of date - I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the hole in the ozone layer is no longer there but I can't remember where I heard it.

As for which gases have been displaced... I might be happy to consider that after we've settled what impact CO2 is having :lol: !

Gill

 

[Anonymous]

laboratory tests are no more real than computer models, they can be biased to produce the results you want.

I have refrained from contributing here because of ridiculous statements like this. Ill informed cynicism is not the same as being open minded

Maybe we should simply guess.
Forget investigation/experimentation/modelling (i.e good science) etc., it is no matter than such approaches exposed quantum mechanics to us and a developing understanding of the universe itself.

The global weather system is extremely complex and the best models are flawed (all models are compromises - ask any scientist), but they are all we have to help us make an informed decision.

The only people who can really understand and act on this problem are the scientists and climatologists who work on it day-in, day-out.

 

[Canadian Scroller]

I recall a cartoon many years ago with a man who had a new invention and was trying to market it.

"Well Mr Fahrenheit, I am sure people will know if it is cold enough to put some more coal on the fire or if they are warm enough to remove their sweater!"

I have read though much of the debate on this thread. There is as much sound information as there is unfounded.

The bottom line is we live on a planet full of resources, if we squander our resources and pollute the environment in search of profits then we are hardly a civilization worth saving. If we are an intelligent species we will do what we can to save the planet for future generations of all life.

I believe that over the course of history global warming and cooling trends have always been present. I also believe we are not helping the situation with the way we squander energy and resources. In our efforts to stay warmer in winter and cooler in summer we have extracted a great deal of energy and released it into the atmosphere, It is impossible for that not to affect the environment as a whole.

I am sure that any adult would scream at a child for leaving the window open when the heat is on in the house. Yet we are doing the same with our own planet. It doesnt hurt to conserve and keep things clean.

 

[Anonymous]

That data was presented in the program last week... The opposite of the scenario we are supposed to believe.
John

That's very much what I'm driving at, John. If this data is erroneous or controversial, I'd expect a corrected version to be published somewhere. The absence of a rebuttal is significant in itself.
snip

Lotta info here - including your graph blip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur ... 1000_years
If you choose to look at just a particular part of the graph you don't get the picture - you need to look at the whole thing and the data too.
There's non so blind etc :roll:

cheers
Jacob

 

[Argee]

Since "global warming" or "climate change" became an "issue" back in the early 70s, it appears to have gained disproportionate, even fashionable, support - without the much-needed balance of debate. It seems to have got to a point where it is viewed as disrespectful to challenge it. I don't think there are many topics where opinions are so firmly entrenched, yet - it seems - often without evidence or scientific basis.

Loads of "facts" are trotted out ad nauseam - but when carefully examined, bear more resemblance to folklore or old wives' tales. The classic is probably the rise in sea level that will occur when (not, apparently, if) the polar ice melts. It occurs to me that there is a finite amount of water on the planet, from which the ice formed in the first place. If melting occurs, then the water will replace (in mass) the melting ice - because if the ice does melt, it will leave a void to be filled. When the ice cube melts in your glass (another finite amount of liquid), the glass does not overflow.

My simplistic view is taken in the total absence of anything more believable, to me, than the opinion of the head of the research centre on the ice cap - bearing in mind that I remember the winter of 1963, the view that another Ice Age was on its way in the early 70s, then the summer of 1976 - all climatic "blips" that we will probably see again.

In a nutshell, as a long-term cynic, my view could be summarised as believing the "climate change" issue to be little more than a stealth tax, driven by promoting fear. Does anyone really believe that, for example, increasing flight prices (via taxation) will actually lessen air traffic, as it is, supposedly, designed to do?

Of course it makes sense to re-cycle, to make the very best use of all finite resources, to clean up after us for future generations, but then it always has done. In real terms, this planet has coped with so much already (yet with so minute an evidential impact), that this topic will probably still be running several millenia down the road - without my input, obviously!

Ray.

 

[engineer one]

why is any cynicism ill informed. on certain subjects we all have less knowledge than is ideal, it is the nature of the beast.

the whole value of quantum mechanics seems to me more readily understandable than climate change, since having checked again the various references, the experiments since they are working at an atomic or sub atomic level can be readily undertaken within the lab, and thus have much more value.

i seem to remember much of this work initiated with the expansion of space travel and the discovery that certain things happened in a way in which einsteins' theories and certain other existing theories did not make sense. so the questions were asked, and eventually answered by practical experiments which had a smaller number of potential variables.

therefore to relate this to climatology is rather a stretch i think.

when a guy in an office in west london can make money predicting weather using sun spot activity, and the weather bureaus with all their cray machines seem to get it more wrong than right it does seem prudent to question the various expertises. :roll:

at this point seems to me that all of us who question the climate change theory are rather like the kid in the hans christian anderson story about the kings new clothes :twisted: :lol:

and like argee i like to think that my cold drink with ice is a suitable laboratory for the whole theory of water displacement. :roll: :?

paul :wink:

i know that i know very little, so am prepared to ask the dumb questions to learn more, but am surprised how many people just accept???

 

[Gill]

That data was presented in the program last week... The opposite of the scenario we are supposed to believe.
John

That's very much what I'm driving at, John. If this data is erroneous or controversial, I'd expect a corrected version to be published somewhere. The absence of a rebuttal is significant in itself.
snip

Lotta info here - including your graph blip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur ... 1000_years
If you choose to look at just a particular part of the graph you don't get the picture - you need to look at the whole thing and the data too.
There's non so blind etc :roll:

cheers
Jacob

Yet another useless link.

As for your other comment - there's none so rude etc :roll: .

Gill

 

[Nick W]

Loads of "facts" are trotted out ad nauseam - but when carefully examined, bear more resemblance to folklore or old wives' tales. The classic is probably the rise in sea level that will occur when (not, apparently, if) the polar ice melts. It occurs to me that there is a finite amount of water on the planet, from which the ice formed in the first place. If melting occurs, then the water will replace (in mass) the melting ice - because if the ice does melt, it will leave a void to be filled. When the ice cube melts in your glass (another finite amount of liquid), the glass does not overflow..

The problem with that thought is that the vast majority of the polar ice caps are not floating in/on the sea, but are sitting on the land mass at the poles and thereabouts. If you want to know how much ice that is see here

And, as it appears that I can't stay away, :evil: ](*,) ](*,)

there is still one massive piece of maths that everyone seems to dismiss.
CO 2 represents about 1/2% of total atmospheric gases. no one has yet shown which gases are displaced by the extra production of CO2, and what the real effect of this is.

The extra CO2 does not displace anything else, it adds to the toal volume.

Think of it like this: Your wife thinks you are trying to loose weight, so when she offers you a cuppa you say 'Oh, yes please love, milk and just the six sugars' - all virtuous like. As soon as she leaves the kitchen you ladle in another 12. Now, nothing that was already in the cup has been lost (assuming the cup to be large enough), but the concentration of sugar has gone up to (nearly) three times its original value. The concentration of water, tea leaf extracts and cow extract has fallen in comparison.

Now please do me a favour and ask the mods to change your moniker. I keep having visions of innocent people out there in interweb land saying, 'There's this Engineer on UKW and he says..., and he's an engineer so it must be true'

A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.
— Lenin

 

[Anonymous]

Since "global warming" or "climate change" became an "issue" back in the early 70s, it appears to have gained disproportionate, even fashionable, support - without the much-needed balance of debate. It seems to have got to a point where it is viewed as disrespectful to challenge it. I don't think there are many topics where opinions are so firmly entrenched, yet - it seems - often without evidence or scientific basis.

The debate has been going on for much longer than you think. the idea was first raised in the 19C. It's not "disrespectful" to challenge , it's just stupid - there is a huge mountain of information and detailed thorough research out there.

Loads of "facts" are trotted out ad nauseam - but when carefully examined, bear more resemblance to folklore or old wives' tales. The classic is probably the rise in sea level that will occur when (not, apparently, if) the polar ice melts. It occurs to me that there is a finite amount of water on the planet, from which the ice formed in the first place. If melting occurs, then the water will replace (in mass) the melting ice - because if the ice does melt, it will leave a void to be filled. When the ice cube melts in your glass (another finite amount of liquid), the glass does not overflow.

Floating ice does not raise sea levels (or water levels in a glass) when it melts. This is well known. Archimedes spotted it a long time ago. The ice melt problem are the land based ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica and other mountain areas. If these melt - as they are doing, the water runs in to the sea and sea levels rise by many metres and life as we know it on earth changes radically

cheers
Jacob

 

[Argee]

The debate has been going on for much longer than you think. the idea was first raised in the 19C. It's not "disrespectful" to challenge , it's just stupid - there is a huge mountain of information and detailed thorough research out there.

It may well have been raised in the 19th. Century, but the current momentum has it's roots in the early 70s. I must, it seems, apologise for being "stupid."

Floating ice does not raise sea levels (or water levels in a glass) when it melts.

I was not suggesting that polar ice caps were floating, but that there was a finite amount of water on the planet. Previous freezing and thawing seems to have taken quite a while, as generations go, yet modern pundits seem to suggest that were now in an headlong spiral.

The scientists I choose to listen to seem - to me - to be just as eminent as anyone else in their field, but - because they're not those that others agree with - I must be wrong. I'll just have to live with the disappointment.

Ray.