Cold Water On "global Warming"

[VinnieK]

There seem to be an awful lot of economists, lobbyists, journalists and holders of MBAs on that list of speakers. In fact many of the apparently few scientists present often seem to be in fields only slightly related to climate science, have been out of the game for decades, or are geography graduates who've rather grandly adopted the title of "climatologist".

 

It's a public relations exercise, not a serious presentation or debate on the current state of the science.

[ai_Droid]

i seen many a program that showed that global warming wasent a new thing in the world, that its happined b4, and it will happin again, what ever we do to try and stop it,

 

The only one I can think of in the last few years is the 'global warming swindle' that's mentioned above, and that's been conclusively shown to be rot.

 

Look at it this way: you see ten doctors and nine of them told you that you'd die in six months if you didn't stop eating doughnuts and one doctor who was paid by the donut industry told you to keep eating them, you're fine. Who would you believe?

 

Science needs skepticism, that's the very nature of it. But you have to understand how difficult it is to come to a consensus of opinion, particularly in an issue such as this where there's so much money and opposition behind science being wrong.

 

the thing is, you can put what ever spin you want on it to make it sound better or worst depending on what side your want to listern to,

one things for sure, its going to make a few ppl a lot of cash and keep a few million ppl in work, so some gd will come out of what ever side you think is right

 

If you think the money to be made from preventing global warming is anything like the money wrapped up in the industries that cause it, then you're a long long way wide of the mark.

 

You're also showing it as some 50/50 argument, it's nothing like that. The bulk of science is behind mankinds activities being the largest contributary factor to global warming. There's a very small smattering of resistance to this. Another growing group are against the IPCC's conservative models and say global warming is actually much worse than they've projected.

 

But all this aside. If there is no man made global warming, increasing renewables and increasing efficiency is a win anyway. We reduce pollution, we reduce costs, we reduce the dependance on hydrocarbons which we know for certain are running out anyway, we reduce the dependance on the middle east which is the main cause of political instability currently and we can potentially all live better lives. Where exactly is the downside in increasing efficiency and reducing pollution?

 

Finally, watch this:

 

Great vid.

[mollag]

Cant remember what prog it was but somebody mentioned global warming and was turned on by the others" fuck off, its climate change now mate, global warming is so yesterday" So Python!

Me, its all up there with acid rain, ozone depletion, el nino and all the other fashionable hooks and grabs that are pushed out as justification for snouts in troughs, throw in millenium bugs, the world will collapse because of aids, the birdflu/cjvd will kill us all and hey, its all over man---lets just party.

 

 

As for reallity, Germany is to close all its coal mines in the next ten years, not to reduce carbon emmissions but cos its cheaper to import from SA/Australia.

 

Real sincere about saving the planet---all those carbon whiffs shipping coal round the world, nice!

 

Save the planet will not get in the way of profit while we have capatalist govts, which is as long as i can see ahead.

[ai_Droid]

Me, its all up there with acid rain, ozone depletion, el nino and all the other fashionable hooks and grabs that are pushed out as justification for snouts in troughs, throw in millenium bugs, the world will collapse because of aids, the birdflu/cjvd will kill us all and hey, its all over man---lets just party.

 

Some great examples there.

 

Acid Rain: There are, as a result of a rise in awareness, now a number of international protocols with governments bound to reduce harmful air emissions. This wasn't a fake scare, this wasn't hot air and no action, this was a great example of a problem that was brought to the world stage and action was taken to limit the consequences. Theres still pollution, there's still work to do, but our lives have been improved as a result of the efforts so far.

 

Ozone depletion: The remarkable result of the rise in awareness of ozone depletion was the unprecidented signing of a protocol by nearly 200 countries to ban cfc's. The results of this ban have resulted in a demonstratable decrease in cfc's in the atmosphere, and a reversal of the depletion. The ozone issue is a great example of human actions creating serious environmental change, and human re-action making a difference to reverse it. This is still a problem though, the reversal is a very slow process, the cycle of cfc's is measured in decades.

 

Aids: 33 million people live with aids. 2 million a year catch it, and 2 million a year die from it. You don't consider that significant enough to take action? The infection rate is levelling out, largely due to prevention efforts, the survival rate is climbing. If the desease had been ignored, the infectoin and death rates woudl be much higher. How can you deny aids?

 

Every one, a high profile issue that's been improved by large scale intervention.

[mollag]

ERm ive been over my post and cant find an aids denial? perhaps you could point me to it.

The purpose of my post was not to deny any of these things had a basis in fact, rather they dont hold the armagedon scenario that the pundits proported on the day and no mention of many of them now occurs.

 

In hindsight we can see earth shattering" we are all gonna die" sensationalists lose interest and move to the latest fashion earner. Not a day goes past without a scare story sensational load of shite being pushed by the press, "a report today says if you eat x it will kill you", with respect how much of this are we expected to find credible? I plainly lost my confidence in "experts" many years ago. Gis a clue, what will be the armaggedon bus word in 3 years time ? Carbon emissions? its used to sell cars now.

Your social conscience is laudable but like the old story of Peter and the Wolf, the guy that cried wolf was the baddie.

[ai_Droid]

ERm ive been over my post and cant find an aids denial? perhaps you could point me to it.

The purpose of my post was not to deny any of these things had a basis in fact, rather they dont hold the armagedon scenario that the pundits proported on the day and no mention of many of them now occurs.

 

Exactly, because they weren't ignored!

[Skeddan]

Save the planet will not get in the way of profit while we have capatalist govts, which is as long as i can see ahead.

'Save the markets' might work better. In any case the planet doesn't need saving from climate change - it will survive just fine. At worst there might be mass extinctions, but life will continue, and the planet will still be there. Ok maybe our species might be one of the ones that might come off badly - so perhaps 'save our species' might be more accurate than 'save our planet'. I reckon even at worst millions will survive despite famines, plagues conflicts etc that might follow widespread devastation - people are pretty resiliant. However the global economy as we know it could well fall apart. Trouble is it has to be within quite a short timeframe (generally less than 12 years) to make a dent in financial forecasts. Then when too late there will be a sudden rush to do things.

[VinnieK]

I reckon even at worst millions will survive despite famines, plagues conflicts etc that might follow widespread devastation

 

Which isn't that much given that the human population is in billions.

 

In any case, surely denying global warming is a threat is a position more suited to the "save our markets" description, given that it seeks to preserve the status quo and in doing so protect markets from the effects of new legislation and restrictions regarding industrial and consumer activities.

[Miss Take]

I believe things if they're explained to me in simple terms and have a funky soundtrack and maybe someone fit presenting it. If it's complicated, I'll just choose to ignore it

 

Fxd ur post

[immortalpuppet]

[gazza]

I believe things if they're explained to me in simple terms and have a funky soundtrack and maybe someone fit presenting it. If it's complicated, I'll just choose to ignore it

 

Fxd ur post

 

wow u can use a computer, and u can edit posts to try and be funny, just because u dont agree with somebodys view,

 

give yourself a big pat on the back for being so funny and smart,

 

anyhows,

i would agree with what Skeddan said, earth will go on, but we may not,

 

global warming has happind times b4, and its going to happin again and again

it is the way earth works, and how ever much we try to stop it, it wont make much diffrence, all we can do is slow it down,

which i dowt is going to happin, cause you got china who is going to keep on growing,

so while yes mankind may have speeded the cycle up, it would have happined what ever way the world turned out,

 

earth has a cycle, it cant be stopped, maybe that we have made it come faster, who knows,

the earth will heat up, you know that new thing thats never happined b4 (globla warming!!!),

but its not new,

[Albert Tatlock]

i would agree with what Skeddan said, earth will go on, but we may not,

MF will survive. Lots of people on here tend to go on.

[mollag]

You know things are bad when the jargon smoothly cuts in "global warming denial"--- another new thought crime, the armageddon business is taking on all the trappings of religion----the snake oil, mid western style of course-------you are all doomed, its all your fault cos you are all sinners, but all is not lost brothers and sisters, i can save you, just offer me blind faith, believe everything we say and, ahem, put your hand in your pocket and pay then all will be well.

[ai_Droid]

You know things are bad when the jargon smoothly cuts in "global warming denial"--- another new thought crime, the armageddon business is taking on all the trappings of religion----the snake oil, mid western style of course-------you are all doomed, its all your fault cos you are all sinners, but all is not lost brothers and sisters, i can save you, just offer me blind faith, believe everything we say and, ahem, put your hand in your pocket and pay then all will be well.

 

I'm not running around like a headless chicken screaming about bird flu, and it's certainly not blind faith. I hope I've demonstrated on these forums over time that I'm one of the most skeptical people around, I'll happily challenge pretty much anything. I'm not sure what it would take to convince people like you, particularly after the people who are least likely to be convinced have already accepted the conclusoins.

 

In this case, I've got my faith in the science and the 191 world leaders that have ratified the UNFCCC and not digger drivers.

 

As for paying, what are you being asked to pay for? Be more energy efficient and pay less. Recycle more, which is free. Use your car less, save money. Where exactly is the big scam? Part of why the worlds leadership has been so hard to convince on this subject is because industry and commerce stands to lose so much from a downturn in consumerism that getting to carbon neutrality requires.

 

From the article linked below:

 

"The UK Government carried out an analysis of the cost of stabilising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 550 parts per million, assuming that the world’s leading industrial nations acted together. It reported in the 2003 Energy White Paper that ”the cost impact of effectively tackling climate change would be very small – equivalent in 2050 to just a small fraction (0.5-2.0%) of the nation’s wealth, as measured by GDP, which by then will have tripled as compared to now”.

 

2%? Kerching.

 

Gazza: If we've caused warming, then that's the proof we can make a difference. If you can be arsed, read this:

 

http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

 

I'm guessing from your posts that you can't though.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'm not running around like a headless chicken screaming about bird flu...

That's pretty difficult for any headless chicken to do.