the biggest crock of sh1te - climate change

[rtbiscuit]

Anyone else watch the news recently and find them selves getting angry at the lies being peddled as the gospel truth on climate change. Apparently the ipcc is now 95% certain we're to blame. Yet we're now entering a 12 year of cooling. I'm not sure if there are many people on here who are green warriors, I'm guessing not many driving big petrol cars. I' m all for alternative energy sources to reduce the need and reliance on coal and oil. But what's being peddled at the moment is just used as a basis to tax the crap out of the electorate. Why do we listen to an institution like the ipcc that is mainly funded by the governments and isn't independent. If your not sure which way to swing have a read of this http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick/. Also I'm not a daily mail fan but according to this the attic is growing not shrinking http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html. People need to start doing their own research instead of blindly following the manure that's being fed to us from the top. Rant over

[ioneabee]

My attic is getting smaller with all the crap I'm storing in it :lol:

[glrnet]

Well said Rich, Joy and I were discussing the very same thing on Friday, it's a good job the ipcc aren't bookmakers!!!

[jumping350]

i think its a crock, i saw a documentary where its got something to do with the sun or moon getting closer which is what heats the earth up and affects gravitational pull which in turn affects our weather more...not the most scientific conclusion by me

but agree with biscuit just cos they say it they think we all will believe!!

[rtbiscuit]

What's scary is the amount of people who just follow it blindly, just because some people in white coats have said it. Climate change is just a theory, and that's all it is, its not been proved and there is certainly a lot of evidence out there that disproves it. The fact that we're currently in a motion where our planet is further from the sun, the fact that the sun is actually in a cooling cycle. The fact that this has happened before a long time ago in the earths history long before big industry existed. We're just passengers on the planet, yes we should treat it with respect, but I think it very much does its own thing regardless of us.

[JetSet]

Yet we're now entering a 12 year of cooling.

 

Indeed, the reason? Almost certainly due to the sun going through a new minimum. The Sun is now at it's quietest point for a century and it's likely to stay that way for at least one more 11 year cycle, possibly longer. These quiet periods are well known to science, the last period was called the Dalton minimum, the one before that the Maunder minimum and these both coincided with periods of global cooling, the famous Frost Fairs on the River Thames were during one of these minimums. Most people think of The Sun as being in a constant state, it's there shining away in the sky but at the surface there's a lot going on. The lack of activity means the Suns output is down maybe only 0.1% but that's enough to have quite an effect on the weather we see on Earth.

 

Pete

[AMT]

I'm all for heating us up and running over squirrels.... I really don't think a massive change of engines to electric is gonna be enough now. Theres plenty other stuff out there that causes it too lol

[scobie140]

Did we not have an ice age then thaw out again etc well before we started burning fossil fuel? I'm sure I watched something a few years back saying that it was all just a natural cycle that the earth goes through over time.

[RickyZ]

It's a big lie spun by scientists so the government can charge me £490 ved every year it was global warming a few years ago until it started getting cooler again

[AK350Z]

Don't think I've got enough hours in the day to write the reply that i'd like, but I'll stick a couple of points in.

 

Firstly Rich, anything in the daily Mail is to be treated with the utmost scepticism. Comparing one single year with the next is identical bobbins to the opposite stance that one year warmer than the previous one is irrefutable proof that it's getting hotter.

 

Secondly, everybody seriously needs to get a grip and separate the conspiracy theories that the IPCC designs policy in any way. They merely aggregate peer reviewed papers, and they encompass both sides of the argument. If you want to rant about the added tax burden, you'll need to do that to your elected representatives, because they decide what shapes future policy.

 

Likewise the assumption that we insignificant beings couldn't possibly have a significant effect on the planet is deeply flawed, you just have to go to one of our current mega-cities to see that. It is certainly not beyond the pale that we could be having an effect, and only by enacting our best tool - the scientific method, are we going to find out if that is the case.

 

People expect this stuff to be solved overnight, our short, finite, lifetimes present significant challenges to accumulating data on geological time-scales, especially given that the modern information age is only decades old. Past data is relatively concrete, but how would you go about predicting the actual chuffing future? Think thats easy? Of course it's not, and we've only been trying for a handful of years.

 

Theories are not facts. That's the point. Expecting a theory or model to provide absolute certainty is crazy - yet the media ignore that and present it as failure. You can tell it's not possible to build a 100% accurate model, because the're aren't any scientists winning the lottery every week.

[coldel]

Hmmm, I have a few views on this although I openly admit to not actually reading extensively either side of the argument:

 

1. Yes the media will blow it all up and make a story out of it, it's their job to

2. It is very possible to write models that predict future behaviour based on previous experience even if that data is partial or incomplete, it was my job for ten years and still is part of my job now

3. Humans must be altering the climate of this planet if any sort of common sense is applied, you can't create the levels of non naturally produced gasses etc without having an impact on the environment in which it exists

4. Yes the government will tax us on it, but there are hundreds of stealth taxes out there that contribute much more in the way of income than some random tax on cars and if anything this sort of report is aimed at big business and not individuals who happen to own larger than average engined cars

 

Problem is its more than just carbon emissions, we were at a zoo with little Alfie at the weekend listening to some guy talking about Lemers, apparently 85% of rain forest in northern madagascar in which they live has been cut down and burnt. I am sure there are a thousand similar stories just like it.

 

Without some sort of shock story or massive kick up the backside this planet with be shot to pieces in 50 years time. If it takes this report to do it whether its nonsense or not, then fair play because I haven't seen anything else work so far.

[sipar69]

I'm all for heating us up and running over squirrels.... I really don't think a massive change of engines to electric is gonna be enough now. Theres plenty other stuff out there that causes it too lol

 

I'm all for running over people who run over any animal deliberately.

[rtbiscuit]

I'm all for responsible stewardship of the planet, I'm no green fan, but i'm not a resources whore either. But my issue is more that only one side of the story is portrayed and sold as the gods honest truth. Both sides of the argument should be portrayed and let the people come to their own conclusions. Green policies I like include using sustainable resources and going back to natural products like wool as an insulator etc. I like the idea of moving away from a reliance on oil. I don't mind renewable energy. Alongside other power sources and not just reliant on one. We've got all this coast line and wave energy, yet all the money is spent on solar and wind. But to deny that other aspects other than humans might be a cause is very short sighted. The fact they use data no further back than say 150 years is short sighted. I struggle to see why I should be charged over the odds so that we follow a set of rules, when America, china and India eat through our carbon savings in 2 weeks.

[coldel]

I am not a greenie either

 

But as far as I read into it (and as I say it wasn't very far) is that they were not trying to prove the hypothesis that humans are creating all the climate change, the hypothesis being tested was that we are not causing climate change, which has been proven false. From what I have read over the years there are cynics who simply put it down to natural causes and that we should't put in place any counter measures as its out of our hands, the point of this was that we can do something, even if it is not a total solution. And that we can only do something about it if we are causing some of it in the first place.

 

As far as I can see there were lots of individual papers that told slightly varying stories, but this is the first truly global report pulling it all together and making a single storyline from it. Of course we are not the sole cause of all temperature changes on this planet, thats daft, but to think that we don't need some serious global polices put in place to stem carbon emissions and the like is probably more daft.

[sipar69]

Hmmm, I have a few views on this although I openly admit to not actually reading extensively either side of the argument:

 

1. Yes the media will blow it all up and make a story out of it, it's their job to

2. It is very possible to write models that predict future behaviour based on previous experience even if that data is partial or incomplete, it was my job for ten years and still is part of my job now

3. Humans must be altering the climate of this planet if any sort of common sense is applied, you can't create the levels of non naturally produced gasses etc without having an impact on the environment in which it exists

4. Yes the government will tax us on it, but there are hundreds of stealth taxes out there that contribute much more in the way of income than some random tax on cars and if anything this sort of report is aimed at big business and not individuals who happen to own larger than average engined cars

 

Problem is its more than just carbon emissions, we were at a zoo with little Alfie at the weekend listening to some guy talking about Lemers, apparently 85% of rain forest in northern madagascar in which they live has been cut down and burnt. I am sure there are a thousand similar stories just like it.

 

Without some sort of shock story or massive kick up the backside this planet with be shot to pieces in 50 years time. If it takes this report to do it whether its nonsense or not, then fair play because I haven't seen anything else work so far.

 

Agree with this. I'm not what you'd call a green or a leftie but I do think the fundamental problem is the belief that the world was put here for us to make use of and that everything on it is just for our benefit. That wasn't such a problem until industrialisation and massive population growth, but now it seems as though we are taking more than it can give. It freaks me out when I think I'll probably live to see tigers totally extinct in the wild and that's entirely down to the actions of people.

Edited September 29, 2013 by sipar69

[jell36]

Here's a question that I would like to know the answer to, if anybody has it. Why is an increase in carbon dioxide bad for planet Earth? I know it creates an insulative layer in our atmosphere which means more heat is trapped and I know it breaks down our o-zone layer which protects us from some of the suns heat. But we can't produce carbon dioxide, we can only extract what is already there which means at some point in the Earth's history, it was in our atmosphere. Also I remember reading that although the number of tress and rainforests has declined, which in turn means that the amount of carbon dioxide that is being recycled through the trees is less but there is also a lot less and much smaller forest fires now than there was in the past. Personally, I think there is a set amount of carbon released in to the atmosphere on a cycle, if we don't create the amount that should be there then mother nature will do it for us.

[coldel]

I think you answered your own question there? More carbon dioxide means more heat in atmosphere, this means ice caps melt and oceans rise. What happened previously is as you say, we had a natural ice age, more ice, less trees, but less CO to deal with and vice versa, but the planet needs tens of thousands of years to adjust. We have by increasing the CO artificially over a relatively short amount of time (and the decrease of forrest fires is minute compared to the levels of natural resource burn increase and in no way offsets it) gives the planet no time to adjust naturally. The ice caps melt and freeze periodically as far as I have read, the problem is that we have artificially whacked up the temperature so that they melt back too far and be unable to grow back in the natural course of things.

[jell36]

I get how that is bad for humans but it doesn't answer my question in how it is bad for the planet. There's no more carbon on the Earth now than there ever has been. A lot of the oil we burn comes from crushed fossilised trees. Many many years a go, those trees were alive and taking the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, when we burn oil, we are just returning the gasses to where they were. Also, as we have not even hit a third of the oil reserves yet there must have been a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past.

[coldel]

There is more carbon on the planet at this exact time than since humans began inhabiting it. Yes there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, but that was dictated by nature not by another intervention i.e. us. The levels basically go up and down around a natural mean, what we have done is whack them up falsely and subsequently the temperature way past that natural high that the planet would produce and can naturally cool down from. What you are basically looking at is heating the planet up to the point that so much ice melts, ocean levels rise and ground based life as we know it wiped out on a huge scale to the point it wont ever recover naturally in the cycle its meant to because the land mass does not exist to produce the life required to reduce the CO2 and subsequent heat.

 

As an analogy, its bit like driving your Zed into a garage on a set of rollers, closing the doors, having no fans on facing the car and firing the engine up. There is no natural flow of air into the front, the engine will heat up more than it should, the fans in the Zed will kick in but they will only last so long before they burn out and the engine heats up even more and goes bang.

[gsexr]

When i was at school about 35 years ago they said that the sun was getting closer every year and if the temperature rises by another 2 degrees max there will be no alligators left.

Anyone else remember being told that.

[ATTAK Z]

When i was at school about 35 years ago they said that the sun was getting closer every year and if the temperature rises by another 2 degrees max there will be no alligators left.

Anyone else remember being told that.

 

We'd better do something then ... and make it snappy !!!

[ioneabee]

More handbags for the missus ?

[rtbiscuit]

Like I said I'm all for sustainable and sensible stewardship. But the information being given is only half the story

[coldel]

Like I said I'm all for sustainable and sensible stewardship. But the information being given is only half the story

 

Absolutely. But so far industry has vastly won over sustainability, no one wants to give anything up. Shock tactics like this are necessary.

[AMT]

Sipar get back in your box and take a joke lol