Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Is he right to oppose the global warming myth?
24 Answers
http://www.dailymail....pe-climate-talks.html
/// He won't get the right to speak. The Parliament sadly doesn't even get the right to really influence the decisions at all. 'So this idea that somehow Nick Griffin is going to have any real influence on what happens in Copenhagen is a myth.'///
Well now there's democracy for you.
/// He won't get the right to speak. The Parliament sadly doesn't even get the right to really influence the decisions at all. 'So this idea that somehow Nick Griffin is going to have any real influence on what happens in Copenhagen is a myth.'///
Well now there's democracy for you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
He is welcome to his opinion. Whether you believe in the global warming theory or not, cutting pollution where possible can only be a good thing. If he is arguing we carry on using dirty techology when clleaner ones are available, just because he doesn't believe in Global Warming, is somewhat shortsighted.
The IPCC's computer models predict sea level change, temperature change and future climate.
These models are what the Governments of the world are basing their policies upon. The validity of these models are absolutely critical. They determine future policy. They determine where billions of pounds will be spent. The decisions made today by our Governments effect you, me and every other person on this plant.
Good job these models are right then isn't it!
Actually, no they're not right. How do I know this? Because the IPCC admit they're not right. They are spurious.
Throughout the document called, “Climate Change 2007” published by the IPCC, they repeatedly refer to their climate models as 'projections'. Hmmm. So what is a projection? Helpfully, the phrase is described in Glossary 49 as follows:
"Projection (Generic)”:
A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty"
So the models are dodgy to say the least – and this is from the premier Man Made Global Warming institute.
Stinks doesn't it?
These models are what the Governments of the world are basing their policies upon. The validity of these models are absolutely critical. They determine future policy. They determine where billions of pounds will be spent. The decisions made today by our Governments effect you, me and every other person on this plant.
Good job these models are right then isn't it!
Actually, no they're not right. How do I know this? Because the IPCC admit they're not right. They are spurious.
Throughout the document called, “Climate Change 2007” published by the IPCC, they repeatedly refer to their climate models as 'projections'. Hmmm. So what is a projection? Helpfully, the phrase is described in Glossary 49 as follows:
"Projection (Generic)”:
A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty"
So the models are dodgy to say the least – and this is from the premier Man Made Global Warming institute.
Stinks doesn't it?
Lucky for us Dave Cam is going too and he is a true AGW believer.
The energy companies and banks/traders are set to make a fortune in the new carbon cap and trade scam and yet again we will be paying.
The fuss over CO2 is destroying the credibility of eco campaigners and will harm efforts to reduce real problem pollutants for years.
Now we all use CFL light bulbs full of mercury vapour instead of incandescent there will be tons more finding it's way to the sea.
As regards to the BNP I can't think of anyone worse to carry the flag for real debate.
The energy companies and banks/traders are set to make a fortune in the new carbon cap and trade scam and yet again we will be paying.
The fuss over CO2 is destroying the credibility of eco campaigners and will harm efforts to reduce real problem pollutants for years.
Now we all use CFL light bulbs full of mercury vapour instead of incandescent there will be tons more finding it's way to the sea.
As regards to the BNP I can't think of anyone worse to carry the flag for real debate.
If you don't believe in man-made global warming find one scientific institution that agrees with you.
Not a single mavrick nut that used to edit a magazine or a geologist but a scientific body that will agree with you.
Someone like the Royal Society, NASA, the Scientific acadamies of any country from Japan and the United States to Indonesia and Tanzania
It would seem to me just a tad - dare I say it? arrogant - to look at this vast array of experts who've spent years looking at the issues and think that you know better because of your "common sense". But looking at the list of "heretics" here that's no great surprise
Here's my side of the debate
http://en.wikipedia.o...curring_organizations
Lets see yours.
Incidently I'd love to know what the highest scientific qualification any of you skeptics here have - O-level chemistry? can any of you make it to A-level physics?
Or is this reading the Telegraph about your level of inquiry?
Not a single mavrick nut that used to edit a magazine or a geologist but a scientific body that will agree with you.
Someone like the Royal Society, NASA, the Scientific acadamies of any country from Japan and the United States to Indonesia and Tanzania
It would seem to me just a tad - dare I say it? arrogant - to look at this vast array of experts who've spent years looking at the issues and think that you know better because of your "common sense". But looking at the list of "heretics" here that's no great surprise
Here's my side of the debate
http://en.wikipedia.o...curring_organizations
Lets see yours.
Incidently I'd love to know what the highest scientific qualification any of you skeptics here have - O-level chemistry? can any of you make it to A-level physics?
Or is this reading the Telegraph about your level of inquiry?
/////Incidently I'd love to know what the highest scientific qualification any of you skeptics here have - O-level chemistry? can any of you make it to A-level physics?
Or is this reading the Telegraph about your level of inquiry?/////
I refuse to dignify that statement with an answer, an apology might be appropriate from you.
Or is this reading the Telegraph about your level of inquiry?/////
I refuse to dignify that statement with an answer, an apology might be appropriate from you.
It is a tad arrogant to insist you need a qualification in something to have a worthy opinion. I do not have a degree in Politics, but will happily add my two pennys worth, I am not a theologian, but will offer my views on religious matters. I do not have a Physics Degree but my opinion is just as valid as yours.
-- answer removed --
The fact that it is the perceived wisdom of the day, and the general consensus among “experts” does not make it right, and it does not make it unworthy of challenge.
Thirty years ago I was told – by experts - that about 25% of the world’s population would contract AIDS – they did not.
A little later I was told – by experts – that hundreds of thousands of deaths would occur in the UK as a result of BSE – they did not.
A couple of years ago I was told – by experts – that bird ‘flu would cause millions of deaths. It did not.
More recently I have been told that up to one in three people would contract swine ‘flu. They have not and there are no signs that they will.
Thirty years ago every doctor (bar a few sceptics) would tell you that stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid produced a as result of stress. Now it is accepted that this is not usually the case, and they are caused by bacteria.
Ten years ago we were told global temperatures were increasing beyond control and the term “Global Warming” was born. Four or five years ago it was discovered that temperatures are not rising so much after all (no more than usual variations) and so “Climate Change” was born.
I could go on, so perhaps you’ll excuse me and others if we do not always accept what we are told just because a large enough number of people tell us.
I don’t normally care when people spin me a load of b0llox, but this time it is going to cost me a lot of money and has already made me use unsuitable light bulbs.
Thirty years ago I was told – by experts - that about 25% of the world’s population would contract AIDS – they did not.
A little later I was told – by experts – that hundreds of thousands of deaths would occur in the UK as a result of BSE – they did not.
A couple of years ago I was told – by experts – that bird ‘flu would cause millions of deaths. It did not.
More recently I have been told that up to one in three people would contract swine ‘flu. They have not and there are no signs that they will.
Thirty years ago every doctor (bar a few sceptics) would tell you that stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid produced a as result of stress. Now it is accepted that this is not usually the case, and they are caused by bacteria.
Ten years ago we were told global temperatures were increasing beyond control and the term “Global Warming” was born. Four or five years ago it was discovered that temperatures are not rising so much after all (no more than usual variations) and so “Climate Change” was born.
I could go on, so perhaps you’ll excuse me and others if we do not always accept what we are told just because a large enough number of people tell us.
I don’t normally care when people spin me a load of b0llox, but this time it is going to cost me a lot of money and has already made me use unsuitable light bulbs.
New Judge is quite correct.
One can go to reference books or search the Internet to find an article to suit your particular argument....I know....I have done it...........and still do;-)
A scientist produces a piece of research, which may or may not be flawed, but the results are open for discussion.
Statistics are a form of the product of research and can be manipulated to suit the situation.
Global warming......exists.......the question is, is it man made or a geo-physical phenomenon?
There are "experts" on both sides of this debate.
One can go to reference books or search the Internet to find an article to suit your particular argument....I know....I have done it...........and still do;-)
A scientist produces a piece of research, which may or may not be flawed, but the results are open for discussion.
Statistics are a form of the product of research and can be manipulated to suit the situation.
Global warming......exists.......the question is, is it man made or a geo-physical phenomenon?
There are "experts" on both sides of this debate.
I lost my faith in climate scientists when only a decade ago these same people predicted another ice age.
Everyone knows climate is cyclical and we are experiencing a rising trend at the moment. To believe that man alone can alter natures's climate is as bad as believing King Canute had power over the waves.
Everyone knows climate is cyclical and we are experiencing a rising trend at the moment. To believe that man alone can alter natures's climate is as bad as believing King Canute had power over the waves.
David Aarnovitch put it quite nicely last week.
"People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true.
They somehow believe that the whole global warming schtick is an amazing confidence trick performed upon the peoples of the world by a group of scientists and socialists, and pursued by politicans keen to get their hands on green taxes (though for what nefarious purpose we do not know), and which has taken in almost all the governments of the world, from the US to China.
They suggest that they are open-minded, but their foundations and articles are designed to reassure the witless that their attachment to their Porsche Cayenne Turbos and their hatred of recycling are somehow acts of non-conformist courage."
"People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true.
They somehow believe that the whole global warming schtick is an amazing confidence trick performed upon the peoples of the world by a group of scientists and socialists, and pursued by politicans keen to get their hands on green taxes (though for what nefarious purpose we do not know), and which has taken in almost all the governments of the world, from the US to China.
They suggest that they are open-minded, but their foundations and articles are designed to reassure the witless that their attachment to their Porsche Cayenne Turbos and their hatred of recycling are somehow acts of non-conformist courage."
Even people at the BBC believe we are in for a period of Global Cooling
http://www.telegraph....n-global-cooling.html
http://www.telegraph....n-global-cooling.html
Do you think so?
I worked as a professional physicist for a number of years and some of the smartest people I knew were climate scientists.
I don't consider myself qualified to sort through the data and have a valid opinion on that so I look at the people who are and take their lead.
I am constantly amazed by the people who think that they are somehow capable of an informed decision based on schoolboy logic.
There seems to me two alternatives:
1/ The hundreds of highly experienced professional scientists are so foolish that they have not taken account of the obvious flaws in their arguments that you with your massive reserves of common sense find so obvious.
2/ These hundreds of professional scientists are colluding in an international conspiracy risking the worlds economic future, and their own reputations to get a bit of extra funding.
I don't know which is the more ridiculous
In reality the plain fact is that many people equate environmentalism and left wing politics and it sticks in their craw to admit that any such issue is that important and right - they will do anything to avoid admitting that the "tree huggers" might have been right about something - especially if that involves limits on their personal freedom.
In sort it's a simple matter of pride.
Still it is (thankfully) irrelevant. Every government now recognises the problem and the discussion has moved on, the skeptics have been pretty soundly defeated
I worked as a professional physicist for a number of years and some of the smartest people I knew were climate scientists.
I don't consider myself qualified to sort through the data and have a valid opinion on that so I look at the people who are and take their lead.
I am constantly amazed by the people who think that they are somehow capable of an informed decision based on schoolboy logic.
There seems to me two alternatives:
1/ The hundreds of highly experienced professional scientists are so foolish that they have not taken account of the obvious flaws in their arguments that you with your massive reserves of common sense find so obvious.
2/ These hundreds of professional scientists are colluding in an international conspiracy risking the worlds economic future, and their own reputations to get a bit of extra funding.
I don't know which is the more ridiculous
In reality the plain fact is that many people equate environmentalism and left wing politics and it sticks in their craw to admit that any such issue is that important and right - they will do anything to avoid admitting that the "tree huggers" might have been right about something - especially if that involves limits on their personal freedom.
In sort it's a simple matter of pride.
Still it is (thankfully) irrelevant. Every government now recognises the problem and the discussion has moved on, the skeptics have been pretty soundly defeated
Jake The Peg - please do some research and go back to the beginning of the last century and find any scientist of scientific body who stood against Eugenics.
Just because scientists say it is so, doesn't make it true.
You don't seem to have answered any of New Judges points either. Or were those scientist different?
Just because scientists say it is so, doesn't make it true.
You don't seem to have answered any of New Judges points either. Or were those scientist different?
Jake -
Your above post would be compelling were it not for the fact that you are assuming that scientists are honest. Unfortunately this appears not to be the case. The recent publication of numerous documents from the Climate Research Centre suggest the certain scientists are anything but honest.
Have a look at my question/comment posted earlier today.
Your above post would be compelling were it not for the fact that you are assuming that scientists are honest. Unfortunately this appears not to be the case. The recent publication of numerous documents from the Climate Research Centre suggest the certain scientists are anything but honest.
Have a look at my question/comment posted earlier today.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank76 mins ago
Crosswords145 mins ago
Body & Soul155 mins ago
Connections #324 Tuesday 30 April
Quizzes & Puzzles170 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.