Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Has O'Leary got a point here?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. 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 operates a fleet of very dirty aeroplanes, that daily spew out some very noxious emissions. He is hardly going to welcome the news that his business will have to pay more for cleaner engines or face some kind of emission tax.
His position is tainted by personal interest, and is not an objective assessment of the scientific data.
His position is tainted by personal interest, and is not an objective assessment of the scientific data.
much easier to predict a global temperature a century than one for Ireland next week, I would have thought, though it won't be with the precision he claims. Weather in much of the world is more stable and predictable than here. They may not be able to tell you what will happen at 3pm on Tuesday but they can probably give you a fairly accurate estimate of the average for the whole week.
Ahh... global warming, or climate change, or whatever it is they're calling it these days.
The debate as to whether man-made CO2 is a major contributory factor to global temperature rise has become very complicated. The climate is a highly complex beast – of that there is no doubt. If we are to believe the IPCC and the mainstream media, the majority of climate scientists now believe that we understand the mechanisms of climate enough to predict future climatic trends, and the science concludes that man-made CO2 is causing an increase in global temperatures.
There is a very simple test to prove or disprove the theory that CO2 has a large influence on climate and that is to look at the past. The past is a veritable repository of hard evidence when it comes to CO2 and climate, so the question that needs to be answered is a very simple one - Did atmospheric concentrations of CO2 influence climate in the past?
If they did, then it would be fair to conclude that they continue to influence climate today. If they didn't then it is fair to conclude that some other mechanism must be influencing climate.
The debate as to whether man-made CO2 is a major contributory factor to global temperature rise has become very complicated. The climate is a highly complex beast – of that there is no doubt. If we are to believe the IPCC and the mainstream media, the majority of climate scientists now believe that we understand the mechanisms of climate enough to predict future climatic trends, and the science concludes that man-made CO2 is causing an increase in global temperatures.
There is a very simple test to prove or disprove the theory that CO2 has a large influence on climate and that is to look at the past. The past is a veritable repository of hard evidence when it comes to CO2 and climate, so the question that needs to be answered is a very simple one - Did atmospheric concentrations of CO2 influence climate in the past?
If they did, then it would be fair to conclude that they continue to influence climate today. If they didn't then it is fair to conclude that some other mechanism must be influencing climate.
Continued...
I could give many examples of where the CO2 greenhouse gas theory is overtly contradicted by historical data but I would be here all night. Suffice to say, here's one example of where the correlation between global temperature and CO2 doesn't fit the modern-day hypothesis -
Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 300 ppm. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
It is often said by those who believe in the man-made CO2 Global Warming hypothesis that the sceptics are delusional. They claim that the science backs them up. But it simply doesn't. If man-made CO2 directly influences climate, how can anyone explain the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period?
Why do otherwise intelligent people still support unscrupulous individuals such as Michael Mann who have been proven to deliberately falsify data in order to bolster their argument (ie. the hockey stock graph)?
Climate change is happening. The climate has always changed and it will always change whilst this planet has an atmosphere. But that change is not the fault of human beings – it is entirely natural and entirely unpredictable.
I could give many examples of where the CO2 greenhouse gas theory is overtly contradicted by historical data but I would be here all night. Suffice to say, here's one example of where the correlation between global temperature and CO2 doesn't fit the modern-day hypothesis -
Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 300 ppm. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
It is often said by those who believe in the man-made CO2 Global Warming hypothesis that the sceptics are delusional. They claim that the science backs them up. But it simply doesn't. If man-made CO2 directly influences climate, how can anyone explain the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period?
Why do otherwise intelligent people still support unscrupulous individuals such as Michael Mann who have been proven to deliberately falsify data in order to bolster their argument (ie. the hockey stock graph)?
Climate change is happening. The climate has always changed and it will always change whilst this planet has an atmosphere. But that change is not the fault of human beings – it is entirely natural and entirely unpredictable.
While we're talking horse sh*t Birdy ironocally comes up with all the same old tired misdirection.
You notice that there is an agreement here that CO2 levels are the highest in 400,000 years
Isn't it funny that that statistic never comes up when they want to talk about whether climate change is man made
Wonder where it all came from - have we suddenly had a great outbreak of Volcanoes that I've not noticed? Perhaps I should check my back garden.
The warm medieval period is a bit of a myth
nice little bit on that here:
http://www.newscienti...yards-in-england.html
It has been pointed out how the romans had vinyards in Southern Britain
I have pointed out that there is now one in Bolton!
O'leary is of course playing to the gallery telling people what they want to hear that it's all a conspiracy designed to rob us because he's terrified of carbon taxes on his business.
In point of fact far from knowing precisely what the climate will be in 100 years that is exactly where most debate is.
We know it will be warmer but not by how much - if it's a degree or so that won't be too bad. If as is more likely its 3 or 4 degrees that's going to be quite bad.
But the good news for those of you who don't care much about the rest of the world is that the UK is likely to suffer least from climate change.
Still if Mr. Oleary is so sure I'd suggest he makes a fortune by buying investment properties in Southern Spain.
Thing about climete skeptics they don't seem to like putting their money where their mouths are!
Richard Litzen wouldn't bet that the Earth will cool unless
You notice that there is an agreement here that CO2 levels are the highest in 400,000 years
Isn't it funny that that statistic never comes up when they want to talk about whether climate change is man made
Wonder where it all came from - have we suddenly had a great outbreak of Volcanoes that I've not noticed? Perhaps I should check my back garden.
The warm medieval period is a bit of a myth
nice little bit on that here:
http://www.newscienti...yards-in-england.html
It has been pointed out how the romans had vinyards in Southern Britain
I have pointed out that there is now one in Bolton!
O'leary is of course playing to the gallery telling people what they want to hear that it's all a conspiracy designed to rob us because he's terrified of carbon taxes on his business.
In point of fact far from knowing precisely what the climate will be in 100 years that is exactly where most debate is.
We know it will be warmer but not by how much - if it's a degree or so that won't be too bad. If as is more likely its 3 or 4 degrees that's going to be quite bad.
But the good news for those of you who don't care much about the rest of the world is that the UK is likely to suffer least from climate change.
Still if Mr. Oleary is so sure I'd suggest he makes a fortune by buying investment properties in Southern Spain.
Thing about climete skeptics they don't seem to like putting their money where their mouths are!
Richard Litzen wouldn't bet that the Earth will cool unless
I don’t think you need me to reiterate my views on Climate Change, jake, as we’ve debated the topic ad nauseam in the past. Mr O’Leary certainly has a way with words and he may have a point. It’s certainly true that almost every doom-laden prophesy in recent times (AIDS, Pig ‘flu, Bird ‘flu, Ebola Virus, Acid Rain etc. etc.) has been hopelessly over stated, so he has a right to be somewhat sceptical.
However, I still cannot allow some of your points to go unchallenged:
“Wonder where it all came from - have we suddenly had a great outbreak of Volcanoes that I've not noticed?”
Well, there has been quite a spate of volcanic activity, in recent years, jake. Some notable events that spring to mind that you may have missed: Mount St. Helens 1980; Chaiten (Chile) 2008; Eyjafjallajokull (Iceland) 2010. This list is by no means exhaustive and I’m not saying the events are exceptional. But since about 96% of greenhouse gases are caused by non-human activity (volcanoes and the like) I think it goes without saying that a small variation in those emissions will have a far greater effect on the total than a larger variation in the 4% of human contributions does.
And as I think I may have said before, the UK could cease to exist tomorrow and all its emissions disappear immediately and it would have virtually no impact on the global human emission figure. China alone is increasing its annual emissions by far more than the UK produces. And no number of freebies to Cancun and other agreeable winter destinations by Mr Huhne and his cronies will alter that.
However, I still cannot allow some of your points to go unchallenged:
“Wonder where it all came from - have we suddenly had a great outbreak of Volcanoes that I've not noticed?”
Well, there has been quite a spate of volcanic activity, in recent years, jake. Some notable events that spring to mind that you may have missed: Mount St. Helens 1980; Chaiten (Chile) 2008; Eyjafjallajokull (Iceland) 2010. This list is by no means exhaustive and I’m not saying the events are exceptional. But since about 96% of greenhouse gases are caused by non-human activity (volcanoes and the like) I think it goes without saying that a small variation in those emissions will have a far greater effect on the total than a larger variation in the 4% of human contributions does.
And as I think I may have said before, the UK could cease to exist tomorrow and all its emissions disappear immediately and it would have virtually no impact on the global human emission figure. China alone is increasing its annual emissions by far more than the UK produces. And no number of freebies to Cancun and other agreeable winter destinations by Mr Huhne and his cronies will alter that.
Global warming , and the usual leftie suspects are out as usual.
Just admit it the earth is not stable, nver has benn and never will be.
Climate changes, just go to the National Histoy museaum to see this, but of course if you are after a Government grant then you will side with it.
What I dont understand is that there is a totally proven argument against fossil fuels and that is simply pollution.
Of course the anti car/plane/ship brigade (the green with envy lot) cant see past their big noses to see that this is what should be used. Cars can be powered without oil but he, that wont apease the liberal anti everything nobheads.
Just admit it the earth is not stable, nver has benn and never will be.
Climate changes, just go to the National Histoy museaum to see this, but of course if you are after a Government grant then you will side with it.
What I dont understand is that there is a totally proven argument against fossil fuels and that is simply pollution.
Of course the anti car/plane/ship brigade (the green with envy lot) cant see past their big noses to see that this is what should be used. Cars can be powered without oil but he, that wont apease the liberal anti everything nobheads.
The climate change argument is a very dangerous distraction (smokescreen?) from serious issues that are not in any doubt.
We are emptying the oceans of fish
We are destroying thousands of species of flora and fauna every year by destroying forests
Over population and ill advised draining and grazing/farming is turning huge areas into deserts
Man made toxins can now be found in the organs of creatures in all corners of the planet
Soils are becoming exhausted and pumping up deep water for irrigation is raising salts and destroying farmland
All very serious and now (conveniently) sidelined.
.
We are emptying the oceans of fish
We are destroying thousands of species of flora and fauna every year by destroying forests
Over population and ill advised draining and grazing/farming is turning huge areas into deserts
Man made toxins can now be found in the organs of creatures in all corners of the planet
Soils are becoming exhausted and pumping up deep water for irrigation is raising salts and destroying farmland
All very serious and now (conveniently) sidelined.
.
Jake:
You accuse me of misdirection. Astonishing!
Maybe you missed the point of my earlier post. I pointed out that during the end of the Ordovician Period when the atmospheric content of CO2 was approximately 4400 parts per million, this was an Ice Age. I'm not trying to misdirect anything at all. I'm pointing out that if atmospheric CO2 is directly responsible for temperature, how on earth can we have an Ice Age when CO2 is so much higher than it is today? Sorry if that's an inconvenient question Jake.
“The warm medieval period is a bit of a myth” - Oh, is it really? I suppose if you pin your stripes to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph then you can believe anything. Maybe you also think the little Ice Age was a myth too? These are two well documented periods of recent history which actually happened. The reason certain 'scientists' are now attempting to re-write history is because these actual, historical events don't fit well with the modern 'theory' of CO2 induced climate change. Rather than address this issue honestly, they're now attempting to edit history, discounting real physical contemporary documents (presumably claiming that they must be false) in favour of computer generated temperature reconstructions.
And you buy into this hogwash?
You accuse me of misdirection. Astonishing!
Maybe you missed the point of my earlier post. I pointed out that during the end of the Ordovician Period when the atmospheric content of CO2 was approximately 4400 parts per million, this was an Ice Age. I'm not trying to misdirect anything at all. I'm pointing out that if atmospheric CO2 is directly responsible for temperature, how on earth can we have an Ice Age when CO2 is so much higher than it is today? Sorry if that's an inconvenient question Jake.
“The warm medieval period is a bit of a myth” - Oh, is it really? I suppose if you pin your stripes to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph then you can believe anything. Maybe you also think the little Ice Age was a myth too? These are two well documented periods of recent history which actually happened. The reason certain 'scientists' are now attempting to re-write history is because these actual, historical events don't fit well with the modern 'theory' of CO2 induced climate change. Rather than address this issue honestly, they're now attempting to edit history, discounting real physical contemporary documents (presumably claiming that they must be false) in favour of computer generated temperature reconstructions.
And you buy into this hogwash?
Continued...
“We know it will be warmer but not by how much” - Do we? How do we know that Jake? Oh, yes, the computers have modelled the climate and told that this is so. Despite the fact that I have repeated on numerous occasions on this matter, that the IPCC's computer models, by their own admission, are highly unreliable as an indicator of future climate. Have you even bothered to read an IPCC report Jake? I suspect not as your misplaced reliance upon computer models is not borne out by the very organisation that produced them.
“But the good news for those of you who don't care much about the rest of the world” - Your arrogance is breath-taking. You're suggesting that anyone who doubts that man-made CO2 is having an undue effect on climate cares nothing about the the rest of the world. This view is insulting and supremely arrogant and typical of the kind of rhetoric that people who fervently believe this garbage routinely spout.
Shame on you.
“We know it will be warmer but not by how much” - Do we? How do we know that Jake? Oh, yes, the computers have modelled the climate and told that this is so. Despite the fact that I have repeated on numerous occasions on this matter, that the IPCC's computer models, by their own admission, are highly unreliable as an indicator of future climate. Have you even bothered to read an IPCC report Jake? I suspect not as your misplaced reliance upon computer models is not borne out by the very organisation that produced them.
“But the good news for those of you who don't care much about the rest of the world” - Your arrogance is breath-taking. You're suggesting that anyone who doubts that man-made CO2 is having an undue effect on climate cares nothing about the the rest of the world. This view is insulting and supremely arrogant and typical of the kind of rhetoric that people who fervently believe this garbage routinely spout.
Shame on you.
[Two Part Answer]
A very well constructed piece, birdie.
Climate Change predictions are, as you rightly point out, highly speculative, riddled with inconsistencies and doubts and open to a wide range of interpretation. Such is the nature of the beast and is to be expected. As you may realise, I am one of the Climate Change “heretics” whom jake and Co believe are a threat to world order. But nobody (least of all me, or jake) knows who is right, nobody knows who is wrong, but there are two issue that concern me greatly.
The first is the arrogance that believers demonstrate and insolence that you rightly identify towards us heretics. There is science to support both points of view and the way things will turn out is largely a matter of opinion. But believers will have none of that: “The debate is over...”; “The science tells us...”.
A very well constructed piece, birdie.
Climate Change predictions are, as you rightly point out, highly speculative, riddled with inconsistencies and doubts and open to a wide range of interpretation. Such is the nature of the beast and is to be expected. As you may realise, I am one of the Climate Change “heretics” whom jake and Co believe are a threat to world order. But nobody (least of all me, or jake) knows who is right, nobody knows who is wrong, but there are two issue that concern me greatly.
The first is the arrogance that believers demonstrate and insolence that you rightly identify towards us heretics. There is science to support both points of view and the way things will turn out is largely a matter of opinion. But believers will have none of that: “The debate is over...”; “The science tells us...”.
[Part Two]
That would not normally bother me. History, especially recent history, is littered with cranks of various persuasions telling us the world will end or mankind will be wiped out by some disaster which they have forecast by extrapolating short term changes into long term trends. What bothers me is the manner in which politicians, particularly UK politicians, have latched on to this latest religion with such fervour. This probably has much to do with the rich pickings they envisage by conning taxpayers into believing that the deeper they dig into their pockets to provide cash for governments to waste, the less severe the alleged problem will be. But the effect their fervour will have upon the environment is far greater than any symptoms so far exhibited by the problem they feel so sure exists.
Currently hundreds of the world’s great and good have assembled in Cancun to discuss what to do next. It is estimated that their two week visit will cost more in Carbon Emissions than those of a typical African country. Meantime in the same period China will have opened two or three coal fired power stations and will continue to do so at the same rate for the foreseeable future whatever those sunning themselves in Cancun decide “to do next”.
And as you rightly say, we’re expected to put up with all this garbage under threat of being accused of mass genocide if we don't.
That would not normally bother me. History, especially recent history, is littered with cranks of various persuasions telling us the world will end or mankind will be wiped out by some disaster which they have forecast by extrapolating short term changes into long term trends. What bothers me is the manner in which politicians, particularly UK politicians, have latched on to this latest religion with such fervour. This probably has much to do with the rich pickings they envisage by conning taxpayers into believing that the deeper they dig into their pockets to provide cash for governments to waste, the less severe the alleged problem will be. But the effect their fervour will have upon the environment is far greater than any symptoms so far exhibited by the problem they feel so sure exists.
Currently hundreds of the world’s great and good have assembled in Cancun to discuss what to do next. It is estimated that their two week visit will cost more in Carbon Emissions than those of a typical African country. Meantime in the same period China will have opened two or three coal fired power stations and will continue to do so at the same rate for the foreseeable future whatever those sunning themselves in Cancun decide “to do next”.
And as you rightly say, we’re expected to put up with all this garbage under threat of being accused of mass genocide if we don't.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Crosswords89 mins ago
ChatterBank125 mins ago
Crosswords127 mins ago