Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

First topic message reminder :

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Something wrong with your head Navy?

No its because they tend to be people who are currently making money and would have to get less money initially to gain money in many years time. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush so to speak. Then there's people with no skin in the game but go with gut feeling or there's a fair point that has caught their attention more than the sometimes overblown warnings coming from the experts. Unfortunately apart from the people who try to get to the bottom of it and are just sceptical there are people who say..global warming? It was -3 last night. There's also the fact that because there is money in the offing just for providing alternative everything, medicine,science, theories and politics it devalues many an argument because the principal in question gets some money out of it.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12226


Good news! The Planet is saving itself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oops! I jumped the gun there.

Sorry, NASA are only confirming that the good news won't last because the plants don't want to interfere with economic models and forecasts designed to make lotsa money for the stock market boys.

Oh well, back to the drawing board for Nature.

It's good news for an ultimately human-less planet - which is probably a good thing overall.

Well, I want to still be the last representative of our failed species.  

I know everyone concurs with my selection by the UN as a good symbolic choice......

Then the last human would be a fly.

Don't knock those genetic splicing scientists, Julius. Plenty of time for them to turn science fiction into fact before the world burns.

SecretFly wrote:https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12226


Good news!  The Planet is saving itself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oops!  I jumped the gun there.

Sorry, NASA are only confirming that the good news won't last because the plants don't want to interfere with economic models and forecasts designed to make lotsa money for the stock market boys.

Oh well, back to the drawing board for Nature.

Shock! Newsflash! Hold the front pages! Plants grow more when one of their foodstuffs (CO2) is in increasing abundance! Wait...hang on....that's just evolution and biochemistry right? Damn....

On another note, increasing vegetation isn't an infinitely increasing CO2 sink; give it time and it'll be swamped.

I went for an interview last week at an AD plant.

I have to say I was quite impressed. Much much better than these f**king windmills and solar panels.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12226


Good news!  The Planet is saving itself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oops!  I jumped the gun there.

Sorry, NASA are only confirming that the good news won't last because the plants don't want to interfere with economic models and forecasts designed to make lotsa money for the stock market boys.

Oh well, back to the drawing board for Nature.

Shock! Newsflash! Hold the front pages! Plants grow more when one of their foodstuffs (CO2) is in increasing abundance! Wait...hang on....that's just evolution and biochemistry right? Damn....

On another note, increasing vegetation isn't an infinitely increasing CO2 sink; give it time and it'll be swamped.

Absolutely right Navy!  Those NASA people are just idiots.  
Plants, biochemistry, ecology and climate know nothing about how to save the planet.  That's why we humans will never be eradicated!  

F**K YOU EARTH!  We're here to stay!  Get used to it!  You'll never get rid of us.

Now back to endless growth, bigger cities, more airports, increased/'needed' infrastructure development and...... windmills .

SecretFly wrote:Absolutely right Navy!  Those NASA people are just idiots....

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was people shouldn't over-interpret that to imply global warming is bunkum. As you well know.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Absolutely right Navy!  Those NASA people are just idiots....

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was people shouldn't over-interpret that to imply global warming is bunkum. As you well know.

I was interpreting it to mean what it said.  Greenery increasing worldwide in response to more carbon dioxide released by man or otherwise.  That's what happens - IF it's allowed to happen.  Good for us too.  More oxygen in the air.  Wonderful stuff. 

When humans weren't on the planet (or at least weren't intelligent enough to disrupt the processes of the planet) the greening was allowed to happen and the planet found its balance for the period it was going through.  The distinct ages when the planet heated up way more than it is now or cooled down way lower (Ice ages) had nothing to do with man and everything to do with a planet doing its own thing in its own way.  It doing its own thing was heavily influenced by the mercurial sun and the nature of the space (it's not empty) it was going through in those periods.  It takes the Sun 230m years to go once around the galaxy.  There's plenty of other major galactic stuff going on that affects our heating up and cooling down periods besides man.

Having said all that, back to what NASA stated.  The world is responding to the heating up by greening up - the natural reaction.  Will it be allowed to do so at the right rate or will man's constant cementing over, cutting down, building up and over impede the process?  So the technocrats have their excuses in early is my summation of the report.  'It won't last folks!', is once more the gloomy warning from the Global Warning Church (another new religion that creeped up on us these last few decades )  
No it won't - us humans won't let it.

First off, the correct term is Climate Change rather than Global Warming.

Talking about Climate Change as a religion shows a rare level of ignorance. Religion is founded on belief, whereas Climate Change is founded on evidence, i.e. it is the Theory we have which best fits the evidence we have available at this moment. I don't want to get into an anti-religion rant, since I believe people should be free to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't seek to impose that belief on others, but it is very dangerous to conflate any science with belief. Hence the question "do you believe in Climate Change?" is inherently silly.

Now, back to the post. What NASA have observed is a rise in greenery worldwide. Their interpretation, which seems plausible, is that one of the causes behind this is the rise of CO2 levels. If anything, this is an argument in favour of climate change (i.e. CO2 levels are rising). To quote the article "While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years."

There is nothing in this article which suggests Climate Change is bunkum, so really not sure what the argument is. That the climate changes, and has done throughout Earth's history? True. That man has nothing to do with the current warming* cycle? Well there's certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary.

If the argument is that the planet will sort itself out once we've driven ourselves to extinction, then yes, it probably will, though it will take a while for ecosystems' balances to re-establish themselves. When we say we want to stop climate change to save the planet, what we really mean is that we want to slow it down by preventing man-made climate change to safeguard our own species from extinction, but that doesn't sound quite as noble...

Last half a million years?

Evidence has also suggested that rising CO2 levels does not correlate with rising temperatures.

It was warmer back in Roman times than it is now.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Last half a million years?

Evidence has also suggested that rising CO2 levels does not correlate with rising temperatures.

It was warmer back in Roman times than it is now.

The IPCC seem to disagree with your statement..

Of course they do.

They're pro CC.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:First off, the correct term is Climate Change rather than Global Warming.

Talking about Climate Change as a religion shows a rare level of ignorance. Religion is founded on belief, whereas Climate Change is founded on evidence, i.e. it is the Theory we have which best fits the evidence we have available at this moment. I don't want to get into an anti-religion rant, since I believe people should be free to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't seek to impose that belief on others, but it is very dangerous to conflate any science with belief. Hence the question "do you believe in Climate Change?" is inherently silly.

Now, back to the post. What NASA have observed is a rise in greenery worldwide. Their interpretation, which seems plausible, is that one of the causes behind this is the rise of CO2 levels. If anything, this is an argument in favour of climate change (i.e. CO2 levels are rising). To quote the article "While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years."

There is nothing in this article which suggests Climate Change is bunkum, so really not sure what the argument is. That the climate changes, and has done throughout Earth's history? True. That man has nothing to do with the current warming* cycle? Well there's certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary.

If the argument is that the planet will sort itself out once we've driven ourselves to extinction, then yes, it probably will, though it will take a while for ecosystems' balances to re-establish themselves. When we say we want to stop climate change to save the planet, what we really mean is that we want to slow it down by preventing man-made climate change to safeguard our own species from extinction, but that doesn't sound quite as noble...

You won't slow it down by increasing city sizes and creating a forever more complex web of development, development, development right along the increasing infrastructure highways that link these cities by 'public demand'.  

Highways are more than just something built to get people from A to B quicker, they are specifically designed to increase development and economic activity ALONG those corridors themselves.  So small Hamlet towns begin to see their heart being removed to the Shopping complex a mile down the road, so that travellers can stop off for the obligatory toilet and coffee.  Highways are an intended double edged sword designed to fill the pockets of speculators, investors, lobbyists and Government policy makers.  

So as I keep saying; look at Google Earth.  Look at the ugly vision of how squared off virtually most of America has become.  Those squares are all ready to be filled in with more of man and less of nature....including the wind turbines and the solar panel arrays.  Everything turning into man's image as he tries to pretend he has all the answers for the Earth's survival and yet constantly aids in the destruction of that planet with his greed and his concept that every chemical and every building and every technology and every job he adds to the planet can be controlled by him and that he knows best about how to 'Save' the planet.

Global Warming is the term I choose to use.  It's had its time in the sun and I'm not going to change it just because a bunch of people now want a less politically hot term to throw the same mantra at us.  You use whatever term you choose, I'll choose Global Warming... or does the Religion demand conformity to the wording of the message too?

Global Warming IS a religion.  And it's a Religion designed to increase the wealth and influence of many of those peddling it.  That humans interfere with the planet (including the climate) is without question.  My whole argument is that the Global Warmists refuse to examine other manmade processes and activities that have an even greater immediate impact on the health of this planet.  My whole argument is the Religious nature - the one message and nothing else approach - the unwillingness to connect the pieces to form a more complete picture of just what impact we're having on this planet.  
One section of politically approved people/certain influential bodies/approved lists of scientists etc etc claim they have all the answers, that their answers are infallible and that their findings and methods are above being criticised.  That is proof enough for me that the cause is a religious one.

If we can all choose whatever term we want, regardless of whether it fits, can I use Global W**king?

Continue to call it Global Warming if you like, just pointing out that you're using an outdated and inaccurate term. Just thought I'd educate you, learning new things is always good, keeps the mind sharp

I know of literally no scientist who claim they have all the answers, nor that their answers are infallible, etc. Scientists are acutely aware of the limitations of what they study, and it is precisely science's willingness to constantly question itself and its findings that differentiates it from religion (along with that little thing called evidence). It's a shame you're unable/unwilling to understand that point, but thank you for proving it. Your post shows a rather woeful misunderstanding of the scientific process.

That humans interfere with the planet (including the climate) is without question. My whole argument is that the Global Warmists refuse to examine other manmade processes and activities that have an even greater immediate impact on the health of this planet.

Climate Change looks at (shock) the way the Climate is changing and man's impact on this, and how it can be reduced. That's really quite enough for those scientists to be getting on with, and indeed takes many many years of study to obtain the knowledge necessary for its study. There are other branches of science which look at well, other stuff. You seem to be arguing that unless you can provide a global, detailed picture of everything, all scientific research is useless. Again, you misunderstand fundamentally how scientific research works.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If we can all choose whatever term we want, regardless of whether it fits, can I use Global W**king?

Global Warming now a bad publicity term...

WARNING! DO NOT USE SUCH A TERM. SUCH REFERENCES SHALL BE DEEMED THOUGHT CRIMES!

Now that is a global activity I'd be happy to partake in Jules.

Do we get to choose who from the International Panel on C*ck Control is responsible for such activity?

I choose Eva Lilly.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If we can all choose whatever term we want, regardless of whether it fits, can I use Global W**king?

Global Warming now a bad publicity term...  

WARNING! DO NOT USE SUCH A TERM.  SUCH REFERENCES SHALL BE DEEMED FAKE NEWS!

Fixed.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Continue to call it Global Warming if you like, just pointing out that you're using an outdated and inaccurate term. Just thought I'd educate you, learning new things is always good, keeps the mind sharp

I know of literally no scientist who claim they have all the answers, nor that their answers are infallible, etc. Scientists are acutely aware of the limitations of what they study, and it is precisely science's willingness to constantly question itself and its findings that differentiates it from religion (along with that little thing called evidence). It's a shame you're unable/unwilling to understand that point, but thank you for proving it. Your post shows a rather woeful misunderstanding of the scientific process.

No the scientists that want to suppress other scientific opinions through ridicule and threats to careers are the people who woefully misunderstand the scientific process as your misreading of my whole argument attests to....including language rules. Sully the reputation of the non-canonical opinion. Entirely against the definition (any definition) of science.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If we can all choose whatever term we want, regardless of whether it fits, can I use Global W**king?

Global Warming now a bad publicity term...  

WARNING! DO NOT USE SUCH A TERM.  SUCH REFERENCES SHALL BE DEEMED FAKE NEWS!

Fixed.

Even better.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If we can all choose whatever term we want, regardless of whether it fits, can I use Global W**king?

Global Warming now a bad publicity term...  

WARNING! DO NOT USE SUCH A TERM.  SUCH REFERENCES SHALL BE DEEMED FAKE NEWS!

Fixed.

Even better.

Of course.

MfC gets it right. SF gets it wrong but as usual presents a few cleverer-than-thou lines to keep his ego secure in its orbit above us mere mortals.

If I've misunderstood your argument, I apologise, but you wrote

"One section of [...] approved lists of scientists etc etc claim they have all the answers, that their answers are infallible and that their findings and methods are above being criticised."

That is the point I was answering. Scientists don't claim any of those things, that's what makes them scientists. Could you provide some evidence of scientists whose reputation has been ridiculed, career threatened etc.?

I'm not saying science is without its flaws, and it's true that some Theories can be more "popular" than others (in terms of funding opportunities for instance) without a firm scientific basis for it. String Theory is a good example of this, and I could rant about the damage its pre-eminence has done to Physics research over the past 20 years for quite a while. However, Climate Change is well backed up by the evidence, which none of the competing Theories (such as there are/were) can claim, hence why it's been almost unanimously adopted by the scientific community. Worth pointing out also that when Global Warming (as it was then called) first appeared, it was a deeply unpopular theory. Unsurprisingly, given what it said (basically that our greed was driving us to extinction). Not the case with String Theory, which was immensely popular due to its potential to finally reconcile Gravity, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html

A foxnews article that's light on facts and heavy on spin . So we have 20 scientists backing Senator Whitehouse's calls for an investigation into allegations that fossil fuel companies have followed the Big Tobacco playbook into how best to get their message that Climate Change is all a hoax. Here's what Whitehouse actually wrote BTW, nothing shocking here that I can see.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html?utm_term=.de57f42be06d

Can't find the actual letter the scientists in question wrote, since the link in the foxnews article doesn't work, but seems a long way from what Fly was claiming...

EDIT: found the full letter (oh Google, my Google*).

http://climatechangedispatch.com/jailed-for-scientific-dissent-20-climate-scientists-call-for-rico-investigation-of-climate-skeptics/

Misleading headline, obviously, since jail isn't mentioned, nor is scientific dissent, which once more is an inherent and vital part of the scientific process.

They call for an investigation of "corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change."

As good scientists, they even cite peer reviewed research which documents this deception. Note though "corporations and other organizations". Not really what I was asking for, as I said.

*other search engines are available.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Of course they do.

They're pro CC.

Have NASA been moaning about funding lately ??

I don't know Truss....have they?

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I don't know Truss....have they?

I'm not the one keen to dismiss any study that disagrees with my narrative....

Mad for Chelsea wrote:EDIT: found the full letter (oh Google, my Google*).

http://climatechangedispatch.com/jailed-for-scientific-dissent-20-climate-scientists-call-for-rico-investigation-of-climate-skeptics/

Misleading headline, obviously, since jail isn't mentioned, nor is scientific dissent, which once more is an inherent and vital part of the scientific process.

They call for an investigation of "corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change."

As good scientists, they even cite peer reviewed research which documents this deception. Note though "corporations and other organizations". Not really what I was asking for, as I said.

*other search engines are available.

Not my reference but I will say it was a prominent 'threat', meant very much to put pressure on alternative opinion on climate change, especially in light of the tobacco and RICO (racketeering) allusion they so innocently dropped into the letter.    Racketeers go to jail.

So knowing the letter would be public, the inference very much was, 'You want to question the nature of the risks of climate change? Then also think about having a good lawyer, potentially paying crippling amounts of fines and possible going to jail when you're doing your pie-charts or quoting pie-charts we've debunked.'

Again, however, it's interesting how many of these comments can be so easily used to snap back from the other angle.
The very quote highlighted works just fine when used to reference the alternate viewpoint - ie, the Global Warming/Climate Change theory could be accused of the same desire to oversell the risks and for the very same purposes; corporate and other organisations (including governmental) hoping to profit from the sense of urgency.  Indeed, that is my very claim.  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

But I wouldn't suggest Global Warming scientists should go to jail for wording their warnings in the past with such conviction to perhaps gain maximum attention for the 'green' industries they celebrate and/or promote.  I might shout 'deceitful', yes.  And I would certainly continue to vigorously question them as they question others - on their methods, on their conclusions, on their various reasons for championing their theories.  

BTW, the Global Warming fraternity have developed an economy with it's buying and selling of carbon credits ( http://www.cnbc.com/id/33174211 ) every bit as questionable in moral terms as the fossil fuel industry.  Billionaires are being made in the green trade.  Where billions stand to be made, dodgy propaganda/advertising follows.  Not all Climate Change Warriors are looking for sainthood. Many of them want to make a rich killing on the boom for however long it lasts.

Washington Times is a Conservative paper.....GOP party are Climate change deniers most of them anyway...

You are very keen to highlight other "agendas"......

But not so keen to disclose any that agree with your narrative...

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Absolutely right Navy!  Those NASA people are just idiots....

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was people shouldn't over-interpret that to imply global warming is bunkum. As you well know.

I was interpreting it to mean what it said.  Greenery increasing worldwide in response to more carbon dioxide released by man or otherwise.  That's what happens - IF it's allowed to happen.  Good for us too.  More oxygen in the air.  Wonderful stuff. 

When humans weren't on the planet (or at least weren't intelligent enough to disrupt the processes of the planet) the greening was allowed to happen and the planet found its balance for the period it was going through.  The distinct ages when the planet heated up way more than it is now or cooled down way lower (Ice ages) had nothing to do with man and everything to do with a planet doing its own thing in its own way.  It doing its own thing was heavily influenced by the mercurial sun and the nature of the space (it's not empty) it was going through in those periods.  It takes the Sun 230m years to go once around the galaxy.  There's plenty of other major galactic stuff going on that affects our heating up and cooling down periods besides man.

Having said all that, back to what NASA stated.  The world is responding to the heating up by greening up - the natural reaction.  Will it be allowed to do so at the right rate or will man's constant cementing over, cutting down, building up and over impede the process?  So the technocrats have their excuses in early is my summation of the report.  'It won't last folks!', is once more the gloomy warning from the Global Warning Church (another new religion that creeped up on us these last few decades )  
No it won't - us humans won't let it.

You're overlooking the small, but important, assumption that mankind will allow said flora the chance to benefit from these increased CO2 levels.

According to a recent report, the planet suffered a net loss of 1.5million square km of forest between 2000 and 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24934790


So, provided logging, farming and continued expansion of towns and cities, doesn't deprive us of the plant life to use the carbon dioxide and give us much-needed oxygen in return, we'll be okay...until the inevitable zombie apocalypse, at least...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/21/record-breaking-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory

Don't listen to the World Meteorological Society, though. They're being paid off by all those windmill manufacturers.

Trump probably reckons the World will hang on at least until he hands in his dinner pail.

Pr4wn wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/21/record-breaking-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory

Don't listen to the World Meteorological Society, though. They're being paid off by all those windmill manufacturers.

Yeah. We don't need to steeenking experts....