djelanomcfc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,653
Global Warming is it a lie or is it real?
Or is it a natural cycle and not caused by humans at all.....?
Or is it a natural cycle and not caused by humans at all.....?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming
- Thread starter djelanomcfc
- Start date
sam the drummer
Well-Known Member
Its a myth. Natural occurrence
nelsons willie
Well-Known Member
a lad i know has had an allotment for 30 years and he reckons something strange is happening..something to do with the fact he still has tomatos flowering or whatever they do in october, november.
sam the drummer said:Its a myth. Natural occurrence
Ice age , Came and went .
Did they have cfc's back then , I think not
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
Recent hacking of CRU:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d21-ClimateGate-emails-provide-unwanted-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate ... scientists</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... g_incident</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977912162&grpId=3659174697241980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4697241980</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d21-ClimateGate-emails-provide-unwanted-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate ... scientists</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... g_incident</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977912162&grpId=3659174697241980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4697241980</a>
Well, scientifically speaking, there is no real disagreement within the community about whether or not global warming is occurring. It is, and we can prove it. The disagreement is whether or not it is caused by humans or not.
The problem we have, is that we just don't have the information available that we need. The fossil record shows large patterns of movement in the climate of the Earth, yet we don't know if this particular one is natural or man made.
Causality is a woman in climate science, think of it this way. City conceded a goal in the last minute of the derby and we got beat 4-3. Now, whose fault was it? Was it the refs for allowing the extra time, was it Richards for switching off, was it Tevez's for missing a few chances? Any of these could have changed the result, yet there is no one cause and no guarantee that if any of them had been changed that the result would have changed. That's pretty much our problem now.
Climate science relies on our computer models being an accurate reflection of the way the climate works. If these are wrong, then everything we know is wrong.
This is one of those areas that I have a keen interest in, and have read extensively on it, and I wouldn't even hazard a guess at it.
What I do know, is that climate change has become a large money spinner for governments and companies. There are so many people getting paid on this issue that it will never be fully resolved. Also, most of the funding for expeditions comes indirectly from the environmental lobby groups or big energy companies, so it isn't exactly hard to believe that the scientists tend to interpret the data in a way that will keep them in a job. Climate science is currently so far away from real science (due to this introduced bias) that it's a shame.
Michael Crichton wrote an interesting (yet factually flawed) book on this, which name escapes me right now, which is definitely worth a read.
The problem we have, is that we just don't have the information available that we need. The fossil record shows large patterns of movement in the climate of the Earth, yet we don't know if this particular one is natural or man made.
Causality is a woman in climate science, think of it this way. City conceded a goal in the last minute of the derby and we got beat 4-3. Now, whose fault was it? Was it the refs for allowing the extra time, was it Richards for switching off, was it Tevez's for missing a few chances? Any of these could have changed the result, yet there is no one cause and no guarantee that if any of them had been changed that the result would have changed. That's pretty much our problem now.
Climate science relies on our computer models being an accurate reflection of the way the climate works. If these are wrong, then everything we know is wrong.
This is one of those areas that I have a keen interest in, and have read extensively on it, and I wouldn't even hazard a guess at it.
What I do know, is that climate change has become a large money spinner for governments and companies. There are so many people getting paid on this issue that it will never be fully resolved. Also, most of the funding for expeditions comes indirectly from the environmental lobby groups or big energy companies, so it isn't exactly hard to believe that the scientists tend to interpret the data in a way that will keep them in a job. Climate science is currently so far away from real science (due to this introduced bias) that it's a shame.
Michael Crichton wrote an interesting (yet factually flawed) book on this, which name escapes me right now, which is definitely worth a read.
Nigel Lawson has written a fantastic book about this subject, the only fact in this debate is that there has been no global warming since 1999, but the government and scientists keep telling us "oh but there will be". The two most wealthy countries on earth are Singapore (avegerage temp 27 degrees) and Finland (average temp 5 degrees) so even if it does happen we should be able to adapt. The choice is do we spent hundreds of billions trying to change something that might never happen or do we spend the money adapting to the situation if it ever does?
Just been mulling this over in my head. I suppose in the long run, the whole panic about global warming may turn in to a good thing. An awful lot of advances in the way that we produce energy have occurred under the funding of global warming groups, and that can only be helpful.
I also watched a bitchin documentary about the possibility of mining Helium3 on the Moon for usage in nuclear fusion in the future. While not utterly realistic in terms of energy expense, just been able to properly harness the energy from the fusion would be a start. We can already produce fusion in labs, but the ratio of how much power we use compared to how much it gives off, is so little that it's not really worth it. There was a rush on cold fusion a few years back (which proved to be a myth) and this hyped interest in the subject.
I think the global warming debate is more an energy conservation debate now, than an actual scientific one. Nobody cares about the science any more.
Thanks for the Lawson recommendation, I'll try and pick it up.
I also watched a bitchin documentary about the possibility of mining Helium3 on the Moon for usage in nuclear fusion in the future. While not utterly realistic in terms of energy expense, just been able to properly harness the energy from the fusion would be a start. We can already produce fusion in labs, but the ratio of how much power we use compared to how much it gives off, is so little that it's not really worth it. There was a rush on cold fusion a few years back (which proved to be a myth) and this hyped interest in the subject.
I think the global warming debate is more an energy conservation debate now, than an actual scientific one. Nobody cares about the science any more.
Thanks for the Lawson recommendation, I'll try and pick it up.