Global Warming

[annec]

Have to agree with Gilly here - how can you trust a programme that puts out discredited data and out of date graphs AND entirely misquotes one of the participants who is now furious.

And the Independent was as scathing as the Grauniad

If trains are a scar on the landscape, they're not nearly as bad as 6 lane motorways. Ban all cars I say, except for those useful for carrying flatpack furniture .....

[giovanni]

Originally Posted by annec

Have to agree with Gilly here - how can you trust a programme that puts out discredited data and out of date graphs AND entirely misquotes one of the participants who is now furious.

And the Independent was as scathing as the Grauniad

If trains are a scar on the landscape, they're not nearly as bad as 6 lane motorways. Ban all cars I say, except for those useful for carrying flatpack furniture .....

personally speaking, i would ban flat pack furnature full stop.

[liketheroman]

Originally Posted by giovanni

personally speaking, i would ban flat pack furnature full stop.

I don't think you are being tough enough.

You need to seize the assets of the flat pack suppliers
Arrest all those involved in the trade.
Torch the fields where the flat-pack trees grow
Provide military and financial assistance to governments with a flat pack problem
Properly fund rehabilitation schemes for flat pack users
Start a major reeducation program in schools and workplaces on the danger of flat pack

I have seen children as young as seven involved in flat pack purchase and construction

[Markone]

Originally Posted by annec

Have to agree with Gilly here - how can you trust a programme that puts out discredited data and out of date graphs AND entirely misquotes one of the participants who is now furious.

And the Independent was as scathing as the Grauniad

If trains are a scar on the landscape, they're not nearly as bad as 6 lane motorways. Ban all cars I say, except for those useful for carrying flatpack furniture .....

I read the Independent's response about the disputed data set which showed the temperature dropped from the 1940's to the 1970's. The "journalist" claimed that this was outdated data taken from a old NASA website. In fact this is incorrect. Not only is it incorrect there are at least two other independent sources of data which corroborate it. If you want to visit the sites you can do so at the URL's below.

The journalist went on to state that any drop in temperature from the 1940's onward was explained by the drop in sulphur emmisions during that period withour providing a reference to his source. This strikes me as not only contradictory but also shaping the "evidence" to fit the outcome. In fact sulphur emmisions did not begin to be curtailed by law in the US untill the mid 1970's. Elsewhere it is still not being curtailed.

The journalist witheld his contact details denying a way to resond to his smears.

Al Gore failed in his film "The Inconvient Truth" to state that CO2 rose in concentration on average 800 years AFTER the rise in temperature his graph showed and not before.

This is indisputable evidence that the rise CO2 is a function of rising temperatures and not the cause.

I heard the C4 commisioning editor talk about the oceanographer who the Independent claims was misquoted. He has a bunch of correspondence from said scientist stating he was happy to take part in the film. Who do you believe? It's not like a "journalist" to twist the facts to fit the desired story. That would never happen...

Meantime, visit the sources below and make up your own mind.

Godard Institute for Space Sudies (GISS)
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

Global Historical Climatology Network Oak Ridge National Laboratory


USHCN
Trends Temperature Contents

there are many other data sources but the above are widely recognised as being the most accurate.

[giovanni]

Originally Posted by liketheroman

I don't think you are being tough enough.

You need to seize the assets of the flat pack suppliers
Arrest all those involved in the trade.
Torch the fields where the flat-pack trees grow
Provide military and financial assistance to governments with a flat pack problem
Properly fund rehabilitation schemes for flat pack users
Start a major reeducation program in schools and workplaces on the danger of flat pack

I have seen children as young as seven involved in flat pack purchase and construction

Hows about we put a tax on CO2, and say it so that we can stop global
warming.

Anyway whats wrong with global warming, when did anyone come back off
their holidays and brag about frost bite?

[liketheroman]

Originally Posted by giovanni

Hows about we put a tax on CO2, and say it so that we can stop global
warming.

Anyway whats wrong with global warming, when did anyone come back off
their holidays and brag about frost bite?

Genius.

'If you legislate it will happen'

[gillywright]

While I agree that it’s all too simple an answer that CO2 is from pollution caused by our existence and not nature, I haven’t heard an argument ever from anyone explaining the merits of pollution, so let us reduce it and counter the amounts with natural filters (trees etc) to clean the place up. Does anyone really believe that the exhaust fumes from a car, waste from a power station, gas or smoke from our chimneys etc is healthy for anyone?

Knowing that fossil fuel supplies are finite, furthermore, we have to prepare now for when they aren't there. If by seeking alternative methods of energy generation, we help to reduce the CO2 effects on climate then we have a win-win situation: surely?

There is consensus in the climate change scientific community about global warming (aside from the scientists in the documentary whose work has been disproved). Even George Bush and his oil-supporting scientists have finally admitted that there is a problem after years of denying it (employing the same PR teams who swore that tobacco wasn’t bad for you nor addictive by the by).

As in all science, however, there are disagreements about filling in the details in various theories. But none of this has any affect on the basic science. The Arctic is melting down. The oceans are warming. The permafrost is thawing out.

With reference to the cooling seen in the '40s and '50s - CO2 warming was temporarily overwhelmed by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the '60s and '70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.

And yes, I agree that, in the past, a lot of climate changes can be traced to major volcanic activity, but what we are experiencing now has never happened before. The world has experienced 0.8°C global average temperature rise over the last century with 0.6°C of that occurring over the last 30-years. The speed of the change means a lot of species will not be able to evolve and will become extinct. As we are only just beginning to understand inter-species relationships goodness knows what the consequences of this will be.

I’m no scientist but looking out of the window I can notice significant changes in our natural environment, within my lifespan. I’m also no eco-warrior but am surprised that so many people see any potential environmental safeguards as a threat to their freedom.

Perhaps this has more to do with the fact that global warming has become such a hot potato within domestic party politics. Just because they want to score green brownie points with ineffectual policies and taxes, however, does mean that we should all stick our head in the sands. Likewise, the fact that we can do nothing to counter the coal-powered plants that are currently going online all over China does not mean as individuals that we can’t try and live as green and clean an existence as we possibly can.

[Relaxed]

That is a rational post, but predicated on your conviction that the 'science' which insists that climate change, caused by mankind, is ocurring is correct. That, I would argue is disputable.

But your point that reducing 'pollution' whether CO2 or of other sorts surely can't do any harm seems very alluring. On a personal, or even a national, or even a European, US Canadian, Australian level you are right - it wouldn't do any harm.

On a global level - if the developed countries 'romantic medieval environmentalism' manages to delay - even for a decade - the access of the African subcontinent to any distributed source of energy then, I believe, that is very harmful. So following the 'can't do any harm' philosophy isn't entirely tenable.

If the anthropogenic climate change gurus are allowed to promote their threories unchallenged I think that is a bad thing, and since they wish to tar me with the emotive tag of a 'denier', I will call them White Suprematists.

[giovanni]

gillywhright

Where on earth do you get your facts from.!

There is more fossil fuel in Africa than all the so called reserves we have!
Thats a fact.

You mentioned g bush! not going to do your case anygood that one!
Remember this is the bloke who needs an earpiece to respond, !

As for you figures for temp changes over the last century ect!
talk about being fooled,{ if you care to look at the link to the ipcc, on the
original thread to global warming in the bottom forum, these facts do not
come from the channel 4 programme but are from numerous university
studies around the globe, who the government cannot hire/con or doc their
foundings}.these so called higher temp are the result of where the stations
are placed! and the fact that before 1975 there where 3000 places to take
reading now there are less than half that number!


The ipcc was set up by the government,payed by the government and many
papers where doctored by the government.
this is why so many member scientist have resigned.

As for not needing to be a scientist to see the changes, unless you are over
2000 years old, that statement is utter useless as you have nothing of
sumbsence to base that, off the top of your head statement on.

I really wish that some would just step back and realise that they are actually
putting two tottally seperate issue togeather as one.

1. is global change
2. is global resourses. and the waste of.

[liketheroman]

Giovanni has reminded of a conversation I had with a geologist from Uganda, at least 15 years ago

He believed by far the richest country (potentially) in Africa was Sudan and they had pretty much everything there (you forget how big it is - on a flat map it does not show its size because of proximity to the equator)