Seeing that full graph of the ice-core data does put the 'hockey-stick' into perspective.
It does for me anyway Uncle Bob.
The problem is I guess its complicated. I am an organic chemist not a climate change scientist. If 100 of the latter is saying listen world we have a problem you have to be pretty stupid, irresponsible or arrogant to say you know best! I see that Sarah Palin is a climate change skeptic, wasn't George W not too? And all the right wing bankers who infest the Telegraph with their assorted conspiracy theories.For me I'll listen to the guys who've done the science. I guess conservation makes good economic sense too. Hydro power and windpower just look intuitively smart to me.
Yes, we've been had I'm afraid.
What you have got to remember is that it is the trees and plankton and to a lesser extent plants that have over billions of years created the balance of CO in our atmosphere.Humans have been destroying the forests and rainforests on this planet at an alarming rate and also killing off the plankton in the sea at an alarming rate with polution etc.The human population is also rising at an alarming rate and so is the CO being put out by human activity.So we are not having an effect on the planet eh?
It is complicated and although you have much more scientific knowledge than I do Strathturret, I'm not convinced about the scientific data being universally approved.Yes conservation is good, I was brought up to conserve as were most post-war children.
It kind of looks that way doesn't it John.
Billy there's an interesting video by Annie Leonard here.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16508
Strathturret/Billy.What we sceptics are sceptical about is the propaganda. Climate change/AGW is all about a much different factor, pollution. Who causes pollution? Human Beings. How? Greed, power, corruption. Not we little folk. The Bilderbergers, the ruling classes, the wealthy. What is ther answer? Bully, cajole, brainwash and above all else, TAX.Do these power hungry capitalists and/or leftie socialists really care? Only about their own needs.It's not climate change it is pollution of the planet by too many people. Nature is sorting it out.
Forgive my ignorance Billy but isn't CO2 vital for plant growth which in turn through photosynthesis produces Oxygen (and carbon). Carbon Dioxide is not a poison, it is nature's natural airbone fertiliser. That's why animals and plants have this symbiotic relationship.b Plus, as the data shows, we have been much warmer in the past. How else could the Romans make red wine on the Scottish border and how else did the Vikings grow wheat on Greenland?
Excellent presentation that really puts things into perspective, wattsupwiththat is a daily read. Like you SR I was something of a postwar child for whom waste-not-want-not was the way we lived. I'm all for saving the rain forest, not polluting the planet and even saving the whale.What I won't stand for is being lied to and manipulated or having the poor taxed out of air-travel and out of their cars on behalf of warmist doom-mongers interested mainly in research funds.Mind you, if poor people had to walk everywhere it might do something for the supposed 'obesity epidemic'.
It may do banned, but we've a generation or more who think food comes in a polystyrene box. I'm noticing more and more that supermarket shelves with instant meals grow longer.It's hard to find a packet of split peas or lentils to make soup although there is usually an aisle given over to biscuits.What's amazing this weekend in Copenhagen is the amount of pollution going on with private jets, powerful cars etc and these are the people who want me to, as you say, stop using my car.Aye the lying is far worse than the true facts which surely will surface now.
At last , the real science is shown.(And its not new.)We should study it carefully because apart from a little up side, the next move is dawn, a long way down, and if the past is any guide, look at the graphs, very quickly.Is it any coincidence that the places that the warm earthers want to give our money to are by and large,hot places that will be best placed to to survive an ice age? Thinking of themselves... no, surely not!!Thinking ways ahead, what if the time comes, the people in habitable areas have taken our money and wont let us in? There are worse things than warm!D.
Oh Apogee I'm so glad I'll not be around. Yes that's a selfish attitude but I've had enough of our 'trustworthy' scientists being in the pockets of governments.
Oh dear, I seem to be the token 'warmist' on here. I'd been trying to avoid comment on this thread as I don't want to become the house bore on the subject. 'Too late' I hear you say. So I'd better continue my lonely battle.And how can man die betterThan facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers,And the temples of his godsWell, you know the first observation. The guy is not a climate scientist - he has drawn a graph of data he does not understand. Note the consistent pattern: climate scientists say there is a problem, those who say there is no problem are almost universally not climate scientists. Do you ask a plumber to service your car?I apologise if this seems patronising - it's just something you should be aware of.
Oops - screwed the link. Try this.
...and another dragon slain here.
Auch Vronsky, I wouldn't like to think you felt excluded and I'm sure none of the other flat-earthers would either.I reiterate, I don't deny there's global warming but I am still to be convinced man is responsible for 90% of the 'damage' to the planet.It's not patronising at all Vronsky.The problem seems to be we're not all singing from the same hymn sheet are we? If the UEA scientists had made their data available to all I doubt if we would have this impasse.
Hi VronskyInteresting links, but after reading them, my thought is that they only confirm that various blocks of scientists have opinions but there is no overall consensus, no overall proof of anything, only theories, and only when there is proof does a theory become fact. Unless the "proof" is unproved.Then it all starts again!Seems that the graphs of temperature through the ice ages are agreed,they show current temperatures to be not too far off the peak we could expect,we could live with that, but in an ice age, which we seem to be in a string of,a large proportion of the human race would not survive.Some would call this scenario population control.Brutal, perhaps, but that seems the situation.And mother nature's way of doing.Stopping pollution and waste,while laudable,will not affect the final outcome very much,nor will throwing all our money down some one else's "black hole".Just make our life more uncomfortable. Remember also that time is a factor in all this and its scale is unknown.D.
Vronskythat's the point I was making. Some guys spent 15 years working in the field and Joe Public looks at 6 graphs and says 'Climate Change is crap!'By the way if I've a severe pain in my chest. Should I consult a doctor or do any amateurs out there just think I should ignore it? I smoke 60 day and am overweight too.
As a Global Cooling Denier Vronsky your contribution to the debate is most welcome.I am not a climate scientist but am something of an historian who grew up within a glacial morain which gave me plenty of time to ponder the ebb and flow of ice over the ages.
Noo ah'm nae expert bit, can onybody explain tae me for why ice core thingummies are sae important? As ah've been telt, they tak samples fae the Antarctic and extrapolate fae there.Bit, if ah wis tae look at the average temperatures o the Broch for the last twa hunner year, would that gie me ony idea whit the weather's been like in Timbuktoo?
Frances, join the club. Disnae mak ony sense tae me either.
Post a Comment
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner