FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Global warming

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

We have had many extremes, cold and hot weather and windy, is it cos we are in the earths natural cycle or is a little bit down to man? I also heard from facts that we may enter a 30 year ice age.

Personally I think its the earth cycle

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

The planet has had many warm patches and cold patches. There's no doubt its currently in a period of flux at the mo. What all the hot air is about is whether what humans are doing is affecting that flux or not?

Controversial subject shaggy. Got your steel pants on today?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Cycle.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

its bull.....did noah have to build the ark because everyone was using too much deodorant? the weather is unpredictable always has been always will be! theres been an ice age before and Id imagine there will be another one! information put out by the government to control ppl....bring out new energy saving laws to make £

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The planet has had many warm patches and cold patches. There's no doubt its currently in a period of flux at the mo. What all the hot air is about is whether what humans are doing is affecting that flux or not?

Controversial subject shaggy. Got your steel pants on today?"
That's right a controversial subject it is and yes I got the steel pants on lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a natural cycle. The myth of man-made global warming was created so governments had another excuse to tax people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham

There is a difference between weather and climate. If someone is unable to discern the difference there is an almost 100% chance they are not in a position to offer informed commentary on the subject.

Like with virtually any topic, learning and reading about it will increase your chances of being able to comment without being really, really obviously wrong.

It's a topic that causes quite a tizzy. On one side, 97% of scientists have all the evidence and on the other side a few morally flexible shills attempt to muddy the waters with the assistance of a tame media.

With all that being the case it's understandable that the truth almost certainly lies midway between these two extremes*

*no, actually it doesn't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"its bull.....did noah have to build the ark because everyone was using too much deodorant? the weather is unpredictable always has been always will be! theres been an ice age before and Id imagine there will be another one! information put out by the government to control ppl....bring out new energy saving laws to make £ "

The main issue is if the ice caps melt the fresh water will disrupt the water currents which means the UK will no longer be temperate and will be like other countries on the same latitude.

Ie Canada.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"There is a difference between weather and climate. If someone is unable to discern the difference there is an almost 100% chance they are not in a position to offer informed commentary on the subject.

Like with virtually any topic, learning and reading about it will increase your chances of being able to comment without being really, really obviously wrong.

It's a topic that causes quite a tizzy. On one side, 97% of scientists have all the evidence and on the other side a few morally flexible shills attempt to muddy the waters with the assistance of a tame media.

With all that being the case it's understandable that the truth almost certainly lies midway between these two extremes*

*no, actually it doesn't."

Oh god I dispare when I see "x% of scientists" most scientists are as unqualified as normal people to comment on climate change either for or against.

A nuclear chemist for instance will know sweet fuck all about global wind and water currents and their causes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham

What percentage of climate scientists do you think are convinced?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham

I'll give you a clue. It's 97%.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

I looked out the window. It's changeable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"I'll give you a clue. It's 97%."

Is it 24 ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What percentage of climate scientists do you think are convinced?"

And what is the definition of a "climate" scientist.

As the last list they had supporting the hockey stick model included psychologists, microbiologists, and lots of other completely irrelevant paths.

Cause there eight really a "climate science" because it's a very complicated mixture of sciences that requires intercooperation but there will be few to non who understand every aspect it's just too wide a scope

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham


"And what is the definition of a "climate" scientist."

Of 12,000 surveyed and peer reviewed papers on the topic of climate change by scientists from various fields (climatologists, geologists, biologists etc) the consensus is 97-98% that man made climate change is real and is a serious threat.

The US DoD, not exactly a bastion of soppy left wing ideology, believes that climate change is one of the largest threats to ongoing operations around the world.

I don't mind if you don't agree incidentally, it just surprises me when someone is a denialist. When virtually every bit of evidence is stacked against one's beliefs it always seemed odd to me to continue to ignore the facts presented and insist on being correct.

I've read a lot of denialist articles and papers and not a one cannot be dismissed as either the work of paid shills, incorrect assumptions, flawed process or outright fabrications.

The thing about science is that it's falsifiable. Anyone can look at the evidence, perform the experiment or make the observations and get the same results. If you find yourself in disagreement with a 97-98% consensus of experts and specialists you could be wrong.

If you dont understand that man made climate change is actually a thing you may as well stand on the shore and tell the sea to turn back a la Cnut. Reality doesn't care what your beliefs are.

Sorry if that's all a bit harsh

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"I'll give you a clue. It's 97%."
They give the answer there paymasters want.

In the fifties there where scientist who said smoking was not harmfull,they where paid by tobacco companies.

Scientist are as trustworthy as polititions

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And what is the definition of a "climate" scientist.

Of 12,000 surveyed and peer reviewed papers on the topic of climate change by scientists from various fields (climatologists, geologists, biologists etc) the consensus is 97-98% that man made climate change is real and is a serious threat.

The US DoD, not exactly a bastion of soppy left wing ideology, believes that climate change is one of the largest threats to ongoing operations around the world.

I don't mind if you don't agree incidentally, it just surprises me when someone is a denialist. When virtually every bit of evidence is stacked against one's beliefs it always seemed odd to me to continue to ignore the facts presented and insist on being correct.

I've read a lot of denialist articles and papers and not a one cannot be dismissed as either the work of paid shills, incorrect assumptions, flawed process or outright fabrications.

The thing about science is that it's falsifiable. Anyone can look at the evidence, perform the experiment or make the observations and get the same results. If you find yourself in disagreement with a 97-98% consensus of experts and specialists you could be wrong.

If you dont understand that man made climate change is actually a thing you may as well stand on the shore and tell the sea to turn back a la Cnut. Reality doesn't care what your beliefs are.

Sorry if that's all a bit harsh "

At what point did I deny anything if you read the thread you'd see I made a post in support of the science what I disagree with is the utterly silly statistic you posted. The back up you just said there makes no comment on the validity of the papers or their conclusions or evidence it simply days they were over reviewed like all scientific work is. Doesn't mean it was considered correct it could have been torn apart.

Secondly it also just proved you don't understand statistics, 97% of 12,000 papers does not mean 97% of all "climate" scientists.

Those are very unlikely to be 12,000 unique papers by 12,000 unique scientists.

Nearly everyone in the scientific world hangs their head when they see some bullocks in the paper backed up by "scientists say".

Also the ipcc (right acronym it's been a while) has been found to be very misleading in its data collection. One issue with politicalising science and making out one side to be superior to the other is you make it very easy for it to become corrupted.

For instance cherry picking data to support conclusions though "homologenised" data and then destroying the original source days, this would have your work derided on most sciences but in climate science anyone who spoke out on the issue was shouted down as a "denier".

My main issue with climate change is both sides seem to be turning it into a belief system rather than a scientific study.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"What percentage of climate scientists do you think are convinced?"

any idea what percentage where in favour of acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, global cooling, the millennium bug?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Im fucking fed up of recycling.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"its bull.....did noah have to build the ark because everyone was using too much deodorant? the weather is unpredictable always has been always will be! theres been an ice age before and Id imagine there will be another one! information put out by the government to control ppl....bring out new energy saving laws to make £ "

Noah ?

may as well quote a passage from Pingu..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham


"What percentage of climate scientists do you think are convinced?

any idea what percentage where in favour of acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, global cooling, the millennium bug? "

I'm sorry but are you actually disputing both the acidification of rainwater and ozone depletion with a straight face?

Global Cooling was a theory that did *not* have mainstream scientific consensus during it's heyday. Primarily due to a lack of international communication between climate scientists, peer reviewed articles during the period show global temperature increasing between the disputed period (~1940-1970).

(I don't think many climatologists had much to say about the Y2K bug)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"What percentage of climate scientists do you think are convinced?

any idea what percentage where in favour of acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, global cooling, the millennium bug?

I'm sorry but are you actually disputing both the acidification of rainwater and ozone depletion with a straight face?

Global Cooling was a theory that did *not* have mainstream scientific consensus during it's heyday. Primarily due to a lack of international communication between climate scientists, peer reviewed articles during the period show global temperature increasing between the disputed period (~1940-1970).

(I don't think many climatologists had much to say about the Y2K bug) "

well your using biologists for ya climate change so why not?

all of these were scientific principles were scientist got caught chatting bubbles.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

I have little doubt that volcanoes have an effect upon climate

I have little doubt the activity of the sun has an effect upon climate

I have little doubt that the mean distance of our planet from the sun effects climate

I have little doubt that life that photo synthesises has an effect on climate and the same probability that co2 from bacteria has an effect

I have little doubt that the respiration of all animals has an effect and the same for their digestion

I have little doubt that what some may term the "unnatural" activities of humanity have an effect upon climate

I find it arrogant and disrespectful to our planet to use abuse its resources without consideration to a number of consequences , including sustainability , effect upon the Non human environment ,air quality, sea/water quality

And least in my list effect upon climate and weather

Just an aside if , if the only concern was humanity disappearing because of excessive co2 , it would not concern me much as other life historically grows and proliferates at a much greater rate when hot and high in co2

For my mind any extreme events are part of evolution and over a billion years many species will disappear and many new ones will evolve

I might add I wish humanity would put as much effort into preventing humans hunting our rare creatures into extinction as they seem to want to prevent a warming effect upon our planet

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham


"well your using biologists for ya climate change so why not?

all of these were scientific principles were scientist got caught chatting bubbles. "

Who do you think performs studies on animals and their habitats affected by ACC?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's all the crows farting 24-7

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

It could be mooted that humans cannot ever place more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than has at least once already existed and , we existing here and now are an example of the consequences xx

Just incase not clear

Regardless of the significance of human activity upon climate or my opinion of that significance I fully support the perspective that humanity should wean itself away from unsustainable fuels

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The only way to be sure, is to look and see for yourself instead if listening to the media. I'm very concerned with how we are so unprepared for any changes, be they human made or natural, Permaculture has looked for answers since the 60s, but not many people want to listen, unfortunately most people prefer to carry on in comfortable oblivion, until shit hits the fan, then they will all be screaming and asking why nobody did anything.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's all the crows farting 24-7 "
cows

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *osieWoman
over a year ago

Wembley


"...

Personally I think its the earth cycle "

The Earth is going through PMT; I know I get bloody angry too when I do

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andom2chatMan
over a year ago

A Galaxy Far, Far Away & Spain


"It's all the crows farting 24-7 cows"

Ladies... You heard the man - hold in your farts!

* Runs for cover*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What percentage of climate scientists do you think are convinced?

any idea what percentage where in favour of acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, global cooling, the millennium bug?

I'm sorry but are you actually disputing both the acidification of rainwater and ozone depletion with a straight face?

Global Cooling was a theory that did *not* have mainstream scientific consensus during it's heyday. Primarily due to a lack of international communication between climate scientists, peer reviewed articles during the period show global temperature increasing between the disputed period (~1940-1970).

(I don't think many climatologists had much to say about the Y2K bug) "

You seem to know your stuff peeps.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham


"At what point did I deny anything if you read the thread you'd see I made a post in support of the science what I disagree with is the utterly silly statistic you posted. The back up you just said there makes no comment on the validity of the papers or their conclusions or evidence it simply days they were over reviewed like all scientific work is. Doesn't mean it was considered correct it could have been torn apart.

Secondly it also just proved you don't understand statistics, 97% of 12,000 papers does not mean 97% of all "climate" scientists.

Those are very unlikely to be 12,000 unique papers by 12,000 unique scientists.

Nearly everyone in the scientific world hangs their head when they see some bullocks in the paper backed up by "scientists say".

Also the ipcc (right acronym it's been a while) has been found to be very misleading in its data collection. One issue with politicalising science and making out one side to be superior to the other is you make it very easy for it to become corrupted.

For instance cherry picking data to support conclusions though "homologenised" data and then destroying the original source days, this would have your work derided on most sciences but in climate science anyone who spoke out on the issue was shouted down as a "denier".

My main issue with climate change is both sides seem to be turning it into a belief system rather than a scientific study."

Sorry for biting, saw the criticism and overreacted

You are absolutely correct in assuming that some specialists within the field have published multiple papers. PNAS (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) stated "...we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

You're welcome to argue further on the matter of my quote "97% of scientists have all the evidence" but I did not pull that figure out of my arse, thank you.

I'd like to see some evidence of the IPCC have collected or analysed their data erroneously (did you mean homogenised?) or somehow falsified it. That's kind of a big deal and I've seen nothing about it (that could absolutely be my failure to have read it). I would genuinely be interested in viewing some proof of this.

I totally agree with you on the politicisation of science. My position, as above, is that facts are facts and arguing against them is like arguing against rising waters - a pointless endeavour. I agree with you again about science "believers". They can be annoying. It's a process, a method for making sense of the world and (to badly paraphrase Carl Sagan) casting light to illuminate the darkness. To this end I read constantly and subscribe to several reputable journals to ensure I remain informed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im fucking fed up of recycling."

Actually recycling is something I agree with. If only it actually happened. Over 95% of the stuff people put in their recycling bins still either ends up on a landfill or in an incinerator. Another big con.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"well your using biologists for ya climate change so why not?

all of these were scientific principles were scientist got caught chatting bubbles.

Who do you think performs studies on animals and their habitats affected by ACC?"

you seem to be predicting the future but cant seem to remember the past and

taking things out of context to manipulate your argument. bad science.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im fucking fed up of recycling.

Actually recycling is something I agree with. If only it actually happened. Over 95% of the stuff people put in their recycling bins still either ends up on a landfill or in an incinerator. Another big con."

Same here, it needs to be better at the production end of things, they should be making more packaging that can actually be recycled, people with busy lives wont spend time peeling of stickers etc, needs a new approach.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham


"well your using biologists for ya climate change so why not?

all of these were scientific principles were scientist got caught chatting bubbles.

Who do you think performs studies on animals and their habitats affected by ACC?

you seem to be predicting the future but cant seem to remember the past and

taking things out of context to manipulate your argument. bad science. "

Every question you asked I have answered. I've done so clearly and concisely. If I have not done so could you point out where please and I'll try and be more specific.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im fucking fed up of recycling.

Actually recycling is something I agree with. If only it actually happened. Over 95% of the stuff people put in their recycling bins still either ends up on a landfill or in an incinerator. Another big con.

Same here, it needs to be better at the production end of things, they should be making more packaging that can actually be recycled, people with busy lives wont spend time peeling of stickers etc, needs a new approach."

Totally agree, but they also have to start recycling properly too, not just claiming they do and giving people false figures. A friend of mine owns a waste company and has given up doing recycling runs because out of 15 lorry loads (over 180 tons) of recyclable material each week only 1, maybe two loads were accepted. Everything else was directed to the landfill or local incinerator.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im fucking fed up of recycling.

Actually recycling is something I agree with. If only it actually happened. Over 95% of the stuff people put in their recycling bins still either ends up on a landfill or in an incinerator. Another big con.

Same here, it needs to be better at the production end of things, they should be making more packaging that can actually be recycled, people with busy lives wont spend time peeling of stickers etc, needs a new approach.

Totally agree, but they also have to start recycling properly too, not just claiming they do and giving people false figures. A friend of mine owns a waste company and has given up doing recycling runs because out of 15 lorry loads (over 180 tons) of recyclable material each week only 1, maybe two loads were accepted. Everything else was directed to the landfill or local incinerator. "

I read an article recently that said they can't make the money out of it and it's on a bit of a decline lately, crazy, how this problem has gone on for decades and they still can't get it right, red tape economics?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"well your using biologists for ya climate change so why not?

all of these were scientific principles were scientist got caught chatting bubbles.

Who do you think performs studies on animals and their habitats affected by ACC?

you seem to be predicting the future but cant seem to remember the past and

taking things out of context to manipulate your argument. bad science.

Every question you asked I have answered. I've done so clearly and concisely. If I have not done so could you point out where please and I'll try and be more specific."

my original question about the percentage of scientists who called it wrong, that you seem to be ignoring.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We have had many extremes, cold and hot weather and windy, is it cos we are in the earths natural cycle or is a little bit down to man? I also heard from facts that we may enter a 30 year ice age.

Personally I think its the earth cycle "

Well we are actually just exiting the last ice age, so we should in theory enter a period which is much more natural to this planet when there are no ice caps at either end of the earth.

Another ice age will happen geologically quite soon a few million years maybe. But something like 85% of the 4 billion years this planet has existed there was no ice cap, which is quite a few birthdays for a human, but a slight nap for a mountain.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im fucking fed up of recycling.

Actually recycling is something I agree with. If only it actually happened. Over 95% of the stuff people put in their recycling bins still either ends up on a landfill or in an incinerator. Another big con.

Same here, it needs to be better at the production end of things, they should be making more packaging that can actually be recycled, people with busy lives wont spend time peeling of stickers etc, needs a new approach.

Totally agree, but they also have to start recycling properly too, not just claiming they do and giving people false figures. A friend of mine owns a waste company and has given up doing recycling runs because out of 15 lorry loads (over 180 tons) of recyclable material each week only 1, maybe two loads were accepted. Everything else was directed to the landfill or local incinerator.

I read an article recently that said they can't make the money out of it and it's on a bit of a decline lately, crazy, how this problem has gone on for decades and they still can't get it right, red tape economics?"

Kind of economics.

They won't do anything about it because it's expensive and will require changes to health & safety laws and its far more profitable to claim they're doing something and tax people for it when they're not actually doing anything.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im fucking fed up of recycling.

Actually recycling is something I agree with. If only it actually happened. Over 95% of the stuff people put in their recycling bins still either ends up on a landfill or in an incinerator. Another big con.

Same here, it needs to be better at the production end of things, they should be making more packaging that can actually be recycled, people with busy lives wont spend time peeling of stickers etc, needs a new approach.

Totally agree, but they also have to start recycling properly too, not just claiming they do and giving people false figures. A friend of mine owns a waste company and has given up doing recycling runs because out of 15 lorry loads (over 180 tons) of recyclable material each week only 1, maybe two loads were accepted. Everything else was directed to the landfill or local incinerator.

I read an article recently that said they can't make the money out of it and it's on a bit of a decline lately, crazy, how this problem has gone on for decades and they still can't get it right, red tape economics?

Kind of economics.

They won't do anything about it because it's expensive and will require changes to health & safety laws and its far more profitable to claim they're doing something and tax people for it when they're not actually doing anything."

How important this is, and to see it being used like that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham


"my original question about the percentage of scientists who called it wrong, that you seem to be ignoring. "

I'm sorry but I have actually answered that one already. To reiterate -

Acid rain is a real, actual thing.

Ozone depletion is a real actual thing.

Global cooling is *not* a real actual thing, nor was it a scientific consensus. It was the media misreporting a small subset of studies. A review of the studies over the period 1937-1970 shows that the temperature was in fact increasing. This shows the danger of not sharing information globally as well as believing the crap you see in newspapers.

The Y2K bug had nothing to do with science, it was a decision made by early programmers to set an arbitrary two digit identifier for the year which meant that 2000 was indistinguishable from 1900 etc.

So basically, what are you arguing about exactly?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 19/07/15 15:47:08]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"my original question about the percentage of scientists who called it wrong, that you seem to be ignoring.

I'm sorry but I have actually answered that one already. To reiterate -

Acid rain is a real, actual thing.

Ozone depletion is a real actual thing.

Global cooling is *not* a real actual thing, nor was it a scientific consensus. It was the media misreporting a small subset of studies. A review of the studies over the period 1937-1970 shows that the temperature was in fact increasing. This shows the danger of not sharing information globally as well as believing the crap you see in newspapers.

The Y2K bug had nothing to do with science, it was a decision made by early programmers to set an arbitrary two digit identifier for the year which meant that 2000 was indistinguishable from 1900 etc.

So basically, what are you arguing about exactly?"

I was ready to type on this post a few times, but you are doing a great job, keep it up, with you all the way

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Of course human activity is contributing to global warming....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Of course human activity is contributing to global warming.... "

Stands to reason, we can't do all we've done since the industrial revolution and not have an effect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hello KP2903,

just to show that there are different opinions, i.e 1.6% who do:-

"Here are the categories that Cook et al state. I have added the numbers that Bahner found beside each.

1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64

2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922

3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910

4,No Position: 7970

5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW: 54

6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify: 15

7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%: 9

So 64 out of 11,944, or 0.5%, take the view that humans are the main cause of global warming. But that includes all abstracts, including those that did not take a position. It would be nice to take the 64 as a percent of those that did take a position. Unfortunately, in their data set, Cook et al put 4a, those that do not address the cause of global warming, with 4b, those that express the view that humans' role in global warming is uncertain or undefined. It would be nice to separate them, but we can't unless we have the even rawer data. So let's generously conclude that everyone in category 4 has expressed no view. That's a total of 7970, leaving a total of 3,974 that have expressed a view. The 64 who think the main cause is humans is, drum roll please: 1.6%."

Now the article I took that from is large but and has many contributors but it does go to show that all is not so easily stated as you have done.

Alec

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *P2903Couple
over a year ago

Rotherham


"...Now the article I took that from is large but and has many contributors but it does go to show that all is not so easily stated as you have done..."

I've read it now. First impression - it's obviously biased (that's based on the website it's hosted on which is funded by the usual Austrian school/Libertarian suspects).

Secondly - "...According to Bahner (and I have not gone through and checked the raw data for myself)..." - the author of the page you quoted from *hasnt bothered to verify the data* and yet is still presenting his post as a fait accompli. That's not a small problem.

Thirdly, in no way does the article counter my argument since it's explicitly nitpicking the use of a single word ("main") within the Cook et al paper. This is not the work of an intellectually honest author.

Since my position is that 97% of the scientists who have presented data support ACC I fail to see how what you've posted would have any impact on the factual nature of my initial statement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What's funny is the IPCC official stance is we've past the point of no return so all these "green" polices are pointless were at the point it's a self sustaining feedback loop and so investment would be better spent in infrastructure and defences and preparing for the change than silly feel good policies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hello KP2903,

as a bald statement of fact yes, although I don't know what percentage of relevant scientists took part?

However the survey obviously went a lot deeper and tried to ascertain the level of effect.

Personally I believe neither the high or the low percentages and think there is a far more even point of view from what I have read.

What is becoming more obvious, and in view of the temperature data collected since satellite readings are been taken that there has been little or no warming for many years, in contrast to the forecasts. We and other countries have been spending an inordinate amount of money in trying to combat the supposed threat to little effect except to significantly increase our cost of energy and reduce it's reliability.

Alec

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not gonna pretend i understand the climate and all the stuff surrounding that, but i'm pretty sure we're polluting a lot of things that are necessary for life (like water and the air) and this needs to stop.

I personally don't wanna walk around wearing a filter mask, no matter how cool it looks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ildt123Man
over a year ago

Huddersfield

Actually the science of global warming is pretty clear, yes we are making a difference to the climate of the planet, hardly a surprise if you look at human influence.

Of course many many political types use this to rob us via tax and talk shite about the subject, but don't let that fool you we are fucking the place up. But no charging and extra £400 to tax a Landy won't help!

Yes salt water chimneys in the arctic sea may cause an ice age by switching off the oceanic conveyor but tax won't stop it!

And whatever the UK does won't make jack shit difference globally so it's a con but doing nothing should not be an option either

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Given that the planet will survive very nicely without mankind, and that it is mankind that is fucking up the planet ( although not in runaway global warming) and it's resources, how come you almost never hear of the one true solution?

Control the total human population.

Would be a good start.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps the 2 child limit on child benefits is the politicians way of attempting to slow down population growth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Perhaps the 2 child limit on child benefits is the politicians way of attempting to slow down population growth. "

They should put a limit on the richer too then and tax them more so they don't consume so much resources? It's all shit at the end of the day and more about giving an financial worth and value to people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

It's accepted almost as fact now, due to the weight of the evidence, that we are in a warming period, largely due to human activity. The evidence is substantial and this is above and beyond any natural patterns.

This century is likely to see global average temperature rise significantly, meaning some places get massive increases.

People who don't accept this are either not experts, informed or have their own agendas.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The only conspiracy around climate change is the self denial of people who like the status quo!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We have had many extremes, cold and hot weather and windy, is it cos we are in the earths natural cycle or is a little bit down to man? I also heard from facts that we may enter a 30 year ice age.

Personally I think its the earth cycle "

absolutely

global warming nonsense is from scientists who receive income for saying this

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hello KP2903,

as a bald statement of fact yes, although I don't know what percentage of relevant scientists took part?

However the survey obviously went a lot deeper and tried to ascertain the level of effect.

Personally I believe neither the high or the low percentages and think there is a far more even point of view from what I have read.

What is becoming more obvious, and in view of the temperature data collected since satellite readings are been taken that there has been little or no warming for many years, in contrast to the forecasts. We and other countries have been spending an inordinate amount of money in trying to combat the supposed threat to little effect except to significantly increase our cost of energy and reduce it's reliability.

Alec"
.

Hello Alec

We've been here before.

Twelve of the last 16 years are the hottest years recorded! They actually follow the climate models quite well!

To keep pedaling the rhetoric pushed by the koch brothers because 1999 was the hottest year ever recorded and then not seeing a hotter year for 15 years is nonsense!...

The fact that 2014 by NASA has just been ranked warmer than 99 shows that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

few people analyse the facts objectively.

The IPCC was caught massaging the figures as the data didn't fit their predictions (I read some of their FORTRAN source code when they were hacked). All the other data sets are normalised against the IPCC. So all the data analysis is dodgy.

We are currently still in an ice age, though in an inter glacial warming period.

The climate has been warming steadily at around 0.5C per century since the last full glacial period 11,000 ish years ago.

Whilst there have been substantial variations in climate during this time with periods of cooling and warming, the underlying trend over the last 11,000 years has remained unchanged.

So the climate has and will change over time, regardless of human activity. we are currently in a stable period, with no appreciable change for several decades. This infuriates the warmists as we are now supposed to be in runaway warming according to their predictions and models, which have been fed altered and unrepresentative data.

There are so many issues with the so called science of AGW that IMO at present, one can have no confidence in anything that comes from that camp.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We have had many extremes, cold and hot weather and windy, is it cos we are in the earths natural cycle or is a little bit down to man? I also heard from facts that we may enter a 30 year ice age.

Personally I think its the earth cycle

absolutely

global warming nonsense is from scientists who receive income for saying this"
.

I'd have more respect for you if you just said.... I enjoy fucking the place up and it won't affect me because I'll be dead by the time the consequences are felt!

At least you'd be honest!, to deny scientific experiments and data pointing out the high likelihood of man made climate charge is quite frankly ridiculous.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I go as far to say even understanding global warming is beyond scientists reach and the data they gather.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

The one good thing that is coming out of the whole AGW thing is the development in renewables and energy efficiency, though this is being seeded largely by susbsidy and taxes pushing energy prices up.

We need to get off fossil fuel based energy production for many reasons including environmental and socio political.

What is certain, is that energy demand will not diminish, appealing to people's better nature won't change a thing, acting unilaterally won't make any difference.

As ever, when the commercial economics and technology development meet, then things will happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Once see a article on TV by sir David Bellamy ,whom said it is a natural cycle of warm spells and mini ice ages and nothing to do with mankind and we cannot stop it either ,but strangely enough he's not been back on TV since as governments have to blame some. Thing in order to rake in more taxes lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"few people analyse the facts objectively.

The IPCC was caught massaging the figures as the data didn't fit their predictions (I read some of their FORTRAN source code when they were hacked). All the other data sets are normalised against the IPCC. So all the data analysis is dodgy.

We are currently still in an ice age, though in an inter glacial warming period.

The climate has been warming steadily at around 0.5C per century since the last full glacial period 11,000 ish years ago.

Whilst there have been substantial variations in climate during this time with periods of cooling and warming, the underlying trend over the last 11,000 years has remained unchanged.

So the climate has and will change over time, regardless of human activity. we are currently in a stable period, with no appreciable change for several decades. This infuriates the warmists as we are now supposed to be in runaway warming according to their predictions and models, which have been fed altered and unrepresentative data.

There are so many issues with the so called science of AGW that IMO at present, one can have no confidence in anything that comes from that camp.

"
.

Not sure where your analysing your facts but everything I've read over the years was that earth's been on a long term cooling trend for thousands of years!.

The very quick reversal has come only in the last few hundred years and most of that in the last 70 years.

Were currently from scientific evidence at the warmest temperature for 11,000 years

The oceans are the warmest for 11,000 years and conversely considering around a third of human made c02 is dissolved into the oceans there now the most acidic for 3 million years and according to UN figures the rate of acceleration has not been seen in the oceans for 20 million years!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

Not sure where you're getting your info from either, as everything I've read shows an average underlying trend of 0.5C increase for the last 11,000 years.

So yes, that would mean we are the warmest for 11,000 years, give or take, due to the wide variations in climate over short time spans

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Once see a article on TV by sir David Bellamy ,whom said it is a natural cycle of warm spells and mini ice ages and nothing to do with mankind and we cannot stop it either ,but strangely enough he's not been back on TV since as governments have to blame some. Thing in order to rake in more taxes lol "
.

Governments don't need a grand conspiracy to tax you, they have and do increase tax's regularly that have nothing to do with climate change, they also reduce tax's.... Like modern diesel cars which have very very low tax because they produce low c02!

They didn't tax petroleum massively from climate change and aviation fuel doesn't even have tax on it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not sure where you're getting your info from either, as everything I've read shows an average underlying trend of 0.5C increase for the last 11,000 years.

So yes, that would mean we are the warmest for 11,000 years, give or take, due to the wide variations in climate over short time spans"
.

A 0.5 degree increase per century for 11000 years gives you an increase of 55 degrees!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

OK - try this simple graphic for some context;

http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

Global temps over the last 2.4bn years

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

[Removed by poster at 20/07/15 11:16:10]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"OK - try this simple graphic for some context;

http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

Global temps over the last 2.4bn years"
.

That graph shows a 25 degree variance over 400 million years.

Although in the next paragraph it says 20,000 years ago the world was probably 5 degrees cooler than today globally at its peak inter glacial!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen


"

A 0.5 degree increase per century for 11000 years gives you an increase of 55 degrees!!"

Oops, must have been 0.5F - I still think in imperial a lot of the time , whatever the underlying figure is, the earth has been warming for the last 11,000 years or so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unky monkeyMan
over a year ago

in the night garden

The planet has been going through cold/hot cycles since it's origin. Literally thousands! Typical of humanity to think they are special.

At least we can have Tuna in the North Sea now nom nom nom.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"At least you'd be honest!, to deny scientific experiments and data pointing out the high likelihood of man made climate charge is quite frankly ridiculous."

It would have been a lot less controversial if the spin doctors who interpret the scientific data for the masses through the media were honest and claimed Human ACCELERATED climate change.

Climate change has been and always will be the natural order of the planet, and in geological terms it is slow enough for plants and animals to evolve to suit it. This is obvious and gives the doubters the ammunition against the media claim.

The speed of it is what we have possibly influenced, though I am not convinced that we can actually put the brakes on now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Look up chemtrail

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

A 0.5 degree increase per century for 11000 years gives you an increase of 55 degrees!!

Oops, must have been 0.5F - I still think in imperial a lot of the time , whatever the underlying figure is, the earth has been warming for the last 11,000 years or so."
.

The earth cooled about 0.5 degrees during the last 5000 years!.

The warming were seeing now in the last few centuries that reversed that is the fastest growing warming for 11000 years and makes it warmer today than then!

That figure of 11000 thousand years was the start of the Holocene of the current ice age.

Nobody denys that earth's climate changes naturally, in fact the study of it and causes helps understand the same patterns we see from man made sources!

Just as a curious fact the human population of the earth was around 5 million back then!

And the vast majority of the recent warning of the last two centuries has come in the last 70 years, when we know there's been no excessive sun activity, no excessive volcanoe activity, no major comet collision!

So the mystery of the recent warming is not really a mystery!

Were fairly sure it's from human activity and were fairly sure it will get worse unless we stop some of that activity

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If they're wrong about Climate Change - then we have nothing to worry about.

If they are right about Climate Change then we could all very possibly be dead before we see our children grow up...

Which option would you rather worry about?

(I'm involved in the Earth Sciences, and I've seen and understood the evidence - and I am seriously worried, if that gives you a clue...!)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Look up chemtrail "

Christ you're an idiot if you believe that shit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hello Demontres,

The one good thing that is coming out of the whole AGW thing is the development in renewables and energy efficiency, though this is being seeded largely by susbsidy and taxes pushing energy prices up.

Energy efficiency is a good thing to a point, but the development of renewables is causing more problems than it supposedly cures. Because of the deficiencies of wind generation, in particular, the U.K. is in a very precarious position regarding power capacity. Mothballed fossil fuel stations are being re commissioned at huge cost. Companies are being asked to generate their own power with, usually diesel generators in times of power droops. It simply doesn't work, Germany and Denmark to name two also have serious power problems.

Alec

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hello Demontres,

The one good thing that is coming out of the whole AGW thing is the development in renewables and energy efficiency, though this is being seeded largely by susbsidy and taxes pushing energy prices up.

Energy efficiency is a good thing to a point, but the development of renewables is causing more problems than it supposedly cures. Because of the deficiencies of wind generation, in particular, the U.K. is in a very precarious position regarding power capacity. Mothballed fossil fuel stations are being re commissioned at huge cost. Companies are being asked to generate their own power with, usually diesel generators in times of power droops. It simply doesn't work, Germany and Denmark to name two also have serious power problems.

Alec"
.

Germany is currently half way through the most audacious power prograextraction modern era, there attempting to get off, both fossil based power and nuclear based power.

There leading the world along with Holland and China in renewables!

Gas prices and oil prices are not being driven up through subsidy but through costs of extraction.

Electricity is being subsided for renewables but then again the exact same subsidy is being used for Chinese investment in the new nuclear power station at hinkley,I see your not complaining about that though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


".....

Were fairly sure it's from human activity and were fairly sure it will get worse unless we stop some of that activity"

Not a chance of International co-operation on this subject. May as well prepare for the inevitable rather than plan on changing the climate (back).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"If they're wrong about Climate Change - then we have nothing to worry about.

If they are right about Climate Change then we could all very possibly be dead before we see our children grow up...

Which option would you rather worry about?

(I'm involved in the Earth Sciences, and I've seen and understood the evidence - and I am seriously worried, if that gives you a clue...!)

"

Let's try to ease your worries. The earth has been around for the best part of four and half thousand, million years (4.5 billion years). In that time it has been both hotter and colder than it is today. The last fifty years which is causing us all so much anxiety would not even register as the blink of an eyelid in 4.5 billion years.

A very bad year of extreme volcanic eruptions would emit lots of methane into the atmosphere and that does fuck things up. The only thing that we really, really do know more than anything else, is that an excess of CO2 is really good for crops, trees and plantlife in general as they just get it on, in an orgy of photosynthestic paradise. Bizarre that CO2 is so demonsised when the natural world thrives on it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Photosynthesis!

Requires sunlight energy to convert to chemical energy!

If the predominant c02 excess causes more clouds, then you'll get less sunlight!

Of those 4.6 billion years it took over a billion for basic organisms to evolve.

2.5 billion for basic creatures

3.5 billion to get sexual reproduction life

4.1 billion to get anthrapods

So it might have been here for 4.6 billion years but by jove life wasn't, the earth has 4 billion years left before it's swallowed by the sun, think about that, if humans cause an elee.

It's quite likely no intelligent life will ever have time to evolve again!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think over the last 200-300 yrs humans have become parasitic in relation to our planet.....instead of living in relative harmony with nature as was the case in pre industrial times we now mine,rape and pillage the earth so the entitled 1% can have Iphones n all that kind of shit,polluting the soil,seas and rivers in the process.

I would say the earth is hacking n coughing as if it had swallowed a fly.....humans are that fly and the earth will cough us up n spit us out eventually.......or it might swallow a spider

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think over the last 200-300 yrs humans have become parasitic in relation to our planet.....instead of living in relative harmony with nature as was the case in pre industrial times we now mine,rape and pillage the earth so the entitled 1% can have Iphones n all that kind of shit,polluting the soil,seas and rivers in the process.

I would say the earth is hacking n coughing as if it had swallowed a fly.....humans are that fly and the earth will cough us up n spit us out eventually.......or it might swallow a spider "
.

I think we have to recognise the parasitic nature of intelligent life and legislate to minimise the impact.

The ipcc doesn't actually go far enough in conveying some of the worst data despite what some feel on here!.

I absolutely agree with the post further up, if the worst 25% of the data is right were all fucked, if you average the data out, the next generation are fucked and if the best 25% is right, your grandkids are fucked!.

You have to go all the way down to the best 1.5% of the data for a half reasonable scenario but right now there's no data(0.01%) that says they've got it wrong!

So the people who think it's not going to happen should find the evidence to support their claim or shut the fuck up and move aside and allow somebody to at least attempt saving the human race.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top