The Global Warming Megathread

[Halibut]

Actually, Basil, you couldn't be more wrong. Far from being 'clearly-confused', David Attenborough has resisted joining in the debate on climate change for years, refusing to comment until the weight of evidence became overwhelming and pretty much irrefutable. The fact that he finally chose to use his authority and reputation to add his voice to the cause is in fact the very opposite of 'sensationalism'.

 

Absolutely, purdyamos, well pointed out. Attenborough's no fool, he knows his stuff.

[LordChaverly]

Strangely, the one thing which is not linked to global warming in current discussion of the issue is population growth. This is particularly odd, because it is the one variable which, directly and indirectly, is probably most responsible for global warming. I remember attending an environmental conference some years ago in Germany at which a professor gave a talk in which he said that even if the world's population consumed virtually nothing in the form of material goods, they would still affect the global environment simply by breathing.

 

We know of course that the six billion plus people on the planet do have material needs for consumer goods etc. The same of course is true of the UK population. I think a concerted effort to reduce the world's population through inducements to reduce the number of births would probably have far more effect on the problem than wind farms, solar panels or emissions trading etc. However, the reverse appears to be happening. The population of the world, and the population of the UK, are both growing, the latter through policies of neglect or even of encouragement on the part of the UK government.

[butchill]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

Please read and then pass your comments are we all being fooled the very fact that this is in a scentific magazine does it mean they may not be wrong

 

is this the reason USA never signed the kyoto treaty was there intelligence correct on this

[Heyesey]

This guy used to edit New Scientist? ...at what point did he completely lose all understanding of how science works?

[shoeshine]

I read the same article over the weekend....same source.

 

The scientist doing this work has been studying the effect of cloud formation with respect to radiation from outer space for quite some time.

 

On the other hand, politicians everywhere have been studying how best to scare folks into new forms of revenue extraction from Joe Public and how best to justify more and more behaviour control over the way we live.

 

I bet if this chap is right, and the jury is out on this one at the moment, he'll have one hell of a job to get a hearing in the Halls Of Political Self Servers/Control Freaks and lobbyists with something to gain from their activities.

[Kingmaker2]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

Please read and then pass your comments are we all being fooled the very fact that this is in a scentific magazine does it mean they may not be wrong

 

 

Actually this article was brought up already by LordChaverly in the main climate change thread here:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1943431#post1943431

 

I have already posted my thoughts in the main thread but I have copied it below anyway.:

 

The author may not be in the pay of the oil companies but he IS promoting his new book!!

 

"Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

 

For one that has only a "theory" about climate change he is very quick to dismiss others. His 90% comment about Nuclear Fission is hardly relevant, the US administration was 100% certain that Saddam had WMDs... so what?

[shoeshine]

His 90% comment about Nuclear Fission is hardly relevant, the US administration was 100% certain that Saddam had WMDs... so what?

 

And we were persuaded by both the American administration and Mr. Blair that the prospect of Iraq having WMD's was also a 100% certaincy!

 

This despite the experts on the ground in Iraq (the U.N Weapons Inspectors) being sceptical about the situation!

 

I refer you all to my previous post above!

[Kingmaker2]

And we were persuaded by both the American administration and Mr. Blair that the prospect of Iraq having WMD's was also a 100% certaincy!

 

This despite the experts on the ground in Iraq (the U.N Weapons Inspectors) being sceptical about the situation!

 

I refer you all to my previous post above!

 

That's really my point, just because the concensus gets it wrong occassionally, that doesn't mean that just because there is a concensus it must be wrong then, and it certainly is not a good enough argument on which to base his own hypothesis.

Calder is making out that those who believe in human indused climate change all have hidden political agendas, some may but some certainly won't.

And don't forget Calder has a hidden agenda of his own in this article,he is promoting his own book, even going so far as to let us know who the publishers are!

My argument is if this guy really does have such a credible alternative theory then why can't he just pulblish a free paper or make it freely available freely to everyone online instead of charging people to buy his book.

Seems to me, Calder is as guilty as the those he accuses, in lining his own pocket whilst this climate change debate still has milage.

[low_carbon]

It's impossible to identify isolated incidents as part of global warming, and I suspect that wet and windy weather (even very windy like at the moment) is actually fairly normal for the UK in January.

 

Oh for goodness sake...No one is saying that because this year has been wet, windy, sunny, particularly hot etc that this is evidence for climate change. It is based on several thousands of independent scientists who have spent their entire careers researching the subject. The subject is extremely complicated and we have to trust the scientists on this one. Read the IPCC report. Scientists will never say we have definitely caused climate change because this is the nature of rigorous science. It really can't be proven but if they say they are 90% sure then this translates as 'it's down to us'. If you aren't prepared to do anything about it then that's your decision but don't put unscientific rubbish like this for other people to get exasperated at.

[TonyRevitt]

Oh for goodness sake...No one is saying that because this year has been wet, windy, sunny, particularly hot etc that this is evidence for climate change. It is based on several thousands of independent scientists who have spent their entire careers researching the subject. The subject is extremely complicated and we have to trust the scientists on this one. Read the IPCC report. Scientists will never say we have definitely caused climate change because this is the nature of rigorous science. It really can't be proven but if they say they are 90% sure then this translates as 'it's down to us'. If you aren't prepared to do anything about it then that's your decision but don't put unscientific rubbish like this for other people to get exasperated at.

ll bet he forgott

 

 

The highly qualified scientists said in 1952 that the UK coal supplies would only last for 20 more years. The research scientists using complicated research said in 1972 that there was 25 years supply of oil in the world.

If anyone can point to any scientific predictions that have stood the test of time please let me know. Science is not wisdom. Predictive science is based on current trend mathematical models, sometimes they forget to things like all the steam trains were relaced by diesels, or the known oil reserves double in quantity. In the global warming model I will wager they have forgotten some changing dependancy, since some scientist was proposing to send devices into space to shield the earth from the sun, I will wager that he had forgotten the effects that the increase in cloud cover will have, and there will be may more yet unknown effect that will redress the balance.

Just don't worry about a thing.