The Global con.

[Grandad.Malky]

After reading a article in the Sunday fail mail I wondered how many people were still buying all the hype tripe.

 

Ten facts about global warming

 

THEY don’t want you to know

 

1. Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.

2. Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.

3. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.

4. Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.

5. Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.

6. The evidence of significant warming comes from surface stations that are affected by a variety of factors that contaminate the data.

7. Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.

8. The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.

9. The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives

 

10. The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists

[Grandad.Malky]

I assume no comments means we are all fed up of hearing about global warming .

[mj.scuba]

Whether man made climate change is real or not, I tend to think it's better to be on the side of caution and assume it is happening and it is man made. By doing that humanity can't really lose out, because we know the stuff that supposedly causes the man-made climate change (fossil fuels) is a finite resourse, so making efficiencies with it and cutting back on usage will extend how long it will last. It will also spur on technological developments. And if it does turn out right that we are the cause, at least we've mitigated against it the best we can, and if not, future generations will inherit more efficient technology and ways to generate electricity without burning stuff.

[Cyclone]

There's a balance to be struck though MJ, if we go all out to cut CO2 now it will mean decades of relative poverty (compared to not cutting it). A balanced approach would see us invest sensibly in alternatives, not destroy economies chasing them before the technology is ready and for no good reason.

[Grandad.Malky]

Whether man made climate change is real or not, I tend to think it's better to be on the side of caution and assume it is happening and it is man made. By doing that humanity can't really lose out, because we know the stuff that supposedly causes the man-made climate change (fossil fuels) is a finite resourse, so making efficiencies with it and cutting back on usage will extend how long it will last. It will also spur on technological developments. And if it does turn out right that we are the cause, at least we've mitigated against it the best we can, and if not, future generations will inherit more efficient technology and ways to generate electricity without burning stuff.

 

Well at least that’s an honest approach rather than all the scaremongering that as been spouted about global warming / climate change.

[Alcoblog]

As science progresses, it may be for the first time that we can 'turn down the temperature' of the planet.

I'm really not sure wether anyone knows what temperature it should be though.

The cooler we make it, the more fuel we'll need to burn to keep warm which is rather ironic.

[mj.scuba]

There's a balance to be struck though MJ, if we go all out to cut CO2 now it will mean decades of relative poverty (compared to not cutting it). A balanced approach would see us invest sensibly in alternatives, not destroy economies chasing them before the technology is ready and for no good reason.

 

Can't find anything to disagree with there, though tbh, I haven't heard enough or fully understand how having to cut CO2 output damages economies. I always thought, that green technology could become an industry sector in itself, therefore creating jobs and complementing the economy.

[truman]

Can't find anything to disagree with there, though tbh, I haven't heard enough or fully understand how having to cut CO2 output damages economies. .

 

How much tax is added to things in the name of "Global warming"?

[Cyclone]

It could, in the long term, but at the moment it just sucks up tax money (in the form of subsidies) and causes problems (see costs) for various industries. All of which results in less (energy and manufactured items) being produced for a given cost, which means we all pay more for energy and things.

If you imagine GDP of the world is some fixed value at any given time, how we choose to 'spend' that GDP determines how much of everything we produce. If we divert output into chasing green energy and green manufacturing then we produce less overall and so things are more scarce which means they cost more.

[mj.scuba]

I think possibly a more serious issue is the over population of the planet. I'd like to see all countries (via the UN) adopt a policy of encouraging people to have no more than three children, with a long term aim of reducing the population of the planet.

 

My theory is, that if a couple have two children, the children simply replace the parents that eventually die. A third child makes up slightly for people that don't or can't have children, but should still give a negative growth pattern.

 

I've no idea how feasible it would be, but I think some politician somewhere needs to start talking about population control as a serious subject. It will take a bold and courageous politician to get the ball rolling.