Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[martin6]

I remember a map in the early nineties predicting Doncaster would be by the sea by 2020 doesn't look like that's happening, governments done nicely though taxing us on it!

 

---------- Post added 07-07-2015 at 23:51 ----------

 

Hot summer - global warming, cold winter - climate change!

[Halibut]

The evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming.

Where is the comparable physical evidence for CAGW? Nowhere.

 

Yes the CO2 global warming effect is real, but it's tiny. Modern climate change dogma is the result of vast, ill founded computer modelling. The forecasts from which are completely inconsistent with direct observations and measurements.

 

If Nigel Lawson was allowed on the BBC to put this point across, you wouldn't be under the delusion that the evidence for CAGW is far stronger than it actually is.

 

I really hate it when people conflate basic global warming physics with the CAGW. One is obviously true. The other could easily be a virtual fantasy.

 

If all we have to deal with is the proven CO2 warming effect, we really don't have a problem.

There's no need to over-charge people for electricity by a factor of 10. We can use any kind of light bulb we like.

Our elderly don't have to freeze to death in winter trying a save a bit on their heating bills.

We don't have to have the rain-forests burned down for bio-fuel farming.

We can stop burning food that starving people could otherwise have eaten.

And we can stop wasting vast amounts of money on wind farms and solar panels which could otherwise be spent on education and health care etc.

 

Almost every independent scientist in the world believes in man made global warming. Including me. So does Nigel Lawson. That's not the point. And if you hadn't been brainwashed by the Al Gore crowd you'd know that.

The question is over the massive positive feedbacks which turn a tiny interesting warming effect into a global catastrophe. These only exist in computer models which completely fail to make accurate predictions.

 

I find it very hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like that. The earth isn't a sphere.

[unbeliever]

I find it very hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like that. The earth isn't a sphere.

 

What?

If you're referring to the fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere because it has irregular features and bulges at the equator, then you're clearly focusing on tiny details because you have no means to counter my central points.

Edited July 8, 2015 by unbeliever

[Halibut]

What?

If you're referring to the fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere because it has irregular features and bulges at the equator, then you're clearly focusing on tinny details because you have no means to counter my central points.

 

It's an oblate spheroid; very lazy thinking on your part.

[GLASGOWOODS]

The evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming.

Where is the comparable physical evidence for CAGW? Nowhere.

 

Yes the CO2 global warming effect is real, but it's tiny. Modern climate change dogma is the result of vast, ill founded computer modelling. The forecasts from which are completely inconsistent with direct observations and measurements.

 

If Nigel Lawson was allowed on the BBC to put this point across, you wouldn't be under the delusion that the evidence for CAGW is far stronger than it actually is.

 

I really hate it when people conflate basic global warming physics with the CAGW. One is obviously true. The other could easily be a virtual fantasy.

 

If all we have to deal with is the proven CO2 warming effect, we really don't have a problem.

There's no need to over-charge people for electricity by a factor of 10. We can use any kind of light bulb we like.

Our elderly don't have to freeze to death in winter trying a save a bit on their heating bills.

We don't have to have the rain-forests burned down for bio-fuel farming.

We can stop burning food that starving people could otherwise have eaten.

And we can stop wasting vast amounts of money on wind farms and solar panels which could otherwise be spent on education and health care etc.

 

Almost every independent scientist in the world believes in man made global warming. Including me. So does Nigel Lawson. That's not the point. And if you hadn't been brainwashed by the Al Gore crowd you'd know that.

The question is over the massive positive feedbacks which turn a tiny interesting warming effect into a global catastrophe. These only exist in computer models which completely fail to make accurate predictions.

 

Yep. Solar panel/wind turbine subsidies in nations such as Spain has been a economical disaster. Billions of Euros down the drain, (in several Euro nations as well).

 

Like Pharma companies, fund research, promote the positives and hide the negatives. Corporate companies make fat profits, while the rest of us pay the price financially.

 

Climate change is happening, but it's all down to good old mother nature.

[unbeliever]

It's an oblate spheroid; very lazy thinking on your part.

 

May the gods strike me down for for using an approximation on a matter which was not central to the debate.

 

This is quite fun.

You're employing all the standard debate tactics to obfuscate my salient points, which you can't counter on this thread, whilst on the other accusing me of doing the same when I haven't touched on them.

Whilst I admire your debating skills, you're going to run out of distractions at some point and all we'll be left with the fact that you've not in any way countered my case.

[holymoses]

From what I seen, we as a "Modern Industrial" species have never been so clean.

 

Rewind the clock a couple of hundred years and you'll find the industrial revolution, where coal was burnt everywhere, not just in the UK but worldwide on a mega scale.

 

There's been several thousand nuclear bomb tests in the 20th century, hopefully none recently.

 

Then what about the earth its self, there are over 1500 potentially active volcanos, all could be producing greenhouse gases, Peat bogs and slurry pits also produce gases.

Swaps, wetlands and estuaries also have the potential.

 

And what do we do?

Burn Biomass, waste wood or virgin wood pellets, imported from overseas, still burning!!!

 

Wind energy, huge wind turbines made from steel, that has to be smelted forged, welded, transported, Sited in to huge blocks of concrete, which is one of the most energy wasting products to produce.

 

And yet we have rivers everywhere, flowing water that was once the main energy source and could be yet again, non polluting, non energy wasting, very efficient, but no one touches it because there are no subsidies, yet there is for wind and biomass??

Edited July 8, 2015 by holymoses
Add a bit of clarity to my post

[DnAuK]

From what I seen, we as a species have never been so clean.

 

Rewind the clock a couple of hundred years and you'll find the industrial revolution, where coal was burnt everywhere, not just in the UK but worldwide on a mega scale.

 

There's been several thousand nuclear bomb tests in the 20th century, hopefully none recently.

 

Then what about the earth its self, there are over 1500 potentially active volcanos, all could be producing greenhouse gases, Peat bogs and slurry pits also produce gases.

Swaps, wetlands and estuaries also have the potential.

 

And what do we do?

Burn Biomass, waste wood or virgin wood pellets, imported from overseas, still burning!!!

 

Wind energy, huge wind turbines made from steel, that has to be smelted forged, welded, transported, Sited in to huge blocks of concrete, which is one of the most energy wasting products to produce.

 

And yet we have rivers everywhere, flowing water that was once the main energy source and could be yet again, non polluting, non energy wasting, very efficient, but no one touches it because there are no subsidies, yet there is for wind and biomass??

 

I'm reasonably sure we existed as a species before the industrial revolution. We were very clean then.

[Cyclone]

From what I seen, we as a species have never been so clean.

 

Rewind the clock a couple of hundred years and you'll find the industrial revolution, where coal was burnt everywhere, not just in the UK but worldwide on a mega scale.

And rewind a couple of hundred more and there were <1 billion people and the only thing they did was burn wood...

 

There's been several thousand nuclear bomb tests in the 20th century, hopefully none recently.

 

Then what about the earth its self, there are over 1500 potentially active volcanos, all could be producing greenhouse gases, Peat bogs and slurry pits also produce gases.

Swaps, wetlands and estuaries also have the potential.

 

And what do we do?

Burn Biomass, waste wood or virgin wood pellets, imported from overseas, still burning!!!

 

Wind energy, huge wind turbines made from steel, that has to be smelted forged, welded, transported, Sited in to huge blocks of concrete, which is one of the most energy wasting products to produce.

 

And yet we have rivers everywhere, flowing water that was once the main energy source and could be yet again, non polluting, non energy wasting, very efficient, but no one touches it because there are no subsidies, yet there is for wind and biomass??

 

You can't easily use flowing water without the use of steel turbines and concrete to anchor them in... Much the same as wind, but obviously far more restricted in where you can site the turbines (although you get better predictability for generation).

 

---------- Post added 08-07-2015 at 10:00 ----------

 

 

Were we hell:

Almost all the temperate land on the earth was covered in forest. We hacked and burned it down for farmland.

Except across an entire continent, North America. The native Indians didn't do much agriculture from what I remember.

And I suspect that you over estimate how much forest had been felled just three hundred or four hundred years ago.

We got our heating oil etc from hunting whales.

Not polluting then, bio-fuel.

We dumped our waste in the rivers.

Where all animals dump their waste... You know where bears do it right, in the woods.

We routinely hunted species to extinction.

Species go extinct all the time, but this doesn't cause climate change.

There was scarcely a time when we weren't at war.

Self control of our population size.

 

We were much cleaner as a species before the industrial revolution.

[InigoMontoya]

Its switched to prevent confusion of the masses. Yes the earth is getting warmer (whether you believe man caused it or not). However this may mean it gets colder and more rain here. The way the weather systems will circulate etc.

 

If you simply said global warming then the average joe would say "Well why is it still flipping freezing here"

 

 

Both "global warming" and a "new ice age" would result in the UK becoming much colder.

 

Warming would cause polar (arctic) sea ice to melt, putting more cold (and fresh) water in the northern part of the Atlantic, weakening the effect of the "Atlantic Conveyer" and driving the Gulf Stream further south.

 

 

Cooling would cause the northern part of the Atlantic to cool, driving the Gulf Stream further south.

 

The Gulf Stream is one of the greatest influences on our climate - along with the simple fact of being next to the eastern edge of the ocean, ensuring its relatively benign and mild nature.

 

(London is further north than St Johns, and Edinburgh further north than Moscow, for example)