Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9692
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:02 am

simpleton wrote:the more i think about this... the more the debate reminds me of the evolution/ID arguments.

the differences and the terms they are debated on are almost identical
having thought about it a bit more i'm not sure i know what i'm talking about.... :whistle:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:25 am

doz_magic_man wrote:
Rover the Top wrote:Global warming/climate change theories have grown through their political value - politicians have realised there's points to be scored by being 'green'. We can now ban smoking because the loss in taxes can be made up off those who rely on transport to work and function in society. And that's why, instead of giving the public chance to make their own minds up, we get force-fed a one-sided viewpoint.


It was science that first mooted the theory, not politicians. If people believe it's all one big swindle to get more tax out of everybody then that's naivety personified.
Um, did I say it wasn't? Some scientists say the world is getting warmer through human activity. Some say it isn't.But it was only when the politicians got involved that it became a one-sided argument. Science may have led to the theories on global warming, but it also led to the theories that challenge them.
Scientists may put forward theories which may or may not be accurate, but they are also the masters of observing and recording. Historically, climate change has been a gradual process which can take thousands of years.

This latest temperature increase has spanned decades only. When you look at a graph which has steady peaks and troughs over a long period of time, and then all of a sudden there is an anomalous peak in a short space of time, which just happens to coincide with industrialisation, you have to ask questions.
Two problems there: firstly, people are not asking questions. The first possible correlation that's been identified has been taken as the answer. And anyone who spots flaws in that correlation, or highlights other correlations is automatically discredited. If you want to put faith in science, then surely we should listen to what all scientists say?

And secondly, we only have temperature data going back a few decades. We have an idea what the general trend has been over thousands of years, but you cannot say what happened on a year to year, day to day basis around, say, 3000BC. We can't say what happened 500 years ago. Statistically, the datasets used to back global warming theory aren't strong enough. It's like conducting a survey by judging the entire population by the first two people you meet. We've only just started collecting data, and not all datasets are consistent with each other.

But if people are happy to summarise a highly complex subject that we're only just learning about into a snappy catch phrase, who am I to argue? I'm just not going to be terrorised into submission.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:34 am

theadore wrote: people pick what they want... this documentary provided stark evidence that the 'climate change' lobby does not have all its facts in order (in a lot of cases).

however the CBI sponsered 'lets fuck things up unless anyone can prove otherwise' is still to prove its case also. ;)
Hmm, to attempt to prove that you would have to accept climate change theory is true - what are you fucking up if it isn't. I don't understand this notion of needing to justify not changing if no one can give you a reason to change? If your doctor told you to amputate your leg, for no reason other than he had a hunch it might get infected in the future, would you do it straight away? Or would you seek a second opinion? ;)

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9692
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:05 pm

true... but then as you have already pointed out in the current climate its going to be very hard to find someone else who will disagree... :)

As you already pointed out, the problem is one of a lack of information... we don't have statistical data for even a small fraction of the earths existense and so anything that we can find out is based on predictions and probabilities of varying strengths.

there is strong a theoretical base however for mankinds impact on the environment, and should this theory begin to show as feared in the future data then the time to act upon it may well be gone.

Whether you beleive in the 'doomsday' scenario or not, the need to change is still apparent... If what you say is correct, and climate change is merely occuring naturally then should we not still be concerned about it? I beleive that whatever the cause of the change, we still have the ability to affect it and therefore protect our quality of life.

There is also fossil fuel dependance to consider... using norway as an example, they have built up a huge goverment surpluss by the sale of oil to the rest of the world and are now using this money to invest in future energy production through renewable means... I would applaud our goverment taking steps in this direction (see the monboit article above and the research it points to) which would avoid us scrapping over the last few 1000$ barrels of oil 40 years down the line.

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Rover the Moon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:07 pm

theadore wrote:
doz_magic_man wrote:
This latest temperature increase has spanned decades only. When you look at a graph which has steady peaks and troughs over a long period of time, and then all of a sudden there is an anomalous peak in a short space of time, which just happens to coincide with industrialisation, you have to ask questions.
not according to RTT... apparently you have to wait until the outcome hits you in the face... ;)
Questions about a miniscule 0.6 degree increase need to be asked, however too many scientists have too many vested interests and too many reputations based on a woefully inadequate and circumstantial theory to rely on anything they say. If a scientist told me it was raining I'd go to a window and look for myself.

Surely instead of tackling what could be a phantom world intellect should be pooled into actually proving catagorically what actually is going on rather than going half-cocked based on some gargantually flawed computer model.

the religion point is quite apt as I'd have as much chance proving or disproving the existence of God as to proving or disproving GW. Therefore like religion a massive global industry ahs born from misinformation and fear

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13541
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re:

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:12 pm

theadore wrote:There is also fossil fuel dependance to consider... using norway as an example, they have built up a huge goverment surpluss by the sale of oil to the rest of the world and are now using this money to invest in future energy production through renewable means... I would applaud our goverment taking steps in this direction (see the monboit article above and the research it points to) which would avoid us scrapping over the last few 1000$ barrels of oil 40 years down the line.
It would be easy to do that if we had the kind of natural oil supplies that Norway have. Which we don't. Harder to invest in renewable when you don't have the revenue stream from non-renewable to support it and an electorate who want to keep their electronically limited 150mph 3 litre A4 Quattro Sport. Stupid electorate.

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Re:

Post by Rover the Moon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:17 pm

Rover the Top wrote: Two problems there: firstly, people are not asking questions. The first possible correlation that's been identified has been taken as the answer. And anyone who spots flaws in that correlation, or highlights other correlations is automatically discredited. If you want to put faith in science, then surely we should listen to what all scientists say?
True. Modern society may think it's far more sophisticated but GW advocates are still doing exactly the same today that the masses did to Galileo when he suggested that the earth revolved around the sun. Except this time they have state sponsored help from the Bastard BBC.

It seems that time does not prevent heads going into sand or fingers going into ears.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9692
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:49 pm

ethiaa wrote:
theadore wrote:There is also fossil fuel dependance to consider... using norway as an example, they have built up a huge goverment surpluss by the sale of oil to the rest of the world and are now using this money to invest in future energy production through renewable means... I would applaud our goverment taking steps in this direction (see the monboit article above and the research it points to) which would avoid us scrapping over the last few 1000$ barrels of oil 40 years down the line.
It would be easy to do that if we had the kind of natural oil supplies that Norway have. Which we don't. Harder to invest in renewable when you don't have the revenue stream from non-renewable to support it and an electorate who want to keep their electronically limited 150mph 3 litre A4 Quattro Sport. Stupid electorate.
we were supposed to have vast resources in the north sea, but obviously that didn't pan out.

obviously we don't have this huge primary industry to support this, but what norway has achieved has been by protecting the resources they do have from profiteering private enterprise... although thats a different debate.

even without the resources to back it up, an substancial increase in renewables would be a good long term investment for the country.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13541
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re:

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:57 pm

theadore wrote:
ethiaa wrote:
theadore wrote:There is also fossil fuel dependance to consider... using norway as an example, they have built up a huge goverment surpluss by the sale of oil to the rest of the world and are now using this money to invest in future energy production through renewable means... I would applaud our goverment taking steps in this direction (see the monboit article above and the research it points to) which would avoid us scrapping over the last few 1000$ barrels of oil 40 years down the line.
It would be easy to do that if we had the kind of natural oil supplies that Norway have. Which we don't. Harder to invest in renewable when you don't have the revenue stream from non-renewable to support it and an electorate who want to keep their electronically limited 150mph 3 litre A4 Quattro Sport. Stupid electorate.
we were supposed to have vast resources in the north sea, but obviously that didn't pan out.

obviously we don't have this huge primary industry to support this, but what norway has achieved has been by protecting the resources they do have from profiteering private enterprise... although thats a different debate.

even without the resources to back it up, an substancial increase in renewables would be a good long term investment for the country.
True, but people want consumer durables, not investment in the future. That means it needs a governement to make a very unpopular decision on public spending and up the tax burden. Can't see any party getting into power that would do that.

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Rover the Moon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:00 pm

Up the tax burden? the bastards screw us until June 1st then piss ut up the wall as it is.

doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re:

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:33 pm

Rover the Top wrote:Um, did I say it wasn't? Some scientists say the world is getting warmer through human activity. Some say it isn't.But it was only when the politicians got involved that it became a one-sided argument.


Actually, most scientists say the world is getting warmer through human activity, a few say it isn't. I tend to listen to the majority.

Politicians don't have the power to control the media, who are meant to impartially relay information to us, yet the majority of the media also agree that we humans are influencing global warming.

Even though we may not have accurate day-to-day climate records going back thousands of years, there is other evidence that shows climate change, in geology for example, and as far as I'm aware there are no discovered examples of a sharp rise in global temperatures over the last few thousand years. We've also got to bare in mind that this planet is four-and-a-half billion years old and it's climate should be relatively settled and remain consistent over snapshots of time.

Yes, there are bound to be convincing arguments put forward by the minority scientists, after all, they are clever people. However, the conspiracy theorists on a recent 9/11 programme on BBC 2 put forward convincing arguments until others equally clever or of superior intellect highlighted the flaws in their arguments.

At the end of the day, both sides have their own agenda and will be biased towards their views, so any article we dig up for either side will be relatively tainted. However, I think it's never a coincidence that our unnatural pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere has coincided with increasing temperatures and freak weather conditions.

doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re:

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:40 pm

Rover the Moon wrote:the religion point is quite apt as I'd have as much chance proving or disproving the existence of God as to proving or disproving GW. Therefore like religion a massive global industry ahs born from misinformation and fear


But we have recorded evidence that the world is getting warmer, whereas there is nothing to suggest that some bearded man lives in the clouds and created earth in seven days, apart from a few thousand year old "eye-witness accounts" crafted at a time when people believed the earth was flat. ;)

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9692
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:43 pm

doz_magic_man wrote:
Rover the Moon wrote:the religion point is quite apt as I'd have as much chance proving or disproving the existence of God as to proving or disproving GW. Therefore like religion a massive global industry ahs born from misinformation and fear


But we have recorded evidence that the world is getting warmer, whereas there is nothing to suggest that some bearded man lives in the clouds and created earth in seven days, apart from a few thousand year old "eye-witness accounts" crafted at a time when people believed the earth was flat. ;)
I think the point there is that we don't have irrefutable evidence to prove either.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27100
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:18 pm

doz_magic_man wrote:I tend to listen to the majority.
Well there's the difference. I listen to both sides, consider the various points without prejudice, and then think for myself.
doz_magic_man wrote:
Rover the Moon wrote:the religion point is quite apt as I'd have as much chance proving or disproving the existence of God as to proving or disproving GW. Therefore like religion a massive global industry ahs born from misinformation and fear


But we have recorded evidence that the world is getting warmer, whereas there is nothing to suggest that some bearded man lives in the clouds and created earth in seven days, apart from a few thousand year old "eye-witness accounts" crafted at a time when people believed the earth was flat. ;)
Hmm, I'm sure anyone who claims to have experienced the presence of god in some way would disagree with you there. Even today, there are phenomena that people cannot explain, although we now put faith in science to find the answers, rather than religion. You're mocking those who 'believed the earth was flat', yet above you claim we should accept the word of the majority - aren't you in danger of doing the same thing, then?

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Rover the Moon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:11 pm

Strange Doz that the con side of GW also have proof that the world isn't warming any higher than it would naturally and definately no to the levels that would cause the mass hysteria the the pro-gw side are showing

Then again there are lies, damn lies and statistical evidence with a biased slant

Post Reply