Global Warming exposed as sham

[Tom B]

BUT I don't believe in man made global warming, .

not at all - not even a slight possibility it might be true? - not even with the likes of David Attenborough (who seems like quite an independent and knowledgeable chap) saying we've got to do something about it?

[£3.73]

Tom,

SIR David makes wildlife documentaries for the BBC.

If this was a conversation concerning either the mating habits of gorillas or the art of hiding in bushes with a camera ... we should pay close attention to what the Lord of the Jungle has to say ... in the meantime ..

Maybe someone should ask Rolf Harris his opinion ... after all, he presents Animal Hospital for the BBC.

and that's all I have to say about that ....

[Bobbie En Tejas]

The thing about global warming, whether natural or man-made, it still seems to be going on. Glaciers that are thousands of years old are melting and breaking up. Regardless what caused it, it seems to be happening fast and could cause a rise in coastal waters.

Maybe I'm not clear enough on the facts, but it seems to me that the satellite pictures of the glaciers is fairly indisputable.

[WC1]

Gizmo wrote:

There was ovewhelming scientific evidence for the predicted ice-age when I was at school.

It still exists. In fact a return to ice-age conditions is overdue based on the cycle on which these things operate. However, man-made factors have probably interfered with the cycle sufficiently to delay and possibly to prevent their arrival. Their arrival will, of course, not be sudden and massive as per 'The Day After Tomorrow' but much more gradual. When your teachers told you an ice-age was coming they probably had geological timescales in mind, not that it would happen in your lifetime.

Things are happening, and because in nature every effect is also a cause, they will cause other things to happen. The disappearance of the Arctic ice-cap, for example, will release large amounts of cold, fresh water into the northern oceans. That's likely to affect the ocean circulation, so there'll be no more Gulf Stream (or more accurately North Atlantic Drift by the time it gets to us) or at least its effect will be much less. That will have a knock-on effect on other aspects of our climate.

The bottom line is that there IS something serious happening and just saying "I don't believe it" only makes you sound like Victor Meldrew.

[£3.73]

The bottom line is that there IS something serious happening and just saying "I don't believe it" only makes you sound like Victor Meldrew.

WC1, there IS something serious happening !

I just don't believe "that" ...

[gizmo]

[quoteThe bottom line is that there IS something serious happening and just saying "I don't believe it" only makes you sound like Victor Meldrew.

If you look back you will see I didn't say I didn't believe in climate changes. My personal gripe is with experts who seem to think the only way to get their opinion across is to try and stir up mass hysteria. The Millenium bug was supposed to launch missiles and have planes dropping out of the sky at midnight on 31/12/1999,turned out to be total claptrap (thankfully). However a lot of IT experts made a few bob out of it. Avian flu and the current Swine flu were supposed to be global pandemics similar to 1918s, wiping out millions of people, so far it has caused my next door neighbour a bit of a sniffle. Climate change has always been cyclical over millennia, hence mile deep glaciers winding their way down the Longrow, however I am quite sure they were not caused by man made events. The British Antartic surveys have shown that the Anterti ice cap has been growing for years, the ice is now deeper on Greenland than it has been for decades according to some reports. I dont know for certain what is likely to happen, but bitter experience tells me not to believe the experts.

[LANDROVER ROGER]

Nae change ther then !

You should talk!

Simplistic theory here.An ice floe displaces an amount of water.If that ice floe melts.Does it merely replace the water it dis-placed?

[Govangirl]

My personal gripe is with experts who seem to think the only way to get their opinion across is to try and stir up mass hysteria.

Exactly, but it's a great weapon. Fear is what keeps the monkey in the cage.

[£3.73]

Nae change ther then !

You should talk!

Simplistic theory here.An ice floe displaces an amount of water.If that ice floe melts.Does it merely replace the water it dis-placed?

Thank you Roger,
and people can try this at home.

1) Put an icecube in a glass.
2) Fill the glass right up with water.
3) Wait for the ice cube to melt.

Did any water spill out the glass ?

Don't say this section of the forum isn't educational ...

[WC1]

Landrover Roger wrote

Simplistic theory here.An ice floe displaces an amount of water.If that ice floe melts.Does it merely replace the water it dis-placed?

This assumes the ice is already floating in the sea. What is happening now is that ice-sheets covering land areas are melting and the melt-water is flowing into the seas, adding to their volume significantly.

Gizmo wrote

The British Antartic surveys have shown that the Anterti ice cap has been growing for years, the ice is now deeper on Greenland than it has been for decades according to some reports.

I've never heard of the Anterti ice cap but I do know that in the Antarctic region the Wilkins and Larsen-B ice shelves have collapsed over the past two years. Maybe the British Antarctic Survey missed this.

It is true that the Greenland ice-cap has thickened at the centre over the last dozen or so years. This is due to increased snowfall which of course tracks back to increased evaporation from the oceans and thus to global warming. The increase in total depth over those twelve years was less than one metre. Meantime the ice-cap is melting round the edges at an alarming rate.

I think this is what a certain American called 'an inconvenient truth'.

[£3.73]

WC1,

Firstly, a well crafted response.

However, I feel I must draw it to your attention that you can drive (is that the right phrase, it sounds wrong) a submarine under the icecaps. I do believe there is some land mass there however.

If I may ask an honest question .. would you gladly pay more taxes, even if they were based on fearmongering and pseudo-science ? I would consider myself VERY sympathetic to the enviroment. I think it was Sweltered who mentioned all the recycling stuff and other initiatives earlier on. However, I refuse to be hoodwinked by powerful people who can afford scientists & dodgy pseudo-science that further increases the tax burden on me, you & everyone else. Every level of government, which now includes the EU, and after next week in Copenhagen, a global government ... requires 2 things.

It needs a reason to be ... and it needs to levy taxes to pay for itself.

Including devolution, that means we now have to pay Kilmory, The Scotish Parliament, Wesminster, Brussels/Strasbourg, and wherever the new centre of power for the World Government currently known as G something choose to base themselves.

Seriously, you probably work hard for your money .... why are you so willing to part with any more of it than you have to ?

Genuinely curious !

[WC1]

£3.73, this isn't 'dodgy pseudo-science'. It's the genuine article. Yes you can take a submarine right through the Arctic under the ice-cap. Just wait a few years and you'll be able to do it on the surface too. The ice-cap I was referring to, picking up from Gizmo's contribution, was the one covering Greenland. Greenland is a land mass (probably three large land masses under the ice in fact) with an area of over 2 million square kilometres and a coastline as long as the Equator, though you wouldn't guess that by looking at the map. So there' a lot of ice sitting on top of it, but less and less with each year that passes.

As to your very direct but very relevant question about using taxation as a lever to 'force the issue' on the environment, I'm genuinely in two minds. For example, if you put up tax on air travel, you might discourage unnecessary journeys, thus reducing the number of planes flying around the place and reducing the amount of carbon dioxide pumped straight into the upper atmosphere. But I'm not sure there's any evidence (yet) that tax is actually working in that way. I fly down to London on average about three or four times a year, and I always pay BA's voluntary carbon-offset surcharge alongside all the other taxes and charges. But I still fly. In the same way I would probably use the car just as much regardless of tax, though I might buy a car that incurs less tax because it's more efficient in terms of emissions.

You can actually save some money to offset higher taxes, just by turning back the thermostat on the central heating a wee bit, and maybe by adjusting the timer so that it's on for a shorter time, going off half an hour earlier for example. Turn some lights off. Switch the TV off instead of leaving it on stand-by. Make a virtue out of necessity!

[Malky]

This is a news item on why people dispute that man is the cause of global warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8389547.stm
I think the bit about the message coming from politicians - the people we are sceptical about anyway - is probably very relevant.

[EMDEE]

This is an issue that tends to polarize opinion, as is obvious from this discussion.

Being of the opinion myself that the human race has a major impact on the planet, I think it would help if some of the deniers took an objective view of the situation, and look at this in ecological terms.

The human race has long ago outgrown its ecological niche, and now our activities are damaging ecosystems which are all interdependent on each other, and ultimately form the entire biosphere.

We are the only species that has exploited the vast carbon sinks which in normal circumstances would remain untouched. In this way, by the burning of fossil fuels, the Earth’s carbon cycle is affected through the release of carbon at a higher rate than would be the case in natural processes, and the natural mechanisms of returning the carbon to these sinks does not currently operate at a rate that would negate this release. I would suggest that this fact is indisputable. The carbon released in a few decades took millions of years to lay down. Do the doubters really believe that this will have no effect on the environment?

In this context, I would again refer to James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

I do however think that there is some very cynical fund-raising going on by governments on the back of the scaremongering. It’s not more taxes we need, it’s a more appropriate lifestyle.

[£3.73]

not at all - not even a slight possibility it might be true? - not even with the likes of David Attenborough (who seems like quite an independent and knowledgeable chap) saying we've got to do something about it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392193.stm

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html

Have a look at the patrons.
Have a look at their aims.

It's one thing that all of us should have concerns about mankinds impact on our planet, issues like habitat etc, ... it's quite another to cynically exploit those concerns. Welcome to China