Transferring Emails To External Hard...
Technology4 mins ago
Global Warming
22 Answers
Can any of the advocates of the man made global warming theory explain to me why it's two thirds through June and it seems like the end of March? I'm cold.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chompu. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
What gets me,is that there are two sides of this argument,but the politicians and media seem hell bent to believe that man is responsible for it.
ITN are forever preaching about it,but as soon as some serious incident happens elsewhere in the world,Mark Austin flies off to report from there,even though there is already a correspondent based there.
Al Gore makes a Oscar winning documentary about man's destruction of the Earth,yet his mansion in his home state uses more power than the rest of Tennessee put together.
Tony Blair pontificates to us,yet he goes on self promoting farewell tour of the world,using more carbon footprints than the Hiroshima bomb.
Ta Ta
Marky B
ITN are forever preaching about it,but as soon as some serious incident happens elsewhere in the world,Mark Austin flies off to report from there,even though there is already a correspondent based there.
Al Gore makes a Oscar winning documentary about man's destruction of the Earth,yet his mansion in his home state uses more power than the rest of Tennessee put together.
Tony Blair pontificates to us,yet he goes on self promoting farewell tour of the world,using more carbon footprints than the Hiroshima bomb.
Ta Ta
Marky B
Despite the laudible efforts of some people this is not a problem that can be solved by individuals changing what they do. A bunch of Dick Strawbridges putting up some solar panels and planting some trees isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. (What bit of carbon-neutral is it they are having trouble witth anyway?)
Whether or not Al Gore has a big house is a side-show.
To make a significant difference requires national and international change and legislation and there's going to be a lot of moaning.
I'm thinking about action like banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs, not approving cars for sale that cannot manage say 30 miles per gallon. VAT on aircraft and marine fuel.
A lot of people will say "Why should we do that when China is building 2 new power stations a week?" and it's a good question if a bit jeuvenile.
China would probably ask "How can the West lecture us when they're largely responsible for the current situation?"
It's a debate which gets nobody anywhere - this is a problem that needs real leadership, which means setting an example. But it is also a big opportunity and the people who develop the technologies to deal with it now will be quids in.
Richard Branson knows this and is piling funds into R&D as are the oil companies and many others.
Change is coming like a juggernaut, we can get ready for it or sit around and whine about it
Whether or not Al Gore has a big house is a side-show.
To make a significant difference requires national and international change and legislation and there's going to be a lot of moaning.
I'm thinking about action like banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs, not approving cars for sale that cannot manage say 30 miles per gallon. VAT on aircraft and marine fuel.
A lot of people will say "Why should we do that when China is building 2 new power stations a week?" and it's a good question if a bit jeuvenile.
China would probably ask "How can the West lecture us when they're largely responsible for the current situation?"
It's a debate which gets nobody anywhere - this is a problem that needs real leadership, which means setting an example. But it is also a big opportunity and the people who develop the technologies to deal with it now will be quids in.
Richard Branson knows this and is piling funds into R&D as are the oil companies and many others.
Change is coming like a juggernaut, we can get ready for it or sit around and whine about it
Thanks for your replies. Love the polar bear, mr k.
What concerns me is that the people arguing against man made global warming aren't just unknowledgable conspiracy theorists but eminently qualified scientists. It seems we are not presented with a balanced debate by the media and politicians, the latter who are no doubt motivated by the opportunity to use it as an excuse to increase taxes.
Rabbitygirl. I am going to be an obstinate old git and refuse to wear a jumper in the middle of June. Please send me a get well card when I'm recovering from hypothermia.
What concerns me is that the people arguing against man made global warming aren't just unknowledgable conspiracy theorists but eminently qualified scientists. It seems we are not presented with a balanced debate by the media and politicians, the latter who are no doubt motivated by the opportunity to use it as an excuse to increase taxes.
Rabbitygirl. I am going to be an obstinate old git and refuse to wear a jumper in the middle of June. Please send me a get well card when I'm recovering from hypothermia.
Rabbitygirl. You have my utmost sympathy. I suffered a really bad bout of this when I was in Thailand last November. A week after it had cleared I collapsed and spent a night in hospital. Probably due to dehydration. Not much chance of that over here at the moment !Nonetheless keep taking plenty of fluids preferably with mineral supplements.
Actually there are very few eminantly qualified scientists arguing against man made global warming and almost no significant institutions.
The following is a small section of the list of organisations that back it:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Oh and BP and Shell
So who's on your side of the debate?
The following is a small section of the list of organisations that back it:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Oh and BP and Shell
So who's on your side of the debate?
Well Jake. An impressive list of institutions. Would that be the NASA, yes, must be, there's only one, that has in its' web pages a report stating that temperatures recorded by their satellites in the Earths lower atmosphere show no definitive signs of warming in the last 20 years.
I have not got time to type them all but if you go into Wikipedia 'scientists opposing the mainstream assesment of global warming' you will find a list of 70 scientists worldwide, most of them professors in related fields such as :
Prof William Gray (Dept of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University)
Dr Henrik Svensmark (Climate scientist Danish Space Research)
David Bellamy the environmentalist
Yuri Izrael (Vice chairman of the IPCC)- Another institution you mentioned.
Also there is another list of 60 similarily qualified Canadian scientists who wrote to their prime minister exspressing similar doubts about the prevailing theories.
That makes at least 130 scientists in various institutions
that don't agree.
By the way i didn't say which 'side ' I was on I just don't think we're being presented with a balanced arguement. When we are then I will make up my mind. Meanwhile the lack of publicity for the alternative view makes me suspicious about the motives of politicians.
I have not got time to type them all but if you go into Wikipedia 'scientists opposing the mainstream assesment of global warming' you will find a list of 70 scientists worldwide, most of them professors in related fields such as :
Prof William Gray (Dept of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University)
Dr Henrik Svensmark (Climate scientist Danish Space Research)
David Bellamy the environmentalist
Yuri Izrael (Vice chairman of the IPCC)- Another institution you mentioned.
Also there is another list of 60 similarily qualified Canadian scientists who wrote to their prime minister exspressing similar doubts about the prevailing theories.
That makes at least 130 scientists in various institutions
that don't agree.
By the way i didn't say which 'side ' I was on I just don't think we're being presented with a balanced arguement. When we are then I will make up my mind. Meanwhile the lack of publicity for the alternative view makes me suspicious about the motives of politicians.
If you're taking your information from Wikipedia that explains a lot.
It's a fine source for many things but not trustworthy in contentious areas.
An example - You quote David Bellemy - but lets look at the facts
On April 16th 2005, New Scientist published a letter from David Bellamy. Many of the world�s glaciers, he claimed, �are not shrinking but in fact are growing.... 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980"
George Monbiot rang the World Glacier Monitoring service in Zurich they said: "This is complete bullsh it.� - those were their actual words - they confirmed with an e-mail
the whole story is here:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/jun k-science/
As for NASA here is a press release from May 30th
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/2007053 0/
First para
NASA and Columbia University Earth Institute research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth's climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.
I'd give Wikipedia a miss on this subject if I were you
It's a fine source for many things but not trustworthy in contentious areas.
An example - You quote David Bellemy - but lets look at the facts
On April 16th 2005, New Scientist published a letter from David Bellamy. Many of the world�s glaciers, he claimed, �are not shrinking but in fact are growing.... 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980"
George Monbiot rang the World Glacier Monitoring service in Zurich they said: "This is complete bullsh it.� - those were their actual words - they confirmed with an e-mail
the whole story is here:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/jun k-science/
As for NASA here is a press release from May 30th
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/2007053 0/
First para
NASA and Columbia University Earth Institute research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth's climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.
I'd give Wikipedia a miss on this subject if I were you
Why should Wikipedia be unreliable because it publishes something that disagrees with your viewpoint.
Obviously if an issue is contentious it has two sides to the argument. Wikipedia gives both viewpoints, one of the few websites that does and therefore more likely to be impartial than Monbiot, who you quote, a journalist keen to publicise the books he has written on global warming.
In fact Wikipedia has more on global warming theory than the dissenters.
You have listed institutions, and whilst I accept your word that their policy as an organisation may support global warming theory, it does not mean that every individual within that organisation holds the same view.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd 12mar97_1.htm
Bellamy accepted later that the figures he had used were flawed but this is only one area of a complex subject. He is still of the opinion that any global warming is a natural occurance.
By the way Jake are you old enough to remember the scientists scaremongering in the 70s that we were entering a new ice age?
Obviously if an issue is contentious it has two sides to the argument. Wikipedia gives both viewpoints, one of the few websites that does and therefore more likely to be impartial than Monbiot, who you quote, a journalist keen to publicise the books he has written on global warming.
In fact Wikipedia has more on global warming theory than the dissenters.
You have listed institutions, and whilst I accept your word that their policy as an organisation may support global warming theory, it does not mean that every individual within that organisation holds the same view.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd 12mar97_1.htm
Bellamy accepted later that the figures he had used were flawed but this is only one area of a complex subject. He is still of the opinion that any global warming is a natural occurance.
By the way Jake are you old enough to remember the scientists scaremongering in the 70s that we were entering a new ice age?
Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.
Wikipedia is not unreliable because it disagrees with me but because anyone can edit it and contentious issues are often fought out on it's pages.
You know this as well as I do I'm sure.
I do remember the "new Ice Age" stories and I'm glad you brought it up because it highlights the really important difference.
Science stories pop up and down all the time people make dodgy claims, the press get hold of them and run a load of stories and then the wider scientific community investigate and it can't be verified
Chap in Germany faked a load of results some years back
Korean Genetic experiment
Cold fusion all that sort of stuff
The "new ice age stuff" sprang out of a book "The cooling"
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte .html
There some speculation based on Milankovitch cycles etc but is wasn't based on real data and crucially there was no scientific backing on anything like the sort of scale we see today.
By the way - you are aware that that NASA research that you posted the link for was dated 1997 weren't you?
Wikipedia is not unreliable because it disagrees with me but because anyone can edit it and contentious issues are often fought out on it's pages.
You know this as well as I do I'm sure.
I do remember the "new Ice Age" stories and I'm glad you brought it up because it highlights the really important difference.
Science stories pop up and down all the time people make dodgy claims, the press get hold of them and run a load of stories and then the wider scientific community investigate and it can't be verified
Chap in Germany faked a load of results some years back
Korean Genetic experiment
Cold fusion all that sort of stuff
The "new ice age stuff" sprang out of a book "The cooling"
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte .html
There some speculation based on Milankovitch cycles etc but is wasn't based on real data and crucially there was no scientific backing on anything like the sort of scale we see today.
By the way - you are aware that that NASA research that you posted the link for was dated 1997 weren't you?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Technology8 mins ago
Food Or Drink - Clue A Painful Hip
Food & Drink13 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
