Climate Porn

[smithers]

I have been saying this for years........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5236482.st m
What are your opinions, is this article accurate?

[Whickerman]

I agree. Yes the climate's changing, but because it's cyclical, not because of cows farting. The UK was under ice not that long ago, and has had cycles of tropical climate too. And that was before petrol was used in cars!!!

[jake-the-peg]

They're not saying it's untrue they're saying that media coverage leads people to a sense of dispair.

Do tell us Whickerman why you disagree with such a large number of climate scientists

It sounds as if they spend billions of pounds on climate models and research and you say "Once it was warm, once it was cold therefore it can't be us"

You surely must have a better thought out opinion that that?!

[jno]

no special reason why climate should be cyclical. The planet started out as a blob of molten magma and will end as a chunk of ice (not yet, of course). So the climate should be changing: it should imperceptibly be getting colder. If it's getting warmer, it's worth investigating why; if it's causing problems to humanity, it's worth seeing if we can do something about it.

[Loosehead]

Not so sure about the term but agree with the sentiment. As stated many times, the climate is changing, mankind has nothing to do with it. Stop all the CFC's you like if we stopped it 100% that amounts to only 4% of the carbon in the Earth. The rest is in the long Carbon cycle, check out the excellent National Geographic series "Earth Story" or google "Long Carbon Cycle"

The press and self interested scientists have been making this a trendy story for 20 years. You try getting funding for research not based on the automatic premise that GWB is personally poisoning the world by not signing Kyoto and you'll get no where. It's always been the same it's only possible to get funding if your research is skewed toward what is trendy. I know te sweeping generalisations are in there but you get the picture.

We all accept pollution is bad and should be tackled but please can we stop this ridiculous notion that mankind has any effect on the climate.

[teag1rl]

I agree that the media make it sound such a disaster that cannot be overcome so people think 'why should I turn my tele off standby and turn out that light and recycle that can?'-we wont be here to see the benefit. I know that the climate is a cycle and that we are naturally moving into a warmer period as we emerge from last ice age, but all the evidence would suggest that human influeneces are increasing the rate at which the warming occurs. The scaremongering just makes us give up on the small things that could help reduce that rate.

[jake-the-peg]

At least there seems to be an agreement now that we are experiencing climate change (whether man made or not).

I believe even George Bush has grudgingly accepted this.

We also know that greenhose gasses make things worse not better.

Isn't the real council of dispair to say "It's not us we can't possibly be affecting the climate let's do nothing and just hope for the best" ?

[andy-hughes]

Why stop at climate news?

Over the last ten years, the UK media has been slipping into the standard apocalyptic doom-laden messages that frighten the Americans at the breakfast tables on a daily basis.

If you analyse what is actually based on cold fact, rather than what if's, maybe's and possiblies that litter the 'news' the media would have a very thin time of it.

Remember the end of civilisation as we know it caused by 'bird flue'?

And .....?

[Whickerman]

Hi Jake - I'll let more educated people than I make the case I refer to: http://www.theage.com.au/news/Science/Global-w arming-cyclical-says-climate-expert/2005/06/12 /1118514924793.html

Also, I should have explained that I agree with the article that the media has been scaremongering for years, and should have made that point in my initial post. what i tried to say was that there was no real basis for this. Even if Kyoto was fully implemented we'd be looking at a fraction of one degree heat loss in the next 50 years.

[jake-the-peg]

That would be this Bob Carter the marine geologist:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob _Carter

who's a member of the right wing, corporately funded institute of Puplic Affairs in Melbourne

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ins titute_of_Public_Affairs

He'd certainly be a reliable and unbiased source wouldn't he!

[Whickerman]

Fair enough - but my first point of reference was the History of the British Isles prog on the BBC - doubt that Alan Titchmarsh is in anyone's pocket to present a distorted view of history. After that I read what i could find.
Try David Bellamy - surely you'll accept his bona fides?
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-B ellamy.htm

[Touareg-8]

There is no such thing as climate change , its all a government ploy to get us depressed .

It may be hot but then was it hot this time 200 years ago? who knows.
its all a big cycle of the earth.

But then again if we keep taking earth and drilling deeper looking for oil dont you think the earth will be off balance?

[mechanised69]

if there is such a thing as climate change, and it is being caused by petrol fumes, can we not just speed up the process by using a lot more fossil fuels and other supposedly bad products? This would surely mean that we skip all the major hurricanes and other eratic weather formations, we will put ourselves into an ice age and then the world will start up again, then we can think of decreasing fossil fuel intake so as it doesnt have to happen again.