The REAL global warming

SAINT

Well-known member
Messages
334
Likes
39
This is what the great myth of global warming is all about:

"In a sign that JP Morgan Chase is making a call on the future of the carbon trading market, it has launched a 100p a share, or £123m, bid for carbon credit aggregator EcoSecurities, trumping an earlier offer from the company's co-founder. "
 
Obviously the great majority of climate scientists, the IPCC, just about every national science academy, the great majority of scientific, engineering and medical professional associations throughout the world are working in the service of JPM. Slightly implausible isn't it ?
 
Snag is, the IPCC stands for something... there's an independent CC organisation that is unbiased, however. I can't remember what they are called, though. Typical.
 
What I meant was that I appreciate that we have to cut waste and emissions etc. but the hype surrounding climate change now, means that governments are going to tax the hell out of us for anything climate related and Wall St will be in on the game by trading the carbon market, which has been suggested will be worth trillions.
 
Good shout, plausible points raised there Saint and yes if JPM are on 'the in' it's a racing certainty (beyond our normal trader probability :D) that it's a winner...
 
Unfortunately, if one dares to raise the slightest question about climate change that might not be 100% four-square with the politically-correct version, one is howled-down as a "denier". Thus it is no longer possible to have a sensible discussion about this since for the politically correct, everything is a "given", and anyone who raises the merest doubt is clearly a nutter or an extremist. Sadly there are many areas where science impacts on critical aspects of human life where positions get entrenched and reasoned debate goes out of the window. One which is dear to my own heart is the wide subject of what some people call the "diet-heart hypothesis", i.e. the relationship between dietary fats of various types, cholesterol, lipoproteins and coronary heart-disease. Just as there are climate sceptics, so are there cholesterol sceptics (google THINCS or "cholesterol sceptics"). We have been so brainwashed on that one, that if one dares to raise questions about the basis of it, one is ruled out of court, since "we know all about that". People are so confident that what they know is "right" that there is no room for doubt; no room for questioning. New evidence, if looked at at all, is only ever looked at in the light of proving the original idea, not possibly challenging it. Confirmation bias and all that.
 
Unfortunately, if one dares to raise the slightest question about climate change that might not be 100% four-square with the politically-correct version, one is howled-down as a "denier". Thus it is no longer possible to have a sensible discussion about this since for the politically correct, everything is a "given", and anyone who raises the merest doubt is clearly a nutter or an extremist. Sadly there are many areas where science impacts on critical aspects of human life where positions get entrenched and reasoned debate goes out of the window. One which is dear to my own heart is the wide subject of what some people call the "diet-heart hypothesis", i.e. the relationship between dietary fats of various types, cholesterol, lipoproteins and coronary heart-disease. Just as there are climate sceptics, so are there cholesterol sceptics (google THINCS or "cholesterol sceptics"). We have been so brainwashed on that one, that if one dares to raise questions about the basis of it, one is ruled out of court, since "we know all about that". People are so confident that what they know is "right" that there is no room for doubt; no room for questioning. New evidence, if looked at at all, is only ever looked at in the light of proving the original idea, not possibly challenging it. Confirmation bias and all that.

This is just so much intellectually dishonest tosh.

When all the weight of evidence and informed scientific opinion is that human emitted C02 is causing global warming, what do the deniers do? - cry persecution. After all, it is far easier to do that than produce real scientific research.

Never in human history has there been such an opportunity for so many to publish so much garbage as is now offered by the internet. From the anti vaccination crowd, to global warming to creationism and other less fashionable issues, the internet is awash with junk "science".

Throw in a sniff of conspiracy theories on sites like prison planet and regrettably globalresearch and we have a frightening cocktail of anti science and lowest common denominator populism.

Humans live in societies totally built upon science, technology and engineering, but paradoxically in western countries ignorance of science and worse still, anti science is increasing - especially in the US. It was not always thus - science was held in high regard in the decades after WWII and still is today in Asian countries such as China. Where have the great industrial/scientific research labs of the US in the post war period gone - RCA, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc etc etc.

GW and environmental destruction is critically important, and sound bites like "confirmation bias" remain just that - sound bites. Our children deserve something better than that.
 
But science tells us that were at least four ice ages in the earth's history, which would imply that temperature changes are a natural phenomenon.

The last two winters in Britain have been the worst seen in almost 25 years, which doesn't fit with the theory of a warming planet.

I'm all for science but have yet to see any credible theory for global warming being man-made. It's more a further sign of human arrogance in thinking that they can control the earth's temperature and weather.

I think we should take care of our environment and resources. We do need to cut down on pollution and wastage. However, I think it's unfair for that movement to be the victim of gross profiteering. I guess that's life now though.

Carbon trading is a sham. People plant trees and corporations buy their credits to continue their levels of pollution, while banks get comissions and can have another exchange to manipulate with HFT and huge leverage.
 
But science tells us that were at least four ice ages in the earth's history, which would imply that temperature changes are a natural phenomenon.

Yes they are, but the rate of temperature change currently occurring is not. When change is too rapid - systems do not have time to adapt; species do not have time to mutate end evolve.

The last two winters in Britain have been the worst seen in almost 25 years, which doesn't fit with the theory of a warming planet.

Which proves precisely nothing. I could cite the terrible summer in southern Australia. Rural Victoria reached 48C and the shocking fires were a consequence. Traders should have no trouble understanding pullbacks in trends. Normal features of the weather such as El Nino have very significant effects on temperatures over a time scale of a few years less. Climate science puts a lot of effort into establishing what the longer term trend actually is.

I'm all for science but have yet to see any credible theory for global warming being man-made. It's more a further sign of human arrogance in thinking that they can control the earth's temperature and weather.

Why not? Is that the role of God or something? Humans would have little problem in deforesting the entire planet if they put their mind to it. And that would have a devastating effect on climate. A full blown nuclear war would change the climate in almost unimaginable ways.

You possibly don't even need a technological society to change climate. It is suggested that the extensive use of fire by Australian Aborigines may have speeded up the drying of the Australian continent by changing the composition of the forests to predominantly species such as Eucalyptus, Acacias, Casurinas etc that have fire resistant seed pods. This changed rates of evaporation.

I think we should take care of our environment and resources. We do need to cut down on pollution and wastage. However, I think it's unfair for that movement to be the victim of gross profiteering. I guess that's life now though.

Carbon trading is a sham. People plant trees and corporations buy their credits to continue their levels of pollution, while banks get comissions and can have another exchange to manipulate with HFT and huge leverage.

I've got to admit that I'm not much fussed with carbon trading. There are lots of problems with it, though it may be better than nothing at all. I'd rather see the crap taxed out of CO2 emissions and import duties, or taxes levied on imports from countries that don't follow a similar taxation system. With some sort of tax relief for the poor. International trade agreements be damned. And put that taxation revenue into sustainable energy R&D and capital expenditure.

Some myths addressed:

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths
 
Last edited:
The last two winters in Britain have been the worst seen in almost 25 years, which doesn't fit with the theory of a warming planet.

the government are spraying chemtrails to modify the weather
 
DCCRAIG1,

I resent your earlier accusation of my intellectual dishonesty as much as George Monbiot's accusation (Grauniad recently) that those of us of a certain age who question some of the science that warming alarmists put forward didn't care about the future because we wouldn't be there to see it. Well, I may be past the first flush of youth, but I have grown-up children and one day, by the grace of God, may have grandchildren, and I care as passionately about the future as George Monbiot, Al Gore and your good self.

I've met George Monbiot (years ago) and actually have a lot of time for him, but don't necessarily go along with everything he says. I've made no secret on this forum that politically I'm pretty much towards the green left of the spectrum and have been for years, since long before people were worrying about Global Warming. In the seventies people were worrying about Global Cooling (look it up). We also used to worry about the "nuclear winter" in the event of a nuclear war. If you ignore for the moment the possibility of warming due to anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, cyclically speaking, we are about due for another ice age, based on more than one cycle.

Like most people of my "green" leanings, I pretty much accepted the story on man made warming from an early stage. It was actually what I wanted to hear. Hard evidence that the things I thought we should be doing anyway were now actually a matter of urgency. However, I actually became a bit bemused that suddenly the only thing people talked about was "carbon reduction" (shorthand of course for carbon-dioxide emission reduction, but I wonder actually how many people know the difference). All the other environmental concerns seemed to go on to the back-burner (pardon the pun).

Alerted by a few people whose views I respected, it was only relatively recently that I started looking a little bit harder at some of the supposed evidence, and I've actually changed my mind. That is to say that I've gone from a position of accepting that man-made warming is a fact, and that its consequences will definitely be disastrous, to a position of open-mindedness. I think that _some_ of the people who question the currently accepted wisdom raise questions and make observations that deserve our attention.

As an Australian Dccraig1, you may have heard of Professor Bob Carter. While being a sceptic about warming, he takes the view that we should prepare for both warming _and_ cooling (which he thinks is more likely and more deadly).

Other names to look out for (e.g. YouTube) are Freeman Dyson, Robert Felix, Dr Timothy Patterson, Professor Ron Carter, John Christy, Ron Spencer.

You may also be aware of Stephen McIntyre, who helped to point out the problems with the famous "hockey stick" graph. See also:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/global-warming-scam_index.html


Personally I don't care that much about Al Gore's apparent conflicts of interests. Well, American politicians are just like that. I imagine he has several large cars and is always travelling by aeroplane. Personally I walk, ride a bike, take a bus or a train much more than I ever drive and I haven't been on a plane for 4 or 5 years. I use energy-saving bulbs and only at a minimum, and keep our thermostat as low as possible. I recycle, make compost and do most of the politically correct things, even if I question the science behind supposed global warming. I do them for the same reasons that I was doing them before most of the chattering classes started preaching about global warming, and which actually have nothing to do with climate change. I'm damned if I'm giving up meat though.
 
The anti climate change movement is thankfully growing

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientistsHundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails


Wondering if these recent cool summers mean something? Confused by the Freakonomics guys going all climate change-contrarian? Thinking that, perhaps, that you were too concerned about climate change 18 months ago?

If so, you may enjoy this sharp (and fairly short) piece from AP science writer Seth Borenstein (our emphasis):
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/10/27/debunking-the-new-new-thing-in-climate-scepticism/


http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=climate+change+sceptics
 
Confused by the Freakonomics guys going all climate change-contrarian?

This open letter from a Professor in the Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago to Mr Freakonomics (Steve Levitt), is a real eye opener. The total lack of rigor in Levitt's latest book is nothing less than shocking:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/

It also demonstrates very well how some of the arguments circulating about AGC and clean energy may initially seem to have some authority, but on closer examination are to put it bluntly, complete nonsense. Buyer beware.
 
Top