The REAL global warming

This is a discussion on The REAL global warming within the General Trading Chat forums, part of the Reception category; And another interesting website: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Sc...atestFraud.htm http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Sc.../Testimony.htm http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/...from-the-cold/ (and an old but juicy gossipy snippet about Al Gore:- http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14917 ) ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 25, 2009, 3:02pm   #36
 
montmorencyt2w's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

And another interesting website:

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Sc...atestFraud.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Sc.../Testimony.htm

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/...from-the-cold/

(and an old but juicy gossipy snippet about Al Gore:-

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14917

)


Meanwhile, yesterday on The Guardian online's "comment is free", even George Monbiot was apologising for having taken too much on trust what the warming-alarmist scientists had been saying, without ever questioning it. This in the wake of the embarrassing CRU UEA email/document leak (or "hack" as they are claiming). Monbiot even called on Phil Jones to resign.

Having said that, today's Grauniad is playing that story down again with a tiny little article on an inside page, basically just parroting UEA's official line; no questioning; no serious investigative journalism at all. Read all about it; get your Pravda here....


Just goes to show you can't trust anyone:


Car salesmen, estate agents, bankers, "traders" selling "winning systems"; politicians; media hacks; climate modellers....

Last edited by montmorencyt2w; Nov 25, 2009 at 3:57pm.
montmorencyt2w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 3:15pm   #37
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Mont, if you ever want a laugh have a look at monbiot.com - you'll fall off your chair. The man left planet earth a long time ago, and shows no intention of returning.

The Graun is ropey enough, for sure. However, in fairness its Comment is Free is actually rather good, and welcomes a range of opinions. If you want a good(ish) and reasonably serious debate, it's not a bad place.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 4:20pm   #38
 
montmorencyt2w's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
Mont, if you ever want a laugh have a look at monbiot.com - you'll fall off your chair. The man left planet earth a long time ago, and shows no intention of returning.

The Graun is ropey enough, for sure. However, in fairness its Comment is Free is actually rather good, and welcomes a range of opinions. If you want a good(ish) and reasonably serious debate, it's not a bad place.
Possibly, although I read that they had been censoring postings that objected to the mainstream (IPCC) view on global warming. I haven't spent much time on "comment is free" for some reason, although I read the printed Guardian most days. Actually I don't think GM is all bad by any means ... I used to be something of an admirer, but he's certainly had his blinkers on on this one - he listened to the scientists who told him what he wanted to believe and didn't question, like a proper journalist should do. At least he's had the grace to admit this. Whether he will do the full U-turn remains to be seen. I somehow doubt it. The thing is, some of the things the "warmists" say we should be doing, I actually agree with; just not for the reasons they give. And if warming really isn't the immediate threat that they claim, this is all to the good. It means we can actually concentrate on some of the more pressing and genuine environmental and humanitarian concerns, such as actual pollution(*), and shortage of clean drinking water in the third world, etc.

(*)- actual pollution that is, as opposed to the "pollution" by CO2 - quite ridiculous since CO2 is produced naturally by humans and other mammals, and is an essential part of the photosynthesis cycle.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...lobal-warming/

EDIT Check out the other videos further down that link also.

Last edited by montmorencyt2w; Nov 25, 2009 at 4:27pm.
montmorencyt2w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 4:50pm   #39
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

LMAO. Wattsup is always a good read.

I agree with what you're saying - there are excellent reasons, for example, to recycle, and waste less, that have nothing to do with climate change. It annoys me that people who don't subscibe to the AGW theory are painted as heartless b******** who couldn't care less about their environment. And I've got no particular love of fossil fuels - they just happen to work well when compared to the alternatives. Personally, I think nuclear is the best option (for the time being at least), although don't get the green fanatics started on that one.

Cheap, abundant power is crtical to our way of life - and it would go a long way to improving the lifes and life expectancies of those in the Third World. The policies of those advocating the AGW theory are not just wrong but wicked - they will impoverish mankind, impede growth and development, and stand in the way of millions of human beings emerging from grinding poverty. Sadly, this would not be the first time that the lives of the poorest on our planet have been sacrificed on the altar of evironmentalism.

The accolytes of Rachel Carson will have a deal of explaining to do when they meet St Peter. Many of them should be shown straight to the elevator that goes directly to the basement.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 6:18pm   #40
 
montmorencyt2w's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
LMAO. Wattsup is always a good read.

I agree with what you're saying - there are excellent reasons, for example, to recycle, and waste less, that have nothing to do with climate change. It annoys me that people who don't subscibe to the AGW theory are painted as heartless b******** who couldn't care less about their environment. And I've got no particular love of fossil fuels - they just happen to work well when compared to the alternatives. Personally, I think nuclear is the best option (for the time being at least), although don't get the green fanatics started on that one.

Cheap, abundant power is crtical to our way of life - and it would go a long way to improving the lifes and life expectancies of those in the Third World. The policies of those advocating the AGW theory are not just wrong but wicked - they will impoverish mankind, impede growth and development, and stand in the way of millions of human beings emerging from grinding poverty. Sadly, this would not be the first time that the lives of the poorest on our planet have been sacrificed on the altar of evironmentalism.

The accolytes of Rachel Carson will have a deal of explaining to do when they meet St Peter. Many of them should be shown straight to the elevator that goes directly to the basement.
I think we're on the same wavelength here. I'd worry about old-technology nuclear fission power stations ... waste, health and safety are still real issues here, and it still has the baggage of being associated with nuclear weapons. I think there can be little doubt that it was more or less a front for being able to develop nuclear weapons in the past; no one back then cared for carbon-free energy, and oil and coal were still cheap, and nuclear power was never as cheap as it had promised to be.

Whether the "new generation" fission reactors (which are supposed to burn up most of the fuel rods and not leave so much waste as well as being super-efficient) will be any good remains to be seen. I'm moderately excited about fusion in the long-run, but doubt if I will live to see it! (My son is hoping to get a job in one of the European fusion research places; if he gets it, it could be a job for life ).

I don't think wind-power is going anywhere, except perhaps for one-off cases on a small scale, and effective solar seems to be nearly as far off as fusion. Tidal may have more going for it, but is bound to introduce environmental worries.

We should be conserving our oil though, not because of CO2/GW (although there are genuine pollution issues like diesel particulates and no doubt other nasty stuff), but because it's so damn useful for other things (e.g. plastics, etc) for which there really is no alternative, e.g.

http://www.petrochemistry.net/flowchart/flowchart.htm

[OK, you oil guys, please send the fee to the usual bank account ... ]
montmorencyt2w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2009, 11:57pm   #41
Joined Nov 2004
Re: The REAL global warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by montmorencyt2w View Post

(*)- actual pollution that is, as opposed to the "pollution" by CO2 - quite ridiculous since CO2 is produced naturally by humans and other mammals, and is an essential part of the photosynthesis cycle.
Depends on what you mean by a "pollutant". It is a greenhouse gas which causes highly undesirable global temperature change. You can call that a pollutant or not, but that doesn't change the science.

CO2 is most certainly a pollutant when changes in atmospheric concentration of C02 cause change in ocean pH of sufficient magnitude to threaten ocean ecosystems and in particular coral reefs. The evidence on this is already quite clear with Ocean pH having decreased by 0.1 since preindustrial era which much greater changes forecast. The detrimental effects on coral of such changes in pH have been confirmed in laboratory experiment.

You can read more about the evidence for and issues surrounding ocean acidification here:

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issu...2_caldeira.pdf

But I'm sure that's of no real interest to you as you clearly know everything there is to know about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not. After all there is a clearly a logical progression and no further thought about the matter is required:

CO2 essential part of photosyntheses => under no circumstance can CO2 ever be a pollutant.

There is no logic in that.

Attached. CO2 levels in ocean:
Attached Thumbnails
image-1.png  

Last edited by dcraig1; Nov 26, 2009 at 12:03am.
dcraig1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2009, 1:21am   #42
Joined Dec 2008
Re: The REAL global warming

Taking things a little further back, no-one has ever explained to me why we focus so much on CO2. It represents a tiny proportion of the world's atmosphere, whereas water vapour, also a "greenhouse gas", makes up around 95%. I am aware that CO2 is stronger in this respect as it were, but how can CO2 possibly have such a huge effect when it is only 0.038% of the atmosphere?

And exactly how much is generated by humans? And how did coral survive in eras when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 10 times what they are today? And where did that CO2 come from, assuming T Rex wasn't tooling around in an SUV and leaving the little red light on his telly on?
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Real Reason Most Traders Lose- The Real Odds of Winning at Trading: mrsoul Forex 75 May 7, 2011 11:29pm
MF Global ukdaytrader General Trading Chat 1 Jun 4, 2009 1:52pm
The Great Global Warming Swindle Bigbusiness The Foyer 361 Jul 25, 2008 8:02am

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)