The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Atilla]

why you cheeky old git

you got me on that one. ROLF

On the BBC news this evening it was reported that the army could not help people affected by flooding because there are no more troops left in the UK as they are fighting battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. How bloody stupid is that?

There were fireman and ambulance staff and many other people suffering from cold and exhaustion rescuing and helping people and our armed services are in far away countries fighting uncle Sams wars killing innocent people.

It is then reported that we'll need £1bn pounds to implement new preventive infrastructure whilst we have already spend £10bn on the wars else where.

What is the world coming to?

 

[jacinto]

On the BBC news this evening it was reported that the army could not help people affected by flooding because there are no more troops left in the UK as they are fighting battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. How bloody stupid is that?

There were fireman and ambulance staff and many other people suffering from cold and exhaustion rescuing and helping people and our armed services are in far away countries fighting uncle Sams wars killing innocent people.

It is then reported that we'll need £1bn pounds to implement new preventive infrastructure whilst we have already spend £10bn on the wars else where.

What is the world coming to?

pretty pathetic if you ask me.

i live in windsor, we got 2 set of army barracks (that i know, probably another) within 1 mile apart each....with some 50 soldiers to do the change of guard at Windsor Castle....if at all

on friday, the road behind us flooded...nothing major (though maidenhead...some 5miles away..got hit bad), we were lucky with it.

I bought a house in cheltenham, moving in 2 weeks, and bloody hoping the thing isnt flooded ,

i can only say pathetic.

 

[Splitlink]

On the BBC news this evening it was reported that the army could not help people affected by flooding because there are no more troops left in the UK as they are fighting battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. How bloody stupid is that?

There were fireman and ambulance staff and many other people suffering from cold and exhaustion rescuing and helping people and our armed services are in far away countries fighting uncle Sams wars killing innocent people.

It is then reported that we'll need £1bn pounds to implement new preventive infrastructure whilst we have already spend £10bn on the wars else where.

What is the world coming to?

What is happening is that the government wants the army to fight a war out there on a low budget. The war was supposed to be over within a few months. It has taken years and the government is fed up with having to find the money to keep it going. I think that we shall have to fight wars on a guerilla basis, just like the terrorists do- Prolonged ones are unpopular with the populace, especially when taxes have to be raised to pay for them.

What is obvious is that wars cannot be fought for very long by countries even as wealthy as we are.

Split

 

[Atilla]

pretty pathetic if you ask me.

i live in windsor, we got 2 set of army barracks (that i know, probably another) within 1 mile apart each....with some 50 soldiers to do the change of guard at Windsor Castle....if at all

on friday, the road behind us flooded...nothing major (though maidenhead...some 5miles away..got hit bad), we were lucky with it.

I bought a house in cheltenham, moving in 2 weeks, and bloody hoping the thing isnt flooded ,

i can only say pathetic.

You can find out if your post code is in a flood risk area on this Environment Agency website.

Good luck...

On a separate note, the French have done well out of specialising in building high speed rail networks. Now they export their know how to other countries.

If we were to spend half the monies £5bn on building up our drainage and infrastructure to these floods just imagine what kind of markets can open up for us in the years ahead... This is where our government should have his head in the future and not up Bushes rectum.

 

[jacinto]

thanks for the link atilla, its pretty bloody close ....from the map displayed, some 100 metres

 

[Atilla]

thanks for the link atilla, its pretty bloody close ....from the map displayed, some 100 metres

I am very sorry to hear that. Another factor to check is altitude.

From navigation maps with contour lines on should give it some indication with respect to river levels.

I would guess the government has got to act after this bigger and wider flood problem. I remember once driving down the M40-A40 once and was amazed at level of land flooding. At the time it looked mostly like farming land.

Anyway not sure if it's drainage or simply the rate of water fall but guess departmental bodies must be setup to review these issues.

Saw mobile homes being advertised already. That is homes built on boats. Ingenuity of man.

 

[jacinto]

thanks atilla,

i guess its ok, but a big one, im sure its not ok. what can i say. bu99er

err...now i have to moderate my own post

 

[Atilla]

What is happening is that the government wants the army to fight a war out there on a low budget. The war was supposed to be over within a few months. It has taken years and the government is fed up with having to find the money to keep it going. I think that we shall have to fight wars on a guerilla basis, just like the terrorists do- Prolonged ones are unpopular with the populace, especially when taxes have to be raised to pay for them.

What is obvious is that wars cannot be fought for very long by countries even as wealthy as we are.

Split

Afraid we already do that as a matter of policy. Non friendly governments leaders and potential threats normally get taken out of circulation before they become threats.

Read Rogue State by William Blum

 

[blackcab]

Current climate change is not caused by the sun

The BBC recently reported on a paper that disputed the effect of the sun on climate change. The BBC story is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm.

In the story they say that the paper's authors: initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis. "All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

It disproves the idea claimed by sceptics of anthropogenic global warming that current climate change is primarily down the sun rather than human activity. I can't attach the whole paper but here's the text of the Abstract and Conclusions...

Proceedings of the Royal Society A

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

MIKE LOCKWOOD AND CLAUS FROHLICH
May 2007

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

Keywords: solar variability and climate; solar–terrestrial physics; anthropogenic climate change

5. Conclusions

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.

 

[chump]

You know this issue is just so like trading it is unbelievable. No one and I mean no one knows the future in trading , or in climate change...we are just not that smart...BUT , claiming to 'know' the future is just so appealing to people that they would rather 'know' and be wrong than just admit they do not 'know' ,but will manage the uncertainty that unfolds.
Why not just manage what we do know ? ....whether we have enough oil for 50 years , or 250 years we know it is finite at certain price levels ...so how should we manage that ? What are the implications of managing that ? Now just extend that argument for a whole host of similar resources.

 

[dcraig1]

You know this issue is just so like trading it is unbelievable. No one and I mean no one knows the future in trading , or in climate change...we are just not that smart...BUT , claiming to 'know' the future is just so appealing to people that they would rather 'know' and be wrong than just admit they do not 'know' ,but will manage the uncertainty that unfolds.
Why not just manage what we do know ? ....whether we have enough oil for 50 years , or 250 years we know it is finite at certain price levels ...so how should we manage that ? What are the implications of managing that ? Now just extend that argument for a whole host of similar resources.

Not at all like trading. There is a well formed body of scientific opinion regarding climate change. And that body of scientific opinion holds the view that there is potentially disasterous consequences in not actively addressing the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It may not be able to accurately predict the exact rise in sea level in 50 years, but it can say with a very good degree of certainty that there is a problem.

Contrast this with trading, where there is no concensus on just about anything and any idiot can, and frequently does, come up with the most preposterous stuff and can still be taken seriously by a lot of people.

Of course the future can be predicted in many ways. It is integral to science to attempt to do so. For example the position of the planets in the solar system can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy far into the future. Climate change is a far more difficult problem, but it does not mean it is totally intractable and there is no fundamental reason why predictive methods with usefull accuracy cannot be developed.

Biology and medicine are extremely complex sciences, but you don't hear the same derision levelled at these sciences as at climate science. In medicine, in particular, probabilities of a favourable outcome for various procedures are given all the time and life and death decisions are based on them. Why should the health of the planet should be treated any differently ?

 

[chump]

"There is a well formed body of scientific opinion regarding climate change"...there's well formed body who are as biased as the rest of us...putting on white smocks and glasses doesn't take away from that. Give me any group of people and I'll split it with peeps who look at a glass holding water who see it half full and another group who see it half empty.... at the moment there are plenty of peeps in both such groups so I would suggest that "well formed body" are still spitting in the wind and hoping for the best.

You can decide to act on perceptual differences of opinion ,or you can deal with what is known and is only argued about vested interests. I do the latter. For example ...if you add 2 billion people to the next economic strata up would you believe that energy known to be finite within ANY of our known data could do anything BUT increase in cost were we not to take action to offset such an occurence...would you think we would need addtional sources of water , basic food staples etc etc....

Let me put it this way...I'm due to go see probably the best Immunolgy guy in the country this month for the annual gabfest ...nearly 10 years ago this well informed scientist wanted to take a course of action based on what he and his colleagues felt they knew about immunology ...I took a different view then...a more adaptive view taken on what I knew at that time and not what might happen in the future. Today he's happy to talk to me about how much more they now know etc etc etc ....I am not making a point here that I was right and he was wrong...the point is deal with the facts that need no perceptual interpretation first and adapt ....indulge in futuristic guesswork only if there is no cost to being wrong.

There is plenty we can do without indulging in perceptual guesswork and it isn't even at odds with some of what would be required to deal with an outcome of global warming.

 

[fibonelli]

"............I have read the Draft Summary for Policy Makers and note a serious omission which if not corrected would justify ‘sceptics’* such as myself in believing that some sort of cover-up is afoot and I therefore urge you request that the IPCC correct it. (* 'sceptic' of CO2 as a key driver of temperature rise / Climate Change, not of Climate Change itself which has been going on for millions of years).

The request concerns Figure SPM-1 (page 3 of 18 in a recent copy) which shows the continuous rise of concentration over the last 4,000 years of all of three greenhouse gases considered there – mainly CO2 but also methane and nitrous oxide. Please ask – indeed insist - that the IPCC also show - on the same set of graphs - World and/or Arctic similarly smoothed temperature estimates over the period from at least the ‘Climate Optimum’ about 4,000 years ago to recent times.

It is beyond belief that a report can be published in the name of science which claims that CO2 rising levels cause rising temperatures while only reporting the presumed cause without the supposed historical consequences – ie temperature changes - which are also well documented in data in possession of the IPCC, such as from the internationally funded Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) project.

There are other points I and others take issue with, such as serious misrepresentation of solar activity in the Report, but the omission above is so important I thought it should be drawn to your personal attentions. Please correct it for the good of science and public knowledge.

One other matters which causes great confusion in the public mind is the continuous reference in the media to this and other IPCC reports as being “by/from 2,500 (leading) scientists” when in fact the report is drafted and finalized by appointees of Governments who may have little or no expertise in many of the wide ranging fields covered. It should further be noted that the many scientists who undertake diligent measurement and observational or estimation work which is used to indirectly support the report conclusions have generally no expertise or locus around the key subject on which the findings of the report are actually based, namely ‘Climate Models’. This is the preserve of only a handful of people who generally are in government funded institutions rather than more independent bodies. Perhaps the phrase “The (IPCC) Report by appointees of many governments” would be fairer and should be insisted on, and would not incorrectly imply informed confirmed agreement from many scientists whose work, however excellent, does no such thing.

Thank you

Piers Corbyn, ARCS FRAS FRMetS


".................Mr Corbyn said that the leading proponents of Global warming alarmism set out to confuse and scare the public. "The facts are that man's CO2 contributes less than 1% of the total greenhouse effect (water vapor is the main Greenhouse gas) and the warming from any extra CO2 Greenhouse effect is negated by a number of natural processes such as increased absorption of CO2 by the sea and enhanced photosynthetic-cooling from enhanced plant growth. "The warming of the last century has been due to increased solar activity and magnetic changes and many thousands of years of data show the connection between world temperatures and solar activity - and this is supported in published literature in leading scientific journals........"

Carbon dioxide is the basis of life.

Source:
http://www.weatheraction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=40

Reducing CO2 is eugenics. Eugenics is an aim of the "NWO deviants".

Source:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/depopulation.htm

 

[dcraig1]

Reducing CO2 is eugenics. Eugenics is an aim of the "NWO deviants".

Source:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/depopulation.htm

What total drivel.

 

[fibonelli]

What total drivel.

Dcraig1,

Have you read the article and the links at the bottom?
If you have, which paragraph(s) do you disagree with and why?

Fibonelli

 

[rols]

"There is a well formed body of scientific opinion regarding climate change"...there's well formed body who are as biased as the rest of us...putting on white smocks and glasses doesn't take away from that. Give me any group of people and I'll split it with peeps who look at a glass holding water who see it half full and another group who see it half empty.... at the moment there are plenty of peeps in both such groups so I would suggest that "well formed body" are still spitting in the wind and hoping for the best.

You can decide to act on perceptual differences of opinion ,or you can deal with what is known and is only argued about vested interests. I do the latter. For example ...if you add 2 billion people to the next economic strata up would you believe that energy known to be finite within ANY of our known data could do anything BUT increase in cost were we not to take action to offset such an occurence...would you think we would need addtional sources of water , basic food staples etc etc....

Let me put it this way...I'm due to go see probably the best Immunolgy guy in the country this month for the annual gabfest ...nearly 10 years ago this well informed scientist wanted to take a course of action based on what he and his colleagues felt they knew about immunology ...I took a different view then...a more adaptive view taken on what I knew at that time and not what might happen in the future. Today he's happy to talk to me about how much more they now know etc etc etc ....I am not making a point here that I was right and he was wrong...the point is deal with the facts that need no perceptual interpretation first and adapt ....indulge in futuristic guesswork only if there is no cost to being wrong.

There is plenty we can do without indulging in perceptual guesswork and it isn't even at odds with some of what would be required to deal with an outcome of global warming.

....

Here's proof positive!

 

[chump]

that's about as 'scientific' as anything else I have seen ...if I could find one I'd post an image depicting the gradual reduction of bodyhair of man through the ages.... I'm sure some rocket scientist somewhere could build a theory out of it.

 

[shadowninja]

Global warming is real. Fact!

 

[dcraig1]

Dcraig1,

Have you read the article and the links at the bottom?
If you have, which paragraph(s) do you disagree with and why?

Fibonelli

What on earth has global warming got to do with this ? A realistic assessment of the risk of global warming depends on climate science. The validity of the science is not dependant on whether a bunch of lunatics might want to hop on the bandwagon or not.

The stuff on eugenics conflates mutiple issues (very badly) and appropriately is posted on a web site devoted to consipracies.In particular attributing advocacy of sex education for children to a consipracy driven by eugenics is downright peculiar to say the least.

 

[rols]

Global warming is real. Fact!

Yes it's been scientifically proven.