The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Jack o'Clubs]

I remember at school we were told the next ice age is 10,000 years away not in the next 100 years.

I'd completely forgotten until last night's programme, but as a lad in the '70's I definitely remember that there was concern that we were heading for an imminent and catastrophic ice age. In fact I probably saw the programme they showed clips of last night since it rang faint bells in the back of my atrophied memory.

If it did nothing else the programme showed that there isn't an unanimous consensus on GW (most of the scientists interviewed last night were 'heavy hitters' not mavericks) and that there is room for debate which the pro-GW aren't keen to engage in. When you then consider the implications for the developing world (ie that we are effectively pulling the ladder up after us - sorry Africans, you can't have what we've got because it's bad for the planet), and that we're starting to make major policy decisions on the back of uncertain science, then at the very least there needs to be a serious debate about it which isn't happening at the moment.

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

Basic physics tells me if you place a black bag and transparent or silver bag up in the air the black bag and air in that bag would heat up more. I agree about CO2 trapping heat but don't understand why the upper atmosphere should heat up instead of the planet and lower atmosphere.

The upper atmosphere is less dense and so less particles and less likely it is to heat up.

Don't understand it well enough but it's counter to physics, my past reading and understanding.

The troposphere is the lower atmosphere

When the sun heats the earth's surface (ie projects infra-red radiation), most of it gets reflected back into space. Greenhouse gases trap this radiation at different levels, eg water vapour absorbs one infra-red wavelength, CO2 another. The trapped radiation causes the troposphere to warm, and this heat passes back to the surface. That is the 'greenhouse effect', and in other words the troposphere needs to be heating up quicker than the surface to demonstrate greenhouse gases are accelerating warming. Some scientists on the C4 programme were querying whether this was actually happening - maybe the earth's surface is heating independently of the troposphere for other reasons? Like variations in activity from that big nuclear fusion reactor we orbit...?

 

[JTrader]

On the issue of CO2.

I'm not sure if its in Scotland or Ireland, or maybe even Russia, but they've recently destroyed natural peat bogs (that absorb more CO2 than any plant or tree) and replaced them with pine forests.

 

[JTrader]

In any case
if GW is due to CO - why do governments only talk about energy saving bulbs, "washing" your clothers at 30 degrees, walking to work, wind farms, nuclear energy, solar, switching lights off (while big comapnies in London leave the entire office blocks light on all weekend long while no-one is there!) etc. etc.

On none of the govts. GW website content that I have seen do they mention the planting of trees as a valid and successful way of eliminating some excess CO2. Many farmers are virtually inactive/redundant across the country, why is govt. not returning this unused surplus farmland back into woodland?

Neither have i heard a politician mention trees.

http://www.treesaregood.com/funfacts/funfacts.aspx

 

[Crap Buddist]

ahhh reminds me JT, i saw a clip re grants from the gov. on the first of each month, first come first serve basis, for people to bag cash for , solar panels, a wind powered generator ( I dont think its beans ,tubing and a funnel kit, but you never know ) .etc.

These grants go in an hour or so online. But I might have an attempt next month, I fancy a wind turbine hoisted on my plot somewhere. I'll try and find a link.

On the trees planting, I think you get paid £1500 per 1/4 hect*. (I think) acres annually for pine, £1800 for deciduous .

 

[rols]

A Lot Of Hot Air!

Did anyone watch this on Channel 4?

I have thought for a long time that global warming has nothing to do with C02 levels. Good to see some real experts explaining how stupid the current environmental propaganda is.

For those that missed the programme, this is worth looking at.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/...e-greenhouse-effect-is-a-myth-say-scientists/

I suspected this a long time ago, partly because I remember the last cataclysmic forecast about 30 years ago when they said next ice age was immanent!

As soon as ITN did their series of broadcasts on global warming then i knew for sure it was completely unscientific. There was one report where they made a huge deal about their reporter nearly getting hit by a sheet of melting ice falling from an ice berg. Hold the front page everybody - some ice has melted!!!

On a similar vein, a relation of mine has been living off AIDS research grants for years and admits it is not in thousands of researcher's interests to find a total cure.

I thought every schoolboy knew that the collective farts of the worlds livestock far outweighs any CO2 emissions man can produce.

 

[DaveJB]

If you got two plastic bottles and filled one with CO2 and one with air ...Therefore global warming theory goes that with CO2 levels rapdily increasing in the troposphere it should be heating up even more quickly than the earth's surface. It isn't, as the satelite and weather balloon observations have shown.

With respect, you are comparing apples and oranges - you can predict that the CO2 bottle will heat faster than the air bottle, neither offers a prediction of what the EARTH will do as you are heating gases while the Earth is a solid. Equally the Sun is heating the Earth via Ultraviolet and visible sunlight, the Earth then radiates this back into the atmosphere at InfraRed wavelengths which are longer. The 'greenhouse' problem is that certain gases, amongst them CO2, allow the UV in but are very effective at blocking the re-radiation of infrared back into space... more heat in than out = warm up. This is the way greenhouses work, visible light and UV have no problem getting in through the glass, infrared has a much harder time getting back out and you lose heat by conduction through the glass (warm air inside, cold out, 2nd law of Thermodynamics and I imagine any competent builder will explain which way the heat's going to go). Reduced energy out v energy in = warm greenhouse.

Venus' temperature shows fairly well what happens if clouds prevent heat re-radiating into space, it also shows pretty well why we're very lucky that most of our CO2 is locked up in rock, eg Limestone, rather than floating in our atmosphere. Now whether you can blame everything on CO2 is another matter, and temperature fluctuations have indeed been part of Earth's history and they have - in the past - been correlated to things like Solar activity. That's not to say that just because centuries ago we had hot and cold phases, so the apparent loss of the polar ice cap is 'normal' makes sense. I'd also trust the average TV journo to know very little about most things. Luckily you can go buy New Scientist etc and regular reading of that, and perhaps the sort of stuff our kids are given to read in school, can go a long way to informing sensible debate.
I'd be inclined to say 'what do the majority of scientists think?' and figure that scientists are for the most part just like the rest of humanity - some crackpots for sure, but hardly ALL in the pay of evil government, surely?

 

[Bigbusiness]

Didn't the majority of scientists once think that the world was flat while a small minority of crackpots thought it was round?

This just seems like history repeating.

 

[Atilla]

Didn't the majority of scientists once think that the world was flat while a small minority of crackpots thought it was round?

This just seems like history repeating.

I think you are mistaking religious leaders with scientists...

I hope you can see the light better now...

 

[trendie]

Didn't the majority of scientists once think that the world was flat while a small minority of crackpots thought it was round?

This just seems like history repeating.

scientists were writing mathematical proofs for the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, even AFTER the Wright brothers flew.

 

[Atilla]

scientists were writing mathematical proofs for the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, even AFTER the Wright brothers flew.

Michael Angelo came up with the blue prints for a glider and a parachute whilst the Wright brothers were incubating 20 generations back in some old sack.

Trick is to use ones grey cells to deduce right and wrong.

 

[trendie]

Michael Angelo came up with the blue prints for a glider and a parachute whilst the Wright brothers were incubating 20 generations back in some old sack.

Trick is to use ones grey cells to deduce right and wrong.

true.

problem is, the newest ideas are, by their very nature, going to start off as minority opinions, before the masses wake up to the new paradigm.

Galilleo had the problem of being ahead of his time.
Darwin had the same problems. Although he didnt get toasted for his ideas.

The issue for Global Warming is:
who is pushing this concept ?
what "laws" or "rules" are they hoping to push onto us?
who benefits (financially) from it?
who hopes to enforce the rules?

sadly, it will be all about money.
an earlier post mentioned the US will use these rules to force China to give up its expectations.
I hope China tells them to F Off and takes all it needs to give its people food, health, flat screen tvs and cars.

have a good weekend - and good trading next week. hope theres better action than past two days.

 

[Crap Buddist]

true.

problem is, the newest ideas are, by their very nature, going to start off as minority opinions, before the masses wake up to the new paradigm.

Galilleo had the problem of being ahead of his time.
Darwin had the same problems. Although he didnt get toasted for his ideas.

The issue for Global Warming is:
who is pushing this concept ?
what "laws" or "rules" are they hoping to push onto us?
who benefits (financially) from it?
who hopes to enforce the rules?

sadly, it will be all about money.
an earlier post mentioned the US will use these rules to force China to give up its expectations.
I hope China tells them to F Off and takes all it needs to give its people food, health, flat screen tvs and cars.

have a good weekend - and good trading next week. hope theres better action than past two days.

well, I heard that Tony Blair mention it was vital for the worlds economies to adhere to the control of emissions. what the gameplan or strategy behind this is, I am still not sure of, is it control or dictation/ stunting of lesser nations (wanting to plasticise their own current block conditions) , or and more pollutinng nations to be held off? or do they really care ?


wests, rook to c3 .

 

[Atilla]

true.

problem is, the newest ideas are, by their very nature, going to start off as minority opinions, before the masses wake up to the new paradigm.

Galilleo had the problem of being ahead of his time.
Darwin had the same problems. Although he didnt get toasted for his ideas.

The issue for Global Warming is:
who is pushing this concept ?
what "laws" or "rules" are they hoping to push onto us?
who benefits (financially) from it?
who hopes to enforce the rules?

sadly, it will be all about money.
an earlier post mentioned the US will use these rules to force China to give up its expectations.
I hope China tells them to F Off and takes all it needs to give its people food, health, flat screen tvs and cars.

have a good weekend - and good trading next week. hope theres better action than past two days.

Interesting questions...

who is pushing this concept ? SCIENTISTS SAY SO

what "laws" or "rules" are they hoping to push onto us? BETTER ONES - LESS WASTE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING RESOURCES

who benefits (financially) from it? SOME, MOST LOSE, BUT MAN AND EARTH GAINS

who hopes to enforce the rules? THAT'S THE PROBLEM. NOBODY - FREE RIDER PROBLEM

sadly, it will be all about money. YES BUT IT'S BECAUSE OF THE COST TO MOST PEOPLE

Likewise have a good weekend stay green

 

[DaveJB]

So the default stance is that sometimes (especially when arguing about it gets you burned as a heretic, which makes it rather difficult to learn or teach new ideas and a damn certaintly that only a fool like Galileo would dare to argue) scientists aren't right, therefore the majority are usually wrong, all proved by quoting a few examples of humorous idiocies.

By the same token all doctors are quacks, so if you need emergency treatment send for Dr Nick? Let me know how the 'shorting bull trends' system pans out.

 

[Crap Buddist]

So the default stance is that sometimes (especially when arguing about it gets you burned as a heretic, which makes it rather difficult to learn or teach new ideas and a damn certaintly that only a fool like Galileo would dare to argue) scientists aren't right, therefore the majority are usually wrong, all proved by quoting a few examples of humorous idiocies.

By the same token all doctors are quacks, so if you need emergency treatment send for Dr Nick? Let me know how the 'shorting bull trends' system pans out.

Well, doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death to humans,(west) running behind cancer and heart desease. They think they are doing best, but i suspect it depends on how successful the recent drug trial stats are made to appear. Good money spinner though, right ,VIOX. (Merc)

With doctors I think its prudent to, check, research and question any advice if you are conscious.

 

[DaveJB]

I think I'd have to argue with that, although I cannot quote any statistics so will accept I might be wrong, but I'd have put 'Not having a doctor' higher on the list than 'having a doctor who isn't actually as clever as he thinks he is'.

I've had some absolutely laughable diagnoses myself <g>

It doesn't mean I won't see a doctor when unwell - just that just although SOME scientists are wrong some of the time, and ALL of them can be wrong on occasion, it's illogical to extrapolate tfrom this a rule that they are mostly wrong as a default preposition. Combine this with the undoubted fact that this is a complex problem that is proving devilishly difficult to solve, then I don't think TV companies are behaving overly responsibly treating it as a circus, far from informing debate I have a nagging suspicion they are trivialising one of the biggest problems we've ever faced as a species.

 

[Crap Buddist]

I think I'd have to argue with that, although I cannot quote any statistics so will accept I might be wrong, but I'd have put 'Not having a doctor' higher on the list than 'having a doctor who isn't actually as clever as he thinks he is'.

I've had some absolutely laughable diagnoses myself <g>

It doesn't mean I won't see a doctor when unwell - just that just although SOME scientists are wrong some of the time, and ALL of them can be wrong on occasion, it's illogical to extrapolate tfrom this a rule that they are mostly wrong as a default preposition. Combine this with the undoubted fact that this is a complex problem that is proving devilishly difficult to solve, then I don't think TV companies are behaving overly responsibly treating it as a circus, far from informing debate I have a nagging suspicion they are trivialising one of the biggest problems we've ever faced as a species.

Yes agree, with consulting a professional opinion is a must, but as doctors or "General" praticioners go, as the name suggests, they generalise. The knowledgeable patient who should be concerned with their own symptoms , and they would be aware of their own symptoms, because this is what they are describing to the "doctor" who is generalised, should ,in this day ,be able to be well informed as to treatments and alternatives and definately , detail of prescribed treatments, including drugs etc, side effects.

Im not saying all are wrong, rather, dont take their word for it, look further if you value your own life.

LOL.

sounds shocking, but, double check-a-rooni, cos doctors sell drugs,based on trials. In text only. a numbers game again. Big Money.

 

[Splitlink]

I didn't see the program but, what scientists does not tell us that the temperature change is 800 years before the C02 levels were raised. C02 is NOT a pollutant it is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere it is essential to life its what all plants use in order thrive. Without Co2 there would be no life on earth. So let get that very clear. It has increased and it is undoubtedly the case that the human activities have led to the increase. But that does not prove that it is the cause of warming. You see it is just the correlation. For example during much of the last century the climate was cooling while C02 was rising. So how do you explain that?

Ho forgot to say Mars is also warming but you wont here this on the news
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html?source=rss


Lets face it, Its a new TAX for us to pay...Its called Globel Warming, most will fall for it.

Everything that you say, regarding the paying of tax, is true. It is, also, true that a lot of money is going to be wasted. The outcome is inevitable, though. Thie planet is dying because the human population is on the increase. It will be gradual, the nearest generations will experience shortages of this, that and the other. Water will become as scarce as petrol, fish are already dying out and other animal species are becoming extinct or endangered. The very air we breathe is full of cancerous dust. But now it is too late, the corrective steps should have been taken decades ago. There is no way that Europe is going to persuade the developing nations to reduce pollution. The Chinese are building a power station every week. We are blaming them and, at the same time, our manufacturers are going over there because costs are cheaper and Europeans are buying Chinese textiles for the same reason.

As for the story that we cannot do anything because it is a new Ice Age, don't make me laugh. It's a good story, especially, because it gives us the opportunity to do nothing about it.

Split

 

[Fish]

Anybody read this........................about Takers and Leavers?


http://www.ishmael.com/Origins/Ishmael/