Do you think Global Warming is BS?

bonkey

Willstev wrote: »

In some ways I see as more money to be made.

Of course its more money to be made. And you know what...if there was no Global Warming, there'd also be more money to be made.

One can look at almost any given situation and figure out how to be opportunistic about it, or how to turn a profit out of it.

Dublin used to have a smog problem in the mid-to-late 80s. Now it doesn't. You know what...someone made money out of fixing that problem. Does this mean that the smog was artificially created? That it wasn't there?

If you have an accident playing soccer and break your leg, someone will make money fixing that. Does this mean that the medical industry made your leg break?

You car breaks down...someone will make money out of fixing it. Now, sure, we've all heard of the mechanics who fix things that aren't broken, or who ensure that something will always break...but even if you could get rid of all of those, things would still break, and would still need fixing, and someone would still make money out of it.

Being suspicious because someone is making money out of something is, frankly, looking at the problem the wrong way. Rather, you should be suspicious (or very, very worried) if someone wasn't making money out of it.

While I'll be the first to agree that not all of the money-making aspects are part of the solution they claim to be, I think that there is so much money making is more of a sign that there really, really is a problem then that its all a hoax.

Dont be at yourself

How can some dude in a white coat solve global warming??

Because, at the end of the day, he'll have to. To stem the tide of the problem would require a monumental global effort on both a government and personal level. With developing countries like China, India, as well as Eastern Europe and South America, the demand for resources is going to increase. People aren't going to give up their lifestyles. Sure, there'll be the minority that will live 'carbon neutral', but nowhere near the scale needed.

As such, it will be up to scientists to discover/develop a viable, cost-effective, clean, renewable form of energy. It will be technologies like Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Fusion power that will save the planet, not everyone turning down the air-conditioner two degrees.

Xavi6

square_igloo wrote: »

No, I don't think it's BS. There's too much evidence to the contrary.
If Ireland gets flooded, apparently Cork will be the first place gone because the city is built at sea level (or so I was told....if that's wrong someone correct me!) If so, I'm screwed!:eek: I can't swim

If that's the case then I for one welcome our new warm overlord

useful_contacts

I USED TO THINK IT WAS A MYTH BUT TOO MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN HAPPENING FOR ME TO THINK ITS NOT

Example- A year and a half ago there was a news cast about daffidols growing in New York in JANUARY, coupled with all these floods, the fact is boilng one day and snowing the next, and so far its snowed 3 times here THIS YEAR when normally we would only see snow every 2-3 years

Its pretty scary!

Macha

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Because, at the end of the day, he'll have to. To stem the tide of the problem would require a monumental global effort on both a government and personal level. With developing countries like China, India, as well as Eastern Europe and South America, the demand for resources is going to increase. People aren't going to give up their lifestyles. Sure, there'll be the minority that will live 'carbon neutral', but nowhere near the scale needed.

As such, it will be up to scientists to discover/develop a viable, cost-effective, clean, renewable form of energy. It will be technologies like Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Fusion power that will save the planet, not everyone turning down the air-conditioner two degrees.

Behaviour modification may be the harder part of the equation for solving climate change, and other environmental problems, but it has to happen. Once a carbon tax is introduced, and people will be forced to actually pay for the damage they are causing, they won't be so quick to hop on a plane for the weekend as ticket prices will be astronomical. Similarly when energy prices go up, driving is going to become considerably more expensive.

That's the stick end of it. On the carrot side, decent alternatives must be provided. For example decent public transport and development of the rail network. I wouldn't leave saving global warming to asking people to unplug their phone charger. The system has to change.

But seriously - we need to get away from the idea that a technological silver bullet will come and sweep away all our problems and we will be able to continue in our horribly materialistic and artificial lifestyles. Eg - say hydrogen cars become a viable reality tomorrow. We will still have congestion, parking issues, people spending 4, 5 hours a day in their car commuting each day resulting in stress, less leisure time and the prevalence of a highly anti-social form of transport. Whereas public transport goes much further in addressing all of these issues.

Slightly OP but people have gotten really soft these days. I have to grit my teeth when people whinge that they don't like the taste of their tap water so they buy stuff flown in from France to soothe their delicate taste buds. This, when some people in other countries have to walk for miles to reach a clean water source. This attitude just disgusts me.

Irish Gardener

useful_contacts wrote: »

I USED TO THINK IT WAS A MYTH BUT TOO MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN HAPPENING FOR ME TO THINK ITS NOT

Example- A year and a half ago there was a news cast about daffidols growing in New York in JANUARY,
Its pretty scary!

How close to the surface the bulbs were planted and whether they were pre-chilled will have a lot to say in the early blooming time of Daffodils.
As much as people would say it was spring arriving early, maybe it was in fact that winter arrived earlier to provide the period of chilling that the bulbs required.

Maybe a parks dept employee neglected his duties and forgot to remove a mound of snow from a particular area, extending chilling, which resulted in early bulbs.
Certain Narcissus do not even require a chilling period, such as Narcissus tazetta, requiring only about five weeks from sowing to bloom.

Links on the subject.... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-8531.html
and http://www.virtualseeds.com/ChillingTimetable.html

Caoimhín

Irish Gardener wrote: »

Maybe a parks dept employee neglected his duties and forgot to remove a mound of snow from a particular area, extending chilling, which resulted in early bulbs.
Certain Narcissus do not even require a chilling period, such as Narcissus tazetta, requiring only about five weeks from sowing to bloom.

Now irish gardener, are you sure you aren't a part of the military/industrial complex conspiracy to give disinformation about global warming?;)

biggus

Global warming may OR may not be man-made. However it might be a good mechanism for our western political system to Wean the developed world away from an Over dependence on OIL.
Peak oil is happening(it won't run out but will get scarcer and dearer).
Instead of pannicking the masses into realising this Peak oil scenario, Global warming(whether true or not) is a suitable distraction for polititions to get the masses to buy into change of energy use. This is a much better way to avoid tumultous econonomic disaster,otherwise pannic would spread, over suddenly realising that oil(at some near future point) has become precious.
Obscure scientific detractors against the warming scenario were latched onto by big oil companies, and obscure reports were catapulted to prominence by oil money and marketing departments. This countered the sound arguments put forward by un sponsored scientists.
This seems to have now become less of an issue now these same oil companies realise, that the easy oil is tapped and gone.

Change is much easier to accept when it occurs over a longer period....

Personally, for my motoring I can see myself filling the tank of my next generation Prius every 3 or 6 months(no matter what the cost) with wind topping up the bigger battery overnight for short runs. My home will be better insulated and draught proofed ,any sun captured for heat, My electricity will come from wind and wave, with potential energy Stored in turlough hill type Hydro stations for peaks and troughs.

If these type of changes have a double whammy effect of extending the onset of peak oil, and reducing Global warming, is'nt that fantastic !

Kev_ps3

biggus wrote: »

Global warming may OR may not be man-made. However it might be a good mechanism for our western political system to Wean the developed world away from an Over dependence on OIL.
Peak oil is happening(it won't run out but will get scarcer and dearer).
Instead of pannicking the masses into realising this Peak oil scenario, Global warming(whether true or not) is a suitable distraction for polititions to get the masses to buy into change of energy use. This is a much better way to avoid tumultous econonomic disaster,otherwise pannic would spread, over suddenly realising that oil(at some near future point) has become precious.
Obscure scientific detractors against the warming scenario were latched onto by big oil companies, and obscure reports were catapulted to prominence by oil money and marketing departments. This countered the sound arguments put forward by un sponsored scientists.
This seems to have now become less of an issue now these same oil companies realise, that the easy oil is tapped and gone.

Change is much easier to accept when it occurs over a longer period....

Personally, for my motoring I can see myself filling the tank of my next generation Prius every 3 or 6 months(no matter what the cost) with wind topping up the bigger battery overnight for short runs. My home will be better insulated and draught proofed ,any sun captured for heat, My electricity will come from wind and wave, with potential energy Stored in turlough hill type Hydro stations for peaks and troughs.

If these type of changes have a double whammy effect of extending the onset of peak oil, and reducing Global warming, is'nt that fantastic !

Spot on. GW is really about oil. For the past century the west has used 90% of the worlds oil, this is going to change in this century with the likes of China and India growing and that small fact they alone have 1/3 of the worlds populaton. This is going to drive oil prices sky-high and unless we want to be paying through the nose for it then we need to switch to bio-fuels or something else.

Macha

Well...global warming isn't really about oil. Peak oil, or the reduced supplies of oil will lead to an energy crisis, particularly here in Ireland were somthing arond 98% of our energy comes from abroad - the highest in the EU. That is some serious exposure to any volatility in the energy markets. And it's also a disgrace considering we have the best potential in the EU for wind & wave power (according to the EU comissioner on Energy). The cost of items is going to increase considerably, as we have seen with food - although this in part is due to an increasingly large portion of crops being diverted for biofuel production.

Global warming is about the changes that are going to happen in our climate as a result of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In Ireland it is expected that we will see drier summers and wetter winters. More storm surges, more coastal erosion and a serious shortage of water. Dublin is nearing a water shortage and the only options are bringing it up from the Shannon or building a de-salination plant.

Global warming is about these sort of issues and the more money we have to spend on purchasing increasingly expensive imported energy, the less money we have for investing in these problems. So oil & global warming are linked, but not the same.

Steve

taconnol wrote: »

Dublin is nearing a water shortage and the only options are bringing it up from the Shannon or building a de-salination plant.

...or fix the leaky pipes that account for 50% of Dublins water usage.

Macha

It isn't 50%, it's more like 30% but you're right. Dublin City Council is in the process of carrying out water work upgrades at the rate of approx 1% per year. The reason it isn't higher is lack of funding and you can't switch everyone's water off for a few months.

Another issue with water (slightly OT I know), is that we use the same water to drink as we do to flush our toilets. Totally, totally stupid.

nobodythere

The world doesn't need saving, it's us that needs saving.

Kev_ps3

Its just another scare story that we need to ignore. The planets temp has always been up and down, its not going to end the world now. Just relax, there are much bigger problems in the world.

Caoimhín

grasshopa wrote: »

The world doesn't need saving, it's us that needs saving.

Jebus saves.

nobodythere

Objective view:

You CAN'T know whether global warming is what they say it is. There is too much propoganda, vested interests, crappy scientists and the climate system is way beyond our comprehension.

We have a certain amount of oil, if you don't burn it, someone else will. All your energy efficient lightbulb shit doesn't matter, it only prolongs the problem but it is good for governments who have a purely economic gain from you reducing your energy use.

Long story short, fuck it, it's too late, it's going to happen, get on with your life.


If you want to know more about the oil peak see http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
If you want to know more about the basic ideas behind it please read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn (it's a bit off but it's a great introduction).

seamus

I was always suspicious of it, but ever since NASA revised its figures, I've been calling shenanigans on the whole thing.

As humans, we have great difficulty thinking in very big terms and so we vastly overestimate our net impact on the planet. The planet is *huge*. It's way bigger than any of us can imagine.

That said, I'm still all for generally recycling and not pumping out tonnes of smokey fuels and waste. Most of us still have to exist in an environment where massive pollution does have an impact on a local level. So I don't have any major issue in using an invention such as global warming to push people towards greener living.

Global Warming

You just wait and see, you just wait and see...

Caoimhín

Global Warming wrote: »

You just wait and see, you just wait and see...

Just for that im going to burn a few tyres and kill a few seals.

justcallmetex

OK G Warming......The climate of the Earth is undergoing change in terms of climate. Throughout history the earth has always gone thru change is the only true climate constant. Ireland thru out history has been frozen or under tropical oceans or even at times desert.

Termites produce more CO2 than any animal on the planet (not cows)

Co2 is a non pollutant.

Nasa as I understand it have been monitoring global temps but show no rise over 6 years I think.

Other planets thru out the solar system show signs of warming. Kinda hints to me that the sun may have a bigger hand in climate change than Carbon.

Change is the only constant and Green Energy et al is now a cash cow needin milkin.

What do we think will happen if we reduce emissions to 0? The Earths climate will stabilize no more change? Tex reckons time would be better spent pissin in the wind.

Kev_ps3

I would love it if there was a bookies that would take a bet on whether this "global warming" scare story is true or now. I would be rich! Same with the ozone scare, global cooling scare....

Caoimhín

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I would love it if there was a bookies that would take a bet on whether this "global warming" scare story is true or now. I would be rich! Same with the ozone scare, global cooling scare....

Bird Flu scare, y2k scare, terrorist scare.
World is scary.

Macha

Just an observation on this thread: those who are claiming that global warming is a reality are generally backing up their claims with links to peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Those in the 'it's-all-a-scam' camp are generally just throwing ideas and opinions about with nothing to back them up.

It speaks volumes.

justcallmetex

seamus wrote: »

I was always suspicious of it, but ever since NASA revised its figures, I've been calling shenanigans on the whole thing.

As humans, we have great difficulty thinking in very big terms and so we vastly overestimate our net impact on the planet. The planet is *huge*. It's way bigger than any of us can imagine.

That said, I'm still all for generally recycling and not pumping out tonnes of smokey fuels and waste. Most of us still have to exist in an environment where massive pollution does have an impact on a local level. So I don't have any major issue in using an invention such as global warming to push people towards greener living.

Great point. Pity we wont clean the world up cause it's gettin dirty but no we need to be fed ****e on warming to sell us even more crap we dont need.

justcallmetex

taconnol wrote: »

Just an observation on this thread: those who are claiming that global warming is a reality are generally backing up their claims with links to peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Those in the 'it's-all-a-scam' camp are generally just throwing ideas and opinions about with nothing to back them up.

It speaks volumes.

Cool your boots mate I'll back it up no worries be back soon

Global Warming

caoibhin wrote: »

Just for that im going to burn a few tyres and kill a few seals.

Keep up the good work Caoibhin, i'll spare you.

seamus

taconnol wrote: »

Just an observation on this thread: those who are claiming that global warming is a reality are generally backing up their claims with links to peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Actually, in the case of Global Warming it's quite easy to produce evidence that will support a specific part of the claim of global warming, but it's very difficult to produce an "everything's OK" body of evidence. All that one can do is attempt to refute (or show the incompleteness) of evidence provided by the other side.

justcallmetex

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line
by *government *representatives. The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,

justcallmetex

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy






Now thats a lot of PHD's innit. But what would they know cause I hear the opposite on Sky news and the Media would never lie to me!

Jimoslimos

justcallmetex wrote: »

.
Termites produce more CO2 than any animal on the planet (not cows)

Who said anything about cows producing CO2? Cows produce large amount of methane (CH4)

justcallmetex wrote: »

Co2 is a non pollutant.

Cobalt? no;)

justcallmetex

Good point rushed things a little there ur spot on termites love their methane I stand corrected!
was makin the point that there's a lot o misconceptions out there on what causes what

Macha

Sorry but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands and thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports.

In addition, a number of the people referenced above are of questionable academic repute. To single out just one, Fred Singer has received funding from ExxonMobil - everybody say 'conflict of interest' for me now.

justcallmetex

Didn't realize we needed to turn up every scientist! could take a while......

copeyhagen

clearly bs.


manbearpig ftw

Kev_ps3

taconnol wrote: »

Just an observation on this thread: those who are claiming that global warming is a reality are generally backing up their claims with links to peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Those in the 'it's-all-a-scam' camp are generally just throwing ideas and opinions about with nothing to back them up.

It speaks volumes.

lol, we will see in 5 or 10 years when all this has blown over, we will see who speaks volumes. But I suppose by then people like you will be trying to convince us of some other disaster coming around the corner.

justcallmetex

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

lol, we will see in 5 or 10 years when all this has blown over, we will see who speaks volumes. But I suppose by then people like you will be trying to convince us of some other disaster coming around the corner.

I wouldn't go so far as to say things will blow over in a few years I do think we will experience a climate shift because history tells us thats what happens.

justcallmetex

The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

‘Global warming’ is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend -

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008. [End of Declaration]

Macha

Look I'm not saying that global warming is going to be catastrophic and that the government better start giving out free swimming lessons. I'm just saying it's happening and that there is a considerable anthropogenic nature to it.

Although one thing that annoys me about it is that it tends to overshadow other environmental issues like waste and water pollution.

Interesting that the declaration above was not covered extensively in the Irish or UK media.

'People like me'? What? People like me who are actually studying this stuff on a full time basis in a recognised academic institution, not just googling crap & throwing up unfounded opinions? (not directed at you tex)

dfx-

justcallmetex wrote: »

OK G Warming......The climate of the Earth is undergoing change in terms of climate. Throughout history the earth has always gone thru change is the only true climate constant. Ireland thru out history has been frozen or under tropical oceans or even at times desert.

Termites produce more CO2 than any animal on the planet (not cows)

Co2 is a non pollutant.

Change is constant however the extent and frequency of the change is what is affected. The Earth's natural cycle of change is being accelerated/interrupted - choose whatever word you want.

Termites do, but I don't see humans artificially increasing termite numbers like they do cows.

CO2 isn't even the strongest absorber of the IR region, but it is the most prevalent given its sources followed by methane. Water vapour and fluorinated hydrocarbons are iirc, but they are in such little content that they are effectively negligible.

It really staggers me people don't believe it yet.

Latchy

Global warming or not you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know somthing is not right with this planets weather system .

* Latch having stated the obious now heads off to the bar *

kevmy

kwestfan08 wrote: »

Total BS in my opinion. Every decade scientists seem to come up with something "terrible" thats going to kill us all just to get the research dollars rolling in. My case in point, the hole in the o-zone layer was big news in the 90's, you dont seem to hear too much news of it now.

As has been stated elsewhere this was and still is a problem. However due to action being taken the Ozone hole should disappear sometime around 2050. Sometimes scientists get the blame for predicting stuff that doesn't happen and then get mocked when it doesn't. But what people forget is that if scientists hadn't highlighted the drastic effects of nuclear holocaust or even on the other end of the scale Y2K then perhaps these events would have came to fruition. Just because a warning is sent out that if something doesn't change that such and such will happen it doesn't mean it will, as humans we have the ability to change our behaviours to prevent these things happening.

stevec wrote: »

or :mad:

not sure what you mean.

Cow farts produce more "planet killing" emmissions than our road traffic does.

On the other hand, the ozone hole hasn't been in the media lately because, thanks to the likes or Ryanscare, "planet killing" aricraft emit enough ozone to keep it under control.

Ahh the media a bunch of sensationalists out to sell papers. They have little understanding of science and often mangle the meaning of reports and scientific studies. Unfortunately this is where most people hear of these studies. A rough breakdown of greenhouse gases tells us that 40% comes from transport, 40% comes from power generation and 20% from other sources.
Approx 5% overall comes from airplanes which is a small chunk of the transport side. However they are an easier target because you only need to convince ~50 companies worldwide to change fuel rather than the 3 billion people who drive in cars every day.
The methane from livestock is also hideously overrated again a small part of the 'other' budget but they are the biggest emitters of methane which is one of the more nasty gases.

Cow farts do not emit more greenhouse gases than traffic. There is an outside chance this may be true in Ireland but worldwide it's a joke.

planetX wrote: »

Climate has always changed, the Sahara area was lush and tropical in Roman times. The drought in parts of Africa owe far more to overgrazing and deforestation than to CO2 in the atmosphere. How about the mini ice-age in Britain in the 1500s, the Thames would freeze solid, they held ice-fairs!
The question is whether change is being influenced by human activity. Maybe - personally I think the whole carbon credit thing is a huge moneymaking scam, ditto biofuels. I know some people involved in research in this area, and I've seen firsthand how they can direct and skew their conclusions in order to get 'interesting' results - a negative result isn't great for publishing papers. And the funding for anything with reference to global warming is great!

Yep climate changes over the years and yep we are probably in the middle of one now and yep it's effects are overblown by a media which doesn't understand the term extremely unlikely - the most extremely unlikely one is also the one which is sexist.
But is still happening and our output as humans is speeding it up.
A lot of money is being made on this that are jokes and bio-fuels aren't worth the hassle. If we want to make serious inroads into global warming/greenhouse gas emission switch our power generation. 20% renewable, 80% nuclear and boom we have a 40% cut worldwide in 20 years. But thats not going to happen so we're going to have to put up with this bullsh1t about carbon footprint for a good few years.

obl wrote: »

It's got something to do with sun spots, no?

NO. Untrue no correlation has ever been found either now or in the past. One guy had this idea and he was very loud about it. So people listened and then some guys went away checked it out and came out about 2 months ago saying it's pretty much bunkum. On average we're getting the same amount of solar energy we ever did.

justcallmetex

4 oclock work over out a here! lookin forward to checkin out developments tomorro. you know I think theres room here for consensus we all seem to agree change is happening regardless of cause . we need to prepare, how is this best managed is the real question, most everything else feels like a distraction. lets not blame each other thats how wars happen

justcallmetex

“How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization.” Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News”

Celticfire

latchyco wrote: »

Global warming or not you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know somthing is not right with this planets weather system .

* Latch having stated the obious now heads off to the bar *

When was it ever right?

Toiletroll

Global warming is not BS, though the reasons behind it that we are given are farce. These are just new 'opportunities' for new types of taxes to fund the ever hungry government appetite for power.

Forget the draconian measures and just give us alternative fuel cars! I mean look at the Tesla!

0 - 62mph in 4 seconds... 3 hours for a full charge... 250mpg equiv full charge does 250 miles (details are 99% accuarte from memory)

Why oh why dont we all drive such cars? They are brining out a family car with the same principle in mind...

http://static.flickr.com/116/254377531_e929458cd7.jpg

Toiletroll

latchyco wrote: »

Global warming or not you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know somthing is not right with this planets weather system .

* Latch having stated the obious now heads off to the bar *

New taxes wont fix a hunch, it just pays for the chavs pregnant birds, and keeps others in power!!!

dfx-

justcallmetex wrote: »

you know I think theres room here for consensus we all seem to agree change is happening regardless of cause . we need to prepare, how is this best managed is the real question, most everything else feels like a distraction. lets not blame each other thats how wars happen

Nope. Agreeing to the cause I'd say is fundamental to getting or managing a widespread solution, so disagreeing to the cause is a major problem and as far away from consensus as it is possible to get.

Blaming each other is much more fun anyway:cool:

humanji

Toiletroll wrote: »

Global warming is not BS, though the reasons behind it that we are given are farce. These are just new 'opportunities' for new types of taxes to fund the ever hungry government appetite for power.

Forget the draconian measures and just give us alternative fuel cars! I mean look at the Tesla!

0 - 62mph in 4 seconds... 3 hours for a full charge... 250mpg equiv full charge does 250 miles (details are 99% accuarte from memory)

Why oh why dont we all drive such cars? They are brining out a family car with the same principle in mind...

http://static.flickr.com/116/254377531_e929458cd7.jpg

Probably because it's just been released and costs $98,000 for the basic model.

MCMLXXXIII

Scientists have found that all weather patterns before humans have been directly related to the amount of flares in the sun at the time. The only exception is when the meteor supposedly hit the earth raising eunough dust to kill all the plants for that season, which eventually killed all the dinosaurs.

Personaly, I don't think humans have created enough dust to have the same effect as a meteor, but I do think it enough to effect weather patterns.

It doesn't really matter if you think it's BS, or real - the point is, the world is changing. I kind of like the way it is right now, and even if it was a natural change, I think we can effect that and keep it the way we are used to.

If the ice really does melt, how much of Ireland's costal cities will be under water? How about the rest of the world's costal cities? How many species of animals will become extinct from losing their habitat (or sharing it with others)? How will that effect the food chain of other species? Even for us - what food won't grow in the warm weather (corn, wheat, root veggies, fruit like apples, cherries, peaches, etc)? How much room is left in the far northern hemisphere to grow all that food?

I think humans will adapt well, but will it be more expensive to curb our CO2 habit, or to pay for the aftermath (by losing all costal property, for example) so we can still live comfortably up-hill?

kevmy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

If the ice really does melt, how much of Ireland's costal cities will be under water? How about the rest of the world's costal cities? How many species of animals will become extinct from losing their habitat (or sharing it with others)? How will that effect the food chain of other species? Even for us - what food won't grow in the warm weather (corn, wheat, root veggies, fruit like apples, cherries, peaches, etc)? How much room is left in the far northern hemisphere to grow all that food?

I think humans will adapt well, but will it be more expensive to curb our CO2 habit, or to pay for the aftermath (by losing all costal property, for example) so we can still live comfortably up-hill?

Well it unlikely that much of our cities will be lost. For example if present trends continue for 50 years we will lose at the most 20-30% of Ireland to the water. This is pretty unlikely. We will probably cop on to some extent and usually the worst doesn't come to pass. The trouble is in other areas of the world.

Land loss overall will drive people into other parts of the creating huge migration and less arable land. Resulting in food shortages and polluted water. This means you'll prob be alright if your middle class in the west. But your fcuked if your poor in China and Africa