Channel 4 rapped over 'great Global Warming Swindle'

djpbarry

darkman2 wrote: »

Current Artic Ice extent is well ahead ahead of last year by a couple of million square kilometers

Considering 2007 was the record low, that means very little. The fact that this years' Arctic ice coverage is a little ahead of last years' coverage (I don't know where you're getting "a couple of million square kilometres"; you're graph would appear to show a difference of, at most, 1 million sq km for this month) is little cause for optimism - the trend is still a downward one:

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/august-ice-trend.jpg

djpbarry

Terry wrote: »

Massive storms.
The Netherlands, London and other low lying areas being submerged.
Tropical weather in Ireland.
Arctic weather in Ireland.
Tropical diseases.

These were all things which were promised back in the 80's and I have yet to see any of them manifest themselves.

Well, I was only a wee lad in the 80's, so I can't say I remember.

Does evidence that the climate IS changing not count for anything? Do you really think it would be a good idea to wait for something catastrophic to happen?

dr.bollocko

djpbarry wrote:

Well, I was only a wee lad in the 80's, so I can't say I remember.

Does evidence that the climate IS changing not count for anything? Do you really think it would be a good idea to wait for something catastrophic to happen?

Do you really think that the climate was ever NOT changing?

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do you really think that the climate was ever NOT changing?

You think that just because the climate has changed in the past that current changes should be dismissed? Even if the current changes are simply "natural variation", there still has to be an explanation, so what's yours?

gerky

More recent changes are way outside the usual boundaries of change.

TempChart1
TempChart2

Some of what Terry said is already happening

The Thames barrier has had to be raised far far more in recent years.

Tropical diseases are starting to spread in to Europe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Terry

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, I was only a wee lad in the 80's, so I can't say I remember.

Does evidence that the climate IS changing not count for anything? Do you really think it would be a good idea to wait for something catastrophic to happen?

Dr Bolloko summed it up there.

I also summed it up earlier in the thread.

If there was to be a massive volcanic eruption in the morning, there would be drastic changes to the climate for a good few years.
Other than that, the climate has been warmer and colder every few thousand years since the formation of the planet (by god. 7.000 years ago).

Terry

gerky wrote: »

More recent changes are way outside the usual boundaries of change.

TempChart1
TempChart2

Some of what Terry said is already happening

The Thames barrier has had to be raised far far more in recent years.

Tropical diseases are starting to spread in to Europe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Meh.
More people travelling to tropical places and bringing diseases back with them. And imports from those places.

As for the graph, It's always up and down. That's how the planet is.

You can blame the yanks and their big cars. You can blame the Asians and their big populations. You can blame everyone, but the real blame lies in the fact that we have a tilted axis and are subject to other astronomical influences.

Do we have a geologist here?
They are the people to talk to about climate change.

Until a tidal wave that isn't caused by some natural occurance hits the east coast, pushes water back up the Liffey and floods Leixlip village, I will remain unconvinced of any major changes in our current climate.

Remember, it's the warmest/ coldest day since records began. Less than 200 years ago.
200 out of 5 billion is a drop in the pool of piss left by a dog at the side of a lamppost.

dr.bollocko

djpbarry wrote: »

You think that just because the climate has changed in the past that current changes should be dismissed? Even if the current changes are simply "natural variation", there still has to be an explanation, so what's yours?

...
Natural variation.

CPT. SURF

The planet has been here how many billions of years?

Our chemical emmisions on the surface are creating, at the present moment in time, a nuisance that the planet will deal with if it deems necessary.

Now listen up people; here comes the important part. That is exactly what the planet is supposed to do. It is a self-correcting system

What the consequences of these self-corrections are for us as a species are unknown and unpredictable.

Enjoy your argument guys.

Terry

I am enjoying it, duuuude.

Here's looking forward to you finding a tsunami to ride.

dr.bollocko

Terry wrote: »

I am enjoying it, duuuude.

Here's looking forward to you finding a tsunami to ride.

ROFL:D

thelordofcheese

Terry wrote: »

Meh.
More people travelling to tropical places and bringing diseases back with them. And imports from those places.

As for the graph, It's always up and down. That's how the planet is.

You can blame the yanks and their big cars. You can blame the Asians and their big populations. You can blame everyone, but the real blame lies in the fact that we have a tilted axis and are subject to other astronomical influences.

Do we have a geologist here?
They are the people to talk to about climate change.

Until a tidal wave that isn't caused by some natural occurance hits the east coast, pushes water back up the Liffey and floods Leixlip village, I will remain unconvinced of any major changes in our current climate.

Remember, it's the warmest/ coldest day since records began. Less than 200 years ago.
200 out of 5 billion is a drop in the pool of piss left by a dog at the side of a lamppost.

You're not going to be convinced until something stupid like "the day after tomorrow" happens
Even then you'd probably find some way to try and write it off as nothing.

CPT. SURF

I am enjoying it, duuuude.

I am glad you are, *insert stereotypical slang-name for people from Confrey here*.

Here's looking forward to you finding a tsunami to ride.

You cannot ride a tsunami by the way. That is because a tsunami travels under water in the open ocean. It then turns into a massive displacement of water when it reaches a continental shelf. It does not look like, break, or resemble a wave that can be surfed.

Terry

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You're not going to be convinced until something stupid like "the day after tomorrow" happens
Even then you'd probably find some way to try and write it off as nothing.

Listen. I've been hearing this doomsday crap since 1983 and I know it goes back further than that.
25 years of being told that mjor climate changes are just around the corner, without anything happening, will bring a little bit of skepticism in those who believe anything they are told.

CPT. SURF wrote: »

I am glad you are, *insert stereotypical slang-name for people from Confrey here*.

Hiller scum is the usual one.

You cannot ride a tsunami by the way. That is because a tsunami travels under water in the open ocean. It then turns into a massive displacement of water when it reaches a continental shelf. It does not look like, break, or resemble a wave that can be surfed.

Tidal wave it is then.

gerky

Terry wrote:

Meh.
More people travelling to tropical places and bringing diseases back with them. And imports from those places.

As for the graph, It's always up and down. That's how the planet is.

You can blame the yanks and their big cars. You can blame the Asians and their big populations. You can blame everyone, but the real blame lies in the fact that we have a tilted axis and are subject to other astronomical influences.

Do we have a geologist here?
They are the people to talk to about climate change.

Until a tidal wave that isn't caused by some natural occurance hits the east coast, pushes water back up the Liffey and floods Leixlip village, I will remain unconvinced of any major changes in our current climate.

Remember, it's the warmest/ coldest day since records began. Less than 200 years ago.
200 out of 5 billion is a drop in the pool of piss left by a dog at the side of a lamppost.

thelordofcheese is right you ask for evidence but then won't accept it.

No that outbreak is know to have come in mosquito that are able to survive in areas they couldn't before, did you even read the article.
What about blue tongue in animals it has been increasing and spreading west.

Here's a 2000 year chart is that back far enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

dr.bollocko

Not really no. I would say when discussing something that takes hundreds and thousands of years then, no, 2000 is not back far enough.

CPT. SURF

Tidal wave it is then.

There is no such thing as a tidal wave.

It is a generic term; used by people with no understanding of oceanography, yourself included, to refer to various oceanic phenomenon. Examples include rogue waves, tidal bores, tsunamis, etc.

thelordofcheese

Terry wrote: »

Listen. I've been hearing this doomsday crap since 1983 and I know it goes back further than that.
25 years of being told that mjor climate changes are just around the corner, without anything happening, will bring a little bit of skepticism in those who believe anything they are told.

To paraphrase yourself "25 out of 5 billion is a drop in the pool of piss left by a dog at the side of a lamppost"

I know you want something to happen like right-****in'-now and either confirm or deny the idea of climate change, but assuming that the majority of scientists are correct and climate change is real do you honestly think that the entire weather system of the planet was going to go to ****e in 25 years?

The signs of change are there, even if you'll just go 'meh' because it's not apocalyptic enough, but they are there.
And as an aside It'd be foolish to think the timelines and predictions havn't changed over time as we learn more and more about the effect we are having on the earth, kind of like how the evidence around the theory of evolution has changed and old ideas have been refined or dropped as more and more evidence comes to light

kazzer

gerky wrote: »

More recent changes are way outside the usual boundaries of change.

TempChart1
TempChart2

Some of what Terry said is already happening

The Thames barrier has had to be raised far far more in recent years.

Tropical diseases are starting to spread in to Europe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Those graphs dont show sh!t. They only show a tiny dot in the planets lifetime, what were the temperatures for the millions of years pre 1800's ????? The planet has probably become colder for all those graphs tell us.

CPT. SURF

The signs of change are there, even if you'll just go 'meh' because it's not apocalyptic enough, but they are there.

There are signs of change in our lifetime. Compare that with the lifetime of the planet.

dr.bollocko

CPT. SURF wrote: »

There is no such thing as a tidal wave.

It is a generic term; used by people with no understanding of oceanography, yourself included, to refer to various oceanic phenomenon. Examples include rogue waves, tidal bores, tsunamis, etc.

You know I never knew wikipedia knew so much about tidal waves.

djpbarry

Terry wrote: »

Other than that, the climate has been warmer and colder every few thousand years since the formation of the planet

Since the formation of the planet? How accurate do you think estimates of the temperature 4 billion years ago are? Anything beyond about 150 to 200 years ago is just an estimate.

Terry wrote: »

As for the graph, It's always up and down. That's how the planet is.

But the question is, why is it "up and down"? What's causing it? You seem pretty sure that CO2 is not causing the current warming, so what is?

Terry wrote: »

You can blame everyone, but the real blame lies in the fact that we have a tilted axis and are subject to other astronomical influences.

Such as?

Terry wrote: »

Until a tidal wave that isn't caused by some natural occurance hits the east coast, pushes water back up the Liffey and floods Leixlip village, I will remain unconvinced of any major changes in our current climate.

I’m curious; how do you determine if a tidal wave is a “natural occurance” or if it is due to man’s influence?

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Natural variation.

That's not an answer. What is causing this "natural variation"?

Terry wrote: »

25 years of being told that mjor climate changes are just around the corner...

But we're not talking about "catastrophic climate change" (well, at least I'm not), just climate change; the changes don't have to be drastic to have catastrophic effects.

CPT. SURF

You know I never knew wikipedia knew so much about tidal waves.

I never knew the average person, especially living on an island, was so clueless about the ocean.

Its good to be a surfer. Me>>>>>You lot

dr.bollocko

In Australia they use the word surfer too but in their language it means unemployable blonde moron you can buy drugs off of.

CPT. SURF

In Australia they use the word surfer too but in their language it means unemployable blonde moron you can buy drugs off of.

No actually in Australia surfing is one the most popular and well respected sports. They have an appreciation for the ocean and those who love it.

When Mick Fanning won the world surfing title in 2007, first time an Aussie had done so in a few years, it was on the front pages of the national newspapers.

So again, people who surf>>>>>>>>>>people who dont.

dr.bollocko

CPT. SURF wrote: »

No actually in Australia surfing is one the most popular and well respected sports. They have an appreciation for the ocean and those who love it.

When Mick Fanning won the world surfing title in 2007, first time an Aussie had done so in a few years, it was on the front pages of the national newspapers.

So again, people who surf>>>>>>>>>>people who dont.

Don't be silly.

An Australian paper couldn't spell "respected".

Australians appreciate racism and beer.
Then cricket, AFL, rugby union and rugby league.
Then tennis.
Then fishing.
Then serial murder.
Then abo beating.

Then surfers.

So close.

CPT. SURF

Whatever Mr. Stereotype.

CPT. SURF

Lets get real stupid so.

Hot chicks like surfers.

Me>>>>>>>you

dr.bollocko

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Whatever Mr. Stereotype.

You sir, are merely jealous because doctor bollocko is a superior superhero username to captain smurf.

CPT. SURF

Yeah I do think your name is pretty cool actually.

CPT. SURF comes from a surf-movie I used to watch as a kid called Cpt. Surf and the tube dudes!

It was a classic flick

Parsley

djpbarry wrote: »

But the question is, why is it "up and down"? What's causing it? You seem pretty sure that CO2 is not causing the current warming, so what is?

I'm pretty sure the idea of "warming" is gone out the window.

That's not an answer. What is causing this "natural variation"?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the forces of nature.

I took a chance here, I was between two minds trying decide if you were just trolling or not.

djpbarry

Parsley wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the idea of "warming" is gone out the window.

Is it? Why's that now?

Parsley wrote: »

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the forces of nature.

Which means, what exactly? The moon orbits the earth "naturally", but we know that it is a series of gravitational forces that cause it to do so. So, even if climate change is "naturally occuring", then there still must be SOMETHING THAT IS CAUSING IT TO HAPPEN. So, what is that something?

Hobart

djpbarry wrote: »

I’d call it a disposal charge, but anyway, it recently saved me having to hire a mini-skip, which would have set me back at least €100.

Well thats that so. Conclusive proof that the WEEE is not a net cost to the consumer, more a benificial one. I must remind myself of that next time I'm buying aTV.

Is this the scheme you are referring to?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/21/theairlineindustry.travelleisure?gusrc=rss&feed=environment

It would appear it has a long way to go before it comes into effect.

I never said it would not take time...did I? I don't really get your point tbh, it's been already ratified by the EU.

Eh, yeah, it is. Do you know something I don’t? Do tell.

I do. I know this, Governments are not in the habit of informing the populous of bad news. Secondly, the intention was that the new CO2 based taxation system would be "broadly" revenue neutral, not as conclusive as you have stated above. Thirdly, it remains to be seen how "neutral" this new environmental way of taxing cars will work out. Finally you accused Marcus.Aurelius of being rather misleading. He is far from misleading, in fact he is quite correct, there will be a huge tax increase for somebody who wants to drive a 3L BMW around on a daily basis, to say that there is not is totally misleading on your part.

Well, I’m going to have to disagree with you on that, seeing as how all this "scaremongering" has so far SAVED me money.

Of course, you are the meter stick by which we should all measure ourselves :rolleyes:.

Of course, the increased cost of flying has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil hitting an all-time high. Nope, it’s all down to those pesky environmentalists.

Where did I say that airlines are going to drop their fuel surcharge? Is there something you know that you are not telling us, pray tell, oh wise one.

I’m not sure what Al Gore has to do with my points (I never mentioned the guy), but anyway; do you have a source to back up your claim?

No, I don't, well I do, but i could not be bothered at his hour of the night going into it with you. Also, if you have never mentioned the guy...=>http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54872475&postcount=247 very strange??

Ourlad

darkman2 wrote: »

Loads of people including eminent scientists brought a complanit against the programme which was, thankfully, not upheld.



I have studied weather and climate for a long time. It is a hobby of mine. C02 (that you always hear about) has never, and will never be a driver of climate. You are all being fed a pup. The world has cooled since 2001. You wont hear about that though! You also wont hear that Artic ice is well advanced on last year. You wont hear anything against 'Global Warming' in the mainstream media. You are being fed an excuse for tax increases and something that is driven fundamentaly by hard core environmentalists. I am very happy this facist attempt to censor the other factual side of this argument has failed. Every 'scientist' that believes in 'Global Warming' is compromised......they are paid to believe it. If they dont they lose their job. This is a massive con job these people are engaged in and I hope you all realise that.

+1 global warming is the worlds biggest scam

Ourlad

Deleted User wrote: »

Look OP, Al Gore was right about ManBearPig so we HAVE to take his word on global warming. We have to!

brilliant!

djpbarry

Hobart wrote: »

Secondly, the intention was that the new CO2 based taxation system would be "broadly" revenue neutral, not as conclusive as you have stated above.

A touch pedantic, don't you think?

Hobart wrote: »

...there will be a huge tax increase for somebody who wants to drive a 3L BMW around on a daily basis...

Not necessarily - the new VRT scheme is based on CO2 emissions, not engine size. Take for example the BMW 635d series; with an engine capacity of 2993cc, this car was subject to VRT at 30% prior to July 1st. Under the new scheme, the car is subject to VRT at 28% (CO2 emissions of 190g/km).

Oh, and VRT is not based on car usage.

Hobart wrote: »

Of course, you are the meter stick by which we should all measure ourselves.

No less so than the guy in the 3L BMW.

Hobart wrote: »

No, I don't, well I do, but i could not be bothered at his hour of the night going into it with you. Also, if you have never mentioned the guy...=>http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54872475&postcount=247 very strange??

:rolleyes:

I never mentioned the guy on this thread - you know what I meant.

Hobart

djpbarry wrote: »

A touch pedantic, don't you think?

Not really tbh, and a bit rich coming from you, but if being a pedant = accurate, well then I guess I'm guilty.

Not necessarily - the new VRT scheme is based on CO2 emissions, not engine size. Take for example the BMW 635d series; with an engine capacity of 2993cc, this car was subject to VRT at 30% prior to July 1st. Under the new scheme, the car is subject to VRT at 28% (CO2 emissions of 190g/km).

Oh, and VRT is not based on car usage.

Good, you have establshed that VRT is not based on usage, well done. :rolleyes: So are you claiming that all 3L BMW's are now lower than previously priced before the new enviromental taxation system was introduced?

No less so than the guy in the 3L BMW.

Eh...what?

:rolleyes:

I never mentioned the guy on this thread - you know what I meant.

Then why feign such ignorance when his documentary was mentioned? You know that most of his theories were debated (I won't say debunked) and yet you find the need to try and draw a person out with your "links" type posts.

If you want links, back up your own theories and statements, before demanding them! Did you mention AL Gore, despite claiming otherwise? Well, yes you did, and link provided :rolleyes:.

I also notice that you failed to address the point about the EU ratifying a new Airline tax, as you linked to previously. I'm beginning to believe the accusation of "selective quotation" that was levelled at you earlier in this thread, was more than justified.

kowloon

Can't find the post now, but to suggest carbon emissions have no effect at all is ridicuous, a change in the makeup of the atmosphere will affect weather patterns, what change I haven't a notion, I'm not qualified to say -and it's likely nobody on this thread is either - but no effect at all?
Anyone with a background in chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, cookery or drug manufacture can tell you what happens when you change the balance of the mix or add something new.

dr.bollocko

kowloon wrote: »

Anyone with a background in chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, cookery or drug manufacture can tell you what happens when you change the balance of the mix or add something new.

You left out bartender...

kowloon

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You left out bartender...

With potentially fatal consequences come the next morning :eek:.

seamus

kowloon wrote: »

Can't find the post now, but to suggest carbon emissions have no effect at all is ridicuous, a change in the makeup of the atmosphere will affect weather patterns, what change I haven't a notion, I'm not qualified to say -and it's likely nobody on this thread is either - but no effect at all?
Anyone with a background in chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, cookery or drug manufacture can tell you what happens when you change the balance of the mix or add something new.

You're right of course. But as humans we vastly overestimate our impact on the planet.

The earth's atmosphere is roughly 5140 trillion tonnes of air.

If every person on earth puts out 4 tonnes of carbon per year (global average), that's 24 billion tonnes of carbon per year. Or about 0.000005% of the total volume of air in the earth, changed to CO2. Now, that looks tiny, but because CO2 is quite poisonous to many living things, this figure could become a serious issue over the course of a few hundred years.

But of course, we have plants to turn this CO2 into Oxygen and start the whole cycle again. If a single tree processes around 23kg of CO2 per year, then we as a race require about 45 trees per person, or about 270 billion trees for the planet to be "carbon neutral". I can't find an estimate for how many trees there are on the planet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took the majority of this figure.

Of course, let's not forget the vast tracts of land doing nothing except housing other plants which absorb CO2 - grass and the like. In fact, most of the landmass of the planet is still covered with these plants and doing nothing but making oxygen all day.

And there's also the humble green algae and its siblings. A photosynthesising simple plant, possibly one of the most successful and populous life forms on the planet. That also takes care of way more CO2 in a given year than the all the trees together could even hope to accomplish.

This is why the idea of humans making an impact on the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere is a complete joke.

Locally, the effects can't be denied. Even though it's a closed system, local weather systems often act as microcosms of the whole, which is why we get things like pollution and smog and the rest. The impact of excess CO2 on *local* conditions cannot be overestimated, and this is the single primary reason why it's in our interests to manage pollutant output - for our own immediate health.
The amount of pollutants output by China or the US, or by me myself has little effect on the rest of the planet (except for their immediate neighbours).

syklops

seamus wrote: »

You're right of course. But as humans we vastly overestimate our impact on the planet.

The earth's atmosphere is roughly 5140 trillion tonnes of air.

If every person on earth puts out 4 tonnes of carbon per year (global average), that's 24 billion tonnes of carbon per year. Or about 0.000005% of the total volume of air in the earth, changed to CO2. Now, that looks tiny, but because CO2 is quite poisonous to many living things, this figure could become a serious issue over the course of a few hundred years.

But of course, we have plants to turn this CO2 into Oxygen and start the whole cycle again. If a single tree processes around 23kg of CO2 per year, then we as a race require about 45 trees per person, or about 270 billion trees for the planet to be "carbon neutral". I can't find an estimate for how many trees there are on the planet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took the majority of this figure.

Of course, let's not forget the vast tracts of land doing nothing except housing other plants which absorb CO2 - grass and the like. In fact, most of the landmass of the planet is still covered with these plants and doing nothing but making oxygen all day.

And there's also the humble green algae and its siblings. A photosynthesising simple plant, possibly one of the most successful and populous life forms on the planet. That also takes care of way more CO2 in a given year than the all the trees together could even hope to accomplish.

This is why the idea of humans making an impact on the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere is a complete joke.

Locally, the effects can't be denied. Even though it's a closed system, local weather systems often act as microcosms of the whole, which is why we get things like pollution and smog and the rest. The impact of excess CO2 on *local* conditions cannot be overestimated, and this is the single primary reason why it's in our interests to manage pollutant output - for our own immediate health.
The amount of pollutants output by China or the US, or by me myself has little effect on the rest of the planet (except for their immediate neighbours).

That was one of the best arguments disproving the CO2 / Climate Change(Global Warming) theory I have ever heard.

Zascar

I just watched again the "Great Glabal Warming Swindle" on google video, and think its brilliant, however if you go to youtube and search for "Great Glabal Warming Swindle - ABC Debates" there is a very interesting discussion taking apart a lot of supposed facts in the movie...

hmmmmmmm

kowloon

seamus wrote: »

You're right of course. But as humans we vastly overestimate our impact on the planet.

And our importance to the planet. Business will continue as usual when we're all gone, provided we don't go all Beneath the Planet of the Apes on things :pac:.

djpbarry

Hobart wrote: »

Conclusive proof that the WEEE is not a net cost to the consumer, more a benificial one. I must remind myself of that next time I'm buying aTV.

Are you or are you not entitled to dispose of your electrical appliances free of charge as a result of the WEEE directive? Are retailers not obliged to accept your old appliance free of charge when you buy a new one form them? In the past, you would have had to pay to have your old appliances disposed of correctly, so nothing has really changed.

Hobart wrote: »

I never said it would not take time...did I? I don't really get your point tbh, it's been already ratified by the EU.

Not yet – it still has to be approved by the council (which is probably will be). My point is that it remains to be seen what effect this will have on consumers – it is not a levy as such; it is an incentive for airlines (and airports) to increase efficiency (which is in the consumer’s interest) and reduce emissions.

That’s not to say the proposal is not flawed in any way; I am personally unsure of how successful it will be if it is only applied locally (i.e. at EU level) rather than globally.

Hobart wrote: »

So are you claiming that all 3L BMW's are now lower than previously priced before the new enviromental taxation system was introduced?

No, I don’t know if that’s the case, but it doesn’t matter. You claimed that “… there will be a huge tax increase for somebody who wants to drive a 3L BMW…”, which, as I have shown, is not necessarily true.

Hobart wrote: »

Eh...what?

You claimed that people have been “hit hard in the pocket” by “environmental scaremongering”, through measures such as WEEE charges, a “levy” on airline emissions and changes to VRT. I have pointed out the flaws in these arguments in this post and others. Now, unless you can show conclusively that the average person is paying far more now than they were say, 10 years ago, due to “environmental” measures, then your statement is complete nonsense.

Hobart wrote: »

Then why feign such ignorance when his documentary was mentioned? You know that most of his theories were debated (I won't say debunked) and yet you find the need to try and draw a person out with your "links" type posts.

You’ve totally lost me at this point – you are the one who brought up Al Gore here, claiming that most of his “theories” had been disproved. I questioned this, you reaffirmed your position and so I asked for a source (which you have yet to provide), while also stating that I wasn’t sure why you introduced Al Gore into the discussion (seemingly in response to one of my posts). You then reply with a link to a post I wrote six months ago that mentions Al Gore, as if that somehow proves something? Now you are repeating that the content of Gore’s documentary has been questioned and levelling accusations at me?

Hobart wrote: »

If you want links, back up your own theories and statements, before demanding them!

What would you like me to back up? I’m happy to provide a source for any claims I have made.

Hobart wrote: »

Did you mention AL Gore, despite claiming otherwise? Well, yes you did, and link provided

Not on this thread I didn’t; I have no idea what you’re trying to prove here? I have discussed Al Gore and his documentary in past threads; so what?

seamus wrote: »

This is why the idea of humans making an impact on the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere is a complete joke.

So how do you explain this?

sharper

seamus wrote: »

This is why the idea of humans making an impact on the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere is a complete joke.

So is your position that CO2 is not actually increasing or that CO2 is increasing due to a cause other than human activity?

seamus

sharper wrote: »

So is your position that CO2 is not actually increasing or that CO2 is increasing due to a cause other than human activity?

That it is extremely unlikely that human activity could have any significant effect on the global level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Graphs are all nice and stuff, but the key in the above graph is the fact that the measurements have all been taken from the top of "Mauna Loa", an active volcano. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that a group of single readings from the top of an active volcano isn't exactly stirling scientific evidence of anything except that CO2 levels at the top of an active volcano are increasing.

I'd hedge my bets on the volcano itself emitting more CO2 because that's a hell of a lot more likely.

How about a graph showing the average of CO2 readings taken at various places across the globe, preferably including large oceanic regions, deserts, rainforest and populated areas?

I'm not denying that perhaps CO2 levels have increased (I can't show it either way), but in the case that they have, to turn around and say, "It must be us" is a bit too easy.

By the way, I'm all open to correction on my post. If someone can show more conclusive figures in terms of how much CO2 we emit as a species -v- how much CO2 the world can handle, I'll be more than happy to revise/retract what I said.

djpbarry

seamus wrote: »

Graphs are all nice and stuff, but the key in the above graph is the fact that the measurements have all been taken from the top of "Mauna Loa", an active volcano. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that a group of single readings from the top of an active volcano isn't exactly stirling scientific evidence of anything except that CO2 levels at the top of an active volcano are increasing.

That's probably why CO2 levels are measured at other places around the globe too, like Svalbard, where a record high of 390ppm was reported last year (it's probably risen further since then):
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11213

Besides, as far as I am aware, Keeling took steps to minimise local contamination in his measurements.

seamus wrote: »

How about a graph showing the average of CO2 readings taken at various places across the globe...

Like this one?

seamus wrote: »

If someone can show more conclusive figures in terms of how much CO2 we emit as a species -v- how much CO2 the world can handle, I'll be more than happy to revise/retract what I said.

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg

sharper

seamus wrote: »

How about a graph showing the average of CO2 readings taken at various places across the globe, preferably including large oceanic regions, deserts, rainforest and populated areas?

You do realise that CO2 readings are taken from many points on the globe and include things like analysis from the air bubbles in glacial ice? Do you honestly think our data on the levels on CO2 have been taken at a single point without any verification or cross checking?

I'm not denying that perhaps CO2 levels have increased (I can't show it either way),

Well in fact you are! You're even going past that and saying CO2 cannot have increased and cannot be the cause of human activity.

but in the case that they have, to turn around and say, "It must be us" is a bit too easy.

Do you have any evidence that's what happened? This is a classic strawman position, you're presenting the other side "Oh they just see CO2 has increased and say it must be us! Isn't that ridiculous!". Well it would be ridiculous if that's what happened.

By the way, I'm all open to correction on my post. If someone can show more conclusive figures in terms of how much CO2 we emit as a species -v- how much CO2 the world can handle, I'll be more than happy to revise/retract what I said.

Another poster is addressing this but "How much the world can handle" is enormously complicated and a matter of debate. Once you start to investigate anything non-trivial you'll find a lot of uncertainty and a lot of complexity.

I'd also note that as a skeptic your first responsibility is to investigate the topic you are skeptical of. It's simply not acceptable to argue from personal incredularity ("I can't believe that CO2 has an impact when it's X percentage of the atmosphere") or ignorance ("I only know of one CO2 monitoring station"). There is practically no question that CO2 levels have increased and that human activities are responsible for that increase.

seamus

Thanks djpbarry for those links. Worth a look.

sharper wrote: »

You do realise that CO2 readings are taken from many points on the globe and include things like analysis from the air bubbles in glacial ice? Do you honestly think our data on the levels on CO2 have been taken at a single point without any verification or cross checking?

That wasn't my point. I got a graph which showed levels from a single reading at a single site. When I pointed out that this was insufficient, I was given better graphs.

Well in fact you are! You're even going past that and saying CO2 cannot have increased and cannot be the cause of human activity.

Actually I said, it's a "complete joke". That comes across pretty hardline, but I would be an idiot to completely deny it as a possibility. I just don't accept that human activity is the most likely cause.

Do you have any evidence that's what happened? This is a classic strawman position, you're presenting the other side "Oh they just see CO2 has increased and say it must be us! Isn't that ridiculous!". Well it would be ridiculous if that's what happened.

Yes it would. Perhaps it's a matter of brevity, but any time such conversations come up, all I see is a certain amount of evidence which supports the theory that humans have/are causing these effects. We rarely see any alternative theories presented and scrapped based on evidence, which is what should be done.

So yes, it does appear like everyone decided that humans must be the cause and single-mindedly went in search of evidence to prove the theory.

I'd also note that as a skeptic your first responsibility is to investigate the topic you are skeptical of. It's simply not acceptable to argue from personal incredularity ("I can't believe that CO2 has an impact when it's X percentage of the atmosphere") or ignorance ("I only know of one CO2 monitoring station"). There is practically no question that CO2 levels have increased and that human activities are responsible for that increase.

Actually, regardless of one's position, it's their responsibility to read up on it. Arguing from a position of "everyone says this is true, so it must be" or, "I saw it in the meedja" is equally as bad as any other form of ignorance.
I'll sit tenative on the former item re: CO2 levels increasing while I read up on it.
The latter item, I wouldn't be so sure. Correlation doesn't equal causation. As I point out above, I've yet to hear of any (serious) alternative theories being considered and disproven. Perhaps I've not been keeping my ear close enough to the ground.