TelBoy

Good job i haven't mentioned carbon dioxide once then, isn't it?

Hope this makes it EVEN clearer for you. And while you're at it, go tell each and every one of the professional scientists who disagree with you. Come back and let me know what they say. Cheers.

warrenm2

Nicely said!

TelBoy

Look, why not stop with the patronising crap. All that you're saying is that YOU personally have not signed up to it. Maybe because you don't want to, it doesn't suit you, it's what your mates think - whatever. The simple truth is that YOU haven't got a fekkin clue what's going on, and because you can't "see" most of the effects that the scientists can measure, you don't want a part of it. All very well, but stop talking to those who ARE prepared to do "something" as if they're kids in a nursery. Sorry to disappoint you, but we're not.

warrenm2

Then what do you in your munificence say is causing this man made global warming?

You mean this lot?

Global Warming Petition Project - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Tel - you really are blinkered to this arent you. Despite evidence that the sun is increasing in activity and output, causing warming on Mars and Pluto, youre still going with the man made theory? How do you explain icecaps melting in the rest of the solar system? Was the melting of the last ice age man made warming? Do you have any concept of the fact there are outside influences?

TelBoy

Of course i do, again stop putting words into my mouth. I haven't said we are solely responsible. Let me reiterate, there are six BILLION of us. A bigger number than you or i can possibly imagine. I don't have any control over the temparature of the sun, but i DO have control over the resources i use on this planet, and it saddens me that there is still a significant proportion of the population who think they know better, know it all, have all the facts, are convinced it's a tax scam, won't do anything without India, USA and China - the list goes on. I'm proud to say i'm not one of them.

warrenm2

Like you, you mean? I've backed up my arguements with facts and data - you have just given an opinion. Just try and read and understand the contrary point of view and you might be surprised. The case for MMGW is actually very weak, but you wouldnt know it from all the propoganda and threats against "deniers" who say "actually this doesnt add up".

The models being used to predict all this warming dont actually predict what is happening now correctly (eg warming should be in high atmosphere but is actually happening at the surface). Yet you still want to beleive the future predictions? It just just make sense! How can you say that is an accurate model?! Read up on Milankovitch cycles. Do some research of your own and you will find you are basing your arguements on propoganda. If you have a strong intellectual case you should be aware of all the points

Jamie

I think you have upset warrenm2 telboy,but good point well made warren

TelBoy

Warren we could get into a statistical frenzy if you want. Heaven knows the politicians do it enough. As i'm sure you're well aware, you can prove whatever you like with fancy graphs. The pro-global warming camp have theirs, you have yours. What i DO have, is empirical evidence. Yes i could ignore things like this drought in Australia as just one of those things, ignore the increasing incidence and severity of hurricanes in the tropics as just a cyclical variation, and so on and so on. But i can't. If i'm ultimately wrong then i'm wrong, but what i WON'T do is nothing, when i can be doing something.

Jamie120182

I think the title says it all, there must be records of a worst drought a 1000 years ago, Was everybody panicking about global warming back then, and what caused that drought a 1000 years ago

Scare tactics all the time "worst rainfall in May for 60 years" well surely this means it has been worst why all of a sudden is this due to global warming.

TelBoy

Because of the increasing regularity of such headlines, for a start. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Jamie120182

True, but there is also and increase in road traffic accidents, trips to the moon, what about the increase in global population, I dont think we can expect to expand exponentially as far as a race goes without F**king up the world in the process.


God I am bored today

warrenm2

Yes, all true

actually the busiest decades for hurricanes was the 1940s with no increase in severity over the decades. If you're going to use facts with your arguement, its probably best to use ones that support it rather than refute it!

Even if what you do is harmful? Doesnt seem like a good idea to me! Because telling countries they cant industrialise is certainly harmful to those countries. China has more people coming out of poverty than any time worldwide in history - but thats a bad thing isnt it, alleviating poverty? People not dying or suffering from disease, malnutrition or poor housing is less important than your idea of how people should run their lives. Thanks but no thanks

TelBoy

I love a good denier. Go back as long as it takes to find a pattern that stands out against today's activity, get a big soapbox out, stand on it and say "What about that one then?". If we're being pedantic, i haven't put a timeframe on the increase in hurricane activity, God knows why you've cited the 40s as some sort of definitive proof that what we're seeing today is not unusual. Believe me, i know that area well. Let's just throw in "location" if we're talking hurricanes, and "within living memory" if that's not too vague for you.

As to whether the benefits from economic progress outweigh the potential cost to the Earth of sustaining it, well that's a debatable point. If i knew what the effect was going to be, i could answer it properly. But no, let's just assume everything will be ok and press ahead with whatever coal-burning power station programme is required. If we're wrong, we probably won't be here to need to worry about it in any case. That's just about he jist of it, right?

SiPie

Me too....but still pretty short on the old water supply at times Don't find many dripping taps etc.......

Especially when it spins down the plug holes in the different direction too

SiPie

You wearing tights again Tel ????

TelBoy

As ever

Is nylon production polluting?

warrenm2

jeez Tel, you yourself mentioned a 50-100 year timeframe earlier - so when I use the same timeframe to disprove some of your claims, Im cherry picking data?! If something happened 60 years ago, that makes any current equivalent non-exceptional and within normal range, not GLOBAL APOCALYPSE MELTDOWN DO AS I SAY BECAUSE I KNOW WHATS BEST FOR YOU! (which is the stance of MMGW proponents - you want us to do as you say eg not build power stations, or go on cheap flights)

As for the economic development point, if you read the Stern report, you would know the best scenario is for everyone to get rich through free trade and then everyone can afford to adapt. That is actually the best way forward (even using $85/tonne for cost of CO2, when other researchers use $2-30 range!).

Tel all you've come up with is hot air, I give you facts. Just open your mind a bit eh?

TelBoy

You've given us the facts YOU want us to concentrate on. Open your mind - there is a whole other wealth of information that supports the global warming theories. Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that just because i'm not linking those "facts" doesn't mean i couldn't if i wanted, which you seem to be insinuating? Statistics are just that. I couldn't honestly give a flying **** about statistics, whoever's side they come from. Hurricanes in the 40s. I'm sure there's something about rainfall in the 60s, snowfall in the 80s etc etc. What i and many like me are concentrating on is the cumulative effects of what we're seeing as insreasingly frequent "anomolies". You choose to explain them away, i choose to sit up and take notice.

warrenm2

I dont think I could insult your intelligence Tel.

TelBoy

Meaning?

RedFive

But why didn't you choose to sit up when it came to, say, the near catastrophical winter/spring in the US, Alaska and Canada ?

Drought in Australia, who would have thought...

TelBoy

Because i was talking to somebody from Australia and hadn't up till then realised quite how bad it is out there. Don't think we need a new thread for every climatic headline, especially not these days

RedFive

That would indeed be considered spamming. It is however interesting to see it actually didn't make the headlines over here...

Anyway, I do think environmental issues are extremely important, which is why we really need a balanced view on how to proceed, based on facts, not political agendas. Just putting people in believers/deniers camps is not the way forward IMHO. After all, we're all carbon based lifeforms

TelBoy

Couldn't agree more. As i've always maintained, what's the downside to being environmentally sympathetic? Too trendy? Too abstract? Too at odds with driving an Impreza? Who knows. But an awful lot of energy is being put into "proving" why this is all one big scam. And still the weather comes.

OllyK

The main downside is that it inhibits 3rd world countries from developing as they are denied access to the technologies that improved our standard of living and life expectancy. Or are you suggesting the first world should cut back so that there are more resources available for the developing countries?

TelBoy

Action on all sides, Olly. I don't think it's solely either the West's or the East's responsibility to look for alternatives, but whilst there are those in their ivory towers in the West who refuse to believe there's a problem at all, it's not going to be an easy process, that's for sure.

pwhittle

So you know then? Given your use of capitals, you obviously have the definative answer, depite real experts disagreeing on it

It's like saying definatively that God does (or indees does not) exist. You can prove or disprove, therefore you statement is not more true than those who get insulted on threads due to their religion.

I don't know if God exists*, and I don't know whether man's activites are changing the weather. I don't see enough evidence in either camp to proclaim I'm an expert. I expect Tel would say the same. It's called being open minded. Try it, you might like it.

*I agree it seems unlikely in many respects (as is winning the lottery, but it doesn't stop people trying), but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I, or any human, really knows what makes the universe tick.

OllyK

What are you defining as "a problem"? (my bold)

Regardless of the causes of climate change, why is it necessarily a bad thing?

If you're not talking about that but resource management then we're back to should we be cutting back to allow the 3rd world to develop or should we force them to cut back also to maintain the current differential?

OllyK

God is an unfalisfyable hypothesis. GW isn't. Climate change is a fact, at the moment we're in a period of warming, that's also a fact. The debate is around the causes of the change and what if anything should / can be done about it. There's not reason to think the sanswers to those questions won't be forthcoming at some point. I'm less optimitic about the god question.

At least there IS evidence in both camps, more than can be said about the issue of faith. It's now a case of evaluating the evidence.