TomR555

iTrader: (1)

Why are people who are going on about climate change on a subaru forum
Shouldnt you all be on a g-whizz or prius forum

PeteBrant

Thats the spririt, kill 3.5billion people so you can keep your motor

TelBoy

Tom, what would you prefer to talk about, apart from rippin up sum tarmac wiv the boyz? Let us know and we'll start a new thread, just for you.

PeteBrant

Because I was typing quickly and it was a typo, I don't have to time to proof read everything I post. Mistakes can and will creep in - I just think picking up on everyones odd spelling mistake or type is a bit unnecessary.

mrtheedge2u2

Tom... take your 79 post arsse and disappear of this thread, matey.....

If I had to stake my house and give a reason why I think global warming is happening then I will state, on record, it all stems from population.... and the lack of control we have on that

TelBoy

If it was a typo, apologies. Becomming is a popular mis-spelling though.

+Doc+

I blame the damn cows!

TomR555

iTrader: (1)

Im just sick of all this rubbish we keep getting shoved down our necks,theres nothing we can do pal nothing at all,its always happend its gona happen whatever we do dont you get it,its the greatest scam in the history of the planet

TelBoy

Indeed, if you do sign up to mankind being responsible to some extent. How you control population though is a different ballgame, but a LOT harder than changing the way people burn fossil fuels for example!

TelBoy

Tom, indulge me. WHY is it all a scam? Apart from you being charged more for petrol to rip up the tarmac. Ignore that bit. Why is it a scam?

mrtheedge2u2

I know.... but the simply fact that is that increased population will always mean increased fossil fuel/wood/coal consumption and related outputs

bigsinky

hope they have he mathematical proofs from first principles. i love calculus me

TomR555

iTrader: (1)

I just think that we are having our heads turned away from somthing much bigger thats all

warrenm2

Telboy - you havent answered the question - what would it take for you to change YOUR view?

TelBoy

Er, yes i have

TelBoy

Go on, hit me with it. What somthing (sic) is this then?

ahar

iTrader: (3)

Come on people, my last post must have deserved an Unwanted rating. It was rated negative but it's gone back to OK. Must try harder.

Maybe it is arrogant, but I don't believe that anyone (including me) on the board has the relevant qualifications to weigh up the actual evidence (happy to be proved wrong - please mention what degree, PhD etc you have in a relevant discipline).

I do believe that most of us on here can understand the layman explanations given to us. However, you're on a hiding to nothing if you think that understanding the layman explanation is understanding the evidence.

Comparing one layman explanation with another is pointless - you're not comparing the science or the evidence. The only thing the rest of us can do when there is a debate about a topic such as this is look for the consensus to appear - WHICH IT ALREADY HAS!

As other posters have said, there is still huge debate going on about the potential consequences and the effects of this are going to be. For example, some research published this week esimated significantly less ocean level rise than before. What ocean level rise there will be seems still being hotly debated.

However, apart from a few oddballs the people who really understand this now agree that human action is adversly affecting the climate. All you people who think otherwise are wrong. If you think that climate change is all hogwash then maybe you should author a paper and send it in to reputable journal to be peer reviewed


Ah, politics and science again. What the bloody evil politicians do with the evidence is up to them. What we shouldn't do is mix opposition to the political policies dreamt up by the buggers in westminster with opposition to the scientific research and conclusions.

ahar

iTrader: (3)

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll tell you anyway.

It would take exactly the same as it took to convince me - patient peer reviewed research published in a reputable journal, tested by lots of world experts in the subject, leading to a consensus within the relevant scientific community. That's what the scientific method is!

The funny thing is that people are only interested in climate change now a conclusion has been reached. No-one paid attention during the years and years and years of actual and meaningful debate and research that has got us to this point!

mrtheedge2u2

Telboy.... be a good chap and stop picking up on everyone's grammar...... the lord hates a smart ****

Paul3446

If governments were truely that worried, would they not be planting trees all over the place to soak up the CO2?

How many times have you heard this government say they'll re-forest vast areas of countryside? Never, that's how many! It's far easier to raise tax on petrol!

speedking

Careful TelBoy you're slipping

TelBoy

Damn


I'm truely (sp) sorry, as Paul would say

unclebuck

Pure propaganda once again from the peace crisp munching femenist run loopy left BBC.

I used the respect Dr Iain Stewart and enjoy the programmes he made but after this one sided tosh, not any more. He's sold out I suppose to get his considerable snout ever deeper into the BBC trough.

Martin2005

Well you would say that wouldn't you!

Geezer

It is arrogant because you don't have the faintest idea what qualifications many of the people here have. Of course, like any forum, there will be a lot of unfounded or misunderstood rhetoric, but that doesn't mean it's all rubbish. It's also one of the easiest things to do, to belittle an opinion because of a lack of qualifications. There are plenty of people who can understand very complex science (or any subject for that matter) without having a PhD (ask any of the ancient Greeks who gave us modern science without a University in sight.....). You are equally unqualified to belittle the opinions of a lot of respected climatologists who refute AGW.

Equally, a layman cannot understand the evidence that supports AGW, so the general public are led to believe something that is by no means the unanimous view of climatologists the world over, who have looked at the same data.

Why pointless? Surely the layman explanation for AGW is equally invalid without the science or evidence. The case against AGW grows all the time, and the evidence (which isn't even disputed bythe IPCC BTW) now points to no temp rise since 1998, despite record levels of CO2, so the consensus is by no means as clear cut as you would like to think.

Inded it is being hot debated, and good job too, if everyone had just acceted the IPCCs point of view we'd be headed for a disaster in economic terms (hell, we might still be, it may too late to undo the damage done by the climate lobby). Even the scientists who are for AGW cannot agree on the amount of sea level rise, so what does that tell you about their modelling? It's simply not accurate enough to make the claims they already have.

A few oddballs? Now you're into the realms of fantasy! A large number of highly respected scientists hardly qualify as a few oddballs! You have fallen into the same trap that you accuse some boards members as having done! You have labelled these people as oddballs because they disagree with what you perceive to be the truth about GW.

Maybe you should publish a paper on why climate change's roots lie in the activities of humans instead of believing laymans explanations


Good God, the government have NEVER used tenuous information in their favour, have they

You have declared that the opposing view is wrong, not maybe wrong, but wrong. That is fairly unequivocal, you obviously are as closed to the evidence that GW is not caused by humans are some are blind to the evidence for it.

Geezer

warrenm2

and as for ahah's patronising references to the scientific method - I have an engineering degree thanks - what are your qualifications?

It is precisely my scientific training that makes me realise what a crock of crap the MMGW claims are. The temperature data is corrected in a poor fashion, the corrections given are large , untested and outweigh the measured increases, the models predictions of warming in the atmosphere when warming is actually observed at the surface, the poor modelling of clouds and their influences.

And finally as you are such a fan of the scientific method - you would realise what horsecrap the whole idea of consenus is, an alien concept to the SM. What is the real test is a theory that predicts outcomes that can be tested, by which measure the IPCC has failed.

More interesting stuff at Watts Up With That?

boomer

My thoughts precisely UB!

The programme started "quite well", showing how the urban heat island effect causes temperatures in cities to be (in this case) four degrees higher than the surrounding land. Thus weather stations, that are gradually being encircled by concrete, will show increased average temperatures over time - even though the Earth is maintaining the status quo.

This was "backed up" by new (as in, the last ten or fifteen years) satellite data, so "up your's" to the environMENTALists. However, oops, it seems that the satellites were falling and suffering from friction, so your can't believe them - ergo the earth is undergoing unstoppable terminate warming panic, worry, more taxes!

Funny how the programme then completely forgot about the UHIE, which still exists and thus discredits any claims that the temperature is rising. Nope, we are still all doomed, we have consensus, UHIE - what UHIE??

For the middle part of the programme, Stewart was doing his best to do impressions of Billy Connolly whilst gesticulating around like a hen pecking for corn - he is supposed to be a scientist not a bloody celebrity

And to finish the programme (after totally denying the medieval warm period on the "hockey stick"), he "proved" that sun spots don't have any effect on climate. They "extrapolated" the temperature/spot graph to show temps increasing massively over the last ten years whilst spots were declining. Er, hello Mr so-called Dr.??? Temperatures have actually fallen over the last ten years along with the spots, so your graph is a blatant lie!!!

Still, it is par for the course when the BBC are mowing the lawn - see lets run a program on lots of PCs to prove a pre-decided outcome

I might join Noel Edmunds and withhold my licence fee until they can start producing un-biased "factual" programmes!!

mb

ahar

iTrader: (3)

Physics background, but didn't pursue it as there are no jobs and no money! Certainly enough to realise that I don't have the depth of knowledge to decide, for example, whether the temperature data are corrected in the right way or not. Still no-one has posted that they have qualifications in the discipline, so my previous comments stand.


Consensus is all you can get at the moment in an area as complex as climate prediction as there is a world of difference between predicting and finding evidence for a long term trend and being able to accurately predict the local consequences of the trend.

What do you think of the hundreds of scientists that fed into the IPCC? Are they all somehow under the influence of Greenpeace? Every one of them sitting in their offices and labs deliberately created a fraud?

I doubt that there is a single scientific theory that has 100% of scientists that agree with it. Take the example of the nutter professor from Haiwai who tried to stop the LHC from starting up as he thought it would destroy the Earth! There are even a few physicists that think that the Standard Model is bobbins and a lucky fluke that experimental data supports it.

Gordo

haha - love this one. trees do soak up CO2 but then release it again when they die. doesn't help the net carbon into the atmosphere in the slightest - given that most is coming from the burning of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 that has been locked in the earth for millions of years.

that's assuming CO2 is to blame. I'm not convinced but am convinced humans are impacting the planet - population control is the only answer. otherwise the human race will definitely find something to make the population collapse at some point.

we need more dictators.

Gordo

Paul3446

Well if the trees live for 200 years, fossil fuels will have run out by then and the crisis (if there is one) will have resolved itself.