A Convenient Lie...

[cisono]

Did anyone watch the dispatches documentary on the 'Great global warming swindle' on Monday night (repeated last night). It basically and scientifically debunked every 'man-made' global warming theory with so much ease it was scary.

It wasn't stating the Earth wasn't warming, just that it is impossible for humans to cause it!!

...

I didn't see it and I am not sure they really debunked anything.

I also doubt that the public can really understand and realistically evaluate scientific claims beyond their knowledge and understanding...

[Zingari]

I didn't see it and I am not sure they really debunked anything.

I also doubt that the public can really understand and realistically evaluate scientific claims beyond their knowledge and understanding...

I can understand many things beyond my knowledge and understanding;

for instance if someone throws a ball at me i can catch it without understanding moments of force, trajectories , acceleration etc , and without the need of complicated equations

Although when someone does throw a ball at me it is usually with such great force that I have no time to even think of these things and just double up and cover my face like a big girly

[davieG]

I can understand many things beyond my knowledge and understanding;

for instance if someone throws a ball at me i can catch it without understanding moments of force, trajectories , acceleration etc , and without the need of complicated equations

Although when someone does throw a ball at me it is usually with such great force that I have no time to even think of these things and just double up and cover my face like a big girly

So that's why our team are crap, they're scientists carrying out experiments on force, trajectories, acceleration etc. The misplaced over/under hit passes are all part of a big experiment.

And to think I thought they were all thick twats who had the football intelligence of Dave Bassett.

[Zingari]

So that's why our team are crap, they're scientists carrying out experiments on force, trajectories, acceleration etc. The misplaced over/under hit passes are all part of a big experiment.

And to think I thought they were all thick twats who had the football intelligence of Dave Bassett.

Yes indeed , this is the case ; the day is not far away now when footballers boots will be fitted with micro chips and sensors and the days of the under/over hit pass with be no more .

Folk will look back with wry amusement at our childlike attempts to string a couple of passes together without falling over ,and we may even manage to get closer to the goal than the corner flag when shooting .

Have faith young man , science will find the answer

[breadandcheese]

Quite frankly, you always have to question science when it turns into a quasi-religious cult in its behaviour and approach. To question climate change is not to embark on a reasonable scientific debate but to be ridiculed and treated like a heretic. This sounds like religion in the middle ages, with it's belief in a great catastrophe unless we all repent and change our ways.

Whenever science is dragged down this quasi-religious route, we have remarkable and appalling distortions, which in some ways is quite frightening in how easily it can develop.

[davieG]

Yes indeed , this is the case ; the day is not far away now when footballers boots will be fitted with micro chips and sensors and the days of the under/over hit pass with be no more .

Folk will look back with wry amusement at our childlike attempts to string a couple of passes together without falling over ,and we may even manage to get closer to the goal than the corner flag when shooting .

Have faith young man , science will find the answer

I'm looking forward to the day they introduce goal line technology that has the ability to attract the mis shit shot towards the goal.

Scores of 77 - 98 will become as common as crap players at LCFC are today.

[l444ry]

The government has got to find the money to pay for the futile war in Iraq. What better way to do this than by conning everybody about the human contribution to global warming, and then taxing us all to remedy this "myth". Anyway, what happened to Margaret Thatchers irreperable damage to the ozone layer?

[Webbo]

The government has got to find the money to pay for the futile war in Iraq. What better way to do this than by conning everybody about the human contribution to global warming, and then taxing us all to remedy this "myth". Anyway, what happened to Margaret Thatchers irreperable damage to the ozone layer?

Mrs Thatcher might of been able to control this country, but how did she force the rest of the world to go along with the con?

[l444ry]

Mrs Thatcher might of been able to control this country, but how did she force the rest of the world to go along with the con?

Haven't the faintest idea!!! But it's the same "flawed" logic which the television programme demonstrated which sent the world scuttling to ban CFC's over the so-called hole in the ozone layer back in the 80's.

[Webbo]

Haven't the faintest idea!!! But it's the same "flawed" logic which the television programme demonstrated which sent the world scuttling to ban CFC's over the so-called hole in the ozone layer back in the 80's.

i don't believe in global warming either. Mrs Thatcher has been out of power for 16 years now, we've had 10 years of labour (mis)rule. isn't it possible that there are bad things in the world that aren't Mrs Thatcher's fault?

[Flynny]

The program was very convincing.

It's established the anti-human-caused global warming theory as a very viable alternative viewpoint, and it persuaded me to a great extent. But so did all those Panorama things. Because I'm not a climatologist, I'm not equipped to judge whether what either say is watertight. But my mind is completely open to either possibility now.

The dangerous thing would be to decide that it's all a load of bullshit based on that program and then find ourselves knee-deep in water in 50 years time.

[davieG]

The program was very convincing.

It's established the anti-human-caused global warming theory as a very viable alternative viewpoint, and it persuaded me to a great extent. But so did all those Panorama things. Because I'm not a climatologist, I'm not equipped to judge whether what either say is watertight. But my mind is completely open to either possibility now.

The dangerous thing would be to decide that it's all a load of bullshit based on that program and then find ourselves knee-deep in water in 50 years time.

Well one thing they both agreed on is that there is global warming.

With the human input group attacking the perceived cause means if they are wrong and it turns up anyway then they will have missed the boat.

If we deal with the affect and consider worse case scenarios then we can at least minimise the impact by, for example not building on any more flood plains.

This current government is putting all it's eggs in the human cause by attacking any thing that produces CO2 yet at the same time is planning to build 1000's of house in the SE that could well end up under water with even a minimal degree of global warming..

[shen]

Of the 180,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, only 9,000,000,000 is human related. The rest comes from volcanoes, trees, animals, bacteria but most of all the oceans!! So if you want to get rid of CO2 you need to get rid of the oceans and trees first!!!

I'd like to see a source for that as I've seen significantly different numbers to those. It interests me a bit as I've had climatology courses at uni. The scientific results I've looked at showed that human caused CO2 emissions through the use of fossil-fuels or deforestation amount to about 20-25% of the total CO2 fluxes going into the atmosphere.

And I'd also like to point out that the oceans (in total) actually take up more CO2 FROM the atmosphere than they release OUT into the atmosphere, so your jestful suggestion of getting rid of the oceans would make the CO2 problem worse

On the whole global warming issue, I'm of the opinion that there IS a problem, but that it's being blown out of proportion. As far as I know, human cause greenhous gas emissions are not questioned anymore. Yes, we are in a situation of global warming, but the speed at which CO2 concentrations have been rising during the industrial period up until today are unprecedented. The same applies to nitrous oxides and methane, and most of it is human caused.

[Webbo]

I'd like to see a source for that as I've seen significantly different numbers to those. It interests me a bit as I've had climatology courses at uni. The scientific results I've looked at showed that human caused CO2 emissions through the use of fossil-fuels or deforestation amount to about 20-25% of the total CO2 fluxes going into the atmosphere.

And I'd also like to point out that the oceans (in total) actually take up more CO2 FROM the atmosphere than they release OUT into the atmosphere, so your jestful suggestion of getting rid of the oceans would make the CO2 problem worse

On the whole global warming issue, I'm of the opinion that there IS a problem, but that it's being blown out of proportion. As far as I know, human cause greenhous gas emissions are not questioned anymore. Yes, we are in a situation of global warming, but the speed at which CO2 concentrations have been rising during the industrial period up until today are unprecedented. The same applies to nitrous oxides and methane, and most of it is human caused.

according to the programme it was a Danish university that proved the link between sun spots and climate change.

[l444ry]

i don't believe in global warming either. Mrs Thatcher has been out of power for 16 years now, we've had 10 years of labour (mis)rule. isn't it possible that there are bad things in the world that aren't Mrs Thatcher's fault?

Agree totally with that Ffuter. I was very active within the Labour Party once but left after 15 years because of this excuse for a leader. My point about Thatcher's "hole in the ozone layer" was in accord with your view - that ALL politicians of all persuasions have led us up the garden path - not just this pillock of a Prime Minister. By the way, surely you mean that you don't believe in the human contribution to global warming, rather than global warming itself?

[Webbo]

Agree totally with that Ffuter. I was very active within the Labour Party once but left after 15 years because of this excuse for a leader. My point about Thatcher's "hole in the ozone layer" was in accord with your view - that ALL politicians of all persuasions have led us up the garden path - not just this pillock of a Prime Minister. By the way, surely you mean that you don't believe in the human contribution to global warming, rather than global warming itself?

correct.

[Phube]

I'd like to see a source for that as I've seen significantly different numbers to those. It interests me a bit as I've had climatology courses at uni. The scientific results I've looked at showed that human caused CO2 emissions through the use of fossil-fuels or deforestation amount to about 20-25% of the total CO2 fluxes going into the atmosphere.

And I'd also like to point out that the oceans (in total) actually take up more CO2 FROM the atmosphere than they release OUT into the atmosphere, so your jestful suggestion of getting rid of the oceans would make the CO2 problem worse

On the whole global warming issue, I'm of the opinion that there IS a problem, but that it's being blown out of proportion. As far as I know, human cause greenhous gas emissions are not questioned anymore. Yes, we are in a situation of global warming, but the speed at which CO2 concentrations have been rising during the industrial period up until today are unprecedented. The same applies to nitrous oxides and methane, and most of it is human caused.

Fluxes is the point there, the rest of the CO2 content is always there!!! And the is the whole point of the CO2 lobby's debate that as CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. This is a falicy, CO2 lags the temperature by about 800 years!! This is because the oceans, when warmer give up their CO2 (into the atmosphere), when cooler take in CO2!!

The final nail in the CO2 debate comes from many sources. And if you'd done some climatology you'd know that if the greenhouse gasses were the cause of warming, the troposphere (I think it's that one) would warm up first, followed by the Earth. In fact the opposite is true the Earth is warming up faster than the atmos. This is physicallly impossible IF CO2 was the cause!!!

[Zingari]

Fluxes is the point there, the rest of the CO2 content is always there!!! And the is the whole point of the CO2 lobby's debate that as CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. This is a falicy, CO2 lags the temperature by about 800 years!! This is because the oceans, when warmer give up their CO2 (into the atmosphere), when cooler take in CO2!!

The final nail in the CO2 debate comes from many sources. And if you'd done some climatology you'd know that if the greenhouse gasses were the cause of warming, the troposphere (I think it's that one) would warm up first, followed by the Earth. In fact the opposite is true the Earth is warming up faster than the atmos. This is physicallly impossible IF CO2 was the cause!!!

i was once told it was all down to "cows" farting

sorry i could not resist that one

[Phube]

i was once told it was all down to "cows" farting

sorry i could not resist that one

You'd be surprised, but it's partially true. Man made greehouse gases have been rising for years, but the steepest rise prior to the 20 century was from the 1400's. Funnily enough coinciding with an explosion in domestic farming!!!

[shen]

according to the programme it was a Danish university that proved the link between sun spots and climate change.

There has been some controversial research done by Danish 'scientists' (the same school that argued that clouds, not greenhouse gasses, contributed to global warming, which was subsequently disproved), but either way, I wasn't arguing that humans are causing climate change. We all know that comes in cycles, and that we're in an interglacial period.

Fluxes is the point there, the rest of the CO2 content is always there!!! And the is the whole point of the CO2 lobby's debate that as CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. This is a falicy, CO2 lags the temperature by about 800 years!! This is because the oceans, when warmer give up their CO2 (into the atmosphere), when cooler take in CO2!!

The final nail in the CO2 debate comes from many sources. And if you'd done some climatology you'd know that if the greenhouse gasses were the cause of warming, the troposphere (I think it's that one) would warm up first, followed by the Earth. In fact the opposite is true the Earth is warming up faster than the atmos. This is physicallly impossible IF CO2 was the cause!!!

That's odd, as no-one seriously questions the feedback effects that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses have on the temperature. It is generally accepted (though there is a distinct lack of empirical evidence) after studies of the Vostok/Dome C/Antarctic ice cores that increasing CO2 concentrations are lagging approximately 800 years (+/- 600y) behind increasing temperatures, but the inference that a doubling of CO2 has an effect of increasing the temperature 3-4 degrees Celsius is very much still valid.

My stance has always been that the problem has been blown out of proportion. It is quite likely that our emissions now are contributing to further global warming in the future. And by this I obviously mean a few hundred years. Thus, I do think that we should act responsibly so as to not jeopardise the existence of future generations. Obviously, that isn't what the politicians are saying though.

So I guess my point is that it's too early and too risky to dismiss human caused global warming, and that it shouldn't be shot down by programmes like the one you saw just because it isn't "our generation" that will suffer...

[cisono]

The EcologistOnline asked a few experts for their opinion on the arguments presented in this documentary.

1) scientific evidence for why the sun is not to blame for current climate change.

Dr Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre replied:

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail...?content_id=801

2) Is the troposphere – Earth’s upper atmosphere – cooler than climate models suggest?

Did the global temperature fall in the post-war economic boom, despite rising levels of carbon dioxide?

Dr. Richard Washington, Climatologist and Lecturer at Keble College, Oxford replied:

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail...?content_id=802

What do you guys think?

[Dr The Singh]

The EcologistOnline asked a few experts for their opinion on the arguments presented in this documentary.

1) scientific evidence for why the sun is not to blame for current climate change.

Dr Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre replied:

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail...?content_id=801

2) Is the troposphere – Earth’s upper atmosphere – cooler than climate models suggest?

Did the global temperature fall in the post-war economic boom, despite rising levels of carbon dioxide?

Dr. Richard Washington, Climatologist and Lecturer at Keble College, Oxford replied:

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail...?content_id=802

What do you guys think?

Poo!! CLimate models are poo, I can do one to show that the rising levels of poo are the cause of climate change!!!

Facts are naiions like India, China et are not going to stop there growth, so no matter what tripe Britian etc want to do to lower co2 emissions, those nations will make up that amount in months.

[Phube]

The EcologistOnline asked a few experts for their opinion on the arguments presented in this documentary.

1) scientific evidence for why the sun is not to blame for current climate change.

Dr Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre replied:

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail...?content_id=801

2) Is the troposphere – Earth’s upper atmosphere – cooler than climate models suggest?

Did the global temperature fall in the post-war economic boom, despite rising levels of carbon dioxide?

Dr. Richard Washington, Climatologist and Lecturer at Keble College, Oxford replied:

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail...?content_id=802

What do you guys think?

So any data proving the lack of human induced climate change has been calibrated wrongly. Yet all his data is!!?? He forgot to mention the weather balloons as well... i.e. both methods of measuring troposphere temperature. And the programme didn't mention cooling in the troposphere (like our erstwhile climate scientist) the just said it wasn't heating up more rapidly than the earth, which should happen if greenhouse gases were to blame.

[Head Honcho]

Oil .... its all about oil. Some of us have not been fooled by the government propaganda. If the governments around the world were so worried they would have stopped the rain forests from being destroyed.

There is also the point that a chap a few years ago managed to convert vegetable oil to run in diesel engines with no CO2 emisions. If global warming is that bad, why has this not been promoted .... basically because it would destroy the oil barons hold on the world and destroy the US economy.

Global warming is fiction !

Current supplies of crude oil will run out in 32 years time

So won't that be a natural solution to all our environmental concerns?

[Thracian]

Current supplies of crude oil will run out in 32 years time

So won't that be a natural solution to all our environmental concerns?

And you see how quickly they get electric cars out when they have to!.