Climate Change shock! Global warming goes into reverse

[Barrel of Fun]

Apart from Looney, of course!

The usual irrational diatribe from the resident plank.

What do I not grasp? Recycling was just an example of aspects that we need to change in our lives. Take food waste for instance. Are you claiming that the large amounts of methane produced from tonnes and tonnes of the rotting food waste does not effect our atmosphere?

I really can't be bothered to go into every aspect of recycling when you clearly do not understand the whole basis of the operation.

 

[Notters]

Youre welcome Warsaw, I actually found it when I was looking for a sarcastic comment on another thread. Unfortunately people are taking itbseriously rather than looking at the initial premise of your thread. As it happens I'm currently writing an essay in favour of nuclear power, which I find rather easy. This whole gulf stream ice age business has been pretty much disproved now, as any of you with access to web of knowledge will now know. The fact of the matter. Is that if we can't predict the weather for tomorrow, predicting the climate for 100 years time is practically impossible. The are plenty of reasons to think that cutting down on co2 emissions is a good idea though... I shan't go into those now as I'm typing this on the tiny buttons on my iPhone. It's probably already the longest message I've ever left on NSC!

 

[DTES]

There was a day when a lot of people didn't argue with you, because they didn't believe you were serious. Says a lot about the new posters now, doesn't it?

And this is why people like me dont take it seriously.

What is, the fact that everything is happening exactly as predicted? The fact that you'll have to do something means you can't take it seriously?

Dont lecture me on changing my lifestyle to cover for the incompetence of you, or your environmentalist chums, youve got to get your shit together.

What do you mean by "get your shit together"? Maybe the fact it isn't working is because there are too many people, like yourself, who just can't be bothered. The actual action needed isn't much at all, it just needs a bloody large number of people to raise a voice - if it's big enough the Government will listen and enact policies that would encourage big business to invest and take care of it. The problem is that is is a bloody large number.

 

[looney]

What prediction would that be?

Global cooling in the 1970's?

Global Warming in the 1990s?

"Climate Change" now? Is the last one an each way bet?

Some people fail to grasp the obvious, that if the gulf stream collapses causing a new ice age its not going to sit well with the idea that mean tempratures will continue to rise.

 

[warsaw]

Youre welcome Warsaw, I actually found it when I was looking for a sarcastic comment on another thread. Unfortunately people are taking itbseriously rather than looking at the initial premise of your thread. As it happens I'm currently writing an essay in favour of nuclear power, which I find rather easy. This whole gulf stream ice age business has been pretty much disproved now, as any of you with access to web of knowledge will now know. The fact of the matter. Is that if we can't predict the weather for tomorrow, predicting the climate for 100 years time is practically impossible. The are plenty of reasons to think that cutting down on co2 emissions is a good idea though... I shan't go into those now as I'm typing this on the tiny buttons on my iPhone. It's probably already the longest message I've ever left on NSC!

Yes it has taken off a bit hasn't it, though not in the way I intended

 

[DTES]

What prediction would that be?

Global cooling in the 1970's?

Global Warming in the 1990s?

"Climate Change" now? Is the last one an each way bet?

Some people fail to grasp the obvious, that if the gulf stream collapses causing a new ice age its not going to sit well with the idea that mean tempratures will continue to rise.

Ok. In simple steps:

1) No-one's claiming a new Ice Age
2) The gulf stream slowing was predicted, as were the resultant cooler temperatures here.
3) These features were all predicted in the one single largest study ever completed: The IPCC report.
4) Nothing on this report has been disproven, or even challenged by more than a sprinkling of scientists who between them don't even come close to the number of scientists who worked together to produce it.
5) Nothing we are seeing is a variation from these predictions
6) Again, for clarity, the colder winters here does nothing to suggest the predicitions of temperature increases across the world causing mass starvation and homelessness will not occur
7) We can stop it - but a hell of a lot of fuckers out there can't be bothered, because they either don't read, or don't understand, parts 1-6.

 

[looney]

I have not said it isn't haPPENING, I am questioning the causes, the offered solutions and definatly number 7.

I dont think all the predictions have prooved correct either.

 

[Notters]

What makes me laugh is that some people seem to think that the weather here from day to day is in any way representative of the way the earth's climate behaves...it's a big world out there!

 

[DTES]

The thing is, they're not just "predictions" in the sense that they were plucked out of thin air - there was a hell of a lot of detailed science went into them. These "predictions" were also "made in advance" - as in go back years, see if the carbon effects in their predicted manner did match what had actually happened, and they were spot on. [sorry, edited for rewording]

I can't sum up all the science here, as the main IPCC report ran to over 450 pages. Not that I suspect anyone will, but if anyone cares enough to learn about it, whether they "believe" it or not, could look it up online.

 

[beorhthelm]

its a funny old debate 'cause as always you are either for or against, no room for rational reasoned examination of the issues. even the IPCC report got sucked up into the hype, there has been such a politicalisation of it and the word was changed to ensure it siad something politician could use, its near pointless. early drafts where full of caveates and non-commitment - if's and but's.

fact is the scientific community doesnt really know as the science is very difficult to do empirically. the computer models are based on data that proves what the scientist wants it show, based on their training and professional reputation. so much stuff is taken as given and unchallenged. Its doesnt serve a postgrad student to challange his professors if he wants a career, funding is all for research in the effects of environmental change, assuming from scrath that it is happening in a certain way.

the history of science is littered instances where with the wisdom of the day was later shown to be incorrect. dont beleive all the hype, environmentalism has become an industry and it has a vested interest in making claims that suit itself.

that said, it would be in our interests to reduce our waste, recycle and change our rampant consumerist lifestyles, for one thing just in case and secondly because it would probably lead to a better over all standard of living. however... theres 5 billion people in the world trying to reach the lowest standards of living we have in the west, so its all a bit redundant. tell a Indian or Chinese they have to stop development, curb their aspirations for them and their children because we found that its bad for the environment... they'll tell you to f*** right off. Environmentalism becomes a instrument of power. how you going to square that vicious circle.

 

[clapham_gull]

Some people fail to grasp the obvious, that if the gulf stream collapses causing a new ice age its not going to sit well with the idea that mean tempratures will continue to rise.

Which is exactly what most the environmental lobby are arguing isn't it >

I'm sure anyone is saying that the world is going to be like the surface of the sun, more that the warming effect will have cause extremes, including possibly much harsher winters in the UK at least. That's the next stage.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

its a funny old debate 'cause as always you are either for or against, no room for rational reasoned examination of the issues. even the IPCC report got sucked up into the hype, there has been such a politicalisation of it and the word was changed to ensure it siad something politician could use, its near pointless. early drafts where full of caveates and non-commitment - if's and but's.

fact is the scientific community doesnt really know as the science is very difficult to do empirically. the computer models are based on data that proves what the scientist wants it show, based on their training and professional reputation. so much stuff is taken as given and unchallenged. Its doesnt serve a postgrad student to challange his professors if he wants a career, funding is all for research in the effects of environmental change, assuming from scrath that it is happening in a certain way.

the history of science is littered instances where with the wisdom of the day was later shown to be incorrect. dont beleive all the hype, environmentalism has become an industry and it has a vested interest in making claims that suit itself.

that said, it would be in our interests to reduce our waste, recycle and change our rampant consumerist lifestyles, for one thing just in case and secondly because it would probably lead to a better over all standard of living. however... theres 5 billion people in the world trying to reach the lowest standards of living we have in the west, so its all a bit redundant. tell a Indian or Chinese they have to stop development, curb their aspirations for them and their children because we found that its bad for the environment... they'll tell you to f*** right off. Environmentalism becomes a instrument of power. how you going to square that vicious circle.

What he said!