Because "global warming" has connotations of the entire world getting warmer, but the problem is that climate is changing. In some parts of the world that means an increase in temperature. In other parts it's a increase in typhoons. A shifting of seasons, and so on.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The new climate change scandal
- Thread starter Guy Fawkes
- Start date
Because "global warming" has connotations of the entire world getting warmer, but the problem is that climate is changing. In some parts of the world that means an increase in temperature. In other parts it's a increase in typhoons. A shifting of seasons, and so on.
pork pie
New member
Companies are one thing, but Governments are another. This Government, and other western ones have jumped on the bandwagon partly because it suits their objective of reducing energy consumption and reliance upon Russia and the Middle East for oil and gas.
mcshane in the 79th
New member
- Nov 4, 2005
- 10,485
I have no doubt humans are playing a part in this "climate change", and should cut down on the energy we use, waste we produce and the like. But I would find it hard to believe it isn't anything to do with mother nature itself.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,878
For the Express readers on here, you'll get a shock when their party of choice wins the next election. They are greener than the current lot. Complaints about speed traps will be replaced by ones regarding recycling fines.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,026
somthing i read recently (in NewScientist?) sugested the lastest thinking on Himilayian glaciers melting is that its due to darkening of the glaciers from soot. the emissions from literally billions of small homes fire across China and India get up in the air and get dropped on the mountains. while still man-made its a lot easier to scrub wood burning stoves and such of this emission, but the theory and scientist has had trouble getting the idea across as it interferes with the simplistic CO2 = warming formula being sold. this is a big problem, even if the theory is incorrect, scientist off message are ignored.
a decade of cooling certainly has to be accounted for in the model, or else the model is flawed. basic principle of the scentific method, if the results dont fit, you have to go back and come up with a new theory. this is not the first time either, with a period of cooling in the late 40s, early 50's and a leveling off in the mid 70 (iirc). and it turns out that the data for the "hockey stick" was deliberatly skewed to fit historic data trends to allow the stick to emerge from the modern data - the longest major single continous data source only started collecting in 1948.
a decade of cooling certainly has to be accounted for in the model, or else the model is flawed. basic principle of the scentific method, if the results dont fit, you have to go back and come up with a new theory. this is not the first time either, with a period of cooling in the late 40s, early 50's and a leveling off in the mid 70 (iirc). and it turns out that the data for the "hockey stick" was deliberatly skewed to fit historic data trends to allow the stick to emerge from the modern data - the longest major single continous data source only started collecting in 1948.
Last edited:
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
Come back in 80 years when you are paddling on New Church Road and remind me about this.
Slap on the factor 50 or stay in the house then. There's a football match on this Saturday in Birmingham, take this hippie shit to Al Gore or some beardy bastard who wants to tax us all to death because it's getting a bit warmer.
I couldn't give two shakes of a dead dog's cock about climate change, nothing to get over. These hippies need to keep the f*** away from me or there'll be a bit of localised warming around their anal area when my boot goes up it
Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
Even if this was true (which I don't think it is), is this a bad thing? Or is it better to be reliant on Russia & the Middle East?
alan partridge
Active member
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
The only problem with that though is that one group promotes themselves as the only truth, a holier than thou attitude and untouchable in its views.
The other group is the oil/car industries.
When I was growing up, there was a lot of debate around cigarettes and lung cancer. Although Richard Doll had found a link between smoking and cancer in the early 50s, by the mid-60s, there were still large numbers of people who disbelieved this. They came out with the same sort of arguments that a lot of the climate-change deniers come out with - why is the government trying to stop me having a fag (driving my car/catching a plane)? My old man smoked every day and lived until he was 90 (we've had snow so climate change isn't happening) etc. When I worked at the Health Education Authority in the 90s, there were still people ringing us up complaining that we were health Nazis. And, despite the fact that there have been countless pieces of research supporting Doll's original findings, there are still people who deny that cigarettes cause cancer
No Scientific Proof That Smoking Causes Cancer
I think that eventually the climate change deniers will get fewer and fewer but it will take some time because people don't like being told something that like doing is bad for you, I suspect that large numbers of people know in their hearts that man-made climate change is a reality but don't like the consequences of that.
Where I do have sympathy is with the complaint that it's an excuse to raise taxes. I'm not sure that financial penalties are always the way forward, particularly when the Government says on one hand that we have to change our habits and then, on the other hand, agrees to a new terminal at Heathrow, for example. If governments worldwide want climate change to be taken seriously, they have to stop nonsense like that.
No Scientific Proof That Smoking Causes Cancer
I think that eventually the climate change deniers will get fewer and fewer but it will take some time because people don't like being told something that like doing is bad for you, I suspect that large numbers of people know in their hearts that man-made climate change is a reality but don't like the consequences of that.
Where I do have sympathy is with the complaint that it's an excuse to raise taxes. I'm not sure that financial penalties are always the way forward, particularly when the Government says on one hand that we have to change our habits and then, on the other hand, agrees to a new terminal at Heathrow, for example. If governments worldwide want climate change to be taken seriously, they have to stop nonsense like that.
Oh lord... I don't even know where to start with that one so don't think I'll bother.
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,248
Dinosaur's were farting millions of years ago.
Finch
Active member
Can you imagine if we had media back in the age of dinosaurs? I wonder what they would have blamed the ice ages on?
It makes me laugh that plenty of people took a few days of cold weather last week as irrefutable proof that global warming is not happening.
Climate change, if it's happening, is measured in years and decades, not days. A couple of weeks of snow would not not render all those arguments statistically irrelevant
Edna,I am a man made climate change sceptic,but agree with what you say.However ,that hasn't stopped the warmists from pouncing on any fllood,heatwave and other unusual weather occurrence over the last year or two and pronouncing it as due to mmcc,has it!!
I am pleased and relieved,that there seems to be developing a rather more questioning attitude towards the whole business of 'man made climate change.'Until now,dissenting voices have been branded as heretics....no longer I feel!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,026
so what your saying is because on one subject scientist got somthing right in the face of denial, they must be 100% correct here? besides, one of the problems here is the key researchers findings have been shown to be flawed and manipulated - "deniers" are increasing as its apparent we've been lied to and decieved. it shouldnt even be about denial, it should be about good, transparent science, something that has been lacking in the monologue on climate change.
your right about airports and such, that is in common with cigarettes, they dont stop them just tax them.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Global sea ice on the increase,
Global Sea Ice on the Rebound? | Meteorology News
People here need to get a clue, cold winters effect average temperatures and its been bloody cold across the northern hemisphere.
There are 4 climate research institues currently under investigation for fraud, UEA, Penn state USA(where "hockey stick " mann is based) and New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research (NIWA) and Australia.
Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act | NewsBusters.org
Mann Receives Over a Half Million of Stimulus Money the Air Vent
Really does look like the laughably called "scientific consensus" is vanishing faster than some of those Glaciers.
Global Sea Ice on the Rebound? | Meteorology News
People here need to get a clue, cold winters effect average temperatures and its been bloody cold across the northern hemisphere.
There are 4 climate research institues currently under investigation for fraud, UEA, Penn state USA(where "hockey stick " mann is based) and New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research (NIWA) and Australia.
Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act | NewsBusters.org
Mann Receives Over a Half Million of Stimulus Money the Air Vent
Really does look like the laughably called "scientific consensus" is vanishing faster than some of those Glaciers.
No. What I was saying is that if scientific research indicates something people don't want to hear they go into denial mode. Instead of saying "I don't like this talk of climate change as I'm frightened that I won't be able to drive my car/take my foreign holiday/turn the central heating up/eat meat etc in future", they attack the science instead.
I really don't see how the fact the one researcher out of many hundreds may have skewed figures slightly (and it's still only a "may", UEA is mounting an inquiry into the research to see if it was cooked or not0 renders the other research wrong too. But like I said, it's easier to question the science than face the alternative.