The new climate change scandal

[simmo]

Don't know if any of you people whom still believe that we are on the brink of armageddon due to man made global warming saw this yesterday which was an amalgamation of many satellite images as at 2nd Feb, but if you didn't I think you should as it shows most of the northern hemisphere but not the UK (so you can't say that I am saying this because it is cold here) under snow and ice.

Don't tell me I am waiting for the answer that the most of the northern hemisphere being under snow/ice during winter time is one of the potential effects of man made global warming, ha ha ha.

 

[CHAPPERS]

What an amazingly uneducated post that is.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Don't tell me I am waiting for the answer that the most of the northern hemisphere being under snow/ice during winter time is one of the potential effects of man made global warming, ha ha ha.

View attachment 21442

One of the big problems with Global Warming is that it's called the wrong thing.It should be called Climate change because the effects of Global warming could cause a severe decrease in temperatures should the gulf stream dissapear. This would be a knock on effect from icecaps melting and reducing its effectiveness. That's why Canada is f***ing freezing and we have mild winters even though we are at the same latitude.

Unfortunately, the thickos think Global warming means that we would have the climate of Tenerife.

 

[simmo]

One of the big problems with Global Warming is that it's called the wrong thing.It should be called Climate change because the effects of Global warming could cause a severe decrease in temperatures should the gulf stream dissapear. This would be a knock on effect from icecaps melting and reducing its effectiveness. That's why Canada is f***ing freezing and we have mild winters even though we are at the same latitude.

Unfortunately, the thickos think Global warming means that we would have the climate of Tenerife.

No it is called Anthroprogenic (man made) Global Warming because that is what the experts would have you believe was happening and yet pretty much the whole of the Northern Hemisphere excluding Western Europe is under snow/ice.

The Gulf stream is irrelevant to that image because it shows N America and Asia under snow, the Gulf Stream is only relevant to W Europe (which actually is the only place not under snow).

What is occuring does not back up what these people tell you should be happening unless they go arse about face and tell you that exactly the opposite of what they predict should be happening actually happens. What these experts say is something like me saying Brighton will definitely win on Saturday (and then putting in the caveat of well maybe they won't). If you want to continue believing them that is your choice.

Climates also throughout the history of the world have changed on numerous occasions due to natural factors e.g at it's most extreme, ice ages and any global warming could be that.

 

[simmo]

What an amazingly uneducated post that is.

Why?

 

[Iggle Piggle]

The Gulf stream is irrelevant to that image because it shows N America and Asia under snow, the Gulf Stream is only relevant to W Europe (which actually is the only place not under snow).

No shit! Why do you reckon that is?

 

[Curious Orange]

I think people would have a lot more respect for climate science if they actually bothered to do the science properly:

* by basing the research on actual data rather than figures that they've just made up
* by making sure that any literature that they reference in their reports as "fact" is also based on actual data rather than opinions
* by making sure that their reports are properly peer reviewed

 

[simmo]

No shit! Why do you reckon that is?

Nice picking out one line in my update. Did you bother to read the rest of it at all.

You have completely missed my point. If most of the northern hemisphere is in snow and ice how does this fit in with man made global warming.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

What is occuring does not back up what these people tell you should be happening unless they go arse about face and tell you that exactly the opposite of what they predict should be happening actually happens. What these experts say is something like me saying Brighton will definitely win on Saturday (and then putting in the caveat of well maybe they won't). If you want to continue believing them that is your choice.

I'd also turn that on it head. It's your choice to believe it won't happen (and a lot of the anti climate change scientists are funded by the oil industry). That then neatly fits into a lot of peoples attitudes to do what they like.

If it's not happening what harm is it to cut down on our energy usage, take the recycling out once a week and try and keep resources which ARE running out available a bit longer?

 

[sten_super]

Global warming is the increase in the average global temperature that has been seen through recent history (by which I mean the past 130 years or so).

Climate change is the more generic change in weather pattern distributions that can and do take place over a range of time periods.

Global warming is but one facet of climate change. It is also not disputed by the vast majority of the scientific community; what is disputed is the cause, whether it is contributed to by man or not.

 

[simmo]

If it's not happening what harm is it to cut down on our energy usage, take the recycling out once a week and try and keep resources which ARE running out available a bit longer?

I don't have any problem with any of that, have I said that. I do it myself, no problem.

What I do have a problem is £10's if not £100's of billions globally spent on a problem that I don't think is a major issue, is probably natural and if warming does occur will do minisculey over a long enough period to not cause the earth shattering consequences that the propheciers of doom would have you believe. I would rather the money go to providing more food for people for example.

 

[readingstockport]

I don't have any problem with any of that, have I said that. I do it myself, no problem.

What I do have a problem is £10's if not £100's of billions globally spent on a problem that I don't think is a major issue, is probably natural and if warming does occur will do minisculey over a long enough period to not cause the earth shattering consequences that the propheciers of doom would have you believe. I would rather the money go to providing more food for people for example.

I know it's hard for some of you but do you possibly think you could at least TRY to understand the difference between weather and climate. What you are witnessing is WEATHER. What is changing is the global CLIMATE.
The evidence is gradually becoming almost incontravertable. Sea temperatures are their highest ever recorded. Global temperatures were once again last year once of the highest since record keeping began, a steady rising trend which no matter how often the deniers lie about it continues.

Even Bjorn Lomborg, one of the most vocal and widely quoted deniers, recently altered his position and accepted that AGW is a fact.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I don't have any problem with any of that, have I said that. I do it myself, no problem.

What I do have a problem is £10's if not £100's of billions globally spent on a problem that I don't think is a major issue, is probably natural and if warming does occur will do minisculey over a long enough period to not cause the earth shattering consequences that the propheciers of doom would have you believe. I would rather the money go to providing more food for people for example.

You said it yourself - No-one knows why some of these changes actually occur. How else will we know unless we invest in science? The issue with science is neatly illustrated on this thread. Both sides are prone to exaggeration or are only sometimes interested in one POV. Stats suggest it's warming. I'd like to know why.

 

[readingstockport]

The north west passage has ooened for the first time in known history as the ice recedes. Troipcal storms and hurricanes are increasing in both frequency and intensity, as predicted by a rising ocean temperature. 'Freak' weather events become more common as both the air temperature and the ocean temperature rises, as predicted. Global CO2 levels are rising faster to higher levels than in recorded human history, although admitedly not as high as recoded in the fossil record, and this rise has almost entirely taken place in the past 150 years.

And it's all a global con by scientists to get money and the deniers are in no way funded to the tune of millions of pounds and dollars by fossil fuel companies?

Or Occams razor can be used. You decide.

 

[simmo]

I know it's hard for some of you but do you possibly think you could at least TRY to understand the difference between weather and climate. What you are witnessing is WEATHER. What is changing is the global CLIMATE.
The evidence is gradually becoming almost incontravertable. Sea temperatures are their highest ever recorded. Global temperatures were once again last year once of the highest since record keeping began, a steady rising trend which no matter how often the deniers lie about it continues.

Even Bjorn Lomborg, one of the most vocal and widely quoted deniers, recently altered his position and accepted that AGW is a fact.

And what you don't seem to understand is that I know the climate is rising globally read my posts, do I ever so that it isn't it is whether it is a) anthroprogenic (man made) or b) natural.

The other point is how big a thing is it to worry about and it is not just this winter, it was last winter and the winter before that, and also the fact that in this case it was virtually northern hemispheric, that's not just weather is it, and the fact that these winters are so cold and global, doesn't really suggest to me that anyone should really be getting too concerned about global warming man made or otherwise.

You may quote one person, but the colder it gets the more people question global warming overall man made or otherwise.

 

[simmo]

You said it yourself - No-one knows why some of these changes actually occur. How else will we know unless we invest in science? The issue with science is neatly illustrated on this thread. Both sides are prone to exaggeration or are only sometimes interested in one POV. Stats suggest it's warming. I'd like to know why.

Because it does do naturally, google Medieval Warm Period. It was also warmer when the Romans were around too and when Oetzi the Ice man was wandering around. I am off now have a good weekend and Seeeeeaaaaaaggguuulllllllssssssssss

 

[readingstockport]

People can question all they want. You can deny all you want. So long as over 98% of earth scientists and climatologists believe I will go with them over a bunch of un-scientific oil-funded lobbyists any day.

More and more of the predictions are beginning to come more and more true.

Occams razor, try applying it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'd also turn that on it head. It's your choice to believe it won't happen (and a lot of the anti climate change scientists are funded by the oil industry). That then neatly fits into a lot of peoples attitudes to do what they like.

If it's not happening what harm is it to cut down on our energy usage, take the recycling out once a week and try and keep resources which ARE running out available a bit longer?

Don't scientists who believe in or are tasked to investigate Climate change / global warming (or whatever it will be called next - global cooling anyone?) get funding to investigate it too? by Governments for example?

Can't those organisations have a political agenda too, such as using climate change to push for a growth in the use of "green technology" or as a way of extracting extra revenue from taxes and also could make consumers spend on more expensive "green" alternatives, stimulating the economy - surely valid reasons why there could be such a slant in the argument.

What happens if a scientist is given a 5 year grant to investigate climate change and they discover its not happening and all down to natural cycles after about 6 months, would they immediately hold their hands up and say so or continue to take funding and stretch it out longer, altering their reseach findings to keep their funding coming?, they have to make a living after all

 

[Smythe]

Isnt the governments response from Uk and other countries to climate change called the "precautionary principle"......in other words there is no scientific proof that there is going to be harm to people or the enviroment but there is the possibility so they have a social responsibility to protect the public from harm so they have to act. For what its worth i think there is a climate change taking place due to the earths natural cycle but man is hurrying it a long a bit with the use of fossil fuels, deforestation etc and in the next few years we are really going to be using a lot more renewable energy sources.

 

[sten_super]

Isnt the governments response from Uk and other countries to climate change called the "precautionary principle"......in other words there is no scientific proof that there is going to be harm to people or the enviroment but there is the possibility so they have a social responsibility to protect the public from harm so they have to act.

There is no scientific proof in the sense that they are forecasting; but there is a significant body of evidence that climate change is happening, and has happened historically, and there is a signficant body of evidence that man is a significant cause of climate change. I suppose what you would say is that they lack a 'smoking gun'; however we are pretty much at the stage now where the evidence is of such volume that it would be very churlish to ignore it.