Man Made Global Warming
 

...is just another tax.


Caution the opening music is a little loud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

I don't really care whether or not it's man made. I don't think that driving less, walking more, consuming less, using less electricity and water etc. is bad for anyone of us.

All the stuff we have to do in order to reduce Co2 emissions and other forms of pollution are beneficial to us. Even taxes are good. We pay a shitload of taxes here in Norway and it's still the best country in the world to live in according to numerous sources.

Without anyone trying to slow down our ever increasing overconsumerism, we would quickly spiral into an even more obese, diabetic and asthmatic bunch of human beings.

I kind of agree with you. Less polutants in the atmosphere is great, more exercise and a better life... Great stuff.

The thing is CO2 is not a pollution. Carbon foot print and all that balls is just lies. Were being taxed on lies.

That 'documentary' is full of intentional misrepresentations. It is nothing more than propaganda. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real, significant, and likely to have considerable negative consequences.

The 'lies' are being told by those with an interest in making a profit out of the very energy sources that are responsible for the problem. There is no reason why they should be repeated here...

OK AJW,
do you have any evidence to back this up other than you own personel views?

Your the same guy that claimed he was a Marxist if I am not correct? It was also stated in the documentary that these "Scientific facts" of global warming/green house emissions were being paraded as a banner by left wingers so endorse a peasant life style on third world countries. I dislike when science and politics meet because Science is usually curropted to meet the political orientation.

I have no interest in debating the issue with you. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real, significant, and likely to have considerable negative consequences. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my politics, or anyone else's. If you want to believe that it is all a Marxist plot, fine, that is your right. You do not however have the right to hijack a forum to push your crackpot conspiracy theories, and then engage in ad-hominem attacks on those who point out the reality of the situation. Take your propaganda elsewhere.

Not worried about it.

At one point there was overwhelming consensus, both in the science and layman communities, that Africans were inferior to Caucasians, the earth was the center of the universe, and that piltdown man was a legitimate human evolutionary ancestor.

Thank God we have this same consensus in this manner.
Taxes are always a bad thing, and taxes that support bigger government are the worst.
Deliver mail, protect the nation. Taxation for the support of extreem enviro-socialism is just awful.

How do you feel about taxation for the support of education? ;)

And do you consider the UK Met Office an 'extreem enviro-socialist' front? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/how

By the way, is Margaret Thatcher a Marxist? http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

CWMV,
The world was also flat.



Ah yes the support that is being diminshed as we speak. The support that I can not get.

The UK Met office works for the government, your not going to work there very long if you disagree with them...

Thatcher, fighting the coal miners trade unions created and funded the studies which was for the UK to adopt nuclear power rather than coal. Did you even watch the documentary?

Sorry Andy have to pull you up there on that as there is NO overwhelming consensus, there are people who have stated quite vociferously that the science of global warming climate change is warped to promote the theory ............

Freeman Dyson speaks out against climate change

and

Renowned physicist speaks out about climate modelling

And that's also not taking into account of the huge carbon sinks at the bottom of the world's oceans, the phyto-plankton that lives in the top layer of the world's oceans (which aborbs more carbon the all the world's forests and plants) and the rest of the carbon sinks ................ The past archeological and fossil record HAS shown that the more carbon in the atmosphere that colder it gets, the evidence is there in the studies of ancient Irish bog oak tree rings, ice core samples from the Greenland ice shelf and mud core samples from the world's oceans ............... We are experiencing a bounce back from the "Mini-Ice Age" (which officially ended at the beginning of the indrustrial revolution which it co-incided with). One of the biggest factors that still isn't addressed by climate change scientists is that the Sun, our local star, is probably the most critical contributing factor to our climate, meaning the change in it's solar output over the course of the lifetime of our planet. That is also there in the fossil record as well.

there will be no justice in the world until al gore is locked up and throw away the key. that is all i have to say about this.:!:

Walshy, look up the word 'overwhelming' in a dictionary.

In any case, Freeman Dyson has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't consider himself in any way an expert in the field of climatology - he is a theoretical physicist and mathematician. And he does not deny that anthropogenic climate change is happening, anyway - he disputes that its effects are likely to be as harmful as predictions suggest: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

Do you want Margaret Thatcher locked up too? Actually, that seems like a fair deal...

Well said !

In any case Andy anthropogenic climate change is a small factor to the overall climate change that happens all the time on this planet ........... there are other bigger factors that climate change experts flattly don't factor in, and don't factor in the carbon sinks at all ..................

I have a great idea! Why don't everyone pay for their own things such as education and we'll go our separate ways and live happily ever after. :)

Please provide a source that asserts this.

It's funny watching people on the internet saying that we should ignore scientists.

I thought the internet was part of Al Gore's conspiracy to convert the world to socialism too. ;)

Climate Change sceptics either a) actually know better and have a personal agenda or are pushing a political band wagon or b) are really stupid and/or misinformed.

Either way there is no point arguing with them and you unfortunately are not allowed to shoot them.

Not one "expert" quoted by climate sceptics and accoladed in the press has qualifications in climate science. They have a mish mash of degrees across a range of unrelated disciplines but not one relevant to the debate. Interestingly one of the foremost "experts" on the sceptic side is also one of the key figures pushing the theory that President Obama was born in Africa rather than the US (and presumably therefore secretly Muslim).

The genuine debate amongst those people that actually know their stuff is whether the consequences of man made climate change are as dire as many models predict, some experts believe the earth can cope with pollution better than we give it credit for.

A recent paper by Wolfgang Knorr indicates that the fraction of CO2 absorbed by carbon sinks has not changed since 1850. This was in complete contrast to quite frankly scaremongering article in the Nature magazine that the oceans were struggling to keep up with rising emissions by which the absorption rate had fallen by 10% and was continuing to fall.

Study which disputes the fall

The offending article in Science Daily

This planet we live on has the ability to cope with the pollution better than some experts give it credit for. I will say that yes both sides have wingnuts ..........

Currently glaciers all over the planet are disappearing. That's not a good sign that the planet is coping with the rising temps.

Well we are bouncing back from the Mini Ice Age, so glaciers are going to melt but they'll not dissappear .....................

How much of a retard do you have to be, to not understand that all the crap (co2, toxic waste, drained plutonium, farming waste etc.etc.) we are polluting the environment with is not good for either us nor our environment?

Maybe there are too many people on this earth

Are you directing the retard name calling at me??? Why the name calling and I'm just playing "Devil's Advocate" or are you too much of a retard to understand that?? And of course polluting the environment, dumping of depleated plutonium/uranium, farm waste run off, dumping in rivers etc. is not good for us or our environment.

We are definately overpopulated ..................... we need another pandemic to thin the population a good bit and ease the strain!!! :):grin:

Addman, CO2 in the atmosphere is good. - In balance as all things. Sulphur, lead, fossil fuel pollution (not CO2) is bad.

What caused that ice age?

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population. While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. It may be conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, or about 1350 to about 1850.

Cetainly the scale of global tempreture is EPIC and the number of factors involved are colossal.

Seems to be a subject that few look at as being the root problem facing mankind, rarely encouraging less births with incentives...and so governments need that populace to tax, generals need them to fight, business need them for sales, and so the spiral accelerates.

Indeed and not one climate change expert has ever taken all those contributing factors into account and factored all them into a definative model ............

2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png

http://Expansion of 1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png

Holocene Temperature Variations.png

http://Bond event1500-year climate cycle

The Earth is a dynamic system and there are a lot more factors going on than just our little blip, which quite frankly could be perhaps insigificant, the next 150 years will be crucial ...........

Well, if we don't know what caused it, then we don't even know if we're still coming out of it. So that theory is not backed by anything more than BS.

Also, I'd expect a few climatologists to support that theory if it had any validity.

;)Mammoth farts. Like, REALLY mammoth farts!

That is complete nonsense.

How do you know that David?

First of all, there is no definitive model.

Second of all, that isn't how science works. They don't just ignore important factors when trying to figure out what is happening.

The statement was complete bullshit on every level.

Eh .............. em ................... what?? :rolleyes: Once again I'll post this .........

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...mate_heresies/

"British-born physicist Freeman Dyson has revealed three "heresies", two of which challenge the current scientific orthodoxy that anthropogenic carbon causes climate change.

"The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated," writes Dyson in his new book Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe, published on Wednesday.





He pours scorn on "the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models".

"I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson.

Biomass holds the key to carbon, he writes - leaving us to infer that he thinks the human contribution is negligible. Overall, Dyson issues a plea for more scientific research into the behaviour of the planet's biomass."

You can post it all you want, it does not change the fact that he is a propaganda spewing idiot.

Walshy, Dyson himself has made perfectly clear that he is no sort of specialist in the subject: " I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert". http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

What????? He's a world renowned physicist???? And has more understanding of mathematics and numbers than I could imagine??? A propaganda spewing idiot???? What colour is the sky on your planet mate, as you don't seem to be on mine??

No definative model? We were talking about taking into consideration as many factors as possible. They have ignore relevant factors, thats the whole point!

: don't think Dyson is an idiot. He is wrong - but he says that he knows little about the subject anyway. The 'propaganda spewing idiots' are those who chose to misrepresent him to push their agendas.

And you know this how?

The majority of people who deny the evidence of climate change are usually not educated in science. Yet these peoples lives are in the hands of scientists which they dont realize. Who made there computers, refridgerators, flat screen TV's?
Guess who SCIENTISTS. Everything that people use daily is becasue of science.
If they dont want to believe in science then they should go back and live like cavemen. Science is what will save our race if the ignorant hillbillys just get out of the way and stop obstructing.

FYI, I am a "scientist" (chemist by trade).

Yes Andy off course I know that but he has an expertise in phyics and mathematics, and if he says the models aren't right well I'll listen to him, and if I was studying the climate I'd listen to his advice to get the computer model right ...................

So what? Why should I give a crap what a physicist has to say about climatology?

Because carbon emissions do not corolate with global tempreture...

No, the point is that there Dyson is demanding a definitive model when he knows full well that it is not possible to make such a model.

You'll listen to him because you agree with him? And you won't listen to the other scientists and mathematicians who say he is wrong? So much for objectivity. And what advice has he ever given on 'getting the computer model right' anyway? You are grasping at straws.

He knows next to nothing about climatology. We might as well be listening to what chimps have to say on the subject.

To quote him from the Article Andy put up .............

"e360: So it’s a sense you get from the way the argument is conducted that it’s not being done in an honest way.

Dyson: I think the difference between me and most of the experts is that I think I have a much wider view of the whole subject. I was involved in climate studies seriously about 30 years ago. That’s how I got interested. There was an outfit called the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. I visited Oak Ridge many times, and worked with those people, and I thought they were excellent. And the beauty of it was that it was multi-disciplinary. There were experts not just on hydrodynamics of the atmosphere, which of course is important, but also experts on vegetation, on soil, on trees, and so it was sort of half biological and half physics. And I felt that was a very good balance.

And there you got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense.

Thirty years ago, there was a sort of a political split between the Oak Ridge community, which included biology, and people who were doing these fluid dynamics models, which don’t include biology. They got the lion’s share of money and attention. And since then, this group of pure modeling experts has become dominant.

I got out of the field then. I didn’t like the way it was going. It left me with a bad taste."

Sorry mate but the only chimp in the room, pardon the change on a common parlance, is yourself ......................

You would learn as much by talking to a chimp.

No offense, but chimps probably understand more about science than the likes of you.

Dyson is irrelevant. He says he isn't an expert. He isn't. The overwhelming consensus amongst the relevant section of the scientific community is that anthropomorphic climate change is real, and will have widespread harmful effects. This is the simple fact here. The denialists are largely driven by greed, ignorance or just plain loopiness, and their opinions on the matter are thus also irrelevant. Scientific questions cannot be answered by propaganda, end of story.

Well I'd probably have a better all round conversation with said chimp, and not have to listen to someone trying to insult me or my intelligence or another human beings for that matter. You're a very small souled individual mate ................

Sorry, but I thought when you called me a chimp that meant it was ok for me to start insulting you.

Our opinions regarding the chimp-like attributes of each other are also irrelevant...

I was just providing an example of primates who know as much about climatology as Mr. Dyson.

Well YOU had just insulted a world renowned physicist ..................

No, I provided some perspective on his understanding of climatology.

Sadly, everyone missing the point. this isn't about science at all. it is about generating false fear for monetary exploitation and political power grab. Same as pump and dump facebook ipo. Exactly the same. Global warming, really the most vile, disgusting example of pure evil ever invented. Trillions of dollars, wasted, time lost, lives manipulated, freedom suppressed...etc. all over decades. The greatest crime against humanity ever.

I still remember back in the 70's going to the local fair and the guy explaining to my dad that everyone will have solar panels. What a phucking joke. Or when I was in college and we read about "limits to growth" and how we are supposed to be out of oil by now. Another phucking joke.

You have to realize, anyone with phd from the university...etc. this is a license for exploitation, whatever the field. Give me my government grant money now so I can invent a bunch of crap and create some more paranoia to feed the beast I worship and tonque lick in the ass.

And to quote him further from Andy's article ...............

"Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor. So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result... But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.

We know that plants do react very strongly to enhanced carbon dioxide. At Oak Ridge, they did lots of experiments with enhanced carbon dioxide and it has a drastic effect on plants because it is the main food source for the plants... So if you change the carbon dioxide drastically by a factor of two, the whole behavior of the plant is different. Anyway, that’s so typical of the things they ignore. They are totally missing the biological side, which is probably more than half of the real system."

MadBlaster, thanks for your ode to ignorance.

I'm still still just as interested in what the chimps have to say on the subject

I think I'm feeding a troll .........................

Your welcome. And those are my last words on the subject.

See, I can lie just like those phds!

Walshy, the man is NOT a climatologist. He's NOT an expert. YOU are the one who is trolling.

I have my opinion and you have yours and I wasn't trolling ....................

You're posting propaganda from someone who admits that he's NOT an expert on the subject, and you continue to do it after that fact was made clear to you.

That is trolling.

Well if it seemed that way, it wasn't intentional .....................

Read through this if you have the time, just a collection of a different material that may open more your way of thinking...I'm out:cool:
http://iceagenow.com/

Sorry, but I don't pay attention to propaganda.

David Hayward and AndyJWest...

Never on this forum have I ever seen anyone who are so nasty, angry and close minded. Not to mention, ignorant and childish. Its a dicussion guys! If you have your concrete belief thats fine. However to just trash the thread with a stone hard belief and get upset because someone else doesnt agree with you is... well its unreal. Its also not the first time I have seen you two do this.



MadBlaster,
thanks for sharing. I believe those solar panals are going to be a big mistake. Not the concept but because they havent got it right yet asthetically. I think PV panals will detract from the value of a house, especially in the future when the weather has been at them for a few years.

I'm not close minded at all. If the scientific consensus on global warming changes, my views will change.

BTW, not agreeing with ignorant propaganda does not make one "close minded".

Of course. The millions of tons of hot charged particles the sun throws our way lately can't have anything to do with the weather on Earth. I mean, who cares that we could see the Aurora Borealis all the way to Texas and the jet stream was broken into pieces from the strong solar bombardment. This can't have anything to do with the weather on this minuscule silly rock.:rolleyes:
It's all about this silly little creature called the human. We make and break the weather on earth and in the univers. Who cares about the power of the sun, or the other strange cosmic forces pulling things around our rock. It's all about the superpowers of this silly little creature.:rolleyes:

Gosh, I wonder how virtually every climatologist on the planet missed something that obvious?

I dont think simply believing what we are told is a solid route forward.

No it does not. However not listening to an opposing arguement and replying your doubt in a respectable manner and agreeing to disagree does.


I think we should all stop here. Agreed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTHsT...feature=relmfu

of course they "inflate" some predictions, and be a bit alarmists. but imo it has no comparisson with the lobbyng of "the dark, crude side" , and the problem is real, maybe earth will not be mars in 100 years but the way the society is managing resources is extremely destructive and cannot last indefenitly

if "we" dont change our sons or grandsons will be forced to

That's not how science works. Scientists study a subject and write papers explaining their findings. They provide evidence. The papers are published, reviewed and evaluated. No one "just believes what they are told".

And right now the scientific consensus is that global warming is largely the result of human activity. If evidence countering that consensus is found, then it will be probably change. Again, no one "just believes what they are told".

I'll listen to an opposing argument when a credible one is made.

Ill let you have the last word.

.

5./JG27.Farber, when you start a thread by making accusations like this:
... you have no right to complain. Not to mention your suggestion that my politics has anything to do with it. Or does Margaret Thatcher's politics also 'bias' her towards accepting the scientific consensus too? You were clearly trolling right from the start. That all you've done is demonstrate once again the wilful ignorance of the denialists is your own fault.

Not all of them, and they didn't miss it. They just prefer to ignore it. It's a wild card that can mess up their belifs. The whole idea of human made global warming was a scam to bring in funds.

Sorry I wasn't making myself clear on the tax part. I was specifically referring to ROAD tax which as you know in the UK is based on vehicle emissions and not weight. Which is clearly balls. As weight not emissions is what damages roads and road tax is supposed to be there to maintain those roads.

So you can drive an electric car as much as you want road tax free. However drive a regular car, your paying around 210 quid (It varies, mines a 1.9 diesel). From what Ive seen on car tax the slider goes around 50 pounds either way. However hybrids and electrics are free.

Repeating bollocks doesn't make it true.

Right, of course they're ignoring it. Why would anyone want the Nobel money that goes along with destroying an accepted scientific viewpoint?

You do understand that people who debunk accepted scientific ideas are showered with praise and awards (once they get past the initial beatdown), right?

Of course. You have to modify, falsify and manipulate data to make it "true".:rolleyes:

Almost every glacier on the planet is melting. True.

How about this. Just let this one run wild for a moment. Lets flip the "scientific consensus" on its head, -reverse it. Imagine, everyone who doesnt think emissions cause global warming doesnt have to pay the taxes on it. Everyone who deos think it cause global warming has to pay the tax. Lets say I dont believe, so I dont pay road tax and get a discount on everything I buy! Can you imagine that? - WOW.

If you can imagine that, then at least I know we have some kind of understanding.

That's the problem. If legislation, like the carbon tax gets implemented, a good portion from that money should go to the scientific community. They all want that money. Nobel prise is for select few, very bright people. Carbon tax and similar methods of financing are sure money foe most of them. That's why the strong push for this kind of legislation.

What an outlandish statement! Only in the summer... :-P

Glaciers are remains of ice ages and cold periods in earth's life. They WILL MELT, with or without us.

Hang on, didnt Glaciers create the paths of rivers and valleys for thousands of years? So there must have been cooling and warming before.

It's just a huge tax swindle , i don't believe it for a second . The moment al gore opens his fat face you know he's spouting more BS .Climate has always and will continue to flucuate .It isn't like we're going to change it one iota by getting ripped off paying huge taxes .

No, not just the summer. Year after year the glaciers are getting smaller. It's happening all over the planet. Eventually many of them will no longer be glaciers. They will completely disappear in the summer. That is a serious problem for people who depend on them for water. It's also overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming.