Climate Change?

Rob Gaskin

Rob Gaskin

Treasurer
Staff member
Site Administrator
Well to be honest I don't know what to beleive about climate change. Is it man-made or natural? :unsure:

However I do think that there are a hell of a lot of politics associated with the topic. If it really is man-made and we can avoid it then surely we have to do something really big starting now! All motorsport must be cancelled, all travelling to football matches, staggering work time to avoid congestion etc etc.

Also am I the only one who saw Obama arriving at the Copenhagen talks in his own Jumbo Jet :eek:

And then on the 'One Show' the other night they were trying to say that we must reduce the number of cows because their farting is a serious contributor to global warning. How can they keep a straight face - not the cows of course?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
climate change is not happening any more than it already did (actually more) in the Middle Ages, when the combustion engine didn't even exist.

remember originally Al Gore et al used to talk about global warming... then they had to rephrase that when the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton challenged them...


YouTube - Climategate - BBC covers UP scientific climate change fraud at British University

Global warming busted - MY350Z.COM Forums

YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
 
Rob Gaskin said:
Well to be honest I don't know what to beleive about climate change. Is it man-made or natural? :unsure:
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly !!!!

the world has got hot and cold without us,we have had dinosaurs and an iceage !!!!!!

but i do think there is stuff we can do,like build more wind farms rather than more coal/gas power stations or nuclear power stations.
 
It is difficult to know if you are only going on hear-say and very pro/anti views, so I went along to a public lecture at Reading University, given by a couple of Professors of Climatology. These guys spend years doing research including field work on glaciers. They have a far greater grasp of the subject than the opinion of say, a newspaper columnist, MP or Terry Wogan. They agree that warming and cooling has taken pace over hundreds of thousands of years. The problem is that the rate of warming is on an upward projection far, far above normal fluctuations. The best we can hope for is an average 2°C warming (9°C worst case). This cannot be accounted for by sun-spots or anything other than human action. The graphs don't just start a couple of years ago they take in data from post industrial revolution. Global warming does exist and it is man made. I even remember my Geography teacher talking about it over 20 years ago! Don't be confused if a scientist says 'most likely cause' or 'highly probable', this is their scientific training, ie: you can never say anything that has not yet happened will happen, but it is highly probable, statisticly. The problem is the media jump on this and say, well 'they have a doubt in their mind'. No they don't, they are going on data.

Now... there are two ways you can react to what I have posted:
1. You can say: No its not man-made.
2. Speak to an expert, Climatologist, Meterologist etc. Contact your local University and see if they have any public meetings of lectures, then make an informed decision.

A final thought, if you had a brain tumor would you take advice from a Neuroscientist or a Newspaper columnist? If you were getting two different professional medical opinions would you not take the most widely held, latest thinking, medial view? Or would you just say, well I don't believe you, my local journalist has looked on Google and says its just a headache, take a couple of paracetamol and I'll be right as rain in a few days.

PS: I'm not a hippie, my suggestion is build nuclear power stations and stop burning coal. Renewables are fine, but will only ever make up 20-25% of the requirement (currently they make up about 7%). Where is the other 75% supposed to come from?
 
Ped said:
It is difficult to know if you are only going on hear-say and very pro/anti views, so I went along to a public lecture at Reading University, given by a couple of Professors of Climatology. These guys spend years doing research including field work on glaciers. They have a far greater grasp of the subject than the opinion of say, a newspaper columnist, MP or Terry Wogan. They agree that warming and cooling has taken pace over hundreds of thousands of years. The problem is that the rate of warming is on an upward projection far, far above normal fluctuations. The best we can hope for is an average 2°C warming (9°C worst case). This cannot be accounted for by sun-spots or anything other than human action. The graphs don't just start a couple of years ago they take in data from post industrial revolution. Global warming does exist and it is man made. I even remember my Geography teacher talking about it over 20 years ago! Don't be confused if a scientist says 'most likely cause' or 'highly probable', this is their scientific training, ie: you can never say anything that has not yet happened will happen, but it is highly probable, statisticly. The problem is the media jump on this and say, well 'they have a doubt in their mind'. No they don't, they are going on data.

Now... there are two ways you can react to what I have posted:
1. You can say: No its not man-made.
2. Speak to an expert, Climatologist, Meterologist etc. Contact your local University and see if they have any public meetings of lectures, then make an informed decision.

A final thought, if you had a brain tumor would you take advice from a Neuroscientist or a Newspaper columnist? If you were getting two different professional medical opinions would you not take the most widely held, latest thinking, medial view? Or would you just say, well I don't believe you, my local journalist has looked on Google and says its just a headache, take a couple of paracetamol and I'll be right as rain in a few days.

PS: I'm not a hippie, my suggestion is build nuclear power stations and stop burning coal. Renewables are fine, but will only ever make up 20-25% of the requirement (currently they make up about 7%). Where is the other 75% supposed to come from?
Click to expand...

Sane and sound words!

But I want to know what happend to the twin holes at the North and South pole in the Ozone layer??

Mike
 
Ped - I agree with you - yes, climate fluctuations happen periodically in a planets' life but we're accelerating / exagerating the effects.

Yes to more nuclear power-stations because the 'alternative' power sources aren't capable yet to provide us with ever growing demands and reduce and eventually replace all the carbon-based power-stations (especially in the USA).

But at the same time, be prepared for major economic upheavals...coal mines out of action and the social pressure of displacing the nuclear problem onto our grandchildrens shoulders - what to do with spent fuel and other waste ?

What pi*ses me off is that I should buy extortunately priced ecomonical light-bulbs and be eco-taxed whilst other countries are billowing CO2 etc into the atmosphere - this eco-crusade will cost US a fortune so we all buy cheaply from those countries currently polluting the worst.

I'm encouraged to burn wood as it is a renewable energy source.....that creates CO2......? And that from the ecologists......:confused: !

All in all, yes, we're polluting the earth, yes we're changing the climate ourselves but rollocks am I not going to drive my sports-car !
 
SeanDezart said:
I'm encouraged to burn wood as it is a renewable energy source.....that creates CO2......? And that from the ecologists......:confused: !

All in all, yes, we're polluting the earth, yes we're changing the climate ourselves but rollocks am I not going to drive my sports-car !
Click to expand...

The idea about burning wood is that during its life the trees growth absorbs CO2 and when it is burned it releases only what it has absorbed, hence it is viewed as CO2 neutral.

Classic cars in general are uneconomical fuel wise, but then how many miles do we drive them per year? Only about 1000 or so in my case. I agree hands off! :driving:
 
How do you cut the trees down - with an axe ? How do you transport the wood to your house - horse and cart ?
 
Very good Sean, although its quite simple, there are just too any humans on the plannet if it was left to the animals everything would be ok, unfortunately we are all to blame we make pollution to create work for each other thats why china make thousands of tons of trinkets to ship out to us lot, a year later its in the bin, then theres good old Richard branson sending people to the moon at 120k a ride, then theres ferry loads of people off to france/ belgium bringing back duty free thats made here, but it creates jobs keeps the ferrys in buisness wonder how much fuel it uses calais and back 24 hours a day and thats without the hidden costs which in turn create co2 :rolleyes:
 
I'm still on the fence regarding global warming, But I do think that we should all do what we can to reduce our emissions and invest in wind/wave and solar power where ever possible

It only makes sense in the long run to cut back and I agree with Terry about all the useless shit we import from abroad.

Though Ped makes some good points I don't agree totally because these scientists are not always impartial in their opinions, They have to look after their funding and jobs at the end of the day and they definitely wont talk themselves out of employment will they.

We where not here the last time the planet had an ice age or when it was tropical in the UK, So what caused that then ?.

I believe that the planet goes through cycles and that we're maybe speeding up that proses through human activity, And that we should do what ever we can to cut back on that activity. But I'm sick to death of being preached to by soap dodgers and politicians looking for some new cause to get themselves notices, And so they can con us all out of our hard earned money by imposing extra green taxes, Just like the one they've had on fuel for all these years, Non of which gets spent on anything green.

And if I ever meet Edd bloody miliband I'm going to punch the smarmy bastard right on the nose :eek:;).



Rob
 
There's plenty of space, and the potential to feed and provide electric power for everyone but it won't happen all the time countries are trying to be one up on their 'neighbours' and we all chase money.

The world will starve, make war and watch their 'brothers and sisters' in misery and we call it evolution.

How many acres of ancient rainforest are being decimated every day ?
 
Fed up of hearing about it and fed up of Tescos being stingy with the carrier bags.

I might have given a crap if they had not used it to extract more money out of us. The minute they started doing that, the minute I stopped making any attempts to be green.

Sick of all the bloody excuses they make and how hypocritical they all are.
 
Ped said:
It is difficult to know if you are only going on hear-say and very pro/anti views, so I went along to a public lecture at Reading University, given by a couple of Professors of Climatology. These guys spend years doing research including field work on glaciers. They have a far greater grasp of the subject than the opinion of say, a newspaper columnist, MP or Terry Wogan. They agree that warming and cooling has taken pace over hundreds of thousands of years. The problem is that the rate of warming is on an upward projection far, far above normal fluctuations. The best we can hope for is an average 2°C warming (9°C worst case). This cannot be accounted for by sun-spots or anything other than human action. The graphs don't just start a couple of years ago they take in data from post industrial revolution. Global warming does exist and it is man made. I even remember my Geography teacher talking about it over 20 years ago! Don't be confused if a scientist says 'most likely cause' or 'highly probable', this is their scientific training, ie: you can never say anything that has not yet happened will happen, but it is highly probable, statisticly. The problem is the media jump on this and say, well 'they have a doubt in their mind'. No they don't, they are going on data.

Now... there are two ways you can react to what I have posted:
1. You can say: No its not man-made.
2. Speak to an expert, Climatologist, Meterologist etc. Contact your local University and see if they have any public meetings of lectures, then make an informed decision.

A final thought, if you had a brain tumor would you take advice from a Neuroscientist or a Newspaper columnist? If you were getting two different professional medical opinions would you not take the most widely held, latest thinking, medial view? Or would you just say, well I don't believe you, my local journalist has looked on Google and says its just a headache, take a couple of paracetamol and I'll be right as rain in a few days.

PS: I'm not a hippie, my suggestion is build nuclear power stations and stop burning coal. Renewables are fine, but will only ever make up 20-25% of the requirement (currently they make up about 7%). Where is the other 75% supposed to come from?
Click to expand...


the problem I have with the approach you have taken (go to a lecture) is exactly that: scientists show you whatever they want! A graph can be manipulated so many ways to show an upward /downward trend by simply enlarging/narrowing the data selection. Exactly what these guys are doing. Did you ask them to show you a graph of the temperatures dating way back, say the middle ages? That would have shut them up easily ;)

There's so much "scientific evidence" that has been plainly tampered with to show that the climate is changing, is not even funny.

I agree with your approach to an extent, but the data needs to be taken into consideration as a whole, not like some jokers dare to show the public trying to convince them that climate change (what happened t the global warming term? why aren't they using it anymore?) is man made. Bollox
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saz said:
Fed up of hearing about it and fed up of Tescos being stingy with the carrier bags.

I might have given a crap if they had not used it to extract more money out of us. The minute they started doing that, the minute I stopped making any attempts to be green.

Sick of all the bloody excuses they make and how hypocritical they all are.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with you there - you can still BUY the eco-unfriendly bags so how does that help anyone except supermarkets to make more of a profit ?

Bloody eco tax on petrol and recycling tax on EVERY article - where does that all go ?
If you're rich, you can afford to pay the taxes, if you're poor, you get subsidies and if you're in the middle income bracket you get it sideways from behind as usual !

I've helped build the acess roads and platforms that these wind-powered generators need (see photos) - how many litres of fuel per hour do you think these things use to transport them, themselves and erect them ?

Eco-friendly is a rip-off and I'm already sick of hearing about and definitely pating for it without seeing where my eco-tax is going !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheMinel said:
Did you ask them to show you a graph of the temperatures dating way back, say the middle ages? That would have shut them up easily ;)
Click to expand...

The graph timeline I saw went back over the past 100,000 years, and I can assure you the temperatures did go up and down over that time. The amount the temperatures are going up recently, over the last 100 years or so is very dramatic.
 
If you don't believe it, challenge the scientists. Show them the contradictory evidence, make them explain. But just for someone to say 'its not happening' is like claiming the Earth is flat. You say to them, 'well what about satelite photos?' They say 'made up by the scientists at NASA to keep there funding'.

I'm not saying believe what I am saying, but at least see what both sides of the argument are saying, and look at the evidence both supply. Then you can hold which ever view you choose.

The Earth is round.

No it's not.

That is not an argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top