Global Warming

[Liverpool]

Why? By rights it should be starting to cool down ever so slightly.

Why would it cool down if mother nature is heating it up.....unless you are saying that the whole 100% of climate change is human-kind's fault?

So in other words you think the majority of Earth's scientists with expertise central to climate change are stupid?

We all know about your "experts" Disco.....go to www.lefties-r-us.com and pick some out.
Anyways, we have been down this path before about scientists having vested interests (on both sides) and exaggerating the outcome (on both sides) so I am very wary as to who thinks they are experts or not.

If we are accellerating this process, doesn't it make sense to try and minimize this impact?

I think we are accelerating it...but at such a small percentage and so slight, it will be inconsequential in the big scheme of things.
Like I have said from the start...if people want to believe they are making a difference and saving the planet by recycling, riding a bike to work, and all that....then that's just wonderful.
Not knocking people taking action one iota.

you contradict youself habitually liverpool, just picked this bit out. As long as you're aware that this particular opinion is in direct contradiction to the vast, overwhelming majority of global scientific opinion, fine. We stuffed it, we can fix it. Its prett simple. Whether the politics of entrenched vested interests and the seeminingly unstoppable cycle of overproduction and consumption allows us to fix it is entirely another matter.
you are a flat earth merchant liverpool. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

No contradiction there whatsoever Tigersnake.
I don't think mankind has "stuffed it" to be honest....and I don't think us trying to "fix it" will make much difference.
Put it this way...if mankind survived for another 1000 years, us trying to 'save the planet now' might get us an extra 5 years or so. That's great. In the big scheme of things, virtually a waste of time.
However, if "trying to fix it" now helps people's immediate local communities by not having rubbish in the streets, having a little bit less pollution in the air from not driving a cars, people feeling fitter from riding a bike or walking, recycling water, etc...then like I said, I am certainly not being a wowser at these people if they get some satisfaction and joy by thinking they are saving the planet.

 

[Tigers of Old]

flat earth merchant

Those folks had a gut feeling too.

Ignorance is no argument.

 

[Disco08]

Why would it cool down if mother nature is heating it up.....unless you are saying that the whole 100% of climate change is human-kind's fault?

You're not really into looking at all the available evidence are you?

We all know about your "experts" Disco.....go to www.lefties-r-us.com and pick some out.

Care to explain how the IPCC is left-wing?

Obviously you know better than people who dedicate their lives to these issues though. My bad.

 

[Azza]

Why would it cool down if mother nature is heating it up.....unless you are saying that the whole 100% of climate change is human-kind's fault?

Are you asking because you're ignorant and really want to know? If so, you clearly didn't understand anything about the graph previously posted.

We all know about your "experts" Disco.....go to www.lefties-r-us.com and pick some out.
Anyways, we have been down this path before about scientists having vested interests (on both sides) and exaggerating the outcome (on both sides) so I am very wary as to who thinks they are experts or not.

I think we are accelerating it...but at such a small percentage and so slight, it will be inconsequential in the big scheme of things.

You are ridiculous. You dismiss 'expert' judgment for having vested interest, then express your own opinion while in the same post demonstrating complete ignorance of one of the fundamental building blocks of climate variability. Run off to google now and do some research, then come back and weasel your words around to prove you didn't say what you did.

 

[Liverpool]

Care to explain how the IPCC is left-wing?

Next you'll mention Al Gore.... :hihi

You are ridiculous. You dismiss 'expert' judgment for having vested interest, then express your own opinion while in the same post demonstrating complete ignorance of one of the fundamental building blocks of climate variability. Run off to google now and do some research, then come back and weasel your words around to prove you didn't say what you did.

I don't need to google mate.
In fact, I don't know what all the angst at myself on this thread is all about....why?
Just because I am not conforming to you and your so-called 'experts' that the whole of the world is going to be a disaster in 20 years, Sydney won't exist because of high tides, the ice-caps will melt, we'll all die of thirst, and all the other doomsday rubbish that people like you take as gospel because some 'expert' with a vested interest comes out and says so.

* I've agreed with you lot that the earth is warming.
* I've agreed that it is good if people get something out of recycling, saving water, planting trees...even if it just makes people feel better inside themselves.
* I've agreed even that man has had a (very) small role in the earth heating up.
* I've even said that people on BOTH sides have vested interests....that people from your side go on about we'll be living underwater in 30 years, etc....and people on the other side who completely dismiss that the cimate is changing at all. BOTH sides have vested interests, mostly due to money and financial backing from various groups.

But I will not agree that it has been the main culprit in the planet's climate changing....and I won't agree that if we stopped doing everything we do now, and revert back to the stone-age, that all will 'return to normal'.

Here is some reading material for you anyway to ponder:

Studying sea level changes in corals and organic materials from Vietnam and Barbados, scientists concluded that an influx of freshwater from the Antarctic 14,000 years ago increased sea levels by an average of 66 feet (20 meters) over 200 years, about 100 times faster than today. There is evidence that debris was coming off the Antarctic as a result of the melting of the ice sheet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0317_030317_iceshelf.html

The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml


And when this happened.....not one factory, plastic bottle, or pollutant in sight....so much for man being the main instigator of climate change for this planet.

 

[Azza]

Next you'll mention Al Gore.... :hihi

I don't need to google mate.
In fact, I don't know what all the angst at myself on this thread is all about....why?
Just because I am not conforming to you and your so-called 'experts' that the whole of the world is going to be a disaster in 20 years, Sydney won't exist because of high tides, the ice-caps will melt, we'll all die of thirst, and all the other doomsday rubbish that people like you take as gospel because some 'expert' with a vested interest comes out and says so.

* I've agreed with you lot that the earth is warming.
* I've agreed that it is good if people get something out of recycling, saving water, planting trees...even if it just makes people feel better inside themselves.
* I've agreed even that man has had a (very) small role in the earth heating up.
* I've even said that people on BOTH sides have vested interests....that people from your side go on about we'll be living underwater in 30 years, etc....and people on the other side who completely dismiss that the cimate is changing at all. BOTH sides have vested interests, mostly due to money and financial backing from various groups.

But I will not agree that it has been the main culprit in the planet's climate changing....and I won't agree that if we stopped doing everything we do now, and revert back to the stone-age, that all will 'return to normal'.

Here is some reading material for you anyway to ponder:

Studying sea level changes in corals and organic materials from Vietnam and Barbados, scientists concluded that an influx of freshwater from the Antarctic 14,000 years ago increased sea levels by an average of 66 feet (20 meters) over 200 years, about 100 times faster than today. There is evidence that debris was coming off the Antarctic as a result of the melting of the ice sheet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0317_030317_iceshelf.html

The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml


And when this happened.....not one factory, plastic bottle, or pollutant in sight....so much for man being the main instigator of climate change for this planet.

I see you've taken my advice and have been busy googling. Quote away all you like - you have no understanding of the context of those articles, and it would take a few years of study to bring to you up to speed.

You still don't know what you said that demonstrated your ignorance do you?

What pisses me off isn't that you've got a contrary opinion, but that it's so obviously based on lack of knowledge. You don't even know how ignorant you are, and this gives you the arrogance to think you're able to judge the work of researchers in the field.

 

[ssstone]

I see you've taken my advice and have been busy googling. Quote away all you like - you have no understanding of the context of those articles, and it would take a few years of study to bring to you up to speed.

You still don't know what you said that demonstrated your ignorance do you?

What pisses me off isn't that you've got a contrary opinion, but that it's so obviously based on lack of knowledge. You don't even know how ignorant you are, and this gives you the arrogance to think you're able to judge the work of researchers in the field.

azza while your religous devotion is pretty obvious,can you share your thoughts on the tax put on plastic shopping bags,while no taxes are levied against the petro chemical manufactored bags that have seem to replaced them?more blindsided hyprocisey .

 

[Disco08]

Next you'll mention Al Gore.... :hihi

Nah, happy to leave him out of it. Can you tell me how the IPCC is left-wing though?

 

[Liverpool]

I see you've taken my advice and have been busy googling. Quote away all you like - you have no understanding of the context of those articles, and it would take a few years of study to bring to you up to speed.

Actually, they were from a previous post of mine on this same thread.
I haven't got time to go through all my previous posts to get you up to speed.

What pisses me off isn't that you've got a contrary opinion, but that it's so obviously based on lack of knowledge. You don't even know how ignorant you are, and this gives you the arrogance to think you're able to judge the work of researchers in the field.

I think it is quite arrogant of you to accuse me of a lack of knowledge...what made you "God's gift to everything about the climate"?
Oh that's right....your "experts"... :clap

I've given you my opinion and I'm sure I could easily find "experts' that agree with my line of thought, but again, your arrogance in the matter will dismiss them, because they do not conform to your far superior knowledge in this field.

 

[Azza]

azza while your religous devotion is pretty obvious,can you share your thoughts on the tax put on plastic shopping bags,while no taxes are levied against the petro chemical manufactored bags that have seem to replaced them?more blindsided hyprocisey .

I think you're confusing religion and science, mate. Stoneage New Guinea tribesmen did that when they encountered European science they couldn't understand. The religious movements they started are called cargo cults.

As to shopping bags, I have no idea about the tax situation. I imagine the idea is that people should pay more for disposable items. Have you got an issue with it?

 

[Azza]

I think it is quite arrogant of you to accuse me of a lack of knowledge...what made you "God's gift to everything about the climate"?
Oh that's right....your "experts"... :clap

I've given you my opinion and I'm sure I could easily find "experts' that agree with my line of thought, but again, your arrogance in the matter will dismiss them, because they do not conform to your far superior knowledge in this field.

Nope, I'll listen to scientists with contrary opinions and would be quite happy to modify my own. I have to admit my knowledge is somehwat out of date now, although the fundamentals haven't changed since I worked in the field.

As to your 'line of thought' - don't make me laugh.

 

[Liverpool]

Nope, I'll listen to scientists with contrary opinions and would be quite happy to modify my own. I have to admit my knowledge is somehwat out of date now, although the fundamentals haven't changed since I worked in the field.

Oh...those weren't scientists in these two links? ???


Studying sea level changes in corals and organic materials from Vietnam and Barbados, scientists concluded that an influx of freshwater from the Antarctic 14,000 years ago increased sea levels by an average of 66 feet (20 meters) over 200 years, about 100 times faster than today. There is evidence that debris was coming off the Antarctic as a result of the melting of the ice sheet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0317_030317_iceshelf.html

(Using super computers to simulate the melting of part of the Antarctic, scientists analyzed what effect the dumping of huge amounts of freshwater into the southern oceans would have on the climate in the rest of the world)



The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml

(Historical evidence shows that the climate of the world since the planet was formed more than 4,000 million years ago has fluctuated greatly)

 

[ssstone]

I think you're confusing religion and science, mate. Stoneage New Guinea tribesmen did that when they encountered European science they couldn't understand. The religious movements they started are called cargo cults.

As to shopping bags, I have no idea about the tax situation. I imagine the idea is that people should pay more for disposable items. Have you got an issue with it?

my point is we as a people have replaced shopping bags that breakdown in the natural elements,with carry alls that are made from petro chemicals and wont breakdown,but the serfs blindley think they are doin the right thing.................HYPROCRISEY.......... and thats my point....when you build a theroy in glass,some one will lob stones.

 

[Six Pack]

(Historical evidence shows that the climate of the world since the planet was formed more than 4,000 million years ago has fluctuated greatly)

foxy would argue that the earth was formed about 6000 years ago. Does that adjust yr thinking, Livers?

 

[Azza]

Oh...those weren't scientists in these two links? ???


Studying sea level changes in corals and organic materials from Vietnam and Barbados, scientists concluded that an influx of freshwater from the Antarctic 14,000 years ago increased sea levels by an average of 66 feet (20 meters) over 200 years, about 100 times faster than today. There is evidence that debris was coming off the Antarctic as a result of the melting of the ice sheet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0317_030317_iceshelf.html

(Using super computers to simulate the melting of part of the Antarctic, scientists analyzed what effect the dumping of huge amounts of freshwater into the southern oceans would have on the climate in the rest of the world)



The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml

(Historical evidence shows that the climate of the world since the planet was formed more than 4,000 million years ago has fluctuated greatly)

I've got news for you mate, National Geographic and BBC publications aren't recommended for quoting above high school. They'd certainly never be referred to in international publications by any researchers, no matter what their ideas are.

So what exactly is your point anyway? There are numerous similar studies, all of which are incorporated into the climate models that are used to predict climate change. If you think it's news to me that climate fluctuates in the absence of human activity you really do have no idea. I've found the evidence of climate change on the ground, dated it, and published it in far more notable journals than National Geographic.

If you think I'm arrogant, at least I know the limits to my knowledge. If it's arrogant to tell you that you don't know yours, well so be it.

 

[jb03]

Azza, in fairness to Livers you can't simply dismiss his sources if they disagree with your view. Sources that propose alternative views are often dismissed as crackpot (or similar) by the opposing party. Both sides are guilty of this, especially on this thread.

Having said that, I have not seen anyone from the pro global warming brigade discredit the "gut feel" theorem. ;D

 

[Liverpool]

foxy would argue that the earth was formed about 6000 years ago. Does that adjust yr thinking, Livers?

Why would that adjust my thinking?

Azza, in fairness to Livers you can't simply dismiss his sources if they disagree with your view. Sources that propose alternative views are often dismissed as crackpot (or similar) by the opposing party. Both sides are guilty of this, especially on this thread.

Exactly what i said earlier to Azza.
But even with concessions:

* I've agreed with you lot that the earth is warming.
* I've agreed that it is good if people get something out of recycling, saving water, planting trees...even if it just makes people feel better inside themselves.
* I've agreed even that man has had a (very) small role in the earth heating up.
* I've even said that people on BOTH sides have vested interests....that people from your side go on about we'll be living underwater in 30 years, etc....and people on the other side who completely dismiss that the cimate is changing at all. BOTH sides have vested interests, mostly due to money and financial backing from various groups.

....but because I won't bow and conform to Azza 100% of the way, then I'm "ignorant". :

I've got news for you mate, National Geographic and BBC publications aren't recommended for quoting above high school. They'd certainly never be referred to in international publications by any researchers, no matter what their ideas are.

Yeah.....I guess they are not 'experts' because their information doesn't conform to yours, eh?
The thing is, National Geographic and the BBC don't research it themselves, they get SCIENTISTS information and research and collate them into a feature.

So much for this rubbish line then:

I'll listen to scientists with contrary opinions and would be quite happy to modify my own.

 

[Six Pack]

Why would that adjust my thinking?

There's a fair difference between 6000 years and 4000 million years, that's all.

 

[Disco08]

Yeah.....I guess they are not 'experts' because their information doesn't conform to yours, eh?

The funny part is you quoted an article discussing the rise of water levels as polar ice sheets melted, an event that would decimate many current day populations - exactly what scientists are warning against today.

 

[Liverpool]

There's a fair difference between 6000 years and 4000 million years, that's all.

I have no idea why you are bringing Jayfox's views into this? ???

The funny part is you quoted an article discussing the rise of water levels as polar ice sheets melted, an event that would decimate many current day populations - exactly what scientists are warning against today.

Yep...exactly!
That is why I am staggered at the 'attacks' I have received because I haven't conformed to EVERY minute thing people like Azza have been preaching.
I gett he feeling its more about not what is in the body of my post, but just the fact that it was ME who posted it....