CO2 will decimate humankind, a clever bloke says so!
Discussion
k! Who do we pay tax to in order to stop this evil empire of CO2? 
Trouble is, when I was in Junior School in the mid 80's, they were telling us that in 25 years time we would almost be out of fossil fuels (especially oil) and that the sea levels would have increased to possibly devastating levels. Not only that they were bleating on about cavity wall insulation , loft insulation and solar panels.
Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
neilr said:
Trouble is, when I was in Junior School in the mid 80's, they were telling us that in 25 years time we would almost be out of fossil fuels (especially oil) and that the sea levels would have increased to possibly devastating levels. Not only that they were bleating on about cavity wall insulation , loft insulation and solar panels.
Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
Hmmm when I was at school in the late 70s it was a mini ice age, sorry but just because someone in a position of responsiblity says something doesent mean its true... it's just like your mother telling you "If you pick your nose your head ill cave in"...Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
Shay HTFC said:
Have you considered the option that he isn't just toeing the line, but actually believes what he says?
I doubt it. People of intelligence don't believe this bull**t. It is simply to flawed at the basics, let alone when the behaviour of the proponents is taken into account.Was pretty sad to hear this yesterday, it's normally a good program.
Unfortunately they all (either deliberately or through ignorance) completely misrepresented the sceptic's arguement. That is, it's the methods and evidence provided by the climate scientists which is being questioned. The position is not one of facts accepted by both sides, but drawing differing conclusions from them.
But they spent the whole half hour missing the point. Ironic, given the program's supposed focus.
Unfortunately they all (either deliberately or through ignorance) completely misrepresented the sceptic's arguement. That is, it's the methods and evidence provided by the climate scientists which is being questioned. The position is not one of facts accepted by both sides, but drawing differing conclusions from them.
But they spent the whole half hour missing the point. Ironic, given the program's supposed focus.
Shay HTFC said:
These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
That's an interesting point. Have you considered however that energy policy in this country is leading to actual, real life fuel poverty for many? I would suggest there is a better chance of people in the UK dying through an inability to afford heating than people in Vanuatu dying because of rising sea levels.In addition, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, scientists have been crying wolf for an awfully long time now, I can remember an ice age being predicted, the end (by now) of fossil fuels, the Millennium Bug (admittedly OT). These things never happen. Ever.
mattviatura said:
That's an interesting point. Have you considered however that energy policy in this country is leading to actual, real life fuel poverty for many? I would suggest there is a better chance of people in the UK dying through an inability to afford heating than people in Vanuatu dying because of rising sea levels.
And the numbers will be signficantly higher too, i.e. 20,000 people + dying because of cold weather and fuel poverty.mattviatura said:
Shay HTFC said:
These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
That's an interesting point. Have you considered however that energy policy in this country is leading to actual, real life fuel poverty for many? I would suggest there is a better chance of people in the UK dying through an inability to afford heating than people in Vanuatu dying because of rising sea levels.In addition, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, scientists have been crying wolf for an awfully long time now, I can remember an ice age being predicted, the end (by now) of fossil fuels, the Millennium Bug (admittedly OT). These things never happen. Ever.
In Climategate 1 (Climate Cat thread) and 2, plus the science and politics climate threads over the last few days, we've seen comments from these 'scientists' that there is no meaningful number to pin on climate sensitivity, that if massively costly emission stabilisation policies are implemented through to the year 2200 there is no visible difference in what the climate models say compared to the no-policy scenario, that carbon dioxide is taking a holiday for the next 30 to 90 years (because the climate is cooling and they can't explain it), that it was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago, that all forms of geoengineering such as CCS and windymills are pointless, and most amusingly of all the comment that - because they can't explain what's going on, which is obvious - if it turns out that recent natural climate change is in fact natural :-) "they'll kill us probably".
mattviatura said:
In addition, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, scientists have been crying wolf for an awfully long time now, I can remember an ice age being predicted, the end (by now) of fossil fuels, the Millennium Bug (admittedly OT). These things never happen. Ever.
Scientists or the media?Do i belive in manmade global warming = Yes
Do i belive in we are all going to die a week next tuesday in a giant firey snowball if i don't immidately give up all my worldly goods and live in a mud hut as depicted in the media = No
thinfourth2 said:
Do i belive in manmade global warming = Yes
Bearing in mind the usual meaning of 'manmade global warming'...I still have no idea why anybody would believe in something for which there is no direct observational evidence in the data. The IPCC acknowledged this long ago and say they have no idea when manmadeup warming will appear.
There is no visible causal human signal in global climate data unambiguously linked to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. So those who believe in manmadeup warming believe in something that cannot be seen or examined or invesigated or analysed as there is no signal to examine or investigate.
There's a <possibility> that fairies with a death ray will appear at the bottom of everybody's garden. Should we spend $trillions on mitigating the risk on the basis of a possibility?
Neither fairies nor manmadeup warming have been seen as yet, but greater numbers of intelligent educated people are prepared to believe in Gore's gospel compared to fairies. Clearly one <possibility> by way of explanation lies in the level of science education needed to make up your own mind - though it's not that much - and there has been a lot of propaganda in the last 20 years.
Before that, there was a short-lived scare in the 70s that we were entering the overdue ice age, but as temperatures warmed up again it morphed into global warming.
What makes this nonsense so compelling is a mystery, perhaps in the vacuum caused by religion's retreat and the dismissal of original sin some of us have to feel guilty about something so this will do.
Neither fairies nor manmadeup warming have been seen as yet, but greater numbers of intelligent educated people are prepared to believe in Gore's gospel compared to fairies. Clearly one <possibility> by way of explanation lies in the level of science education needed to make up your own mind - though it's not that much - and there has been a lot of propaganda in the last 20 years.
Before that, there was a short-lived scare in the 70s that we were entering the overdue ice age, but as temperatures warmed up again it morphed into global warming.
What makes this nonsense so compelling is a mystery, perhaps in the vacuum caused by religion's retreat and the dismissal of original sin some of us have to feel guilty about something so this will do.
thinfourth2 said:
mattviatura said:
In addition, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, scientists have been crying wolf for an awfully long time now, I can remember an ice age being predicted, the end (by now) of fossil fuels, the Millennium Bug (admittedly OT). These things never happen. Ever.
Scientists or the media?Do i belive in manmade global warming = Yes
Do i belive in we are all going to die a week next tuesday in a giant firey snowball if i don't immidately give up all my worldly goods and live in a mud hut as depicted in the media = No
Take this thread for example.
Lost_BMW said:
Paraphrasing but pretty close to:
"all the data and the computer models show that if we put this amount of co2 in the atmosphere there's a possibility we'll have a temperature rise of 4 or 5 degrees and decimate civilisation...
claims the media scientist Lord God Brian Cox, on "The Infinite Monkey Cage".
Lost BMW has chosen to highlight the word "decimate", but the real word of importance is "possibility". There is a possibility that it will decimate civilisation. There is a possibility that it will rise 5 degrees. There is also a possibility that it will do neither, or rise in temp so slowly long term that no decimation takes place at all. Who knows? I bet if you asked PBC (OBE) he would quite happily admit that he can't predict the future, but will stand by any of the science that lies behind this prediction."all the data and the computer models show that if we put this amount of co2 in the atmosphere there's a possibility we'll have a temperature rise of 4 or 5 degrees and decimate civilisation...
claims the media scientist Lord God Brian Cox, on "The Infinite Monkey Cage".
Lost BMW has chosen his words carefully to create the usual hysteria on this topic. It's a sure fire hit, like sticking a picture of princess Diana on the front of the Daily Express, you always get the desired reaction from the audience.
The usual crowds at PHs smugly chortling "look at these fools now!" when actually the joke is on them for being hooked by the same old bait once again.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Shay HTFC said:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I have no problems with him believing in MMGW. I'm still on the fence myself, which I know is a bit out of kilter around these parts 
I'm on the fencen too, it's a difficult decision to make when looking at evidence... The thing about this climate stuff though is the cult like behaviour of the believers and the way some of the scientists seem to be co nducting science in a rather underhand manner. It just doesn't sit right the way they appear to have gone about things.They could well be bang on the nose, but I don't think the science is 100 settled like they claim. More understanding is required.
Cox being a Dr of science is surely in a better position than most of us to make calls on the available evidence, so maybe he has convinced himself, rightly, about what is going on. Different from a believer...that implies almost blind faith. But from what I've seen lately I would of thought he'd be a bit more critical of the whole thing.
He needs to concentrate on physics and space. He is brilliant at explaining that on the tv.
The man saying the words isn't important, what he is saying is. You need to forget what he is saying and look into the facts of it and decide for yourself whether he is using sound scientific principles or whether he is pulling your chain!
This is where Turbobloke et al have lead us, they have shown us shabby science after falsified result all in the cause of controlling the population. When AR5 comes out (IPCC paper) the case for man made global climate change will be even weaker yet we will still be controlled by taxes and regulation dreamed up off of the back of it!
Mr Gear said:
The usual crowds at PHs smugly chortling "look at these fools now!" when actually the joke is on them for being hooked by the same old bait once again.
The joke has to be on anybody who's seen something that's invisible such as an invisible signal.Have you seen the causal human signal in global climate data?
If so, where?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff