In your face evidence of climate change

[mattikake]

Some pics to have a look at. The best way of seeing climate change is with receeding glaciers and ice flows. There are some good pictures going back over 100 years, so you can clearly see the difference now.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glac...

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

Very interesting and exciting times. Either humans are going to get a much needed kick up the rse (that we are part of the eco-system, not free to do what we like... as some self-obsessed igorant versions of god or economic systems would have you believe) or we'll simply die out.

[Nuclearsquash]

oh dear.......

[scorp]

I don't think anyone here disputes that the climate is changing, it's the cause(s) that are in dispute.

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 22 July 10:49

[Eric Mc]

scorp said:

I don't think anyone here disputes the climate is changing, it's the cause(s) that are in dispute.

Exactly.

Glaciers and ice caps are only ever temporary artefacts.

[Monki]

the ice shelves have been melting since the ice age, it's nothing new.

[B.J.W]

mattikake said:

Some pics to have a look at. The best way of seeing climate change is with receeding glaciers and ice flows. There are some good pictures going back over 100 years, so you can clearly see the difference now.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glac...

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

Very interesting and exciting times. Either humans are going to get a much needed kick up the rse (that we are part of the eco-system, not free to do what we like... as some self-obsessed igorant versions of god or economic systems would have you believe) or we'll simply die out.

It is the very self obsessed ignorance that marks us out as the most parasitic species to have ever lived on this planet. I also think that we have delusions of grandeur in regard to our longetivity on Earth. Things will go on just fine long after we have left the building.

[chris watton]

mattikake said:

Some pics to have a look at. The best way of seeing climate change is with receeding glaciers and ice flows. There are some good pictures going back over 100 years, so you can clearly see the difference now.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glac...

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

Very interesting and exciting times. Either humans are going to get a much needed kick up the rse (that we are part of the eco-system, not free to do what we like... as some self-obsessed igorant versions of god or economic systems would have you believe) or we'll simply die out.

Then I suggest you get off your PC, sell your house/car and donate all of your profit towards any number of climate change profit making organisations, and head for the hills and live in a cave, set an example if that's really what you believe...

[mechsympathy]

mattikake said:

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

If, as they claim, sea levels around the UK have risen on average 10cm how can the level have risen on 25cm around Liverpool?

And I suppose they feel that river levels being higher recently has nothing to do with new building work. You know, on the flood plains

[esselte]

mattikake said:

Some pics to have a look at. The best way of seeing climate change is with receeding glaciers and ice flows. There are some good pictures going back over 100 years, so you can clearly see the difference now.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glac...

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

Very interesting and exciting times. Either humans are going to get a much needed kick up the rse (that we are part of the eco-system, not free to do what we like... as some self-obsessed igorant versions of god or economic systems would have you believe) or we'll simply die out.

Wow,going back a hundred years you say...Have you seen how much ice there was 15,000 years ago......

Do a search for glaciers that are growing....there's lots..

Edited by esselte on Tuesday 22 July 11:04

[Plotloss]

mechsympathy said:

mattikake said:

And some 'facts':

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-count...

If, as they claim, sea levels around the UK have risen on average 10cm how can the level have risen on 25cm around Liverpool?

Its all the stolen gear, pressing them down.

[plasticpig]

I suggest you go and drill a few ice cores from glaciers around the world. Then learn how to analyze them. You might come to the startling conclusion that the climate is cyclical and its all happened before.

[off_again]

scorp said:

I don't think anyone here disputes that the climate is changing, it's the cause(s) that are in dispute.

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 22 July 10:49

Yep.

There is plenty enough evidence to say that the climate is changing. Is it being 100% caused by man and the emission of CO2? Now that's where the debate is and I have to say that I am firmly on against the whole MMGW thing.

[mattikake]

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

[Diderot]

Wow, the climate is changing? Man, I didn't know that. This is typical unthinking, unreflected bks.

Do you not understand that this sort of comparison is utterly meaningless? It's ppl like you that have played right into the hands of the Green lobby and right slap bang into the tax grabbing hands of the government. Wake up man. Can't you see what's really happening?

[mat205125]

scorp said:

I don't think anyone here disputes that the climate is changing, it's the cause(s) that are in dispute.

Agreed.

Even accepting that the human produced CO2 in the atmosphere were to be significant factor in the global change of climate, I believe that the main thing that the UK population are concerned with is how this "fact" is being misused to beat revenue out of the population through taxes to compensate for a decade of poor economic policy making.

In the mean time, the primary historic consumer of energy and fossil fuels will not agree to make significant changes to policy or targets, and the 2 emerging industrial giants (with a combined population approaching 50% of the worlds human beings) cannot get enough of cheap and available energy sources to fuel their expansion.

Human CO2 emission is a small percentage of total emissions. The automobile emissions by humans is a relatively small percentage of that total emission. The proportion of that proportion on a global scale that is emitted by the UK is very very small, to the point of being almost insignificant. HOWEVER! Our governments balance sheet is fukced! They know we enjoy/need/depend on our cars. There are millions on the road. The government therefore has the cash cow that they need to milk .... climate change facts/fears/scaremongering gives them that excuse

[scorp]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

By simply breathing i'm contributing ever-so-slightly to global warming, that's a poor argument imho.

Please provide evidence/links-to-support-your-claim of this super sensitive atmospheric equilibrium..

[Eric Mc]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

Supposition rather than scientific fact.

Pollution is bad and not healthy for us or any other species on this planet. No sensible person would argue anything else.
The problem with the current obsession with the vociferous CO2 generated MMGW argument is that REAL problems of pollution and loss of natural habitat are beginning to get lost in this misguided crusade.

Whole government policies and tax strategies have now been linked to a myth.

[lunarscope]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

So, you accept that "the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resource : population for several billion years".
But you then claim that Man (a totally natural product of Earth) is an artifical addition that is somehow affecting the natural order of things.
Hmm, , I say "bks" to that.

[mmm-five]

mattikake said:

Given the amount of st we pump into the atmosphere and into the sea, you must surely take the stance that man has contributed to GW. Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Given that the Earth has been running off a natural self-balancing equilibrium of resourceopulation for several billion years, is it not possible that man's artificial hording, exploitation and wastage of such resources is going to upset this extreme delicate and sensitive equilibrium, even just a tad?

Yes, man contributes. But so do cattle, meteors, comets, volcanoes, algae, etc.

Man's contribution to the global 'bad emissions' output is something like 1%, so even if man & all their devices were wiped out tomorrow, there would still be global warming to the current trend.

I think we just need to make a huge pipeline and pump the 'bad stuff' out into space - maybe even to the sun While we're at it, we can send all our nuclear & domestic waste on the same trip - that should make the world a cleaner place.

[mechsympathy]

mattikake said:

Even if no evidence at all, and only taking in what you see, surely you cannot fail to reason that man at least contributes.

Contributes in what way? How can you be sure that man's contribution is accelerating the natural rate of change? How can you be sure that it's not slowing it?