My views on "Climate Change"

J_C_X

Active Member
Climate Change in my eyes is inevitable but humans have little do with it and can do nothing to stop it. This whole enviroment thing is way out of control no matter what we do climate change will happen it's the natural order of this world. Melting ice caps on the news only ever seem to appear during to the summer/spring months Antartic investigation on ITV last winter was absolute joke it's summer there ice melts in the summer thats what it does. funny how they move to the Artic in spring/summer months in the nothern hemisphere when reporting climate change, is'nt it.

This is spiraling out of control, in my mind it's a way to take attention away from the Iraq war, the Dafur crisis and all what's wrong with the world. These are the issues which are important. Not some exasgerated threat this is really happening.

The sad fact is this will be seen like Global Cooling a disproven theory and it will be to late to get the money we pumped into it back which has been wasted on imaginary catastrophe and not the fight against AIDS, poverty and genocide which in my mind are the greatest threats to mankind.
 
N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
Climate Change in my eyes is inevitable but humans have little do with it and can do nothing to stop it. This whole enviroment thing is way out of control no matter what we do climate change will happen it's the natural order of this world. Melting ice caps on the news only ever seem to appear during to the summer/spring months Antartic investigation on ITV last winter was absolute joke it's summer there ice melts in the summer thats what it does. funny how they move to the Artic in spring/summer months in the nothern hemisphere when reporting climate change, is'nt it.

Totally agree but dont get say to much about it otherwise you will be called a troll. On all accounts this forum is for people who believe in climate change only, and others who dont are not meant to post here.
 

pantages

Member
Be assured, you are in the majority!
 
This Climate Change carry on has actually became an industry.

I'm not sure, but it strikes me that views such as yours are no longer welcome on this forum :(
 

njp

Well-known Member
I'm not sure, but it strikes me that views such as yours are no longer welcome on this forum :(

The problem is that his views are just another unsubstantiated piece of blind faith:

Climate Change in my eyes is inevitable but humans have little do with it and can do nothing to stop it.

That's not what the science is saying. It's as simple as that.
 

Steve.J.Davies

Well-known Member
That's not what the science is saying. It's as simple as that.

There is no way you can say that with any justification whatsoever.
Some scientists say it - not all these scientists are climate scientists.
There are significant numbers that say it is not true - and that includes climate scientists. You may not like it but that is the reality.
Foil 40 in
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/DCMeetingNov16.pdf
shows this well. This pdf is well worth a read for anyone interested in this bru-ha-ha.
I suggest reading the pdf as it is extremely informative but for those that don't want to I have pasted at end of this post

There exists no explanation of man made global warming from first principles.
Until that is done and is accepted as valid is not even a science, it is just a hypothesis.

------------------------------
paste from pdf------------

Most scientists are not climatologists. Most work in other fields and may be observing first-hand the effects of climate change natural and hand the effects of climate change natural and man-made and many believe global warming is real (though 17,200 of them signed petition urging US not to sign Kyoto)
Modelers at major centers (NCAR, NASA) and big universities that
receive major global warming grants profess their believe in
greenhouse warming as do all environmental groups
Many other climatologists/meteorologists not tied to the money
flow that work closely with the data see of local
factors such as urbanization and see changes that are cyclical and natural
 

njp

Well-known Member
Steve, I started to read that the last time you posted it (I really do follow all your links!), and got the sinking feeling I get when I see all the usual names and all the usual arguments cropping up once again. It's not science. It's a powerpoint presentation. I know that's not an adequate refutation of the contents, but I don't have the enthusiasm right now to do any better.

I know you think consensus is actually a bad thing, but it's worth noting that the only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and even they are now preparing to revise their position because it is at odds with the beliefs of many of their members, as this statement from their president (March 2007) reveals:

During my tenure as president I have received correspondence from members on various topics -- but the two largest volume topics have been the proposed “graduated dues” structure and AAPG's current position on global climate change.

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships if the graduated dues system is passed, or if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change (although not the same members). And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.
 

Steve.J.Davies

Well-known Member
there are just too many scientific dissenters.....lots and lots who don't come from from the oil industry groups...and far too many well documented holes in the IPCC et al.
If you want a 'scientific organisation' that is anti and not paid for by oil just look at the IARC for one. I have linked to them already several times.
It is just a hypothesis...and the costs are astronomical. The cost of Stern is enough the house and supply freshwater to ALL those that don't have it.

As I said at the outset case not proved in fact or law.....

the bandwagon is the biggest threat IMV

edit addition.
Forgot to mention, if you go through the pdf you will see the references to the authors, papers etc
 

J_C_X

Active Member
I just think there is far more important issues in the world, than climate change.

I don't deny climate change I just don't think it's worth panicing about.

Lets focus on Dafur, Iraq and AIDS before climate change which in my view is a natural occurance.
 

Steve.J.Davies

Well-known Member
Absolutely. We just gotta persuade HMG. Sad fact is that unless they can raise taxes on the back and/or use it for further entrenchment then ain't gonna happen. Unless we tel them so at the polls...
 

hermanmunster

Active Member
The problem is that his views are just another unsubstantiated piece of blind faith:



That's not what the science is saying. It's as simple as that.

NJP even if you are right....and you certainly believe you are; how the hell can you or anyone else get the whole of mankind to move in the direction you want? I'd give it up as a lost cause now so that if it does come to pass you can sagely nod in your ivory tower and tell us all....I told you so.:D If it doesn't then no-one will remember anyway. You can't lose, and you wouldn't have to put up with our 'stupid' behaviour; sorry couldn't resist:)
 

blearyeyes

Active Member
Absolutely. We just gotta persuade HMG. Sad fact is that unless they can raise taxes on the back and/or use it for further entrenchment then ain't gonna happen. Unless we tel them so at the polls...


But all the parties are on the GW bandwagon, trying to 'outgreen' each other!! There's no sane party that promises not to tax us on this non-existant problem nor spend money trying to "tackle" it. Sad state of affairs.
:mad:
 
That's because denying the reality of the problem is not a sane policy position. Sane parties understand this.

In the grand scheme of things NJP, what, in your estimation, would be the effect upon climate change if the UK were to cease all CO2 emissions tomorrow?

Kind regards,

Damo
 

njp

Well-known Member
In the grand scheme of things NJP, what, in your estimation, would be the effect upon climate change if the UK were to cease all CO2 emissions tomorrow?
I assume there is an implied "and the rest of the world continued to increase their emissions" at the end of your question.

You already know the answer. That grand and impossible gesture would not solve the problem, which would continue to get worse.
 
I assume there is an implied "and the rest of the world continued to increase their emissions" at the end of your question.

You already know the answer. That grand and impossible gesture would not solve the problem, which would continue to get worse.

Thanks NJP.

I read an article in the Telgraph that claimed that if all road usage ceased in the UK tomorrow then Chinas increase in C02 output would negate our efforts in less than sixty days.
The same article also claimed that if UK PLC were to cease all C02 output tomorrow, the Chinas increase in C02 output would negate our heroic efforts in only two years.
I don't think the article was peer reviewed though ;)

What are your thoughts on this NJP?

Kind regards,

Damo
 

hermanmunster

Active Member
I think it illustrates that global problems can only be solved globally.

Which leads us neatly back to......why the hell are we bothering? There will NEVER be enough interest in pushing this giant boulder to the top of the mountain.
The UK can tie itself in knots, tax its subjects until they go green at the gills, and what would we achieve globally...nothing. Just some self serving pious notion that we are doing the right thing. (well those who believe anyway)

Whichever side of this argument you sit it's patently obvious that what will be will be. The debate is pointless.
 

njp

Well-known Member
Which leads us neatly back to......why the hell are we bothering? There will NEVER be enough interest in pushing this giant boulder to the top of the mountain.
That's your opinion. Global treaties can work, as they did in the case of CFCs, for example. They are unlikely to work if significant contributors to the problem stick their heels in and refuse to do anything to help solve it - the United States very amusing "intensity based" CO2 reduction plans being a case in point.
 
That's your opinion. Global treaties can work, as they did in the case of CFCs, for example. They are unlikely to work if significant contributors to the problem stick their heels in and refuse to do anything to help solve it - the United States very amusing "intensity based" CO2 reduction plans being a case in point.

I think reducing CO2 output is in a different ball park to the CFC problem. Everything that makes our standard of living a high one is that we have easy access to energy, should we wish.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
The point of the UK reducing CO2 emmissions ? Set an example that others might just follow. The CFC problem shows that treaties can work when there is sufficent will power amongst the political elite of the world to make a treaty work. It's all too easy to say "Why bother, nobody else will", small changes can often lead to bigger ones. I might be foolishly over optimisitic about this, but i'd rather be foolish than overtly apathetic to a problem that can be addressed (even if CO2 has nothing to do with Climate change, cutting emmissions of CO2 will at least make the air cleaner).
As for easy access to energy ? It will get a lot harder to produce energy in the long term if we stay with fossil fuels. They will run out eventually.

The solution has to be a mix of nuclear energy and new technologies that produce clean energy. The environment groups tend to get rabid when the word "nuclear" is mentioned. Though i think it would be foolish to rule the technology out. The ITER reactor might yet prove to be a success then again it could be a very expensive white elephant in the south of France.
There is an economic advantage in developing clean sources of energy in the longer term. Basically as fossil fuels run out, we can sell the technology we develop now to those countries that haven't developed the means to produce energy via other means.
 

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
Why, as individuals, don't we adopt the position that reducing consumption saves money?
Low energy lightbulbs-save money
Smaller car-saves money
Dual flush system in the loo-saves money
Central heating down 1 degree-saves money.
Insulate your home-saves money

Every time the government put up tax on fuel, use less. You save money and the government takes less tax. (Walk occassionally, buy a bike, plan the shopping better so its once a week rather than every day etc etc)

And remember, achieving government objectives through judicious use of the tax and duty levy has worked before. Smoking was hugely popular, but now is being slowly taxed out of existence, so they surely believe they can break our addiction to conspicuous consumption through taxation too.

So the government are using CC as a method to increase tax. Big deal. HMG will raise as much tax as they feel necessary and one way or another evrybody pays. If it wasn't CC it would be a health levy or an education levy or a pension levy or a pollution levy, but they will have their tax and you will pay it.
 

blearyeyes

Active Member
That's because denying the reality of the problem is not a sane policy position. Sane parties understand this.
njp you are definately in denial. Climate chaos is absolute crap and if you have any real intelligence you would admit this. All your 'intellectual' parrying cuts no real ice. I only hope you live long enough to see this huge bubble burst and the great and the good held up to ridicule for their gullibility.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Samsung QN95B 4K QLED TV Review
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Disney+ confirms prices increases coming in December
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Samsung unveils Galaxy Z Flip 4 and Fold 4 smartphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast: 8th August 2022
  • By Casimir Harlow
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 8th August 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Warner Bros Discovery set to combine Discovery+ and HBO Max
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom