The back-pedalling begins...

Andy3

Banned
Apparently the IPCC have decided that Global Warming has less connection with Mans activities than they previously said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

And from the ABD site:

"This is the start of a long-winded apology that will run and run. After Stern's recent departure from the scene of the clime, perhaps Mr Brown is also re-thinking the role being offered to Al Gore — so we might yet see a flood, of discredited alarmists.

With significant climate cooling widely expected from about 2012 (3) there's plenty of time for the climb-down to minimise the egg on politicians' faces. Before then, since man-made climate change is being officially reduced, we expect fuel duty and all King Canute mobility taxes to be officially reduced as well. After all, that was the reason for recent increases, wasn't it. Given the severe and politically unexpected backlash against Brown's recent dash for cash, which only the most gullible greens believe to be environmentally motivated, now would be a good time."

Also from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...to09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

"If we'd known in the 90's what we know now, Kyoto wouldn't have happened - we would have decided it was not necessary."
 

Bilbob

Well-known Member
Sorry, but having read that, I don't see anywhere it says we can stop trying to lessen the harm we are doing. It says (to me) that we are doing less harm than we thought we might have been doing) and therefore there is less need fo rurgent change.
Hardly think backpeddling will be occurring. It clearly says we ARE doing damage. It clearly says we ARE contributing to climate change.
And this is without taking into account the possibility that these scientists (on the second link) are likely ot be classed as CC doubters. I've no doubt that in short order, some more scientists will come along to contradisct what has been said here.

I agree that CC has been over hyped by some, but the reality is that it IS VERY REAL, and is happening, and to some degree, we are responsible. How on earth can it be considered sensible to not do anything about it at all? As I said in another thread, I'd rather look silly in 30-50 years time for having over reacted, than be living on a planet whose balance has irreversably titled.

Hopefully, hopefully, we can all sit back in 50 years and have a good laugh about how we all went climate change mad.

But what if we can't?
 

paul1967

Novice Member
There is now a catch 22 , the airlines are making global dimming as was proved at 9/11 when the planes were grounded. Global dimming stops sun light getting to earth ie slowing gobal warming. What do you do ?. Also we are going through the 10000yr hot cycle which the governemt do not want you to know as they need to tax us so they can waste the money.Oh yes and when I was at school in the 60s, we were told we should be in an ICE AGE now and the oil would run out, so what do they know.
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
It amazes me that so many people are jumping on the global warming skepticism bandwagon. It's like people want to destroy the planet. From the same article:

"Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent."

It's like denying smoking causes cancer.
 
It's like trying to cure AIDS with condoms.

Promiscuity = STD's and AIDS type viruses = Epidemics = Premature death.

I never understood why this doesn't make sense.
 

rbartlett

Active Member
It amazes me that so many people are jumping on the global warming skepticism bandwagon. It's like people want to destroy the planet. From the same article:

"Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent."

It's like denying smoking causes cancer.
It's interesting that you refer to it as a bandwaggon. There have been anti GW activists as long as there GW ones. if there was a bandwaggon in all this it's the one the politicians have jumped on.

it's actually not like smoking/cancer as there isn't -despite what the Guardian thinks- real hard solid evidence of a link. lots of pointers, maybes co-incidences even

I believe we should concentrate less money on GW and spend more on polution control, energy efficiency and waste recycling-which are NOT THE SAME !!

Cheers

Richard
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
I believe we should concentrate less money on GW and spend more on polution control, energy efficiency and waste recycling-which are NOT THE SAME !!
Sorry - you are going to have to expand on that a bit - because it sounds exactly the same to me.
 

rbartlett

Active Member
Sorry - you are going to have to expand on that a bit - because it sounds exactly the same to me.
One is fact which is effecting the planet now. The other is some mystical figure (which varies from 0.1 to 10 deg c depending upon who you want to believe)

One we can see the tangable results and the whole world will benefit. The other is some mystical figure (which varies from 0.1 to 10 deg c depending upon who you want to believe)

etc etc



Cheers

Richard
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
One we can see the tangable results and the whole world will benefit. The other is some mystical figure (which varies from 0.1 to 10 deg c depending upon who you want to believe)
I agree with your "less pollution" stance, but this is a genuine question - are you suggesting we should stop spending money researching GW? Is that what you object to?
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
Sorry - you are going to have to expand on that a bit - because it sounds exactly the same to me.
GW is about carbon dioxide emissions.

The other three items might contribute towards that, but they are not the same.
 

rbartlett

Active Member
I agree with your "less pollution" stance, but this is a genuine question - are you suggesting we should stop spending money researching GW? Is that what you object to?
In a 'look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves' kinda way

Cheers

Richard
 

hopey69

Standard Member
the whole GW issue is a complete myth until proved otherwise and at the moment their is no prove of GW or should i say their is no prove that man is causing it! it is another issue that the goverment can use to tax us with!!!
look at the bbc which is a public funded boardcaster utlitmately under the control of the goverment and known for the balanced view they give to debates but when this issue comes up they only produce one side of the arugment and not a balanced view(the arugment that suits their agender).....
 

A Legal Beagle

Novice Member
IMHO The global warming issue is another attempt to tax us to death as the political parties are alledgedly severly in debt.

GW from what i understand is a natural occuring event in the atomsphere

Take the Dinosaurs for example, it has been suggested that they were wiped out by enviromental change. i.e an increase in carbon dioxide levels in the air. Even the poles were 50 C warmer than today.

so were the dinosaurs polluting the air by driving cars, spraying aerosol cans and running power plants?:rolleyes:

So, as far as i can see we may well be taxed for a natural occuring event. hmmm sounds fair:thumbsdow

My 2p's worth anyway:)
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
as the political parties are alledgedly severly in debt.
Political parties are not funded by taxation, but by private donations. And the total debt they have is an incredibly miniscule amount, compared to the revenue the treasury raises through fuel taxation alone. But the treasury doesn't give one jot of money to political parties. It spends it on wars, and stuff.
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
GW from what i understand is a natural occuring event in the atomsphere
Unfortunately, in this case, it cannot be accounted for by natural atmospheric variability. That is why the scientists are so concerned. Slowly, governments are starting to pay attention, but there is tremendous resistance, because of the huge costs involved in doing something about it. And it will require changes people's lifestyles, which is never going to be popular with the masses.
 

Steve.J.Davies

Novice Member
Political parties are not funded by taxation, but by private donations. And the total debt they have is an incredibly miniscule amount, compared to the revenue the treasury raises through fuel taxation alone. But the treasury doesn't give one jot of money to political parties. It spends it on wars, and stuff.
The treasury did not pay Alistair Campbell's salary - the taxpayer did, as they still do for a lot of 'advisors' and other non-elected appointees.
 

hopey69

Standard Member
Political parties are not funded by taxation, but by private donations. And the total debt they have is an incredibly miniscule amount, compared to the revenue the treasury raises through fuel taxation alone. But the treasury doesn't give one jot of money to political parties. It spends it on wars, and stuff.
you are right political parties are not supposed to be funded by taxation, but to say wot the debt they have is miniscule is ridicoulous!

Since when is debt in excess of 20 million miniscule? if the debt was that miniscule then they wouldnt be accused of offering peerages for donations and both the main parties are accused of this both the left and the right.

As for saying the treasury makes the debt look miniscule with its income, that is complete rubbish, the treasury is not a business, it makes a loss every year and its a massive loss aswell...........
 

hopey69

Standard Member
I believe they were wiped out by the ice age, not by global warming.
so let me get this right, the planet was warm enough for creatures to inhabit it but then went cold and killed them all off, if this is not climate change i dont know what is! but then the planet warmed up again so creatures could inhabit again, what caused the planet to warm up to such an extent that all the ice melted and it was warm again, was it all the coal factories and cars they had in them days.......
 

njp

Novice Member
so let me get this right, the planet was warm enough for creatures to inhabit it but then went cold and killed them all off, if this is not climate change i dont know what is! but then the planet warmed up again so creatures could inhabit again, what caused the planet to warm up to such an extent that all the ice melted and it was warm again, was it all the coal factories and cars they had in them days.......
It might be an idea if you went away and actually learnt something about climatology before attempting to engage in a debate about it.

I suggest you start here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

When you've fully digested that, you might be in a position to understand why anthropogenic global warming is not just some absurd political conspiracy, but is based on our current best (but admittedly incomplete) knowledge of how the climate works.
 

hopey69

Standard Member
It might be an idea if you went away and actually learnt something about climatology before attempting to engage in a debate about it.

I suggest you start here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

When you've fully digested that, you might be in a position to understand why anthropogenic global warming is not just some absurd political conspiracy, but is based on our current best (but admittedly incomplete) knowledge of how the climate works.
most climatolests do not believe in the grobal warming theroy, i think i would rather believe professer stott who is one of the worlds most celebrated climtolests and has been studing this field of science for years.
do you not find it abit strange that most climatolests do not believe in the global warming issue but their voice is never heard.
the main advisor to the government on this issue isnt even a climatolest and has no experence in that field of science so how is he in a position of advising the government on it.
anyway lets say all the ice melts on the earth it dosnt make a great deal of difference as the mass of ice is more then the mass of water so if anything the sea will go outwards and there will be places that are inhabitable which are not now and the same will work the other way, places that are inhabitable now wont be in years to come.
people can not get away from the fact the this planet has always warmed up and cooled down and will continue to do so, so we would be better of putting are resouces into working out how to get through it rather then having gordan brown tax us to death so he can claw some of the money back that he stole from the pensions.
and i would also like to know how it helps GW by me putting my tins in one bin and my paper in another bin, especially as when they com and collect it, it all gets put on the same truck.
totally PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

cabstar

Active Member
and i would also like to know how it helps GW by me putting my tins in one bin and my paper in another bin, especially as when they com and collect it, it all gets put on the same truck.
totally PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only is this the same truck, but it is an extra truck to the usual dustbin truck, creating more carbon from being manufactured, running it, repairing it etc.... multiply this by all the towns in the country:eek: I despair I really do....... the carbon footprint for all these extra recycling trucks must be collosal:oops:
 

njp

Novice Member
most climatolests do not believe in the grobal warming theroy
Except that they do, of course...

i think i would rather believe professer stott who is one of the worlds most celebrated climtolests and has been studing this field of science for years.
It would be helpful if you explained exactly to which celebrated Professor Stott you are alluding. There's a Peter Stott at the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, but he accepts the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, so it can't be him. I suspect you mean Philip Stott, who of course isn't a climatologist but a professor of biogeography, but we'll let that pass.

I'm guessing you don't actually know very much about science in general, let alone climatology (have you read that link I gave you yet?). If you did, you would know that there are always dissenters in every area of science. I can find you physicists who think Einstein was wrong, and biologists who think Darwin was wrong, for example. Actually dissenters are very important, because it's how scientific revolutions (so-called "paradigm shifts") get started. But most of the time the dissenters are wrong, and the mainstream is right. And where we are right now is that the mainstream position, amongst the people who study the subject, is that climate change is being forced at an alarming rate by CO2 emissions resulting from human activity on the planet.

I'm not exactly sure what Philips Stott's point is. He seems to think that believers in "global warming" (as a shorthand for "rapidly forced anthropogenic global warming") also believe in long-term climate stability. That's a straw-man argument, and seems to me almost entirely without merit.

do you not find it abit strange that most climatolests do not believe in the global warming issue but their voice is never heard.
I find it wholly remarkable. These silent men of climatology appear neither to hold University posts nor to publish any papers! I expect it's all part of the great global warming conspiracy.


anyway lets say all the ice melts on the earth it dosnt make a great deal of difference as the mass of ice is more then the mass of water so if anything the sea will go outwards and there will be places that are inhabitable which are not now and the same will work the other way, places that are inhabitable now wont be in years to come.
people can not get away from the fact the this planet has always warmed up and cooled down and will continue to do so
Well, I'm pleased you have come up with a theory which you are happy with. All that scientific effort expended over so many years was such a waste of time, wasn't it? Perhaps the government should just appoint you as an advisor and have done with it.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: CES 2021 Special - Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsung, TCL and Hisense TV news and more...

Latest News

Sky seals Studiocanal movie deal
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
iFi Audio launches iDSD Diablo DAC/Headphone amp
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung launches Galaxy Buds Pro
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung launches Galaxy S21, S21+ and S21 Ultra smart phones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Mola Mola debuts Kula integrated amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom