Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
The UN-sponsored panel's report is a comprehensive analysis for policymakers, written and reviewed by some 900 scientists who looked at more than 9,000 studies on climate change.
In a message to the conference in Stockholm, Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the UN, said: "Since 1990 the IPCC has provided regular, unbiased assessment of the mounting impact of a warming planet.
"You are the world's authorities on climate change, recognised with a Nobel Peace Prize."
He added that "we need to build resilience and seize the opportunities of a low-carbon future".
"The heat is on. Now we must act," he said.
Over to you PhilipP
http://news.sky.com/story/1146972/global-warming-95-percent-certain-say-scientists"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
15 years ago it was a certainty. Oops, no warming since then and with refinement of computer models it's now just 95% certainty.
Going down!
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Nah, whatever has been said on the issue has been said time and time again. The IPCC is not a scientific institution but a political one. Anyone with any semblance of critical thinking will have examined the evidence and have made up their minds by now.
If they are unable, but mostly unwilling, to see the bleedin' obvious then nobody least of all me are going to help them see sense.
It's just a circular argument now bereft of any logical or well argued points by the warmists who merely do their usual tricks which consist of calling more sensible folk flat earthers, denialists or fascists.
A pointless debate - you only have to see other threads on this topic where empirical evidence has been put forward and still they stick to their own blinkered position.
A now pointless debate. It's too late to change the mindset now that the IPCC have contrived to lie to us all on the world stage and our leaders lap it all up so that those who have fallen under the climate change spell just roll their eyes as if one was mad to question the received wisdom and smugly believe the lies that trickle down and seep into their minds.
Still, there is hope.
Once the lights start to flicker and once energy bills soar over the next few years, once what remains of our heavy industry flee abroad and once folk see how they've been suckered things might start to change.
Until then it's a pointless debate.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I am quite prepared to believe the planet is getting warmer but the scientist have yet to convince me this is not a natural event rather than man made.
I am a firm believer in recycling purely to save the earth's resources and keep our landfill rubbish down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Jan, prevention is better than cure! Whatever the reason for climate change all the little things we make a concious decision to do on a personal level can only be for the good.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
there is little we in western europe can do if climate change is man made, all the emissions come from afar.
improving our environment is a very important thing, jan mentions one with recycling, encouraging less car use is another but with sky high rail and bus fares it would be daft for a family of four to ditch their car, the figures don't add up. discouraging out of town shopping centres would help with cutting down car use but the horse has already bolted on that one.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Move to high ground. Swap your central heating system for air con. Plant pineapples on your allotment.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Thank you for joining my Fan Club Keith, there are two of us now!
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
singing agadoo now peter.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Better still, buy a yacht.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Lesley and Keith, I make contributions of my own for along time to save fuel.
One: I don't put me heating on even in Winter, as I don't need to. even though it is included in the rent. I put a jumper on.
Two: I've known much colder climates than coastal Kent.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Alexander & Ray.
Who is right and who is wrong?
If you are right and they are screwing us over, what can be done to stop it?
If they are right and you are wrong, we need not worry about how much it is costing us financially?
What's so wrong with recycling, stopping the chopping down of our forests, trying to stop killing millions of animal's for vanity & aphrodisiac reasons?
Surely these are things we should be doing anyway, without the threat of global warming?
I am not a signed up member of GW but I think we would be very foolish to think we are not damaging our planet in some way or another, that would be sheer arrogance.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i don't think anyone will disagree with what you say gary, but we don't know that any of those contribute to gobal warming.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
Gary,
As Jan says above, there are many ways we should be conserving resources as they are finite. But the situation is so complex and in many areas shrouded in secrecy that we'll probably never reach an agreement on what is the right way to proceed. I think as long as the global warming debate is linked to carbon taxation there will never be a truly open debate on the facts.
If you look at the worldwide situation dispassionately the only solution is population control, but that brings its own immediate practical problem of a growing older population being looked after by a diminishing younger one before you even start to consider the wider economic and moral considerations.
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
Ray has made a valid point, it is all due to population expansion which is getting to danger levels on many aspects, and the problems it brings.
There are more people alive today than have EVER LIVED. That is difficult to envisage.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Ray.
I agree with what you say but my point is that recycling etc should not be linked to GW at all.
We should be doing these things because it makes sense to do them.
I totally agree with you that we are being screwed in the name of GW but nothing new there though is there?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Yes, we each doing what we can has to be a worthwhile way to go. In line with the old saw;First, do no harm.
The 'big shame' about all of this is the skewed Politicking. That is, the top priority "First do no harm" has been applied to ensuring continued profiteering, with the least possible 'spend'. [Carbon trading?]
Instead of acting to effect the changes necessary from the word 'go', and then adjusting commercial interests to create a new green-energy business. Politics has been driven along the path of 'first grow the expectation of increased consumer cost', with the airy-fairy promise that the increased income and profit will at some later stage be used to foster a greener-energy business.
This is why, in the Global Market scheme of things, our domestic green related industries have been allowed to falter, and in the case of at least one wind-farm blade manufacturer, be allowed to fail.
To my mind this is because it was 'thought' that the time was not yet ripe, for we (the domestic consumer) still had some little way to go in having our reliance on, and trust in, the wisdom of this Politicking fixed in our minds.
'Much' we are told is being done to reduce energy usage, by energy suppliers and Government;cheap insulation, free e-efficient light bulbs etc. and yet we each pay a levy (not a tax, as made clear by a minister on Newsnight the other evening).
Industry and Government are thus said to be doing much/as much as they can:Although all that is happening is that we are becoming immured to the idea that we must pay more and more.
Result?
Energy costs become an ever higher proportion of income:we borrow more:the National Debt increases:we as a Nation become more and more reliant on loans and inward investment.
And yet, in overview, we are to be helped-out in this way by being paid in our own coin.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Population concerns are vapid, empty and wrong-headed. That there are more people alive today than have 'ever lived' is meaningless. Who is to set the optimum level?
We spend too much time and effort on 'symptoms' and little or none on any possible cure.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
