7 December 2009
00:3434507#1
For the longest time I have NEVER believed that global warming is human-caused. For the longest time it has been a lonely opinion to hold, resulting in my views being without any credibility and never taken seriously in any conversations about the matter. It just never made any sense to me, that human activity can affect the entire environment on a whole planet. To me, the whole concept is nothing more than postmodern pseudo-religious doomsday claptrap perpetrated by a fringe of loony leftwing hippy activists that only became mainstream once politicians realised the issue was profitable (ie taxable). There never seemed to be any sound science behind the claims, and the ideas had to be accepted on face value alone.
But, at long last, people are starting to question it. Even on the highest levels, the idea of humans causing global warming is being questioned following the exposure of what amounts to a propaganda campaign by top advisers to influence public opinion. Serious news articles are now appearing on the matter. All those scientists who were effectively silenced up until now are coming forward with their more realistic, and more sensible theories.
I'm a strong believer that the "carbon footprint" theory is complete myth, and humans deposit far less CO2 into the atmosphere than nature does. We've got so-called carbon credits to look forward to, which looks to me like just another revenue-generating rip-off.
I'm in no doubt that the globe is on one of its natural shifts in temperature, an event that happens with or without us, but the idea that WE cause it is a monument to the human ego (the very idea that we could do such a thing is just blatantly arrogant) and has given rise to one of the greatest swindles in history. Hitler is famous for saying that the broad mass of people will easily fall for a big lie rather than a small one.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
7 December 2009
00:5634508#2
I'm with Rick on this. Global warming (and cooling) is primarily cyclical though there are a half dozen different influences on different time scales, some stretching over thousands of years. The science behind the phenomena seems sound enough, and sensibile enough, to me. I can also see that man's activities may be having a small effect on some of the clyclical influences but I cannot for the life of me see how man could be influencing such things as sun spot activity or the cyclical movements of the sun, moon and other planets.
What seems to be missing from the debate is the appreciation that these cyclical events happen over vast time periods of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years and not just within the lifetime of any particular parliament!
Climate change is real and natural and the human race will have to adapt; apparently we're good at that.
This artice
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/climate_change/Older/Climate_Change_Introduction.html seems to offer a sensible overview of climate change.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
7 December 2009
07:5334509#3
Clearly there are many factors involved in climate change - the planet has seen many developments and evolutions to reach this point. But it would be at best naive to think that the things we do as a species have no effect on the environment. As a species we have altered countless natural phenomenon - sometimes just because we can, and sometimes because we think it will improve stuff. As a species we have rarely thought through the consequences properly. Well, now we are facing some of those consequences and it is a challenge to accept some responsibility for them - much easier to continue to believe that it would all have happened anyway and do nothing.
Yes, climate changes happen cyclically, and yes, the planet is evolving and re-balances itself. But that does not absolve us of all the brutal damage we have inflicted on the only planet we have on which to live. It still amazes me that we still roll over and accept that some people have plenty of water/warmth/a roof over their head/food and some have none, despite the planet up until recently being abundant in resources that could ensure everyone had sufficient.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
7 December 2009
08:3334511#4
I read that there have been 8 climate changes, where the Earth warms up and then cools down and we're currently in a warming-up one.
I don't think anyone denies that global warming is happening, but how much we can influence change - have influenced this warming, is the argument.
I know that millions of acres of trees in the vast rain-forests have been chopped down and these will have had an effect as trees breathe in carbon-monoxide and breathe out oxygen, so that won't help.
Fossilised fuels (oil/coal etc.) create gaps in the ozone-layer, we know that too, but we have only been using these in large quantities, for a couple of hundred years.
This is the first climate change (cooling or warming) where man has been able to measure it, to know about it even and we are (wrongly in my view) blaming it all on ourselves.
I certainly think that our Government, even many Governments, are using this as a tax to create income for themselves (as Governments, not individuals). I also believe that carrots work better than sticks for encouragement to do something.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 December 2009
08:4034512#5
What is questionable is just how much we really can influence it downwards through political policy without reducing the human population of the world.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
7 December 2009
11:5934516#6
I firmly believe that the climate of this planet is cyclical, however that belief is being used by many as a justification to carry on polluting. There is absolutely nothing wrong in trying to clean up after ourselves in the same way as we clean up after our dogs.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 December 2009
12:1734517#7
I quite agree Andy, but it must be done in a rational way and must not be driven by the irrational environmental extremism we are seeing from many quarters.
7 December 2009
12:5934518#8
No one has all the facts. Lot's of people have the wrong facts. Measurements going back thousands of years are being interpreted to give results that governements want us to hear.
"I don't think anyone denies that global warming is happening,"
Lot's of people do. Some say there has been no warming this century.
"Fossilised fuels (oil/coal etc.) create gaps in the ozone-layer"
No they don't. Chemical polution such as CFC's deplete the ozone. Burning fossil fuel actualy creates ozone.
"trees breathe in carbon-monoxide and breathe out oxygen"
No they don't they absorb carbon dioxide.
I would still like to see big reductions in the use of fossil fuels, whether they afffect the climate or not. They have a limited supply and cause pollution.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
7 December 2009
14:4534519#9
It is a far greater arrogance to assume that we can continue to wipe out forests, gouge huge chunks out of the earth, cover the soil with concrete and drain every possible underground resource without it having an effect on the planet.
During the seventeenth century the Thames used to freeze over, not because of a mini-ice age but because it was filled with rubbish and pollution while man made constrictions reduced the flow. It stopped doing it when the great fire cleared most of the offenders.
In the 1960's a river in America spontaniously combusted because of the level of pollution. The event gave its name to an underground magazine "the Burning River News'. Most people over 40 will remember assuming that all public buildings were supposed to be black. They were that colour from the same pollutants that were causing large scale bronchial problems.
It does not matter how cyclical climate change is there can be no sensible doubt that mans actions do nothing to mitigate it and can, in fact, only worsen it.
As for mankind surviving because we are 'adaptable', if we find it impossible to change even the smallest habits without arguing as to whether or not it's a con there can be little hope in us coping with the major changes that climate change (whatever the cause) will bring.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
7 December 2009
14:5134520#10
Hear Hear!
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
7 December 2009
15:0934522#11
Lots of good points above. Yes, most things in nature are cyclic, but there is no doubt we have effected the climate. The trouble is, in the times we live, there are many opportunists who will take advantage of it either way. It`s called greed and selfishness, with money again at the end of it.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
7 December 2009
15:3034525#12
Which is, of course, precisely why the 'adaptability' spoken of no longer exists. Mankind has restricted the ranges of animal and even plant life nearly as much as they have tied themselves down with artificial boundaries. Probably the only accurate scene in 'The Day After Tomorrow' was the one of a refugee population being halted at a border until a political/ecomomic deal could be struck. Sadly in real life such a deal would probably follow bloodshed and the setting of 'quotas'.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
7 December 2009
15:3334526#13
It is a bitter and twisted world we live in..............
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
7 December 2009
15:5434529#14
I feel a bit guilty having just lit my first coal fire of the winter.Mind you it was smokeless coal as purchased by HM Queen Elizabeth..at least thats what it said in the tin!!
It does look grand though in the marble fireplace bedecked with Christmas decorations.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
7 December 2009
22:4934561#15
I do not believe that even the most ardent of climate change sceptics is advocating a polluters free for all. However, there is a clear need to temper the over riding desires of many if not all of the pro-climate change lobby to control every aspect of our lives.
The earth has gone through many catastrophic changes and always recovered, though sometimes that recovery has had a worse impact than the catastrophe. We will see a recovery from this potential catastrophe too. Notwithstanding this, we ought to steward and husband the Earth's scare resources, particularly water and food as well as seeking more benign methods of energy production, that have a lower impact on the environment.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
7 December 2009
22:5834564#16
have to say i again agree with CHRIS PRECIOUS
getting concerned now lol
7 December 2009
23:1634571#17
Just to put this into perspective, when Yellowstone decides to eventually blow, and it will one day, all the human pollution in all of history will not matter one jot. That event will have a devastating effect on the world, far worse than anything human enterprises can do with all its dirty industry. And what's more, it is NOT affected by the environment or human activity one bit. It is a natural hotspot destined to become a super-volcano which will impact far beyond its location.
Then there's the forthcoming collapse of the Canary Islands. This is a natural phenomenon which we humans can do nothing about. When it eventually happens (and it will), the UK will be swallowed up and left underwater. This event is NOT affected by any human activity. It's just nature doing her thing.
Oh, and the last one is more theoretical and may or may not happen, but scientists do believe that one day (maybe not for a long time yet), a comet will strike earth and cause a major extinction event. It's happened before, it can happen again.
When you look at the REAL threats to the planet, the damage that humans do seems somewhat lame in comparison.
I think a more realistic approach would be to simply prepare for global warming rather than waste time trying to prevent it (which I don't believe is possible). Suppressing industrial output simply won't make a dot of difference to any of it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 December 2009
23:5834572#18
Yellowstone is not the only potential catastophe of that kind Rick, there is a similar 'supervolcano' in the Indian Sub-continent apparently.
You certainly put all this into perspective. Perhaps the survival of the human race rests more in the colonisation of space that trying to prevent inevitable global warming.
8 December 2009
07:4034573#19
Ok - so Nature has many potentially violent aspects. Does that make it ok for us to poison our planet? Talk of REAL threats seems naive to the point of extinction..........................
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
8 December 2009
11:0134582#20
The fact is that carbon dioxide levels are at historically high levels and that is down to us. We in a solar minimum at the moment and you would expect it to to be colder.
No-one really knows what will happen and personally I think there is a chance of runaway global warming.
Just because the planet might be wrecked by a natural catastrophe that is no reason to not tackle AGW.