BBC back peddling on Climate Change/Global Warming

Originally posted by Phage

Yeah, sounds like a terrible idea for people to be able to identify with those who govern them instead of thinking that nothing can be done about it.

edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

In response to your edit, of course something can be done about it, its wildly odd
that regulations reward those who create more pollution dont you think?

Take for instance the incentives for ethanol produciton. This compounds the pollution
problem by taking crop fields, and using them to grow corn, which in turn pollutes the
farming lands. Then the real tragedy is the pollution from the ethanol.

Indur Goklany calculated that biofuels policies killed nearly 200,000 people in 2010 alone. That was before this study showed things may be worse than we suspected joannenova.com.au...

So, how is it that I am supposed to identify with these regulations that reward the polluters?

Originally posted by burntheships
Yes, good points you have made.

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

I don't think Al Gore cares anymore. He got his $100 Million already.

that he did, although I think he likes being the poster boy of GW.

Its become part of him, even though it was a scam.

I had no idea Al Gore was a scientist.
He appears to be certain of the truth.

reply to post by burntheships

Pollution is not a hoax, however AGW is, one cannot forget the IPCC Scandals and the "hockey stick" that never was.

One can. Especially if one understands that the "scandals" are irrelevant to the science. The world is warming and, as of now, we are the prime suspect.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Great point. And your pie chart says it all .
One of the scientists the Koch Bros hired to denounce Climate
Change as man made, has now done an about face. He now contends
Humans are a big part of climate change. So 23 scientists vs 13,000.

If Big Oil (fox, am radio, etc) has your ear, you think Global Climate Change is fake.
Which benefits fossil fuel production.
If Al Gore has your ear you think it's all human caused. And it lines Al's pockets.
Unfortunately I think CC is all too real & making money or not,
the scientists agree with Al Gore.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

Question: The Noah flood really did occur.

Answer: There was no worldwide flood. The water went into the ocean, eventually.

edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I think they found Noahs Ark on top of a mountain on the border of Iraq and Turkey.
It just seems like a lot of water to me.
It's almost as if God pulled the plug at the bottom of the ocean.
The water level went down and then he put the plug back in.

Also, the current level of our oceans is 400 feet higher than it was before the flood.
The tides washed away the land and gave us the continental shelf that we can all
see by using Google Earth.

It is those dirty scientists you have to worry about because coal is clean now haven’t you heard.

How can that possibly harm anything?

reply to post by TauCetixeta

Question: The Noah flood really did occur.
Apparently, it took 9 months for the water to go down to its current level.
That's a lot of water.

Where did it go?

oh, dearie me - my head - I'm afraid that question is a little too science-y for me

:-)

I'll leave those questions for Phage

Originally posted by Phage
One can. Especially if one understands that the "scandals" are irrelevant to the science. The world is warming and, as of now, we are the prime suspect.

The scandals irrelevant to the science, I would agree, because there is no real science
behind AGW. Not only that there is no real consensus on the data that the AGW congregation
uses for its religion.

As for the sky is falling stuff, if mankind is his own enemy why not let him succomb?

I dont really think the world gubbments care to save mankind, they only want to control
mankind. And one very effective way to do that is to regulate his every living moment.

reply to post by burntheships

This compounds the pollution problem by taking crop fields, and using them to grow corn, which in turn pollutes the farming lands.

That isn't what Goklany's study said but I agree that while it seemed like a good idea at the time, ethanol fuel may not be so great.

So, how is it that I am supposed to identify with these regulations that reward the polluters?

Who said anything about identifying with regulations? But you're right. It is difficult to identify with those who govern us and that was the point being made by the Club. Improving that situation would be a good idea, don't you think?

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Danbones
there is talk of a mini ice age in britian

Every winter, when the first snow flake falls and the country grinds to a halt, the Express and Mail declare it to be the coldest Winter ever and love to relish in the fact we're all about to be buried under a 1Km ice sheet...

Doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Danbones
i think they had NO CHOICE but to pull that temperature rise remark or waste the whole project

Whether climate change is man made or not, something is happening. If polar ice continues to melt, then the seawater salinity falls which would affect the gulf stream. If the gulf stream gets disturbed, then northern Europe, including the UK, gets very cold. It actually gets the weather fitting it's latitude.

So, the point I am making is that even if there is global warming, the end result would be an ice age - this is fact and matters not whether man did it or whether it was nature. I often see this confusion in people who argue against climate change.

sure I'll go with CHANGE its the ONLY CONSTANT

also I like fackts too
here is American public TV:

On Sept. 20, the PBS News Hour did a segment titled “Arctic Icecap Shrinks to Record Low Level,” with Ray Suarez interviewing Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

During the interview, Ray Suarez pointed out that Arctic Ice was disappearing faster than climate models had predicted. Dr. Meier confirmed this, stating, “… we are seeing things go much faster than what the models had projected. The models had suggested that we may see a summer without — with very little ice by the end of this century.” This all sounds very alarming to the uninformed viewer.

But PBS and Dr. Meier have ignored the elephant in the room. The elephant is the Antarctic Icecap.

But PBS and Dr. Meier have ignored the elephant in the room. The elephant is the Antarctic Icecap. While satellite data shows that Arctic ice has been declining for the last 30 years, the same satellite data shows that Antarctic ice has been expanding for 30 years.

www.phillyburbs.com... 2-b360-f64beae40064.html

reply to post by burntheships

Not only that there is no real consensus

True. Consensus means everyone agrees. But the vast majority of climate scientist do.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Pollution is not a hoax, however AGW is, one cannot forget the IPCC Scandals and the "hockey stick" that never was.

One can. Especially if one understands that the "scandals" are irrelevant to the science. The world is warming and, as of now, we are the prime suspect.

so why is the rest of the solar system warming up?

Other planets are warming
"Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system."

www.skepticalscience.com...

are there extraterrestrial civilizations you aint tellin us about?

who put the CON in consencious?
al gore?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
It is those dirty scientists you have to worry about because coal is clean now haven’t you heard.

How can that possibly harm anything?

The picture on the left looks like cooling towers for a nuclear power plant.

The coal power plants are being replaced with higher profit margin natural gas turbine
power plants made by General Electric and Siemens.

reply to post by Danbones

Yes. The climate in the Antarctic is very different from that in the Arctic. Sea ice has increased a bit but the land ice seems to be on the retreat. Troublesome.
www.wunderground.com...

reply to post by sealing

...the scientists agree with Al Gore.

Or Al Gore agrees with the scientists - this has been a concern (and been researched) for a long time now
The History of Climate Change Science
People want to shoot the messenger - but the message was already out there before Al started speaking up

If this wasn't so serious it would be hilarious - people would rather sacrifice the well being of their grand children and great grand children - the future of all mankind and nature as we know it - than listen to someone from the opposite side of the aisle

gotta laugh to keep from cryin'

reply to post by Danbones

are there extraterrestrial civilizations you aint tellin us about?

No. But maybe you should actually read something before you post it. It may improve your credibility.

Your source:

It is curious that the theory depends so much on sparse information – what we know about the climates on other planets and their history – yet its proponents resolutely ignore the most compelling evidence against the notion. Over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by Phage
but I agree that while it seemed like a good idea at the time, ethanol fuel may not be so great.

Goklany study here for anyone interested:
www.nipccreport.org...

But you're right. It is difficult to identify with those who govern us and that was the point being made by the Club. Improving that situation would be a good idea, don't you think?

Those who govern us are really nothing more than public servants, albeit very well paid ones.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

If this wasn't so serious it would be hilarious - people would rather sacrifice the well being of their grand children and great grand children - the future of all mankind and nature as we know it - than listen to someone from the opposite side of the aisle

Oh, wow on about the dramatics, the sky is falling the sky is falling!

If the governing agencies really believed that, why dont they do something about the
real problem, which is the pollution and I mean all of it including the pesticides?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones

 

Yes. The climate in the Antarctic is very different from that in the Arctic. Sea ice has increased a bit but the land ice seems to be on the retreat. Troublesome.
www.wunderground.com...

“After reading the article from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD), ” says reader Chris Vella, “I find it amusing that they admit the ice extent is increasing, multi-year ice is increasing, start of the spring melting is happening later, and yet they cannot explain why? (even though they do their best to try to convince you that that the ice in reality is still decreasing)....
...“Overall, the Arctic gained 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) of ice during March. Typically, March has been a month of net ice loss (an average of 260,000 square kilometers [100,000 square miles] for 1979 to 2000), but the last three Marches have had net ice growth.”

iceagenow.info...

More than half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himalayas, are in fact advancing,

iceagenow.info...

the second link has a nice collection of links

It seems the ANarctic Ice was NOT predicted by the same Global Warming models that didn't predict the recent snowy UK winters

reply to post by burntheships

Oh, wow on about the dramatics, the sky is falling the sky is falling!

I can see why you want to call me on the dramatics - the entire climate change denial argument is an anti-sky-is falling-campaign

What else have you got really? :-)

Since you don't (won't - can't) support what scientists are predicting - and your side can't come up with any real data of their own - nothing left but to make the people who are trying to do something about this look like fools

So go ahead burntheships - I'm willing to dance that dance for you. I'll happily play the fool

Won't change anything - time will tell

If the governing agencies really believed that, why dont they do something about the
real problem, which is the pollution and I mean all of it including the pesticides?

You can't be serious?

It's enough to make a drama queen weep