The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[jerseycowsman]

Does any body know which is the hottest planet in the solar system?
No, not mercury, it is venus. It has a thick, almost soup like atmosphere full of methane and CO2 that keep the average temp well over 400C compared to 300C on mercury. That is the definition of the greenhouse effect!

 

[MickMoor]

Does any body know which is the hottest planet in the solar system?
No, not mercury, it is venus. It has a thick, almost soup like atmosphere full of methane and CO2 that keep the average temp well over 400C compared to 300C on mercury. That is the definition of the greenhouse effect!

SO?

 

[Campani]

I never understand the argument that 'climate change is all made up to profit researchers'. Do you really not see how oil producing, middle eastern countrys and international oil company's such as exxon Mobil may see green energy as a threat to their businesses/ economies? Is it that hard to believe that they may profit from a delay in government policy to reduce fossil fuel use?

 

[ollie989898]

Global warming and climate shift is natural, the release of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases annually is something different entirely.

You can't tell me that mankind releasing all that carbon dioxide, NOx and methane isn't doing any harm. The oceans don't like being acidified, nor should we be drilling in the Arctic. Likewise we are draining natural aquifers and causing habitat loss. This cannot continue.

There will be alternatives to fossil fuels, and we the carbon age will be behind us. There is clearly a lot of money involved with the fossil fuel industry but the general scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.

You can argue however you like but the Chinese are putting in a lot of solar power and have the most ambitious nuclear power program the world has ever seen, all despite the fact they are sat on a mountain of coal themselves. Do you think they are investing in solar and nuclear fission for the fun of it?

 

[Cowabunga]

I never understand the argument that 'climate change is all made up to profit researchers'. Do you really not see how oil producing, middle eastern countrys and international oil company's such as exxon Mobil may see green energy as a threat to their businesses/ economies? Is it that hard to believe that they may profit from a delay in government policy to reduce fossil fuel use?

Yes, of course. Best to be a questioning sceptic of both arguments and be sensible and realise that there are also many shades of grey.

 

[Dave645]

It always an interesting debate with both sides thinking their right.
I find myself more aligned by Wellytracks thinking, shout out for your posts as my like button seems not to want to work.
The fact the planet is warming is less debated than the how of it, the one thing I will say what ever the cause, if the rise increases the risk of flooding caused by sea level rises. Endangers food production even further in the hotter dryer parts of the world even more than they are now, then I think, human intervention to mitigate the worst of any rises, natural or not, is in the worlds populations best interests.
I for one would not like to do nothing now, and find I have sold my children's and children's children down the river.
For people who think it's a lie, and it's all natural, you are maybe right but the result if temperatures do continue to rise, the results are not good, most scientists agree on that if not the cause. If I had a crystal ball and can say in 10 years the Trend will reverse and the ice caps will rebuild then great but until someone shows me evidence that that will happen, I would rather assume it may not, and let the clever people try and find a solution. To our long term energy needs. In a way that will defiantly not contribute to any possible temperature rises.

It's makes no difference if it's a natural trend or we have caused it, if the results are bad news then, we would be silly to not try to slow or stop temperature changes.
If it was a 50:50 bet but you were betting with billions of people's lives. Which way would you bet.
My bet would be assume the worst, as at lease that bet doesn't increase the risk of the billions Of people ending up dead.

 

[Cowabunga]

Global warming and climate shift is natural, the release of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases annually is something different entirely.

You can't tell me that mankind releasing all that carbon dioxide, NOx and methane isn't doing any harm. The oceans don't like being acidified, nor should we be drilling in the Arctic. Likewise we are draining natural aquifers and causing habitat loss. This cannot continue.

Can oceans actually 'like' or even 'dislike'?
Who says we shouldn't drill in the Arctic? You? Who are you?
We may indeed be draining natural aquifers and causing habitat loss. Unfortunately just too many of us actually exist. That is partly farmer's fault for not letting people starve, thus limiting the human population and leaving more room for other species.

There will be alternatives to fossil fuels, and we the carbon age will be behind us. There is clearly a lot of money involved with the fossil fuel industry but the general scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.

You can argue however you like but the Chinese are putting in a lot of solar power and have the most ambitious nuclear power program the world has ever seen, all despite the fact they are sat on a mountain of coal themselves. Do you think they are investing in solar and nuclear fission for the fun of it?

The Chinese are doing this for the sole benefit of the Chinese. They have smogs reminiscent of the 1950's killer smogs that once plagued London. It's been on the news tonight. They know they need alternatives to dirty coal burnt both domestically and industrially. They do not have to develop technology or strategies to achieve this, or the technology to reduce their vehicle emissions, because these have been well established in the West for many decades and are continuing to improve. They need alternatives to the billions of tons of coal they burn every year and they can no more afford to have power shortages for their population that we can in the West.
They also want to dominate the market with these technologies, as they want to dominate the world's food and mineral resources and they are aiming for economic and industrial dominance with a singular passion and commitment. None of your nanny-pamby nimby rubbish from China.

 

[Osca]

Maybe its because 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human co2. I don't understand how people can believe any alternative for climate change other than the fact that there Is a lot of people on the earth and we are all burning a lot of fossil fuels.

OK, so where does this 97% come from then? Where do we get this figure?
A couple of people have quoted this as if it were accurate. Perhaps they would like to show us the source?

No Dear Banjo it s not proven science and it s dream world stuff. Worst it s a nightmare. It s misleading misinterpreted obfuscating personal agenda driven crap. Full of half thruths , flawed hypotization and based on the intentional manipolation of data. Please do not let this mount of sh**te projectile vomiting inducing joke of a 'documentary' be the basis of your (and other people out there) understanding of what anthropogenic climate change is. Investigate , debate question, but go to serious sources .

Now this is just the sort of unhelpful attitude that makes me feel that climate change has become a sort of quasi-religious faith-based, undiscerning cult for its disciples in which uncomfortable or unanswerable facts, worthy of consideration and discussion, put forward by experts in their fields, are "trashed" with flood of puerile invective by the ignorant. Maybe "Dear" dstudent would be good enough to put forward, having actually (one hopes) watched the video - yes, showing my age, I know - just what he feels to be untrue. And I think we probably realise what anthropogenic climate change is supposed to be, thank you, having had it shoved down our throats since the seventies.

Whilst I think it makes sense not to foul our own nest by ignoring pollution and the harvesting of sun- wind- and water-power and reducing the unnecessary waste of energy to heat houses, etc. are good things in their own right, the more I learn and the more I consider what I see, the more I think we are so dwarfed by the cosmic forces that shape our world that our effect on climate is on the same sort of scale as the old man who piddled in the sea - "Every little helps!"

This earth is a lot less stable and a lot more dynamic than I ever realised. The stuff in that second video about the internal distortion of the earth, the wandering magnetic pole(s), magnetic heating effects and an increase in earthquakes makes it all seem very fluid. The stuff about the earth slowing down and time being affected was downright weird...

 

[dstudent]

Can oceans actually 'like' or even 'dislike'?
Who says we shouldn't drill in the Arctic? You? Who are you?
We may indeed be draining natural aquifers and causing habitat loss. Unfortunately just too many of us actually exist. That is partly farmer's fault for not letting people starve, thus limiting the human population and leaving more room for other species.



The Chinese are doing this for the sole benefit of the Chinese. They have smogs reminiscent of the 1950's killer smogs that once plagued London. It's been on the news tonight. They know they need alternatives to dirty coal burnt both domestically and industrially. They do not have to develop technology or strategies to achieve this, or the technology to reduce their vehicle emissions, because these have been well established in the West for many decades and are continuing to improve. They need alternatives to the billions of tons of coal they burn every year and they can no more afford to have power shortages for their population that we can in the West.
They also want to dominate the market with these technologies, as they want to dominate the world's food and mineral resources and they are aiming for economic and industrial dominance with a singular passion and commitment. None of your nanny-pamby nimby rubbish from China.

Yes actually , oceans do not like, are sensitive and react adversely to being polluted, their natural cycles being messed with and manipulated, like any environment really and human beings too for that matter.
I also say that we should not be drilling in the Arctic and I am assuming that just like Ollie I am a concerned individual who values this Earth a little bit more than greedy multinationals/individuals , who do not give a flying duck about the environment but only think about their profit margins and making loads of money, and let's not forget geopolitical motivations. Maybe you would like to ask the people in the Arctic Komi region why we should not drill there. Have you ever heard of them or of the mess Russia has done to that region?
But more importantly why should we be drilling there?

Secondly what you saying is that water scarcity is due to "overpopulation"? Nope, the main issues is distribution and access, richer countries use more water and other resources per capita than poorer countries, it is really all about location location location.
And habit loss? it s all about the money , poor countries lose their habitat we make the money or receive the benefits.

 

[dstudent]

OK, so where does this 97% come from then? Where do we get this figure?
A couple of people have quoted this as if it were accurate. Perhaps they would like to show us the source?





Now this is just the sort of unhelpful attitude that makes me feel that climate change has become a sort of quasi-religious faith-based, undiscerning cult for its disciples in which uncomfortable or unanswerable facts, worthy of consideration and discussion, put forward by experts in their fields, are "trashed" with flood of puerile invective by the ignorant. Maybe "Dear" dstudent would be good enough to put forward, having actually (one hopes) watched the video - yes, showing my age, I know - just what he feels to be untrue. And I think we probably realise what anthropogenic climate change is supposed to be, thank you, having had it shoved down our throats since the seventies.

Whilst I think it makes sense not to foul our own nest by ignoring pollution and the harvesting of sun- wind- and water-power and reducing the unnecessary waste of energy to heat houses, etc. are good things in their own right, the more I learn and the more I consider what I see, the more I think we are so dwarfed by the cosmic forces that shape our world that our effect on climate is on the same sort of scale as the old man who piddled in the sea - "Every little helps!"

This earth is a lot less stable and a lot more dynamic than I ever realised. The stuff in that second video about the internal distortion of the earth, the wandering magnetic pole(s), magnetic heating effects and an increase in earthquakes makes it all seem very fluid. The stuff about the earth slowing down and time being affected was downright weird...

Morning Osca,

 

[Osca]

Morning Osca,

G'night, dstudent

 

[dstudent]

OK, so where does this 97% come from then? Where do we get this figure?
A couple of people have quoted this as if it were accurate. Perhaps they would like to show us the source?





Now this is just the sort of unhelpful attitude that makes me feel that climate change has become a sort of quasi-religious faith-based, undiscerning cult for its disciples in which uncomfortable or unanswerable facts, worthy of consideration and discussion, put forward by experts in their fields, are "trashed" with flood of puerile invective by the ignorant. Maybe "Dear" dstudent would be good enough to put forward, having actually (one hopes) watched the video - yes, showing my age, I know - just what he feels to be untrue. And I think we probably realise what anthropogenic climate change is supposed to be, thank you, having had it shoved down our throats since the seventies.

Whilst I think it makes sense not to foul our own nest by ignoring pollution and the harvesting of sun- wind- and water-power and reducing the unnecessary waste of energy to heat houses, etc. are good things in their own right, the more I learn and the more I consider what I see, the more I think we are so dwarfed by the cosmic forces that shape our world that our effect on climate is on the same sort of scale as the old man who piddled in the sea - "Every little helps!"

This earth is a lot less stable and a lot more dynamic than I ever realised. The stuff in that second video about the internal distortion of the earth, the wandering magnetic pole(s), magnetic heating effects and an increase in earthquakes makes it all seem very fluid. The stuff about the earth slowing down and time being affected was downright weird...

Wow I must have hit some kind of nerve there. Firstly the point was to watch the video I did, and it was excruciatingly painful, because although I tried not be judgemental and keep an open mind, it was clear to me how everything was been distorted to fit a specific agenda, starting from the bombastic title really.
Secondly my post was me being angry and really frustrated, my immediate reaction and thoughts about that video, I did not realise that I had to censor my feelings or thoughts, well if that offends you, I cant really do much about that can I? Like I cannot do much about how you chose to interpret my post and my use of the word Dear, which was meant in a kind and polite way.
But then you go on making judgements about me and calling me names, you don t know me I do not know you.
I will never presume/ assume or make personal comments and pass judgement on a person simply because on how they feel about a video. I might ask why they feel that way
If you read the end of my post you ll see that it is a plea to investigate to debate and question, considering that other people had posted messages covering most of the issues I had with the video, i did not think it was necessary for me to add anything else.
By the way I have been studying the environment, including the causes of Climate change and global warming for the past 10 years, I am very far from being an undiscerning ignorant climate change cult disciple.
Good night to you too

 

[Directdebit]

Climate change is real,but if you pay your carbon tax's it's fine.just like saying you can murder someone if you pay a few quid. It's a big bloody scam. Natural cycle.

 

[linga]

OK, so where does this 97% come from then? Where do we get this figure?
A couple of people have quoted this as if it were accurate. Perhaps they would like to show us the source?

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

[turbo]

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

If they stopped all funding for man made climate change today and gave the same funding as now to a campaign to say man has nothing to do with it their attude would change,he who pays the piper calls the tunes.nearly everything they have come up with has been shown to be at best exaggerated and at the worst just plain lies,it's a money making scam and some just fall for it

 

[linga]

If they stopped all funding for man made climate change today and gave the same funding as now to a campaign to say man has nothing to do with it their attude would change,he who pays the piper calls the tunes.nearly everything they have come up with has been shown to be at best exaggerated and at the worst just plain lies,it's a money making scam and some just fall for it

Sorry but that is just rubbish

 

[Dave645]

I think the main problem people have is if it's man made or not this climate change, I say it's irrelevant, if it gets to hot and a large portion of the planets population and wildlife dies out it's still bad if it's man made or not, if we understand what's contributing to that change and find ways to stop this natural or unnatural change then great. We save our selves from possible further stress.
It would be the same if we were heading for an ice age and we could see that we were and we could head that off by artificially controlling the global temperature even if that was from artificial means.

I would not care if one one scientist believed and it was only 10% likely they were right, the facts fit the postulation cause and effect for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This is science fact. If we release all the fossil fuels that we're trapped oil and coal and gas then burn then which releases heat, put carbon aside as your all stuck on that, if we burn stuff to heat our lives move around and all that gives of heat unless there is another force cooling us faster than we are heating our selves then why would you think that it would not have an effect??? It's noticeable in our weather patterns if we have cloud cover air temp in built up city's is noticeably warmer than in the country side which is emitting less heat and water sources in city's their rivers and water discharges then hit the seas of the world at that increased and higher temp so cause warming that's artificial.
So it's quite possible we are adding to natural change, and it's quite possible we are speeding it up.

 

[Henarar]

There are to many people around and all we do is have more and grow the population and this seems to be excepted, if people are causing this we need less, I have no kids my conscience is clear what about the rest of you ?

 

[roscoe erf]

 

[Dave645]

So where you think it's caused by the release of carbon, or green house gasses.
That is just the scientists trying to explain what is causing it, and find possible ways we can slow it down.
The actual effect may be more direct we are converting energy to heat on a massive scale which is effecting global temp.

I also look at who has the most to lose if the burning of oil gas and coal is found to be creating long term problems for the world, which is the oil gas and coal industry's. They are some of the richest people on the planet, ask your self this are they agreeing or disagreeing on global warming.

Finally if you were in govermant would you fly in the face of current scientific thinking and risk not doing anything, and let's face it nearly all the goals set to fight global warming are good for everyone even if they have no effect on global temps, even if the earth is just following natural patterns.
It's still win win for us as we then live in a cleaner environment because of the changes we made.