global warming fraud - finally exposed!

I noted suggestions today that we should cut down on meat production by 30% to help reduction in Global warming (and reduce heart related illness).

I have long been of the opinion that 10,000 years of farming and population increase has had a significant effect on global climate. seems like others are catching on!

Haven't read the RS papers on this one yet.

Cheers

Don

Don...I'd rather not say mate. But, is it wise to build in areas which will require extremely expensive defences over the next century? Not in my opinion.

Your comments about agric influences sound right to me Don (and I'm a marine scientist - not an atmospheric scientist) but it doesn't explain the sharp rise in temp we've seen recently...so imo (and based on nothing more than that) I'd suggest it part of the problem.

There's an interesting aside to this...if you were a scientist studying CC and you found substantive evidence that a) it's simply not happening or b) it's not due to man, you would win a nobel prize and become the most famous scientist of your generation. Funny how there's no takers eh.

Kill 30% of the cows to cut down CO2 - Today program today

just listen to this story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi..._8380000/8380164.stm

it will be only here for a week

quote:

is it wise to build in areas which will require extremely expensive defences over the next century? Not in my opinion.

On this we seem to agree.

Why do we continue to build on flood plains and low-lying coastal areas?

Anybody?

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
The trouble with experts is - they are experts at f**k all.

Look forward to seeing you curing yourself of cancer, flying yourself to the moon and building your own DAC Steve. There's no experts in the world, therefore you create your own 'truth'. Hmmm.

For those open to the heresy of science...some SLR figures are here at:
SLR Figures for SEast

Sorry Mat, i got up on the wrong side and was just being completely grouchy. Apologise if i offended anyone.

Sometimes things feel like this when you feel negative, but hey enough of that!
Positive self-talk is at hand, i'm back on it.

Just stuck a Quo album on, i feel so much beeter now!

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
Interestingly Tuvalu and the Maldives are still above water and there is no evidence that sea levels have risen or will rise.
]

kinell! Doubting CC is one thing, but SLR? What are you on mate...? How much evidence do you need? I work with this stuff every day and SLR is simply a fact...

OK, by how much has sea level risen around Tuvalu and/or the Maldives in the last 50 years - or from when sea levels began to be measured?

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:


There's an interesting aside to this...if you were a scientist studying CC and you found substantive evidence that a) it's simply not happening or b) it's not due to man, you would win a nobel prize and become the most famous scientist of your generation. Funny how there's no takers eh.

Now you are being silly:

a) you can't prove a negative,

b) the scientific community who want AGW to be true would never accept any proof that does not fit their doctrine.

It simply is not good enough to say "well if you can't prove me wrong I must be right".

Your scientific community behaves very differently to the one I work in D.

I'd suggest you know very well that SLR is already measurable, but will really kick in around 2040. I can understand doubting CC D, but SLR? ...crackers. If I were you I'd buy a low lying house on the coast, they're starting to go for a song.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Your scientific community behaves very differently to the one I work in D.

I'd suggest you know very well that SLR is already measurable, but will really kick in around 2040. I can understand doubting CC D, but SLR? ...crackers. .

No, I don't know that SLR is already measurable. I can find loads of predictions for 20, 30, 50, 100 years but no actual measured increases from any period in the past.

You say you are a marine scientist so I thought you might have access to some real time data.

I would hate to think that you are like the AGW scientists who predict doom and gloom years ahead but have little current evidence?

I'm a biologist D, so I only get involved in coastal and marine processes through working with others.

From the folk I work with, the general consensus is that predictions for SLR are probably overly optimistic. The pressure is always on researchers to tone down there estimates, that's all I'll say.

As for me being like others...if you want my honest opinion, again, pressure from governments around the world and the petro-chemical industry (who have poured a huge amount into research), I would expect to see the effects of climate change to be much worse than the media portrays...imo. As for the lack of evidence, we'll not agree mate, their is a huge amount of substantive evidence, and no counter evidence, just theories.

Does smoking cause lung cancer and kill millions? ...there is a strong counter lobby.

As for doom and gloom...for the lucky few like us, the world will be a great place to live for a while yet (imo).

The one cancer that is definitely related to smoking, is throat cancer.

Life is a fatal illness ...

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Does smoking cause lung cancer and kill millions? ...there is a strong counter lobby.

Funded by BAT??

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
The one cancer that is definitely related to smoking, is throat cancer.

I hope you're not giving me that medical profession forever telling us stuff will kill us/doom and gloom line Stephen?

As I've said, I'd never use the 'you don't understand it' argument to any folk on here, but if you are interested in if you believe it or not, Have a good sniff around reputable scientific sites...not the ramblings of jumped up professors in unrelated fields trying to make a name for themselves.

Places like the Royal Soc are forum for QA on scientific work, they'd be licking their lips with glee if somebody could prove that climate temps were staying constant or if rising, were due to another factor. They're an honest and stringent lot.

Men from monkeys though? ....load of rubbish

In my experience i have noticed a shift in weather behaviour but i haven't noticed the weather getting warmer, wetter but not warmer.

Our last two summers have not been hot to say the least. Our recent winters on the otherhand have certainly been warmer and wetter and not as cold as is usual.

Hard to say really what is happening.
Higher taxing four wheel drive motors in London has had a big effect This could shift the tipping point.

The congestion charges in London could have a huge impact on global warming, less engines means less heat given off.(possible ice age return) I can see a few more changes like this will give us the road to recovery as well as drinking less milk and eating less cheese!

Joking aside but can anyone tell me what all the governments of the globe are really doing to tackle this issue head on.

Regards, Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
Joking aside but can anyone tell me what all the governments of the globe are really doing to tackle this issue head on.

Steve...warmer global temps could mean more cloud and seemingly colder conditions...even if it is actually warmner.

I've got no idea what politicians are doing, nobody wants to grasp the nettle, so all I've seen is talk shops. Despite the conspiracy theories that CC is a government control thing...I can only think of tokenistic responses. Maybe the big shift towards renewables...but that's market driven.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:


As for the lack of evidence, we'll not agree mate, their is a huge amount of substantive evidence, and no counter evidence, just theories.

Simply not true

quote:

Does smoking cause lung cancer and kill millions? ...there is a strong counter lobby.

There is unequivocal evidence to link smoking to cancer: not so with AGW, particularly following the Hadley Centre debacle. However, your mind seems closed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

Steve...warmer global temps could mean more cloud and seemingly colder conditions...even if it is actually warmner.

I wonder at your grasp of all this. The hockey stick graph is now discredited; temperatures have been falling in the last decade; water vapour (clouds) is 100x more powerful a greenhouse gas than C02 so cloud cover creates higher ambient temperatures than a clear sky...never mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
I wonder at your grasp of all this.

Well you must be right then...despite of course, spouting unsubstantiated claims from experts in 'geography' or such like.

Forget the tabloids D and read the science mate.

Same old, same old. Reading the "science" brings me to where I am.

C'mon, destroy me with some sea level data - I can take it.

I can see the sea levels rising if the ice melts on land but for the ice that is floating in the water, this is impossible surely as it already dis-places it's own weight.

I'm not dis-agreeing with anyone im just trying to fan the flames with the bellows of life

D, you have this totally on its head. I have provided links to sites with a wealth of information. You simply say 'that's been discredited', but you never say by who, and provide an example. Maybe you should, to avoid it being the same old same old.

Ok, I direct you to the Royal Society site and Defra's pages.

It's now up to you to provide examples of where folk have discredited all your many prattlings.

If you can't, and you've been a disappointment so far...there's little else to say. So far, it's been a stream of unsubstantiated claims. Is there anything you can provide?

Great fun chatting though D, so don't take it the wrong way mate...I'd not want that.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
I can see the sea levels rising if the ice melts on land but for the ice that is floating in the water, this is impossible surely as it already dis-places it's own weight.

Spot on.

My two penny's worth:

Although the mechanisms which drive climate are still only partly understood, it is fairly well established that the biggest determinants of climate are ocean currents.

Most of the world's fresh water is locked up in the Antarctic ice cap; this is just over 2% of all the world's water - which doesn't sound like a lot, but if all that fresh water (which is less dense than seawater), billions upon billions of tons of it, is displaced into the oceans it will have a massive and incalculable and unforeseeable effect on ocean currents and hence our climate.

Also, it doesn't matter if the weather in your part of the world is getting warmer or not; hardly any scientists talk about "global warming" anymore, they talk of "climate change". If the globe heats up by, say, four degrees, some places will get warmer, others colder.

What you can bet your life on is that virtually nothing will stay the same. Some people/countries/areas will be better off, others will be worse off. Unfortunately the "worse off" will be in the majority, and many of them will be poor and living in other countries. That may not matter to some people on this forum, but it will to those affected.

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:
D, you have this totally on its head. I have provided links to sites with a wealth of information. You simply say 'that's been discredited', but you never say by who, and provide an example. Maybe you should, to avoid it being the same old same old.

Ok, I direct you to the Royal Society site and Defra's pages.

It's now up to you to provide examples of where folk have discredited all your many prattlings.

If you can't, and you've been a disappointment so far...there's little else to say. So far, it's been a stream of unsubstantiated claims. Is there anything you can provide?

Great fun chatting though D, so don't take it the wrong way mate...I'd not want that.

You must be aware of:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

and something I posted in this thread:

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

You might not agree with their conclusions (or you might rubbish their credentials - what qualifications must one have to be an accredited "climate change scientist" btw?) but we are now past the stage where the "conscensus" (and when did that have any relevance to scientific method) holds good.

As to unsubstantiated claims - any news on current sea level rise?