Global Warming and Climate Protest

[NoelVilla]

Not having kids then?

Of course I will, with that question you are actually reasoning like a person who starts a relegation thread 

[blandy]

It's like a bunch of prisoners in a chain gang, all linked together, but slipping down a slope towards a precipice. One says "what's the point of me digging my heels in and hurting myself? The others will still pull us over the edge"

The problem isn't the ones doing something, it's the ones not. The solution is to get them to join in.

[Risso]

That's deep man.

[Electric Avenue]

The planet will sort itself out regardless of what man does. People are sweating the small stuff here.

[Kingfisher]

Our planet is much more robust than us. Earth will sort itself out and adapt, but humans will struggle to adapt with it, and the most vulnerable to rapid climate change will be in people in developing countries. That's one reason we should take action.

Away from the environmental issues, we need to get away from using fossil fuels for our energy needs, if we are to evolve and prosper. The continual squabbling over finite resources is bringing out the worst in us and holding us back technologically.

[KHV]

I think global warming is caused by the giant fireball in the sky getting warmer and being in a period of activity. The sun goes through periods of solar activity which it has been doing.

It really is that simple. The fact that a large number of these global warming scientists and politicians are making billions on so called green initiatives is no coincidence. Al Gore being one of the main money makers.

End of discussion

[Electric Avenue]

Yep agree, "global warming" is the biggest scam since "organic food"

[limpid]

I think global warming is caused by the giant fireball in the sky getting warmer and being in a period of activity. The sun goes through periods of solar activity which it has been doing.

It really is that simple. The fact that a large number of these global warming scientists and politicians are making billions on so called green initiatives is no coincidence. Al Gore being one of the main money makers.

End of discussion

Show me one "global warming scientist" (whatever that means) who is making millions, let alone billions.

 

If one scientist could prove what you are saying is true, their reward is there for the taking. To disprove the weight of evidence would be akin to the discovery of DNA. Fame and fortune awaits.

 

Do you not understand the scientific method at all or are you just ignorant of it?

[villaguy]

Some people like to stick their head in the sand, it's by far the easiest option. It's very fortunate that scientists exist, people who are inquisitive for hard facts.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Attack of the Killer Hornets

 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

 

I think global warming is caused by the giant fireball in the sky getting warmer and being in a period of activity. The sun goes through periods of solar activity which it has been doing.

It really is that simple. The fact that a large number of these global warming scientists and politicians are making billions on so called green initiatives is no coincidence. Al Gore being one of the main money makers.

End of discussion

Show me one "global warming scientist" (whatever that means) who is making millions, let alone billions.

 

If one scientist could prove what you are saying is true, their reward is there for the taking. To disprove the weight of evidence would be akin to the discovery of DNA. Fame and fortune awaits.

 

Do you not understand the scientific method at all or are you just ignorant of it?

 

Similarly show me a scientist who can prove that the earth has had a stable environment or temperature for any substantial period of time and I'll be impressed.

 

We should remember that the so called independent scientific community receives its funding predominantly through government agencies (if they recieve funding from private companies we dismiss them has having a predetermined agenda). These are the same governments that have turned global warming into a multi-billion pound industry. They are the ones benefiting, not the individual scientists. If you take the UK alone, climate change has been used as an excuse to raise or introduce a multitude of taxes and levies.

[blandy]

 

 

I think global warming is caused by the giant fireball in the sky getting warmer and being in a period of activity. The sun goes through periods of solar activity which it has been doing.

It really is that simple. The fact that a large number of these global warming scientists and politicians are making billions on so called green initiatives is no coincidence. Al Gore being one of the main money makers.

End of discussion

Show me one "global warming scientist" (whatever that means) who is making millions, let alone billions.

 

If one scientist could prove what you are saying is true, their reward is there for the taking. To disprove the weight of evidence would be akin to the discovery of DNA. Fame and fortune awaits.

 

Do you not understand the scientific method at all or are you just ignorant of it?

 

Similarly show me a scientist who can prove that the earth has had a stable environment or temperature for any substantial period of time and I'll be impressed.

 

We should remember that the so called independent scientific community receives its funding predominantly through government agencies (if they recieve funding from private companies we dismiss them has having a predetermined agenda). These are the same governments that have turned global warming into a multi-billion pound industry. They are the ones benefiting, not the individual scientists. If you take the UK alone, climate change has been used as an excuse to raise or introduce a multitude of taxes and levies.

 

There's so much wrong with that I almost don't know where to start.

Goverments recieve more in taxes from Fossil fuels and so on than any renewable or Green industry. Way way more.

Major Gov't parties are recipients of donations from Oil companies and the like.

As was said, if scientists were to have come tothe other view, that Climate change is not causedby Man, by fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, the rewards fro them wouldbe much, much greater.

If the research funded by Governments (rather than vestedi nterests like BP or Shell etc. was to show that fossil fuels are harmless, or nigh on harmless, then everyone would be chuffed to bits.

The science would go on. People would still look for the cause of global climate change, they would carry on experimenting and measuring and observing. It's not the conlusion that it's man made that keeps scientists in work, it's the study of the change itself. They'd look for ways to arrest the change regardless. Instead of (say) trying to invent more electric cars or wave power generation (which the still would need to do anyway, as fossil fuels will run out, one day) they'd be looking at additional stuff, like how to protect from whatever they found to be the cause. Or if they said "we don't know, yet" they'd have to keep on looking.

it's not a case of vested interests for Gov't funded science.

The only science with a vested interest is that fundedby fossil fuel companies, asking people to look at trying to show a negative - trying to protect those companies from the consequences of their industry.

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

 

Goverments recieve more in taxes from Fossil fuels and so on than any renewable or Green industry. Way way more.

 

I think that was part of my point! Since the introduction of the climate change agenda has that revenue for the government increased or decreased?

[Panto_Villan]

I find it astonishing that people who know how to use the internet can deny climate change. I assumed it was confined to my grandparents (one recently told me Margaret Thatcher invented global warming) and to those who work for oil companies.

 

The fact is that vastly, vastly more climate scientists believe that climate change is caused by humans than those who believe it is a natural occurrence. Without rehashing the arguments for / against, I find it remarkable than people seem willing to accept scientific consensus on almost anything but not on this simply because it clashes with prejudices they want to keep hold of.

 

Nobody who understands the scientific method would deny that in the future global warming may be proved to be caused by humans - but, for instance, we may discover in the future that minor doses of radiation are beneficial rather than harmful. But does that mean we should stop protecting doctors and nurses from X-ray radiation, as there is a possibility we may be wrong? After all, we don't fully understand the effects and action of radiation on human cells. Or is that the evil radiation-shielding lobby at work, making billions from selling lead jackets?

 

There's nothing wrong with questioning science, but not acting on what scientists believe is the case because it's just the most likely possibility (rather than 100% certain) is ridiculous.

 

 

TL;DR - very little science is 100% certain and there will be some people who benefit financially from any major scientific theory. Stop using that as criticism of climate change science in particular if you're not willing to apply it to science as a whole.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Panto_Villan

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

 

I think global warming is caused by the giant fireball in the sky getting warmer and being in a period of activity. The sun goes through periods of solar activity which it has been doing.

It really is that simple. The fact that a large number of these global warming scientists and politicians are making billions on so called green initiatives is no coincidence. Al Gore being one of the main money makers.

End of discussion

Show me one "global warming scientist" (whatever that means) who is making millions, let alone billions.

 

If one scientist could prove what you are saying is true, their reward is there for the taking. To disprove the weight of evidence would be akin to the discovery of DNA. Fame and fortune awaits.

 

Do you not understand the scientific method at all or are you just ignorant of it?

 

Similarly show me a scientist who can prove that the earth has had a stable environment or temperature for any substantial period of time and I'll be impressed.

 

We should remember that the so called independent scientific community receives its funding predominantly through government agencies (if they recieve funding from private companies we dismiss them has having a predetermined agenda). These are the same governments that have turned global warming into a multi-billion pound industry. They are the ones benefiting, not the individual scientists. If you take the UK alone, climate change has been used as an excuse to raise or introduce a multitude of taxes and levies.

 

There's so much wrong with that I almost don't know where to start.

Goverments recieve more in taxes from Fossil fuels and so on than any renewable or Green industry. Way way more.

The reason they receive such large Tax revenues from Fossil Fuels is the ramping up of such Taxes Based On the Arguements that global warming is caused by mankind. Hmmm think that through.

Edited September 28, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

Our planet is much more robust than us. Earth will sort itself out and adapt, but humans will struggle to adapt with it, and the most vulnerable to rapid climate change will be in people in developing countries. That's one reason we should take action.

Away from the environmental issues, we need to get away from using fossil fuels for our energy needs, if we are to evolve and prosper. The continual squabbling over finite resources is bringing out the worst in us and holding us back technologically.

Totally agree, we have been led down an energy path that facilitates the hoarding on huge wealth by a very small proportion of humanity, unfortunately with that huge wealth comes power to influence where future developments will be made, and that means developments that can't be exploited for profit by a few at the expense of many will be discouraged or blocked. For this agenda energy resources have to be at least seen to be scare or only capable of being created in controlled ways, I believe for truly green energy it would include people generating and controlling their own energy needs which would probably be beneficial for us the 99% but be bad for big business and the 1%. It's the same with recycling, In a finite world it has to be desirable to  recycle, reuse, repair as much as possible, but this is contrary to the 1%'s interests and it's wealth hording agenda.

[villaguy]

Whenever there's a big story there's always conspiracy theories, whether it's Diana's death, man on the moon, reasons for war etc. People love a good fantasy, but really the massive weight of evidence that has been critically reviewed can't be disputed whoever funds these scientists.

[tonyh29]

I noticed on one of the global warming web pages that an effect of global warming is drought

Handy that another effect is melting ice caps

Mother Nature FTW

Not a serious post before anyone spills their lentil soup

[mockingbird_franklin]

I noticed on one of the global warming web pages that an effect of global warming is drought

Handy that another effect is melting ice caps

Mother Nature FTW

Not a serious post before anyone spills their lentil soup

MM Global warming is evidenced in any weather experienced it seems.

[limpid]

MM Global warming is evidenced in any weather experienced it seems.

What does weather have to do with global warming?