Jump to content

Global Warming


legov

How certain are you that Global Warming is man-made?  

132 members have voted

  1. 1. How certain are you that Global Warming is man-made?

    • Certain
      34
    • Likely
      49
    • Not Likely
      34
    • No way
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Man made factors play a part but it's not 100% down to us. But by reducing our greenhouse emissions we can reduce our part in global warming. The sun though, we can't do much to change that.

What can we reduce and what effect will if have? How have we played a part when only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread is pointless. Nobody is going to have their opinions changed. Anyone can quote an article to support their case etc.. it's been done. The point is it doesn't matter what peoples opinions on the matter are, the worlds governments are convinced and hence greenhouse gas emissions are being tackled.

The End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an important thing in all this is we can't afford to be wrong about this. So that's why we need to just accept what world governments are doing to tackle it, even if you are skeptical.

Absolutely not. **** them all!

There is no room for chance in destroying the world's economies for the sake of unproven theory.

There is absolutely no evidence to support a link between climate change and CO2, so there is no point in trying to combat it at the sake of the economy.

The US budget for tackling climate change in accordance with the Copenhagen agreement would have been a third of a trillion dollars.

This is utter lunacy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think thos thread is pointless. Nobody is going to have their opinions changed. Anyone can quote an article to support their case etc.. it's been done. The point is it doesn't matter what peoples opinions on the matter are, the worlds governments are convinced and hence greenhouse gas emissions are being tackled.

The End.

What an utterly pointless and abrupt statement.

I can provide endless evidence to rubbish the link between climate change and CO2, and I can provide endless evidence to rubbish the human interference theory.

This is my specialist subject. I have read a lot of books on this subject and done a hell of a lot of research.

Ask yourself this. If the Stern report has a large number of climatologists and scientists taking legal action to have their names removed from it as a direct result of it's misrepresentation of the facts, how can it be taken seriously?

The Stern report 'had' 3000 signatures, which only claimed about 90% belief in the theory.

The Oregon petition already boasts 33,000 signatures of scientists and climatologists who dispute the link.

Al Gore has over 30,000 legal suites against him for the misrepresentation of facts in An Inconvenient Truth.

For whatever reason, you never hear about the Oregon petition though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what you believe MMFy. I however having no particular expertiese in the area of global warming will defer to the experts. It is quite likely that their is sufficient evidence of man made effects of global warming, enough to convince the governments of the world.

That is enough for me and I don't really bother myself with it much. Infact this thread is about as much of my time spent a year on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why talk about Global Warming now? is it because it's hot outside and summer?

not so strange :-)

That, and the fact that Villa haven't signed anyone yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that believe in the theory, can you link me to a piece of evidence that supports the theory?

No rise in the oceans.

No reduction in sea ice.

No increase in global temperatures.

No change in global weather patterns.

CO2 only represents 0.038% of atmospheric gases, and only represents about 0.4% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapour (clouds) make up between 65-95% of greenhouse gases, depending on cloud cover/precipitation.

What d'yer think is going to cause the bigger problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what you believe MMFy. I however having no particular expertiese in the area of global warming will defer to the experts. It is quite likely that their is sufficient evidence of man made effects of global warming, enough to convince the governments of the world.

That is enough for me and I don't really bother myself with it much. Infact this thread is about as much of my time spent a year on the subject.

I an a total cynic. It's a punishing lifestyle, but I do not believe anything I am told by the press.

I even contacted Tony Blair four years ago asking for evidence of a link and was fobbed off with a DEFRA letter which had absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

We are being lied to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may have read alot on the subject MMFy but it's not something I am overly concerned about. So am totally indifferent to the subject really. I just believe that to get almost all of the worlds government to accept that Global Warming is to some degree man made is enough for a mathematician like me.

You'd probably be best served trying to convince politicians of your views as they are the decision makers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that the Ice caps are melting & that sea levels are rising, whatever the cause..

There absolutely is cause or doubt! You are far from correct here.

The ice caps are not melting. The northern ice cap has seen minimal melt over the last 100 years, but the southern ice cap has very much grown. The sea levels have not risen either.

You will not find evidence to support sea level increases or significant reductions in sea ice. I can, however, provide evidence that they are stable.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Wiki appears to find a fair few scientists who think otherwise.. Current Sea level rise

So again as with most things like the Panorama programme appeared to suggest was that opinions differ.

I can only speak from visiting the glaciers in New Zealand to say I've seen with my own eyes how their glaciers have re-treated from the same pictures taken years ago.... and scientists as far back as 2004 were warning that the ice thinning on top of the Icelandic volcanoes was thinning at an alarming rate & may cause an eruption.

Why would eminent scientists like Prof Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University be so public about the effects of Global warming if there wasn't something to be concerned about?

Interview

Of course on the other hand are governments liable to pounce on an opportunity to levy an extra tax or two on their citizens & form yet another costly quango or two??!!!.. Course they are! No one's arguing that a bandwagon hasn't been formed...however just to state categorically that there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about appears to me to be also not good advice..

picture1f.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would eminent scientists like Prof Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University be so public about the effects of Global warming if there wasn't something to be concerned about?

They will say whatever the government want them to say,if the pay is good..very simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would eminent scientists like Prof Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University be so public about the effects of Global warming if there wasn't something to be concerned about?

They will say whatever the government want them to say,if the pay is good..very simple

Yet you would argue that those same scientists are incorruptable & inherently correct when it come to arguing the case against an intelligent designer. If it's argued that ALL this scientific opinion on global warming is paid for by the government & is not based on any fact just a conspiracy theory, when on the other hand it's argued that science is always correct to defy their being a God.

Which is why IMHO the jury is still out on global warming so I voted Likely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have made the god argument.

Anywho, global warming has never been my massive forte...

I do believe that getting away frommassive oil consumption is a good idea anyway, just because it will run out. Best get the ground work done, global warming or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would eminent scientists like Prof Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University be so public about the effects of Global warming if there wasn't something to be concerned about?

They will say whatever the government want them to say,if the pay is good..very simple

Yet you would argue that those same scientists are incorruptable & inherently correct when it come to arguing the case against an intelligent designer. If it's argued that ALL this scientific opinion on global warming is paid for by the government & is not based on any fact just a conspiracy theory, when on the other hand it's argued that science is always correct to defy their being a God.

Which is why IMHO the jury is still out on global warming so I voted Likely

Good old JulieB, don't trust anyting they tell you, they just want your money :)

just think about why is greenland is called greenland :winkold:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â