December 12, 200915 yr Err, Rob, I think that has been effectively explained... For a start, 200 years ago, you didn't have the sort of population on the planet you do now... Bigger population = more energy needing to be produced = more Industrialisation = more consumption = more CO2 = more pollution.... I cant believe I'm still having to explain this sh"t..... you miss the point..... :lol: yep 200 years ago the population was less (so please explain why the 1730's were the warmest uk decade on record!), but the population over the last 200 years has grown steadily, it didnt suddenly jump in 1987!!!!! the temperature graph for the world climate DOES jump in the late 80's. if humans were totally and directly responsible for global warming then the temperature chart would match (albeit with a lag) the population graph. the fact that it doesnt must raise suspicions. dont get me wrong, im not advocating full scale polution, we should be greener out of respect for our planet, but im highly suspicious that the 'evidence' for mmgw isnt being tampered with and i repeat, the scientists are not taking into account solar activity, nor the ability of the sea to fix co2, nor the fact that the ice caps are being replenished... this is a very complex topic and i dont think the scientists are giving us a fully balanced view. those leaked emails prove theres more to this then what we are being told... data IS being selected to prove a point.
December 12, 200915 yr Yes 1998 is indeed still the warmest year on record but that proves nothing. It beat the previous record year (1997) by 0.2 degrees, a huge margin. The overall trend remains upwards. A graph shows very clearly that 1998 was just a blip. i dont get it.... if 0.2c was a 'blip' then weres the room for the trend to be up?... the graph shows that there were several 'warmest years on record' (again i stress that 160 years is BUGGER ALL in earth terms) in the 1990's, so theres not been a warmest year for 11 years after having several in 8!!!! i dont see how the trend can still be 'up'. anyway, i dont doubt that globally the world has recorded some of the warmest years since records began, the data however does throw suspicion on the fact that after 11 years theres been no warmest year... it isnt inconceiveable that it has peaked. plus we simply do not KNOW for sure exactly what has caused it.
December 12, 200915 yr i dont get it.... if 0.2c was a 'blip' then weres the room for the trend to be up?... the graph shows that there were several 'warmest years on record' (again i stress that 160 years is BUGGER ALL in earth terms) in the 1990's, so theres not been a warmest year for 11 years after having several in 8!!!! i dont see how the trend can still be 'up'. anyway, i dont doubt that globally the world has recorded some of the warmest years since records began, the data however does throw suspicion on the fact that after 11 years theres been no warmest year... it isnt inconceiveable that it has peaked. plus we simply do not KNOW for sure exactly what has caused it. Look at the graph here - http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006...ped-in-1998.php - then try to convince me that there is no upward trend. It also shows very clearly how 1998 was very much a blip. The fact that it hasn't been beaten in 11 years is irrelevant. After all, would you dispute that the general trend of the sequence 90, 92, 91, 94, 113, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107 is upwards just because the peak is early in the sequence?
December 12, 200915 yr Look at the graph here - http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006...ped-in-1998.php - then try to convince me that there is no upward trend. It also shows very clearly how 1998 was very much a blip. The fact that it hasn't been beaten in 11 years is irrelevant. After all, would you dispute that the general trend of the sequence 90, 92, 91, 94, 113, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107 is upwards just because the peak is early in the sequence? fair play.... however warming has never been in doubt, only mans part in it. how does the sequence explain the hot spot around 1940 then?... man made? plus i want to know what caused the great climatic changes in the past... they occured without man... isnt it REALLY that impossible that the current warming has nothing (or little) to do with mans activities? i still maintain that we are not being told the whole truth and that other data is being omitted.
December 12, 200915 yr fair play.... however warming has never been in doubt, only mans part in it. how does the sequence explain the hot spot around 1940 then?... man made? plus i want to know what caused the great climatic changes in the past... they occured without man... isnt it REALLY that impossible that the current warming has nothing (or little) to do with mans activities? i still maintain that we are not being told the whole truth and that other data is being omitted. But why would scientists want to do that? Wouldn't you want to be the scientist who was able to publish a peer-reviewed paper which you could launch saying "Don't worry people, climate change is a natural phenomenon."? Why would scientists risk their reputations by fiddling the data? It's certainly not about funding. After all, as I said earlier, there are plenty of organisations willing to fund research that contradicts the majority opinion.
December 12, 200915 yr But why would scientists want to do that? Wouldn't you want to be the scientist who was able to publish a peer-reviewed paper which you could launch saying "Don't worry people, climate change is a natural phenomenon."? Why would scientists risk their reputations by fiddling the data? It's certainly not about funding. After all, as I said earlier, there are plenty of organisations willing to fund research that contradicts the majority opinion. dont know why, but they are doing... maybe these scientists are government funded/employed, our oil lobby isnt very big. they HAVE fiddled data as those leaked emails prove. dr david bellamy told us on tv that ice core and sediment records show that co2 levels in the atmosphere followed warming, it didnt cause it... but knowing bellamy (ive met him) he would probably support the notion to help curb pollution... and one of them scientists at the summit said the same thing, isnt stopping pollution reason enough to act on co2.... i cant argue against that, im all for cutting pollution and preserving our resources. i just dont believe everything im being told, like ive said, ive been there before, i dont believe the scientists/governments are being 100% straight with us. id like to see data on solar activity, see if theres any correlation between that and warming, and we KNOW algae in the sea can lock co2, we dont know just how much or what conditions would lead to it being locked prolifically. that is a variable unknown that the pro-warming lobby omit from their final predictions, therefore their predictions are inaccurate.
December 12, 200915 yr This is useful to be watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LR0iZSI9HI . It's not directly connected with the global warming, but it's connected by one or another way.
December 13, 200915 yr this article highlights exactly why im soooo sceptical about the whole issue, massaged figures, incomplete data and the ajusted 'hockey stick' graph.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-send-them.html
December 13, 200915 yr and one of them scientists at the summit said the same thing, isnt stopping pollution reason enough to act on co2.... Indeed it is a good enough reason in itself, trouble is, the greedy Corporations just wont stop pumping pollutants into our atmosphere and poisoning rivers if you merely ask them politely, they have to be FORCED by Govt action... And that action needs to be harsh.... You hit them where it most hurts - their "Bottom Line"...
December 13, 200915 yr people are so ott about the whole "global warming" hoopla. i say lets just see what happens
December 13, 200915 yr people are so ott about the whole "global warming" hoopla. i say lets just see what happens So if you were heading towards a brick wall at 100 mph would you say the same thing? If we just wait to see what happens and the scientists are right, we will be well and truly screwed. It will be too late to do anything about it. That's why even people sceptical of the science should act now just to be on the safe side.
December 14, 200915 yr So if you were heading towards a brick wall at 100 mph would you say the same thing? If we just wait to see what happens and the scientists are right, we will be well and truly screwed. It will be too late to do anything about it. That's why even people sceptical of the science should act now just to be on the safe side. That is right. !
December 14, 200915 yr So if you were heading towards a brick wall at 100 mph would you say the same thing? If we just wait to see what happens and the scientists are right, we will be well and truly screwed. It will be too late to do anything about it. That's why even people sceptical of the science should act now just to be on the safe side. Spot on.... "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", it matters not if these things actually exist... Pollution, overpopulation and over-consumption of the planet's resources due to the unfettered advance of Global Capitalism DOES exist, and has to be curbed, or we're screwed anyway when the oil, gas, etc, runs out and we can barely breathe the air due to smog and pollution......
December 14, 200915 yr well, over-population is all a bit blown out of the water. the world is soooooo big! people forget that. when you travel around the uk and see just how much country side there is, its highly unlikely we'll ever fill it up.
December 14, 200915 yr Spot on.... "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", it matters not if these things actually exist... Pollution, overpopulation and over-consumption of the planet's resources due to the unfettered advance of Global Capitalism DOES exist, and has to be curbed, or we're screwed anyway when the oil, gas, etc, runs out and we can barely breathe the air due to smog and pollution...... trouble is, its easy for us in the developed world to make a few cuts here and there, its the developing world that needs industry and consumer products just to catch us up and join in that will suffer the most. 'we' will be telling them 'no you cant develop because we have used up the earths quota of pollution'.
December 14, 200915 yr well, over-population is all a bit blown out of the water. the world is soooooo big! people forget that. when you travel around the uk and see just how much country side there is, its highly unlikely we'll ever fill it up. stupid comments are not allowed here.... go do some basic research before making such ridiculous comments.
December 14, 200915 yr So if you were heading towards a brick wall at 100 mph would you say the same thing? If we just wait to see what happens and the scientists are right, we will be well and truly screwed. It will be too late to do anything about it. That's why even people sceptical of the science should act now just to be on the safe side. ....but are we heading towards a brick wall at 100 mph and if we are can we do anything about it anyway?... the jurys still out as far as im concerned. whilst i accept the world MIGHT be warming up (and it all depends upon which data you chose to believe, that article throws great doubt as to the accuracy of the 'official' data), whether we are causing it or not is far from being proven.
December 14, 200915 yr well, over-population is all a bit blown out of the water. Rubbish... Why do you think the Chinese tried to control their population not so long ago by putting it into law that couples could only have one child per family... They were smart enough to realise the potential problems.... India's population has doubled in size since WW2.. If you dont think that's a problem go down to the slums of Delhi or Calcutta some time.... Or indeed go to the shanty towns of Mexico City or the Favellas of Brazil..... No, you are totally wrong, over-population of the planet is a BIG problem mate....
December 14, 200915 yr "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", it matters not if these things actually exist... Pollution, overpopulation and over-consumption of the planet's resources due to the unfettered advance of Global Capitalism DOES exist, and has to be curbed, or we're screwed anyway when the oil, gas, etc, runs out and we can barely breathe the air due to smog and pollution...... I agree with you there, and I think something should be done, but global warming is inevitable. I just wish people would stop with the "STOP GLOBAL WARMING" thing because we can't stop it, but we can slow it down to its natural pace. Edited December 14, 200915 yr by Cal
December 14, 200915 yr ....but are we heading towards a brick wall at 100 mph and if we are can we do anything about it anyway?... the jurys still out as far as im concerned. whilst i accept the world MIGHT be warming up (and it all depends upon which data you chose to believe, that article throws great doubt as to the accuracy of the 'official' data), whether we are causing it or not is far from being proven. yeah yeah yeah i know all that, i meant in england. as far as the u.k goes we're as sound as a pound
Create an account or sign in to comment