Is Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon? - Page 7

annmaria · #**151** (**permalink**) 13-06-2008, 07:06 PM

When ' Man ' thinks it can control the weather we really are in a mess !

Annmaria

al woodcock · #**152** (**permalink**) 13-06-2008, 08:36 PM

Actually, you don't work for the IPCC do you eyore? Are you a climate scientist? If so, it's in your interest to keep the climate change 'religion' going, surely? And no, I don't work for an oil company! [in case you're wondering].

al woodcock · #**153** (**permalink**) 13-06-2008, 08:48 PM

Well said annmaria. Who do 'we' think we are. The Earth's billions of years old. It 's big enough and old enough to look after itself I'm sure!

Earth Hart · #**154** (**permalink**) 13-06-2008, 09:56 PM

The Earth will right herself, after the species Homo sapiens has become extinct, because too many folks can't see whats happening as they've got their heads stuck up you know were. All they care about is themselves, they have no understanding of the systems that the Earth runs, to keep us alive, fit & healthy.

al woodcock · #**155** (**permalink**) 14-06-2008, 09:49 AM

Check out Nigel Lawson's 'A very inconvenient truth for the climate change alarmists'

on the net. Might make some people think twice!!

ChrisJB · #**156** (**permalink**) 14-06-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Oh! I feel silly now!

Don't be daft! Instead, just have a surf of the good ol' world wide web and I'm sure you will find plenty to back up your argument. Whether or not it will be accurate is another matter! But, at least it keeps good, honest, healthy debate alive on WAB.

Regards, Chris

Earth Hart · #**157** (**permalink**) 14-06-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Check out Nigel Lawson's 'A very inconvenient truth for the climate change alarmists'

on the net. Might make some people think twice!!

How many times do you think, on a subject outside of your comfort zone? While you were still at school, in '71, I was attending a conference on High Level Atmospheric Pollution. That's were people started talking about UVB, the Ozone layer & CFCs, and we know how long that took to get banned, & still there are rising skin cancers.

If you walk around your landscape you'll see the effect of CC. If you are a naturalist, then surely you have witnessed the change, on your walks through the seasons. I know for us here in Somerset, last Autumn went into this Spring, we didn't have a Winter. Oh, & with regards Lawson & his book, take a look at Lawson's portfolio, Gas, Oil, Utilities. He also has a number of interesting Directorships

annmaria · #**158** (**permalink**) 14-06-2008, 08:45 PM

Maybe just maybe more people are getting skin cancer because more people are sunbathing!
Also do you think that if the argument against global warming is proven the various green taxes will be repaid!

Annmaria

al woodcock · #**159** (**permalink**) 14-06-2008, 08:49 PM

Ok Earth hart my friend. There's no need for the attitude. Fine, I was still at school in 1971. What of it? Does your age instantly qualify you to be an expert in life? Also in 1971 there was a documentary where at the end a Swedish scientists conclusion about CO2 was 'we just can't prove it' He was talking about the obvious effect that people are worrying about now. Also, do I have to be a 'naturalist' I just enjoy wildlife. Wildlife's for everyone not just 'naturalists'

Earth Hart · #**160** (**permalink**) 14-06-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Ok Earth hart my friend. There's no need for the attitude. Fine, I was still at school in 1971. What of it? Does your age instantly qualify you to be an expert in life? Also in 1971 there was a documentary where at the end a Swedish scientists conclusion about CO2 was 'we just can't prove it' He was talking about the obvious effect that people are worrying about now. Also, do I have to be a 'naturalist' I just enjoy wildlife. Wildlife's for everyone not just 'naturalists'

It's nothing to do with age but the interests we each follow. I think you should read James Lovelock's book "The Revenge of Gaia" a solid truthful study of where we're at, with no money backing him what so ever.

If you love your wildlife as far as I'm concerned, you're a naturalist. Sorry for using a word which you see as shutting you out, I wasn't. You're here, on WAB. That says something about you.

As to CC sceptics in the Sciences, most are backed & supported by the petrochemical industry & the auto industry, along with utility companies. They don't want to see their profits go down, got to keep the shareholders happy with good returns. One thing I've learned, is that to understand the Whole Picture, one must know All sides, be independent, sift through it all. I'm still sifting, but I know that anthropogenic CO2 is having a major affect on GW/CC, & now the release of natural methane from the permafrost melting is adding more stress to our Climate systems. The methane has been locked-up in the permafrost for thousands of years, & it's 20x more powerful than CO2.

If you are interested in Climate Change & how it will affect your great grandchildren, because it really is happening, drop me a pm.
I have two grandchildren, Kaia (13) & Oliver (10), they both talk about what's happening in the world today. I know Kaia would love to have a family, and live in the country, Ollie, well, he's into shamanism, martial arts, woods & trees, foxes & Badgers, & at 10, he asked some very hard questions. The other day he phone me & asked me why people were so greedy, not just with food,Oh No, mobile phones, TVs, cars, and slowly began a list of products we buy and then throw away to get the next model. Bless him, he said "That's such a waste of energy, and he's 10.

Another thing I've found, is those who turn away from CC/GW, are usually only thinking of themselves, not their future offspring. They are not concerned as to the welfare of the future,they won't be around.

In other words, they Don't Give A... Well, you know what goes there. Think about it. Sorry for the ramble but I enjoy a walk in the evening

al woodcock · #**161** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 10:10 AM

Hello Earth hart.

I think that what is wrong with the whole debate is that the governments consulting with the IPCC have simply run off with the idea that it's co2 and only co2 that is polluting our world. Now, I can tell that you know more about the subject of global warming than I do, and as you've rightly said there are a lot more gases and,perhaps, chemicals that are far more damaging to our atmosphere than co2. I just feel that the government have chosen co2 to point the finger at us tax payers and accuse ordinary people of polluting the world for their own gain. I can only guess that they've used carbon dioxide because most people know what it is and it's something we can relate to. As for the scientists doing vitally important work, are governments perhaps ignoring the true facts-compicated as they may be-and are taxing us on something that isn't as harmful as they would have us believe? Anyway thanks for your replies. Let's keep the debate alive, I'm really enjoying it!! All the best for now.

matt_xyz · #**162** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Hello Earth hart.

I think that what is wrong with the whole debate is that the governments consulting with the IPCC have simply run off with the idea that it's co2 and only co2 that is polluting our world. Now, I can tell that you know more about the subject of global warming than I do, and as you've rightly said there are a lot more gases and,perhaps, chemicals that are far more damaging to our atmosphere than co2. I just feel that the government have chosen co2 to point the finger at us tax payers and accuse ordinary people of polluting the world for their own gain. I can only guess that they've used carbon dioxide because most people know what it is and it's something we can relate to. As for the scientists doing vitally important work, are governments perhaps ignoring the true facts-compicated as they may be-and are taxing us on something that isn't as harmful as they would have us believe? Anyway thanks for your replies. Let's keep the debate alive, I'm really enjoying it!! All the best for now.

Al, the reason we target CO2 is because CO2 is believed to be responsible for over 60% of man-made warming. Other pollutants are more powerful than CO2 per unit (i.e. one kg of methane causes more warming than one kg of CO2) but we release far, far, more CO2 than methane (or other greenhouse gases). Since CO2 is therefore the main culprit, attention has inevitably focused on this gas.

Matt

al woodcock · #**163** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 01:47 PM

Ok, thanks Matt. I'm still undecided on the whole issue though, simply because I'm suspicious of government motives. This subject should never have gone political really. But I'm afraid once has we're all subjected to their demands and the only information we ['ordinary folk on the street'] get seems to come from them. Thanks again for the info though!!

Earth Hart · #**164** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Ok, thanks Matt. I'm still undecided on the whole issue though, simply because I'm suspicious of government motives. This subject should never have gone political really. But I'm afraid once has we're all subjected to their demands and the only information we ['ordinary folk on the street'] get seems to come from them. Thanks again for the info though!!

Sadly Al, the governments are not acting long-term for the Earth & all Her many lifeforms, they're only acting for short-term political gain, & there are major lobby groups, acting on behalf of the oil & auto industry, that are brow beating governments into not acting. No one government has yet taken the step to mitigate CC/GW. Think of all the tax revenue that would be lost if we bought less petrol, cars etc.

matt_xyz · #**165** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Ok, thanks Matt. I'm still undecided on the whole issue though, simply because I'm suspicious of government motives. This subject should never have gone political really. But I'm afraid once has we're all subjected to their demands and the only information we ['ordinary folk on the street'] get seems to come from them. Thanks again for the info though!!

Al, it wasn't politicians who came up with the evidence for global warming, but the scientific community. The scientific evidence is very convincing when reviewed objectively and there is a clear scientific consensus that human activity is influencing the climate. The sceptics are a small minority but they shout very loudly often because they are sadly paid to do so.

I think it was George Monbiot who summed the debate up nicely when he said that climate change sceptics have to climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb.

Matt

Earth Hart · #**166** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 05:49 PM

Good old George

And I don't mean G.W.Bush, ah, Global War-ming Bush

eeyore · #**167** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Actually, you don't work for the IPCC do you eyore? Are you a climate scientist? If so, it's in your interest to keep the climate change 'religion' going, surely? And no, I don't work for an oil company! [in case you're wondering].

No I dont - however i would say that it is in everyones interest to take Global warming seriously for two reasons.

a) if cc proponents are right we need to take action now - because although the earth will undoubtedly survive a serious upheaval mankind probably wont.

and

b) even if cc proponents are wrong , oil is still running out - and thus developing technogies to cope without it can only be a good thing in the long run.

al woodcock · #**168** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 07:41 PM

Mat-xyz. Yes mate. I realise that it wasn't politicians who came up with the evidence for global warming.That would be silly, and that was exactly my point. But as soon as the issue becomes political we have to hear the politicians telling us these facts. I want a scientist or three to explain to us the facts and not some liar!! [sorry but we all know what they're like though, don't we]. It needs the politics and media panic removed and then people like us sceptics will listen more carefully. Unfortunately that's unlikely though isn't it. But I am still prepared to be convinced. Earth hart makes some sense of it all, so I'm not completely biased. I'm still really enjoying this debate so please keep 'em coming. Cheers. Al.

eeyore · #**169** (**permalink**) 15-06-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annmaria

Maybe just maybe more people are getting skin cancer because more people are sunbathing!
Also do you think that if the argument against global warming is proven the various green taxes will be repaid!

Annmaria

where did skin cancer come into it

that was a symptom of ozone layer destruction by CFCs - which is proven beyond doubt and is the principal reason for cfc being banned as a propellant in aerosols

however this had nothing to do with climate change.

Confusion sometimes arrises because CFCs are also a greenhouse gas - but the greenhoue effect will not give you skin cancer as although the planet will get hotter the UV intensisity will not be increased.

Strontium · #**170** (**permalink**) 16-06-2008, 10:47 AM

Hi al,

Quote:

Originally Posted by al woodcock

Ok, thanks Matt. I'm still undecided on the whole issue though, simply because I'm suspicious of government motives. This subject should never have gone political really. But I'm afraid once has we're all subjected to their demands and the only information we ['ordinary folk on the street'] get seems to come from them. Thanks again for the info though!!

I find this point crucial to the way the general public are able to make proper representable remarks about the policies of our governing bodies, representatives, and laws that determine the practices of businesses and corporations we choose to work for. Unfortunately many don`t have a voice, and are not even informed of the kinds of issues that are going to face them in the long term, and are not able to do the kind of science that is necessary to understand these global issues. I think the only way to put pressure on corporations, to small businesses, and the spectrum in-between, to become greener and be respectful of the resource, is by law, which can only unilaterally accepted if the issue is global, and political.

StuartDH · #**171** (**permalink**) 16-06-2008, 12:08 PM

Without wanting to go down the political route, there's one problem that I have with the 'Global Warming Conspiracy' theory.

If these governments, big industries etc are so corrupt, why didn't they hide some WMDs in Iraq? Iraq has probably been the biggest embarrassment for the UK and US govts in living memory, and yet it would have been so easy to justify invading the country if they'd placed and then found even just a relatively small quantity of nuke/bio/chemical materials in a bunker in the desert.

I like a good conspiracy as much as the next man. As a kid I liked nothing more than the smug satisfaction of thinking that I was so intelligent that I'd worked out something that everyone else in the world couldn't see because they'd had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Sadly, I don't seem to have this great insight for the gboal warming issue. I wish I was wrong, just like most environmentalists probably wish they were wrong, but unfortunately I'm increasingly finding the evidence for man-made climate change is difficult to deny.

I'd love to believe that global warming is just a government initiative for more taxes, but since when have they ever needed an excuse to tax us? I'd love to believe that it's just an excuse for big companies to make more money, but isn't a big part of the solution for CC that we all buy less and waste less (which would also reduce tax revenue)?

I'd love to believe anything that means we've got it wrong and we're not polluting the earth and atmosphere, stripping resources, destroying habitats, killing off wildlife and the environment.

al woodcock · #**172** (**permalink**) 16-06-2008, 05:04 PM

Hello Stuart.

Your mention of buy less and waste less is a very good point. We could all do with a little less packaging don't you think? Some items we buy are so unnecessarily packaged. 'double sided' bubble paks of items that are impossible to open without a knife [dodgy]. Mobile phones come in a box far too big, too. We're offered carrier bags for one item at supermarkets!!! I could go on and on and I hope someone wlse will. Cheers. Al.