Is Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon?

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

You're quite right - it was a typical capitalist argument. There are no holes appearing in the ozone layer; if there are holes in the ozone layer, it's a natural phenomenon; yes, there are holes in the ozone layer but they won't cause eye and skin cancer; ... and anyway, it's nothing to do with our products; okay, our products are causing holes in the ozone layer but it's no great problem; well, yes, people are dieing and going blind, even sheep but they're a minority and anyway we just cannot do without our products; well yes there are substitutes for aerosols and the like but that will cut our profits and could mean the end of society as we know it ....

This is true - you can read it up..... and you might then notice how similar are the arguments against anthropogentically accelerated global atmospheric warming ....

There there'll always be a sceptic, Paul You don't give a oeoeoeoe do you?

[annmaria]

Hi Earth Hart and Paul , I still think increased numbers of skin cancer is more likely due to the huge increase in holidays abroad.
I also still think that the argument for and against global warming is a very close run thing..........

Also it should have been obvious that a debate on global warming would become political.
Annmaria

[Paul mabbott]

The greatest increase in numbers of skin/eye cancers in humans and other animals was noted in New Zealand, Australia and southern South America; amongs non-itinerant people. Whatever you think, the data is there and clearcut regarding the problems with the ozone layer which, hopefully, have been mainly forestalled. Sadly no such action on climate change.

No, the arguments regarding anthropogenically enhanced climate change are not a 'close run thing': scientists and most any objective person see there is a problem and that any action now is perhaps too little too late. Some people do not want to see the problem - in effect, they are the problem.
For sure, 'the huge increase in holidays abroad', especially by plane is a major cause of climate change ....

What is your definition of 'political'? Surely that means that we should all be discussing the matter and taking action to change policies nationally and internationally? What would we do 'non-politically'?

Originally Posted by annmaria

Hi Earth Hart and Paul , I still think increased numbers of skin cancer is more likely due to the huge increase in holidays abroad.
I also still think that the argument for and against global warming is a very close run thing..........

Also it should have been obvious that a debate on global warming would become political.
Annmaria

[annmaria]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

The greatest increase in numbers of skin/eye cancers in humans and other animals was noted in New Zealand, Australia and southern South America; amongs non-itinerant people. Whatever you think, the data is there and clearcut regarding the problems with the ozone layer which, hopefully, have been mainly forestalled. Sadly no such action on climate change.

No, the arguments regarding anthropogenically enhanced climate change are not a 'close run thing': scientists and most any objective person see there is a problem and that any action now is perhaps too little too late. Some people do not want to see the problem - in effect, they are the problem.
For sure, 'the huge increase in holidays abroad', especially by plane is a major cause of climate change ....

What is your definition of 'political'? Surely that means that we should all be discussing the matter and taking action to change policies nationally and internationally? What would we do 'non-politically'?

See Paul this is exactly what I mean you and one or two others can border on rudeness when someone has a different opinion to your own, you seem to want to brainwash and browbeat people into agreeing with you.
Also forum rules says we are to avoid religion and politics
Have a nice evening.
Annmaria

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

No, the arguments regarding anthropogenically enhanced climate change are not a 'close run thing': scientists and most any objective person see there is a problem and that any action now is perhaps too little too late. Some people do not want to see the problem - in effect, they are the problem.
For sure, 'the huge increase in holidays abroad', especially by plane is a major cause of climate change ....

I agree entirely with you on most of your points paul - i guess the reason they took swift action on cfcs is that using inert gases as a proppelant is actually cheaper for the manufacturer and safer for their workers so it was a bit of a win/win

the only point i disagree on is that flights are a "major cause" , whilst i agree that flying uneccesarily is a bad thing flights account for only 4% of anthropogenic greenhouse emmisions. The major causes are

1) power stations burning coal and to a lesser extent oil/gas
2) cement and concrete manufacture
3) cars etc
and 4) people and livestock - both breathiing out and passing wind

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by annmaria

Hi eeyore , I to am confused because someone DID bring skin cancer into the debate as another sign of the effects of global warming...........so now I am sure there is another conspiracy going on, perhaps one of you Wab admin guys deleted it because it made a hole in the pro GW argument......I know you eeyore , all that fancy dancing does not kid me , your MI8 !
Annmaria

Just to clear this up

a) I'm not on the wab admin team - well except for some mgnt of the review section

b) to suggest that any of the mod/admin guys would delete a post because it made a hole in an argument is fatuous beyond belief - not to mention offensive to the hard working and even handed mods

c) when earthheart mentioned cfcs/ skin cancer it was as an example of another similar campaign which had been dismissed at the begining but later proved beyond doubt - he was not saying that skin cancer was related to GW

[annmaria]

Eeyore, why is everything with you a massive argument , do you have one enormous chip on your shoulder.
Have NICE day
Annmaria

[annmaria]

Also with regard to accusing admin staff ( although I am sure they managed to get the drift ! ) It was a joke ! Or are you really a member of M18
You are the one being FATUOUS ( my you are so clever Eeyore )
Yes I had to look that up, thank you I think we should all strive to learn something new each day.
Annmaria

[Strontium]

Originally Posted by annmaria

See Paul this is exactly what I mean you and one or two others can border on rudeness when someone has a different opinion to your own, you seem to want to brainwash and browbeat people into agreeing with you.
Also forum rules says we are to avoid religion and politics
Have a nice evening.
Annmaria

Thanks Annmaria for re-iterating the rules of engagement for this small war of opinions

I am interested in the policies of our government when concerned with wars abroad, and issues at home like how to deal with waste, energy resources and policing of the extreme type.. (for want of less obvious and high profile words). One of the problems we face in this country is how to stay in a good economic position globally, and because we are not a nation with large resources, how do we go about it. Well what many companies do is outsourcing.. to asia. Which of course requires resources, energy resources. So the UKs economy becoming entwined with the growing asian economies - otherwise we would face a recession and imminent 3rd world status - directly effects our own fuel prices. Since the Asian economies are dumping the largest amounts of pollution into their atmosphere, rivers etc, the influence on them must be brought by some means?

[annmaria]

Ok Strontium, I think I follow that
What do you suggest?
Annmaria

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by annmaria

...are you really a member of M18

darn thats blown my cover - you realise that I'm going to have to kill you now
(and yep , that was a joke - hence the use of the joking smiley )

[Paul mabbott]

I'm not disagreeing, I did say "a major cause ...". When talking about mass tourism there's not just aviation fuel to consider but (as you mention) cement for building hotels, provision of water, loss of green space and water catchment, destruction of dune and beach systems, road transport of foods which have been intensively produced (and flatulently) &c &c ..... the list is very lengthy.

Originally Posted by eeyore

I agree entirely with you on most of your points paul - i guess the reason they took swift action on cfcs is that using inert gases as a proppelant is actually cheaper for the manufacturer and safer for their workers so it was a bit of a win/win

the only point i disagree on is that flights are a "major cause" , whilst i agree that flying uneccesarily is a bad thing flights account for only 4% of anthropogenic greenhouse emmisions. The major causes are

1) power stations burning coal and to a lesser extent oil/gas
2) cement and concrete manufacture
3) cars etc
and 4) people and livestock - both breathiing out and passing wind

[Paul mabbott]

But this isn't a matter of 'opinions' it is a matter of looking at the facts and trying not to hide from them and their implications.
Yes, I should probably keep out of this thread (I have actually been very restrained) because there are people who simply do not understand the facts and are just working out their own fantasies.
I think that the bar on 'politics' refers to party politics. Otherwise we would be unable to discuss anything relating to policies (local, national or international) or organisation. Perhaps that's what some people would prefer?

Originally Posted by annmaria

See Paul this is exactly what I mean you and one or two others can border on rudeness when someone has a different opinion to your own, you seem to want to brainwash and browbeat people into agreeing with you.
Also forum rules says we are to avoid religion and politics
Have a nice evening.
Annmaria

[annmaria]

Originally Posted by eeyore

darn thats blown my cover - you realise that I'm going to have to kill you now
(and yep , that was a joke - hence the use of the joking smiley )

Please dont kill me just yet or I might not ever learn anything else and will remain fatuous for ever.
Annmaria
P.S. Did you get that word from Magners Cider
Only joking

[annmaria]

Hi Paul , its actually supposed to be a debate, not a one sided ' you will accept MY FACTS BECAUSE MY FACTS ARE RIGHT AND YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG '
You see opinions can come into a debate as well.
Opinions are formed and discussed in a two way debate.
I will listen to what you have to say , then decide if I agree or not, probably not OK
Annmaria

[Paul mabbott]

No, facts are facts - they are either right or they are not facts.
This thread has gone on for far too long and clearly people have come into it who have not read the earlier stages and some of us () are getting fed up at having to hear the same old claptrap and repeat the same facts.

I think everyone entering this thread should sign a disclaimer:
(a) I understand what the greenhouse effect is (it's not new: Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) ;
(b) I know what the various greenhouse gases are and their relative effects on temperature accumulation;
(c) I know which greenhouse gases are produced excessively by human industry (inlcuding agriculture);
(d) I have some critical knowledge that contradicts the conclusions of IPCC IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

If not, then I suspect that their comments are worthless .... sorry.

Originally Posted by annmaria

Hi Paul , its actually supposed to be a debate, not a one sided ' you will accept MY FACTS BECAUSE MY FACTS ARE RIGHT AND YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG '
You see opinions can come into a debate as well.
Opinions are formed and discussed in a two way debate.
I will listen to what you have to say , then decide if I agree or not, probably not OK
Annmaria

[annmaria]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

No, facts are facts - they are either right or they are not facts.
This thread has gone on for far too long and clearly people have come into it who have not read the earlier stages and some of us () are getting fed up at having to hear the same old claptrap and repeat the same facts.

I think everyone entering this thread should sign a disclaimer:
(a) I understand what the greenhouse effect is (it's not new: Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) ;
(b) I know what the various greenhouse gases are and their relative effects on temperature accumulation;
(c) I know which greenhouse gases are produced excessively by human industry (inlcuding agriculture);
(d) I have some critical knowledge that contradicts the conclusions of IPCC IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

If not, then I suspect that their comments are worthless .... sorry.

I have sadly decided you are a very rude person.
Once upon a time everyone believed the world was flat , you see facts have a way of changing .........
I NO LONGER WISH TO BOTHER WITH SUCH AN ARROGANT PERSON
Annmaria

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by annmaria

I have sadly decided you are a very rude person.
Once upon a time everyone believed the world was flat , you see facts have a way of changing .........
I NO LONGER WISH TO BOTHER WITH SUCH AN ARROGANT PERSON
Annmaria

perhaps you should look in a mirror - Paul has consistently stuck to facts , it is you who has decended to personal allegations of arrogance, ignorance etc, probably because your position has very few facts to back it up.

the world being flat was a belief because at the time human kind didnt know any better - it was never a fact and facts later proved it wrong.

equally the idea that global warming is not happening is a belief - not a fact , the facts (which are freely available) point to this being wrong too - unfortunately by the time the facts are glaringly obvious even to the uninformed it will be too late to do anything about them.

certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion but like paul said for an opinion to have any worth in a debate like this it does help if the poster has an appreciation of what the established facts are.

I (and i would suspect paul, matt etc) am quite happy to engage in debate with anyone who can argue against anthropogenic global warming in an objective and scientific manner , but it does get wearing to have the same , head in the sand, "its not happening - ya boo sucks" stuff trotted out over and over again - particularly from posters who dont seem to even understand what the principal of the green house effect is, and therefore what they are arguing against.

[annmaria]

Originally Posted by eeyore

perhaps you should look in a mirror - Paul has consistently stuck to facts , it is you who has decended to personal allegations of arrogance, ignorance etc, probably because your position has very few facts to back it up.

the world being flat was a belief because at the time human kind didnt know any better - it was never a fact and facts later proved it wrong.

equally the idea that global warming is not happening is a belief - not a fact , the facts (which are freely available) point to this being wrong too - unfortunately by the time the facts are glaringly obvious even to the uninformed it will be too late to do anything about them.

certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion but like paul said for an opinion to have any worth in a debate like this it does help if the poster has an appreciation of what the established facts are.

I (and i would suspect paul, matt etc) am quite happy to engage in debate with anyone who can argue against anthropogenic global warming in an objective and scientific manner , but it does get wearing to have the same , head in the sand, "its not happening - ya boo sucks" stuff trotted out over and over again - particularly from posters who dont seem to even understand what the principal of the green house effect is, and therefore what they are arguing against.

I was going to answer this , but I really can not be bothered.
Through out history facts and beliefs have changed places, I try to keep an open mind without shouting others down,
If it makes you feel good , your facts are right until proven wrong!
Annmaria

[John D]

Originally Posted by annmaria

I was going to answer this , but I really can not be bothered.
Through out history facts and beliefs have changed places, I try to keep an open mind without shouting others down,
If it makes you feel good , your facts are right until proven wrong!
Annmaria

You are correct Annmaria on the FACT that 'facts are correct until proven wrong' and this has been the case in days gone by and will be the case in the future.
Only time will tell which facts are correct and which are not. However at times decisions must be made on the 'current facts' as the risk of ignoring them could be disastrous. With regards to the topic under discussion few if any of us will be around long enough to witness what facts are bourne out to be correct.
Personally I'm a bit sceptical of the current theories and 'facts' regarding this topic but I don't have enough knowledge of the situation and understanding of the 'facts' to persuade me to lean totally in any one direction.
I therefore can only accept that there may be opposing facts as there appears to be on this topic and leave it to the 'experts' on both sides of the debate to decide which action should be taken.
I only hope the 'experts' get it ri