News3 mins ago
Have the scientists got it wrong about global warming?
Today on Channel 4 proof was given that climate change is not related to carbon emissions but instead is a cyclic phenonemon which is due to solar flares.
If we get this wrong in our diagnosis it could lead to the most expensive blunder ever committed by our politicians and environmentalists not to mention the tax burden in trying to control it . Because of the long period of the cycle it would take many years to see the results of our endeavours.
Instead of tackling this like a runaway express train should we instead only take appropriate measures closely aligned with the major polluters?
If we get this wrong in our diagnosis it could lead to the most expensive blunder ever committed by our politicians and environmentalists not to mention the tax burden in trying to control it . Because of the long period of the cycle it would take many years to see the results of our endeavours.
Instead of tackling this like a runaway express train should we instead only take appropriate measures closely aligned with the major polluters?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kwicky. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There'll be somebody along in a minute (he knows who he is) who'll be able to make the connection with Thatcher because GLOBAL WARMING has almost as many letters as MAGGIE THATCHER and therefore it absolutely MUST be her fault or if you re-arrange some of the letters you come up with WAR MONG and as we know Thatcher invaded The Falklands and because she sunk the Belgrano a great big plume of smoke went into the atmosphere and this kick started global warming.
.......or some other spurious leap of logic reason.
.......or some other spurious leap of logic reason.
It was brilliant :-)
The tax burden trying to control it? anyone getting a refund lol...
I think Maggie came into it over Nuclear power. She was a scientist too!!! they (conservatives) wanted nuclear power so much that they gave money, money, money to the scientists of their choice... to prove Global warming was through carbon emissions ergo 'nuclear power' was a safer option for the protection of the environment.
The major polluters? were only responsible for 0.6 gigatonnes? where as cows and all of nature were responsible for 10x that lol (figures loose btw because I cant remember the exact amounts).... so I suppose it will be the farmers fault!!! as they will be the major polluters....
The tax burden trying to control it? anyone getting a refund lol...
I think Maggie came into it over Nuclear power. She was a scientist too!!! they (conservatives) wanted nuclear power so much that they gave money, money, money to the scientists of their choice... to prove Global warming was through carbon emissions ergo 'nuclear power' was a safer option for the protection of the environment.
The major polluters? were only responsible for 0.6 gigatonnes? where as cows and all of nature were responsible for 10x that lol (figures loose btw because I cant remember the exact amounts).... so I suppose it will be the farmers fault!!! as they will be the major polluters....
As beryllium rightly points out, the Maggie Thatcher link with the global warming question was based on her determination not to be held to ransom by the miners or the Arabs, as Ted Heath had been. She believed nuclear power was a valuable, cheap and reliable source of power and encouraged research by the 'global warming' scientists to discredit carbon fuels. Up until that time, the 'global warming' scientist had been viewed as somewhat eccentric by the scientific community. I doubt she ever believed them, but they were a useful tool against the carbon power lobby at that particular time in history.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Sorry Mani, cant agree with you at all. I have been saying this for ages along with the likes of Looshead etc.
Look at the history of our planet(not just the 200 years we have kept records) , the temperature varies - lots, the earth moves and evolves. By backing the tree huggers we are playing King Canute it wont stop it the figures just dont add up. Are you proposing we get shot of all the cows etc? (Guess if you are a tree hugger your most liklely a veggie so the answer is yes!!)
This is not to say we should not do something about pollution. Fossil fuels do cause polution which is harmfull, as an asthma sufferer I know this first hand. But attributing Global warming to it is not quite the ticket old chap
Look at the history of our planet(not just the 200 years we have kept records) , the temperature varies - lots, the earth moves and evolves. By backing the tree huggers we are playing King Canute it wont stop it the figures just dont add up. Are you proposing we get shot of all the cows etc? (Guess if you are a tree hugger your most liklely a veggie so the answer is yes!!)
This is not to say we should not do something about pollution. Fossil fuels do cause polution which is harmfull, as an asthma sufferer I know this first hand. But attributing Global warming to it is not quite the ticket old chap
I have recorded that programme to see later but I have been involved in similar discussions elsewhere. Once again I say, perhaps Professor David Bellamy was right many years ago. Some scientists have distorted facts, some have included other scientists names falsely to back up their ideas. Have these people have any conscience?
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibit gcc/images/historical02.gif
Mani, take a look at this graph. You'll see that although global warming and carbon emissions are inextricably linked, the cycle repeats about every 100,000 years. Man wasn't in industrial mode any other time, and the link between man and global warming is tenuous. As the programme showed, a lot of the scientists linked with the global warming warning are now distancing themselves from it.
Mani, take a look at this graph. You'll see that although global warming and carbon emissions are inextricably linked, the cycle repeats about every 100,000 years. Man wasn't in industrial mode any other time, and the link between man and global warming is tenuous. As the programme showed, a lot of the scientists linked with the global warming warning are now distancing themselves from it.
Further to my earlier comment, I have now seen the Channel 4 programme. All the scientists contributing to it have put their names to their statements, not hiding behind the views of a society or organisation. Here are a few notes I wrote while watching the programme.
Co2 is not a pollutant, oceans produce most Co2. Sunspots cause change of temperature and the sun is driving climate change. Anticapitalists are behind the present campaign. The media likes the present confrontation because it secures jobs. The UN distorted the reports of eminent scientists. Scientists who disagree with the global warming theory are accused of having private funding to make their statements and are publicly attacked. Political activists are behind it all. This is more than enough to convince me. I hope the general public start to use their own enquiring minds to look, listen and base their judgment on true facts and not propaganda.
Co2 is not a pollutant, oceans produce most Co2. Sunspots cause change of temperature and the sun is driving climate change. Anticapitalists are behind the present campaign. The media likes the present confrontation because it secures jobs. The UN distorted the reports of eminent scientists. Scientists who disagree with the global warming theory are accused of having private funding to make their statements and are publicly attacked. Political activists are behind it all. This is more than enough to convince me. I hope the general public start to use their own enquiring minds to look, listen and base their judgment on true facts and not propaganda.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.