Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
For attention of those climate change numpties
For the attention of those braindead types who pipe up about the "global warming lot" going quiet when there's 2 days of snow and adopting the head in the sand approach:
http://www.newscienti...n-climate-change.html
Lets see what counter arguments they come up with.,
http://www.newscienti...n-climate-change.html
Lets see what counter arguments they come up with.,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Avatar. 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.
Those whom you number among the “brain dead numpties”, Avatar, are presumably those who work for the US National Snow and Ice data centre in Colorado.
They suggest that the warming of the earth is due to natural oceanic cycles and not due to the activities of mankind. They suggest that the earth goes through a cycle of warm and cool modes due principally to natural fluctuations in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. They believe that the earth has now entered a cool mode and that global temperatures have begun to fall, and will continue to fall for perhaps 30 years. Among other things they cite the fact that the amount of summer sea ice has increased by 25% since 2007.
People should beware of accepting conjecture as “fact” simply because sufficient numbers of “experts” tell them so enough times. 132 million doses of swine flu vaccine have recently been purchased and subsequently dumped because experts persuaded the government that 100,000 per week would contract the disease and 65,000 may die. In 2000 Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Centre said snow would be a “very rare and exciting event” in the UK in coming years. I could go on.
The article you cite is almost three years old, and was published at the height of the Global Warming “hype”. I personally would like to see a more balanced approach with some more cash being invested in gas storage and nuclear power, and a little less on wind farms – the most inefficient mode of power production. Hopefully a more reasoned debate will ensue now that the “facts” seem to be somewhat changing.
But of course I’m just a brain dead numpty.
They suggest that the warming of the earth is due to natural oceanic cycles and not due to the activities of mankind. They suggest that the earth goes through a cycle of warm and cool modes due principally to natural fluctuations in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. They believe that the earth has now entered a cool mode and that global temperatures have begun to fall, and will continue to fall for perhaps 30 years. Among other things they cite the fact that the amount of summer sea ice has increased by 25% since 2007.
People should beware of accepting conjecture as “fact” simply because sufficient numbers of “experts” tell them so enough times. 132 million doses of swine flu vaccine have recently been purchased and subsequently dumped because experts persuaded the government that 100,000 per week would contract the disease and 65,000 may die. In 2000 Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Centre said snow would be a “very rare and exciting event” in the UK in coming years. I could go on.
The article you cite is almost three years old, and was published at the height of the Global Warming “hype”. I personally would like to see a more balanced approach with some more cash being invested in gas storage and nuclear power, and a little less on wind farms – the most inefficient mode of power production. Hopefully a more reasoned debate will ensue now that the “facts” seem to be somewhat changing.
But of course I’m just a brain dead numpty.
Well that is one way I suppose to get people to side with you over something, data or no data, Just insult them. Call them numpties and braindead and so on.
I'm not going to counter argue the point. It may or may not be us. We haven't been on this planet long enough to know just how it works and why it works the way it does.
We shall see just who is right or wrong. If the global warming side are right then I think perhaps it is to late to do a thing to stop it. If not then I think there is still nothing we can do about it.
But please don't go through insults around just because you believe in the global warming theory. It isn't going to convince any doubters that it is right.
I'm not going to counter argue the point. It may or may not be us. We haven't been on this planet long enough to know just how it works and why it works the way it does.
We shall see just who is right or wrong. If the global warming side are right then I think perhaps it is to late to do a thing to stop it. If not then I think there is still nothing we can do about it.
But please don't go through insults around just because you believe in the global warming theory. It isn't going to convince any doubters that it is right.
-- answer removed --
Put a percentage on it. I'm interested to know how certain people are either way.
People see the compelling body of opinion, consisting of the most respected and pre-eminent scientists and scientific bodies in the world - and they're initially convinced. But then they look at the other side. These scientists could be in it to gain extra funding. Governments could be pushing this theory to raise green taxes. And there are a significant number of scientists (not as many admittedly, and not as respected, some argue) who argue against the idea of man-made climate change.
So let's say this combination of opposing voices and suspect motives have eroded your belief in man-made climate change. So you're only 50/50. Or even 70/30 in favour of not believing. That still leaves a very hefty chance in your mind that we're responsible in some way for potentially catastrophic change.
Surely those odds would be enough to make you take the chance - even if on the balance of probabilities you don't believe it's happening - that there might be something in it, and be prepared to change behaviour, pay more tax, take responsibility accordingly.
If you reduce your carbon footprint and it turns out you've been duped, what's the worst that's happened? You're slightly less well-off financially, you feel a bit of an idiot. If you do nothing and it turns out you should have, what's the worst that's happened? You've contributed to irreversible and hugely damaging climate change. That's the bit I don't get.
So how certain are non-believers that man-made climate change isn't real? And what is it about the believability of the conspiracy theories that overrides the believability of so many thousands of highly respected scientists?
Even if ON BALANCE you're not sold on the idea, the cast-iron certainty that it's not true worth acting on AT ALL seems odd to me.
People see the compelling body of opinion, consisting of the most respected and pre-eminent scientists and scientific bodies in the world - and they're initially convinced. But then they look at the other side. These scientists could be in it to gain extra funding. Governments could be pushing this theory to raise green taxes. And there are a significant number of scientists (not as many admittedly, and not as respected, some argue) who argue against the idea of man-made climate change.
So let's say this combination of opposing voices and suspect motives have eroded your belief in man-made climate change. So you're only 50/50. Or even 70/30 in favour of not believing. That still leaves a very hefty chance in your mind that we're responsible in some way for potentially catastrophic change.
Surely those odds would be enough to make you take the chance - even if on the balance of probabilities you don't believe it's happening - that there might be something in it, and be prepared to change behaviour, pay more tax, take responsibility accordingly.
If you reduce your carbon footprint and it turns out you've been duped, what's the worst that's happened? You're slightly less well-off financially, you feel a bit of an idiot. If you do nothing and it turns out you should have, what's the worst that's happened? You've contributed to irreversible and hugely damaging climate change. That's the bit I don't get.
So how certain are non-believers that man-made climate change isn't real? And what is it about the believability of the conspiracy theories that overrides the believability of so many thousands of highly respected scientists?
Even if ON BALANCE you're not sold on the idea, the cast-iron certainty that it's not true worth acting on AT ALL seems odd to me.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
There's that certainty again, birdie.
Even if you suspect that the bank of scientists who agree with man-made climate change are peddling the theory begacuse they're lax or dishonest or not as clever as those on the other side, you're don't seem to entertain the idea that they might have a point. You'd sooner believer it's either mass ignorance or a conspiracy.
Sounds very much to me as if you don't want it to be true and you're cherry-picking your science as a consequence.
Even if you suspect that the bank of scientists who agree with man-made climate change are peddling the theory begacuse they're lax or dishonest or not as clever as those on the other side, you're don't seem to entertain the idea that they might have a point. You'd sooner believer it's either mass ignorance or a conspiracy.
Sounds very much to me as if you don't want it to be true and you're cherry-picking your science as a consequence.
Birdie you are stone cold right because as you state you take the BALNCE of opinion.
You point out that even the pro- AGW have 6 varing computer modules.
These are all unproven theory nothing more nothing less, however given the millions of pounds, dollars, yen rtc thrown at it you would expect that greater evidence would support it.
Everyone no matter what there view point should look at all the scientific data with degrees of scepticism which is what the scientific community do, nobody can prove, either pro or anti, anything YET.
The only numpties are those who follow the medias interpretation and take it as 100% proof when science, all science says be sceptical.
You point out that even the pro- AGW have 6 varing computer modules.
These are all unproven theory nothing more nothing less, however given the millions of pounds, dollars, yen rtc thrown at it you would expect that greater evidence would support it.
Everyone no matter what there view point should look at all the scientific data with degrees of scepticism which is what the scientific community do, nobody can prove, either pro or anti, anything YET.
The only numpties are those who follow the medias interpretation and take it as 100% proof when science, all science says be sceptical.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I’ll join in again birdie just to keep you company.
Yes, that’s what annoys me ('time for debate is over' and the 'science is settled'...). It most certainly is not. But even that is far less serious than the ridiculous measures that many nations and this one in particular, believe will tackle the alleged problem.
“Wind Farms” – the most inefficient and unreliable way of generating electricity there can be. Wind turbines (despite what is stated in the manufacturers’ literature) cost more (in terms of emissions) during the manufacture and construction than they will ever save when in use. In addition, every watt of electricity they might produce has to have full “conventional” backup generation facilities available for when the wind does not blow – which is often when it is very cold in the UK and demand is at its peak. We cannot store electricity for domestic use.
“Electric Cars” – ultra expensive at present (though I accept the cost will come down with development) but the emissions created to produce the power to charge them are almost as high as a conventional car would produce (unless we restrict their charging to windy weather, of course, which would have meant none of them being available for use for about the past three weeks or more).
“Drive five miles less a week”. If ever there was a patronising advertising campaign this is it. Five miles is about two percent of the average driver’s weekly mileage. And in that week China has opened another one or two coal fired power stations. But, of course, we developed nations must restrict our emissions so that we do not stand in the way of the development of countries like China.
I could go on but it annoys me just writing about it.
Yes, that’s what annoys me ('time for debate is over' and the 'science is settled'...). It most certainly is not. But even that is far less serious than the ridiculous measures that many nations and this one in particular, believe will tackle the alleged problem.
“Wind Farms” – the most inefficient and unreliable way of generating electricity there can be. Wind turbines (despite what is stated in the manufacturers’ literature) cost more (in terms of emissions) during the manufacture and construction than they will ever save when in use. In addition, every watt of electricity they might produce has to have full “conventional” backup generation facilities available for when the wind does not blow – which is often when it is very cold in the UK and demand is at its peak. We cannot store electricity for domestic use.
“Electric Cars” – ultra expensive at present (though I accept the cost will come down with development) but the emissions created to produce the power to charge them are almost as high as a conventional car would produce (unless we restrict their charging to windy weather, of course, which would have meant none of them being available for use for about the past three weeks or more).
“Drive five miles less a week”. If ever there was a patronising advertising campaign this is it. Five miles is about two percent of the average driver’s weekly mileage. And in that week China has opened another one or two coal fired power stations. But, of course, we developed nations must restrict our emissions so that we do not stand in the way of the development of countries like China.
I could go on but it annoys me just writing about it.
-- answer removed --
DtD
As I thought I made clear in my last uttering, I did not say all anti AGW types were numpties, go back and look at it.
I still believe that the majority of scientists are agreed that mankind is having an effect on the climate. Ok so we are not sure to exactly what extent but in the meantime try and stop rather than bimble along regardless.
Random quotes like "The majority of meteorlogists think that we are not the cause of climate change" with no links to back it up are pointless and add nothing. Says who? Where?
As I thought I made clear in my last uttering, I did not say all anti AGW types were numpties, go back and look at it.
I still believe that the majority of scientists are agreed that mankind is having an effect on the climate. Ok so we are not sure to exactly what extent but in the meantime try and stop rather than bimble along regardless.
Random quotes like "The majority of meteorlogists think that we are not the cause of climate change" with no links to back it up are pointless and add nothing. Says who? Where?
Latest Posts
The New Leader Of The Opposition Party/
News2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Saturday Punt - 2 November 2024
Other Sports4 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
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.