Jump to content

The Great Climate Change Swindle


Billy7766

Recommended Posts

Oh dear, not more of this dire programme. This is an example of very bad TV journalism - I have never seen so many scientists misquoted or evidence twisted to suit the opposite message. I believe that 2 eminent UK scientists are considering legal action against C4.

 

For a more balanced view, take a look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website for a much more informed, scientific and balanced view.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

In particular, look at the Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" and read the summary for policymakers. It paints a pretty convincing picture for me, and I have been studying aspects of meteorology and climate all my working life.

 

The time for casting doubts has passed, and we should be seriously considering action to reduce the impacts now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no....the IPCC report is OK but it still has a huge number of flaws in terms of it's data. I think the film is definetly scewed to promote an extreme position, but then so are all the films on the other side (Al Gore's film contains almost no scientifically supportable statement except the world is getting warmer)

 

Don't get me wrong here, I am genuinley trying to find a basis of fact, and I don't doubt that man has an impact, but I am also un-convinced by science that has to rely on probable models in something as complex as weather. We can't forecast the weather for tomorrow never mind for next year, just look at the "it'll be a freezing winter" claim made by the met last year. It was mild, pretty normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not actually about the daily complexities of weather, but rather about the long term trend towards higher average temperatures across the latitudes over long periods of time. Science has been getting very good at doing that lately, and the recent detailed analysis of the ice-core samples from Antarcrica enabled the IPCC to come to the conclusions that they did with high levels of certainty. Nothing is ever totally certain when you predict into the future, but the scientific consensus on this is unusually high, despite what some of the media might like us to think.

 

Incidentally, although Al Gore may not spell out the background science in the film, he does have penty to back up his claims in the presentations he gives, and he is supported by an increasing number of organisations across the world in this regard. In the UK, the University of Cambridge Programme for Business and Industry recently invited around 100 people from across the country, including some from education, the media, local and national government, NGOs and a variety of businesses and industries to a 2-day seminar session with Al Gore. He was challenged on a number of counts by some of the delegates, but was strongly supported by all of the scientists, including the current director of the British Antarctic Survey. For a politician, he has a surprisingly good grasp of the science, and he responded very well to the challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that Al Gore has smartened his act up, or that he sincerely beleives what he's saying, but I do have concerns in some respects for the information he's relying on. He's a great politician, and frankly a better man than Bush will ever be, but he re-invention as a darling of the green movement is a bit weird and a bit sudden

 

The ice core samples are odd, becasue they really don't match the projected levels of CO2 with tempreature (of course bearing in mind those tempreature readings are guesses so this is far from damning evidence that undermines the whole global warming argument).

 

The problem is that the weather systems that affect our planet are SO complex we simply don't understand the basics, which means that it is highly simplistic to say "Co2 is the root cause of climate change". For example, you can corrolate the last ice age with a period when earth moved through a galactic dust belt, whether or not that caused it is another matter.

 

It all seems incredibly certain for a very complex problem is all I'm saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a much more simple view.

 

Ice core samples show temperatres were considerably higher hundreds of thousands of years ago than they are today, and dinosaurs did not drive cars. Its a somewhat neanderthal aproach to the issue, but it gets me by. :blush:

 

Its also quite interesting to see a climate change topic debated on a forum dedicated to 3.5 Litre Petrol engined cars :blush:

 

Not that its not a valid topic, but from the ouitside it could be viewed as a littel hypocritical :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rationalise my love of fast cars against my concern for the environment by treating the Z more as a toy than a commuting tool. I travel by train to the office and only use the car when I have to for work. In fact, I often use the option of a hire car, since they are usually smaller, sometimes diesel, and therefore produce less carbon. The agency encourage this practice anyway. So, since I do less than 5000 miles per annum in the Z, I reckon my footprint is a bit smaller than that of many other people who drive lower CO2 cars, but who do mileages between 10,000 and 15,000 per annum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do 2k a month in mine. :teeth: **** the planet i won't be here when it dies :D

 

That's the thing - the planet won't die, but lots of us might, or our descendants. So, when people talk about saving the planet, what they really want is to save our civilisation. The planet will be here long after humanity has gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do 2k a month in mine. :teeth: **** the planet i won't be here when it dies :D

 

That's the thing - the planet won't die, but lots of us might, or our descendants. So, when people talk about saving the planet, what they really want is to save our civilisation. The planet will be here long after humanity has gone.

 

True, but then we've always got Mars and that new planet they just descovered which they believe humanity can also survive on.

 

I believe we as people do make a difference to our climate but i think it is minimal compared to what effect the "natural" world has. STill theirs no harm in being Carbon neutral (if it is actually carbon that dictates climate change) however its the Airline companies and some other countries that need to do more i.e. China, india and the US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...