nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

dont believe in climate change, come to ireland

irish_bob

i can only conclude that those who still dont believe in climate change have never been to this country or at least not in the last few years
while its always been a wet country , last year and especially this year have been nothing but relentless downpours , how can anyone not believe that things are different than they used to be , there is also every chance next summer will be just as bad and the following one , i fear weve gone past the point of no return , it may be too late to do anything about it

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dsmythy

http://www.met.ie/climate/dublinairport.asp

At Dublin airport only December has more rain than August on average (1961-1990). A wet August isn't unusual.

afatbollix

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Sweet jesus......
Do you have any kind of source for that nonsense or are you just dry-humping the keyboard and hoping a coherient sentance comes out?

hole in the ozone layer 30% smaller
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/30/lol.07.html

East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/news050516-10.html

global warming stopped in 1998.. alfter the temp decreased after 25 years..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

these are one of the few links on google.. but you will say its a load of rubbish.. what ever you want to believe.. its up to you

also thanks dsmythy for proving that august has always been our wettest month

dresden8

I remember a couple of years ago when Frank McCourt was lambasted for hinting in Angela's Ashes that it rained in Ireland.

I remember good summers. I remember really sh1tty summers. I remember snow, and no snow.

For fecks sake lads. It's Ireland, it rains. Sometimes it rains a lot. Occasionally you might get a decent summer. Occasionally. Really. Occasionally.

I'll say it again. Occasionally you will get a decent summer.

Or we could just tax people more because it's raining. Especially when the exchequer is bust. Lucky coincidence that.

iTroll

Terry wrote: »

Nice catch.

iRead it as "it" rather than "i". Possible typo?

gerky

anto-t wrote:

hole in the ozone layer 30% smaller

The ozone layer has showed signs of recovery in the last decade but it will be at least 2050 before it has recovered.
And why has it recovered? because we have been phasing out the use of CFCs for decades.

So in short, we discovered we were causing a problem, we stopped doing it, problem starts to go away.

anto-t wrote:

East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice

Way to pick and chose your facts to suit yourself, some area's of the Antarctic have had increased snowfall and there are several reasons for this one being that stronger circular winds caused by cooling in the upper atmosphere which is being caused by the hole in the ozone layer are blocking warmer air reaching some part of the Antarctic.

This is only one way the Antarctic is being affected, some area's have increased snow and ice while other area's are disappearing at an astonishing rate.

anto-t wrote:

global warming stopped in 1998.. alfter the temp decreased after 25 years..

No your wrong and my link is better than yours:rolleyes:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14527

irish_bob

Naos wrote: »

Someone has two accounts...

it would appear so but in actual fact while one of my work mates was out , i typed the 2nd post without logging out of there account

very sharp of you though and very sloppy of me

zoemax

The ozone layer has showed signs of recovery in the last decade but it will be at least 2050 before it has recovered.
And why has it recovered? because we have been phasing out the use of CFCs for decades.

So in short, we discovered we were causing a problem, we stopped doing it, problem starts to go away.

There was never any real doubt as to the fact that CFC's caused ozone depletion, a hole was found, a cause was found (simple bucket chemistry) and the problem was fixed. There are numerous examples of environmental controls like this that have worked e.g. the problem of acid rain in northern Europe in the 1980's.

The problem with the whole man made global warming campaign is that it is based on an unproven theory. All predictions for temperature change are based on models, the variables / assumptions / inputs for which can be changed to suit the desired result. We can't accurately predict the weather for next month so how can you predict it in 50 years? Using IPCC issued reports on which to base beliefs is a joke. The IPCC is not a scientific organisation but a bureaucratic one. The reports that are issued to the public have been heavily modified by non scientists to reflect the desired position.

The most interesting thing to me in all of this is the absolute refusal of the believers to engage in proper debate with the non believers. Once a non believer gets the better of a believer, which is not a difficult task, the debate descends into personal abuse and scaremongering.

It agravates me greatly that people still swear that humans haven't had an impact on our climate.

It displays ignorance on par with flat-earthers & creationists.

Referring to flat earthers and creationists would suggest that you believe in evidence backed science. Perhaps you should go read the source material on which the theory of climate change is based rather than accepting what you are being fed by mass media like a sheep.

S.I.R

love the title alone: why come to ireland.... well, just post about comming to ireland on a irish forum... Yeah thats sounds like a Brilliant title. :rolleyes:

Dragan

You are spot on.

Until now there has never been a single shift in climate in the earths entire history.

Ever.

thelordofcheese

zoemax wrote: »

The problem with the whole man made global warming campaign is that it is based on an unproven theory. All predictions for temperature change are based on models, the variables / assumptions / inputs for which can be changed to suit the desired result. We can't accurately predict the weather for next month so how can you predict it in 50 years?

Heres an apple, here's an orange. Look how similar they are!

wait, no......

zoemax wrote: »

Using IPCC issued reports on which to base beliefs is a joke. The IPCC is not a scientific organisation but a bureaucratic one. The reports that are issued to the public have been heavily modified by non scientists to reflect the desired position.

Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just something you 'know'.

zoemax wrote: »

The most interesting thing to me in all of this is the absolute refusal of the believers to engage in proper debate with the non believers. Once a non believer gets the better of a believer, which is not a difficult task, the debate descends into personal abuse and scaremongering.

especially if you can ignore any kind of evidence on the opposing side at will as being 'modified by non scientists'.

Linoge

anto-t wrote: »

East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/news050516-10.html

global warming stopped in 1998.. alfter the temp decreased after 25 years..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

Surely this evidence actually backs up the fact that there is indeed climate change? You seem to of the impression that the earth warming and the polar caps melting is the only way to indicate that climate change is happening.

zoemax wrote: »

The problem with the whole man made global warming campaign is that it is based on an unproven theory. All predictions for temperature change are based on models, the variables / assumptions / inputs for which can be changed to suit the desired result. We can't accurately predict the weather for next month so how can you predict it in 50 years? Using IPCC issued reports on which to base beliefs is a joke. The IPCC is not a scientific organisation but a bureaucratic one. The reports that are issued to the public have been heavily modified by non scientists to reflect the desired position.

The most interesting thing to me in all of this is the absolute refusal of the believers to engage in proper debate with the non believers.

Just because you "don't believe the hype" does not mean that the theories are not correct. To go back to your simple bucket chemistry example, do you really believe that the billions of tons of greenhouse gases that we create every year are sufficiently aborbed back or are miniscule when compared to volcano emissions? At the very least what we do produce is an excess to earths natural cycles.

With regard to debate, a theory of such proportion is hard to prove and this is what the skeptics depend upon. A theory where the phenomenom is also naturally occuring (given the expanse of time that it is always compared to and the relative time it has been observed). This is what tobacco companies also use as a defense. Lung cancer can occur in non smokers and smokers do not always get lung cancer, therefore there is absolutely no way that you can prove that a smokers lung cancer was caused by cigarettes, which is of course true. Based on your current thinking, would you also agree with Big Tobacco that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer?

LFCFan

I think Man is pretty arrogant to think he can be so powerful as to affect the climate of an entire planet. Time wise, man has been on this planet for a fraction of a second compared to the age of the planet so to think that we could have so much effect on it is ridiculous. Climate change happens and has been happening for billions of years. It's no coincidence that with the threat of man made climate change has also come the threat of higher taxes. There is also no risk to the planet even if there was man made climate change, only risk to man himself.

zoemax

Heres an apple, here's an orange. Look how similar they are!

You'ill have to explain that one for me.

Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just something you 'know'.

I have as much evidence as you have for man made global warming. As an example of how science fact can be corrupted see here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece Another example, in the 1930s there was a theory accepted by most of the worlds learned people and governments. It was based on some dodgy science to say the least. Governments adopted polices to encourage / enforce it; major universitys taught it as fact. The theory was eugenics, and in 1939 Hitler took this theory to its ultimate extreme.

especially if you can ignore any kind of evidence on the opposing side at will as being 'modified by non scientists'.

Give me peer reviewed scientific reports that show evidence of man's infuence on the earths climate and I will make a decision. Do you really think that John Gormly was right when he stood in a flood in Carlow and blamed it on global warming when anybody with half a brain knows that the poor (corrupt?) planning allowing houses to be built in areas prone to flooding was the cause of the problem.

Just because you "don't believe the hype" does not mean that the theories are not correct. To go back to your simple bucket chemistry example, do you really believe that the billions of tons of greenhouse gases that we create every year are sufficiently aborbed back or are miniscule when compared to volcano emissions? At the very least what we do produce is an excess to earths natural cycles.

I unlike your average green am not arogant enough to think that just because I don't believe it it isn't true. I remain to be convinced. I believe in climate change, I am just sceptical as to man's influence upon it. As a former research scientist (in my youth) I take the view that it is impossible to change an input into a system without some effect. The question here is the magnitude of the effect, and again I remain to be convinced.

With regard to debate, a theory of such proportion is hard to prove and this is what the skeptics depend upon. A theory where the phenomenom is also naturally occuring (given the expanse of time that it is always compared to and the relative time it has been observed). This is what tobacco companies also use as a defense. Lung cancer can occur in non smokers and smokers do not always get lung cancer, therefore there is absolutely no way that you can prove that a smokers lung cancer was caused by cigarettes, which is of course true. Based on your current thinking, would you also agree with Big Tobacco that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer?

There is undeniable epidemiology evidence to show the link between lung cancer and smoking. You have just agreed with my main point by saying that a theory of such proportion is hard to prove, so you are in fact basing your belief in this theory not on scientific fact but on a hunch?

I still become uneasy when global warming is used to try and stifle developing countries economic growth. China and India are going to pose a big challenge to the US and the EU in terms of trade and commerce, yet these are the countries that are being targeted by the green movement and increasingly western governments in an attempt to stop them develeoping. And I guarentee you that in our newly brought forward budget there will be significant 'carbon taxes' introduced to save us from ourselves (and to help pay for the running of our schools and hospitals).

thelordofcheese

zoemax wrote: »

I have as much evidence as you have for man made global warming. As an example of how science fact can be corrupted see here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece Another example, in the 1930s there was a theory accepted by most of the worlds learned people and governments. It was based on some dodgy science to say the least. Governments adopted polices to encourage / enforce it; major universitys taught it as fact. The theory was eugenics, and in 1939 Hitler took this theory to its ultimate extreme.

Is it goodwin time already? jesus fucking christ.

And Nigel Calder is a science writer and held his tenure at new scientist in the 60's. while i'm sure he means well, i can't find any peer reviewed papers by him on the subject of global warming. Hell, i can't even find out what kind of science he studied in.

zoemax wrote: »

Give me peer reviewed scientific reports that show evidence of man's infuence on the earths climate and I will make a decision.

here is a summation of over 900 peer reviewed papers over a ten year period ('93 - '03). Of these, exactly none find any evidence against the theory of climate change/global warming.
And heres that IPCC report you don't believe in, however i'm taking the report of 1250 authors (contributing and lead) over your assertion that it's all made up.

zoemax wrote: »

Do you really think that John Gormly was right when he stood in a flood in Carlow and blamed it on global warming when anybody with half a brain knows that the poor (corrupt?) planning allowing houses to be built in areas prone to flooding was the cause of the problem.

SWEET JESUS!
Politician uses natural disaster as photo-op to further own carrer! More at 11.

pickarooney

zoemax wrote: »

Weather and climate change continiously. The earth is billions of years old and the climate has never been constant. There were large vineyards cultivated in England during the reign of Henry VIII for example, but now you would have great difficulty cultivating grapes in England except perhaps for the very south.

Funnily enough, I saw a progam the other day claiming that the recent proliferation of vineyards in southern England were proof positive of climate change, with the UK heading towards a Mediterranean climate. It was filmed two years ago though, as wine production has dropped by about 70% since.

zoemax

here is a summation of over 900 peer reviewed papers over a ten year period ('93 - '03). Of these, exactly none find any evidence against the theory of climate change/global warming.
And heres that IPCC report you don't believe in, however i'm taking the report of 1250 authors (contributing and lead) over your assertion that it's all made up.

Neither link works, ironic or what:D I never said it was all made up, I can read the reports and papers and make my own mind up.

SWEET JESUS!
Politician uses natural disaster as photo-op to further own carrer! More at 11.

Politician uses unproven theory to get his arse into a mercedes and a €5k a week job:D

rossie1977

lovely and sunny here in edinburgh

Linoge

zoemax wrote: »

I unlike your average green am not arogant enough to think that just because I don't believe it it isn't true. I remain to be convinced. I believe in climate change, I am just sceptical as to man's influence upon it. As a former research scientist (in my youth) I take the view that it is impossible to change an input into a system without some effect. The question here is the magnitude of the effect, and again I remain to be convinced.

Oh, well i don't want to appear arrogant so I'm just going to agree that man could not possibly have any influence on his environment. Sorry Wooly Mammoth and Dodo, we didn't kill you, that was a natural fluctuation of life cycles. Rediculous really. We can send a man into space to look down and see with his naked eye the motorways and cities that we've built but influence our climate, no wai!!

Well, i'd prefer to be an "arrogant" realist than a humble dreamist.

zoemax wrote: »

There is undeniable epidemiology evidence to show the link between lung cancer and smoking. You have just agreed with my main point by saying that a theory of such proportion is hard to prove, so you are in fact basing your belief in this theory not on scientific fact but on a hunch?

Want to link me to that "undeniable epidemiology evidence"? Link smoking with 1 case of lung cancer. Prove that that person died of lung cancer caused directly and only by smoking. That is what you are asking for in this case.

zoemax wrote: »

I still become uneasy when global warming is used to try and stifle developing countries economic growth. China and India are going to pose a big challenge to the US and the EU in terms of trade and commerce, yet these are the countries that are being targeted by the green movement and increasingly western governments in an attempt to stop them develeoping. And I guarentee you that in our newly brought forward budget there will be significant 'carbon taxes' introduced to save us from ourselves (and to help pay for the running of our schools and hospitals).

Who is going to impose these carbon taxes? The worlds biggest and most developed economy the US didn't even ratify yhe Kyoto protocol. Where is your evidence that carbon reduction can can "stifle developing countries economic growth"? Again, that is one of Big Oils anti climate change arguments. They have so much to gain by convincing people like you who want to be convinced. If I can't see it with my eyes its not true. Well welcome to air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_oil

thelordofcheese

zoemax wrote: »

Neither link works, ironic or what:D I never said it was all made up, I can read the reports and papers and make my own mind up.

I blame google chrome.

Anyway, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (it's hefty, i'll warn you)

and the summary link is actually a search result from sciencemag.org.

jeremyquinn

zoemax wrote: »

Neither link works, ironic or what:D I never said it was all made up, I can read the reports and papers and make my own mind up.

And who writes the reports???

Who pays the piper calls the tune.

dsmythy

No need for a new thread.

This September was the coldest in Southern Ireland in 14 years. On the other hand they predict an above average mild winter.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1001/breaking59.htm

brianthebard

Linoge wrote: »

Oh, well i don't want to appear arrogant so I'm just going to agree that man could not possibly have any influence on his environment. Sorry Wooly Mammoth and Dodo, we didn't kill you, that was a natural fluctuation of life cycles. Rediculous really. We can send a man into space to look down and see with his naked eye the motorways and cities that we've built but influence our climate, no wai!!

If you want to be a realist, the first thing you have to do is realise motorways can't be seen from space with the naked eye.

elmolesto

Climate change, the one size fits all excuse for everything.

Linoge

brianthebard wrote: »

If you want to be a realist, the first thing you have to do is realise motorways can't be seen from space with the naked eye.

How would you know? You've never even been in space.

Macha

Linoge wrote: »

How would you know? You've never even been in space.

That's just the type of moronic logic that had us shuffling around in the Dark Ages for 400 years. ("How would you know? You weren't there", yeah yeah..)

pirelli

irish_bob wrote: »

it would appear so but in actual fact while one of my work mates was out , i typed the 2nd post without logging out of there account

very sharp of you though and very sloppy of me

Or the I might have meant to be an it, meaning you geko was jumping to the OP's defence, unless Terry can check the IP address in which case good excuse.

stakey

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to question climate change, there is no question that the Earth is going through changes in its climate but man made climate change is a very incomplete theory.

The whole theory hasn't been extensively researched enough for my liking. We still don't understand a huge amount about our own environment and the complete cycle of weather systems on Earth. Not only that but we also don't yet understand the impact of the solar cycles on weather systems on Earth. Sunspot activity for example could have a huge impact on the Earths weather systems (and it still hasn't been ruled out as a cause).

We have no evidence of what could be the result of a weakening and disappearing magnetic field (the Earth's north magnetic pole is shifting and weakening, possibly working towards a magnetic pole flip).

Man made climate change is a very incomplete theory.

asdasd

stakey wrote: »

Man made climate change is a very incomplete theory.

The sience behind greenhouse gases seems to be pretty hard to deny. The problem is, maybe, the actual real world effect of rising CO2. There may be feedback effects which may some models invalid ( in fact it seems to me that the last decade is trending cooler which is not predicted in most models.).

To the OP (both of you):global warming predicts drier summers, and wetter but warmer winters. This summer is a wetter than average, but nowhere near a record. I remember wetter summers in the Eighties.

asdasd

pirelli wrote: »

Or the I might have meant to be an it, meaning you geko was jumping to the OP's defence, unless Terry can check the IP address in which case good excuse.

I have to be honest with ya, bud. That didn't make a whole load of sense.

Linoge

taconnol wrote: »

That's just the type of moronic logic that had us shuffling around in the Dark Ages for 400 years. ("How would you know? You weren't there", yeah yeah..)

How would you know? You're not even a historian.