Climate Change.

KingBrian2 · 28-04-2016 01:54AM

You know what's really silly but has to be made use of. We are a very rainy country yet we have a problem with water and getting people to pay for the water we all use. We somehow have to learn to take up all that water that is dumped on us and make our city run on it.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2016 08:06AM

List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us.

Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s
Acid Rain.
Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles.
All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now.
C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans.
Amazon cut down we all suffocate.
Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.
Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now.
Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up.
Fresh water runs out.
2012
Solar flairs.

Anyone think of anything else ?

ThinkProgress · 28-04-2016 08:24AM

Part of me is inclined to think the whole climate change thing is exaggerated scaremongering...

Our little spinning green/blue planet likes to move a river over there, and create a new lake here... Take a hot country and make it a touch hotter... Take a moderately warm country and make it a touch warmer... Take a cold country and make it a bit warmer.... Hold on a minute! lol

Anyway whether this thing is real or imagined, can we really afford to hang about and see what happens?

I'll be okay, I'm semi aquatic... But the rest of you guys might be screwed.

lawlolawl · 28-04-2016 08:24AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us.

Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s
Acid Rain.
Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles.
All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now.
C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans.
Amazon cut down we all suffocate.
Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.
Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now.
Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up.
Fresh water runs out.
2012
Solar flairs.

Anyone think of anything else ?

I sort of agree with you.

There has always been somebody standing on a street corner shouting "the end is nigh" throughout human history.

I find that the 'evidence' for climate change conveniently presenting itself since exactly the same time that experts have begun talking about it to be a bit odd. Declaring that the climate has changed after what is in actual terms a mere handful of years seems a bit hasty.

There have been mini ice ages and sustained temporary increases in average temperatures at numerous points in recorded human history.

Bongalongherb · 28-04-2016 08:45AM

There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/

kneemos · 28-04-2016 08:59AM

Bongalongherb wrote: »

There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/

The dismissal of scientists that take a contrary view is very sinister in fairness.

smash · 28-04-2016 09:08AM

Bongalongherb wrote: »

There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/

Looks like zeitgeist

Samaris · 28-04-2016 09:10AM

We get one of these threads every couple of months.

I've said it before and say it again, any scientist or group of scientists that manage to prove it's not happening has his/her/their fortune made.

Also, studies into it have been going on since the '70s.

smash · 28-04-2016 09:12AM

Samaris wrote: »

We get one of these threads every couple of months.

I've said it before and say it again, any scientist or group of scientists that manage to prove it's not happening has his/her/their fortune made.

Also, studies into it have been going on since the '70s.

Plenty have already done that. They either get fired or dismissed as being a quack.

The biggest driving force behind the climate change debate was Al Gore. He had the most to profit from it too!

Remember when it wasn't climate change and it was called global warming? That didn't suit his agenda.

HensVassal · 28-04-2016 09:15AM

daheff wrote: »

Not sure i agree with the global warming brigade....or at least not to the indisputable extent they make it out to be.

I do agree though that we shouldnt be polluting the planet the way we do.

Theres not enough evidential long term (thousands/millions of years) of data available to see about temperature changes (uptrends downtrends etc)

So thousands of scientists in the IPCC are just spreading bullshit? Why would they do that exactly? For the craic?

I can understand climate change deniers spreading their message. They benefit from the fossil fuel industry or are paid by those who do.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2016 09:17AM

HensVassal wrote: »

So thousands of scientists in the IPCC are just spreading bullshit? Why would they do that exactly? For the craic?

I can understand climate change deniers spreading their message. They benefit from the fossil fuel industry or are paid by those who do.

Who denied climate change ? Climate change happens all the time throughout history.

Boom_Bap · 28-04-2016 09:18AM

Climate Change = Hailstones and Sleet in April...the end of April.

VinLieger · 28-04-2016 09:20AM

The facts dont lie that last year was once again the hottest year on record and 2016 is expected to once again beat that record.

Deniers will try to fudge the numbers by pointing to useless wide ranging graphs but heres the actual science of global temperature increase

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-graph-national-review_us_567054efe4b0fccee1700f96

HensVassal · 28-04-2016 09:20AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us.

Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s
Acid Rain.
Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles.
All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now.
C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans.
Amazon cut down we all suffocate.
Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.
Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now.
Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up.
Fresh water runs out.
2012
Solar flairs.

Anyone think of anything else ?

Well cod used to be the cheapest thing on the menu in the chipper. Now it's one of the dearest.

Samaris · 28-04-2016 09:22AM

smash wrote: »

Plenty have already done that. They either get fired or dismissed as being a quack.

The biggest driving force behind the climate change debate was Al Gore. He had the most to profit from it too!

Remember when it wasn't climate change and it was called global warming? That didn't suit his agenda.

Rubbish. To..basically all counts.

There are very few reputable scientists in the field (dentists do not count) that can manage to ignore all of the evidence collected over the last few decades and those that do generally ARE quacks.

People keep talking about the money and conveniently ignoring that the big money...actually isn't in the "yes, it's happening" side, it's in the vested interests that have too much to lose by a move away from fossil fuels. It's a gap in logic that I cannot quite comprehend.

Al Gore is one of many big (non-scientific) names that have spoken out about it and tried to raise awareness. Not done a bad job of it either, but he's far from the only one. It really isn't a massive conspiracy aimed to get Al Gore money!

Global warming vs climate change.
In the 1970s, the term used was "inadvertent climate modification" Both "climate change" and "global warming" came into parlance at much the same time. Global warming was used to refer to a gradual increase of the overall temperature. Climate change was used to refer to all other modifications that came with that. The media picked up specifically on "global warming" in the 1980s, but there were enough people going "It's bloody freezing outside, global warming my arse!" that the more neutral and all-encompassing "climate change" was being used, presumably by people sick of explaining the difference between climate and weather. It makes more sense anyway, since it includes oceanic thermal expansion, weather pattern changes, etcetera.

TL:DR - A chance in nomenclature over a forty-year period is not evidence of an over-arching conspiracy.

HensVassal · 28-04-2016 09:30AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Who denied climate change ? Climate change happens all the time throughout history.

Are you serious? There are numerous lobbies and "think tanks" out there whose sole purpose is to deny that climate change is real.

And the fact that there have been ice ages in the past so the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is nothing to get alarmed about really is a weak argument.

Samaris · 28-04-2016 09:32AM

HensVassal wrote: »

Are you serious? There are numerous lobbies and "think tanks" out there whose sole purpose is to deny that climate change is real.

And the fact that there have been ice ages in the past so the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is nothing to get alarmed about really is a weak argument.

Yes and no. Overall, anyone that denies it's happening AT ALL and tries to say that the earth and its processes are a static system is an idiot. There are some lobbies and "not-really-thinking tanks" that do try to do that to just sweep anything out of the way, but they're kinda stopping that now as they've moved to the non-anthropological cause argument since the "not-happening-at-all" argument is so thoroughly debunked as to not be worth trying to hold onto.

In general, they focus on the anthropological aspects of it.

smash · 28-04-2016 09:38AM

Samaris wrote: »

Rubbish. To..basically all counts.

There are very few reputable scientists in the field (dentists do not count) that can manage to ignore all of the evidence collected over the last few decades and those that do generally ARE quacks.

I don't think too many people are completely ignoring evidence, but people with vested interests are hugely over playing our part in the issues regarding clime change.

Samaris wrote: »

People keep talking about the money and conveniently ignoring that the big money...actually isn't in the "yes, it's happening" side, it's in the vested interests that have too much to lose by a move away from fossil fuels. It's a gap in logic that I cannot quite comprehend.

I agree to an extent, the motor industry is an example of this industry which didn't want to change. But it's not where the big money lies.

Samaris wrote: »

Al Gore is one of many big (non-scientific) names that have spoken out about it and tried to raise awareness. Not done a bad job of it either, but he's far from the only one. It really isn't a massive conspiracy aimed to get Al Gore money!

Al Gore has become a billionaire as a result of his agenda. He has also slipped up over and over... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/al-gore-sells-his-soul-to-big-carbon-again/

Samaris · 28-04-2016 09:45AM

smash wrote: »

I don't think too many people are completely ignoring evidence, but people with vested interests are hugely over playing our part in the issues regarding clime change.

How, who and where? Who are these "people"? What are the vested interests? What vested interests are against the theory of climate change? What do -they- lose if the evidence is accepted?

smash wrote: »

I agree to an extent, the motor industry is an example of this industry which didn't want to change. But it's not where the big money lies.

Believe me, it sure as hell isn't in scientific research.

smash wrote: »

Al Gore has become a billionaire as a result of his agenda. He has also slipped up over and over... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/al-gore-sells-his-soul-to-big-carbon-again/

That is actually pretty irrelevant. He isn't a scientist, he's spoken on what he read and interpreted from actual research. He spoke pretty well, if a bit simplistically, but eh, if that's what's needed to educate on the basic concepts, whatever.

kneemos · 28-04-2016 09:46AM

I think the scientists have shot themselves in the foot with their dire predictions that were definitely going to happen because,well the models said so.

Samaris · 28-04-2016 09:51AM

Why? The models are, so far, showing themselves to be reasonably accurate barring natural (and unforeseen both) variation.

Sea level rise is happening. We are seeing an increase in storminess (although this can well be natural variation too, we need a longer timeframe for evidence as to whether it's a few-off or a change in parameters), a seasonal shift, an increase in the frequency of extreme events. So far, the evidence is actually supporting the models rather than the head-in-the-sand noping.

Models are improving. It has been a difficult task to include all the relevant data. It's quite true and has never been hidden that ALL the information cannot be included in any one model because there IS only one model that does that. And that's earth itself. It's a hell of an experiment we're running on it.

smash · 28-04-2016 09:52AM

Samaris wrote: »

How, who and where? Who are these "people"? What are the vested interests? What vested interests are against the theory of climate change? What do -they- lose if the evidence is accepted?

I didn't say there were vested interests are against the theory of climate change, I said there are vested interests pushing the agenda of climate change. Pushing it to the point where they are actively over playing our part in the issues.

Samaris wrote: »

Believe me, it sure as hell isn't in scientific research.

No it's not in research. It's in scaremongering, carbon fines and carbon credit trading. That's where the big money is.

Samaris wrote: »

That is actually pretty irrelevant. He isn't a scientist, he's spoken on what he read and interpreted from actual research. He spoke pretty well, if a bit simplistically, but eh, if that's what's needed to educate on the basic concepts, whatever.

Whoa, he hasn't spoken on what he read and interpreted from actual research. He has spoken in order to further push his own personal agenda of profiteering from carbon credit trades and 'green' businesses.

Samaris · 28-04-2016 09:57AM

smash wrote: »

I didn't say there were vested interests are against the theory of climate change, I said there are vested interests pushing the agenda of climate change. Pushing it to the point where they are actively over playing our part in the issue

I know you didn't. I was pointing out the other side. What are the vested interests on both sides? Where is the big money? Honestly, if you look deeply into it, you will see where the big vested interests are. I try to avoid talking about them and stick to the science only, but my god, it's frustrating to constantly see the "oh, the vested interests are the shadowy carbon tax politicians!" while Big Oil and the motor industry is sitting there grinning and whistling innocently.

smash · 28-04-2016 10:03AM

Samaris wrote: »

I know you didn't. I was pointing out the other side. What are the vested interests on both sides? Where is the big money? Honestly, if you look deeply into it, you will see where the big vested interests are. I try to avoid talking about them and stick to the science only, but my god, it's frustrating to constantly see the "oh, the vested interests are the shadowy carbon tax politicians!" while Big Oil and the motor industry is sitting there grinning and whistling innocently.

I already agreed with you that there are people on both sides and I even pointed at the motor industry. But I still maintain this is not the big money in the case. Sure even the motor industry is now slowly moving away from the model of fossil fuel dependent engines. Follow the money and see who profits most from their new technologies.

Samaris · 28-04-2016 10:19AM

Oh yes, there's money in technology. Always has been, always will be. It's rarely the -scientists- that see it, being as they tend to be more academic and less practical. But it is not easy to buy off a whole lot of scientists to produce research (or "research" as it would be if it was not in good faith) that is not in accordance with what they can see and measure*. And to manage to buy them all (or very close to all) off? Consistently? Over decades?

Yep, there's money in technology and we are an inventive species. People have seen something that they reckon needs doing (or a way to cash in on the whole issue of carbon being on peoples' minds) and have invented, marketed and sold it/them. It's a capitalist society. It doesn't change the science behind the original movements though.

*To give one example, a few years ago in the US, one of the conglomerates of oil and hydrocarbon productions got a group of scientists to produce their own report into CC, expecting a far more favourable report than the recent IPCC one. At the end of it the report went along the lines of "eh, well, yes, I'm afraid it is happening. Sorry about that." And that was backed by big oil. It's not easy to buy off scientists. The money won't salvage their professional reputation.

smash · 28-04-2016 10:38AM

Samaris wrote: »

Oh yes, there's money in technology. Always has been, always will be. It's rarely the -scientists- that see it, being as they tend to be more academic and less practical. But it is not easy to buy off a whole lot of scientists to produce research (or "research" as it would be if it was not in good faith) that is not in accordance with what they can see and measure*. And to manage to buy them all (or very close to all) off? Consistently? Over decades?

Yep, there's money in technology and we are an inventive species. People have seen something that they reckon needs doing (or a way to cash in on the whole issue of carbon being on peoples' minds) and have invented, marketed and sold it/them. It's a capitalist society. It doesn't change the science behind the original movements though.

No it doesn't change the science, but the opportunity for profiteering encourages the extremes for scare tactics to be used when pushing the agenda. The carbon credits trading is the biggest scam out there. It just means that people can pollute as much as you want, but they pay for it. This doesn't discourage pollution as the end product just becomes more expensive to cater for the additional production costs. The winner is the person taking the money, not the planet and certainly not science.

ThinkProgress · 28-04-2016 10:47AM

It's all about CHINA people... wake up and open your goddamn eyes!!!

The rest of the superpowers want to prevent china from becoming too powerful too quickly. And they are a fossil fuel super consumer...

Of all the conspiracy theories, that's my favorite. My money is on that one!

Beware of china!

(Or the guys trying to stop them... whichever you prefer)

PopePalpatine · 28-04-2016 02:54PM

Bongalongherb wrote: »

There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/

Advertised on WorldNetDaily...a real bastion of science there! :pac:

Sam Kade · 28-04-2016 02:57PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us.

Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s
Acid Rain.
Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles.
All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now.
C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans.
Amazon cut down we all suffocate.
Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.
Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now.
Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up.
Fresh water runs out.
2012
Solar flairs.

Anyone think of anything else ?

Aids back in the 80's it was going to kill us all.
It seems there always must be some impending disaster :rolleyes: Amazing how there never have something positive that will happen.

Sam Kade · 28-04-2016 03:01PM

HensVassal wrote: »

So thousands of scientists in the IPCC are just spreading bullshit? Why would they do that exactly? For the craic?

I can understand climate change deniers spreading their message. They benefit from the fossil fuel industry or are paid by those who do.

Out of interest how many thousand?

Climate Change.

Comments