Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

102 posts
31 March 2014
cziiki
Photographer
cziiki
Nick_Edinburgh
As someone who's been following the science since the 1970s, I'm dismayed and sickened by the ignorance and arrogance of anyone non-scientific (with a relevant specialism) who thinks they can give an opinion on this imminently species-threatening crisis. It also makes me angry, because it's my grandchildren, and possibly children, who will die miserably. And yes. I'm serious.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ (index) http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf People who have not read the actual report and yet think they have an 'opinion' are actually doing great damage as politicians and industrialists think they have a support base for doing nothing.
Posted 3 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
Nick_Edinburgh
As someone who's been following the science since the 1970s, I'm dismayed and sickened by the ignorance and arrogance of anyone non-scientific (with a relevant specialism) who thinks they can give an opinion on this imminently species-threatening crisis. It also makes me angry, because it's my grandchildren, and possibly children, who will die miserably. And yes. I'm serious.
And I understand your concern - which to some extent I share though if the potential for disaster is as great as you say I fear no action taken will deal with it. However, in view of the relatively tiny impact of the UK compared with developing economies such as China I do have concerns that the steps we are taking will have such a minimal effect that we should retain a sense of proportion in deciding the course of action. However, having expressed this on page 1 that gave Dr Jiv the opportunity to suggest appropriating the profits of financial advisers to deal with the climate problem - and this idiocy ensured the rest of the thread ensued!
Posted 3 April 2014
Edited by mph 3 April 2014
david1500
Photographer
david1500

Who is paying for all these experts , prove it and you have a job for life , at supersonic money , disprove it and who needs you , temp job .

Posted 4 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
mph

And I understand your concern - which to some extent I share though if the potential for disaster is as great as you say I fear no action taken will deal with it. However, in view of the relatively tiny impact of the UK compared with developing economies such as China I do have concerns that the steps we are taking will have such a minimal effect that we should retain a sense of proportion in deciding the course of action. However, having expressed this on page 1 that gave Dr Jiv the opportunity to suggest appropriating the profits of financial advisers to deal with the climate problem - and this idiocy ensured the rest of the thread ensued!



Nahh punitive taxation for spivs is social justice in action 

Your other point lacks any vision or purpose (again) - What incentives do we give the likes of China, if we as the developed world don't ourselves set any example? How could we lecture them? What point our precious economies, where some of us live on the likes of the Somerset Levels? Just how will your economy help polar bears with no ice to stand on?

...You sound just like any other 'banker' who finds the whole environmental agenda, to be an enormous inconvenience to your shorterm profit. I can't decide if you lack spirit or if you connive with the 'do nothing untill its a disaster' conservatism of the 'City of London' - However, the City can be quite energetic when there is a new trough to 'pig-out' - Fracking anyone?! sad
Posted 4 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
jivago

Nahh punitive taxation for spivs is social justice in action 

Your other point lacks any vision or purpose (again) - What incentives do we give the likes of China, if we as the developed world don't ourselves set any example? How could we lecture them?


If you were not so stupid - you could actually be quite funny.

Categorising all financial advisers as "spivs" is beneath comtempt - though I could manage some for you if I make an effort.

Setting an example to China?  Lecturing them?  Bugger me - that'll show them!  surprise  I can just see them doing without electricity if we do that!
Posted 5 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
mph

If you were not so stupid - you could actually be quite funny.

Categorising all financial advisers as "spivs" is beneath comtempt - though I could manage some for you if I make an effort.

Setting an example to China?  Lecturing them?  Bugger me - that'll show them!  surprise  I can just see them doing without electricity if we do that!


Oh dear - A lot of daylight between your head and the point.

Byeeeeee!

Posted 5 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
[qt][author]jivago[/author]
Oh dear - A lot of daylight between your head and the point.

Byeeeeee!

[/qt]

It's always easy to see when you have no answer to a sensible point. Nothing changes does it?

What percentage of financial advisers are "spivs"? Evidence please.

Provide some examples of China making major changes - not for their own benefit - but in response to being lectured.

Posted 5 April 2014
david1500
Photographer
david1500

I think you are all missing the point , all of the global warming theories are based on statistics , when I was at colledge , back in the time of the roman ocupation , my maths lecturer had a saying , there are lies , dammed lies and statistics . You can prove anything you want wth statistics , manipulation is the name of the game .

Posted 5 April 2014
EdT
Photographer
EdT
tonycsm
I have an Hons Degree in Geology/Geophysics so I suppose I have just a little knowledge of the subject of GW or as it's now referred to as Climate Change.
With your Hons Degree in Geology/Geophysics you must obviously know so much more than the 95% of scientists who believe in man made climate change. I will bow down to your obviously superior intelect.
Posted 5 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
mph

jivago
Oh dear - A lot of daylight between your head and the point. Byeeeeee!
It's always easy to see when you have no answer to a sensible point. Nothing changes does it? What percentage of financial advisers are "spivs"? Evidence please. Provide some examples of China making major changes - not for their own benefit - but in response to being lectured.





http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/news/blog/chinese-action-on-climate-change-welcome-but-/blog/46906/
Posted 5 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
jivago

jivago
Oh dear - A lot of daylight between your head and the point. Byeeeeee! It's always easy to see when you have no answer to a sensible point. Nothing changes does it? What percentage of financial advisers are "spivs"? Evidence please. Provide some examples of China making major changes - not for their own benefit - but in response to being lectured.



http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/news/blog/chinese-action-on-climate-change-welcome-but-/blog/46906/



Oh dear!  I did say not for their own benefit!!!

China is also particularly vulnerable to the adverse impact of climate change. The Second National Assessment Report on Climate Change states that global climate change influences China's food production, water resource allocation, and oceanic circulations, putting the country's ecosystem and biodiversity in peril. The report also projects frequent extreme weather events not only affect human health but increase the risk of epidemic disease incidence.

In response to this and joining global efforts, the Chinese government pledged in Copenhagen in 2009 that the country will endeavor to cut its CO2 emission on a per unit GDP basis by 40 to 45 percent and increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy mix to 15 percent by 2020.

However China was already the world's biggest polluter in 2009 - after the report you quote was produced - and is still increasing its pollution despite their rate of growth slowing.

However the reason for this, according to that right wing rag, the Guardian, is  linked to its attempts to improve its air pollution that rather than being linked to international efforts to improve climate change.

So - wrong again jivvy.  If I have air over my head - you have it in yours!

And the number of spivs?

Posted 5 April 2014
Edited by mph 6 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
mph

Oh dear!  I did say not for their own benefit!!!

China is also particularly vulnerable to the adverse impact of climate change. The Second National Assessment Report on Climate Change states that global climate change influences China's food production, water resource allocation, and oceanic circulations, putting the country's ecosystem and biodiversity in peril. The report also projects frequent extreme weather events not only affect human health but increase the risk of epidemic disease incidence.

In response to this and joining global efforts, the Chinese government pledged in Copenhagen in 2009 that the country will endeavor to cut its CO2 emission on a per unit GDP basis by 40 to 45 percent and increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy mix to 15 percent by 2020.

However China was already the world's biggest polluter in 2009 - after the report you quote was produced - and is still increasing its pollution despite their rate of growth slowing.

However the reason for this, according to that right wing rag, the Guardian, is  linked to its attempts to improve its air pollution that rather than being linked to international efforts to improve climate change.

So - wrong again jivvy.  If I have air over my head - you have it in yours!

And the number of spivs?



Just what are you still wittering on about? - Nahhhh dinnae bother! 

Posted 6 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
Just admit you can't answer the questions - you'll feel better for the confession.
Posted 6 April 2014
thelook
Photographer
thelook
EdT
the 95% of scientists who believe in man made climate change.
I have to ask. Where did this figure come from? I can not believe that it is possible that every scientist in the world has been asked.... By the way, has anyone seen the documentary showing Al Gores film was fiction and that Magaret Thatcher used climate change to close down the mines? (She wanted to go Nuclear).
Posted 7 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
[qt][author]thelook[/author] I have to ask. Where did this figure come from? I can not believe that it is possible that every scientist in the world has been asked.... By the way, has anyone seen the documentary showing Al Gores film was fiction and that Magaret Thatcher used climate change to close down the mines? (She wanted to go Nuclear). [/qt] No no, it's not 95% of scientists - it is just that the scientists who joined together to support the climate change argument are now 95% sure they were right when they came up with the idea in the first place! Just because Stolen Faeces comes up with a statement like that doesn't mean it's accurate!
Posted 7 April 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join