Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

102 posts
31 March 2014
Allinthemind
Photographer
Allinthemind
Margaret Thatcher was the first person to bring Climate Change (Global Warming) to the international stage, for whatever reason. I always look for good in people..
Posted 7 April 2014
thelook
Photographer
thelook
mph
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!
Ah I thought as much when I read this.. https://heartland.org/sites/default/files/10-2012_myth_of_the_98_percent.pdf Statistics can say anything you want them to. A bit like claiming a biscuit is 90% fat free.... It's the 10% thats dodgy. I agree there is climate change but I'm one of those people who thinks that there always has been. Take the trouble to watch the documentary I mentioned, look at the past years of weather and, actually, it doesn't seem much different. I'm guessing the 'Climate Change Experts' have jobs that rely on it... Doesn't mean we shouldn't recycle, try to be greener and at least do our bit though.
Posted 7 April 2014
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictures
So much argument around this, and its understandable since its an emotive issue. Easy to get distracted without fully understanding. I know this, it's happened to me in the past.

What worries me is that concensus seems lacking and direction dithers when some salient points must be discernible and actionable surely?

An example, the recent flooding brings activity involving dredging rivers, straightening their course to allow faster transit, but the man made pinch points I'm urban settings remain still, concentrating floods where they're least welcome. Alternatively a suggestion to plant more trees on high ground suggested more water will be held on the land or find its way to deep aquifers, reducing run off and flash flooding. One is at odds with the other but the latter seems to offer a significant positive benefit in the long term and immediate future. Why is it impossible to provide definitive views on simple issues and act on those?

For me, I'd start by suggesting that reforestation of our uplands wouldn't hurt and perhaps if tax breaks were allied to this, might even appeal to those with the money, which unfortunately seems to dominate this issues landscape beyond sense or logic.

Posted 7 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
profilepictures

So much argument around this, and its understandable since its an emotive issue. Easy to get distracted without fully understanding. I know this, it's happened to me in the past. What worries me is that concensus seems lacking and direction dithers when some salient points must be discernible and actionable surely?


Which in a way is what I was getting at - the expenditure of billions in the UK on making what may (or may not) be a minuscule reduction in overall global warming could perhaps be better spent dealing with the problems we have now - and developing solutions to possible future problems too.

Posted 7 April 2014
Edited by mph 7 April 2014
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictures
I agree I think, though I still feel the spin put on the green industry is confusing, intentionally so.

For instance, power supply and generation companies suggest they need to
Put prices up to accommodate government direction to be greener and self sufficient? What? We're they planning on beginning that process once the gas and oil runs out then? Equally, what kind of energy policy do we have anyway when every winter we run within hours of having no gas nationally and are always at the mercy of pipelines held and owned by other nations? Is the vested interest of any 'green movement' more insidious than than the purveyors of crude oil?

Plant trees, and avoid npower, the twats kept me hanging on the phone 40 minutes today.

Posted 8 April 2014
david1500
Photographer
david1500

Back in history it was scientists who said there were witches , they proved it , everyone believed it , how many girls were tortured and burned alive , on their eveidence , are those now who dare question the experts going to be burnt alive , for science , or is the world flat as was another clame by scientists

Posted 8 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
david1500

Back in history it was scientists who said there were witches , they proved it , everyone believed it , how many girls were tortured and burned alive , on their eveidence , are those now who dare question the experts going to be burnt alive , for science , or is the world flat as was another clame by scientists



Erhhhh??!!!

Posted 8 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
profilepictures

I agree I think, though I still feel the spin put on the green industry is confusing, intentionally so. For instance, power supply and generation companies suggest they need to Put prices up to accommodate government direction to be greener and self sufficient? What? We're they planning on beginning that process once the gas and oil runs out then? Equally, what kind of energy policy do we have anyway when every winter we run within hours of having no gas nationally and are always at the mercy of pipelines held and owned by other nations? Is the vested interest of any 'green movement' more insidious than than the purveyors of crude oil? Plant trees, and avoid npower, the twats kept me hanging on the phone 40 minutes today.



...Been at this a long time now - Including unleaded petrol, asbestos and scallop dredging to name just a few...... In my experience the spin is laid on most thick with a trowel, by corporate interests. Think of smoking!  If anything has taught me a lesson  - Its always be very sceptical about corporations and the environment!
Posted 8 April 2014
david1500
Photographer
david1500
How many comities have been set up to investive global warnings all friends of the government , all these people are paid with jobs for life , I am just a cynic , jobs for the boys and girls

Posted 8 April 2014
AmyC_01
Model
AmyC_01
False - I heard it was because the cows kept farting!! Or was on that 1st April I heard it? xx
Posted 8 April 2014
david1500
Photographer
david1500
What about the spaghetti trees , but this fares

Posted 8 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
[qt][author]jivago[/author] ...Been at this a long time now - Including unleaded petrol, asbestos and scallop dredging to name just a few...... In my experience the spin is laid on most thick with a trowel, by corporate interests. Think of smoking! If anything has taught me a lesson - Its always be very sceptical about corporations and the environment! [/qt] Good to see you back - even if it is, as usual, a worthless contribution!
Posted 8 April 2014
david1500
Photographer
david1500
It is all a con , just to make money for friends

Posted 8 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
AmyC_01

False - I heard it was because the cows kept farting!! Or was on that 1st April I heard it? xx


Indeed they do contribute a huge amount of methane - one of the gases being blamed for "global warming" (or climate change any time the temperature does not go up!)

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide

That'll be why Doc jivvy will be a vegetarian.
Posted 8 April 2014
Edited by mph 8 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
david1500

How many comities have been set up to investive global warnings all friends of the government , all these people are paid with jobs for life , I am just a cynic , jobs for the boys and girls


Well actually scientists operate according to the 'scientific method' - Or as close to that as they can. The consensus is toward a man made influenced warming event. Far from a job for life, there is scientific rigour. Results are published, peer reviwed and open to challenge. Get it wrong and your reputation is on the line. The method has no interest in the outcome - Allowing reality to speak for itself. The problem we have at this time, is lack of determining data. By the time we get that, it could be too late. Therefore, it seems prudent to act now. Pollution control is good anyhow. 

Lack of data is same for those Corporate interests that want to 'keep on polluting'.

I know who I trust more.

Posted 8 April 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join