The Climate Change agenda

Anything else you want to talk about.
Post Reply
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:43 pm

It is indeed the atitude of the proponants of ''climate change'' towards so-called sceptics, together with the lack of published intelligible research, that alerted me to the liklihood the whole thing was a scam. Now we know that it is, and the likes of Al Gore have gone deep undercover. Only the EU and our quangocracy persist with this nonsense.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:26 pm

RF:
It is indeed the atitude of the proponants of ''climate change'' towards so-called sceptics, together with the lack of published intelligible research, that alerted me to the liklihood the whole thing was a scam. Now we know that it is, and the likes of Al Gore have gone deep undercover. Only the EU and our quangocracy persist with this nonsense.
You are indeed correct with this assesment, RF. I have found that, after the the internet broke into our lives, the conspiracy theories and "inteligent gossip and rumors" have increased to exponential degrees. The Y2K and the 2012 doomsday fairy tales are two of the best examples of what everybody waits for only to find their perverse hopes non answered.

Climate Change is just one of them, too. That does not mean that humankind might not get interested in enviroment and do not need to something about it. We must limit emisions, find better energy sources (and explore space by all available means). But from doing an inteligent and serious enviroment protection and conservation to go running wild telling everybody that if we let temperature raise 3ªC to 2050 we will find London, Miami and Rio flooded one morning there is a great difference: that of seriousness and outright stupidity.

I know that scientists have means to "estimate" the grouth of temperature... acording with supositions, parameters and wild guesses. But how on Earth they know for sure there is a rate that will put us in 3ªC in twenty years? How do they know that if we go, "just", to 2ªC then mankind is safe?

If cataclismic natural events have nor erased a primitive mankind how are we sure socity will be destroy by a process?

But... is there a process? A man produced process? The Mamuts didn`t need of General Motors to dissapear...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by hammy » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:46 pm

I think "Scam" is a bit too harsh .
Certainly overblown , and at times preposterously so by people who should know better , aided by politicians and journalists who appear to have no ability to discriminate between what can and what cannot , be , and who are prepared to give the hysteric doomsayer the credence that belongs to sober scientific investigators.

the silliest aspect to me is the blind assumption that the present state of the climate is the "Right" one , and that mankind is the ultimate life form in earth's history . Neither one is true .

I dont see the notion of us all flying off to found new colonies on distant planets any more convincing as time goes on , and we learn more about the universe .
Our increasing knowledge of the underlying inimical hostility towards mankind of the space environment makes me think that the prospect of our getting spacebound in anything other than limited research missions to some nearby objects , or up into earth orbit , is becoming less probable as time goes on , rather than more so .
I think the worlds leaders have been told this by the scientists , but probably dare not share this with the people as a whole , for with that hope gone we would know we were effectively trapped here as the human species presently exists , and the reaction in terms of re-examining our behaviour here is one they wish to delay , at least until their own "watch" is over and it becomes "Someone else's problem" .

The true preventative for uncontrolled human population expansion has to be population control , but in a surging capitalist global economic model reliant on ever increasing "demand" , try putting that forward as a policy and see where it gets you ! :(
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

Byron Angel

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:34 pm

Hammy wrote - "the silliest aspect to me is the blind assumption that the present state of the climate is the "Right" one"


B I N G O


Byron

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Bgile » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:43 pm

I don't think space exploration has much to do with population increase. What it has to do with is:

1. The search for knowledge and the human popensity to explore and expand our knowledge of the universe. I think without new places to go we would stagnate intellectually, and I don't think that's going to happen.

2. The possibility of creating one or more self sustaining colonies somewhere that could survive indefinitely after the inevitable demise of our current world.

With respect to climate change (off topic), whatever you think about it's cause, it is happening. You can't see this from one year to the next, but one has only to look at the size of the polar ice cap over the last 30 years to see that it has been shrinking pretty dramatically.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Bgile » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:50 pm

Byron Angel wrote:Hammy wrote - "the silliest aspect to me is the blind assumption that the present state of the climate is the "Right" one"

B I N G O

Byron
Whether or not the present state of global temperature is the "right one" is largely irrelevant. Significant climate change will cause global upheaval. Climate change doesn't respect national boundaries, and there will be places which have large populations that can no longer sustain them, and places with small populations which these large populations will covet.

Many of the places which raise crops now will no longer be able to do so, and the places which can't now but will be able to in the future don't have the infrastructure to do so. There would be trememdous economic and political upheaval as a result of this, and probably wars on a global scale.

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by hammy » Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:56 am

That is the present prediction , and I cant argue with that , for what you say makes sense , but it requires you to grant that things will pan out like that .

Where we differ is over How much of the present alteration is ascribable to Mankinds actions ,
Whether the rate of change and all these symptomatic events is as rapid as the pessimistic wing would have us believe ( I have my doubts ) ,
Whether the balancing factors in the system dont ameliorate decline ( very simply such as : - increased temperature = increased evaporation = increased precipitation - [rain] - = heat is lost up into the upper atmosphere as the rain falls , a good portion of that heat is then radiated out into space )
and Whether the feeble "Green" actions we have seen come into action so far are going to do damn-all about it .

I think we are just doing the equivalent of peeling the label off the stick of dynamite before we let it off , as the label will burn and make nasty fumes .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

Byron Angel

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:58 am

Bgile wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:Hammy wrote - "the silliest aspect to me is the blind assumption that the present state of the climate is the "Right" one"

B I N G O

Byron
Whether or not the present state of global temperature is the "right one" is largely irrelevant. Significant climate change will cause global upheaval. Climate change doesn't respect national boundaries, and there will be places which have large populations that can no longer sustain them, and places with small populations which these large populations will covet.

Many of the places which raise crops now will no longer be able to do so, and the places which can't now but will be able to in the future don't have the infrastructure to do so. There would be trememdous economic and political upheaval as a result of this, and probably wars on a global scale.

..... You may disagree, but my personal opinion is that the human contribution to global climate change is infinitesmal compared to the immense natural forces in play. In the 11th and 12th centuries, agriculture was being practiced in Greenland. North Africa was once a gigantic agricultural cornucopia that fed the Roman Empire. Fifty thousand years ago, Siberia supported huge herds of giant herbivorous mammoths. These environments are long gone today and I think it is fair to say that mankind does not remotely possess the ability to re-create them. That being the case, it is nonsensical to believe that any effort by mankind could possibly maintain any sort of status quo by preventing such massive climatic changes from taking place.

As I said, my opinion.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Bgile » Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:04 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
Bgile wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:Hammy wrote - "the silliest aspect to me is the blind assumption that the present state of the climate is the "Right" one"

B I N G O

Byron
Whether or not the present state of global temperature is the "right one" is largely irrelevant. Significant climate change will cause global upheaval. Climate change doesn't respect national boundaries, and there will be places which have large populations that can no longer sustain them, and places with small populations which these large populations will covet.

Many of the places which raise crops now will no longer be able to do so, and the places which can't now but will be able to in the future don't have the infrastructure to do so. There would be trememdous economic and political upheaval as a result of this, and probably wars on a global scale.

..... You may disagree, but my personal opinion is that the human contribution to global climate change is infinitesmal compared to the immense natural forces in play. In the 11th and 12th centuries, agriculture was being practiced in Greenland. North Africa was once a gigantic agricultural cornucopia that fed the Roman Empire. Fifty thousand years ago, Siberia supported huge herds of giant herbivorous mammoths. These environments are long gone today and I think it is fair to say that mankind does not remotely possess the ability to re-create them. That being the case, it is nonsensical to believe that any effort by mankind could possibly maintain any sort of status quo by preventing such massive climatic changes from taking place.

As I said, my opinion.
I don't think I've said humankind is causing climate change. I haven't a solid position on that one. My position is that climate change seems to be happening.

Byron Angel

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Bgile wrote: My position is that climate change seems to be happening.


..... Of that, there is no question.The earth has always had a dynamic climatic environment.


Byron

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:57 am

Forum members may be interested to learn that in Britain a quango called the Advertising Standards Auhority, whose remit is to deal with complaints over public advertising that contains false information or misleading material, has now made a ruling upholding a complaint about the accuracy of British Government climate change advertising.

Claims the Labour Government made in two press and TV adverts were deemed to be exaggerated, distressing and misleading.

One advert depicted a drawing of three men floating in a bath tub amid scenes of flooding which included a half submerged car and houses and a church part under water. The other advert included a drawing of a young girl and boy looking for water at a well on a hill. The caption ''Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch apail of water'' ended with the line ''There was none, as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.''

For a modern industrialised country with a public water supply and substantial public money already allocated and spent on flood control schemes such advertising is crass, even if anthropogenic climate change was true. What it shows in reality is that our government thinks we are stupid and can be taken for fools. What is truly objectionable is that this campaign has cost the British taxpayer some £56 million pounds and has not even been questioned in Parliament by the Conservative opposition. I would describe that as taxation without representation.

Further complaints that the two adverts were politically motivated have been referred by the Advertising Standards Authority to another regulatory quango, called Ofcom.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by lwd » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:30 pm

Byron Angel wrote: ...but my personal opinion is that the human contribution to global climate change is infinitesmal compared to the immense natural forces in play....
The problem here is that weather is clearly a chaotic phenominal and by extension so is climate. In a chatoic system even a very small delta can produced huge changes down stream. Of course they are rather difficult to predict. But for a clear indicator of human contribution to weather and climate change look at the "heat island" around major cities. They regularly deflect major storm systems. Note that this doesn't suggest exactly what the impact of humanity on the climate is only that there is one.
As I said, my opinion.
Well there were quite a few facts mixed in with it as well.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7603
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:03 pm

The ''heat island'' is an interesting phenomenon, in Britain the effect is predominantly on nightime temperatures during winter, so that rural areas have more severe frosts than the large cities, in times of high pressure where there is no cloud cover. But the overall temperature difference remains marginal. It is not sufficient to lead to changes in climate patterns or overall temperatures, or affect precipitation or insolation, or deflect meteorological depressions, which is what the anthropogenic climate change theorists say the evidence supports.

This winter the''heat island'' has not prevented my home city of Wolverhampton from suffering its coldest winter temperatures for 31 years, with some really deep and penetrating frosts.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by lwd » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:26 pm

RF wrote:The ''heat island'' is an interesting phenomenon, in Britain the effect is predominantly on nightime temperatures during winter, so that rural areas have more severe frosts than the large cities, in times of high pressure where there is no cloud cover. But the overall temperature difference remains marginal. It is not sufficient to lead to changes in climate patterns or overall temperatures, or affect precipitation or insolation, or deflect meteorological depressions, which is what the anthropogenic climate change theorists say the evidence supports.
....
Depends on what you mean by "marginal" and "climate patterns". The Detroit Metro area for instance averages around 3-5 degrees warmer than the surrounding area. Furthermore it is apparently enough to deflect storm systems at times. Again since weather and climage are chaotic systems it doesn't always take a huge force to produce a considerably different situation. The problem is guessing just what that final result is as chaotic systems produce counter intuitive results on a fairly frequent basis.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:23 am

The problem that is affecting our society is not that much how the climate is changing, but how the leftist aparatum is using this phenomena in order to attack the establishment and the industries just as a means to hurt capitalism. In my country, for example, after 1991 almost all the leftist parties and organizations banished from sight only to re emerge (with the same public figures and followers) in the XXI Century as enviromental "activists" which use to attack every single tourist develpoment, beach condominiums and mine projects by default while leaving, unscathered, the polution and damage that the common people produce or that have their origin in goverment activity.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Post Reply