Climate Change - Alternatives to the Current Consensus

O

onq

Registered User
Messages
4,388
Hi Folks,

Traipsing through Globalresearch.ca the other evening [as one does] I read some interesting comments on Professor Phil Jones.

Phil, it appears is one of those who think climate change is definitely man-made, while blithely ignoring the lack of temperature rise in the last decade or so.

Sound familiar?

And indeed elsewhere on that august forum, someone had dredged up HAARP but also apparently found newer suggestions that this hadn't gone away.

Anyway, I assembled a few links for your reading pleasure.

These pages do seem to take a while to load, but I find them worth it.

FWIW

ONQ.

==================================================

Climate Change: The Global Media presents an Apocalyptic Scenario
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16437

Professor in climate change scandal helps police with enquiries while researchers call for him to be banned
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16398

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16421

Also the role the military may have for the Global Climate is not being discussed.

Excluded from the Copenhagen Agenda:
Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and Climate Change
The manipulation of climate for military use
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16413

Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16411
 
The big issue isnt whether the climate is changing, its whether or not it is due to human polution and what proportion is due to human polution.

The trouble with a lot of the so called scientific "evidence" presented at these conferences is that they do not establish cause and effect. You frequently hear that CO2 emissions are responsible for a rise in temperature and the "evidence" being presented is a graph showing that CO2 emissions are rising along side a graph showing temperatures rising. All this sound plausable to the man on the street and the media. But, you could present a graph that shows a rise in something absurd like askaboutmoney.com usage or the popularity of reality TV shows along side a graph with temperatures rising. Does this mean that climate change is caused by askaboutmoney.com or reality TV? I doubt it.

The climate of the earth changes constantly. It is a natural process. In geographical terms, we are coming out of a very recent ice age. The temperature of the earth is rising and will rise further. We have very little impact on this process.

The biggest problem we have is that the environmental lobby and media have adopted a King Canute attitude. They think that some changes in human behaviour will reverse this rise in temperature. They will not accept that this is arrogant misguided claptrap. Human beings are powerless to stop these processes. Because the environmental lobby think they can beat the temperature rise, they are focusing Government efforts on changing CO2 emissions rather that adapting to the new environment. Because they think they can beat temperature rise, the world will not be prepared and will get caught out when it happens.

We need a more pragmatic realistic approach along the lines of: temperature change is going to happen, we cannot stop it, we must prepare for the consequences.
 
If we do not know for certain that human activities cause global warming, the most prudent action would be to assume they do.

We really need to stop sea fishing too.
 
There was a good article in The Sunday Times mag a few weeks ago by Brian Appleyard - sceptic turned worried.
 
umop3p!sdn said:
If we do not know for certain that human activities cause global warming, the most prudent action would be to assume they do.

We really need to stop sea fishing too.
Click to expand...
huh?

er, no... the most prudent action would be to determine the actual cause of the problem.

Sea fishing is, if you'll pardon the pun, a red herring, and a completely seperate issue
 
I'm of the view that it will be simply too expensive to pollute when the oil stocks begin to run out. This will be the biggest factor to cause a reduction in manmade pollution. Whether it's too late at this stage I don't know. All of the other messages promoting a green lifestyle will only help a little when offset against the likes of China and India who are only now joining the motoring class
 
IMO the whole global warming/climate change agenda is an excuse for taxation and social engineering. At best, it's misguided do-gooderism, at worst willful manipulation of the masses. They can't even figure out the weather with any degree of certainty past a few weeks but they claim they can tell us the climate in 100 years... go figure.

As a previous poster said, climate changes, with or without the help of man. But hey, I'm a cynic

re the oil - plenty of it remains - but in less accessible formats - shale oil for example. Once the price of crude gets high enough, it becomes economical to refine it. Of course, more efficient and clean engines help prolong the useful life of oil.
I'm all for managing our resources and limiting pollution, but not when it comes wrapped in snake oil
 
I'd question the accuracy of 160 year old records, but aside from that 160 years is nothing in geological terms
 
huh?

er, no... the most prudent action would be to determine the actual cause of the problem.
Click to expand...
huh?
No, the most prudent action would be to assume that climate change is due to our actions. We should continue to determine the cause of the problem, but it's an exceedingly complex experiment with multiple compounding factors. Time does seem to be an important factor.

Sea fishing is, if you'll pardon the pun, a red herring, and a completely seperate issue
Click to expand...
Everything is inter-related. Maybe algae can absorb CO2, but the eco-system is unbalanced due to over fishing. For example.
 
I always thought Science was about absolute facts. Is there proof or just consensus that the worlds climate is changing because of man's influence?

If it's just a concensus then come back to me when there is solid proof.I'm off to sleep now, Yawn.
 
Niallers said:
I always thought Science was about absolute facts. Is there proof or just consensus that the worlds climate is changing because of man's influence?
Click to expand...

Science is about scepticism, not pseudo-religious dogma.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
 
I always thought Science was about absolute facts. Is there proof or just consensus that the worlds climate is changing because of man's influence?
Click to expand...
No, science isn't about 'facts', it's about theories based on empirical evidence. Global warming is very hard to replicate in a lab.
There are very few scientific facts, if any. People used to think the world was flat, for example. Now we think it's ball shaped. In a few more years we may come up with another theory. Same with Newtonian physics, or Rutherford's model of the atom.
 
umop3p!sdn said:
huh?
No, the most prudent action would be to assume that climate change is due to our actions. We should continue to determine the cause of the problem, but it's an exceedingly complex experiment with multiple compounding factors. Time does seem to be an important factor.


Everything is inter-related. Maybe algae can absorb CO2, but the eco-system is unbalanced due to over fishing. For example.
Click to expand...
overfishing is a seperate issue to climate change. you can inter-relate everything if you try hard enough. Back to climate change - there are also negative consequences to rushing in to implementing a solution to a problem that may not exist - not least in hamstringing our economies. There's also benefits to a warmer wetter climate - better for growing... it's an exceedingly complex experiment foisted on us by the climate change brigade
 
No, science isn't about 'facts'
Click to expand...

Classic.
This has to be the best response I've seen all year from the climate change congregation.
 
If you are going to quote me, at least include all of the sentence. I also stand by what I have said.
Does any disagree with what I've posted?

I would have thought this was fairly basic stuff for anyone that has studied a scientific discipline.
 
you asserted that science is not about facts, but about 'theories' based on empirical evidence.

I agree with the empirical evidence bit, but to state that science is not about facts is ludicrous. In addition a scientific 'theory' is about as close to a fact as you get without being a fact. It's a far cry from the non-scientific definition of a theory.
 
In addition a scientific 'theory' is about as close to a fact as you get without being a fact.
Click to expand...
So it's not a fact then is it? - It's still a scientific theory. This is my point.
By definition, either something is a fact, or it's not. This is discrete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top