Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans
the IPCC is comprised of many non-scientists who were appointed by national governments and organisations with the aim of manipulating the IPCC's agenda. This alone has caused me to be skeptical of figures published about global warming. I think reducing harmful emissions and other such policies can only be a good thing but I'm still not convinced about MMGW.
If scientists produced a piece of evidence that they believed was an incontrovertible fact that proved anthropogenic global warming was happening, deniers would still refuse to believe in it. Therefore, I refuse to believe in this so called 'evidence' until we get cold winters (read a white Christmas) every year for the rest of my life!
As I understand it (and I admit I may have got the wrong end of the stick), there may have been some disagreement among climatologists about how much an effect positive feedback is likely to have, but that is hardly a smoking gun that exposes the science as being false. The deniers have as usual put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5, they see conspiracies where there is none to be seen, they see scientists as falsifying evidence in order to continue receiving research grants ...
) If not, I suggest go read some of it - or at least read some of the synopses on the web (and yes, I appreciate that some of these may be biased ). Even if you ignore a lot of the commentary, the data itself and some of the comments within the files are interesting. It's not really about disagreement between climatologists - that's always going to happen in any field, scientific or otherwise - it's about building models on massively flawed data.Unfortunately, I'm someone who doesn't believe in man-made global warming, and according to a recent independent survey, I'm of the majority.
I'm pleased to say that if you ignore the government line, polar bears are thriving, Antarctica is getting colder (with more ice), and global temperatures have actually declined so far this century. The problem is that the evidence supporting the claim of increased temperatures is based on very poor research, using few samples (not picked at random), which is never openly shared for peer review (funny that). The other evidence is based on Finnish lake sample data, used upside down (high temperatures are low, and vice versa), and unbelievably some of the most important data was supposedly eaten by a dog (lost)...
In addition, the majority of climate scientists DO NOT support the view that climate change, if any, is man-made. And the remainder, who do, feel that such bodies as the IPCC and governments over egg the issues associated with it - there are actually considerable upsides to warmer global temperatures. The scientists who strongly believe in MMGW do not accept any evidence to the contrary (however unequivocal) and often have their own agenda (grants being the main one - try getting a grant for research suggesting man is not to blame).
Anyway, this is just my opinion, and one I've come to from examining the very sparse evidence in favour of MMGW. In my mind, this is myth created to reduce our reliance on Eastern oil and gas, and an opportunity for further taxation.
) but that doesn't prove the existence of god(s). Unfortunately, I'm someone who doesn't believe in man-made global warming, and according to a recent independent survey, I'm of the majority.
I'm pleased to say that if you ignore the government line, polar bears are thriving, Antarctica is getting colder (with more ice), and global temperatures have actually declined so far this century. The problem is that the evidence supporting the claim of increased temperatures is based on very poor research, using few samples (not picked at random), which is never openly shared for peer review (funny that). The other evidence is based on Finnish lake sample data, used upside down (high temperatures are low, and vice versa), and unbelievably some of the most important data was supposedly eaten by a dog (lost)...
In addition, the majority of climate scientists DO NOT support the view that climate change, if any, is man-made. And the remainder, who do, feel that such bodies as the IPCC and governments over egg the issues associated with it - there are actually considerable upsides to warmer global temperatures. The scientists who strongly believe in MMGW do not accept any evidence to the contrary (however unequivocal) and often have their own agenda (grants being the main one - try getting a grant for research suggesting man is not to blame).
Anyway, this is just my opinion, and one I've come to from examining the very sparse evidence in favour of MMGW. In my mind, this is myth created to reduce our reliance on Eastern oil and gas, and an opportunity for further taxation.
I don't doubt that AGW sceptics/deniers are in the majority (but not in the scientific world), I would hazard a guess that there are more religious people in the world than atheists (like me
Polar bears are thriving? Where? Churchill perhaps? The arctic ice is melting faster than even climatologists initially predicted, Polar bears are largely solitary creatures but due to climate change and rapidly decreasing ice cover they are forced into new areas to obtain food, this brings them into contact with man more frequently which leads some people to assume that there are more polar bears than ever.
Antarctica getting colder? It may be true that the interior of Antarctica is receiving more precipitation (i.e. snow) than usual, Antarctica is the highest and coldest continent on the planet, any increased evaporation from the southern ocean is likely to lead to more snow over Antarctica ... well OK that's just my theory, I have a minor science qualification but I am not a scientist. The fact is that the ice shelves are disintegrating, temperatures on the Antarctic peninsula are rising at a frightening rate... this is backed up by changes in the wildlife. Penguins are natural barometers of the climate, certain penguins prefer certain habitats. Adelie penguins were once the most numerous species on the Antarctic peninsula, they relied on sea-ice for their winter habitat, in recent years the Adelies have begun to disappear, moving further south and Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins who prefer open water habitats have taken the Adelies place.
The upsides to warmer global temperatures depend on just how much temperature ends up rising to and whereabouts in the world you live, try convincing the people of Bangladesh and numerous Pacific islands who stand to lose their homes to rising sea levels (due to melting of continental ice caps and thermal expansion of the oceans) of the benefits of warmer global temperatures.
The argument that scientists are falsifying evidence in order to obtain research grants just doesn't hold true, if this meant that they were raking in millions of pounds of our money then maybe this might be believable. The fact is government scientists aren't that highly paid ... not compared to those working in the private sector ... surely if they were purely interested in financial benefits of research they would join the deniers and get paid a fortune by the petro-chemical industry?
Looking through some of the emails now, can't say I have changed my opinion on AGW, but I haven't read them all yet ...
), have a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBG ... _embedded#
See our F1 related articles too!
