FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Stephen]

it can't do any harm to look at methods to stop CO2 going into the atmosphere.

Or cheaper more available fuels like fusion rather than relaying on a source of power thats not going to last much longer

Look at China and the "smog" whether that affects the earth or not its not healthy for the population living there.

Totally agree - but before we head into carbon rationing and desperate levels of taxation all in the name of global warming, we've all got to be sure the science is right. I suspect what will happen is that global warming will be found wanting (or rather 'not as serious as first thought') during the next decade, and the electorate will lose all appetite for perhaps even more important and pressing environmental issues.

Sadly, the end of global warming won't sell papers, won't see so many climate scientists employed, so many green jobs created, so much tax collected - hence why scientists on the other side of the debate (9000 who have signed a petition against AGW) are currently being likened to holocaust deniers.

[Jensonb]

Call me crazy, but I think I'm more trusting of the peer-reviewed work of trusted and experienced scientists worldwide (Who have no conceivable reason to conspire on some massive lie about this) than I am of either anonymous YouTube users making partially-informed propaganda by ignoring half the information and/or the people who watch those videos and then decide that these random anonymous people must know what they're talking about.

So you're suddenly against AGW then?

Much of the peer-reviewed science is critical of AGW, very little of the evidence supporting AGW is open to peer review - some of the most important evidence has even been deleted.

JB - don't be taken in by what the MSM are saying, consensus is a political term, not a scientific one. Open your mind and read some of the scientific arguments before making a decision. Here's one to start you off:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/070 ... 1161v4.pdf

I don't believe I ever used the word "consensus" nor do I see what relevance consensus has to this discussion, as consensus is a social concept and not a scientific one.

Your entire argument is broken because you're assuming I haven't read the science. I've read the science, and I've seen the numbers. Mankind is having a verifiable impact on the temperature of the earth and spewing carbon nasties and all the other crap we produce into the air is a bad idea. If you're going to sit there and say "let the big companies do all the polluting they want! Fire up the furnaces gents! Produce with a reckless disregard for your environment", I'm going to disagree. That's a bad idea. Get over it.

[Stephen]

Your entire argument is broken because you're assuming I haven't read the science. I've read the science, and I've seen the numbers. Mankind is having a verifiable impact on the temperature of the earth and spewing carbon nasties and all the other crap we produce into the air is a bad idea. If you're going to sit there and say "let the big companies do all the polluting they want! Fire up the furnaces gents! Produce with a reckless disregard for your environment", I'm going to disagree. That's a bad idea. Get over it.

You've seen the numbers - good, so how do you feel now knowing that all the work by Mann, Jones et al can effectively be discounted - this obviously includes the various IPCC reports, and the famous hockey sticks charts (Al Gore's inconvenient truth). So, now, do provide me with the evidence suggesting a. the temperature is increasing (it isn't), b. that Polar ice is decreasing (it isn't), and c. showing a link between CO2 and the rising temperature. Then as a second project, tell me why you believe we should just discount the raft of counter arguments, all the properly peer reviewed scientific reports etc.

Honestly, first you liken me to a BNP supporter, then suggest I think it's a good idea for 'big companies' to do all the polluting they want - not much of an argument. I'm an analyst by trade, I run companies which identify trends and monetise fluctuations - I've reviewed the data, and there's simply nothing to suggest AGW is settled by any means.

[Gaz]

it can't do any harm to look at methods to stop CO2 going into the atmosphere.

Or cheaper more available fuels like fusion rather than relaying on a source of power thats not going to last much longer

Look at China and the "smog" whether that affects the earth or not its not healthy for the population living there.

Totally agree - but before we head into carbon rationing and desperate levels of taxation all in the name of global warming, we've all got to be sure the science is right. I suspect what will happen is that global warming will be found wanting (or rather 'not as serious as first thought') during the next decade, and the electorate will lose all appetite for perhaps even more important and pressing environmental issues.

Sadly, the end of global warming won't sell papers, won't see so many climate scientists employed, so many green jobs created, so much tax collected - hence why scientists on the other side of the debate (9000 who have signed a petition against AGW) are currently being likened to holocaust deniers.

Now i think that bits pretty pointless, why not employ physicists and engineers to research better ways of making cleaner energy.

They stil need scientists to look into MMGW however, perhaps not as many.

[Jensonb]

Your entire argument is broken because you're assuming I haven't read the science. I've read the science, and I've seen the numbers. Mankind is having a verifiable impact on the temperature of the earth and spewing carbon nasties and all the other crap we produce into the air is a bad idea. If you're going to sit there and say "let the big companies do all the polluting they want! Fire up the furnaces gents! Produce with a reckless disregard for your environment", I'm going to disagree. That's a bad idea. Get over it.

You've seen the numbers - good, so how do you feel now knowing that all the work by Mann, Jones et al can effectively be discounted - this obviously includes the various IPCC reports, and the famous hockey sticks charts (Al Gore's inconvenient truth). So, now, do provide me with the evidence suggesting a. the temperature is increasing (it isn't), b. that Polar ice is decreasing (it isn't), and c. showing a link between CO2 and the rising temperature. Then as a second project, tell me why you believe we should just discount the raft of counter arguments, all the properly peer reviewed scientific reports etc.

Honestly, first you liken me to a BNP supporter, then suggest I think it's a good idea for 'big companies' to do all the polluting they want - not much of an argument. I'm an analyst by trade, I run companies which identify trends and monetise fluctuations - I've reviewed the data, and there's simply nothing to suggest AGW is settled by any means.

I'm sorry, if you can't see why denying global warming is a bad idea, I can't help you, so I'm not going to try.

[racechick]

Your entire argument is broken because you're assuming I haven't read the science. I've read the science, and I've seen the numbers. Mankind is having a verifiable impact on the temperature of the earth and spewing carbon nasties and all the other crap we produce into the air is a bad idea. If you're going to sit there and say "let the big companies do all the polluting they want! Fire up the furnaces gents! Produce with a reckless disregard for your environment", I'm going to disagree. That's a bad idea. Get over it.

You've seen the numbers - good, so how do you feel now knowing that all the work by Mann, Jones et al can effectively be discounted - this obviously includes the various IPCC reports, and the famous hockey sticks charts (Al Gore's inconvenient truth). So, now, do provide me with the evidence suggesting a. the temperature is increasing (it isn't), b. that Polar ice is decreasing (it isn't), and c. showing a link between CO2 and the rising temperature. Then as a second project, tell me why you believe we should just discount the raft of counter arguments, all the properly peer reviewed scientific reports etc.

Honestly, first you liken me to a BNP supporter, then suggest I think it's a good idea for 'big companies' to do all the polluting they want - not much of an argument. I'm an analyst by trade, I run companies which identify trends and monetise fluctuations - I've reviewed the data, and there's simply nothing to suggest AGW is settled by any means.

I'm sorry, if you can't see why denying global warming is a bad idea, I can't help you, so I'm not going to try.

But Jensnob, there is no reliable evidence that if indeed there is global warming, that it is man made!! Yes we must stop polluting and think to the future but this global warming theory is not proven

[myownalias]

Global climate change is a reality, people; for example: the democrats under George W Bush completely denied the existence of global warming. Countries are more worried about their financial bottom line than saving the planet from ourselves, capitalism and conservation really shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as they are not compatible. I wholeheartedly believe that if December 21st 2012 becomes a reality it will be man-made.

[darwin dali]

Global climate change is a reality, people; for example: the democrats under George W Bush completely denied the existence of global warming. Countries are more worried about their financial bottom line than saving the planet from ourselves, capitalism and conservation really shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as they are not compatible. I wholeheartedly believe that if December 21st 2012 becomes a reality it will be man-made.

You mean republicans, don't you?

[Stephen]

I'm sorry, if you can't see why denying global warming is a bad idea, I can't help you, so I'm not going to try.

You don't have an answer do you? Your only contribution to this thread has been to insult or belittle the poor misguided deniers (you and Miliband should get a room)...

You're nothing more than an apathetic sheep, happily spoon-fed by media and government - and sorry to break it to you, but these people don't give a stuff about the environment - for media it's all about selling papers with sensationalist stories, and for the latter group, aside from running up expenses and lying about them, sending us on unpopular wars on the basis of false evidence (familiar?), they want votes - and in the case of the socialists (Labour, Democrats), they want big brother surveillance, nanny state, redistribution of wealth, and gross public sector waste supported by fines and taxes. This might be news to you, but the new EU President wants to run the whole EU (cost €140m/day) on environmental taxes alone (agenda, what agenda?) - and where do you suppose they come from? Oh big business you say? Right then, that's an extra 10% on everything you buy!

Am I wrong for refusing to accept a theory based on poor, manipulated data by a small group of vested scientists? A theory, claimed to be settled by politicians (whilst the majority of their electorate and independent scientists remain unconvinced), which will have far reaching consequences in the way we all live our lives, in how much tax we pay and what we can no longer do. Then there's the environmental cost of creating solutions to combat threats that possibly don't exist (growing algae in the Oceans, giant solar reflectors, painting whole towns white, population control, the pressure placed on developing Countries). Then you might want to worry about what the real agenda is - why is this major scientific subject not being debated, how is it in anyway settled, and who benefits. And finally, if CO2 is so damn bad, why are tens of thousands of delegates meeting in Copenhagen next month, the majority travelling by plane?

There is no doubt that climate change is real, has always been real, and will continue long after the human race have killed each other off. The planet is currently cooling (inconvenient truth isn't it) but CO2 has by no means been proven to be the cause. The Artic ice is coming back to normal levels (same characteristics were seen in the Artic in 1850 - but what do you care? - oh and the great ice sheet Greenpeace were banging on about, their outgoing Leader recently announced it's likely disappearance was a lie - or rather 'emotive' lies to generate interest), polar bears are thriving (and you can go hunt them if you have a few thousand dollars) - so what's the issue? Are you just going to blame bad weather on AGW like the BBC? So to sum-up - no real evidence, just a half-assed theory made very public by politicians with an agenda, and scientists wanting a job and name up in lights.

[myownalias]

Global climate change is a reality, people; for example: the democrats under George W Bush completely denied the existence of global warming. Countries are more worried about their financial bottom line than saving the planet from ourselves, capitalism and conservation really shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as they are not compatible. I wholeheartedly believe that if December 21st 2012 becomes a reality it will be man-made.

You mean republicans, don't you?

Yes I did; that'll teach me to type while watching CNN talking about the Democrats.

[darwin dali]

Global climate change is a reality, people; for example: the democrats under George W Bush completely denied the existence of global warming. Countries are more worried about their financial bottom line than saving the planet from ourselves, capitalism and conservation really shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as they are not compatible. I wholeheartedly believe that if December 21st 2012 becomes a reality it will be man-made.

You mean republicans, don't you?

Yes I did; that'll teach me to type while watching CNN talking about the Democrats.

[zweiblumen]

I'm sorry, if you can't see why denying global warming is a bad idea, I can't help you, so I'm not going to try.

You don't have an answer do you? Your only contribution to this thread has been to insult or belittle the poor misguided deniers (you and Miliband should get a room)...

You're nothing more than an apathetic sheep, happily spoon-fed by media and government - and sorry to break it to you, but these people don't give a stuff about the environment - for media it's all about selling papers with sensationalist stories, and for the latter group, aside from running up expenses and lying about them, sending us on unpopular wars on the basis of false evidence (familiar?), they want votes - and in the case of the socialists (Labour, Democrats), they want big brother surveillance, nanny state, redistribution of wealth, and gross public sector waste supported by fines and taxes. This might be news to you, but the new EU President wants to run the whole EU (cost €140BN/day) on environmental taxes alone (agenda, what agenda?) - and where do you suppose they come from? Oh big business you say? Right then, that's an extra 10% on everything you buy!

You've displayed symptoms of what I call 'Daily Mail Syndrome' by using the word socialist to describe Labour ... when was the last time Labour were actually socialist? ... Not since Michael Foot was leader.


Am I wrong for refusing to accept a theory based on poor, manipulated data by a small group of vested scientists? A theory, claimed to be settled by politicians (whilst the majority of their electorate and independent scientists remain unconvinced), which will have far reaching consequences in the way we all live our lives, in how much tax we pay and what we can no longer do. Then there's the environmental cost of creating solutions to combat threats that possibly don't exist (growing algae in the Oceans, giant solar reflectors, painting whole towns white, population control, the pressure placed on developing Countries). Then you might want to worry about what the real agenda is - why is this major scientific subject not being debated, how is it in anyway settled, and who benefits. And finally, if CO2 is so damn bad, why are tens of thousands of delegates meeting in Copenhagen next month, the majority travelling by plane?

No, you are misguided in being swayed by an extremely small, but very well rewarded group of scientists who continue to produce dodgy 'evidence' (to please their paymasters) that global warming isn't happening. Who are the ones with the hidden agenda? Who were the ones payrolling George W Bush, who are the ones suppressing the evidence behind global warming ... the global warming deniers could it be?

There is no doubt that climate change is real, has always been real, and will continue long after the human race have killed each other off. The planet is currently cooling (inconvenient truth isn't it) but CO2 has by no means been proven to be the cause. The Artic ice is coming back to normal levels (same characteristics were seen in the Artic in 1850 - but what do you care? - oh and the great ice sheet Greenpeace were banging on about, their outgoing Leader recently announced it's likely disappearance was a lie - or rather 'emotive' lies to generate interest), polar bears are thriving (and you can go hunt them if you have a few thousand dollars) - so what's the issue? Are you just going to blame bad weather on AGW like the BBC? So to sum-up - no real evidence, just a half-assed theory made very public by politicians with an agenda, and scientists wanting a job and name up in lights.

The climate has always been cyclic, nobody would deny that, satellite images and oceanic surveys confirm the shrinking ice in the Arctic, Polar Bears populations MAY not be decreasing at present but those recorded display evidence of lower body weight than should be normal and changing feeding habits. What happens is that climate change affects the smaller creatures first, the larger ones then struggle to adapt. The collapse of ice shelves in the Antarctic that have existed for tens of thousands of years, are just coincidences then ... just bad weather hmm? The penguins that have nested in the same areas for centuries are now just moving further South because they want a change of scenery? No real evidence, just a jumble of cherry-picked facts and figures made public by deniers, right-wing institutes and lobbyists with an agenda, and a tiny group of deluded scientists wanting a job and a lot of dirty money ... aha.

[Stephen]

No real evidence, just a jumble of cherry-picked facts and figures made public by deniers, right-wing institutes and lobbyists with an agenda, and a tiny group of deluded scientists wanting a job and a lot of dirty money ... aha.

Oh that's right, cherry picked facts, well it's good that at least one side of this argument is based on science then!

[bud]

denying the fact that humans are infact damaging our planet is just sticking your head in the sand. while youre all bickering about whether man made Co2 levels are causing climate change youre all forgetting we are currently in the greatest mass extinction since the end of the Mesozoic era 65 Million years ago. we Are damaging our planet in many ways other than just Co2 levels. Of which there is no doubt in my mind that we are infact contributing to an accelerated climate change.

its simple physics, the planets ecological systems are so fragile that any sudden change (industrial revolution) will have an adverse affect. those who dont believe it why not do an experiment and go to a pub in amsterdam and not expect to get high passively!

[headless]

Ouch. Stephen sure ripped into JensonB there!
I agree with waht you have been saying also Stephen.

I don't really buy into the whole global warming thing, but if you say you don't alot of people tend to look at you like you are antichrist or something.