Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Old 27th Oct 2006, 19:16
  #101 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
A lot of the skepticism regarding global warming is due to the fact that the same political/scientific community in recent years convinced us to ban DDT and condemn tens of millions of third-worlders to death from malaria. Later the 'science' on which they predicated their position on DDT was debunked.

Then, they largely destroyed the nuclear power industry, causing more of the increase in CO2 emissions they rail against today. The effect also includes an increased amount of money sent to the Middle East to fund the shennanigans we now fear.

Later, genetically modified food became the bogey. Starving nations were convinced to reject it, even though it promised greater means of subsistence for the most forlorn. People starved because of it.

Now, global warming is the cause du jour. Maybe this, too, will pass. I like to keep an open mind, but pardon me for wanting some solid proof from outside the cabal of journalists, politicized scientists, Al Gore and Rainbow Warriors.

I read recently that the US was a net carbon sink, with the world's most solid efforts to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. My great surprise was that anyone would publish that. It doesn't fit the scenario.
BenThere is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 20:52
  #102 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
With respect, Ben, that post is all over the place.

What does this debate have to do with DDT? No one, least of all me, has suggested science always gets it right. But the evidence in this case is so strong that no scientist has found even the most dubious evidence to support a rebuttal of the consensus view.

They may have got it wrong with DDT, but Newton was right about gravity, Galileo was right when he said the earth was round, and Einstein was right about relativity.

Then, they largely destroyed the nuclear power industry

Who did? The scientific community? Without science it wouldn't have existed in the first place. If by 'they' you are referring to environmentalists, maybe, but the fact you've lumped science in with the environmentalists rather defeats your argument.

Later, genetically modified food became the bogey.....Now, global warming is the cause du jour

You've got the chronology well wrong there. GW has been posited by scientists since the 1970s. All that has happened since then is that the rate of climate change has increased at a very alarming rate and the evidence of mankind's contribution to it is now irrefutable.

I'm really quite surprised that so many intelligent people continue to confidently maintain that this rapid climate change is some sort of 'natural' process.

Quite clearly, it isn't.
Wedge is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 21:11
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Wedge, I am kind of enjoying our debates on this forum, but it doesn't do you or your arguments much good if you resort to insulting your opponents. I know that the Earth isn't flat and I don't like the subtle reference to that other kind of "denier" too. Let's just call some of us extremely sceptical.

If the Earth's CO2 (and specifically mankind's) outputs are responsible for climate change en toto, how do you explain the fact that, reperesentatively, our output IS tiny? No-one has disputed the numbers given earlier about overall emission percentages. Nor do I expect they will.

If the Earth emits a certain amount every year, do you know by how much that amount is liable to vary year to year? If Mount St Helen's decides to erupt next week, what does that do to the overall figures? Should volcanic activity be particularly busy one year, how far away form our targets and how many years of our own very small output will that set us back?

The truth is that the earth's annual output of CO2 varies enormously owing to lots of factors (volcanic activity being just one) When one puts mankind's relatively small utput next to the varying factors then we do indeed seem rather insignificant.

Over the last 5 years a significant body of scientific research has concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the climate criminal it is made out to be by self-proclaimed 'environmentalist' groups and opportunist politicians.

Below is a summary of this research evidence, with links to a review of each, demonstrating clearly that hysterical demands for carbon dioxide emissions reductions — together with the fuel duty hikes and climate change levy introduced supposedly to further these demands — are an environmentally pointless 'King Canute' exercise designed purely to restrict individual mobility, and exercise corporate energy control, through extortionate levels of taxation.


Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during glaciation "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al. (1999) decided that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions." In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide levels, the much hyped 'cause' of global warming, actually happens long after the warming has started, demonstrating clearly that it cannot possibly be the cause.


On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air's CO2 content lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from high time resolution samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 BP (which covers the last glacial-to-interglacial transition) Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. Proving once again that the greens have put effect before cause.


In a study using different methodology, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediments in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. Commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years. Once more the order of events confounds the greens: a shift in carbon dioxide levels cannot 'cause' a temperature rise that happened 3,000 years earlier.


The most recent study available covering this theme is that of Caillon et al. (2003)†, who focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the relative timing of CO2 shifts and climate change. Air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III - which occurred 240,000 years BP - were studied. The result of their painstaking analysis was that "the CO2 increase lagged behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years." This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that drives the climatic system.

Equally pertinent is the fact that during the last interglacial period (Eemian), carbon dioxide levels were lower than those found in the current (Holocene) period — which is a lowly 0.037% by volume — yet the climate then was warmer.

I am sure that is enough for now..

† Reference: Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731 (2003).
SET 18 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 21:43
  #104 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
S18, likewise, I think this is an interesting debate - and first of all I can assure you that any reference you may have inferred from my posts to another kind of 'denier' was purely unintentional.

Secondly - what did you think about the Oreskes study which analysed over 900 separate papers and found not one which rebutted the consensus view? I think it is very hard to argue that there is not a very substantial body of evidence that points to the human effect on climate change, although of course I would say the evidence is much stronger even than that.

I will have a look in more detail at the evidence you have provided above when I have more time.
Wedge is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 21:50
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Talking

Fair enough Wedge, Thanks.

I haven't read the report to which you refer, but I don't think too much of it if it says as you mention!

I am obliged to say that perhaps they didn't look too hard, as these reports, as far as I can determine, all refute it!!
SET 18 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 21:55
  #106 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by Dr Dave View Post
The trouble is Capt. Kaos, there is now considerable doubt about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period at all, for the simple reason that the climate data does not support it. See for example the explanation on this NOAA website, with accompanying graphs:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html

There is a reason why the top graph that you produced has no scale!

The issue is reviewed properly in the following comprehensive, independent study which has been published after the NAS report:

"ROBUSTNESS OF THE MANN, BRADLEY, HUGHES RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE SURFACE TEMPERATURES: EXAMINATION OF CRITICISMS BASED ON THE NATURE AND PROCESSING OF PROXY CLIMATE EVIDENCE. EUGENE R. WAHL and CASPAR M. AMMANN 2006.
Published in: Climatic Change.

.....
Interesting to see that since it didn´t support the hockeystick you quickly drop the NAS report for an earlier more favorite report..

Various groups have shown that the medieval warm period did exist.

Furthermore you might read this article about the further demasque of the hockeystick. "The response of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science and its prestigious journal? It refers to the hockey stick as a “now-superceded curve.”

It's well known that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is minor compared to water vapor but the key of the matter is the following construction: positive feedbacks. The strongest feedback factor is supposed to be that higher atmospheric temperatures allow for more water vapor, which is the strongest greenhouse gas, causing more greenhouse effect, causing more warming and hence, more water wapor, etc, etc.

A lot of the skepticism regarding global warming is due to the fact that the same political/scientific community in recent years convinced us to ban DDT and condemn tens of millions of third-worlders to death from malaria. Later the 'science' on which they predicated their position on DDT was debunked.
Indeed BT, the DDT ban caused millions of unnecessary death. A fact largely unknown to many peope.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 21:59
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Wedge, you might not believe this , but I promise that it's true. I googled your report and this is what came up first....:

Oreskes' study - errata


From: Prof. Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University

On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3).

Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.

METHOD

I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

explicit endorsement of the consensus position
evaluation of impacts
mitigation proposals
methods
paleoclimate analysis
rejection of the consensus position.
natural factors of global climate change
unrelated to the question of recent global climate change
RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
DISCUSSION:

According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, "either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view". This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.

It also shows that many abstracts on "evaluation of impact" and "mitigation" do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the 'consensus view' but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.

Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).

In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus view' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists:

"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time." (8)
This is not to deny that there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change". The truth is, that there is no such thing!

In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oreskes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.

References

1) N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/)

2) ISI Web of Science (http://www.webofscience.com/)

3) http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm

4) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405

5) H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.

6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change". K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67

7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.

8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471

Perhaps it is not the all-encompassing report that you supposed...
SET 18 is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 08:27
  #108 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Further to the above http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
green granite is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 11:42
  #109 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Perhaps that study is not the best example, although that report above discrediting the research is only the opinion of one scientist.

re: the evidence above. What is the source?

an increase in carbon dioxide levels, the much hyped 'cause' of global warming, actually happens long after the warming has started, demonstrating clearly that it cannot possibly be the cause.

That's a non-sequitur. It cannot possibly follow logically that because previous natural changes to the atmosphere, whereby temperature changed long before CO2 levels, that necessarily means it cannot be happening the other way round in this case. Particularly when we are positing that the change in the atmosphere is a very rapid direct effect of human activity. So I don't accept that 'evidence' for a moment.

In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. Proving once again that the greens have put effect before cause.

Again, a conclusion which does not follow logically. I also have great concerns about the tone of the article you have posted, with its disparaging references to 'greens'. The emphasis on taxation also betrays it as a politically motivated article, not an objective scientific assessment of the evidence. It looks like an Exxon press release. And it's already been pointed out by Dr Dave, that it would be a great coup for any scientist to find the evidence that rebuts anthropogenic climate change. And not one has been able to do it. That's because the evidence to rebut just isn't there.

For me it's a no-brainer. Human CO2 emissions now totalled approximately 25 billion tonnes in 2003. The average annual CO2 emissions for one person in the UK is 12 tonnes. That's 12 tonnes of CO2 that I alone am responsible for. That is a lot, isn't it? And yes, although that may amount to only 3% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is patently erroneous to presume that 3% is not 'significant'. It is very significant. And I'm sure it's directly responsible for the increasingly chaotic climate we are experiencing.

I'm sure you have a point, S18, when you say the effect of human greenhouse emissions is exaggerated in some quarters (by the green groups, and by some politicians), but to say they are having no effect at all, as you appear to be, in the light of very substantial evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude is manifestly untrue.
Wedge is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 12:02
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,198
I think I've said this elsewhere...but..

I am constantly amazed by the enviro..doom merchants who appear to be driven and motivated by ideology rather than scientific fact.
In essence they appear to be unable to entertain the concept that presently there is NO conclusive (i.e. other than slanted or vested interest groups research) evidence that links the levels of CO2 emissions that humanity are currently responsible for to catastrophic global climate change.

(what is catastrophic climate change by the way? sea levels rising by 20 feet? .... oh right, back up to the levels they were at 500k years ago )

As ever, depending upon your viewpoint, you can manipulate statistics to look like any picture you wish them two..and that goes for both sides of the argument.

I remain firmly in the skeptic camp.....purely because I have yet to see anything that is conclusive, further to that, the more I dig and research, the more I've discovered that the levels of disinformation and hysteria from the enviro side of the argument continue to increase.
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 12:08
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Wedge, you say that you don't accept the refuting suggested by those articles;fair enough. I don't see why I must be some kind of heretic because I don't accpet yours either. I am sure we shall eventually agree to disagree...

Anyway, with regards to your personal CO2 emissions and indeed mankind's en toto. You seem to have failed to address my question about the enormous variation in the Earth's CO2 emissions.

Why, if the total amount is subject to a large variation does this make our 3% so significant? If, one year the Earth itself produces 100 units of gas, and the next year, say, 112 units and the next 96 units, can you not see that overall, 3% either way is inside what the variables are and so much less signifiacant?

As regards the overall media perception; just try this as some sort of experiment. Next time you are in company (going out tonight?) ask your friends both what they estimate man's contribution to the world's CO2 emissions are and then what, as a percentage this amount makes up of earth's atmosphere. If any of your friend's say 3% and 0.375% I will be very surprised.

Perhaps other readers can also ask their friends these questions and publish the results? Let's see how effective the promotion of the green fraternities has been. I bet it will surprise many people just how ill-informed (in the greens' favour) most people are.
SET 18 is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 15:27
  #112 (permalink)  

Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Smile

Well done, though I was somewhat frustrated when I first kicked off this thread I'm happy to see the diverse views and opinions being aired in this thread. If nothing else I can see that there is a potential for intelligent and informed debate regarding the climate. It's a breath of fresh air (forgive the pun) when the media aren't involved in a debate or their usual role of 'educating' us.

Keep it going, you've gone some way to restoring my faith in this topic, at least for now ....
boogie-nicey is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 15:31
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 58
Posts: 587
Sunray Minor

Sorry sport but can't let you off with deliberately missing the point like that.

By 'going with the flow' I was referring to believing in GW. Not the hardships of a "solution" to it.

It's dead easy to wave your hands in the air and waffle on about how dreadful GW is. Makes even a total dolt sound quite thoughtful and humane.

Much less easy, now that every half-wit is repeating the same old bollocks, to say that it's a lot of tosh. Which can make one sound like a mad Texan why cares not if we all fry!

Comprendez?
brain fade is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 17:14
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Originally Posted by Sunray Minor View Post
Forget,
I'm impressed that you are willing to challenge all aspects of science in order to deny climate change. Are you willing to also challenge, say, that the moon landings happened or that some free-mason conspiracy was not behind 9/11 or the killing of JFK?
At what point will you decide to accept the volumes of academic study that have gone in to this, the ability through geological science to infer characteristics of the earth's previous states? The ability to predict previous temperatures are not in question here, nor are they in serious academic opposition to climate change theory.
You really are clutching at straws if you wish to go down that line and again this smacks desperately of a head stuck in the sand.
Could we please skip the superior bl**dy attitudes and simply put over a convincing argument which explains to me (I'm not particularly clever - but neither am I thick) how the hell you can determine global temperatures thousands of years ago to 0.00000000000001 of one degree. Tree rings don't cut it!
forget is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 19:23
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Navajo8686 View Post
No solutions (apart from 'tax them more').
That's not true. The concept of contraction and convergence provides a solution.

Or, to put it in purely market oriented terms, we put a value on carbon emissions. If we accept we live in a market society then correct values must be applied to resources we consume or pollution we produce. Carbon credit systems provide a viable, if shocking, solution.

Every citizen has a carbon quota. If I want to produce more than my fair share I buy carbon credits off someone who isn't using. The C&C rationale is that this quota reduces year on year, result being that those who conform gain considerably, those that don't are charged (but still have the capacity to consume). At the moment, my attempts at being carbon neutral far from rewarding me, actually costing me, while those activities that are wasteful and costly in terms of carbon emissions are economically more viable.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 22:18
  #116 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
An open letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, from 60 expert scientists.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise". The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

Man cannot stop climate change, whatever Al Bore is saying.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2006, 23:08
  #117 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 71
Posts: 2,394
Capt. K.

Man cannot stop climate change, whatever Al Bore is saying.
This may shock you, but I am in 100% agreement with you on this subject.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2006, 06:09
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SVD
Age: 39
Posts: 23
Climate change & aviation - wind-up?

Before we get too enthusiastic about someone defending our corner, is the following just a big wind-up or for real? Appeared in the Telegraph this weekend?

www.unlimited-spurt.org

www.enoughsenough.org

"Hello. I am the President of SPURT and I am a patriot. We in the aviation industry have had enough of hearing about the environment. When man conquered the skies he proved his dominance over nature. But those environmentalists just won’t shut up about aviation and climate change. It’s time we took a stand for decent hard-working shareholders and told the lentil mob to ‘can it’.

According to the World Health Organisation 150,000 people die each year due to climate change. That’s a risk we’re prepared to take. We reject the dangerous rantings of climate doom mongers and the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. We dispute the 99% of scientific reports ‘confirming’ this so-called ‘climate catastrophe’.

The uncomfortable truth is that aviation is good for the environment. I’m taking my cheap holiday and telling the climate nutters to get stuffed."
concordski is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2006, 06:50
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by concordski View Post
Before we get too enthusiastic about someone defending our corner, is the following just a big wind-up or for real? Appeared in the Telegraph this weekend?

www.unlimited-spurt.org

www.enoughsenough.org

"Hello. I am the President of SPURT and I am a patriot. We in the aviation industry have had enough of hearing about the environment. When man conquered the skies he proved his dominance over nature. But those environmentalists just won’t shut up about aviation and climate change. It’s time we took a stand for decent hard-working shareholders and told the lentil mob to ‘can it’.

According to the World Health Organisation 150,000 people die each year due to climate change. That’s a risk we’re prepared to take. We reject the dangerous rantings of climate doom mongers and the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. We dispute the 99% of scientific reports ‘confirming’ this so-called ‘climate catastrophe’.

The uncomfortable truth is that aviation is good for the environment. I’m taking my cheap holiday and telling the climate nutters to get stuffed."
Its a spoof site, on behalf of airportwatch, who are against airport expansion for now. And modern life at some point in the future.
Flightman is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2006, 10:29
  #120 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Its a spoof site, on behalf of airportwatch, who are against airport expansion for now. And modern life at some point in the future.

I've already said it once, and this debate is in danger of going circular - but 'modern life' is doomed anyway, whether we stop burning CO2 tomorrow (which we won't), or just wait until we've screwed the environment so badly that it becomes impossible to go on. And that will happen within 100 years, imho. But we'll all be dead by the time it does, so from the selfish point of view it doesn't really matter. And yes, we're all being selfish by living the life we do. I'm being as selfish as most others are, of course, but I'm trying to do my bit to be a bit less selfish.

And I no longer suffer from 'floating baby Moses' syndrome, as many here do; I'm not in denial.
Wedge is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.