The Climate Change ULTRA MEGA AWESOME Thread

[Farlig]

I read an article about how global warming has now stopped, and global COOLING has begun.

It was backed with computer models and anecdotal evidence...

Who should I believe?

Guess I better make some carbon to warm it up again...

Seriously, who ACTUALLY believes the rubbish on the 6pm news these days? I mean I have a real hard time believing the crap on there.

thats called global dimming

 

[jules]

I read an article about how global warming has now stopped, and global COOLING has begun.

It was backed with computer models and anecdotal evidence...

Who should I believe?

scientists have a pretty good track record of getting stuff right.

but they come up with different conclusions and views on stuff all the time. a key means by which differences are resolved is through what's called peer review, in which research is assessed by other senior scientists.

the theories around global warming have been subjected to a lot of peer review over the past 20 years. much of the work done has been recognised as valid and supports the conclusion that global warming is likely happening.

other theories about global cooling and any range of other stuff the media may jump all over probably haven't been subjected to the same rigorous peer review. to people like us who are not pre-eminent scientists, this is the easy way to tell what to take seriously and what not to.

a common argument against issues like global warming is to raise counter theories like global cooling. for the reasons outlined, it's not a strong argument. not all theories are as good as each other.

 

[vztrt]

thats called global dimming

I thought thats how you suck people in to Global warming??

Anywho the best I got is I would keep my car well maintained, hence use less fuel and keep the emmissions lower.

But thats the best I got, I dont believe in global warming as none of the models out there actually take into account the solar flares from the sun.

Really wierd when you go back to 100 years of data during the depression temperatures rose (low carbon emmissions as not much industry was occuring), then after the second world war carbon emmissions went through the roof yet temperatures lowered and in the 1970's the BBC had a doco where this scientist said that the world was going into an ice age because the polar ice caps were getting bigger and that we should release more emmissions and warm the world up......this is where Global warming started....now temperatures are rising

Now take the temperature readings from the last 100 years and compare them to the solar flare activity from the sun in the last 100 years and it's quite wierd that they seem to match up. NASA released a report early this year saying the last bout of solar flares has just stopped and that the sun will calm down for a while. Funny enough last time this happened the world went through a mini ice age (bout the 1700's).

There's more stuff to write about but dont want you guys to fall asleep.

I'm more worried about alot of people not having clean drinking water then "global warming".

 

[haloeight]

scientists have a pretty good track record of getting stuff right.

I disagree.

I mean only 30-40 years ago a lobotomy was considered a routine procedure for anyone with behavioural problems. Now theyre diagnosed with a syndrome and given drugs. Who's to say that is correct if lobotomy was so wrong?

A few other examples -

Drinking water with gold flakes in it was considered to keep you healthy.
Lead to gold alchemy...need I say more?
The world is flat
If you sailed to the end of the world horrible sea monsters would eat you
Doctors diagnosing women with "female hysteria" (look it up)
Vampires
Witches

I can go on...but all of these sorts of concepts were supported with similar "evidence" to global warming. So whos right or wrong?...who knows?

I'll leave you with 2 of my favourite quotes from Hunter S. Thompson -

"In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upwardly mobile—and the rest of us are f*cked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. We owe that to ourselves and our crippled self-image as something better than a nation of panicked sheep."

and

"There are times, however, and this is one of them, when even being right feels wrong. What do you say, for instance, about a generation that has been taught that rain is poison and sex is death? If making love might be fatal and if a cool spring breeze on any summer afternoon can turn a crystal blue lake into a puddle of black poison right in front of your eyes, there is not much left except TV and relentless masturbation. It's a strange world. Some people get rich and others eat sh*t and die."

 

[commsirac]

A few other examples -

Drinking water with gold flakes in it was considered to keep you healthy.
Lead to gold alchemy...need I say more?
The world is flat
If you sailed to the end of the world horrible sea monsters would eat you
Doctors diagnosing women with "female hysteria" (look it up)
Vampires
Witches

I can go on...but all of these sorts of concepts were supported with similar "evidence" to global warming. ]

All of the above of course were proposed by scientists? and there claims were supported by similar evidence to global warming?
Really? they had computer modelling of alchemists turning lumps of lead into gold and predictions on vampire slayings!
Yes, you could go on, but it would be difficult to keep such comedy up for long.

Maybe you could go on about the scientists from centuries ago that did get it right, did do experiments, and are responsible for the scientific rigour that exists today.
You could start with Keplar, Newton, Galileo, divinci, Faraday, Darwin, Dalton, copernicus, maxwell, bacon etc.

 

[commsirac]

I thought thats how you suck people in to Global warming??

Anywho the best I got is I would keep my car well maintained, hence use less fuel and keep the emmissions lower.

But thats the best I got, I dont believe in global warming as none of the models out there actually take into account the solar flares from the sun.

.

Isnt it weird that just everyday people that visit this forum can instantly see flaws and omissions in the conclusions reached by the world's leading scientists? dont know how they do it.
Maybe they can't, maybe they are just simply in denial and willing to hang their hat on any half baked idea that is put out there and dont even look to see what the majority thinking is on such ideas.
Have a look at:
Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

 

[Bravotwozero]

All of the above of course were proposed by scientists? and there claims were supported by similar evidence to global warming?
Really? they had computer modelling of alchemists turning lumps of lead into gold and predictions on vampire slayings!
Yes, you could go on, but it would be difficult to keep such comedy up for long.

Maybe you could go on about the scientists from centuries ago that did get it right, did do experiments, and are responsible for the scientific rigour that exists today.
You could start with Keplar, Newton, Galileo, divinci, Faraday, Darwin, Dalton, copernicus, maxwell, bacon etc.

lol you are a dead set w@nker. There is no other way to put it! :shutup:
Someone ban this fool already!

 

[Morton]

The world went through a mini ice-age in the late 1600s, because the sun stopped producing sun spots and solar flares. Since that mini ice-age, there has been a consistent storm of solar flares and sun spots.

Over the last two years, scientists have noticed the sun has COMPLETELY stopped producing solar flares and sun spots. COMPLETELY. And last year, the global average temperature dropped by 0.7 degrees.

Time for another mini ice-age?

I certainly hope so

This is where all the talk of global cooling comes from.

 

[Grennan]

It isnt just us who have their doubts about the "worlds leading scientists" conclusions on the matter. Around the world there are experts that have their doubts.

You can argue all you like about how those scientists are on the payroll of large companies, but the ones that proclaim armageddon from the rooftops in the form of global warming are often on the payroll of govenrments and companies that are bound to make money via carbon trading.

However, im sure you will come back with another witty google search reply so im going to agree and say that i think bravotwozero put it best, your a wanker.

 

[commsirac]

Wow. bringing up a thread about two or three month old. I don't really see what it has to do with this particular thread anyway.

Just evidence you prattle on about things you know nothing about.....fairly relevant Id say, especially if you are trying to refute/ cast doubt on something I say.

I just made the comment that I'd love to get my hands on a full electric car simply because of the performance. Like I said, massive amount of torque, capable of 0 - 60mph in 4 seconds. $2 per charge. However I would be more than willing to drive a V8 if I didn't have my L67. By the way, what have you got against music teachers? It's a respectable profession isn't it? I'm still yet to read what you do for a job.

Sure electric motors can have a much higher kW/kg ratio than a petrol engine and offer efficiency nearly triple that of a petrol motor. The problem is how do we get the electricity to power them without making more CO2 and the environmental problems of manufacturing and recycling/disposing of the batteries. There are solutions, solar electricity.....more battery research....but they arent with us today.
Nothing wrong with music teachers, help soothe the beasts in some of our schools.