Archer-181 wrote:
It is good to see the debate in this forum as it is something you would never see on the BBC for example.
On the contrary, there was a massive and justified reaction to hearing Lord Lawson peddle his drivel on a R4 interview last year.
“The BBC has accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
In a briefing note sent to all staff warning them to be aware of false balance, the corporation has offered a training course on how to report on global warming. The move follows a series of apologies and censures for failing to challenge climate sceptics during interviews, including Nigel Lawson."
Archer-181 wrote:
Arne, that is very true about relying on your Doctor but just imagine if your doctor’s source of income was not from you, but only from the Drug companies. Would you trust him so much then?
If you’re referring to “climatologists” that are sponsored by oil companies then I couldn’t agree with you more.
Carbon Dioxide levels hit landmark at 415 ppm, highest in human history.
I just returned from flying with our Dutch TV weatherman to a congress on the island of Ameland on climate change. Lots of people there and of course I had time to discuss and ask questions. I have a tendency to believe the scientists and that they are certain that the changes in temperature are related to human impact.
Our Dutch weatherman (right) after arrival at Ameland Airfield.
Ameland as an island has an experimental status and is working fast to make the island “greener” but is also aware of the challenge ahead. Very interesting presentation and discussions during the evening “Congress” on climate change. I would find it hard to believe climate change due to human intervention is not happening.
I think the way this is miss sold is that the underlying assumption is that we are the sole force acting on the climate.
If we are the sole force, then I think there is no doubt we are accountable for the rise in green house gases, and we have established these gases cause the atmosphere to retain more heat.
Whether there are other underlying changes in climate not caused by us, it seems to me is not proven beyond doubt, nor is it proven that these might not become more influencial.
As was said earlier in this thread, we know there is a cycle of cooling, and we probably are in, or close to that part of the cycle, and this may be attributable to periods of lower activity of the sum. It seems to me, it is just possible, we may be damping down the effects of climate cooling for example.
The argument is that the changes taking place are so quick that they far exceed the effects of the natural cycle. This may well be so, I dont know. It is a persuasive argument, but I would like to read more about the underlying science behind changes that have occurred in the past. It seems to me there is some suggestion some changes in the past have occurred very rapidly, especially when some aspects of the global heat distribution pump suddenly falter or change.
Our climate appears to have a lot of fail safes. For example, the effect of glabal warming is to cause the salinity to fall and the sea level to rise and there may be an inherent fail safe that when that has occurred in the geolgical past it has other significant effects that cause the poles to cool. Obviously, I really dont know.
The science is clearly very complicated and we should keep an open mind, none of which means we should be complacent.
People who believe in God do all their good works for their own benefit, because they believe that their reward will be in heaven, whereas those who do good with no religious motivation are doing it only for the benefit of other people and other species.
What I meant was that the human brain is hardwired to believe. It doesn’t seem to matter what exactly the belief is about, as long as it somehow sorts things out and creates a perspective of the reality.
Modern day European has decided that God does not exists. That doesn’t change the wires in the brain however. If you are strongly inclined to believe, you will believe strongly no matter what religion or otherwise you believe in.
Even the Volvas of the old Nordic religion understood this, in their own peculiar way. What you believe in wasn’t all that important. What was important was the strength of your belief. They were convinced that belief was a force on its own, and that is something modern day man seems to have forgotten. It’s equally true in a modern society, our brains have not changed.
aart wrote:
Where the heck is my electric plane?
It can’t take off due to the heavy weight of the batteries.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s not cheap when someone rejects the scientific consensus without any own expertise in the area and without any argument.
Consensus is not science. It’s for politicians. That is just pure “group think”.
The doomsday scenario used by the IPCC is based on manmade computer simulations (climate models) that are running hotter than the observed temperatures.
All IPCC hype is based on simulations. Simulations if showing the same result as observations serve to prove an underlying model as correct. The simulations do not show the observations. The models are wrong and the function of climate not well enough understood to allow a prognosis. That simple. Now we can start the discussion on the basis of the real intentions of those forcing others into climate terrorism custody. It is not about saving the world, it is to oppress otherthinkers.
If we entered a period of diminishing solar activity and global cooling what would we do?
If the planet was grossly effected by climate change and there was a population collapse from the planets point of view would this be a good thing?
I don’t have the time to study all the climate reports and understand why some scientists come up with different answers. But I understand that the vast majority of climotologists agree, so that is what I believe.
When I look around me, I can see that the climate where I live has certainly changed over recent years. We’ve always had wet and windy winters, but in recent years, they seem to be full of storm after storm; certainly more extreme than in the past. We’ve had more very warm (by Irish standards) dry summers in recent years than I can remember from before. Pretty much all weather records have been broken in the last number of years.
That really suggests to me that something is going on.
But surely the most convincing argument to go ‘green’ is elsewhere. If we were to convert to electric transport, heating etc and this power was to come from renewable such as wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc then we’d live in a much nicer world.
We’d remove the horrible fumes from our cities, improve people’s health, and very importantly, remove our dependence on a small number of oil & gas producing countries such as Russia and a small number of Middle East states.
The last one, removing dependence on questionable states, and giving a country security over its own energy supplies, seems to me, like enough of a reason to go green on its own.
Whenever this debate comes up, I’m always reminded of this cartoon
A very environmentally friendly move would be to go plant based. Saves chopping down loads of forests for cattle to graze, to produce meat and dairy, which bung up peoples’ arteries really well. Loads of collateral benefits, starting with an almost immediate dramatic reduction in the national health service workload. The losers would be numerous, starting with with interventional cardiologists 
Not to mention all the health service “nutritional advisors” who tell everyone that eating anything is ok as a part of a balanced diet, and if you don’t drink milk you won’t get any calcium for your bones…
Peter wrote:
if you don’t drink milk you won’t get any calcium for your bones…
Loads of calcium in broccoli, cabbage.
