Our "Leaders" fail to lead - so what next

[ellie12022]

I no longer believe in ' global warming' caused by humans, as apart from anything else it is obviously a way to tax us further. (and bring in one world government) I have heard that Dr David Bellamy was sidelined from mainstream media for daring to disagree with the idea.

There were emails leaked just before the conference which seem to indicate that data was fudged to show the existence of global warming, and indeed there are scientists who believe that the activity of the sun is what affects our temperatures more than anything (and temperature changes are apparently occurring on other planets too)

I believe It is up to us to use our common sense on whatever level we can to make decisions we feel will benefit ourselves & our planet.

And not to act from fear

[KathyLauren]

there are scientists who believe that the activity of the sun is what affects our temperatures more than anything

You are, of course entitled to hold your opinion.

Yet those who hold that opinion fail to recognize the reason why carbon dioxide is the prime suspect in global warming. It is not a theory in search of evidence. Rather, it is a logical deduction, based on the physical properties of the substance. Because of the way it behaves, it should be the cause of global warming.

Therefore, those who would propose alternative explanations of global warming must, before demonstrating the merits of their alternative theories, first show why carbon dioxide isn't the cause, either by demonstrating that its physical properties are not what they are, or by showing a flaw in the logic. If carbon dioxide isn't it, that is a rather counter-intuitive assertion, and the burden of proof is on those making the assertion to show why not.

All alternative explanations have failed to do this.

[ellie12022]

Is there global warming per se or is there global warming leading to global cooling?

I do not deny there are practices going on that are not helpful but have you noticed how we (the 'little people') are being made to blame? If we do not recycle the world will come to an end etc - where are the penalties for big companies so they make packaging that is more sustainable? Or what about extra runways being built for airports? Who makes money from our recycling?

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life. There was a period of warming in the middle ages, what caused this? Why did the scientists ignore this in putting together their figures?

[crowsashes]

i read an article in new scientist a while back and clearly remember that the earths periods of warming and cooling are getting longer with fewer periods of cooling, which has been put down to the sun and its increase in temperature, but combine this with an increase in CO2 emissions and the planet will warm much faster than it really should.

[ellie12022]

In fact, as i understand it, it is not the temperature of the sun but sunspots (or lack of them) that affect the earth (and other planets).

However, I do agree that we need to be looking after our planet. But big governments/corporations are never going to care enough - money & power is their game unfortunately.

I don't have any clever solutions, but I do think that being self-sufficient individually & within a community are positive steps to keep us going. Not accepting everything put out on mainstream media either - who on the one hand tell us we are endangering the planet, and on the other if we don't spend, spend, spend the world will collapse.

Love & peace to all

[gdb]

I no longer believe in ' global warming' caused by humans

-----------------------

No longer believe? It's not a question of belief or disbelief. It isn't a religion. 'Global Warming' is made up of very many individual human acts. It isn't one single item. But a large human cake baked of many ingredients.

Here's just one example:-

In 1997 it was estimated that rainfall had fallen (over a 25 year period) by 50% in the Amazon rainforest. It must, presumably, have fallen even more since.

And the cause?

Deforestation.

Loss of habitat. Loss of trees. Loss of flora. Loss of fauna. Dramatic reduction in rainfall. Cyclically a dramatic reduction in water table. A loss of lakes and other water sources. A reduction in humidity... etc... etc...

In other words, in this one case, human activity has been directly responsible for natural and climatic changes.

Now extrapolate that to other regions. Where people are frantically concreting over floodplains. Or building coal fired power stations. Or permanently destroying peat bogs. Or cutting down forests faster than they are planting them. Or spraying fields with indiscriminate pesticides. Or building airports where there were small local wildlife spaces.....

What is there to "not believe"?

[madabouthens]

I think "Arny" was right when he said change does not come from The governments, but from the people.

[Big Al]

..... I blame the alien lizards myself.......

[mem6501]

I no longer believe in ' global warming' caused by humans, as apart from anything else it is obviously a way to tax us further. (and bring in one world government) I have heard that Dr David Bellamy was sidelined from mainstream media for daring to disagree with the idea.

There were emails leaked just before the conference which seem to indicate that data was fudged to show the existence of global warming, and indeed there are scientists who believe that the activity of the sun is what affects our temperatures more than anything (and temperature changes are apparently occurring on other planets too)

I believe It is up to us to use our common sense on whatever level we can to make decisions we feel will benefit ourselves & our planet.

And not to act from fear

Bellamy still believed in climate change when he left the BBC. Several years before he became a climate change denier he attributed his loss of popularity to his standing against the prime minister in a general election as a member of a extreme right wing political party.
His science is lousy. This link shows some background on this and him getting beaten comprehensively live on the TV news in a video.

David Bellamy and bad science Bellamy and bunkum

[Green Aura]

Hi mem6501 and welcome to Ish Why don't you introduce yourself so we can greet you properly

[Minnesota]

no longer believe in ' global warming' caused by humans? It's not a question of belief or disbelief. It isn't a religion...

What is there to "not believe"?

gdb, you make a great point about regional climate change and how it could be caused by humans. But, the data about C02 and it's effects on the "Global" climate and the computer models built by government funded scientists are what I don't believe in...concluding that the small preportion of C02 released by human activity is the driving force of global climate change is such a stretch of faith that it very well must be a religion. There are so many other sources of C02 , which are natural, as well as other natural reasons the Earth's climate fluctuates, but the anthropological global warming leaders refuse to preach those truths, which leads me to ignore their religion.

[contadina]

This is the second thread where carbon taxes have been used as an argument against man-made climate change. Just because western leaders are using carbon taxes to leverage whatever they can out of the earth's resources does not mean climate change is not happening.

[KathyLauren]

concluding that the small preportion of C02 released by human activity is the driving force of global climate change is such a stretch of faith that it very well must be a religion.

Do you have data to back up that belief?

Natural processes absorb anywhere from 40% to 60% of human-produced CO2, in addition to the 100% of naturally-produced CO2 that they absorb. It follows that, if human CO2 production were to cease, natural processes would continue to absorb 100% of natural CO2 production, with considerable reserve capacity. Therefore, the increase in CO2 levels is due to human activity. This does not require an exotic theory - it is just simple arithmetic.

And as for the baloney that the oil companies and politicians like to promote about how its the sun, not the CO2 that is causing warming, it is pure nonsense. The change in CO2 is sufficient to do the job, and any change in sunlight isn't. Again, this is not theoretical - it is stuff that you can measure.

So, if you have evidence to back up your belief, I would be interested to hear it. Otherwise, it is a stretch of faith very much like a religion.

[Minnesota]

Belief is all there is on this subject, there is no proof. When someone is Preaching the end of the world as we know it (and I am not saying you are doing that), then I start thinking it is their Religion.

here is a link to a great article by Robert H. Essenhigh
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... point.html

this is the conclusion of the article...

What the evidence shows....So what we have on the best current evidence is that

1. global temperatures are currently rising;
2. the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
3. the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
4. there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
5. the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
6. if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
7. the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
8. water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
9. determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
10. the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2.

[gdb]

Whatever the rights and wrongs, Blaise Pascal put it pretty well with his famous 'Wager'. And I cant see any reason to not apply that wager here:-


1. Assume that we all change our behaviour and consume less and pollute less.

2. If it then turns out that Global Warming IS caused by Human Activity - then we have acted in the right way by changing our behaviour.

3. If, on the other hand, it turns out that Global Warming is NOT caused by Human Activity - what have we lost by changing our behaviour? We have consumed less and polluted less. And what is wrong with doing that?