IPCC busted lying again (global warming)

[funke_munke]

I'm all for the sunspots theory, seems most sensible and scientifically backed up to me. Not claiming to be an expert either but there we go.

I still think we should recycle, use less resources and generally look after the planet though! I refuse to learn to drive and long for the day of no cars!

Gotta make up for my 600w psu somehow

[G4Z]

Well, i have read a bit about sunspots being related to GW and I am not convinced at all, take this article on the national geographic site : Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says

"The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said."

[=TcQi=]

Not sure if this has been posted before - but here goes

I would like to bring your attention to a speech given to the US senate by Senator James Inhofe in 2006, entitled Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming.

epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/HOT%20AND%20COLD%20MEDIA%20SPIN%20CYCLE.pdf

Whilst I concede that James Inhofe's beliefs are not balanced, (he is a starch defender of the US's right/need to pollute) his speech illustrates the sensationalist approach taken by the mainstream media in regards to the climate debate. Its important to bear this in mind when considering both sides of the argument.

In essence, you have big business facing off against the global green brigade. Both are capable of exhibiting equally extreme views, but I'd rather air on the side of caution.

Even with the current allegations against IPCC, I feel that there is clear evidence that climate-change is happening. Recently proposed regulations, regarding mpg requirements for new cars reflect this and are a positive sign. However, industry as a whole remains the largest producer of harmful waste. Until it adopts responsible ethics/practices over mindless capital accumulation tactics, the debate over the existence/extent of GW is pointless. Resource depletion (e.g. fish stocks) arguably resulting in "resource control" conflict (Iraq 2 ehem) will see to us long before the climate collapses


Oops I appear to have gone off on one - long day he he


=TcQi=

[Funkstar]

And here is that URL as a link

HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING

[Agent]

An interesting, but very biased article: The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

I like the fact that they are utterly unwilling to mention that they might have it wrong, but hey-ho. As a comment off Digg said:

"Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them."

When the data doesn't fit scientists must be interpreting it wrong apparently.

Going on the press, you'd think it was a simple affair. Sea temperatures are rising, ice caps are melting, flooding on the increase, there will be death. Yet this says that sea temperate hasn't changed in the last 4/5 years.....oh and it wasn't covered by any of the major news as far as I've seen? I guess its just easier to sell the end of the earth to people.

[Funkstar]

bad news, death and destruction, gets more atention than kittens being born

[Sinizter]

I dont believe that CO2 has a tenth of the effect that global warming suppliers bleat on about. Why only CO2 ? Methane and even water vapour are potent greenhouse gases - so why this obsession with CO2 ?

Sure there is climate change, but CO2 is not the only component which causes it - like the government and the media would like us to believe.

As for 4x4s, considering the amount of taxes on them - my view is that the tax is the fee for the government to worry about what you do, so it is no longer the driver's problem. Same goes for electricity and gas - they want to charge stupidly high taxes on it, then they are taking away my personal responsibility and charging me for taking it away from me.

[voxstream]

What a brilliant thread! A big thank you to all that have contributed to it, extremely useful and interesting. I have also been researching as much as I can about the real causes of GW. After a couple of years of digging around and finding the Co2 argument doesn't hold up at all.

I agree that pollution must be curbed, but to ignore the toxic excrement that is being dumped in the ground, air and sea is nothing short of criminal. It's deemed that Carbon is the baddie, why? Obvious really, it makes money! Money for grants into GW research Carbon scare journalism etc. One huge gravy train that no one want's to get kicked off of by the truth.

surely it's the waste of resources and the other poisons that gas guzzling cars produce that needs looking in to, not just the Co2. A big pointless in the city 4X4 is doing an average of 5 MPG, oi! that's my precious petrol they are using up! I can get over 20 times that much in perfect comfort from my 600CC city car.

Catalytic converters were a knee jerk reaction to pollution, OK in the short term it did help, but why are vehicle manufactures still forced to fit them. Surely it would be better to say, "just get the emissions down to "this" level any way you can". I bet most cars would be doing well over 50 MPG by now and much less fuel used. (As I expect most of you realise cat's are very inefficient. The best bit was getting rid of the Lead)

GW is going to happen sooner or later and it will change the planet in a big way. I would hope that all this wasted carbon money was spent on trying to help as many people as possible that it will effect, but I think it will take more money than that to make a real difference.

Lastly, yes I agree there are far too many people on this little planet. I read somewhere that it's been worked out that the UK is now over populated by around 30 million. That seems an awful lot to me, but perhaps they're right? Thanks for the opportunity for a rant and I am so pleased I've "met" others that feel the same, or are able to have a good sensible discussion.

[Sinizter]

Originally Posted by voxstream

oi! that's my precious petrol they are using up! I can get over 20 times that much in perfect comfort from my 600CC city car.

Thats not your precious petrol, its for use by whoever has paid for it.

As for 600cc ... Unless its on a motobike, no thanks. And according to your sums you seem to think you will get more than 100 MPG ... Not on a petrol only car.

For the most part, I agree with the rest of your post.

[2Cold Scorpio]

What many people don't realize is even if the planet *is* warming up, its normal; we've been in a cold spell for over a thousand years! Historians often call the climate during the Dark Ages a mini Ice Age due to global temperatures were colder than 'normal'. Because of this, yes, the polar ice caps are melting a bit, but this too is normal. Do you know that current sea levels are the third lowest they've been in Earth's history? The lowest, if i recall correctly, was during the Permian period.

Originally Posted by Sinizter

I dont believe that CO2 has a tenth of the effect that global warming suppliers bleat on about. Why only CO2 ? Methane and even water vapour are potent greenhouse gases - so why this obsession with CO2 ?

Sure there is climate change, but CO2 is not the only component which causes it - like the government and the media would like us to believe.

I can confirm this from my own research a while back: water vapor makes up almost all of the 'greenhouse gases'. Seriously, before listening to the likes of Al Gore, it helps to research Earth's climate patterns for more than the past century...

[Agent]

Out of all places, The Register has been asking a few good questions as of late:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05..._thermometers/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/hansen_dc/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ard_polar_ice/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07..._adjudication/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

An interesting read.

[badass]

Originally Posted by Agent

Out of all places, The Register has been asking a few good questions as of late:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05..._thermometers/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/hansen_dc/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ard_polar_ice/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07..._adjudication/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

An interesting read.

The register are very anti man made global warming generally.
However you can't fault the data they present. Its just a shame the kind of info they bring up rarely gets to the mainstream press.