Global warming or not?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Well, that's true. When human activity increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere, it naturally gets warmer.

True!

[happy_terd]

doesnt matter I reckon. stupid supporting scientist STILL refuse a sticking debate regarding it.

Sure does make people like me think they are full of crap.

[SimonSays]

We are too insignificant to this planet, hell, this solar system, to make any kind of impact. Like always, we as people think we are so great that we can influence everything...to include Mother Nature. IMHO, it is the cycle of the solar system which would continue to run its course whether we were here or not.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Well, that's true. When human activity increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere, it naturally gets warmer.

False!

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

False!

that's an interesting point of view - what is false, and why ?

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

that's an interesting point of view - what is false, and why ?

That more CO2 = a hotter world.

It all depends on the data you believe in.

Amongst other data sets, for example, there are some ice core samples that indicate that CO2 emissions in the environment increased up to 60 years after the global average temperature went up; Indicating that CO2 is actually an effect of warming instead of a cause.
a theory substantiated by the infomation that CO2 is still rising, even though the average global temperature has been dropping for around 3 years now ( This in itself being one of the reasons why 'Global Warming' has been renamed to 'Climate Change' recently)

Of course, this info (about the Ice core samples) is not bandied about so much by the Pro- AGW group, they seem to be trying to ignore it, maybe hoping it will go away.

[GeoffC]

an increase in CO2 may be a by-product of an increase in vegetation. but vegetation also tends to thrive in an increased CO2 atmosphere - but as with everything else in the atmospheric heat engine - there's feedback mechanisms and many other that are not fully understood - never mind correctly modelled in computer simulations.

more time is needed before we can be sure; but can we afford to wait that long?

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

more time is needed before we can be sure; but can we afford to wait that long?

Yes: since if we don't the alternative is to enforce opinions on those who have a different belief, making most of the developed world change their lifestyles and 'dance to other peoples tunes' to the cost of trillions of pounds/Euros/ dollars/rubles (whatever), not to mention the inconvenience, when the eventual outcome will probably not be any different.
Who are the pro AGW group to ride roughshod over millions of peoples opinions, to indoctinate my children, to force everyone else to run their lives as dictated?
I'm all for saving trees, but being forced into it againt my will on the grounds of insufficient information is dictatorial.

[WT Sharpe]

I just hope y'all are saving these posts in a family album so your descendants can see how wonderfully farsighted you were!

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I just hope y'all are saving these posts in a family album so your descendants can see how wonderfully farsighted you were!

Huh? ????

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Huh? ????

Let's bring up the subject again in 50 years!

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Let's bring up the subject again in 50 years!

OK.
Lets say I'm currently more concerned with my family and children, and am unwilling to fork out a fortune in green taxes, for an unproven theory, that looks suspect at the least, than I am in spending a fortune, so there is a very small chance that people in 50 / 100 years, may be a bit better off.
I'm working now to look after my family now, not someone elses family in the medium / far future.

Also look at it from the other side - maybe in 50 / 100 years time people will be saying:
'I can't believe they spent trillions in wrecking all the available countryside with crappy windmills, with all the other detrements to local wildlife and noise issues, to achieve nothing. Not only that but they filled the sea coastlines with wave machines for the same reason, thus destroying all the costline. It's going to cost an absolute fortune (trillions) to make it all right again.
Look how many children could have been saved from stavation if all that money revamping an entire (planetary) lifestyle, had been spent on feeding the hungry, instead of chasing after the ghost of a possible maybe from bad, misleading science, reported by scientist who are (very)eager to please the people who give them research grants and perpetuated by the MP's so they could just keep themselves in a job for a couple of years. How selfish and shortsighted!!

As always with AGW, the arguments can be used both ways.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

... This in itself being one of the reasons why 'Global Warming' has been renamed to 'Climate Change' recently...

A lot of people are saying that, but is it true?

According to Wikipedia the IPCC (where CC stands for 'Climate Change') was set up in 1988.
I don't think it was ever called the IPGW, so 'Climate Change' doesn't seem to be new terminology.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Yes: since if we don't the alternative is to enforce opinions on those who have a different belief,....

This has nothing to do with opinions or beliefs, it is based on the best science we have to offer beginning with our harnessing of fire, tools and agriculture.
Disbelieve it at your own (and the world's) peril.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This has nothing to do with opinions or beliefs, it is based on the best science we have to offer beginning with our harnessing of fire, tools and agriculture.
Disbelieve it at your own (and the world's) peril.

Best science which is very dubious - to put it delicately ( and not only because the climate is too complex to understand, but because of outside influances like money, coercion, and MP's ).
I choose to disbelieve, but I also am firmly convinced there is no actual (man made) peril.
Not because I'm ignorant, but because I have looked into it and read books and viewed documentaries (both for and against AGW) and made my own conclusions based on all the (available) evidence.
Instead of believing what I am spoon fed by those with alternative agendas, who see fit to only provide certain data, which presents a biased viewpoint. (IMO)