Topic: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Sandra]

I think that we need to have an open and preferably televised debate between specialists in this area.
These need to be truly independant of any organisation or government body that would benefit from the outcome, whichever way it went.

From what that programme said, a lot of people are making a lot of money out of supporting the pro man affecting climate camp.
Governments are milking it in a way to extort more taxation out of us.

What reason do the scientists who claim that man has a negligible effect on climate change have for saying so, they arent benefitting financially, as far as I know, unless they are writing a book discussing global warming and need the publicity.
Also they may be riduculed and discredited by the pro mans fault camps scientists who are being financially rewarded for arriving at their conclusions, if they are indeed proved to be wrong.

[GillE]

What I took from the programme is the information that changes in CO2 levels have historically succeeded corresponding changes in global temperature by 800 years.  I would love to find this actual data!  Although CO2 levels may now be distorted due to mankind's activity in the same way that carbon dating has been compromised, it means that the high CO2 levels up until the 1940s (when global industrialisation really took off) are really an indicator of what was happening in the middle ages.  And we know there was a heatwave then, as this (rather poor) graph shows:



Gill

[Sandra]

I still find it incredible that a naturally occurring gas that makes up approximately <0.2% of the atmosphere, regardless of where it comes from, can have such devistating effects.
Even if man was responsible for 10% of the total CO2 in the world and we doubled the amount we currently produce that would make a maximum amount of <0.24% in the atmosphere.
Could even a 0.04% increase of any gas really affect anything in the way that some people with vested interests are claiming 

The programme mentioned Maggie Thatchers part in the propoganda of global warming due to mans production of CO2 by over dependence on and the use of fossil fuels.
It was said that she funded the research to prove the connection between CO2 and climate change to promote the use of nuclear energy, after she had destroyed the countries coal mines, as she didnt want the UK being held to ransom by the oil rich countries of the middle east.

So is this yet another of Maggies ways that have turned out to be disastrous for the UK, even after she has long been out of power 

[GillE]

I'm not sure you can blame Maggie for this - if you ask me, it's more likely that circumstances conspired to bring this situation about, not politicians.  It can be argued that Maggie should be held to account for a number of shameful acts, but I don't think this was one of them. 

I've found the data I was looking for .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Gill

[sam]

Sam I think you really need to see that programme so that you can evaluate it for yourself.  All producers have their own agenda when they set out to make a TV programme but there were some real scientific heavyweights from all disciplines featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle.  I honestly haven't heard any astronomer or geologist supporting the idea that global warming is man made.  Did you mention it in your talk last year?  No!  I rest my case!! 

Ok I will talk about it when I talk about exoplanets in November...

... oh and woops CH4... umm

[sam]

I still find it incredible that a naturally occurring gas that makes up approximately <0.2% of the atmosphere, regardless of where it comes from, can have such devistating effects.
Even if man was responsible for 10% of the total CO2 in the world and we doubled the amount we currently produce that would make a maximum amount of <0.24% in the atmosphere.
Could even a 0.04% increase of any gas really affect anything in the way that some people with vested interests are claiming 

One word, yes. The atmosphere is a very delicate mix  - too much one way and even though it sounds like a small number it is still a huge change in volume - an increase of just 0.04% would cause the atmosphere to hold a lot more energy.

[Clive]

Ok I will talk about it when I talk about exoplanets in November...

Rotten tomato saving time begins........









NOW!!!      

[Sandra]

I'm not sure you can blame Maggie for this -

Some interesting charts on that link and links from it Gill.
The rise and fall in temperature does seem to have been remarkably regular over the last few millions of years.
It looks like we are just following a well established pattern.

Maggie funded the research into finding the now doubtful correlation between temperature and CO2, to her own ends.
If she hadnt instigated this then presumably there wouldnt have been such a rush to declare that man was to blame for global warming and we would just have been worried about how to run the world when fossil fuels ran out.
I think the blame lies firmly with her and her advisors of the time.

an increase of just 0.04% would cause the atmosphere to hold a lot more energy-

I would be interested to see what effects on global warming occurred after such massive volcanic eruptions from the likes of Krakatoa and Vesuvius.
The one on Hawaii is quite big as well and presumably they all have individualy produced more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses with each eruption than mankind has done for a century or so either side of their eruptions.
I dont think that the earth is as delicate as you think Sam, plus any increase in CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and any defecit is released by the oceans.
Nature works quite well at maintaining the status quo, although it can take a thousand years or so to compensate for these natural variations.

[Clive]

If you have a few millennia to spare, HERE is some interesting reading for you Sam. 

[GillE]

Excellent link, Clive!

 

[sam]

i'll try and take a look later, I've got two talks to give in two days so am a bit pushed at the moment..

[mistybear]

http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

[davy51]

Whether we like it or not we all are just one of the animals trapped on this earth.

It has been said global warming has happened before

and its also been reported that it is a cycle that precedes an ice age

history does repeat and i dont believe we can actually be at total fault of global warming i believe its some kind of cycle of the earth healing itself in some way

this cycle has happened even before there were so many humans here on earth

so evidently we are not the total cause

I know i know ill go see my shrink today 

[mistybear]

But we are the only animal on the planet that can actually do something to reduce the extent of it. I know their is an arguement as to how much we humans are to blame, so even we are only responsible for 50%, that is 50% we can do something about. Or what ever percentage it may be, changing our ways and cleaning up the planet can only be a good thing for all animals.

[Sandra]

so even we are only responsible for 50%, that is 50% we can do something about. Or what ever percentage it may be, changing our ways and cleaning up the planet can only be a good thing for all animals.

We arent resposible for anywhere near even 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere MB, even if we quadrupuled the amount we produce then I believe it wouldnt make any difference to global warming.
From what I have read since seeing that TV programme, including the link you posted earlier today, I am more and more convinced that man has very little to do with global warming.
It appears that water vapour in the atmosphere is the main variable factor that affects global warming.
So increasing or decreasing our CO2 output wont alter anything at all, apart from the cash in our pockets if governments perpetuate the myth in order to tax or charge us all more for everything and anything they can