So should we all be buying tornado-proof property on high ground? I've seen "Inconvenient Truth" and it hasn't made me any less a floater on this issue.
Personally I do not want to see an agenda pushing for more nuclear energy nor an agenda that seeks to squash China's sovereign prosperity just because a short term trend says that the next ice age isn't coming in our lifetime. (in 1974 Time Magazine was talking about global cooling)
What's a non-oil baron to think?
Roll on the ice age and ice skating on the the thames,
Im more worried of the fact that the land masse were on here in england is slowly tilting each year. If we dont get all the obese people to scotland soon then we will flip over. I think its a campaign that should be led by john prescott, he should lead the obese north!
Fact.
-------------------------
Seriously, we're boned.
Only reason I ask is because [ame="http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=global+warmi ng+swindle"]THIS[/ame] makes more sense to me that Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth". I'm not advocating complacency, but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
maths doesnt add up in this whole global warming shanackle,
The Independent from 14-Mar-07 had a full page article analysing the scientific arguments -- and in particular the striking and very persuasive graphs -- presented in the GGWS film.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2355956.eceThe main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.
One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.
Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.
However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.
However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.
However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.
Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.
If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.
"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.
Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 22, 2007 12:50 PM: Message edited by: assyrix ]</font>
While I accept that the hysterical tree huggers may turn everyone off the issue, the fact remains that in 20-50 years we'll be looking at a radically different planet in terms of weather and living conditions. When we run out of oil, coal, and gas (15-200 years) it's not so much the carbon emmisions that will have been the problem. There's already 3 times the airborne ppm CO2 that there has been at any point in about 650,000 years. The real problem is food distribution. No transport = dumb middle class people and the poor being wiped out.
Sucks.
However, I'm sure you'll all be fine because the "third way" attitude of "It can't be that bad", "the maths doesn't add up" and of course "But 30 years ago scientists thought something else!" has always proven to be right. For other examples of sitting back and assuming things are fine see the appeasment of Hitler and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They turned out fine.
----------------------
I've fallen and I can't get up.
lol thats first comaprison to global warming to Hitler I have seen.
Sigh if only hitler had succeded with his painting then the world would of been a better place , he was after all rather good ...
one house two coats one day!!!!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"It can't be that bad" - it isn't. And nobody has yet successfully predicted the future, ever.However, I'm sure you'll all be fine because the "third way" attitude of "It can't be that bad", "the maths doesn't add up" and of course "But 30 years ago scientists thought something else!" has always proven to be right. For other examples of sitting back and assuming things are fine see the appeasment of Hitler and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They turned out fine.
"the maths doesn't add up" - maths is logical, and will always add up - until politicians get involved.
"But 30 years ago scientists though something else!" - fact.
"Appeasement of Hitler" - political.
"2003 Invasion of Iraq" - politicians wanted it, but millions of peace protestors were ignored. Political.
I'm not saying Durkin has it anywhere near right, but does that mean the sun shines out of Al Gores arse just because he lost a rigged election and uses an Apple Mac?
I'm yet to be convinced, but Durkin presents a more compelling - and clearer - argument in my opinion (granted if his data is bad then it's all BS anyway - but that cuts both ways).
"The debate is over" - fuck that, says who?! Says the politicians scared of China and globalisation, that's who. Carbon Credits my arse, we'll just see another reason to get stiffed by The Man when he raises taxes for "green" reasons and building more nuclear power stations, NIMBY's be damned!!
Anyhow, my interest in the subject started about 15 years ago with this song.
when we can get a accurate weather forecast for the next 2 days , then i ll be a bit more prepared to listen.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks