Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me
Carbon Reduction Related Discussions amd Debate

TOPIC: Green Myths on Global Warming

Green Myths on Global Warming 2 years, 1 month ago #1

1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die
FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet
FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'
FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.
FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.
FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
Last Edit: 2 years, 1 month ago by Scott Buckler.

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #2

Very strong views, however, the recent floods, droughts and high temperatures across the globe surely must point to some kind of influence from climate change?

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #3

Of course it's climate change. It always was. The Japanese word tsunami is thousands of years old. The bible Old Testament talks of floods and drought too. In fact, for most of its life, the planet has been too hostile for mankind. Who says it never was a violent place? What we now have and very recently too, is instant 24 hour news coverage of events. Back before the 60s and 70s we just did not hear of these things. If you were lucky, a ten second Movie Tone clip of some far off place we had never heard of. Newspapers were only just starting to publish pictures with everything too. So that's all that's happened.I hope this upcoming conference is going to acknowledge all these truths!
Given the the world is only recently as we like it, who says that is how it is supposed to be? Mankind will be gone very soon in planet history time, the world will carry on then even it will be destroyed by some Galactic or Solar event that none of us can stop. 'Save the Planet'? How presumptious some humans are!

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #4

Are you sure these are 'views' and not facts? But of course climate change causes extreme events; it always has. The Japanese word Tsunami is thousands of years old and didn't the Old Testiment tell of flood, drought and famine? The dinosoars had rough weather that killed them all off too as a result of an asteroid strike. So extreme weather and climate events go back some 5 billion years. All that has happened is that we now have 24 hour instant global news. I recall as recent as the 40s 50s 60s & 70s, we never heard of much of this and if we did it would be a bout 10 seconds on Pathe News at the Flicks, about three weeks after the event, in a place we had never heard of or cared much about either. With budget air travel the world is much smaller. Spaniards are no longer some Johnny Foreigner as they were to us but our near cousins now. So you just think all this is new; it isn't. Mankind has only been here for a split second of the 5 billion years. Most of that time the Planet has been too hostile for us environmentally and it will return to that. Mankind will be history and the Planet will carry on until it too is consumed by either a Solar or Galactic event. Save the planet? How? How is puny mankind going to save it from all that? Are we sure we don't mean 'save it as we like it'? Well since it has been too hostile for us most of the time, how presumptious of us to think we can govern it, save it, or have it as we like it! Who says 'how we like it' is how it is supposed to be anyway? History has other ideas. So let's enjoy our short spell while here. Don't scare the kiddies either. Don't let doom mongering spoil it for us and fill the pockets of those that like to profit from it and don't let the politicians use it as an excuse to tax the blazes out of us either.

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #5

But not necessarily caused by man

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #6

First off, can you please publically, here, publish the sources of your 'Myth busting facts'. In the meantime, and whilst we wait for you to do this...which I suspect you won't do at all, lets take all the facts on figures supplied by both sides of the argument put them aside and then deal with some physics and biology. Carbon Dioxide has a measureable resistance/conductivity (though this varies according to its temperature). Depending on its temperature its conductivity is not far off Argon gas - that stuff we use in sealed double glazed units for windows, as its a good insulant.
Second point, is that good ole mother earth has a natural capacity to deal with about 1 Trillion tonnes of carbon each year. Mankind is knocking out about between 6 and 8 trillion tonnes (depending on which study you go with, although no-ones estimate is below 5.5 Trillion). So take the two above points and stick them together and then tell me where this excess 5+ Trillion tonnes of Co2 goes each year? Perhaps, through the principle of thermal bridging it all passively stacks at the Pole and seeps out through the hole in the ozone layer! Perhaps smart aliens, spotting a gap in the intergalactic carbon market have set up a base on the dark side of the moon and each night, when we are all asleep, sneak down and hover it all up! This would explain all those UFO reports we seem to get.

Whatever the yearly or in deed, half decade figures, show the irrefutable evidence shows that the global pattern is for temperature increases. Global science even predicts peaks and troughs, its the overall pattern that matters. This is why some of the planets greatest computing capabilities are used on monitoring this as its so complicated.

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #7

As a non science person, I welcome good news. Why is Dave so determined on bad negative news that Government and profiteers can use to make my life, my kids lives and my grandchildren's lives bad right now? Whilst we argue one thing is for sure, the economics of green is killing people and making their life harder now and yet they reverse the truth by saying 'what if we are wrong? It's like insurance. We can't take a chance' they say. So they confess it is only theory. But what isn't theory is that they are ruining us now already and they don't know they are correct. They insist that the rest of us, who do not believe them one iota, must make sacrifices for theory and modelling. Ok we on the other side are quite happy to disagree and allow the Greens to follow their beliefs and take the hair shirt if they wish but they want the rest of us to go down with them. So for starters let people like Dave live without all the essentials and show the rest how its done but please allow us to disagree and decide unilaterally. Of course there has been warming. We have been climbing out of the Little Ice Age since about 1750. Why do these people ignore history to make their cases? I do not need references to make the historic points I have made in my last post. It is obvious to me that bullsh-t baffles brains and there is nothing better than academics arguing about the obvious to illustrate that. So please do tell me. If the Planet has been too hostile for mankind most of its life, and we have only been here for the last second of a day of its life, why, as we like it, is as it is supposed to be? Ok tell me. Who gets to choose how it should be? And if 7 billion of us reach a consencus on that, how do we keep it like it? How big and effective do these Greens think mankind really is? The Planet will become too hostile for mankind no matter what we do and it too will eventually be consumed. So no we cannot 'Save The Planet' and that means the whole premise is false then doesn't it? So Dave grab the good news with glee. Don't knock it mate!

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #8

Nothing unusual is happening in the climate system in the context of the current 12,000 year old interglacial period. The 'hockey stick' graph that claims unprecedented warming has been shown to have been constructed using selected data and methodology by a team of over 40 scientists who review each others work and use similar data sets and methods so their results certainly aren't 'independent.' Furthermore, these scientists have a stranglehold on the peer review and IPCC processes as demonstrated by the 'Climategate' emails. The hockey stick graph is therefore statistically insignificant.

Even Prof Phil Jones, implicated in the UEA Climategate FOIA scandal, says that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. Climate models did not predict the timing of this in advance - instead continual warming was promoted by climate alarmists.Piers Corbyn of Weather Action continues to embarrass global warmers like the Met Office with his 85% accurate long range weather forecasts based on his solar-lunar technique.

The IPCC has been shown to be riddled with WWF and other 'green' activists who aren't 'experts' and the IPCC reports refer to non-peer reviewed reports written by 'green' groups such as WWF and Greenpeace, which make up about one-third of the cited publications.The UK's 2008 Climate Change Act is unilateral - the rest of the world aren't following our stupidity and reducing the Uk's 2% of global man-made CO2 emissions to zero will have no effect on the climate.

The atmosphere isn't following the 'greenhouse model' for warming - the model-predicted trends are two to four times larger than observed trends and the model-data discrepancy is statistically significant in both the Lower Troposphere and Mid Troposphere layers of the atmosphere.The consensus of the peer reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that there is currently no link between global warming and natural disasters such as tornadoes, floods, droughts, hurricanes etc.

A new paper to be published in the journal 'Climatic Change' in 2012 says:

Climate change neither is nor should be the main concern for the insurance industry. The accumulation of wealth in disaster-prone areas is and will always remain by far the most important driver of future economic disaster damage.
Last Edit: 2 years, 1 month ago by Scott Buckler.

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #9

I have absolutely no patience with bad science - what counts in science is not a single study, it is whether its finding can be replicated by others. Even more dislike I have for someones auguement to based on hearsay and on 'his / her mate in the pub said' (which is pretty much what the internet is).
"Prof Phil Jones says that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995" What Paul Biggs has conviently omitted is that Prof Phil Jones went on to say this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. Temperature trend is on the up, the British Motoring Club (or whatever its called) would do well to try this..its called evidence. See : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.h...urface%20temperature Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade. Someone mentioned middle ages warm stint.

Of course you realise that for it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records than just the north. Such as from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. And there are currently no evidence of this. Piers Corbyn of Weather Watch is indeed quite good at predicting the weather, is WEATHER the same as CLIMATE? Mmmm...I'm sure someone told me that one in school geography. Nope its not. Piers Corbyn basis his good predictions on solar activity which certainly does impact on weather systems, infact its a main driver. But as a driver for current climate change? Well according to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..."

The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.
My final bit of actual supported science is about that Mann hockey stick graph. More than twelve subsequent scientific papers produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.

Further to this, in 2006, the US National Academy of Sciences triggered by a request from Congress, published the results of a long inquiry into Mann's findings. It upheld most of Mann's findings, albeit with some caveats (Even that Bolshie Mann said his work was a work in progress) But ultimately they agreed that "There is sufficient evidence... of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years." So was it flawed research? Yes. Was it hyped by the IPCC? Yes. Has it been disproved? Despite all the efforts, no. So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication. And stop with this hatred for those 'Greens'! gods, lose that childish vitriol and behave like an adult debating a serious issue. And conspiracy theories, I ask you..really!
Last Edit: 2 years, 1 month ago by Scott Buckler.

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #10

Whether climate change is happening or not and caused by human intervention or natural occurrences, the amount of energy we consume is cause for concern. Carbon reduction, etc, is probably less significant than energy reduction. The earths resources of fossil fuels are rapidly depleting and we rely on them for pretty much everything we do from transport to heating and food production!

I believe we should forget all about climate change, global warming, etc, and concentrate on securing future energy by massive energy reduction and conservation. Running out of energy is going to be a far greater problem and quicker to take effect than any climate change issues, renewable energy at its current take up could be overtaken by the rapid loss of fossil fuel reserves and leave us with very little energy to go round. We need to be reducing on a massive scale now so we are prepared for when the fossils finally become part of history!

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #11

Is climate change, man-made or otherwise, influencing or causing extreme weather events? There's no real evidence to support such a claim due to natural variability having not been exceeded. The IPCC have stated this in their new interim report, but they could have said that in their previous 2007 assessment, instead they chose to misquote a single paper in support and publish a fictional graph in order to claim a human link to disasters. Maybe the misrepresentation has now served its purpose along with the 'order of magnitude error' on disasters in The Stern Review - both were used to help justify the 2008 UK Climate Change Act. I believe it may have been me that tipped off the mainstream UK press about the error in The Stern Review, and its quiet alteration:


Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #12

Regardless of whether climate change and global warming are actually happening and caused by human activities, I believe we have a far more serious and more iminant problem to address!

We are rapidly consuming natural fossil fuel resources at a terriffic rate, resources that we have become almost totally dependent on for transport, heating and food production and other things. If we do not reduce energy consumption to a massive degree within a short space of time we could find ourselves without enough energy to survive!

Carbon reduction, greening the planet, etc, are all valid targets but pushing climate change and green issues is not really having the impact required to make a difference and many people do not believe in climate change, etc, and with mixed oppinions, controvertial and conflicting evidence, who can blame them!

With rising energy prices set to continue at an increasing rate, shouldn't we be leaving the climate change beliefs behind and start pushing the real issue of rapidly depleting energy resources which people are already feeling the pain from, nobody is yet suffering from climate change but they are suffering from the pain of expensive energy!

By pushing the energy reduction and conservation line we will also be cutting carbon emmissions as a side effect.

Should we all start singing from the same song sheet instead of arguing about whether climate change actually exists, by the time we finally agree on the climate change issues we may already have run out of energy!

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #13

A low carbon economy is an effcient economy. Less energy, less waste, less impact, more benefit. I agree with Paul Buckingham, whats there to really argue about?

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #14

'Low carbon economy'.  Just like 'global warming' changed to 'climate change'. Same demands, same effects, a different name.
Phil Jones? Wasn't that the bloke trying to withhold opposing evidence? 

This is all irrelevant. Mankind only has a finite time on this planet. Has only been here for a brief instant of its 5 billion year life and will be gone just as soon. The planet will revolve on till it too is consumed by a massive event. So can anyone stop that? Let's hear it. 'We can save the planet' ? Isn't that a lie then?
In any case CO2, a trace gas on which all life depends, at about 380 PPM is still at the historic low and life was grand at about 5 times the level. So aren't you all ashamed at your doom-mongering scare stories? 
So why do Greens keep on about what we should and shouldn't do? Let us and our kids and grand kids enjoy its current state without fear and worry or the kind of penury that the profiteers of all this are demanding as they fill their pockets. Isn't it strange that with all the scare stories I have lived through it's never 'too late' but always a few years for people to line their pockets and then invent another scare; often completely opposite to their last one? I have never heard a Green yet say 'It's all too late so let's kick our heels and enjoy life'. 

We have a perfect right to challenge all this without being called names. It is our kids you are scaring with it. It is our money and lifestyle you want. Aren't you all a tad concerned that on mere theory and modeling, ignoring climate history to boot, you demand that we must comply with you all? Why not just take the Hair Shirt and take your families down with it but let others make their own minds up about all this nonsense and what is the best for them. 

Re: Green Myths on Global Warning 2 years, 1 month ago #15

'No statistically significant warming' is based on statistics - the rest of what Phil Jones says is his opinion. All the data sets show a flat trend for the past 10 years or so. The GISS data uses a different reference period and is manipulated by James Hansen. The potential problems with a warm bias in the global average surface temperature statistic are well known. No models predited the flattening in warming in advance despite rapidly rising CO2 emissions. The fatal flaws in the work of Mann et al's 'Hockey Team' using proxy data are well documented. All summarised nicely, with comprehensive scientific refereces, in Andrew Montford's book - 'The Hockey Stick Illusion.' It's no good citing a 'dozen papers' that share data and methodolgy from a scientifically insestuous team that reviews each others work and aren't 'independent' - you use tired old arguments that don't hold water. There is data to support a globally warm MWP. In the UK can can use viticulture as a proxy - certainly the MWP and modern warmm period look similar, but the Roman Warm Period appears to have been even warmer despite lower CO2 levels than today. Weather and climate are often confused, but the Met Office's long-range weather predictions based on 'global warming' have been much less accurate than Piers Corbyn's long range forecast using his solar-lunar technique.
Time to create page: 0.30 seconds