Electric Car Drivel

[JohnW2]

The ice age theory is still around, but it's being shut down by the man made global warming argument.

Maybe, but my point was that, back then, many people were as convinced by what the experts were saying about 'global cooling' as they are now convinced by what most of the experts are saying about 'global warming'. When no-one knows for certain, one has to exercise some caution.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Some of you of a similar vintage to myself may remember the days when 'experts' were expressing concerns that we might be heading for a new "Ice Age".

Yes, we were 'taught' that at school.

I can't remember if any timescale was mentioned.
Mind you, the next solar eclipse in Britain in 1999 was, well, f o r e v e r in the future; now that's eighteen years ago.

It is, of course, ridiculed to suggest that (man made) global warming may counteract the ice age but if ice ages and global warming (climate change) have happened several times in the past without human activity - well, who knows?

 

[JohnW2]

It is, of course, ridiculed to suggest that (man made) global warming may counteract the ice age but if ice ages and global warming (climate change) have happened several times in the past without human activity - well, who knows?

Quite so.

Whilst I can but presume that the experts take this very much into account, I think that the general public's readiness to accept that it is 'obvious' that 'man-made' CO2 emissions will lead to climate change maybe do not appreciate the extent to which all parts of the 'carbon cycle' (biological, geological, oceanic and maybe others) are incredibly good at adapting to changes in CO2 generation (by whatever means).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The problem with this whole debate, is that the scientists who do believe in Global Warming, have closed their minds to any other possibilities, and that's bad science.

No, that is not what has happened.

They have used good science, examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.

Bad science is when people, like the ones you prefer to believe, who have no relevant expertise decide that all the people who do have expertise must be wrong.

It's possible that it is from man made sources,

It is overwhelmingly probable.

Did you read any of that website I linked to earlier, or are you one of those people who doesn't want to be confused by the facts because his mind is made up?

but by closing down the debate, we stop the possibilty of finding out the reasl reason.

We know the real reason.

The attitude of the climate scientists, is that we are causing it

That's because we are.

so the politicians decide that cars have to be banned, but they do nothing about the tankers that make car output seem miniscule in comparison. Air travel isn't restricted, and they're looking to build another runway at Heathrow. Cars are allowed to sit with their engines running, and in the 10 years since Gorbon Brown started this crusade, nothings been done to enforce stop start technology, so, do we have completely and utterly incompetant governments, or do they know that it's easier to let the closed mind scientists use GW as a stick to beat us over the head with.

I agree with all your complaints about other emissions, air travel, vehicles sitting with engines idling (which doesn't need stop-start technology, BTW, it just needs existing laws to be enforced), but there are no closed minds scientists.

There are scientists who understand the topic, and tell you one thing, and then there are people like you, who know nothing about the topic, who decide that all the experts must be wrong.

I have no problem with a lot of the aims of the scientific communities, but I object to the lack of dissent being allowed

Lack of dissent?

Do you see dissent about the world being round as a welcome sign of an open mind?

Do you see dissent about whether the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews as a welcome sign of an open mind?

Not every scientist in the world is involved in Global warming science, but many follow it, and know that it's not good science, and many of those that are in it don't agree the the majority, but are just shouted down.

Have you ever stopped to wonder who is feeding you those lies, and why?

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you are so credulous when it comes to people lying to you about the consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Channel 4 investigation

Well that says it all, doesn't it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A friend of mine pointed out the faults in All Gores original film

A climate scientist, is he, this friend of yours?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whilst I can but presume that the experts take this very much into account, I think that the general public's readiness to accept that it is 'obvious' that 'man-made' CO2 emissions will lead to climate change maybe do not appreciate the extent to which all parts of the 'carbon cycle' (biological, geological, oceanic and maybe others) are incredibly good at adapting to changes in CO2 generation (by whatever means).

Perhaps the means will be a new carboniferous era and the mass extinction of all higher forms of life.

Perhaps if more people did appreciate the means by which all parts of the 'carbon cycle' are incredibly good at adapting to changes in CO2 generation there'd be more people like Doggit - blindly refusing to believe what almost every expert tells them because they find the truth scary. Or at the very least, inconvenient.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps the means will be a new carboniferous era and the mass extinction of all higher forms of life.

Maybe. Of course, if we somehow managed to get atmospheric CO2 levels too low, atmospheric oxygen would suffer, and maybe there would then be a mass extinction of virtually all forms of life

Perhaps if more people did appreciate the means by which all parts of the 'carbon cycle' are incredibly good at adapting to changes in CO2 generation there'd be more people like Doggit - blindly refusing to believe what almost every expert tells them because they find the truth scary. Or at the very least, inconvenient.

As you say, "perhaps" - but I would expect the more immediate consequence would probably be that more people would come to realise that an increase in atmospheric CO2, let alone consequential climate change, was not quite the 'obviously inevitable' result of man-made CO2 generation that they might currently think.

If the experts in question are true scientists, I would hope and expect that they would admit that they cannot be totally certain about what they believe (or 'are theorising').

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm sure that those who say that the evidence for ACC is overwhelming are totally certain that it is overwhelming.

I'm sure that you could, if you wanted, find some "scientists" who with "open minds" refute the link between smoking and cancer.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sure that those who say that the evidence for ACC is overwhelming are totally certain that it is overwhelming.

I don't doubt that. However, if they are true scientists, they will hopefully acknowledge that "being certain that the evidence is overwhelming" is not the same as "being certain that their conclusion based on the evidence is correct".

I would imagine that, at an appropriate point in the past, you could have said the same about those who were certain that the evidence for the earth being at the centre of the universe was overwhelming.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

No, that is not what has happened.
They have used good science, examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.

Well in many cases, yes; but that ignores the politics which takes what might at best* be a "well given all these uncertainties, we think this is the probable range of outcomes" to "OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" headlines.
* And don't forget to bear in mind that in today's political climate, many research budgets are dependent on producing the "right" answer. There are many anecdotal stories of projects cancelled, budgets cut, etc if a report fails to support the politically required position. There's a joke in the scientific community that one way to increase the chances of getting a grant approved is to tack "... and it's effect on climate change" to the end of the title

I don't dispute that CO2 levels are rising, and I don't dispute that the climate is changing. However, I see enough "goings on" to know that what's in the headlines is what the politics want to be in the headlines and is NOT what a proper application of scientific method would produce. And then there's the complete lack of discussion as to whether spending ourselves into poverty NOW is the best way to deal with it - I see little discussion of the relative merits of trying (at great expense) to prevent it happening vs the costs of simply dealing with the changes as they happen.

 

[bernardgreen]

I don't dispute that CO2 levels are rising,

Has anyone actually determined what is the optimum level of CO2 ? Too little CO2 is a source of concern for plants that rely on CO2 to grow.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't dispute that CO2 levels are rising, and I don't dispute that the climate is changing. However, I see enough "goings on" to know that what's in the headlines is what the politics want to be in the headlines and is NOT what a proper application of scientific method would produce. And then there's the complete lack of discussion as to whether spending ourselves into poverty NOW is the best way to deal with it - I see little discussion of the relative merits of trying (at great expense) to prevent it happening vs the costs of simply dealing with the changes as they happen.

Ah yes - the great conspiracy theory, wherein almost every country in the world, supported by their national science organisations band together with international organisations to pretend that man-made climate change is happening, when in reality it is not.

They are doing this because their ultimate aim is...

err....

remind me again what their ulterior motive is....?

 

[JohnD]

and if you were looking for a reason why there might be people trying to downplay man-made climate change, you would ask yourself if there were any huge multinationals, and wealthy countries, dependent on, for example, the oil trade.

Are there any?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you know, I think there might be.