Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 83145 2007-09-20 23:04:00 Climate change caused by man ? wmoore (6009) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
593650 2007-10-10 00:40:00 I agree with B.M. - I think it's a terrible waste of $$ to sign a protocol (Kyoto) on the pressure of a few misguided people when the real reason for climate change is predominantly natural. That money could easily be spent better trying to uplift the worldwide poverty levels.

Winston, I am not saying we do not pollute and I am saying that we should do everything in our power to reduce the obvious pollutants (rivers, air, etc) - but to tag everything and their dog onto human driven climate change is quite wrong.

sarel 		sarel (2490)
593651 2007-10-10 02:09:00 While Mr Justice Baron will deliver his ruling in the case later this week, he has already stated that the film promotes “partisan political views” and that schools will need to issue a warning to the students before they show it . He has determined that the Government must amend the Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that the film is a political work that promotes only one side of the argument, and he has also decided that the eleven serious inaccuracies in the film that have been identified by the Court, must be pointed out to the children .

The eleven inaccuracies the High Court identified in the movie are:

1 . The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming . The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct .

2 . The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years . The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years .

3 . The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming . The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming .

4 . The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming . The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case .

5 . The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice . It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm .

6 . The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility .

7 . The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching . The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim .

8 . The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously . The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia .

9 . The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing .

10 . The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people . In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration .

11 . The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand . The Government was unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim . (For more information see>>>)

This case against the British Government has only been possible because of amendments to the British Education Act which prohibit political indoctrination by banning the teaching of partisan political views and by requiring that political issues are presented in a balanced manner . 		Cicero (40)
593652 2007-10-12 20:46:00 Look who just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his above efforts
www.dailymail.co.uk 		legod (4626)
593653 2007-10-12 21:52:00 I agree with B . M . - I think it's a terrible waste of $$ to sign a protocol (Kyoto) on the pressure of a few misguided people when the real reason for climate change is predominantly natural . That money could easily be spent better trying to uplift the worldwide poverty levels .

Winston, I am not saying we do not pollute and I am saying that we should do everything in our power to reduce the obvious pollutants (rivers, air, etc) - but to tag everything and their dog onto human driven climate change is quite wrong .

sarelBut instead the tax money squeezed from otherwise productive members of society will drive everyone down to a similar level of poverty, with no improvement to climate .

Winston, have you downloaded and seen the other documentary (that puts forward arguments to counter Al Gore's views)? I assume TV in NZ doesn't screen this one (or even mention it) because it doesn't support the populist view - and therefore wouldn't sell advertising . . . :groan:

It's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)" and can be viewed using Google's proprietary video software .

This documentary covers the ocean's CO2 saturation change that you seem to be concerned about in your earlier posts and shows some very interesting graphs/statistics . 		johcar (6283)
593654 2007-10-12 22:11:00 Look who just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his above efforts
www.dailymail.co.uk


Yeah, I wonder how all the previous worthy winners of the prize feel.

Gutted I guess. :yuck: 		B.M. (505)
593655 2007-10-13 01:48:00 Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts

"Some scientists who have long doubted that a human influence could be clearly discerned in the Arctic’s changing climate now agree that the trend is hard to ascribe to anything else."

www.nytimes.com 		zqwerty (97)
593656 2007-10-13 01:55:00 zqwerty. You're obviously a global warming zealot and know alot about the topic.
Can you please tell us what will happen to the world if we don't start doing something about carbon emissions? 		legod (4626)
593657 2007-10-13 03:39:00 Again I must compliment everyone for sincere and reasonable posts. Yes, I know the argument is whether climate change is man-made or simply natural. I favour man-made for two reasons:

1. The planets population at 6 billion and growing, means huge releases of energy simply to keep people alive. The environment is being devastated by all of those people and the resulting pollution is killing the biosphere. It is also amplifying what is possibly a normal warming trend.

2. The amount of hydrocarbons released by man over the past 150 years is not natural. Yes, volcanic activity is always significant but even so you cannot ignore the billions of barrels of oil expelled into air and water annually. It has to have a cumulative effect.

I haven't viewed the video yet so I will have a look - I'm interested in both sides of the argument and as I previously said, used to be a skeptic. 		Winston001 (3612)
593658 2007-10-13 03:53:00 Again I must compliment everyone for sincere and reasonable posts . Yes, I know the argument is whether climate change is man-made or simply natural . I favour man-made for two reasons:

1 . The planets population at 6 billion and growing, means huge releases of energy simply to keep people alive . The environment is being devastated by all of those people and the resulting pollution is killing the biosphere . It is also amplifying what is possibly a normal warming trend .

2 . The amount of hydrocarbons released by man over the past 150 years is not natural . Yes, volcanic activity is always significant but even so you cannot ignore the billions of barrels of oil expelled into air and water annually . It has to have a cumulative effect .

I haven't viewed the video yet so I will have a look - I'm interested in both sides of the argument and as I previously said, used to be a skeptic .

Here's some more sour grapes about the latest hero of the Nobel type .

Al Gore will not budge on the "Ban The Nukes" issue . . he insists on no nuclear energy anywhere in the world .

Nice . . . but that leaves only a few options . For such a brilliant man and internet inventor, he forgets that China is burning tons of coal ever minute and this carbon footprint could well be shrunk to almost nil with nuclear energy .

So much for intelligence . . . but the sad part is that lemmings . . . er . . people are flocking to the new media hero and will slobber at all his decrees and insightfullness . He prolly has a hyperbaric oxygen chamber in his basement that I bet he doesn't even share with his wife . .

I don't really feel that oil is the big problem . . . large, but not the big one . Coal is more evil than you imagine . 		SurferJoe46 (51)
593659 2007-10-13 05:17:00 I don't know legod but this is what someone else thinks:

"........... the IPCC projections have been conservative. The intent of the IPCC is to give credence to the effects of anthropogenic climate change. For far too long we believed that environmental groups and their members have gone beyond the realms of logic to instill a morbid fear of what terrible things awaited us. The things that would happen if we committed ourselves to unparalleled levels of consumption and waste. We were told of a world without potable water, of toxic skies, and of forests devoid of life.

The IPCC does not wish to be disregarded as doom sayers.

However, it is most unfortunate that doom is exactly what is in store for us.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:25 PM on October 12"

Also: "The world isn't going anywhere: WE ARE!" - George Carlin 		zqwerty (97)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25