Another Blow Against the Global Warming Theories

Peter Jacobs · Mar 29, 2010

It looks like the Gulf Stream is Not Slowing down at all . . . . . .

BBC News - Gulf Stream 'is not slowing down'

That must come as a bit of a blow to all those who 'championed' the idea.

I wonder if the USA Team in Copenhagen had those results before they went to the Global Conference?

Graham Whatmore · Mar 29, 2010

Oooooh! Peter don't you get upsetting the doom theory backers on here, that is not the sort of news they are likely to receive without challenge.

"
"The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle,"

And even though it is probably true, neither is that good news to "warming earth" theorists.

Andy M · Mar 29, 2010

Hardly a blow, in fact pretty irrelavent to the wealth of solid scientific data that shows the trend of global temps is currently upward. Causes? Effects? They are different kettles of fish!

Peter Jacobs · Mar 29, 2010

Andy M said:
Hardly a blow, in fact pretty irrelavent to the wealth of solid scientific data that shows the trend of global temps is currently upward. Causes? Effects? They are different kettles of fish!

Well, that at least is a different 'spin' than we've seen before here on FM.

The fact of the matter is that the doom and gloom merchants were relying upon the 'slowing of the Gulf Stream' to support their argument, when in fact, there are precious few facts as we are now seeing!

So, rather than 'hardly' it is something more akin to a very hard uppercut.

I bet there are more than a few 'green tax' supporters, both in and outside of governements throughout Europe, stroking their beards tonight . . . . . . . . . . .

Andy M · Mar 29, 2010

Not sure what or how I was supposed to be spinning there Peter, but that aside, I am sure the green tax supporters you refer to will not need to stroke their beards for very long if it is only a doom and gloom theory they are interested in.

Paul H · Mar 29, 2010

True scientists accept that their art is never one of finite answers.

A theory cannot be taken seriously if the author/s are not prepared to acknowledge any possible flaws, unknown quantities or assumptions.

What I fail to understand is why some people seem so opposed to this theory, as if it were akin to some kind of oppressive regime.

Personally, regardless of the facts and the fictions, cleaning up our act has got to be beneficial to both the planet and us.

What about the evidence that shows higher rates of asthma in children living in cities where air pollution is higher for starters?

There are some tough choices ahead for mankind, and I'd like my (potential) children to grow up in a cleaner world than the one we currently inhabit.

keora · Mar 30, 2010

The burning of fuels such as oil coal and gas produces carbon dioxide. This gas is an essential part of the life cycle on earth. If there weren't carbon dioxide in the air, most plants and animals would cease to exist. The negative effect of carbon dioxide is that high concentrations in the atmosphere reduces the amount of heat radiated from the earth into space, this causes the temperature of the earth to rise.

The problem is the accuracy of the computer models used to forecast how much temperatures will increase in the next 100 years. These computer models are huge, yet they still have to rely on assumptions about future use of energy, population growth, economic growth, and efforts made by humans to reduce the output of carbon dioxide. I think some of the forecasts have been too pessimistic, especially those produced by pressure groups with an axe to grind, such as Greenpeace.

I believe the world will get warmer, but it won't be the catastrophe that the doom-mongers predict. In fact, cooler countries in Northern Europe, such as ours, may be less affected by global warming than poorer countries nearer the equator.

Peter Jacobs · Mar 30, 2010

Firstly, I do read an awful lot of scientific papers, and have done literally hundreds of hours of research on the Internet, and so much is contradictory that it is amazing!

Keith2 said:
I think some of the forecasts have been too pessimistic, especially those produced by pressure groups with an axe to grind, such as Greenpeace.

Now you are getting close to the point: and it is not only pressure groups but also governments, all over Europe, who are just dying to introduce 'green taxes' regardless of the 'sound science' that they should be based upon.

Let's not forget, a few months ago we had the fiasco of the 'leaked e-mails' and then the 'retractions' by some of the then authors, oh, and then the 'mislaid' documentation to support their claims.

And now we have the same group who started the Gulf Stream Slowing concept telling the world that it is nowhere near as 'bad' as they first thought, and indeed it is probably only a 'seasonal' blip rather than a major shift!

Is is any wonder that ordinary educated people are rather sceptical?

Graham Whatmore · Mar 30, 2010

Life in our cities is not that much different to life in pre 50's Britain. I am old enough to remember smog caused by the burning of coal, every household in Britain burned coal and so did industry, it was not only dirty and smelly it was harmful to the population. Gas and Electric power stations burned coal to give us 'cleaner' gas and electric and was in itself a good reason to close down the mining industry as soon as alternative power sources were found. That 'cleaner' source turned out to be nuclear, yes it has the problem of getting rid of the nuclear waste but it is still far 'cleaner' than fossil fuels.

The petrol and diesel engine is the main source of air pollution in our cities these days and the health risk may be even greater than that caused by fossil fuel burning. I am not a scientist nor do I profess to be well read on the subject but the massive increases in asthma for instance must surely be down to transport fumes. I remember when they first built Spaghetti junction in B'ham the medical reports on the effect in the local population were bad enough to cause the authorities to put a bit of a block on publishing medical facts about it for fear of frightening the dwellers of Bham. Nevertheless the facts are there for all to see, transport pollution along with increasingly poor diet are having a massive detrimental affect on the health of the populations of our cities.

Global warming I dont believe in, I believe if it exists at all it is more to do with earths natural cycles than pollution.

Puts on coat and hides behind the cupboard. :wh

Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) · Mar 30, 2010

Good point Pikey.

Whether there is evidence of gloabla warming or not - the fact is we will all benefit if we clean up our act, reduce our waste, stop polluting our planet and stop raping its (limited) resources.

Paul H · Mar 30, 2010

Woo yeah, high five.

I can understand people being sceptical Peter, the news media do like to present theories as facts and stir up the fear factor.

Then the same media then slams any subsequent contrary evidence on the table as if they'd been lied to all along.

What I don't understand - at all - is why some people would not want to clean up the mess our species makes and become, well, greener.

Every angler on this site hates litter left on the bank for example, yet scale that up to planet size and include invisible gas and they become sceptical about whether it's necessary.

J K · Mar 30, 2010

This makes for interesting reading, from Professor Lovelock particularly this sort of comment;

renewable energy technology may make good business sense, he says, it is not based on "good practical engineering".

jimmy crackedcorn · Mar 30, 2010

Its been a very long day, so to be honest I'm not going to read it (sorry

!! ) BUT once the oil and coal has run out (bearing in mind china is building coal fired power station at the rate of about 1 a week) what does professor lovelock suggest we do for power. Its all going to run out ! And recycling why wont people do that ! Theres a raft of plastic TWICE THE SIZE OF TEXAS in the pacific - 20 years time we (if that) we'll all be whining on the price of a bait tub.............

Of course the environment shouldnt be a method to charge more taxes - far more carrot and a lot less stick is the answer, but surely we have to do summat.

klik2change · Mar 30, 2010

jimmy crackedcorn said:
what does professor lovelock suggest we do for power. Its all going to run out !

Lovelock's solution is to make best use of nuclear power, at least until we find something better. This is what is actually happening, as some of you may have noticed.

Wiktor z Polski/Dr. Wodka · Mar 30, 2010

How on earth can anybody not believe in man made global worming and slag off Greenpeace is beyond me .Cant really be bothered to argue.I will do what I can to give clean life to my kids and will do the same any half normal people.

Mark Hewitt · Mar 30, 2010

Wiktor z Polski/Dr. Wodka said:
How on earth can anybody not believe in man made global worming and slag off Greenpeace is beyond me .Cant really be bothered to argue.

Is that the best way to convince people?

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

Does this work......

I can't believe this bunch of 'fair trade' 'organic' 'vegatarian' 'multicultural' 'lesbians' - have taken the global warming argument this far...... in fact I cant be bothered to argue

Paul Boote · Mar 30, 2010

Yeah right. Nice, new but tediously Traditional, True Brit movie (i.e. lots of B.T.s [now silicon], endless innuendo, double entendres, xenophobia etc) in production at the moment, I hear, with the working title of "Carry On Concreting".

geoffmaynard · Mar 30, 2010

Well I'm with Wiktor (welcome back Wiktor by the way - did you catch a French catfish?)

When smart people fall for dis-information like the stuff PJ lists, I'm dumbfounded! I'm amazed that someone with the obvious smarts of PJ can attempt to further the nonsensical oil-lobby 'arguments' that defy all common sense! It's the viewpoint of the Flat-earthers. Serious climate change is fact. Only the level to which is will affect us is in question - but we know it's going to be bad whatever.

Paul Boote · Mar 30, 2010

geoffmaynard said:
but we know it's going to be bad whatever.

So we carry on as always, right?

geoffmaynard · Mar 30, 2010

C'mon Paul. How about giving us YOUR OPINION instead of clever one liners

Another Blow Against the Global Warming Theories

Moderator

Senior Member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Banned

Content Editor

Banned

Content Editor