Tenerife forum

[funky]

Ok, in response to Syncronicity's claimed statistics in the ONE FOR BARD thread, here's a few facts that none of the alleged Pseudo-Scientists that ALLEGEDLY make up the policitically orientated IPCC will ever rationally discuss. Those of you who get bored by science might want to look away now....

The earth’s climate is always changing, and is not driven by Co2, nor was it ever driven by Co2 in the past. Syncronicity produces a nice chart claiming to show continuous temperature increase since the 1800's. Perhaps he (or she?) should have a closer look at that chart. It CLEARLY shows that temperature decreased significantly between the 1940's and the 1970's. Now stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the period of the biggest increase in Co2 production in the history of mankind up to the depressions and recessions in the 70's when Co2 production actually levelled off? After the war, manmade Co2 increases went off the scale. Funny though how temperature dropped throughout this period.

So lets look at Co2 for a moment. Contrary to the vague and meaningless conclusions drawn by Syncronicity regarding the size of the atmosphere, Co2 forms a VERY small part of the world atmosphere.

FACT 1: Co2 represents just over 0.03% of the total atmosphere. Its miniscule!! And of this, ONLY 4% is generated by humans !!! The vast majority is produced by sunlight on the sea, volcanos, plants (trillions of leaves when they die etc) and animals. So that's 0.000012% of the atmosphere that's made up of manmade Co2.

FACT 2: Of that 4% that is generated by Humans and Human activity, less than HALF of that (i.e. 2%) is generated by industry or artificial means. The other half is generated by 6 billion of us naturally breathing, dying and ultimately decomposing. In fact, the increase in population since WW2 alone is responsible for far more Co2 release than the entire industrial increase in Co2 during the same period. That's fairly obvious considering the decomposing population that is responsible for the other 2% has doubled in that period! So what are we saying, lets kill half the population to reduce Co2??

So that means that the percentage of the atmosphere that is made up of Co2 produced from alleged 'bad' sources is only 0.000006%.

FACT 3:

Although Co2 is a greenhouse gas, it is a notoriously WEAK one. IPCC scientists conveniently overlook that the largest and most important greenhouse gas by far is plain old water vapour, which represents 95% of all greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. The next strongest are inert gases such as Neon and Argon, followed by Co2 at the bottom of the list.

FACT 4:

Temperature changes have been occurring naturally for thousands of years. This is proven by historical Ice Ages and corresponding much hotter periods. WHY? Was this due to Co2 production? If it was, it was obviously by natural Co2, because there was negligible human industrial activity prior to the 20th century.

So what caused it? Could it possibly be that there are dozens of far more significant other factors affecting the temperature of the earth than Co2? What about solar activity? Everyone knows that there would be no heat on the planet whatsoever if it were not for the sun. We are bombarded with its massive heat and radiation every day. Now ALL scientists accept that solar activity (sunspots, solar flares etc) are constantly changing, resulting in increasing or decreasing heat and radiation accordingly. Are we honestly so arrogant as to our manmade power to think that a body as mighty as the sun does not have a strong influence on planetary temperature?? IPCC scientists are indeed that arrogant. I have YET to see a report from such a "scientist" that even attempts to factor in solar activity into their temperature change calculations. WHAT ARROGANT IDIOTS !!!

So even though Co2 isn't the culprit, lets look at solar activity closer. As stated above, the largest producer of Co2 on the planet is the ocean (80% of all Co2) when its heated by the sun. Now what is likely to happen when sun activity increases? Surely Co2 production will also increase. That's an increase in production from the 80% source compared to a manmade increase from a 2% source. Which do you think would have the greatest effect? Its not rocket science. Even if Co2 WAS responsible in whole or in part for current global warming, it would most CERTAINLY have been caused by the oceans heating up (a proven fact) rather than by man.

I recently heard one IPCC "scientist" then try to cover his arse by saying "ok, but manmade Co2 is still a contributing factor. Err, not when your conclusions are based on calculations don't even take into acccount the ocean factor in the first place pal !! And how do you define a contributing factor? How do you measure it? How do you convert that into the worldwide politically supported belief that mankind is SOLELY responsible for the current warming and that ONLY our actions can save the planet?!? Doesn't sound like they're saying we're only a CONTRIBUTING factor after all, does it! Contributing factors don't sell newspapers, Contributing factors don't raise taxes, control the population and keep everybody scared. Only wild scare stories can do that !

A key indicator accepted by scientists is that any greenhouse warming is evidenced by a warming in the middle of the Troposphere layer, the first 10-12 km of the atmosphere. This is the area that should warm up the fastest at this height.

Satellite data and Weather balloon data has however proven that the surface temperature is warming faster than the upper air temperature, and hence, the warming is not due to any greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.

Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ movie focused on evidence on ‘Ice Core Surveys’, where scientists drill deep into the Antarctic ice to look back at earth’s climate history over hundreds of thousands of years. It alleged to have found a clear correlation between Co2 and temperature. Al Gore says that the relationship is complicated, but that when there is more Co2 present the temperature gets warmer.

What Al Gore deliberately failed to mention was that the ‘link’ he referred to was actually the other way round. His study PROVED that temperature rises or falls, and then after a few hundred years, Co2 follows. Co2 is a PRODUCT of temperature change, not a cause of it. This proves that the fundamental assumption behind manmade global warming theory is FALSE.

Now regardless of the false or vague science, I'm a firm believer that you can partly ascertain the truth by looking at people's motivations and the way in which they present their arguments or try to muzzle criticism. So lets look at the supposed scientific community and their 'presentation skills'.

I'm sick to death of seeing photos of a polar bear balancing precariously on a melting iceberg. Talk about clever marketing to pluck at the heart strings! The poor sod was only up there to get a birds eye view for fish, or perhaps just to escape from the bloody intrusive camera crew!! FACT: Polar bear numbers are at their HIGHEST level for over 30 years and they are still rising. Their ice shelf and fish stocks are increasing year on year.

Every time a daffodil dares to show its face before March, the papers jump into action. Every melting iceberg gets reported at length. Every flood and every drought becomes a worldwide disaster. Whilst facts such as polar bear increases and the fact that the icecaps are actually increasing rather than decreasing are quietly ignored. Channel 4 showed a fascinating documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Myth" which was based solely on FACTS and after interviewing several supposed IPCC scientists (who were fighting to get their names removed). What was the IPCC's response? They tried to get the documentary banned and off the air, on the ridiculous grounds that it was 'irresponsible'. Quite rightly, they failed and the programme was shown.

The United Nations IPCC stands for INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change – Most people do not realise that this is a POLITICALLY DRIVEN BODY. It is NOT made up of independent scientists.

It claims to be made up of over 2500 top scientists, which is in fact FALSE. Many of those allegedly contributing are not even scientists, but simply government civil servants. Fewer still are TRUE QUALIFIED climate change experts.

But perhaps more importantly, many on the list do not agree with the theories, but simply have not publicly spoken out against it. Many ‘scientists’ now almost spit fury at those who DARE to challenge what they say, which is simply not the scientific way in the past 200 years. Similar to when someone said the world wasn’t flat. Those people were called Heretics.

Most people are also not aware that dozens of real scientists are having to threaten legal action against the IPCC to remove their names from associations with the IPCC's far fetched policies which those scientists never endorsed or who were simply misquoted. Each and every one of those scientists has had to resort to legal action in order to get their name removed. Now if the IPCC was such a fair, unbiased and democratic body, why would they refuse to let their quoted members disassociate themselves without a fight? Maybe its because as members start jumping off the sinking ship, the alleged 2500 number will become very small very fast, and remain made up of mostly politicians.

I also hate the whole brainwashing by the media, government and politicians to the point that everyone must just accept the Co2 argument. To doubt or challenge the theory is considered almost blasphemy. Well I'm sorry, but scientific debate as to the true effect of a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR will ALWAYS be acceptable and required.

So why do so many seem to want us to believe in manmade global warming? Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding. Political campaign turned into a global bandwagon. Tens of thousands of jobs now depend upon the global warming industry. It is worth BILLIONS every year! Now, politicians have jumped on the bandwagon in order to control the masses and to RAISE TAXES. Even the stalwarts of the IPCC admit that the current climate related taxes will do NOTHING to change Co2 production but will simply raise money for the government coffers. And as for Carbon Offsetting, don't make me laugh. Even Greenpeace admit that "its not a solution".

In 2005 the House of Lords set up enquiry to examine the scientific evidence of man made global warming. Lord Lawson chaired the enquiry. He said how weak and uncertain the science was. More and more people quietly have doubts.

Furthermore, it is a fact that Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

The vast amount of investment in this industry has distorted the entire scientific process which would otherwise accept and present the true position. The same is true with the hoards of Environmental Journalists, whose jobs depend on coming up with harsher and harsher predictions and horror stories regarding the future.

Conclusion – it is generally accepted that the planet is currently warming up, but the evidence indicates that this has nothing to do with manmade Co2, and is instead a natural process. In any event, many scientists also challenge the notion that a couple of degrees increase in heat will actually do the planet any significant damage. Polar icecaps are always forming and melting, and life that lives on them is particularly resilient and adaptable. With additional heat also comes greater crop growth and more stable weather conditions for much of the planet. Of yet greater interest is the argument that the cost of cutting carbon dioxide emissions radically will be far more expensive and troublesome than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures.

Some will then fall back on the argument that "Well, even if its a small possibility that man is contributing, its sound policy that we act now in any event". So on that reckoning, I'm going to stop crossing the street, as there is a small risk I might get run over. I don't think any of you with an I.Q above 90 will need too much explanation to appreciate the flaw in that argument.

So there you have it. I can't wait to hear any LOGICAL or SCIENTIFIC facts countering the above. Comments on a postcard please...
_________________
My Paranoia-Management Therapy is going great! Now they're only watching me half the time....

[synchronicity]

How can you so easily dismiss my facts and then claim your own are correct
_________________
www.Tenerife-Training.net| Pro Bike Hire in Tenerife
Life from an Outsider's Perspective.

[synchronicity]

[synchronicity]

Honestly, there is nothing more arrogant than humans who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

I'm going to put this another way so that maybe you can comprehend it:

When all the world is turned into concrete, who will provide the free photosynthetic service that green plants provide for us now? Who will transform all the exceess CO2 into breathable oxygen for us then?
_________________
www.Tenerife-Training.net| Pro Bike Hire in Tenerife
Life from an Outsider's Perspective.

[rob]

Al Gore has always been a 'global warming' activist apart from an 8 year period of his life. Those 8 years? The ones when he was vice president of the USA!!!! The time when theoretically he could have influenced the states and their thinking. Like signing the Kyoto protocol for instance!

Of course he wouldn't have made his political masters very happy and would he have emerged from this able to jet around the world staying in absolute luxury earning mega bucks as a speaker?
_________________
.

Who am I? Follow the myspacetenerife link under my avatar.

Remember: You don't stop laughing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop laughing.

[rob]

[funky]

As expected, you are unable or unwilling to provide any real scientific analysis of what I say. Instead you simply regurgitate the same old tired rhetoric rather than providing any proper analysis based in logic. I mean seriously, just look at your responses.

Firstly, you ask if the Co2 theory is my own idea. No offence, but what a stupid thing to ask. This demonstrates your complete ignorance of the subject. You haven't even bothered to go even a basic google search on climate change. If you had, you would have discovered this established argument in every major source of dispute on the subject.

You then attempt to compare the world's atmosphere to heating a pot on an electric stove. No offence Syncronicity, but this isn't kindergarten science class.

You then attempt to compare a drop of concentrated manmade cyanide to ambient atmospheric levels of Co2. Again, I think you need to stop reading children's science books. How is cyanide in any way relevant to the argument of climate change?? Try again.

You then say "Sure, but these changes happened over THOUSANDS of YEARS, not 1 or 2 decades. Seems to be a mighty darn big coincidence that just as we globalise, urbanise and industrialise the entire face of the planet, that we can measure and record these changes taking place."

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance in this vague and unscientific reply. Firstly, you appear to accept that climate has changed in the past, but you give no indication as to why you think that is. You then say that we can measure changes taking place whilst we globalise and industrialise. So how do you explain the FACT that the planet was cooling down between 1945 and 1973 during this period of urbanisation and industrialisation??

You then say ...

Wait a minute! I stop you right there, because you've just drawn your own stupendously fast conclusions. I didn't draw any conclusion. I said "So even if Co2 isn't the culprit...." Last time I checked, that's expressing an alternative scenario, not drawing a conclusion !!!

And where does the CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans come from in the first place? They have a solubility limit, meaning they can only take so much of each dissolved gas...

I'm sorry, but this is meaningless. What has solubility limits got to do with the amount of Co2 in the air?

Well here's what I think: I think the people that bury their heads in the sand, who think they aren't contributing in some way to the destruction of their own environment are worthy of extinction.
Sorry, but that's just soundbite political rhetoric, the kind of stuff reeled out by Al Gore every time he gives a €100,000 lecture.

How else are you going to get people to change??? Bombard them with graphs that they don't understand? Yes of course that's a form of marketing, but no other way seems to function in getting people to use alternative energy. Unbelievable! So you're basically saying its ok to deliberately mislead and scare the public with false or misrepresented images in order to promote a certain political agenda? How patronising! So you're basically saying that the public are too stupid to understand the issue and hence should be brainwashed into forming the right view, whereas the politicians are automatically correct and know what's best for us. Sounds like a certain 1930's regime in Germany to me! How quickly people forget historical comparisons.

As for the rest of what you write, that's quite a conspiracy theory you've got going there. And who do you work for may I ask?

Yes that's right Syncronicity, I'm being paid off by the oil companies and I'm running a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory supported by all the facts I've just stated. Facts which I'm waiting for you (or anyone else) to logically debate and counter. But no, just like a politician, when you don't like someone else's argument, don't bother trying to logically counter it, just attack and slur and attempt to discredit them personally.

I'm happy to debate the scientific issues with you Syncronicity, but from your response to date, you obviously don't understand the scientific principles on which the climate change arguments are based. Otherwise, I am not interested in hearing you rant about 'conspiracy theories' or how a little guy in Tenerife whose job has nothing to do with politics, science or petrochemicals is somehow in the employ of the oil barons or some other sinister organisation etc etc
_________________
My Paranoia-Management Therapy is going great! Now they're only watching me half the time....

[funky]

[funky]

[synchronicity]

My point about cyanide is that miniscule thing do sometimes matter. If I've just been poisoned, can I run around screaming "but it's only 0.000067% of my body weight... that's not enough to kill me!!". Well sorry, but it is. It's pretty clear to me maths isn't your strong point. Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt if you read up on the word "sensitive dependence on initial conditions"

The solubility limit of the ocean is important, because when it is reached, it will mean more CO2 will go into the air, instead of being dissolved by the water in the oceans.

I never said CO2 was the sole contributer to global warming. I think you should re-phrase the poll question to "Do you believe that man is the MAIN cause of global warming?" and then I'll cast my vote.

Actually I'm a Materials scientist by trade, PhD qualified, so no I don't pretend to know everything about global warming. I merely presented a few easily strewn together facts about how much CO2 gas our civilisation pumps out every year to put it into perspective. And it was enough to cause some waves.

I don't think anyone who does the research with google can claim to be an expert on anything. You need to read actual science papers to get a true grasp of what they're studying.

I think the main problem evidenced by Robs reply is that that people are naturally frightened about the future but are not sure what they can do personally.
_________________
www.Tenerife-Training.net| Pro Bike Hire in Tenerife
Life from an Outsider's Perspective.

[rob]

I notice that a lot of people have read this in the short time that it's been up yet few have responded. The poll at the beginning of the thread makes very interesting reading though!!
_________________
.

Who am I? Follow the myspacetenerife link under my avatar.

Remember: You don't stop laughing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop laughing.

[rob]

I think the main problem evidenced by Robs reply is that that people are naturally frightened about the future but are not sure what they can do personally.

My reply was tongue in cheek rather than your conclusion. I believe that we do have a miniscule effect on global warming but that we cannot make enough 'savings' to affect global warming to any real degree. The sun can let off a small fart and alter things on earth quite drastically.

I think you should re-phrase the poll question to "Do you believe that man is the MAIN cause of global warming?" and then I'll cast my vote

My vote would be a resounding NO!

I don't think anyone who does the research with google can claim to be an expert on anything. Laughing You need to read actual science papers to get a true grasp of what they're studying.

Unfortunately, as has been proven many times, scientific 'facts' published by many scientists are made to fit the results desired by the companies/bodies funding the 'research'.
_________________
.

Who am I? Follow the myspacetenerife link under my avatar.

Remember: You don't stop laughing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop laughing.

[karlb]

lol I am not clever enough to get involved and I do not have the time to start reading up.

I put NO as correct me if I am wrong but the oceans are the main release of co2 and the people that benefit most from this scare mongering are The Goverments.

Dont make me look stupid lol.

Be gentle.
_________________
Need a cleaner in South Tenerife ? Cleaning just got better... www.maid4tenerife.com

Who am I? Check out MySpaceTenerife.

The sky is not less blue because the blind man does not see it.

[funky]

[synchronicity]

I've just noticed your signature funky, and it really makes me think twice before getting involved in these kinds of debates.
_________________
www.Tenerife-Training.net| Pro Bike Hire in Tenerife
Life from an Outsider's Perspective.