Climategate, What do you think?

[Jas278]

ONE LIFE LIVE IT  !


      Dont be fooled....

[Chris Putt]

Yes- as stated I do recognise the hype surrounding the Al gore film, and no I do not necessarily agree with some of his motives, but it has served to raise awareness- which cannot be a bad thing.

The mere fact that we are able to debate this topic on a website aimed squarely at off road vehicle drivers (often cited as one of the biggest problems as we are all aware) I think is brilliant!

Please, before basing any arguments on ANY media coverage of these issues do the reading behind it go out and get journals and do the research. it was perhaps niave of me to discuss An Inconvenient truth, knowing some of the issues that surrounded that production, however it does raise many of the major points.


This argument of the scientists being manipulated by policy setters could be made about any kind of scientific debate, do you think that non-profit organisations such as Greenpeace and other environmental lobbyists/charities would be up in arms in such a way if there was not a problem.
Working on this theory that all science is designed to show what policymakers want it to show- what future do we have?

Saying whos evidence- even a very brief look on the internet-box will provide a wealth of information about 'global warming' or 'climate change' from some very highly regarded sources
This document in a nutshell answers a lot of the questions posed in subsequent posts after my last
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/PDF/GWS%20Scientific%20Responses3.pdf

In a previous post I referred to James Lovelock, and I would urge anyone who is genuinely interested in this topic to read Gaia, and the Revenge of Gaia.


Looking at the bigger picture, do you (we, us) not think that it is an issue that we are putting such vast amounts of pollutants into the air and is it not clear that our actions are having an effect?

Now, as I have in previous topics on this forum I am going to make my stance clear before I get flamed. I am not out to cause arguements, merely stimulate debate as I think it is interesting (certainly to me and I would like to hope others!) My background working in the outdoors and studying both Outdoor and environmental education at university gave me access to a lot of research and papers on this subject, and there is a wealth of evidence supporting climate change theory- and to me it is important that there is a better understanding out there.

the big problem facing us is the dominant positivist world view (development is good, business is good, money is good) we need to stop and take a look at ourselves as society and realise that development and money is not everything, we need to start asking questions and become more critical of those in command of the country and those in power as a whole. there is more to life than money we need to school future generation to search for meaning and self fulfilment, rather than this shallow desire for material gain.

You know what guys, I have run a selection of old vehicles over the years kept on the roadd with largely secondhand parts, and I fully intend to continue, and I hope you all will too- recycle parts, bodge, repair and recondition- because by doing that we all do something towards the cause. It is fairly obvious that the scrappage scheme was a shallow method to kick start the car industry back into life rather than any environmental gain, and the government should be ashamed of this.

Have fun out there

Chris

[mike142sl]

Well put Chris, there are plenty of us who agree with you.

Strangley we seem to have pendulum arguments when it comes to topics like this i.e. when a problem is identified the answer is to do completely the opposite rather than simply cut back to a 'sustainable' option.

[crazymac]

The problem for me with all this "climate change" or "Global Warming" is you cannot get a straight answer!

For every scientist that says its real, you get another that says its not, and both have very believable evidence.

You then get these leaked emails where supposidly honest scientists are telling people that they are fudgeing the figures! Then they also don't get their peers to review the data like they are supposed to!! (most do I know but these idiots didn't)

How are we supposed to see this as real when this is happening? It smacks of "we'll make this as confusing as possible so that Joe Public will just ive up and believe us!!"

I don't buy it, because all the Government does is use this information to tax us more, increased road tax etc while at the same time encourage spending on new products like cars because that helps the economy!! The emmissions involved in constructing new cars is phenominal, but they want us all to buy one!!

They can FOXTROT OSCAR in my mind, I will continue to live my life as I do. We have a family car which is 5 years old and will be replace in a couple of years with another one of about 3 or 4 years old and we have my Discovery which runs on veg oil and recycled parts, not from some ecological standpoint  but from a cheap motoring standpoint!

[Bob696]

This document in a nutshell answers a lot of the questions posed in subsequent posts after my last
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/PDF/GWS%20Scientific%20Responses3.pdf

I opened the pdf with the full intention of reading it but I only really read to the end of the first page when I encountered this

"Source:
Secretary of State David Miliband
UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Personal blog: http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx"

They use the personal blog of a politician to debunk  something???  That can hardly be called scientific now can it?
To my mind that set the agenda and the bias of the whole document and I would give it no more credibility than the Al Gore charade.

I have no problem at all in believing in climate change ... the evidence is all around us. It is as natural as the queen going to the toilet ( there is strong evidence for a royal dockyard belonging to Henry V  in Essex that is TEN miles from the sea) BUT any evidence that it is man made is woolly at best and down right misleading at worst. Probably the most damning evidence against the 'man made global warming' religion (and religion is what it is, belief without proof) is the terminology changes that have occurred to match the facts (or lack of). 'Global warming' has become 'climate change' and 'Man made' has become 'accelerated by man'

I think a more sensible approach (agreed, some would call it cynical) would be to look at who benefits from 'accelerated by man climate change'.  
Governments.
At the moment we are fighting a rather expensive war (all wars are expensive) and they need extra funds. Scare people about climate change, levy extra tax in the cause of climate change and nobody will mind. Simple question... where is all this extra revenue going? It sure as hell isn't going into education. I work on the front line of education and I can assure you that despite government claims to the contrary the budgets are being cut. Not the main headline budgets of course...all the frills around the edges. Wind farms? Yeah right..... on the 2.5p increase in fuel costs we will have to put up with in January they should be able to cover most of england with wind turbines in a couple of years. It isn't going to happen though is it.
It can also be used as a club to hold back developing countries so that 'we' maintain our dominance.
Scientists
They all gain. Pro climate change are payed by the government and antis are payed by energy companies. It simply isn't in their interests for the debate to end
Greenpeace et al
Guess what. Yeap, steady income from people who like to contribute for the greater good. I bet their income has gone up since they stopped concentrating on whale hunting and seal bashing. Did you know that Greenpeace Fund, Inc.  paid nine employees $418,022 (US $) in 2001? I can't see these top dogs being in favour of a drop in donations tbh.
The 'disciples'
Some people need a faith to believe in. For some 'God' isn't enough.

faith  (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I believe that in 500 years time the human race will look back at us and our arrogance in believing that we could destroy the earth with global pollution and laugh in the same way as we look backwards 500 years and laugh at the people who were convinced that that the earth was flat.

we need to start asking questions and become more critical of those in command of the country and those in power as a whole

I agree 100%

[Disco Matt]

we need to start asking questions and become more critical of those in command of the country and those in power as a whole

I agree 100%

Agree entirely. The problem is that those in the media who are supposed to ask such questions often fail to do so. Witness them studiously avoiding any comment on the appalling attitudes shown in the leaked emails. There seemed to be a definite attitude of "make them believe" rather than "make sure we're giving them the most accurate evidence".

Then again, questioning the actions of nanny labour or their favoured organisations is a great way to get slapped. Witness BBC and Hutton Enquiry...

[crazymac]

And then we hear about Brown pledging over a BILLION £ to help developing nations deal with climate change!!! [ed: naughty]!

What about OUR budget defecit?? What about our hospitals that are on their arse? What about the education system that is massively under funded??

WHAT ABOUT THE HUGE INCREASES IN OUR TAXES TO PAY FOR ALL THIS SPENDING???????????


If I could afford to get out of the chuffing country I would

[Range Rover Blues]

Climate change is a known phenomena.

Chris

Thing is, the earth has been through cycles of heatingt up and cooling down before.  When I was a kid the Earth was about to enter a new ice-age.  Now it's about to melt under our feet.

Tell me this, why is Greenland called Greenland?

Answer, becasue when the Viking invaded it was covered in lush, green grass and they farmed cattle there.  During the "middle ages" the Earth whent through a temperature spike far bigger than the one we are seeing today.

I didn't own a 4x4 back then, so what was going on?

Well, quite simply I think we flatter ourselves that we have that much influence, the sun controls the heat on this planet, like it odes on other planets in our solar system and they are warming up too.

Another factor that often get signored is global cooling.  It can be demonstrated that polution in the upper atmosphere causes atmospheric condensation to form in larger droplets around particles of polution than it would form on it's own.  These larger droplets reflect more of the sun's energy, so a poluted plante will be colder (perhaps leading to fears of a new ice-age).  Since we've been cleaing up the planet for a while now this global cooling effect is reduce and the Earth catches back up to the temperature it would have been at had we not been here.  This explains the "rapid" rise in temperature over the last couple of decades.

If glbal warming is such a sure-fire certainty then why did the UN feel the need to lie to us about the evidence? are there decisions based on the most unreliable data regarding historic global temperature?  because they need to use the evidence that fits their arguaent.


Now I'm all for looking after the plante, reducing our consumption of it's resources and lowring my environmental footprint, but there's a lot of media propeled hype that quite frankly leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.