Page 1 of 3
Global warming is finally proven to be a myth....
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:23 am
by Paul B
....but nobody wants to hear about it now, as it is just TOO damn good an excuse to be able to put taxes up and restrict motoring type activities!!!
‘The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change’ stated:
"That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate"
And much more here:
http://tinyurl.com/38khfo
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:03 pm
by chodjinn
written by americans then lol?!
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:36 pm
by ChrisJC
So who exactly were the 'scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders' who produced this declaration. Maybe it would have more credence if they owned up and could be seen to be genuine.
Chris.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:47 pm
by ppyvabw
I have to say I don't think that article is at all defining proof of anything lol.
1) On the other hand I don't believe climate change is down to human activity. We have only noticed climate change over a period of say 50 or 60 years and have only monitored and taken records of the climate for not much longet than that so there is no past record to suggest the climate change isn't a natural phenomenon.
2) The climate has always changed over periods of hundreds of years.
3) nature is self balancing, so will adjust to carbon emmisions. We are only putting carbon back into the atmosphere that was there before the formation of the forests.
4) The sun's activity changes over periods that coincide with the period of climate change.
That's not to say we shouldn't make an effort to reduce carbon emmisions but I think the whole issue has been blown out of proportion by mass hysteria.
Besides, It's not the likes of us that create the majority of carbon emmisions anyway as enthusiasts. It's conjestion, caused by the lack of decent public transport in cities, unnecassary journeys and people who drive bloody huge 4*4s that don't bloody use them, like working mothers dropping the kids off at school. A vauxhall corsa will do for that istead of the bloody great big ques of shiny unused polished Range Rovers that appear at about 3:30 on a weekday.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:04 pm
by Paul B
ChrisJC wrote:So who exactly were the 'scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders' who produced this declaration. Maybe it would have more credence if they owned up and could be seen to be genuine.
Chris.
I have no idea who they are, but I'm sure a little Googling would turn up some names and more info.
Whatever, I don't see them being any less credible than the 'tards who have proven we are all going to drown in the next 50 years due to the seas rising 20 metres. Simple schoolboy maths: divide the volume of ice above sea level in the polar ice caps, divide it by the area of the worlds seas, and the answer is about 4"
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:30 pm
by katanaman
Paul B wrote:ChrisJC wrote:So who exactly were the 'scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders' who produced this declaration. Maybe it would have more credence if they owned up and could be seen to be genuine.
Chris.
I have no idea who they are, but I'm sure a little Googling would turn up some names and more info.
Whatever, I don't see them being any less credible than the 'tards who have proven we are all going to drown in the next 50 years due to the seas rising 20 metres. Simple schoolboy maths: divide the volume of ice above sea level in the polar ice caps, divide it by the area of the worlds seas, and the answer is about 4"
I agree thats its not the end of the earth but the end is near brigade aren't quoting just ice melting. Infact many get it wrong from the start as floating ice that melts wont increase the sea level at all, its only land born ice that can do that. Try it, fill a glass with ice and top it off with water, when the ice has melted the level wont have flooded over the top. What they also quote is the warming and expansion of the ocean. This could account for a big rise in level if the ocean warmed enough.
Googling gives up very little on the OP so I don't think there were many noble prize winners in the group.
A huge amount of the hysteria though is whipped up by governments who have realised its a huge cash cow. All these taxes being collected in the name of the environment but none of it being handed back to save it. Hopefully some day the general public will wake up and realise they are being fleeced.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:03 am
by ppyvabw
Paul B wrote:ChrisJC wrote: Simple schoolboy maths: divide the volume of ice above sea level in the polar ice caps, divide it by the area of the worlds seas, and the answer is about 4"
Not even that. As water freezes it expands. So as the ice thaws, the volume of water from thawing is less than the volume of the ice...
Like Marki's suggestion about putting ice in a glass. The level of the glass will hardly rise because the volume of ice is much greater than the water. Don't fill the glass with ice though, because then the level will certainly go down, just a few pieces.
Which is why engine blocks can crack if the water freezes....
Of course it depends how much ice there is...but I doubt there is any where near enough to raise the sea levels to 20 bloody metres. And with the temperature changes they are predicting, say 3 or 4 degreesC, there is no way thermal expansion of the water can make it rise that much.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:23 am
by ChrisJC
Ah yes, but when you look at the quantity of ice locked up on Antarctica, Greenland, high mountain ranges around the world, some of it 1000's of metres thick, I can see that making a difference.
The point is, it will only take a small change to cause havoc as there's an awful lot of developed land only marginally above sea level.
Chris.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:45 pm
by chodjinn
Bah. I hate all this climate change business. I'm a geologist/engineer and have done extensive research (at uni) into climate change. I honestly don't believe humans are having anywhere near the impact that some people claim.
As mentioned above, climate change occurs anyway, and has done since the beginning of time. There are sooooo many factors involved it boggles the mind, yet some people only seem to pick what is convenient for whatever they are doing at the time.
For example, deforestation. Since the 1980s green groups have been harping on about deforestation and the negative effect it has on the global climate. I wish people would just shut the f**k up about it because its total bollocks. And gas emissions from industrial activity . . . which is far out-trumped (literally!) by the levels of methane produced from bovine farming the world over, no one ever mentions that one do they?!
And don't get me started on the polar ice caps crap. Grow some common sense, don't live on a floodplain, and don't buy shares in polar exploration companies. But don't start building houses on stilts either; I think a 4" rise is pushing it actually lol.
Unfortunately, in the world we live today, convenience and scare mongering has taken over common sense.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:59 pm
by katanaman
chodjinn wrote:
And gas emissions from industrial activity . . . which is far out-trumped (literally!) by the levels of methane produced from bovine farming the world over, no one ever mentions that one do they?!
Funny you should say that. I read this last week and it is an actual scientific study. I cant remember the figures as in tonnes of green house gasses but.... On average every American eats 3 cheese burgers a week and when you track the emissions on the manufacturing and all that it relates to something like 3 times the amount of GHG than all the 4x4's in America. The main reason for this is the cows the meat came from.
So there you have it guys.... save the planet by not eating burgers!!!!
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:41 pm
by chodjinn
Yes! McDondalds, Burger King et al have a hell of a lot to answer for!!
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:05 pm
by Stu E
Global warming, ice ages, ice melting.
Surely a better way of describing this is
EVOLUTION.
Or as NO 10 would say TAX
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:29 am
by chodjinn
well technically evolution is applicable to organisms, not a planet.
I would just call it weather lol . . .
In all seriousness though, the planet waxes and wanes with respect to climate, temperature etc etc etc, we're just experiencing a slightly warmer bit at the moment. We had a near ice-age in Victorian times . . . so things do and will change quickly.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:51 am
by ChrisJC
We are affecting the atmosphere in a way that has not happened before, so we mustn't be surprised when the environment responds in unexpected way......
The problem is that we can't be sure, but we can play it safe or just stick our heads in the sand........
Chris.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:05 pm
by chodjinn
ok, well for example look at the eruption of Mount St Helens in the early 1980s. There was a hug volume of poop erupted that circled the entire globe and caused a Global temperature drop of between 1 and 2 degrees Celcius.
That is an absolutely massive amount, especially for a single disaster event. Yet the alleged volume of CO2 etc etc put into the atmosphere over the last 200 years by industrial activity is far, far greater, yet this hasn't had anywhere near the same effect.
I'm not going to make a decision, I'll be a pain and sit on the fence with regard to human activity vs. global warming. However, as Chris says, we can't be 100% either way on the argument, because there are so many things to consider.
OPersonally, I think we should monitor and take account of our activity w.r.t. the global climate, and take action where we can. However, I don't agree with all this scaremongering and I certianly don't agree with Governments (our own and others) using 'climate change' (which as a statement is sooo vague, overused, misused etc) as an excuse for hiking taxes etc.