Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What do YOU think about CO2 & Global Warming watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: global warming & carbon emissions
    I don't believe CO2 is warming up earth/global warming is our fault/etc
    15
    24.59%
    I think it's happening and its our fault and we should minimise carbon emmisions
    38
    62.30%
    I don't care one iota about it all
    8
    13.11%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    OK so Ive been studying this all week, and surprizingly Ive bumped into half of the YouTube community who vehemently swear global warming is Fairy Tales and COs is not a pollution and the Kyoto Protocol is unfounded bogus to distribute wealth to the 3rd world and Carbon tax is a plot to make a multi-million-dollar buisness from corrupt Wall-Street investors.
    Of course these people are the insipid Republican community of the Southern American States, but I haven't bumped into claim only ONCE that CO2 and all doesn't heat up the earth.
    I'm a bit of a fanatic on environmentalism, but


    tl;dr
    do you:poke: think CO2/global warming is not true?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is the greatest fraud ever to be visited upon the human race.

    AGW is not good science.

    The UN IPCC is thoroughly unobjective and practically useless.

    The UEA Climate Change unit is academically redundant, and has no place in serious debate.

    CO2 emissions are as high as they've ever been - and how much global warming has there been over the last 10 years? None.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emerset)
    Ive bumped into half of the YouTube community
    It was always going to go wrong past this point.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    i find this very interesting. subscribed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    I think it is the greatest fraud ever to be visited upon the human race.

    AGW is not good science.

    The UN IPCC is thoroughly unobjective and practically useless.

    The UEA Climate Change unit is academically redundant, and has no place in serious debate.

    CO2 emissions are as high as they've ever been - and how much global warming has there been over the last 10 years? None.
    Your first statement is a personal opinion; your last statement is false; your intermediary statements are extremist although they bring up good debatable topics.
    What about pollution directly affecting quality of life and sickness, don't tell me you opose that argument do you?
    Canada has it's hottest summer in all recorded history last summer. It was a ****ing heatwave. I dont like to be extreme but you attack without backing defame without alternative suggesting. So in essence that's futile.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by creak)
    It was always going to go wrong past this point.
    lol course
    what do you think about it? Im wondering if its a worldwide idea or an american thing to think its all lame fake and gay. vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Didn't global warming cease to exist as an idea when it become apparent to all that we aren't all burning up so it instead became climate change as that covered everything?

    Absolute crock of ****. All of it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emerset)
    OK so Ive been studying this all week, and surprizingly Ive bumped into half of the YouTube community who vehemently swear global warming is Fairy Tales and COs is not a pollution and the Kyoto Protocol is unfounded bogus to distribute wealth to the 3rd world and Carbon tax is a plot to make a multi-million-dollar buisness from corrupt Wall-Street investors.
    Of course these people are the insipid Republican community of the Southern American States, but I haven't bumped into claim only ONCE that CO2 and all doesn't heat up the earth.
    I'm a bit of a fanatic on environmentalism, but


    tl;dr
    do you:poke: think CO2/global warming is not true?
    I believe that it makes sense that if your pour billions of tonnes of CO2, fumes etc. into the air then something will change. I believe I'm not qualified well enough to know anything about it further than that, and that I should leave it to the experts. The vast majority of those say that it exists.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    Didn't global warming cease to exist as an idea when it become apparent to all that we aren't all burning up so it instead became climate change as that covered everything?

    Absolute crock of ****. All of it.
    Erm, global warming is still very much there as an idea, I don't know where you get that idea from. Most climate change is warming, so they are often used interchangeably.

    So do you think putting millions and millions of tonnes of CO2 and other pollutants will not change the atmosphere/climate?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeeC)
    I believe that it makes sense that if your pour billions of tonnes of CO2, fumes etc. into the air then something will change. I believe I'm not qualified well enough to know anything about it further than that, and that I should leave it to the experts. The vast majority of those say that it exists.
    I agree with you heartily. Just look at the lakes and oceans to prove how artificial waste can mess up the environment.
    But if for nothing else, coal fumes and carbon monoxide are poisonous. That, let me state, is not a theory. carbon monoxide is being injested as carbon fossils are being burnt up without complete combustion. Look at the cities to see the depreciating air. I dare say London was worse off in the coal industry era, but that only proves my point even stronger.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I laugh at people claiming 'it's just the government’s excuse to tax us'. Don't you think the worlds governments might have a vested interest in keeping climate change under wraps since it requires huge change and investment to solve?

    Especially since the nature of state democracy ensures governments aren't interested in the planets welfare, since they’re only interesting in staying in power at the next election.

    Also the united opinion of the scientific community has to count for something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeeC)
    Erm, global warming is still very much there as an idea, I don't know where you get that idea from. Most climate change is warming, so they are often used interchangeably.

    So do you think putting millions and millions of tonnes of CO2 and other pollutants will not change the atmosphere/climate?
    It's no longer referred to as global warming, but climate change.

    You don't need to be a genius to work out why they desperately needed to come up with that name change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    Also the united opinion of the scientific community has to count for something.
    Does it?

    Let's remind ourselves of those e-mails that the UEA so desperately didn't want revealed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...us-quotes.html

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted

    From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
    "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
    Related Articles

    Scientist at centre of leaked email row stands by his findings
    25 Nov 2009

    Climategate: Phil Jones accused of error of judgment
    03 Dec 2009

    Is climate change debate misleading?
    24 Nov 2009

    Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims
    24 Nov 2009

    The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

    From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
    "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

    Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

    Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

    From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
    "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

    Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.

    From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
    "Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

    The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    Does it?

    Let's remind ourselves of those e-mails that the UEA so desperately didn't want revealed.
    [...]
    Ok so you've put together a scrambled collection of quotes & articles quoting a Dr Phil Jones 8 times in a collection of 15 quotes. So there are scientists who disagree with the whole global warming/pollution thing.
    Let me remind you there are also scientists who strongly believe God created the Earth 6000 years ago.
    But the vast majority don't.
    And every nation that counts except USA has signed the Kyoto protocol committing to reduce carbon emissions.
    Number fall in my side here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    We may be speeding it up but global climate change is inevitable, it's one huge cycle and we can't stop it. We can possibly reduce the speed we are increasing the rate of change but that's about it. Me switching off my light when I leave the room for 20 minutes isn't going to do **** but perhaps save me less than 1p.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    We live on a planet which is in close proximity to a star which is inexorably heating up as part of its natural lifecycle, ergo global warming is a 100% certainty, and what better odds for basing political policy and taxation is there ? The surface of our planet is 70% covered by water, and when you consider that 94% of warming is attributed to water vapour, we can again see why the much propagandised human influence begins to falter. It is reported that if humans were removed from the Earth instantly, that the 0.6% of all CO2 production attributable to us would make no difference whatsoever. Bovine flatulence and termites are actually more harmful to the atmosphere ! If we also consider the 730m cars on the planet which have been targetted as one of the great evils of our time, it takes just 15, that's FIFTEEN, not 15m, or 15,000, but fifteen large container ships to produce as much pollution as all 730m cars ! One wonders if the politicians might have been better directing their policies at more localised production and manufacturing to reduce the need for these vessels. Indeed, it confuses me why it is cheaper to buy butter from New Zealand than that made 30 miles from my home in North Yorkshire ! We could also look into some of the solutions to the problem. Wind turbines are known to be performing WELL under expected targets for energy production, and are plagued by unreliability, reducing their viability. To further erode their justification, the neodimium magnets used in their generators is known to be causing enormous ecological devastation in China, which happens to sit on 95% of the worlds deposits of this rare earth mineral. On a similar vein we could criticise the nickel based batteries used in many hybrid cars, which have for many decades been destroying swathes of North America. Add in the shipping of these materials and the vehicles themselves, and their known limited life-span, and again we are looking at a flawed model. The planet is a living, breathing entity, and we all live or die at its will, along with that of our Sun. The power man thinks he has is inconsequential compared to nature, something proved recently in Japan. A single volcano could plunge us into another ice-age in a time-scale so short we would barely believe it. And yet other natural events take place over milennia with us barely noticing. When I sit atop of Malham Cove in Yorkshire, I am sitting on coral and fish bones from the bottom of a tropical sea. How the Hell did it get 1000 feet above sea level, in the middle of a country, high in the temperate zone ! We have been suckered by the biggest lie in political history, which has generated more revenue for governments and eroded more personal freedoms for the individual than any lie in the history of man, even more than the Bible. Even the messiah of AGW, Al Gore, has amassed a personal fortune of over $200m dollars since dropping his failed political career in favour of promoting the UN's agenda. Would you believe anyone with such a vested interest ? I see no need for us to be needlessly wasteful, nor unnecessarilly pollutive, but the finacial assault on the people of this world, and the laws and restrictions being forced on us by corrupt liars in the chambers of power need to stop.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    Does it?

    Let's remind ourselves of those e-mails that the UEA so desperately didn't want revealed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...us-quotes.html

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted

    From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
    "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
    Related Articles

    Scientist at centre of leaked email row stands by his findings
    25 Nov 2009

    Climategate: Phil Jones accused of error of judgment
    03 Dec 2009

    Is climate change debate misleading?
    24 Nov 2009

    Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims
    24 Nov 2009

    The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

    From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
    "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

    Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

    Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

    From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
    "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

    Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.

    From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
    "Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

    The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.
    do a bit of research mate.

    -debunked
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    Does it?

    Let's remind ourselves of those e-mails that the UEA so desperately didn't want revealed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...us-quotes.html

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
    You idiot.

    (Original post by http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4806280-mikes-nature-trick-explained)
    Mike is Michael Mann, not the film director but the scientist from Penn State. “Nature” is the journal that Mike printed his chart that used the “trick”. The “trick” is…well…let’s let Mike explain it.

    On November 26 of this year a Pennsylvania newspaper asked Mike about the emails:

    Mann said his trick, or ''trick of the trade,'' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998.

    He combined the two kinds of measurements, he said, because scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator. Recent pollution and other factors have distorted tree-ring widths and density, he said.

    ''The decline'' in Jones' e-mail refers not to a decline in temperatures, but to a decline in the scientific usefulness of tree rings that have formed in the last five decades, Mann said, noting his chart clearly identified where all his data came from.

    So the “trick” isn’t a deceptive trick, it’s a “trick of the trade”. Something he and other scientists do to ensure accurate data.

    The tree rings are unreliable and so they substitute real temperatures beyond 1960. Kind of shiesty I know, but the “trick” is stated on the chart. No one tried to hide the “trick”. In fact the trick is almost advertised.
    Get your sh*t straight before you start pushing conspiracy theorys.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I don't know tbh. All I can say is that the planet's climate is changing that the only way to stop it is going to be geoengineering
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emerset)
    What about pollution directly affecting quality of life and sickness, don't tell me you opose that argument do you?
    That's a completely separate issue, and in fact one that I think is covered up by people's obsession with "carbon dioxide", which is about as inert and biologically harmless as could be. I am far more concerned by other pollutants, but I appreciate the general public, scientifically-illiterate as they are, need a simple villain against which to direct their anger.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 27, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.