Global warming fact or fiction - do you believe?
Over half of the UK does not believe in global warming a recent poll has suggested lately. So what does this mean? Why are the people of the United Kingdom feeling that global warming isn't real?
Well, I am sitting on the fence at the moment, and truly analysis all the data that we can see from both camps. Lately a thing called 'climategate' made me think even more what is going on. I was ready to except that 'global warming' or its new religious name 'climate change' was man made, and we as people should do something about it. Until a bunch of hacked emails from a climologist well known in his field gets found out for manipulating the data, to prove his theory.
So it begs the question, who else is doing this? Who else is making man-made results of climate change and who else is playing us? I watch the news, and for a whole week ITV went to Mount Everest, and showed a glacier that was melting... the trouble is, they tend to melt this time of year down there, as its just coming out of there summer, with average temperature of about 0'c. So what are ITV doing? Why are they pulling the wool over peoples eyes? They did the same with obese children, a band wagon of news with one liners scrolling on the bottom of the screen with 'factoiods' of information. But when you peel away at these little facts they all come to one source. Same with climate change information. Government lead science programs.
The disaster that happened in the north of England, in a town called Cockermouth. Was a sad and terrifying disaster. I had once witnessed a very similar disaster in my home town in west Wales in the 80s, but even then experts and government lead once back then said that it was a one in hundred year event. It happens we have cycles in our weather that people cant explain.
So global warming, is another cycle in our weather that we can't explain. Facts are this, sea temperatures are going down, average temperature has dropped, and glaciers are not melting but getting bigger. There is a climate change, but not the type of end of world apocalypse that we are all leaded to believe. People rattle on about we need to do something, but it's all a paradox. If we do something what's to say we don't cause the problems!?
Its like when people go on about nature reserves and how we must look after a certain species of animal. But the problem is looking after one animal has detrimental effects on the surrounding animals, like reintroducing Beavers to the UK, its actually causing problems and not solving them. Human interference isn't always a good thing.
So tell me people? Are you a global warming denier? What do you feel we should do about it? We are experiencing a change of climate, but it's nothing to do with temperature, its all to do with money in my humble opinion.
By: Mark
Comments from visitors
Al Bore, oops, Al Gore has become a multi millionaire from the sale of his Global Warming books and videos bought by the Global Warming Alarmists. He also made a mint from his investments made in the Carbon Tax credits system. When will you Global Warming Fanatics start to use your last remaining brain cell. I do rant a little, but it's just that I am a tad fed up with all this Global Warming Scamming. The biggest threat to our planet is overpopulation.
I guess we need to have a global nuclear war to thin the population down a bit....buckets full of sunshine, that's what we need to solve the problem.
I guess we need to have a global nuclear war to thin the population down a bit....buckets full of sunshine, that's what we need to solve the problem.
+1
Click to rate 
Report
I don't believe in it. I would say that the earth is definitely heating up though.
0
Click to rate Report
Al Gore is a lying effeminate pedantic tree-hugging lisping misogynist hectoring overstuffed self-absorbed grandiose condescending thieving hypocritical limp-wristed greasy dictatorial masseuse-fondling snotnosed pompous douchenozzle.
+2
Click to rate Report
I understand that My-pet-borg-is-dead likens us to a virus due to our ability to raze entire ecosystems in the blink of an eye. However, unlike viruses, we can choose whether to destroy or to preserve our own environment. It's an advantage that, far from likening us to viruses, differentiates us from all other forms of life on Earth. If we may be the planet's greatest enemy, then we may be its saviour as well, for the same reason.
-1
Click to rate Report
Oh, and what's Moonbat's degree? Zoology, wasn't it? Not exactly proper science then...
+1
Click to rate Report
Ah, another climate change worshipper shows up trying to prove me wrong. Have you ever stopped to consider that CO2 is one of the main building blocks of life? Without it, life on Earth could not exist. Or the fact that CO2 levels were much higher in the Cretaceous period than in the present? Frankly, I will not bow down and accept this climate change propaganda without a fight.
+2
Click to rate Report
"d) past natural climate changes have a different primary cause from what is being seen now."
How do you know? Why can current climate change not be happening for the same reasons it happened before?
Incidentally I have seen much of the science "proving" AGW debunked too.
How do you know? Why can current climate change not be happening for the same reasons it happened before?
Incidentally I have seen much of the science "proving" AGW debunked too.
-3
Click to rate Report
grumpyoldwoman - 5-Jun-11 17:52
grumpy,
'...we can both quote scientific articles which support our views'
Well you haven't cited anything. There was the claim about 'Mt. Pinatubob in the Phillipines' and Bellamy, both easily debunked false claims, pseudo-scientific definitely, but scientific? Not remotely. At least what I've cited is linked to the science.
At least you could try getting your facts right.
'...we can both quote scientific articles which support our views'
Well you haven't cited anything. There was the claim about 'Mt. Pinatubob in the Phillipines' and Bellamy, both easily debunked false claims, pseudo-scientific definitely, but scientific? Not remotely. At least what I've cited is linked to the science.
At least you could try getting your facts right.
+2
Click to rate Report
grumpy,
'How does your hero Moonbat explain the fact that it was warm enough in this country in Roman and medieval times to grow grapes for wine in many areas where it is too cold nowadays?'
First of all, Monbiot isn't my hero, AFAIK he's a reliable journalist [a rare beast when many journalists literally make stuff up]. Of his articles that I've read, they seem to stand-up.
Is Bellamy a climatologist? Or a botanist?
Bellamy has been very unreliable about his claims as Monbiot showed. Arguing about historical vineyards:
a) isn't relevant because the UK is only a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface and cannot be used as an indicator of global climate.
b) The Mediaeval Warm Period was most probably probably regional - and not globally warmer than now. This means that some areas may have been warmer, while other areas cooler.
c) The Mediaeval Warm Period was most probably not globally synchronous.
d) past natural climate changes have a different primary cause from what is being seen now.
e) Bellamy's point regarding vineyards is incredibly flimsy.
I think it's very sad about Bellamy, but he's just wrong. He wasn't scientific and used data from unreliable sources, just like when he claimed “Indeed, if you take all the evidence that is rarely mentioned by the Kyotoists into consideration, 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980” - also untrue.
Bellamy seems to have lost his marbles. Unlike some people, at least he had some, once.
Medieval warmth and English wine
http://tinyurl.com/6zm5rfh
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
'How does your hero Moonbat explain the fact that it was warm enough in this country in Roman and medieval times to grow grapes for wine in many areas where it is too cold nowadays?'
First of all, Monbiot isn't my hero, AFAIK he's a reliable journalist [a rare beast when many journalists literally make stuff up]. Of his articles that I've read, they seem to stand-up.
Is Bellamy a climatologist? Or a botanist?
Bellamy has been very unreliable about his claims as Monbiot showed. Arguing about historical vineyards:
a) isn't relevant because the UK is only a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface and cannot be used as an indicator of global climate.
b) The Mediaeval Warm Period was most probably probably regional - and not globally warmer than now. This means that some areas may have been warmer, while other areas cooler.
c) The Mediaeval Warm Period was most probably not globally synchronous.
d) past natural climate changes have a different primary cause from what is being seen now.
e) Bellamy's point regarding vineyards is incredibly flimsy.
I think it's very sad about Bellamy, but he's just wrong. He wasn't scientific and used data from unreliable sources, just like when he claimed “Indeed, if you take all the evidence that is rarely mentioned by the Kyotoists into consideration, 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980” - also untrue.
Bellamy seems to have lost his marbles. Unlike some people, at least he had some, once.
Medieval warmth and English wine
http://tinyurl.com/6zm5rfh
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
-4
Click to rate Report
DSG
Try to get your facts right. So far your claims are wrong.
The Discovery of Global Warming - A history of the science from the American Institute of Physics.
http://tinyurl.com/yzcn8vv
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
http://tinyurl.com/me6mb6
Skeptical Science - Climate myths debunked with science.
http://sks.to/sun
Or pick any world-class scientific organisation, for example the Royal Society.
http://royalsociety.org/search.aspx?query=climate%20change
Try to get your facts right. So far your claims are wrong.
The Discovery of Global Warming - A history of the science from the American Institute of Physics.
http://tinyurl.com/yzcn8vv
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
http://tinyurl.com/me6mb6
Skeptical Science - Climate myths debunked with science.
http://sks.to/sun
Or pick any world-class scientific organisation, for example the Royal Society.
http://royalsociety.org/search.aspx?query=climate%20change
+2
Click to rate Report
Well, Factchecker, we can both quote scientific articles which support our views; what it comes down to in the end is which scientists you believe. Personally I always liked David Bellamy.
How does your hero Moonbat explain the fact that it was warm enough in this country in Roman and medieval times to grow grapes for wine in many areas where it is too cold nowadays?
How does your hero Moonbat explain the fact that it was warm enough in this country in Roman and medieval times to grow grapes for wine in many areas where it is too cold nowadays?
-2
Click to rate Report
grumpyoldwoman - 5-Jun-11 09:25
To those who think they know more about climate science than the world's climate scientists. Have you ever read a scientific paper about the climate? Most people's answers would be 'no'. Most people get their 'science' from newspapers and blogs. Not a reliable source.
Science isn't about politics.
Science is vastly more complicated than you realise and to properly understand climate science requires more than the ability to read the Daily Fail.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Want proof? The fact that you use a computer; mobile phone is proof enough.
Science isn't about politics.
Science is vastly more complicated than you realise and to properly understand climate science requires more than the ability to read the Daily Fail.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Want proof? The fact that you use a computer; mobile phone is proof enough.
-2
Click to rate Report
grumpyoldwoman
"Apparently when a volcano called Mt. Pinatubob in the Phillipines erupted in 1991 and kept going sporadically for more than a year it gave out more greenhouse gases than the human race has done in all of history."
grumpy,
You are wrong. BTW, the volcano's called Pinatubo. This drivel has been spread by a number of climate deceivers.
George Monbiot challenged Ian Plimer about his false claims, the response? Repeated false claims and prevarication. From 8.03-12.00 minutes onwards. It's a real scream, but not for Plimer – since then he's gone rather quiet. Video here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
Were Plimer's false claim actually true, scientists would expect to have seen a vast increase in volcanism, however this just isn't the case.
Volcanoes emit ~1% of the CO2 emitted by human activities, so your 'fact' was the exact reverse of the truth.
What theUSGS says:
“Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010)....”
USGS: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Also:
http://sks.to/volcano [for more information, click on the 'intermediate' tab.
"Apparently when a volcano called Mt. Pinatubob in the Phillipines erupted in 1991 and kept going sporadically for more than a year it gave out more greenhouse gases than the human race has done in all of history."
grumpy,
You are wrong. BTW, the volcano's called Pinatubo. This drivel has been spread by a number of climate deceivers.
George Monbiot challenged Ian Plimer about his false claims, the response? Repeated false claims and prevarication. From 8.03-12.00 minutes onwards. It's a real scream, but not for Plimer – since then he's gone rather quiet. Video here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
Were Plimer's false claim actually true, scientists would expect to have seen a vast increase in volcanism, however this just isn't the case.
Volcanoes emit ~1% of the CO2 emitted by human activities, so your 'fact' was the exact reverse of the truth.
What theUSGS says:
“Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010)....”
USGS: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Also:
http://sks.to/volcano [for more information, click on the 'intermediate' tab.
-5
Click to rate Report
My-pet-borg-is-dead,
“….the human race only contributes 3% of the total C02 each year why all the "save the planet " nonsense....”
You are completely wrong.
“the human race only contributes 3% of the total CO2 each year”, assuming you mean 3% of the increased C02 each year, you are completely wrong.
The natural CO2 fluxes are much greater than the man-made contribution, but this isn't the whole story since the natural fluxes have been balanced, barring increases in temperature, these fluxes, both plus and minus balance out. It is the man-made emissions which cannot be absorbed. The warming being seen threatens to change the balance of natural fluxes and make carbon sinks outgas.
http://sks.to/co2
Effectively, the increase is due to human activity. It is primarily from burning CO2, with a contribution from land use changes. The amount of fossil CO2 is determined by using isotopes; measuring the declining ratio of oxygen, which means the carbon is caused by oxidation [combustion]; and by fossil-fuel accounting.
Time history of atmospheric CO2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4
CO2 The Biggest Control Knob
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
“….the human race only contributes 3% of the total C02 each year why all the "save the planet " nonsense....”
You are completely wrong.
“the human race only contributes 3% of the total CO2 each year”, assuming you mean 3% of the increased C02 each year, you are completely wrong.
The natural CO2 fluxes are much greater than the man-made contribution, but this isn't the whole story since the natural fluxes have been balanced, barring increases in temperature, these fluxes, both plus and minus balance out. It is the man-made emissions which cannot be absorbed. The warming being seen threatens to change the balance of natural fluxes and make carbon sinks outgas.
http://sks.to/co2
Effectively, the increase is due to human activity. It is primarily from burning CO2, with a contribution from land use changes. The amount of fossil CO2 is determined by using isotopes; measuring the declining ratio of oxygen, which means the carbon is caused by oxidation [combustion]; and by fossil-fuel accounting.
Time history of atmospheric CO2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4
CO2 The Biggest Control Knob
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
-5
Click to rate Report
My-pet-borg-is-dead you have a very very good point. I still don't know if it's us humans that are tipping the balance, but it is us humans that are making it a worse place to live by our sheer numbers. I don't like the fact that I am contributing to destruction by the simple fact that I feel trapped into living in society and being consumer. There are plenty of people who feel that way. As much as I'd like to go and live in a shack and survive off the land it is not particularly viable, nor would it make much of a difference. The differences have to come by addressing population explosions (ooooh emotive issue!) and tackling all things none-renuable and/or poluting. Humanity has the technology, but those in power and those who run companies don't pull together to make things better, cleaner and less destructive. I am not slating them for it, what a difficult job that would be to pull resources into acheiving the clean-dream whilst trying to keep the economy going.
As a human race we don't see the big picture. We don't think as one, or as one make a decision that we will all do this or that and sacrifice our comforts or our financial positions in order to ultimately help the Earth to recover and leave a better place for our descendents. The vast mojority of us who care do what we can with the options we have, and those options are very limited.
As a human race we don't see the big picture. We don't think as one, or as one make a decision that we will all do this or that and sacrifice our comforts or our financial positions in order to ultimately help the Earth to recover and leave a better place for our descendents. The vast mojority of us who care do what we can with the options we have, and those options are very limited.
-5
Click to rate Report
Global warming may or may not exist but as the human race only contributes 3% of the total C02 each year why all the "save the planet " nonsense.
Should we not be concentrating on the main problem with planet Earth..............PEOPLE...... the ultimate planet parasite that destroys everything and conserves nothing.
Should we not be concentrating on the main problem with planet Earth..............PEOPLE...... the ultimate planet parasite that destroys everything and conserves nothing.
-6
Click to rate Report
My-pet-borg-is-dead - 25-May-11 17:00
Oh and apologies for the typing errors, but the points are valid, bad typing or not.
-3
Click to rate Report
Darn I amfrustrated at folk banging on about "climate change doesn't exist". I feel folk are missing an important point...
The fact as to whether or not we are contributing to climate-change is in debate. I appreciate that.
Global warming is real though, the evidence is there. Whether or not the Earth will be able to balance things out is in debate. I can see good scientific theories on both sides of the fence.
BUT what people who don't care about their emissions forget is the fact that we are poisoning our Earth, our water, our atmosphere, our food....... People and animals are suffering because of the chemicals we pump out. Whether or not we are contributing the the climate changes that ARE going on surely it would be better to live in a cleaner world, breathe clean air, have none-polluted oceans, to not have to ingest nasty chemicals in the food we eat.. the list goes on.
It's very selfish to say "I'm going to carry on pumping out these chemicals because I don't believe in global warming" or "global warming is a government scam so I'm going to carry this-and-that". a) you don't know for sure and b) even if you are right I don't want to be poisoned every day thank-you very much!
Green energy sources, and environmentally-concious living would benefit us all, our children, the plany we live on, whether it affects climatde change or not.
The fact as to whether or not we are contributing to climate-change is in debate. I appreciate that.
Global warming is real though, the evidence is there. Whether or not the Earth will be able to balance things out is in debate. I can see good scientific theories on both sides of the fence.
BUT what people who don't care about their emissions forget is the fact that we are poisoning our Earth, our water, our atmosphere, our food....... People and animals are suffering because of the chemicals we pump out. Whether or not we are contributing the the climate changes that ARE going on surely it would be better to live in a cleaner world, breathe clean air, have none-polluted oceans, to not have to ingest nasty chemicals in the food we eat.. the list goes on.
It's very selfish to say "I'm going to carry on pumping out these chemicals because I don't believe in global warming" or "global warming is a government scam so I'm going to carry this-and-that". a) you don't know for sure and b) even if you are right I don't want to be poisoned every day thank-you very much!
Green energy sources, and environmentally-concious living would benefit us all, our children, the plany we live on, whether it affects climatde change or not.
0
Click to rate Report
Global Warming is for real. It is the result of all the HOT AIR you know-nothings keep on spouting about.
0
Click to rate Report
The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.
Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.
Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.
Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.
Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.
+1
Click to rate Report
