Global Warming

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.

What do you think about Global Warming?

  • We caused it and we must try to fix it.

    Votes: 32 21.5%
  • We caused it but there's not much we can do about it.

    Votes: 8 5.4%
  • I'm not sure what caused it.

    Votes: 11 7.4%
  • What Global Warming?

    Votes: 5 3.4%
  • It's a natural cycle and nothing to worry about.

    Votes: 16 10.7%
  • It's a natural cycle and we need to adapt.

    Votes: 77 51.7%

  • Total voters
    149
  • Poll closed .

BorderReiver

Full Member
Mar 31, 2004
2,693
16
Norfolk U.K.
We only have to ask the right questions. Questions like "What will happen, if, for the next couple of hundred years, we continue to do what we have been doing for the last couple of hundred years?"

The "right" question is, "what new technologies will appear in the next two hundred years that will sort everything out?"

Two hundred years ago there was no electricity; cars; antibiotics; telephones; aircraft; universal adult suffrage; paved roads; etc. etc. etc. All things that hadn't even been thought of, and with the rapid acceleration of technology and science the next two hundred years will throw up stuff that would make us feel like Neanderthals.
 

antzy

Member
Sep 8, 2010
31
0
Dorset
stems from my deep belief that we have really f**ked this planet up.

China and India are developing at a scary pace and we need to acknowledge that our weather is becoming unpredictable and dangerous. The term global warming suggests we can all grow grape vines and olives, so I think the term is onerous. What it seems to mean for us as an island is that our weather will become more and more extreme and unpredictable.

Personally I see as a duty to encourage my children to learn to key skills that may come in handy one day.

This is said by someone who grew up with the original 'Survivors' series by the way
 

Gavmar

Life Member
Jan 24, 2010
413
0
Dagenham Essex
Some new info
US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

CLOSE [X]
By James Delingpole

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the More.. money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

blogs.telegraph.co.uk
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,732
1,984
Mercia
Aaah but wait Gavmar, someone will tootle along in a bit to explain that the good professor knows nothing about the subject in hand :)

The screams of "heretic" will be illuminated by the the burning torches glinting from the pitchforks ;)

I love the phrase "poison word". I suspect it applies equally to the term "denier". A purposefully insulting and emotive term, unscientific to its core and designed to resonant with other "deniers".

Red
 

Gavmar

Life Member
Jan 24, 2010
413
0
Dagenham Essex
Fluoridated water and toothpaste now there is an interesting conspiracy theory that effects us all, that I would like to hear peoples opinions on.
 
Last edited:

ged

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Jul 16, 2009
4,981
15
In the woods if possible.
Some new info
...
By James Delingpole
...
blogs.telegraph.co.uk

Hmmmm.

Mr. Delingpole also says (and interestingly you omitted this from your quotation):

"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels."

Curiously enough I don't feel the urge to read anything else that he might have written.
 

ged

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Jul 16, 2009
4,981
15
In the woods if possible.
Professor Lewis says he joined the American Physical Society (APS) in the 1940s. In 1996 the APS stated (see http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/96_2.cfm)

(Adopted by Council on May 06, 1996)

Our nation's complacency about the energy problem is dangerous. [snip] Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and aerosols are climbing; this will cause changes in temperature, precipitation, sea level, and weather patterns that may damage both human and natural systems. ...

The APS has not seen fit to retreat from its stance since then. In fact just over ten years later it went further, because the changes that in 1996 it warned would happen were by 2007 seen to be happening (see http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm)

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. ...

From the tone of his letter of resignation from the APS Professor Lewis is clearly upset. His hyperbole, accusations and a general lack of dispassionate argument hardly add weight to his rant. Some people find it uncomfortable that a vast body of scientific literature points to measurable changes in the climate, and to its causes. As far as I can tell either they have some sort of an agenda, or they find it inconvenient that their lifestyle will eventually have to change, and that the changes will ultimately be forced upon them -- by a majority which will by then have been persuaded that the measurements are indeed correct, and that they do in fact show that what is happening is very alarming indeed.

Unbalanced rantings published by (frankly, ludicrous) journalists won't change much of that.
 

Gavmar

Life Member
Jan 24, 2010
413
0
Dagenham Essex
Hi,
Interesting, I am no expert on the subject. It just seems to me there is as much if not more information out there to suggest a cooling effect rather than warming.
I just don't believe anymore what goverments say especially when they want to start taxing us without first having solid undisputable proof.
 

ged

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Jul 16, 2009
4,981
15
In the woods if possible.
It just seems to me there is as much if not more information out there to suggest a cooling effect rather than warming.

Be careful not to equate quantity and quality.

I just don't believe anymore what goverments say...

You'll get no argument from me there, but the American Physical Society isn't government. It advises the American government, who seem to have ignored it for quite a while.

...especially when they want to start taxing us without first having solid undisputable proof.

To make an ordered society possible requires that its members contribute in some way. That means taxes. The government don't take the taxes and run, they take the taxes and spend it on you. They don't necessarily do a very good job, and this morning for example Sir Philip Green told us that the outgoing government in the UK did a pretty appalling job. For reasons that aren't relevant to this thread I'm not sure it was as bad as he thinks, but equally I haven't his experience and I don't necessarily think I could have done any better than the outgoing government did. If you think you can do better, you should be out there getting yourself elected.

Taxing things which cause carbon emissions is just a way of trying to change habits and it's for your own good. In this case doubly for your own good. If there aren't taxes on things that cause carbon emissions there will have to be taxes on something else. Public expenditure has to be financed somehow, or there would be no dustbin collections, no roads, no police force, no hospitals, schools, armed forces, welfare state.

Don't mix up the issues of climate change with the simple fact that taxes are going to rise. At present rates, here in the UK the government borrows £2,500 for each one of us every year. That's pretty scary to me (although not nearly as scary as the changes we're seeing in the climate). They borrow that money on our behalf, and it is we who have to pay off the debts they run up for us. I gather things are even worse in the USA. Like the never ending spiral of increasing consumption of resources, this cannot continue, it's impossible. We have to pay our way. It isn't high finance, it's simple housekeeping but it's really nothing to do with global warming.
 

No Idea

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Sep 18, 2010
2,420
0
Dorset
I struggle a bit with global warming.

I keep hearing that co2 and carbon are causing the temp to rise.

I am not a scientist. I don&#8217;t listen to theories much as I don&#8217;t really understand them.

I have noticed that usually it gets warmer during the day and cooler at night.

I think that means that the warmth comes from the sun.

As I understand it from personal observation, if there are no clouds when the sun goes down, and none appear during the night, it ends up being cooler the following day.

That makes me think that heat escapes from our planet into space when the sun is round the other side &#8211; unless there are clouds, which act as insulation. I have no idea why this should be, as usually when I am damp or wet, I lose heat faster.

If there are clouds through the morning and on through the day, the temperature doesn&#8217;t rise so high. This makes me think that the clouds insulate the ground from the heat of the sun too. I think that might be because they are white and I guess, reflective and bounce the heat back.

I do think that our settlements make heat, as it feels a degree or so warmer as you walk into villages etc, from the countryside at night.

I have also stood in a huge carpark when 1,000 or so cars were started after a night event. The temperature didn't rise then, making me think the cars arnt the cause.

So far as I understand, carbon monoxide, from carbon and carbon dioxide from people, are both colourless gasses, which makes me think that they wouldn&#8217;t insulate very much. This makes me struggle with the idea that cars and carbon are responsible for global warming.

If the poles are melting, surely that would mean that the air going into that region is warmer than it used to be.

I am curious. Has anything happened in the last century or so around the equator that could affect cloud formations and air currents that travel towards the poles?

I am wondering if any lakes or seas, or anything else that can make clouds has disapeared, or stopped working.
 

tomongoose

Nomad
Oct 11, 2010
321
0
Plymouth
I have only just seen this thread and it really really upsets me :( I have not read every post, but from the poll and the ones I have read I am saddened, I have spent most of my life trying to raise awareness of global climate change and have come up against the same old arguments like its a natural cycle etc etc I have come to expect that of the general populace but I wrongly assumed that as you all seem intelligent and love the great outdoors that you would be more receptive to seeing how we have upset the balance. Obviously I can't expect everyone to be of the same opinion on everything or the world would be a boring place but without a global consensus and some real changes soon things are going to get worse.
 

durulz

Need to contact Admin...
Jun 9, 2008
1,755
1
Elsewhere
...I wrongly assumed that as you all seem intelligent and love the great outdoors that you would be more receptive to seeing how we have upset the balance...

Two things. Your rhetorical skills are poor - you equate people agreeing with you as 'intelligent', presupposing that those who disagree with you are unintelligent. That's a shoddy debating tactic to load your argument like that and expect people to fall for it. Secondly, your main argument is a non-sequitor - why, just because one likes to be outdoors, should it follow that one would agree that humans are affecting the climate? People who play golf go outside - would you expect the same of them? Or are you just relying on some kind of lazy stereotype (i.e. bushcrafters are into wood and natural things and are therefore also New Agers, for example)?
It obviously upsets you (as you say in your opening sentence) that people will think for themselves and some may disagree with you - what makes you think you are so 'right' and they so 'wrong'? Ah yes, because the intelligent ones agree with your ideas, and so the dissenters must be unintelligent. They were your words.

Me? I have absolutely no idea. For me, it's like who shot JFK - the truth is probably out there already but it's become so mired in argument and counter-argument that I can't tell what's right and what's not. I'm just a lay person. Yes, I could Find Out For Myself (tm) but I can't be bothered. I'm interested in some things and not interested in others, and I suppose that, ultimately, I'm not that interested in the climate debate. Like 99% of the population (which is why they don't find out for themselves either). So I do the best I can (split my refuse into 'recycle' and 'land fill', try not to be wasteful, and things like that) and let the Devil take the rest. That's the reality - deal with it.
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE