Climate change:Global cooling?
-
The copenhagen climate talks recently has caused many of us to rethink how the world may live a more sustainable way but the question is whether global warming is a given fact.Others are saying we are actually approaching an ice age.
So even before we talk about emission cuts and green economy, let's ask ourselves which scenerio are we headed, ice or fire?
-
It's all about $$$ in Copenhagen, green or otherwise.
-
Even the scientists could not agree to get their facts straight:( Ice age or global warming please make up your minds!!
-
It when one can't breathe the fresh air that got them worried. Otherwise still $$$.
-
Personally though I'm not an environmental scientist, global warming has been used far too often by interest groups like energy and agri companies to further their agendas.
To control our energy and food supply and demand . lesser usage means more affordable energy and food supplies .High demand in a resource scarce world doesn't work out in the long term so it seems.
-
Originally posted by Catknight:
Even the scientists could not agree to get their facts straight:( Ice age or global warming please make up your minds!!
A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophyA professor of physics and a professor of chemistry can both be classified as scientists but they most likely will not be able to do each other's job as well
Climatologists, on the other hand are experts in the field of studying the climate. And 97% of them(http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html) agree on global warming and it is caused by humans.
I don't know where you got the conclusion that they are not agreeing.
So please, don't use scientists as if they're all the same thing.
-
i think we will be heading for fire....so many lights in orchard eh...
-
Originally posted by Catknight:
The copenhagen climate talks recently has caused many of us to rethink how the world may live a more sustainable way but the question is whether global warming is a given fact.Others are saying we are actually approaching an ice age.
So even before we talk about emission cuts and green economy, let's ask ourselves which scenerio are we headed, ice or fire?
As much as I support cleaning up the environment for the sake of future generations, the general public have a right to know. Climatologists, for all they high sounding names, are nothing more than weather boys.
And Earth have several more disciplines that would be affected by climate change than just the weather.
With the highly controversial 'Climategate' incident, whereby climatogists had been found out mis-interpretating weather and temperatures data to support their claims, I believed that as a rational person, more studies would be needed, for the sake of clarity, to find the truth and the fair balance for economies to grow.
Furthermore, to be fair, it will be taxpayers - you and me, who will have to come out with funds for saving the environment, and best make sure it is usefully spent and not frivously to make a few 'tree-huggers' happy. Our money had not been easy to earn.
Education, and not lies, is the way for our masses to be responsible for our planet.
So please, the masses have a right to know and not just accept the data and opinions from the weather guys
The list of reputable scientists that questioned the authencity of 'climate change' or whatever name the weather boys want to water it down to:-
Peace.
-
The issue and controversy surrounding Climate Change is not the reality of it, but rather - the CAUSE of it.
Climatologist ( weathermen) blamed it on men as the cause, even though carbon emissions from man is less than what our environment would create on its own.Earthquakes, tidal waves, temperature havocs, storms had always been present since men began recording history.
No matter what we do and how much we spend, it will not account for a significant change to the climate, except perhaps a better environment.
The cause of Earth's instability does not come from men. We have no control over the air, land and sea. Earth had NEVER been a stable planet. How we mankind managed to survived as long as we did was simply because we had been adaptable.
Rather than to keep harping on mankind to spend money to limit carbon emission is a fatal course of action, for it is in denial of the truth of what's happening on Earth.
Instead, we should be spending money on how to be ADAPTABLE to the instability of Earth. Poor planning in Urban developement will kill us all instead, and not Climate change.
eg: 1. Cutting down trees to make better use of land will deprive the environment of oxygen, but we can always replant each tree cut down with genetically modified trees of better oxygen capacity within cities and developements, even on roofs if necessary. Economic and Environment win win situation.
2, Research on better materials for buildings in quake zones should be made mandatory. eg- why build skyrises in the san adrea faultlines when we know the teutonic plates are instable?
3. Limit urban sprawls to the coastal areas of if necessary, construct habitats with a height allowance of 1 meter above sea level, as in the event of ice caps melting, the sea level will only rise not more than 1 meter.
4. More spending by small island states on their infrastructure to keep it above sea level, by hardwork and thrift to their economy, will help them keep their soveriegnity rather than to beg for charity for rich nations.
The Copenhagen talks were doomed to disaster, and rightfully so, for it had been a wrong approach on a wrong cause, in denial of what actually should be done to adapt to earth's changes. It is indeed laughable to presume we mere men could cause damage to earth or even the universe. Well, the weathermen had never been known to be accurate in their predictions anyway.
Here's something that may account for Earth's changes.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
-
Originally posted by Empowerment:
The issue and controversy surrounding Climate Change is not the reality of it, but rather - the CAUSE of it.
Climatologist ( weathermen) blamed it on men as the cause, even though carbon emissions from man is less than what our environment would create on its own.Earthquakes, tidal waves, temperature havocs, storms had always been present since men began recording history.
No matter what we do and how much we spend, it will not account for a significant change to the climate, except perhaps a better environment.
The cause of Earth's instability does not come from men. We have no control over the air, land and sea. Earth had NEVER been a stable planet. How we mankind managed to survived as long as we did was simply because we had been adaptable.
Rather than to keep harping on mankind to spend money to limit carbon emission is a fatal course of action, for it is in denial of the truth of what's happening on Earth.
Instead, we should be spending money on how to be ADAPTABLE to the instability of Earth. Poor planning in Urban developement will kill us all instead, and not Climate change.
eg: 1. Cutting down trees to make better use of land will deprive the environment of oxygen, but we can always replant each tree cut down with genetically modified trees of better oxygen capacity within cities and developements, even on roofs if necessary. Economic and Environment win win situation.
2, Research on better materials for buildings in quake zones should be made mandatory. eg- why build skyrises in the san adrea faultlines when we know the teutonic plates are instable?
3. Limit urban sprawls to the coastal areas of if necessary, construct habitats with a height allowance of 1 meter above sea level, as in the event of ice caps melting, the sea level will only rise not more than 1 meter.
4. More spending by small island states on their infrastructure to keep it above sea level, by hardwork and thrift to their economy, will help them keep their soveriegnity rather than to beg for charity for rich nations.
The Copenhagen talks were doomed to disaster, and rightfully so, for it had been a wrong approach on a wrong cause, in denial of what actually should be done to adapt to earth's changes. It is indeed laughable to presume we mere men could cause damage to earth or even the universe. Well, the weathermen had never been known to be accurate in their predictions anyway.
Here's something that may account for Earth's changes.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
Firstly no one has yet been able to bring out any concrete proof of there being another reason for global warming. Solar activity does not colate with the warming of the planet, there has been warming before yes and we still do not know what happened then and how different it would be with 7 billion people burning fossil fuels, spewing carbon dioxde at an unpreceded rate.
There is absolutely no connection between the content in your nasa link that can be used to explain global warming.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hold a PHD or to become a professor before you start labelling them as glorified weather boys? Btw, weather and climate are 2 different things.
You're pretty comfortable with your doctor's prescription no? Would you be so comfortable if it was a chemist or a biologist doing it?
Your list of "reputable scientists"? The majority are not even climate scientists in the first place. Scientists need to come to a majority concensus before any theory can be considered as fact, a minority simply means it failed peer review by scientists in the same field
Again, stop abusing the term scientists. Just because they are intelligent in one field does not mean they are just as intelligent and competent on another. Would you trust in a bridge designed by an economist?
I would think nuclear weapons would be a pretty good indication of our ability to destroy this world isn't it?
Remember , though it takes alot to destroy the world (which i take it to mean to atoms) it in fact takes little to exterminate life on Earth and a little shift in a few degrees is all it takes to make supporting 7 -8 billion humans a nearly impossible task.
You don't get it do you? Do you seriously think when the sea levels change we in the cities could survive with our life style unchanged with just a change in infrastructure?
Do you not also trust the engineers, economists, geologists when they attempt to build the infrastructure?
What about the food and raw materials from the places not in the city? Rising sea levels and global warming would hit them first, then the cities are just tombs of steel and concrete.
Humans do not prosper till now just because we are capable of adapting. One of our strength is the ability to look at an occurance and predict possible patterns. That is how agriculture, domestication of animals and irrigation come about. A lot of our technology concepts come from observing natural occurances.
Now the majority of the folks who have spent their lives on observing such things are telling us there is a high 90% possibility ( no decent scientists would ever say 100% ) that manmade activities are causing global warming that could cause potentially caused unknown levels of destruction.
And you ignore them because you think they've wasted decades of their lives being weather boys?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Firstly no one has yet been able to bring out any concrete proof of there being another reason for global warming. Solar activity does not colate with the warming of the planet, there has been warming before yes and we still do not know what happened then and how different it would be with 7 billion people burning fossil fuels, spewing carbon dioxde at an unpreceded rate.
There is absolutely no connection between the content in your nasa link that can be used to explain global warming.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hold a PHD or to become a professor before you start labelling them as glorified weather boys? Btw, weather and climate are 2 different things.
You're pretty comfortable with your doctor's prescription no? Would you be so comfortable if it was a chemist or a biologist doing it?
Your list of "reputable scientists"? The majority are not even climate scientists in the first place. Scientists need to come to a majority concensus before any theory can be considered as fact, a minority simply means it failed peer review by scientists in the same field
Again, stop abusing the term scientists. Just because they are intelligent in one field does not mean they are just as intelligent and competent on another. Would you trust in a bridge designed by an economist?
I would think nuclear weapons would be a pretty good indication of our ability to destroy this world isn't it?
Remember , though it takes alot to destroy the world (which i take it to mean to atoms) it in fact takes little to exterminate life on Earth and a little shift in a few degrees is all it takes to make supporting 7 -8 billion humans a nearly impossible task.
You don't get it do you? Do you seriously think when the sea levels change we in the cities could survive with our life style unchanged with just a change in infrastructure?
Do you not also trust the engineers, economists, geologists when they attempt to build the infrastructure?
What about the food and raw materials from the places not in the city? Rising sea levels and global warming would hit them first, then the cities are just tombs of steel and concrete.
Humans do not prosper till now just because we are capable of adapting. One of our strength is the ability to look at an occurance and predict possible patterns. That is how agriculture, domestication of animals and irrigation come about. A lot of our technology concepts come from observing natural occurances.
Now the majority of the folks who have spent their lives on observing such things are telling us there is a high 90% possibility ( no decent scientists would ever say 100% ) that manmade activities are causing global warming that could cause potentially caused unknown levels of destruction.
And you ignore them because you think they've wasted decades of their lives being weather boys?
I am glad that at least out of so many sgforumers here, at least there is one here who is concern about our environment.
1. The field of climatology is cross linked with several disciplines, such as mathematics for climate modelling and statistics, geology, paleotology, physics, etc. Scientists in such fields are not limited to 'climatology' discipline itself, but are shared with knowledge from scientists of other fields as well.
Thus what a 'climatologist' may claim,is not exclusive as other scientists are fully capable of accessing and comprehending their data, which unfortunately had found out to be tampered with. The evidences are clear and irrefutable, and up to your belief systems to accept. Best not to live with lies.
2. Climate Change is a fact, but a fact that had been around since mankind started keeping records at the dawn of civilisation. You had chosen to ignore the level of natural carbon emission as compared to mankind, but it your belief system to be denial and ignore facts to support your stance.
3. Crops are not grown at coastal areas, and in the event of a sea-level rise, the agricultural hinterland will not be affected. The rise is not going to be as dramatic as what you saw in the ridiculous movie '2012'. It's only going to be around 1m gradually.
With or without limiting our carbon emissions, Climate Change will still occur, thus those agri land near rivers would have to be protected by dykes, or shifted further inland, thru improved techniques of water supply and fertilization.
Mankind had always innovated, as you claimed - the ability to look at an occurance and predict possible patterns - which proves my point - adaptability to changes.
I reiterate - Climate Change is a fact - but carbon emissions by man is NOT a major cause. Please do not be mislead that man has the ability to reverse climate change, or focus solely on 'carbon emissions'.
To focus only on such, will mislead us to neglect other causes of climate change, of which we have no equal control over, except to quickly adapt to those changes, of which funding should be applied immediately, such as building dykes, research on solar energy, etc and not on 'carbon offsets'- paying the indonesian farmer not to cut his trees!
Hope you 'get it' now.