Alf Bentley Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Isn't the evidence now starting to show the planet is warming at a far slower rate than originally first thought? Piers Corbyn is very good on this, Sounds like you're a convinced Corbynista, Matt. Hope you're maintaining a healthy level of scepticism. Wouldn't want you to be drawn into a personality cult and then left disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Sounds like you're a convinced Corbynista, Matt. Hope you're maintaining a healthy level of scepticism. Wouldn't want you to be drawn into a personality cult and then left disappointed. I really like him, he certainly is a man of principle who follows his beliefs, I do wish he would employ someone more professional to do his website though - http://www.weatheraction.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 That's partly there own fault though, East Anglia University is the obvious one but we have seen numerous bodies going against all scientific teaching to make sure figures came to the conclusion they wanted them too. When scientists start fiddling figures to suit a political agenda you can't blame the public for then showing sceptism, even if it is a small minority. That skepticism is long standing and started without any help from the few corrupt ones pushing an agenda. The UK at large has always valued arts over sciences, and that shows in public perception, it always has. Climate science and the mistakes with it and political football it has become are just a convenient excuse for generalizing and marginalization. Science should be apolitical in its findings and how they're interpreted. Of course that's sometimes not the case, especially where money is involved, but such political footballs are much nite to do with the vested interests wanting them to say what they want than the STEM folks doing the actual data acquisition. Sorry that I'm derailing here, perhaps should put this in the WGMG thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Do we still get holes in the ozone layer causing ice caps to melt, or have they been repaired now? What about the greenhouse effect, is that still a thing or has that been replaced by a new buzzword? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 The university of east Anglia didn't actually do anything wrong tbf - the travesty comments were taken well out of context; he wasn't saying it has stopped or wasn't happening - the global trend was and is still towards warming but there was a brief cooling that observational techniques couldn't account for - the travesty was that the set up for measuring energy flow throughout the planet wasn't perfect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Do we still get holes in the ozone layer causing ice caps to melt, or have they been repaired now? What about the greenhouse effect, is that still a thing or has that been replaced by a new buzzword? Ozone depletion as a result of overuse of CFCs leading to really nasty UV effects has zero to do with carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect. The former has been pretty much sorted out, the latter still has questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 The university of east Anglia didn't actually do anything wrong tbf - the travesty comments were taken well out of context; he wasn't saying it has stopped or wasn't happening - the global trend was and is still towards warming but there was a brief cooling that observational techniques couldn't account for - the travesty was that the set up for measuring energy flow throughout the planet wasn't perfect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming Excellent article, Doc. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Ozone depletion as a result of overuse of CFCs leading to really nasty UV effects has zero to do with carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect. The former has been pretty much sorted out, the latter still has questions. Cheers, I did wonder why we never heard of that any more, it was all the rage in the 80s and 90s. It just goes to show we don't have any control over these things. This planet, if scientists are believed, has been through climate changes for billions of years and we have only been present for a minuscule of that. Why do they think that we are capable of causing or saving another change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Cheers, I did wonder why we never heard of that any more, it was all the rage in the 80s and 90s. It just goes to show we don't have any control over these things. This planet, if scientists are believed, has been through climate changes for billions of years and we have only been present for a minuscule of that. Why do they think that we are capable of causing or saving another change? Holes in the ozone layer were back in the news the other day. Apparently the hole is now shrinking - and this is being attributed to drastic cuts in the use of CFCs. So maybe we can improve things..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Cheers, I did wonder why we never heard of that any more, it was all the rage in the 80s and 90s. It just goes to show we don't have any control over these things. This planet, if scientists are believed, has been through climate changes for billions of years and we have only been present for a minuscule of that. Why do they think that we are capable of causing or saving another change? Surely it shows the exact opposite. We were damaging the environment, we realised what we were doing made a concerted effort globally to eliminate harmful CFCs and the problem is now, slowly, going away. The greenhouse effect is still happening and is the same situation. We are damaging the planet, we know what we are doing and how to stop it but we are only making a half arsed attempt to fix it because greenhouse gas producing energy sources hold too tight a grip over our governments and people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christoph Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 As a geography teacher it makes me sad to see so many people skeptical of the effects from climate change Climate change seems like a bunch of science mumbo jumbo to a lot of people but thats because we don't really feel the effects living in a highly developed country. Try living in Bangladesh or the Maldives and tell me that the greenhouse effect is just a buzz word. We've had the hottest years on record for the last 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingcarr21 Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 As a geography teacher it makes me sad to see so many people skeptical of the effects from climate change Climate change seems like a bunch of science mumbo jumbo to a lot of people but thats because we don't really feel the effects living in a highly developed country. Try living in Bangladesh or the Maldives and tell me that the greenhouse effect is just a buzz word. We've had the hottest years on record for the last 10 years? Teaching Geography to Polar Bears and Walruses must be difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christoph Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Teaching Geography to Polar Bears and Walruses must be difficult. Chuck em fish and seals and they settle down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 As a geography teacher it makes me sad to see so many people skeptical of the effects from climate change Climate change seems like a bunch of science mumbo jumbo to a lot of people but thats because we don't really feel the effects living in a highly developed country. Try living in Bangladesh or the Maldives and tell me that the greenhouse effect is just a buzz word. We've had the hottest years on record for the last 10 years? How long have they been keeping temperature records, in the Maldives or Bangladesh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 As a geography teacher it makes me sad to see so many people skeptical of the effects from climate change Climate change seems like a bunch of science mumbo jumbo to a lot of people but thats because we don't really feel the effects living in a highly developed country. Try living in Bangladesh or the Maldives and tell me that the greenhouse effect is just a buzz word. We've had the hottest years on record for the last 10 years? But a lot of people who understand all that "mumbo jumbo" also tell us it's bollocks to get more money out of us, the majority don't if course, but this isn't a closed case anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 But a lot of people who understand all that "mumbo jumbo" also tell us it's bollocks to get more money out of us, the majority don't if course, but this isn't a closed case anymore.Absolutely!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxoffderby Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Climate change is a myth. Just as many scientists disagree with the theory as a agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkon84 Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Well this thread has gone off topic hasn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Climate change is a myth. Just as many scientists disagree with the theory as a agree. That's not true, but the 99% that used to support it unequivocally is now down to about 85%ish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Climate change is a myth. Just as many scientists disagree with the theory as a agree. Actually the figure is more like 97% in agreement and the majority of those who disagree are qualified in unrelated fields and who's opinions are therefore no more than a layman's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxoffderby Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 That's not true, but the 99% that used to support it unequivocally is now down to about 85%ish. Just depends on who you ask. Anyone can bring out stats. The planet has and always will have vast fluctuations in temperature. According to a documentary I watched recently the amount of ice in Antarctica is increasing despite what see you in the common media about glaciers dropping like flies. Nature seems to compensate some how the damage mankind is doing to the planet. Nobody really knows why and how this is happening, doesn't matter how many letters they have after their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxoffderby Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Actually the figure is more like 97% in agreement and the majority of those who disagree are qualified in unrelated fields and who's opinions are therefore no more than a layman's. I don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 Scientists don't do unequivocal though do they? They will tell you a different theory that they consider better matches the facts they see. That could be 1% different to the mainstream and some idiot will tell you that isn't a consensus. Yes there has been some dodgy science presented, and we cannot be 100% certain that climate change is man made, and we need to be careful not to waste money on silly schemes of dubious impact, but the worst case of assuming it is here is we reduce the crap side effects on the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwichfox Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 So when will the deciding referendum be? I assume they'll carry on having referendums until it suits those with biggest financial interests (at the cost of the voting morons like myself). It was difficult to make that final decision with so many choices, so I opted for out, but expecting re-run no 1 to happen before the Scots have their "leave the UK referendum" re-run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxoffderby Posted 12 July 2016 Share Posted 12 July 2016 The planet is a lot cooler now than is was many millions of years ago before man decided to industrialise the planet. 99% of this and 97% of that mean nothing to me. Science is very strange and nobody knows for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.