The hysteria over global warming continues, with dire predictions being thrown our way daily. Are you a believer of the claims or are you a sceptic? If possible, leave your reasons as to why.

__________________

Vrock made this comment in another thread which is what prompted me to start this new thread here rather than going off-topic there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrock
Now now, OF, climate change is happening. The world [supposedly with our spewing out of green-house gases] is warming up .


Now, like the anti-ICC issue, is this is another classic example of how easily brainwashed and manipulated the masses are? This took place the other day the other day when i was in town...

Lady in the street trips over a crack on the sidewalk, stands up and shakes her fist at the sky shouting "Curse you global warming!!

Bystanders sagely nod their head in agreement and drift away muttering "Damn oil companies" before powering off in their fuel guzzling V8's and SUV's for home, to power up the airconditioning to full.

Seamer, who happens to have a bandaid, offers help to the lady. "You OK"?

"What does it matter. The worlds gonna die and we are all gonna be wiped out by some big tsunami or something anyway". Lady replies while applying the bandaid

Seamer: "Ah.....global warming right"?

Lady" Yeah, thank god for Al Gore"

Seamer: "Al Gore. You know he and his wife and daughter, used the power equivelent of 10 average American households last year?

Lady: "Yeah well, he made all that money from that book so i guess he can afford it".

Seamer:" Hmmm. Why are you so convinced about global warming"

Lady: "Dunno. Well it's not raining and stuff, almost as bad as the drought that dad went through when he was a kid, and all those people would'nt say it if it was'nt true right"?

I decided it was'nt worth the effort of discussing the the possibilty that whenever you see government and mass media making massive attemps to influence/manipulate the entire populace on a particular issue, you can be damned sure that politics and personal self interest, not the issue itself, has a lot to do with it.

Scientific community: Credibility suffers due to conflict of interest. Science has been a winner for both the "for" and "against" side of the debate resulting in massive injections of public and private money for their research (securing their tenures in the process) and giving the scientific community greater public profile than they otherwise would recieve. And all the research is based on speculation, predictions, application of mathematical formulas on historical data ect resulting in nothing more than a loose theory, which has holes punched through it with ease by the opposing camp.
Basically, the scientists are predicting that something may happen.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrock
Now now, OF, climate change is happening.


Vrock, you say that as a statement of fact, which is wrong, as global warming is nothing more than loose thoery. Ask yourself the question i often ask myself: are you are one of the many victims of government/media manipulation? This is a growing problem in the west: too many people are tuning in to the mass media with glazed eyes and a totally open mind, and are being told what to think, rather than studying the core issues and drawing their own conclusions.


To put Kyoto into true perspective, you need to shield yourself from the endless stream of minor details and look at the bigger picture. When you look at Kyoto, consider this.

The EU is not self sufficient in oil and coal (cheapest form of energy) and is thus very vulnerable to OPEC machinations . So the EU is forced to use alternate forms of energy to ensure secure energy supplies. These alternate forms of energy are expensive however, which has a direct impact on things such as profitabilty and productivity ect, and has an indirect impact on inflation and balance of trade ect.

But to ensure continued supply of cheap food and other commodities into the EU, the multinationals still need to be able to plunder third world countries which involves massive deforestation (removal of carbon sinks). Stopping the clearing of forests in the third world, would result in reduced production of food, would drive up EU prices in critical areas, resulting in higher inflation, higher enemployment and an inevitable recession.

So they come up with Kyoto, but to ensure the rest of the world comes on board, they exempt developing nations and third world countries. The goal being:

The EU wins by ensuring that alternate energy supplies become more competitive, with the added bonus of hopefully stemming the growth of oil and coal rich countries like the US and Australia.

Devoping nations such as India and China win because they do not have to pay any form of economic price (and can tear up the treaty whenever it becomes convienient).

Wealthy counties such as Australia and the US are the only ones that pay an economic price.

Third world countries can still be plundered and have their forests torn down (directly and indirectly) by the multinationals, so the EU can keep it's cheap source of food.


But prepare for the counterattack by the US and Aus. We are compiling data on how much third world deforestation the EU has been directly and indirectly involved in to assist in piling on the embarrasment when the next negotiations take place. We are also creating a forestry fund with the goal of ending developing and third world deforestation and for them to instead grow carbon sinks. The resulting rise in food prices will hit the EU where it hurts believe me. This is the reason why the debate has focused on emmisions rather than deforestation.

Either way, the one big winner out of all this will be Australia - we are playing the game brilliantly. We hold the bulk of the worlds supply of uranium, which thanks to the global warming fad, will become increasingly crucial as time goes on. We will still be exporting huge amounts of coal and oil to an unchecked India and China. We are the leaders in carbon catching technology. We are self sufficient in energy sources, resources, textiles, food.

Developing nations such as China and India, with their several hundred dirty coal powered plants under construction, will break even and be free to continue unchecked emmisions with no economic consequences.

Third world nations will be winners, as they will be less open to plundering by multinationals, which will hopefully allow them to heal themselves of the war, corruption and famine that results from that plundering.

The big loser in the end will be the EU. Once they are held accountable for third world deforestation, this will have an inflationary problems based on the increace in price of importing energy sources, resources, textiles, food. This will have a ripple effect over their entire economy. When i say the EU, i actually mean the average citizen - not the wealthy elite. The gap between the rich and poor in the EU (already big as it is) will actually increase.

When you look at the big picture, you will see that Kyoto has little to do with the environment. It is all just a big geo-political game, and one that the EU thinks it is winning but will actually lose in the end. But of course, we are not meant to see the big picture are we.

__________________

I've no quibble with your argument that self-interest and geo-politics shaped the Kyoto accord... nor any complaint about that... but I don't see that anyone's ever suggested anything else: the coverage of the geo-politics in the UK press (and amongst politicians) has always been extensive (and more sophisticated that the discussions of the science, which tends to be dumbed down).

The biggest problem with debate of this matter in Europe has been the near total hegemony of old-fashioned "statist" thinking on the part of the European centre-left: you argue as if self-interest was the driving force behind the drafting of the treaty... but that is to miss the extent to which the European centre-left see in Kyoto an opportunity for what they sees a glorious, managed redistribution of wealth to the less developed nations.

It's not as if those who draft / support the treaty HIDE this agenda... the whole thing has been driven forward by folk who just can't see how any reasonable person could not share this aspiration (hence the tendency over here to tarnish opposition with labels usually reserved for Jean Marie Le Pen and the tendency to genuine, heartfelt outrage at Bush's resistance).

None of which has anything to do with the (much more interesting) science: one can quite reasonably arguie for the scrapping of the Kyoto accord whilst also accepting the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (traditional sceptics, and even now, highly averse to giving credence to any but the mildest scenario of change).

I think climate change is happening - how much of it is down to us I'm not sure.

__________________
Nothing says "Obey Me" like a bloody head on a fence post!

I believe the world is getting warmer.

Nearly all of the evidence I see through the course of my day-to-day comings and goings (a lot more than the average joe-shmoe, and a lot more objective and scientific in nature) supports this.

Most of the bickering I have to put up with has more to with who's fault it is i.e. is this all happening because humans have been burning stuff, or is it all just part of the natural Milankovitch cycle of mother nature breathing? The arguement of course is that if it's just a natural thing then why should humans have to modify their behaviour? And why should we have to pay carbon taxes?

I find this arguing annoying; partly because it's nothing more than childish finger-pointing, but mainly 'cause it doesn't matter what the reasons are for it - if the world is getting warmer it will have an effect on how we live our lives, and we will have to deal with these effects in order to maintain the same standard of living.

Carbon trading and taxes are the manefestation of the 'its all our fault' theory. However, rightly or wrongly, they are (or are about to become) a reality for nearly every country in the world. I can't say I'm morally opposed to a system which actually puts a tangible price on something like 'the environment' which has always been intangible and therefore normally ignored. I'm a little suspicious that the whole exercise may well be futile as if it is indeed human's fault then it is probably too late for humans to do anything about it!

If it is just a natural thing then each country needs to look at how it is placed and the likely effects whatever degree of warming will have on their economy (like all things economic it turns into a cost/benefit style risk analysis of various warming scenarios) and work out ways to safeguard themselves from what could potentially be a very devastating time.

__________________
never believe anything until it is officially denied . . .

Is one of these coming to a sunny part of the world near you ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm

The thing that irks about carbon tax etc is they dont actually spend the money on trying to sort the problem out like renewable energy, cheaper public transport etc etc, (if indeed there is a problem) just funding stuff that taxes should be sorting out anyway.

__________________
Nothing says "Obey Me" like a bloody head on a fence post!

I haven't come across any conclusive evidence of global warming. Most of the so-called proof is no more than conjecture, hypothesis and exagerration. I am prepared to keep an open mind, but it seems few either in the green/eco lobby or the oil/auto lobby do; eco-doom mongering, in particular, is big business these days.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Yes the world may be getting warmer but if you look back through history we have been through many climate changes over the years.I personally do not believe all this greenhouse effect garbage and think it is just another way for governments to screw more tax off the public.

But if we accept what the scientists are saying, the globe is warming at just under.02 % per year. Even if what they say is true, the dire predictions they are making regarding what may or may not happen in 80 years time must be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, making such long range predictions that can never be disproven in their lifetime, and probably behond that too, must be treated with some cynicism. Seems more like prophesy by divination than science if you ask me.

As i posted earlier, it is all part of the plan to increase the price carbon based energy, thus making it a less attractive commidity to buy and use. This would obviously be to the detriment of Australia and the U.S, and to the benefiet of the EU.

Some good points in your post Mr Kiwi. Now for arguements sake lets say the globe is getting dangerously warm. This bizare notion put forward by the worlds scientists that by cutting emmisions the carbon in the atmosphere will disipate over time is ludicrous. There is only one thing that will suck all that carbon out of the air - trees. Not only are forests carbon sinks, but just as importantly, they are heat sinks. Also, forests are the engine behind the creaton of rain. If you double the amount of trees on the globe, you can logically conclude that the earth will be a greener, cooler place with lots of rainwater for everyone and nice clean air.

Who is the country that is championing the forest creation alternative - Australia.
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2...lease24221.cfm

This is the first phase of the counterarguement against Europe that i mentioned in an earlier post. Not surpisingly, the initiative has been largely ignored by Europe, because creation of forests and the ending of deforestation is not in their interests at all. But it is in the interests of food, coal and oil exporters such as the U.S and Australia.

So far, only the U.S has contributed to this fund but as the reforestation arguement gains momentum, more and more nations will contribute.

Under the reforestation plan

Australia, US and oil exporters in the middle east will be the winners as they will be able to freely use and export the cheaper energy option (coal and oil).

The devoping nations come out slightly ahead, as they will no longer face any pressure about the amount of carbon they emit, and will continue to be able to use the cheaper energy option (coal and oil) to further develop their economies.

The third world will be winners. The money being pumped into their economies by the developed nations, will improve their local environment, create real jobs, and limit multinational interference that often leads to envronmental degradation, poverty, corrupt dictators and civil war.

The globe and it's inhabitants will be winners with a greener, cleaner, wetter planet.

__________________

No there is global warming Maranello, I have no doubt of that.

Decades ago the UK could rely on snow EVERY year, and I don't mean a smattering, drifts reaching 3-5 foot was not uncommon, but that has not happened for decades.

Tender plants now overwinter in the UK from a lack of hard frosts, I have know the UK to be in the grip of a freeze for months - I know better than most having just rented a hectare of land to grow salad crops, I could not get on the land until after May, that adventure cost me over seven thousand UK pounds.like snow - hard frosts in the UK for any length of time are a thing of the past also.

What I don't believe is that global warming is caused by man, I think it's just a natural cycle.

However this UK New Labour government is milking it for all it is worth, they at last found a way to tax "Fresh Air" with the so called green tax on air travel, that has added an extra £30UK to my trip to Spain.
Also without any proof of man made global warning - the UK government is taking all kinds of unilateral measures to lessen the so called green gasses omissions, while other countries like the US - India and China are doing sod all.

And that mean extra costs to UK citizens, make no mistake global warming is alive and well in the UK, and profits and taxes are making the most of it.

__________________
Ern