Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tony

Guest
I can see the information that John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel believes it's a scam, I can also read the Weather Channel Position Statement on Global Warming. My conclusion is that the whole thing is populated at all quarters by disingenuous, opportunistic buggers.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/



http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html

So! Which side are you on? I hope you aren't going to join the ranks of the character assinators and would prefer to discuss the issues rather than condemn the messaengers.
 


Flavonoids

Striker
So! Which side are you on? I hope you aren't going to join the ranks of the character assinators and would prefer to discuss the issues rather than condemn the messaengers.

I'm on no-ones side, I really don't know and I'm too shallow to really care if I'm honest, I'll be long gone.

Out of interest, should no characters be assasinated? even if they load their own guns?
 
T

Tony

Guest
Now that you have put the question into context, I understand.

I'm still unsure of the relevance though. It seems that you are now introducing a geopolitical element into this debate.

To me, climate change, whether it is a natural phenomenon or as a result of anthropic influence or a combination of both, is a global problem.

My answer to your question would be that as both oil and coal are finite resources, then it seems logical to me that, at least for the medium to long term, we should be concentrating research into increasing the efficiency of renewable forms of energy.

Of course this will not happen overnight, and in the meanwhile the economies of the world will inevitably continue to be based around an increase in the consumption oil, gas and coal - with all of the environmental problems that this entails.

Tony, you may well have overtaxed my admittedly limited mental capacity with your somewhat tangential question, but at least I know how to use the board's quote facility. ;)



On the contrary, the story is probably just beginning.

Pancho, when you reach my age you'll have the same problem keeping up with all those young whippersnappers that I have. I wasn't trying to introduce new and irrelevant data into the argument but responding to what I thought was genuine question of opinion. The question does pose to us what a straitjacket the world is getting into by the rejection of coal as a fuel for power generation because "it is dirty." The correct use of coal and natural gas will enable us to get out from under our (almost) total dependence on oil from belligerent nations. Belligerent in the sense that they are totally opposed to our standards and are prepared to adopt any measures on the basis of their religions or politics to bring us to our knees.

In the meantime we are getting ready to bankrupt ourselves and render our governments helpless by our abdication to the myth of AGW.

South Africa no longer has the power resources to enable the gold mines to operate safely. they cannot guarantee that the elevators (cages in our language) can be continuously supplied with the power necessary to get the miners in and out of their mines. Environmentalists have stopped the building of power stations in South Africa. They are making incredible inroads into the thinking in the USA. banks are no longer willing to finance
coal-powered generating stations in spite of the exponential demands for electricty that are forecast for the next few years.

Its up to the likes of you to start speaking out about the dangers we confront. If you believe that polar bears and the spotted owl and the snail darter are more important than human beings then stay with the crowd.

Getting world agreement to the suppression of fossil fuels is the objective of the environmental community and they couldn't care less if they destroy our living standards in the process.

Wake up. Read. Ask questions. separate yourself from the herd mental;ity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pancho, when you reach my age you'll have the same problem keeping up with all those young whippersnappers that I have. I wasn't trying to introduce new and irrelevant data into the argument but responding to what I thought was genuine question of opinion. The question does pose to us what a straitjacket the world is getting into by the rejection of coal as a fuel for power generation because "it is dirty." The correct use of coal and natural gas will enable us to get out from under our (almost) total dependence on oil from belligerent nations. Belligerent in the sense that they are totally opposed to our standards and are prepared to adopt any measures on the basis of their religions or politics to bring us to our knees.

In the meantime we are getting ready to bankrupt ourselves and render our governments helpless by our abdication to the myth of AGW.

South Africa no longer has the power resources to enable the gold mines to operate safely. they cannot guarantee that the elevators (cages in our language) can be continuously supplied with the power necessary to get the miners in and out of their mines. Environmentalists have stopped the building of power stations in South Africa. They are making incredible inroads into the thinking in the USA. banks are no longer willing to finance
coal-powered generating stations in spite of the exponential demands for electricty that are forecast for the next few years.

Its up to the likes of you to start speaking out about the dangers we confront. If you believe that polar bears and the spotted owl and the snail darter are more important than human beings then stay with the crowd.

Getting world agreement to the suppression of fossil fuels is the objective of the environmental community and they couldn't care less if they destroy our living standards in the process.

Wake up. Read. Ask questions. separate yourself from the herd mental;ity.

Better use and regulation of all energy sources would be possible if all the lobbyists and campaign donors that are currently corrupting every government on the planet were taken out and shot. Live on TV.
 

Floyd

Winger
there's 2 classic examples on this thread of why the proponents of anthropegenic global warming get the goat of normal thinking people. It took only about 3 or 4 posts I think before some comment was sneeringly made alluding to America. The next was the weather channel qoute which referred to "nearly unanimous" scientific agreement on AGP or some such tosh.

Believe it or not there are some people who object to the almost religious zealot like assertions on AGP that are not American. not in the pay of the oil companies or those nasty wasty "big business oil companies" and who are scientists.

U pays ur money and u takes ur choice I guess with regards to what side u wanna believe but I have to say that the vast majority of petty name calling, slurs insults and self righteousness on every thread on this issue (although not so much on this one I have to say) comes from one direction.
 
Pretty much. It would change the face of US foreign policy towards the Middle East.

exactly, the USA doesn't give a toss about the environment. Even Tony who is from sunny Ouston iirc keep going on about their reliance on foreign oil. Just look at GWB's arse kissing middle east tour last month. If they had enough they'd pull up the drawbridge and say fuck you. Must really gall them to rely on some bearded fuzzy wuzzies in a part of the world 90% of them couldn't pick out on a map
 

soapster

Striker
I know and understand my own personal limitations with regards to intelligence, but I found that article difficult to read and was eagerly looking for worthy content, but it never really had any.

Personally, when I look and listen to people and assess what they say, I look at how they say it or how they write it.

Now if somebody is trying to progress the ideas of someone else and if they cannot communicate that across well, how well should we receive those ideas.

I attended a post mortem many years ago.This was old fella who died of heart disease. When the doctor, cut open the old mans lungs, they were all black spots.The doctor stated this was normal in an industial area such as Sunderland.

So never mind about global warming for the moment, what about the health of the residents of out towns and cities.

A lot of things just make sence to me. Recycling, why throw things away for landfill, when things such as paper, cardboard, wood etc can be used.

Why are we still chopping rain forrests down when we know what damage it is doing to wildlife, never mind the global warming aspect.
 

Rizla

Striker
That's the point, it's isn't actually that vast compared to the natural sources. And, the CO2 concentration has increased over the last 10yrs, whereas the global temperature has levelled off. That shouldn't happen if you listen to the IPCC etc etc.

Given that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 50% over the past 100 years, it would suggest that athropogenic CO2 is far exceeding the earth's capacity to absorb it, so on that basis it is vast compared to natural sources.

As for global temperature levelling off - the past 5 or 6 years have been fairly stable, I hope to hell that continues, but this is too short of a time period to draw any conclusions. What we may be seeing is natural variation conflicting with the effects of increased CO2.
 
T

Tony

Guest
I find the very meek (and almost silent) response by the warmists on this thread to be most encouraging. Makes me think they might be losing their fervour! :lol::lol:
 
I find the very meek (and almost silent) response by the warmists on this thread to be most encouraging. Makes me think they might be losing their fervour! :lol::lol:

Yes, well done. Go back to sleep, the fossil fuel industry and their massive campaign donations to the government to make sure they keep making a profit have nothing but your best interests at heart.

Ask yourself a question - what do those who are arguing that climate change is a problem have to gain from it? Is it fuelled entirely by people who own shares in Hydro Electric Power generation industries? Some people overstate the case, that's true but arguably they do so because they think so many people have got their heads in the sand.
 

Pancho

Assistant Laundry Manager
Staff member
I find the very meek (and almost silent) response by the warmists on this thread to be most encouraging. Makes me think they might be losing their fervour! :lol::lol:

Perhaps the more intelligent potential contributors have been put off by your tactic of responding to reasonable replies with comments about their mental acuity?

Or perhaps they see little value in perpetuating a pointless discussion with a slightly batty octogenarian?

Or is that just me?
 

consettsafc

Striker
Why do the BBC send reporters to the south pole to bleat on about global warming in the middle of the southern hemisphere summer?
 

Pancho

Assistant Laundry Manager
Staff member
Why do the BBC send reporters to the south pole to bleat on about global warming in the middle of the southern hemisphere summer?



I don't know. Why do the BBC send reporters to the south pole to bleat on about global warming in the middle of the southern hemisphere summer?
 

consettsafc

Striker
I don't know. Why do the BBC send reporters to the south pole to bleat on about global warming in the middle of the southern hemisphere summer?


'
cos they are the mouthpiece of the government so they send reporters there in the middle of summer showing ice melting, thus giving the government the excuse to crank more taxes onto us, under the guise of it will save the planet.
 

Pancho

Assistant Laundry Manager
Staff member
'
cos they are the mouthpiece of the government so they send reporters there in the middle of summer showing ice melting, thus giving the government the excuse to crank more taxes onto us, under the guise of it will save the planet.

Sorry, I thought it was the first line of a poor joke, so I was just responding.

Actually, I wasn't too far off the mark as it turns out.
 

Joe Public

Striker
there's 2 classic examples on this thread of why the proponents of anthropegenic global warming get the goat of normal thinking people. It took only about 3 or 4 posts I think before some comment was sneeringly made alluding to America. The next was the weather channel qoute which referred to "nearly unanimous" scientific agreement on AGP or some such tosh.

Believe it or not there are some people who object to the almost religious zealot like assertions on AGP that are not American. not in the pay of the oil companies or those nasty wasty "big business oil companies" and who are scientists.

U pays ur money and u takes ur choice I guess with regards to what side u wanna believe but I have to say that the vast majority of petty name calling, slurs insults and self righteousness on every thread on this issue (although not so much on this one I have to say) comes from one direction.

Name them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top