Close Up poll on climate change [Archive]

puddytat

8th December 2009, 22:08

I suspect most are in disagreement with the Carbon Trading and voted accordingly.

Like can ya blame them? Relying on the market to fix the planet. Go figure.

Skyryder

Yeah,using the same system that stuffed it to fix it aint going to work. Ive always wondered, where are all these carbon credits coming from? Or are we just going to print them like Oh so many U.S dollars?
Dont see too much tree planting go on....

motor_mayhem

8th December 2009, 23:05

A very interesting result.

77% agreed with Ian Wishart (sceptics)
23% agreed with Gareth Morgan (warmers)

It isn't a significant poll as it wasn't random, but does show that most people out there are thinking with their brain and not their emotions.

I wouldn't rely on popular opinion to define truth. Before 1820 popular opinion stated the world was flat. :doh:

Jantar

8th December 2009, 23:14

I wouldn't rely on popular opinion to define truth. Before 1820 popular opinion stated the world was flat. :doh:
Excatly. Which is why I said the poll was interesting, but not significant. Science is never about concensus, its about fact.

Quasievil

8th December 2009, 23:15

I wouldn't rely on popular opinion to define truth. Before 1820 popular opinion stated the world was flat. :doh:

people are a bit cleverer these days, well apart from your neck of the woods where the stoopid reside :yes:

Magua

8th December 2009, 23:41

I wouldn't rely on popular opinion to define truth. Before 1820 popular opinion stated the world was flat. :doh:

Err, 1820?

people are a bit cleverer these days, well apart from your neck of the woods where the stoopid reside :yes:

People are just as ignorant as ever.

rainman

9th December 2009, 08:05

Science is never about concensus, its about fact.

Read any Kuhn?

bogan

9th December 2009, 08:12

yeh, i was hoping for a bit better story on it tbh, how the fuck are we sposed to decide, when each side accuses the other of fabricating evidence and talking bullshit?

avgas

9th December 2009, 08:19

yeh, i was hoping for a bit better story on it tbh, how the fuck are we sposed to decide, when each side accuses the other of fabricating evidence and talking bullshit?
Yep sad fact of the matter is the science is not science anymore. Its marketing.
If it doesn't generate a buck no one gives a fuck.
While science proves we don't have enough evidence for global warming (which was a no brainer considering all recording started in 1950's), it does not shut down the fact that consumption has trended upwards since the beginning of time.
But then again - who makes a buck out of a balanced argument.

Drunken Monkey

9th December 2009, 08:32

I wouldn't rely on popular opinion to define truth. Before 1820 popular opinion stated the world was flat. :doh:

No, that is a myth created by Washington Irving and perpetuated by Thomas Bailey. Think of a better example.

wbks

9th December 2009, 09:19

Mikkel

9th December 2009, 10:19

People are just as ignorant as ever.

I have to disagree, the pool of human knowledge increases over time - as such there is more to be ignorant of, and consequently it would be reasonable to say that people, in general, are more ignorant now than they have ever been.

E.g. thinking that fever is caused by evil spirits invading the body is not really ignorance if there is no medical knowledge available to explain what really is going on - it's merely superstition.
On the other hand, if said knowledge was readily available and people chose still to believe in spirits, that is ignorance.

motor_mayhem

9th December 2009, 11:01

No, that is a myth created by Washington Irving and perpetuated by Thomas Bailey. Think of a better example.

Oh, could one of the "intellectual earth savers" be trying to call "naysayers" stupid by using incorrect facts, AGAIN?:clap:

The sun revolving around the earth, Everything is made up of a mixture of the classic elements [Fire, Air, Earth, Water], the atom is the smallest particle there is - just some of the myths collected and treated as the truth by popular opinion.

FTR I am a fence sitter, I think there is not enough data to catagorically prove either way. However like religion attempting to crush some of the science that disproved the above and many others, I can see how religion of the almighty $ would want to crush any discoveries by the "intellectual earth savers"

Skyryder

9th December 2009, 11:24

puddytat

9th December 2009, 12:50

One thing about the climate warmers they not only agree that the planet 'is' warming but 'also agree' on the cause: man

The skeptics on the other hand can not agree that the planet is warming, but those that do can not agree as to the cause: Sun cycles, volcanic activity, geological cycles etc. The only cause they agree to reject is man. And this is science??

Skyryder

Probably 'cause the facts they prefer are the ones youre likely to hear on talkback radio...
Or Fox news.

Drunken Monkey

9th December 2009, 20:18

One thing about the climate warmers they not only agree that the planet 'is' warming but 'also agree' on the cause: man

The skeptics on the other hand can not agree that the planet is warming, but those that do can not agree as to the cause: Sun cycles, volcanic activity, geological cycles etc. The only cause they agree to reject is man. And this is science??

Skyryder

As opposed to the pro camp, who think man can output more energy and have more impact on long term climate than the Sun, volcanoes and geological cycles combined? Who's deluded?

Skyryder

9th December 2009, 21:02

As opposed to the pro camp, who think man can output more energy and have more impact on long term climate than the Sun, volcanoes and geological cycles combined? Who's deluded?

It's not about the output of more energy by man than by the sun. No one has ever said that it is, was or ever will be. So why do you get this so wrong. It's all the shitty little things in the atmosphere; CO2, Carbon. The stuff that has been constantly belching out of smokestacks for the last 200 odd years. Show me one one natural event that is comparable. Show me more than one natural event that can account for the increse of CO2 levels. Oh I forgot. The emails.

Funny how all of this dodgy data only came to light after some hacker got hold of them. The scientific community is fraught jealousies, egos and all the other foibles of man and these conspiracy was kept secret for so long. Never occurred that the reason this secret stayed secret for so long was the fact that there was no secret.

And if you do not think that CO2 has increased why are the glaciers melting, the ice caps shrinking the methane rising up from the ocean floor the perma frost melting and all of this at a speed unrecorded in the geological record.

The temperature of the Earth depends on a balance between incoming energy from the Sun and the energy that bounces back into space. Carbon dioxide absorbs heat that would otherwise be lost to space. Some of this energy is re-emitted back to Earth, causing additional heating of the planet.

It is so basic that any kid who uses a reflective heater understands this principle.

And this is denied. And you call me deluded. Give me a
Tui's.

Skyryder

Quasievil

9th December 2009, 21:34

1200 Limo's 140 private Jets............only 5 hybrid cars

People HELLO !!!

Its about Money no one gives a flying fuck about the planet

Magua

9th December 2009, 21:36

1200 Limo's 140 private Jets............only 5 hybrid cars

People HELLO !!!

Its about Money no one gives a flying fuck about the planet

Besides a free trip to Europe, how exactly are the leaders of the various nations going to personally benefit from this 'scam'?

Jantar

9th December 2009, 21:44

....Funny how all of this dodgy data only came to light after some hacker got hold of them. .....
Not true. The claim of dodgy data is years old. Mann with his hockey stick is the most well known one, but there is also Hansen and the changes to the USA land record which was documented some 4 years ago. There have been many instances of data being changed, as reported by the late Jonh Daly over 8 years ago. The emails just show that those claims were real and that the conspiracy by many of the warmer scientists went deeper than anyone expected.

puddytat

9th December 2009, 21:53

Where's the head in the sand emoti-con ....:(

Quasievil

9th December 2009, 21:58

Besides a free trip to Europe, how exactly are the leaders of the various nations going to personally benefit from this 'scam'?

Easy the 1400 delegates are getting free pussy..............Im serious (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html)

Drunken Monkey

9th December 2009, 22:41

[U]It's not about the output of more energy by man than by the sun....

And this is denied. And you call me deluded. Give me a
Tui's.

Skyryder

Get a clue. Energy drives all systems, it has to come from somewhere, the fucking climate doesn't just change on it's own.

oldrider

9th December 2009, 22:58

Yeah,using the same system that stuffed it to fix it aint going to work. Ive always wondered, where are all these carbon credits coming from? Or are we just going to print them like Oh so many U.S dollars?
Dont see too much tree planting go on....

The cow cockies are cutting them down and burning them, faster than you can plant them! :confused:

With all the bullshit about carbon, etc, somehow that just does not equate for me! :oi-grr:

Damien_Toman

9th December 2009, 23:04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

motor_mayhem

10th December 2009, 11:08

If you don't believe the govt or a large company would do a cover up for the sake of profit take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

SPman

10th December 2009, 15:56

People HELLO !!!

Its about Money no one gives a flying fuck about the planet

A slight generalisation, but nearer the truth than most.......

Mikkel

10th December 2009, 16:41

Easy the 1400 delegates are getting free pussy..............Im serious (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html)

Not entirely in accord with what I've read on the Danish newpages. But hey, what can we expect from the press these days?

The Copenhagen city council and the mayor have, for reasons unknown and unfathomable, chosen to send out postcards to 160 hotels, encouraging the hotels not to facilitate contact between people staying at the hotels and prostitutes.

Understandably this provokes the prostitutes and a group called the sexworkers' interest organisation (SIO - which is, unlike reported in your link, not a labour union as such) has countered this by issuing a statement encouraging prostitutes, during the climate summit only, to accept said postcards as payment for their services. Whether any of the prostitutes will do so is another matter - just like the hotels may or may not (most likely not) choose to follow the encouragement by the city council. After all, the hotels specialise in servicing their customers and if a customer wants help getting in contact with a sexworker, it could be considered bad for business not to provide that service. After all, prostitution is legal in Denmark.

Skyryder

10th December 2009, 18:51

Get a clue. Energy drives all systems, it has to come from somewhere, the fucking climate doesn't just change on it's own.

No one has said that it does.

My response was to this that you wrote.

As opposed to the pro camp, who think man can output more energy and have more impact on long term climate than the Sun, volcanoes and geological cycles combined?

The pro camp as you put it has never made such a claim. In geological terms mans influence on the atmosphere for the last 200 hundred odd years can not in any way be called long term. Nor can anyone predict for what length of time temperture rises will last or for that matter how high they will rise.

Once the methane kicks in it's anybodys guess and that has started man made or not the cause of climate change will be academic. There will be no going back. One scenario of this is massive atmospheric detonations as methane is ignited by thunder storms. Any life that is not wiped out in the conflageration will almost certainly be destroyed by oxygen starvation as this too will be burnt off.

Skyryder

Skyryder

10th December 2009, 19:01

Not true. The claim of dodgy data is years old. Mann with his hockey stick is the most well known one, but there is also Hansen and the changes to the USA land record which was documented some 4 years ago. There have been many instances of data being changed, as reported by the late Jonh Daly over 8 years ago. The emails just show that those claims were real and that the conspiracy by many of the warmer scientists went deeper than anyone expected.

Funny how all of this dodgy data only came to light after some hacker got hold of them. The scientific community is fraught jealousies, egos and all the other foibles of man and these conspiracy was kept secret for so long. Never occurred that the reason this secret stayed secret for so long was the fact that there was no secret.

That's the full para. The point is not that the data has not been in dispute but that there was a deliberate attempt by the 'global warmers' to produce false data. Deliberate as to conspire. If, as the emails have been interpreted, as a conspiracy I would have thought that some one would have broken ranks. This has not happened, and the reason it has not happened as there has been no conspiracy. Your reply did not address this issue.

Skyyrder

Quasievil

10th December 2009, 21:03

Funny how all of this dodgy data only came to light after some hacker got hold of them. The scientific community is fraught jealousies, egos and all the other foibles of man and these conspiracy was kept secret for so long. Never occurred that the reason this secret stayed secret for so long was the fact that there was no secret.

That's the full para. The point is not that the data has not been in dispute but that there was a deliberate attempt by the 'global warmers' to produce false data. Deliberate as to conspire. If, as the emails have been interpreted, as a conspiracy I would have thought that some one would have broken ranks. This has not happened, and the reason it has not happened as there has been no conspiracy. Your reply did not address this issue.

Skyyrder

Mate youre like a drawhorse with oversized blinkers on:msn-wink:

Skyryder

10th December 2009, 22:07

Mate youre like a drawhorse with oversized blinkers on:msn-wink:
\
But you still read my posts.:clap:

Skyryder

Flatcap

11th December 2009, 07:17

\
But you still read my posts.:clap:

Skyryder

Your posts are like "The Office" - makes you cringe and laugh but you can't stop looking

Quasievil

11th December 2009, 08:08

\
But you still read my posts.:clap:

Skyryder

Nah I dont, but I dont read the Bible either:shifty:

Mikkel

11th December 2009, 08:50

Nah I dont, but I dont read the Bible either:shifty:

And, indeed, why would you want to when Iain Wishart already wrote a gospel that appealed to you?

Quasievil

11th December 2009, 08:59

And, indeed, why would you want to when Iain Wishart already wrote a gospel that appealed to you?

Hardly, that was only one thing mate, lots more info around than that.

FYI I used to be a green peace activist on the issue:shit:...........true story, very open mind here

Mikkel

11th December 2009, 09:04

FYI I used to be a green peace activist on the issue:shit:...........true story, very open mind here

No need to point it out, we can tell... ;)

As has been pointed out, you are - whether you'd admit to it or not - under a confirmation bias. It would be more honest to admit you don't actually know, but that you are very skeptical of what agenda might be pushed using doomsday prophecies tied in with the climate change debate.

Quasievil

11th December 2009, 09:12

It would be more honest to admit you don't actually know,

okay, I dont actually know

there ya go, fact is neither do you or anybody else.

yet we have the heads of state meeting right now to figure out ways of extracting dollars out of us all, and we all know that cash will solve the problem...........whatever the problem is .........exactly.

follow the money for truth, not the B.S spouted by those with a vested interested in the green stuff,

Mikkel

11th December 2009, 09:33

okay, I dont actually know

there ya go, fact is neither do you or anybody else.

yet we have the heads of state meeting right now to figure out ways of extracting dollars out of us all, and we all know that cash will solve the problem...........whatever the problem is .........exactly.

follow the money for truth, not the B.S spouted by those with a vested interested in the green stuff,

So, let's just for a moment try and leave cynicism and skepticism aside for a second and consider the implausible option that:

1) There is a problem - i.e. climate change (man made or otherwise) will cause real and significant issues in the foreseeable future.
2) It is not being used as an excuse to enforce unreasonable taxes upon anyone - i.e. whatever taxation may be enforced now is efficiently being used to solve 1) and this investment will benefit the economy in the long term.
and
3) That we can actually do something about it now - i.e. if we act now we may be able to limit 1) to some extent.

Now, we do not really know that this is not the case, do we? I agree it is unlikely - but we don't know for sure.
Furthermore, if this was indeed the case, what do you think we should do that isn't being done now?

As for the truth - which truth exactly is it that you want? If it is the truth about how the climate works and how our consumption may affect it you want, that is extremely complicated and we don't know yet.
If it is the truth in regards to hidden agendas and power struggles within the spheres of politics and capitalism in relation to the subject, then you are probably right to have your reservations and doubts. I will say this though, markedly more idealists enter into politics than corporate management. Some sort of government enforced regulation on emissions is - if there is indeed a problem 1) - better than letting the morals of CEOs and shareholders govern what emissions they can "live with".