Close Up poll on climate change

**Skyryder** · 10th December 2009, 18:51

Originally Posted by Drunken Monkey

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

Originally Posted by Jantar

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

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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

**Skyryder** · 10th December 2009, 22:07

Originally Posted by Quasievil

Mate youre like a drawhorse with oversized blinkers on

\
But you still read my posts.

Skyryder

**Flatcap** · 11th December 2009, 07:17

Originally Posted by Skyryder

\
But you still read my posts.

Skyryder

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

**Quasievil** · 11th December 2009, 08:08

Originally Posted by Skyryder

\
But you still read my posts.

Skyryder

Nah I dont, but I dont read the Bible either

**Mikkel** · 11th December 2009, 08:50

Originally Posted by Quasievil

Nah I dont, but I dont read the Bible either

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

**Quasievil** · 11th December 2009, 08:59

Originally Posted by Mikkel

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

...........true story, very open mind here

**Mikkel** · 11th December 2009, 09:04

Originally Posted by Quasievil

FYI I used to be a green peace activist on the issue

...........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

Originally Posted by Mikkel

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

Originally Posted by Quasievil

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".