Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[george formby]

Art imitating life or the tuther way round?

Wasn't there an probability drive as well?

IIR Slartibardfast's ship used Bistromatics as drive, he designed the Fjords you know.

[oneofsix]

Without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

I don't think so. I don't believe it got warm enough to have gone into a cooling phase. But then again perhaps I watch too many history programmes, need to ride more.

[Scuba_Steve]

Actually climate science has been around for centuries and nobody makes money from it. In fact it actually costs a bloody fortune. And I guess if BP and Shell say something then we need to listen and agree, for they are our masters.

Umm people are making ALOT of money off "climate change" if your a scientist this is where the $$$ at & Al Gore was the worlds 1st "climate change" tycoon making over $1bil off it also it appears you are listening to Shell & BP they are big financiers behind climategate & I can assure you it's not for "the good of the planet", there's moneys to be made in that them there propaganda

Actually without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

my suggestion to you is get rid of you microwave oven, cell phone, wireless networks, TV's, Radios effectively anything that uses wireless communication/microwaves it's all heating

[shrub]

I don't think so. I don't believe it got warm enough to have gone into a cooling phase. But then again perhaps I watch too many history programmes, need to ride more.

If you look at all the factors that can cause warming or cooling and exclude human activity we're in a mild cooling phase right now.

[shrub]

Umm people are making ALOT of money off "climate change" if your a scientist this is where the $$$

Yes, it's seen by governments as being an area demanding immediate attention so research funding is more likely to be available for climate change than, say, the sexual habits of goldfish. My area of specialty is business sustainability and that's another area where there is plenty of funding and there is a shitload of well paid work in the field compared to something like selling fax machines.

at & Al Gore was the worlds 1st "climate change" tycoon making over $1bil off

Ah yes, Al Gore's money. Funny how making money is seen as a totally noble pursuit unless it's made by Al Gore.

[schrodingers cat]

Without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

Ok then - Human activity is altering a natural cycle.

The human race is very adaptable. If the cycle changes too quickly than we may not be able to adapt quickly enough. I turn on the news every night and think that might be a good thing

[Spearfish]

Yes, it's seen by governments as being an area demanding immediate attention so research funding is more likely to be available for climate change than, say, the sexual habits of goldfish. My area of specialty is business sustainability and that's another area where there is plenty of funding and there is a shitload of well paid work in the field compared to something like selling fax machines.



Ah yes, Al Gore's money. Funny how making money is seen as a totally noble pursuit unless it's made by Al Gore.

Depends if you believe if Al Gore's alternative religion is good salesmanship or just plain theft?

Your probably on to something with "nobility" though, Bill Gates and Paul Allen were almost as successful at scaring a government but not on the global scale anthropogenic global warming has.

Any scientist struggling for finance into their field of study only have to add ".............and the effects on global warming" to the end of the research title and away they go coin a plenty.

[Jantar]

Without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

Maybe we are:

Dr. Phil Jones email – July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Dr. Phil Jones interview – February, 2010
Roger Harrabin – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

Phil Jones – “Yes, but only just.”

So 15 years of no significant warming yet CO2 concentrations have continued to climb? How does the AGW theory gel with that?

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes, it's seen by governments as being an area demanding immediate attention so research funding is more likely to be available for climate change than, say, the sexual habits of goldfish. My area of specialty is business sustainability and that's another area where there is plenty of funding and there is a shitload of well paid work in the field compared to something like selling fax machines.

But science is there to prove, it is not supposed to be biased, yet you'll find anyone with models showing something other than "humans are the cause for everything & need to be taxed" don't make anywhere near the $$$ as those who will say "they are the cause & do need to be taxed".

[shrub]

Ok then - Human activity is altering a natural cycle.

The human race is very adaptable. If the cycle changes too quickly than we may not be able to adapt quickly enough. I turn on the news every night and think that might be a good thing

Sadly the complex ecosystem we depend on is not quick to adapt, but you and I will be fine - or will we?

Depends if you believe if Al Gore's alternative religion is good salesmanship or just plain theft?

Ah, the "AGW is religion" spin. Have you ever wondered why so many fundamentalist christian groups are so vehemently opposed to AGW? Or how the least religious and most rational people (scientists) agree? I love how deniers think science is religion. And how is a commercial transaction theft?

Any scientist struggling for finance into their field of study only have to add ".............and the effects on global warming" to the end of the research title and away they go coin a plenty.

I wish it were that easy, really I do. I love people with no understanding of science.

Maybe we are:

Dr. Phil Jones email – July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Dr. Phil Jones interview – February, 2010
Roger Harrabin – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

Phil Jones – “Yes, but only just.”

So 15 years of no significant warming yet CO2 concentrations have continued to climb? How does the AGW theory gel with that?

Come on mate, I wouldn't insult you by throwing a few out of context quotes to support an argument. If you can't support your position with anything of substance I suggest you either give up or resort to complaining about tax or Al Gore's power bill.

But science is there to prove, it is not supposed to be biased, yet you'll find anyone with models showing something other than "humans are the cause for everything & need to be taxed" don't make anywhere near the $$$ as those who will say "they are the cause & do need to be taxed".

Another person with no understanding of science trying to debate a scientific subject - a bit like my daughter arguing about bikes. Science is not there to prove anything because outside of mathematics NOTHING can be proven. Hell, even gravity is only a theory. Science is there to ask questions, explore and explain, and science is innately unbiased, and that is where you have your problem. You want science to say "climate change is not caused by human activity, so you won't have to pay taxes and shit", but it doesn't. Science reports on wand explains observed phenomena, and that really sucks at times, but life's like that.

And on that note, I doubt I'll waste any more time on this thread. You have amused me and I'm just glad that the people who matter - business and political leaders - are a little better informed.

[Scuba_Steve]

Sadly the complex ecosystem we depend on is not quick to adapt, but you and I will be fine - or will we?

Ah, the "AGW is religion" spin. Have you ever wondered why so many fundamentalist christian groups are so vehemently opposed to AGW? Or how the least religious and most rational people (scientists) agree? I love how deniers think science is religion. And how is a commercial transaction theft?

I wish it were that easy, really I do. I love people with no understanding of science.

Come on mate, I wouldn't insult you by throwing a few out of context quotes to support an argument. If you can't support your position with anything of substance I suggest you either give up or resort to complaining about tax or Al Gore's power bill.

Another person with no understanding of science trying to debate a scientific subject - a bit like my daughter arguing about bikes. Science is not there to prove anything because outside of mathematics NOTHING can be proven. Hell, even gravity is only a theory. Science is there to ask questions, explore and explain, and science is innately unbiased, and that is where you have your problem. You want science to say "climate change is not caused by human activity, so you won't have to pay taxes and shit", but it doesn't. Science reports on wand explains observed phenomena, and that really sucks at times, but life's like that.

And on that note, I doubt I'll waste any more time on this thread. You have amused me and I'm just glad that the people who matter - business and political leaders - are a little better informed.

Wow you are really sucked into this religion aint you?

[Woodman]

This is how I see it.

We humans are living off all the decomposed trees and animals that have turned into oil over the last fcuk knows how many years. We are using the oil as currency and to power our factories economies and toys. We are so happy and obsessed with growth that we are overpopulating the planet to the extent we are burning up all the oil whilst cutting down all the trees which are the only things that can deal with the carbon that we are producing.

Do not panic because at about the same time we run out of oil, the planet will be so unsustainably overpopulated that we will all die (while arguing about who is at fault) and all our bodies will sink into the oceans and turn into oil and then one day we will have oil again to start the process over.

No worries

[mashman]

Science is not there to prove anything because outside of mathematics NOTHING can be proven.

After i set your plastic jebus on fire, it will have melted from a solid into a liquid and then will turn back to a solid again. I can prove that without the use of mathematics

You have amused me and I'm just glad that the people who matter - business and political leaders - are a little better informed.

[puddytat]

IIR Slartibardfast's ship used Bistromatics as drive, he designed the Fjords you know.

That ship that Zaphod Beeblebrox pinched used the "Infinite improbability Drive" if I remember correctly,which was an idea that was so astoundingly improbable & unlikely to work ,.... & that is exactly why it worked so improbably & impossibly well
A bit like the argument that Humans are having no impact on the Planet eh
And maybe thats why God may exist too as scientifactly its rather improbable.
Recently they discovered that Slarti was also was responsible for Fiordland

[Winston001]

Do not panic because at about the same time we run out of oil, the planet will be so unsustainably overpopulated that we will all die (while arguing about who is at fault) and all our bodies will sink into the oceans and turn into oil and then one day we will have oil again to start the process over.

Yes, overpopulation is the greatest immediate risk to humanity. Famine war disease. We won't all die. Humans are remarkably adaptable and survive in extraordinary conditions. Technology won't disappear. There will be less of us and they will be far better off than we are today.

Still...its poignant and compelling to visualise unrest in times to come. From about 2029 onwards.