The Great Global Warming Swindle

[vifferman]

CFC's eat ozone. Get rid of the bastards. Hopefully that big hole above us wil gradually heal.

Y'reckon?
Why isn't the hole over the northern hemisphere then? :spudwhat:
Why has the hole been there oh-so-much-longer than the brief time we've had CFCs? :spudwhat: :spudwhat:
Back in the early '80s, when I was doing some research for a MSc thesis, I got sidetracked by a very old NZ science magazine (some time in the 19th Century - can't remember the date). Even way back then, NZ's sunlight was much stronger than in Urp or other northern places, and the strong UV tended to fade orange and red paint, just as it does now.
Not surprising - the ozone hole is more'n likely a largely natural (and poorly understood) phenomenon.

[Mikkel]

Some people think that this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagn...ield_reversals
might have something to do with the depletion of the ozone layer that we are seeing.

[irishlad]

Y'reckon?
Why isn't the hole over the northern hemisphere then? :spudwhat:
Why has the hole been there oh-so-much-longer than the brief time we've had CFCs? :spudwhat: :spudwhat:
Back in the early '80s, when I was doing some research for a MSc thesis, I got sidetracked by a very old NZ science magazine (some time in the 19th Century - can't remember the date). Even way back then, NZ's sunlight was much stronger than in Urp or other northern places, and the strong UV tended to fade orange and red paint, just as it does now.
Not surprising - the ozone hole is more'n likely a largely natural (and poorly understood) phenomenon.

Thanks for that. Is nice to get some detailed info.

[irishlad]

Some people think that this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagn...ield_reversals
might have something to do with the depletion of the ozone layer that we are seeing.

Make you wonder. If it shifts in a 250,000 Yr cycle, will mankind be around long enough to have proof of theory?

[Badjelly]

Y'reckon?
Why isn't the hole over the northern hemisphere then? :spudwhat:
Why has the hole been there oh-so-much-longer than the brief time we've had CFCs? :spudwhat: :spudwhat:
Back in the early '80s, when I was doing some research for a MSc thesis, I got sidetracked by a very old NZ science magazine (some time in the 19th Century - can't remember the date). Even way back then, NZ's sunlight was much stronger than in Urp or other northern places, and the strong UV tended to fade orange and red paint, just as it does now.
Not surprising - the ozone hole is more'n likely a largely natural (and poorly understood) phenomenon.

You know, with a critical analysis of the scientific issues of such depth and comprehensiveness, you could produce a TV documentary.

[Mikkel]

You know, with a critical analysis of the scientific issues of such depth and comprehensiveness, you could produce a movie.

If we're testing a hypothesis - hypocritical should be good enough!

[vifferman]

You know, with a critical analysis of the scientific issues of such depth and comprehensiveness, you could produce a movie.

But what could I call it? :spudwhat:
"True Confessions of Chicken Little", mayhap?
"A Big Hole in the Sky Burned My Bum"?

[Bullitt]

It convinced me that the risk of doing nothing far exceeds the risk of effectively addressing climate change.

That would depend entirely on what assumptions you make.

On one extreme climate change is a certainty and we can save the planet by not riding motorbikes and becoming vegetarians. Everyone is inconvenienced but lives. The risk of doing nothing is too high.

On the other extreme climate change is not influenced by people in any way. There may be variation but its entirely normal. We divert all the land into producing biofuels and stop using non-renewable engergy and billions starve and alot of other people die from other entirely preventable causes. Lots of people die, everyone is significantly worse off and nothing is achieved at all. The risk of doing anything is too high.

The truth is somewhere in between.

To my mind theres an infinitecimal risk Ill get shot tomorrow. If it actually happens Ill wish I was wearing a bullet proof vest. In the other infinity-1 situations I wont get shot and I would have been inconvenienced by wearing a bullet proof vest for no reason. Just because the worst case scenario is alot worse for me than the likely scenario dont mean its logical for me to prepare for something I consider has practially no chance of happening.

[Indiana_Jones]

-Indy

[Zookey]

-Indy

I am with you all the way there bro

[Badjelly]

Quasievil has suggested a climate change thread.

I know a little bit about climate science and I am convinced that the human influence on the climate over at least the last few decades has been considerable (via greenhouse gases, mostly) and is going to get larger.

But I have to ask...

Global warming........maybe, climates changed since earth ws created and will always do so, Man made PFFFTT !! its the biggest swindle in the modern world, designed to get people paid and that dont include us

The whole global warming thing is about money, kyoto has taken Trillions and for what gain, next is the copenhagen treay, that will take more and it will take it from the average kiwi to the tune of around $3,000 pa minimum.

Given this point of view, what could I possibly say about climate change science that might change your mind? Clearly I'm in it for the money and can be expected to perjure myself to perpetuate the swindle.

And how much do you think climate scientists get paid, anyway?

[Magua]

These threads come, people argue and no one changes anyone's viewpoint.

May I reccomend Bjorn Lomborgs the Skeptical Environmentalist as a read. Bjorn subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but rather than slashing emissions and making ourselves poorer he writes that a richer world will better be able to deal with any future changes. _b

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=J...um=5#PPA178,M1

[Badjelly]

May I reccomend Bjorn Lomborgs the Skeptical Environmentalist as a read. Bjorn subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but rather than slashing emissions and making ourselves poorer he writes that a richer world will better be able to deal with any future changes.

I read that a few years ago. I was quite impressed overall at the time, but I did notice that I found the bits where he talked about stuff I already knew something about much less impressive than the others.

[Mikkel]

May I reccomend Bjorn Lomborgs the Skeptical Environmentalist as a read. Bjorn subscribes to the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but rather than slashing emissions and making ourselves poorer he writes that a richer world will better be able to deal with any future changes.

Bjorn Lomborg certainly raises some valid points - but the role he playing in the debate is more so that of a provocateur who challenges the established way of thinking rathen than that of an objective scientist presenting the results of a thorough investigation of the matter. Not that it isn't an important role, but it hardly provides us with any significant insights.

[Badjelly]

So the new thread has been merged with The Great Global Warming Swindle. Thanks mods.

I never participated in that thread because I found the whole thing too depressing. FFS people, The Great Global Warming Swindle is a swindle. And that's all I have to say on that subject.

Edit: well OK, I did participate in that thread, or maybe in one that got merged with it, but only a little

You know, with a critical analysis of the scientific issues of such depth and comprehensiveness, you could produce a TV documentary.