Village

I will be pleased to. Currently am in the process of answering BornFrom The Void with links. I worked in the past on a few projects with Authorities and the threat of flooding due to the sea level rise and thats how i know the rate of rise is pretty constant. Its a myth that the rate of rise is increasing.

The whole flavour of your post has nothing to do with the subject. the subject of this thread is ....The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming It clearly is Taboo here if one cant ask difficult questions without personal attacks My post was not a rant. It was a simple question......Bearing in mind that the sea level rate of change is not changing; (please note that you have not read my post correctly I did not state that the sea level is not rising) What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change? Its a sensible question. Its not rude, its not a rant.

Conspiracy theory? Maybe you may think, but I dont. Its in the news and what is happening in the real world. Its absolutely obvious if one can fill in the gaps between the lines. New sources of oil are sought because demand is high. Nothing unusual about this.

Oil as a form of energy will end very soon IMO. It wont end because of a crackpot theory that the world will heat up and we will all drown as sea levels rise. There is no sign of this. It wont end because we exhaust the supply. There is hundreds of years of supply. It will end for security reasons. The west will not be held to ransom and risk our way of life. It's too prescious. This is the real reason for promoting alternative energy useage. Dont be fooled by the claptrap.

You can ignore the question or muddy the waters if you like. Its a simple enough question. The 3mm figure is relative to sea level change only. The figure would be 6mm currently with techtonic play and rates of isostatic rebound taken into acount.

For the few who do believe the theory that we are changing global climate; Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 3mm per year every year for hundreds of years. The rate of change is not accelerating. The Capital of East Anglia, a product from the Roman occupation 2,000 years ago and the largest port in the UK one thousand years ago became submerged 800 years ago. It is now two miles out under the North Sea. The annual 3mm rise in sea level continues. What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

The AGW claptrap is simply pure politics and has absolutely nothing to do with science. The only reason that science seems to be a part of it is because the huge finances involved have skewed the efforts of all scientific persuations by encouraging reports on the subject. Basically if you want funding on any thesis all you do is link your work to Global Warming and hey presto! you have your funding. This is the reason why over the past decade or so, virtually every new report all comes back to Mankind warming the planet via CO2 release. Without that vital link then there wont be the funding. Ever wondered why every concievable change in the environment is our fault? Well now you have your answer. Its also the reason why it's taboo to suggest that the theory of AGW might actually be a theory. There are too many people out there who are now bankrolled by the theory being sold as a fact. If too many people out there ask too many questions and cause a problem to the whole gravy train then livelyhoods and reputations will come crashing down like a pack of cards. But unfortunately that is precisely what will happen. The theory has already been promoted too far and it is in decline. The Climategate incident was an example of that. The IPCC being caught red handed promoting a blatant lie about the Himalayan glacier retreat was another. Heck....even the name Global Warming had to be changed because somebody pointed out the unfortunate fact that some places in the world are getting colder. That really damaged the IPCC and so they renamed it Climate Change. Trouble is ...the climate has always changed so nothing new there.

Its not news to me....I am on the net quoted for warning of this for the past decade. Further, they are still missing the real point......the times of highest demand are during extremes of temperature. In this country that is always under the influence of High pressure or a Coll. Isnt that the one time when the wind doesnt blow? Think of cold frosty or foggy nights when radiation cooling takes place and everyone reaches for the thermostat!...are the turbine blades likely to be idle? damned right they are. My propossal was to reduce the size of the turbines by 80% and sink them into the ocean currents where the tides never stop flowing. Its a total no-brainer IMO. Problem is that politicians who know nothing about the subject were pressurised by green groups into wind turbines asap. We therefore got the cheap and quick option. The Green groups can also be blamed for the reason we produce too much CO2 in the first place because they pressurised previous governments to get rid of clean nuclear power too. basiclly this should be another lesson to governments to be wary of the kneejerk green politics which are all about semantics and little about common sense policy.

Isnt this the same country where annual Seal pup clubbing is legal?

Lauren, its got nothing to do with being greedy. Thats your skew, thats simply what you are saying now because you have a comfortable existence right now. Its about looking after the human race ... you can pretend all you like that you prefer to put the likes of butterfles, rats, moles, trees, lesser spotted tad poles and the like but it doesnt wash with me. When the chips are down you will do everything in your powers to put yourself first and ensure your survival. If you dont do this then you will be letting the whole of us down...your species. Pretend all you like but you will choose your survival over everything else right up until your last desperate gasp for air. I have no doubt about this whatsoever. You have the same affliction that we all do, its the way all living things are programed, you have no choice in the matter....you will put yourself first ... the rest is just hot air. You dont kid me.

Yes, we will be safe from whatever befits this planet in future years if we have the alternative to get off and away. Please remind me that I never want to be a passenger on a plane next to you when there is a sudden loss in cabin pressure. Clearly you wont be able to help anyone with their oxgen mask because you wasted time not ensuring that you first had fitted yours. Its the first principal in any emergency. You failed.

In that case I personally think you are missing the whole point. We have absolutely everything to lose. Some talk of the precautionary principal. However, in being cautious in whatever we do we should be mindful that we dont slow up the speed of development because in doing so we may just miss the most precautionary aspect of our time here. In simple terms ......when that next Meteor makes a direct hit, or when volcanic activity rises to overproduce atmospheric mercury levels or during the pole reversal when all life may well become infertile as gama radiation levels increase....There will be no rejoicing at having cut CO2 output at the expence of our only chance to have mastered a sustainable living alternative in space. You can cry all you like then but it will be too late, even if it does finally dawn on some that the real meaning of the precautionary principal was hyjacked and valuable time was lost. Heres another one for you to get your mind around......To help others....first one must help oneself! We should make sure that we have our own insurance in the bag first before we look to save anything else. Its a dangerous planet we live on and currently we have no way to escape it. You can worry about what we may or may not do to the planet ourselves or whether one theory may or may not upset the climate. But dont forget that the main concern is not a theory...it is a fact...we can be wiped out by a tremendous upheavel at any time, this should be our real concern. No maybe's, we know from the past that something will happen again, its just a matter of time. This is our time, we should not waste it while we have the chance.

The problem with this statement is that everytime for the past two decades extreme weather events have been portrayed as evidence of climate change by protagonists. So your argument rings hollow. Its only been dragged out now because clearly over the past decade the temperatures in the UK have stopped rising at the same rate and have been noted as falling at times over recent years. Climate warming here in the UK should no longer be an issue. But of course being self sufficiant in energy is a political issue and then climate theory is being used to sell 'save the planet' claptrap to millions who dont have the time of day to find out the truth for themselves. One final point about the Gaurdian newspaper. They have for decades been lambasting Euro sceptics in the same way and labelling them as 'little Englanders'. The Guardian has now admitted they got it all wrong on the Euro now that the penny has finally dropped. I fully expect a one hundred and eighty degree u-turn with their persistant need to promote manmade global warming theoretics as a fact. The tide has already turned against the theory because the general public and large numbers of the scientific community are now becoming much more sceptical. I personally would welcome a public inquirey about the way in which UK taxpayers money has been used to promote a theory as a fact simply to encourage the payment of even more new climate taxes. If this had happened in any other country we would call it corruption.

Hello Jethro, My point is that the subject of climate , it's relationship with the physical dynamics of fluids and gasses is an enormous subject. The whole indepth subject has been reduced to one tiny virtually irelevant entity in the last two decades. All based on one unproven theory. I have spent forty years studying the subject and two decades exploring every avenue of the CO2 theoretics and I can talk the hind legs of a Donkey about the subject in depth. However, the more I studied, the more I learned, the more questions I found the theory raised than it answered. If you or anyone really wants to talk about the theory of the so called 'greenhouse effect' then the very first thing one needs to know is that there is no such relationship with Greenhouses because there is no physical barrier like a glass sheet. Secondly and no less importantly, water vapour is a thousand times more significant than CO2 within the process. So why isnt anyone discussing water vapour if one really wants to understand climate and the regulation and distribution of extremes in global temperature? Why has the whole science now been delegated to the backroom while the only thing some wish to discuss is another man's fanciful theory which has skewed the whole scientific agenda for too long. If one wishes to demonstrate ones knowledge of this enormous subject then lets leave the theoretics to those who dont know anything else. This was Attenborough's mistake too IMO.

I dont think Attenborough has demonstrated he is clever enough on the subject of meteorology. He has not studied atmospheric dynamics and climate before backing an inconclusive theory. If he had done so he would know very well that the rate of climate change we are experiencing today and for many hundreds of years is very little compared with what nature can throw at us. There have been many occassions in the past when climate change has been extremely dramatic. By contrast we are living in very stable climate times. Its actually been unusually quite stable for many hundreds of years with no large scale systemic shocks of the sort that would really bring about abrupt climate change. Why continually bang on about CO2? There is a whole science out there which is being ignored and replaced with one man's theory which has been adopted by meteorologically illiterate types for political reasons or individuals with little to add themselves. Whenever one simply resorts to the same old CO2 claptrap it simply highlights ones lack of a basic understanding of climate science IMO. I appologise if this sounds harsh because its not really aimed at you personally....Its just that CO2 is now such a yawn for members who know only too well that CO2 only amounts to about one percentile of a whole plethora of climate drivers.

He never maintained that conservation was about conserving the climate as it is now. Thats called medling and it is a complete reversal of the message he has spent a lifetime trying to relay.

My original point was that Attenborough had contradicted his lifetimes work by supporting a theory that we should do everything in our powers to freeze climate change where it is now. He spent a whole lifetime telling us that climate changing was the main entity that kept the whole living world fighting fit by forever testing species to the limit. Without the constant change then life would become less able to deal with a realy hard shock. Change is essential basically he said. Now he has subscribed to the crackpot theory that change is bad he has completely muddied the waters.

Other species understand this too and they also nuture their environment to produce maximum yields for their own benefit. We are doing no more and no less to ensure our survival than any other species. To suggest that we are more intelligent, more superior, more productive, more influencing etc, etc is no true. Its simply inflated ego stuff which has no bearing in the real world. When a natural upheaval comes, it wont make the blindest difference that one is human. Its all in the mind, we will be wiped out just the same.

I dont accept this just because somebody else has said so. All my observations have indicated that many species, infact almost all are just as inteligent. The only difference is that they have developed quite different skill sets with their minds which we lack and vica versa. When it was first stated that man was the most inteligent, it was a time when Darwin himself was ridiculed. Little has changed, people are still simply aping the words of others. I dont accept that other animals are not as intelligent just because they dont do what we do. The only difference between ourselves and most animals is that we have developed intelect.

To be able to make decissions for oneself and to change those decissions again at any stage.

All species are inteligent. Thats right Dev, however, we have weakened our species to the point where we are now very vulnerable. We will pay dearly when the next systemic shock comes along. nature will hold no prisoners. Other species will have no mercy on us. They wont care if they wipe us out if it benefits them.

Yes, exactly my point and precisely why we have no time to loose. We are working rappidly to providing an alternaitve to living on this planet. If we dont develop a sustainable method of living outside of our planet then we are all doomed. Its clear from the history of the world that terrible things happen here and without an escape we will be consigned to the trash can of history along with everything else. We need to use the resources available to us. Once we have the alternative and its now within our grasp we can then ease back and play God games if we think we can or even should. Patronising? these are your words not mine; " Being the higher species that we are" So every other living thing is a lesser species according to you. This gives you a God given right or something?

Essan, Permit me to say so, but what you maintain here is the folly that I speak of above. Man does not have the ability to see longterm into the future and predict outcomes. The T value is the most important factor and is always undervalued by the AGW theorisers. Every cause has an effect which has causes and effects. Its like a stone into water and a ripple effect which is three dimentional and therefore laterally too indepth. Change the cause and you simply change the effects. But one cannot eliminate the effects unless one eliminates oneself. Seeing that you dont wish to kill yourself and niether does anyone else then its folly to make out you know how you can change the future.

Absolutely. Pay attention to this man folks for he truly understands the way that the natural world performes or does not perform....which ever way one looks at it. As I have understood nature, the natural world including climate. There is no such thing as stability, averages, norms balances in the natural world. These are Man made ideas and dont in any way represent the real world. You have heard me say this time and time again.........Those who have observed nature, not merely read theory will understand that the nutural world spends its whole time reacting to the effects of one system shock to another. Since nobody can predict when the next real systemic shock will come or its guise then it is pointless making out that we can predict long term future. Therefore, any attempt at trying to overt the unpredictable is absolute folly.

The point that so many are missing is that we are nature. We are not alien to our environment. We are a product of our environment and none of us have had any control over that whatsoever. Ask yourself why any of us are here, why are you here? Was it out of your control? Are you simply a reaction to a cause? Thats the bit that all these do-gooders miss. They miss the bleeding obvious. You are a reaction to a cause in the natural world. As such you have no power over the reactions that you cause. If you want to do something then kill yourself and kill other fellows because this is the only sure way you will stop Man and yourself from causing reactions within the environment. If you think you can stop causes to your actions and stay alive you are wrong. You will simply move your causes elsewhere. To suggest that you can limit your causes due to you being here is absolutely proposterous. The only sure way is to kill yourself. For instance; if you want to stop eating red meat because you thnk you are killing the planet then you will consume something else. You will impact the environment elsewhere. If you think that 2,000 calories from another food source will cause less effect then you are absolutely misguided. Remember, the higher the calorific content of the food then the less you need. Thats why on the face of it herbivors have such a huge impact on the environment because they have to consume all day everyday and therefore they can change landscape much quicker than hunters. But dont think that the hunters have any less of an impact because the actions of herbivore effect the hunters. Every living thing is the effect of a cause and in itself is the cause of an effect. It is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion I am hearing from some here that one can eliminate or reduce their own cause on effects. All you can do is shift your own effect and cause something elsewhere. That is what some propose and its not nature, its politics because in nature every effect is the result of a cause or causes and your very existence is a cause.