More Doom And Gloom

[MAF]

Or is this just a cycle of nature?

either way i feel that the future is not bright

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4987186.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4772715.stm

[Optimus Prime]

The bbc know it all don't they?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

They know a lot more than most.

[MAF]

The bbc know it all don't they?

well i wouldn't say that. what i would say is that the BBC seems to report the issue more than some. and as an unbiased corporation (imo) they do so pretty well

They know a lot more than most.

yep

[Guest Mike W]

Are you sure you would call them unbiased, they seem pretty much one sided to me. To be fair the entire media are all saying exactly the same thing IMO.

Edited May 20, 2006 by Mike W

[MAF]

Are you sure you would call them unbiased, they seem pretty much one sided to me. To be fair the entire media are all saying exactly the same thing IMO.

well i did say that in my opinion they were unbiased. because thats how i feel about the reporting they do. each to their own though

[Thundery wintry showers]

I do think that the BBC have some bias towards the pro-GW side- but bias is a relative thing, and most other branches of the media are much more biased than the BBC. So as far as the media is concerned, BBC is one of the most reliable sources.

[SNOW-MAN2006]

excuse me but who is the bbc to decide wether global warming is the direct cause of climate change??? there is no proof the climate has and always will be changing and the bbc and the world are just trying to pinpoint it on one cause!

SNOW-MAN2006

[crimsone]

Global warming or not though, through various processes, some of which we probably don't even know of yet, we ARE destroying Earth slowly - indisputably in my own opinion.

To put it in the rough context of the Gaia hypothesis, which alikens the planet to a living organism, if Scabies started burrowing away and eating under your skin, you'd feel pretty grouchy and irritated. Our method of civilisation could be considered much the same on the Earth.

If some kind of virus were to dig through your skin and convert all of your sub-cutaneous fat to other chemicals, you'd get very ill. This could be equated to diggin out fossil fuels (most of which are gone), and burning them.

If some kind of virus were to enter your body and completely kill off one particular kind of bacteria, or maybe even T-cells, again, you'd get very sick. This could be said to be representative of the human race wiping out other specied on this planet - often systematically - resulting in the complete extinction of parts of Earths delicate ecosystem.

And of course, these are just the things that we see, and even with these we may not yet know what future effect it will have.

Edited May 20, 2006 by crimsone

[PersianPaladin]

Global warming or not though, through various processes, some of which we probably don't even know of yet, we ARE destroying Earth slowly - indisputably in my own opinion.

To put it in the rough context of the Gaia hypothesis, which alikens the planet to a living organism, if Scabies started burrowing away and eating under your skin, you'd feel pretty grouchy and irritated. Our method of civilisation could be considered much the same on the Earth.

If some kind of virus were to dig through your skin and convert all of your sub-cutaneous fat to other chemicals, you'd get very ill. This could be equated to diggin out fossil fuels (most of which are gone), and burning them.

If some kind of virus were to enter your body and completely kill off one particular kind of bacteria, or maybe even T-cells, again, you'd get very sick. This could be said to be representative of the human race wiping out other specied on this planet - often systematically - resulting in the complete extinction of parts of Earths delicate ecosystem.

And of course, these are just the things that we see, and even with these we may not yet know what future effect it will have.

Very true.

May God help us.

[Dawlish]

Are you sure you would call them unbiased, they seem pretty much one sided to me. To be fair the entire media are all saying exactly the same thing IMO.

Have you ever thought that all the media are saying the same thing.......because it is actually true?

[Guest Mike W]

No becasue they are all saying the the things they are told to say to make us think what you just said, IMO obviously. Their are plenty studies that disprove alot of what is said in the media. This may be of interest: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[Dawlish]

No becasue they are all saying the the things they are told to say to make us think what you just said, IMO obviously. Their are plenty studies that disprove alot of what is said in the media. This may be of interest: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

It is of limited interest. From the load of science thrown at you from the article, none of which I disagree with, but much of which is simply used as a smokescreen to make you think that Global Warming isn't a reality.....your point is?

Do you actually think the earth's atmosphere and oceans are not warming? Or do you just not believe that global warming is happening on some kind of anti-media principle? (not that I love the media either. Much of what they quote is greatly diluted science for the masses).

[Guest Mike W]

Well the article doesn't say it's not happening though does it. Don't remeber it saying that at all personally, unless you can prove that it does. I mean that sincerely, not in an peeved way. If it does it does, but I cant' remebr it sayin it saying it's not happeneing. Just to answer your question, yes of course I think Global Warming is happening, I'm alot more concerned about it than r Milloy who done that artcile, although I will say he has a very valid point, very interesting article, I'm more pessamistic than he is though, especially looking at the annual CET's post 88, an over zealous clean air act perhaps. don't know.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Mike W

[Dawlish]

Well the article doesn't say it's not happening though does it. Don't remeber it saying that at all personally, unless you can prove that it does. I mean that sincerely, not in an peeved way. If it does it does, but I cant' remebr it sayin it saying it's not happeneing. Just to answer your question, yes of course I think Global Warming is happening, I'm alot more concerned about it than r Milloy who done that artcile, although I will say he has a very valid point, very interesting article, I'm more pessamistic than he is though, especially looking at the annual CET's post 88, an over zealous clean air act perhaps. don't know.

The only real questions are. 1. What is the cause of GW? and 2. Are we able to do anything about it? No matter how much "junkscience" would like to try to persuade us that is may not be happening, or that it may not be happening to the extent that most scientists accept that it is, it is happening. the arguments must now be basd on those two questions, not around whether the world is warming, or not.

[Guest Mike W]

Yes but those are the two things that are debated on the article, well questioned. If your asking me, well it's pretty obvious were playing a big role in the warming at least especially by underestimating CO2 and warming emmisons in general prior to the clean air act and in the early days of it, that is until it took full hold around the late 80's or 88 to be specific, then we got worried. If you think about the the act staring in 1956 and then the warming hysteria in 1988, thats along time to wait to get alarmed about it, we should have noticed the danger of it from the start. In fact the alternative energy and fuel should have been part of the act in the first place, so that all emmisons are tkaen into account rather than just visible ones. Basically it's all been badly managed. Could probably realax the regs on SO2 and soot to 1975 levels for example, maybe, but that wouldn't go down well understandably I suppose.

[BARRY]

The only real questions are. 1. What is the cause of GW? and 2. Are we able to do anything about it? No matter how much "junkscience" would like to try to persuade us that is may not be happening, or that it may not be happening to the extent that most scientists accept that it is, it is happening. the arguments must now be basd on those two questions, not around whether the world is warming, or not.

trouble is everybody thinks everybody else should be do'ing something about it and if G W is going on nobody wants to admit it in case they are contributing to it.

IT'S THE GOLDFISH EFFECT :blush:

[Guest Mike W]

One question if all governments relaxed or even scapped the clean air act, what cooling if any at all would we see. This theoretical as I personally would be against it.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Mike W

[Thundery wintry showers]

The problem isn't that the media are telling us that human activity is potentially destroying the planet. The problem is that they tend to present a very biased and exaggerated viewpoint, often quoting scientific facts out of context and twisting them in order to make big headlines, or to push a hidden agenda.

I think people would be a lot less sceptical about anthropogenic global warming et al. if a group like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was presenting data to the public. Scientists with a sensible agenda: to present unmodified, untwisted facts without "spin" and use them to illustrate to the public why action is a good idea.

There is a difference, for example, between the IPCC Report 2001 (something along the lines of "it is likely that the mean global temperature will rise by between 1.4 and 5.8C by 2100") and the media ("the planet will get hotter by up to 6C and the whole of Antarctica will disappear")

[Dawlish]

trouble is everybody thinks everybody else should be do'ing something about it and if G W is going on nobody wants to admit it in case they are contributing to it.

IT'S THE GOLDFISH EFFECT

No it isn't. The link between humans producing CO2 and Global Warming is not proven. There's the real political difficulty. I would agree that it is most probably the cause, but politicians, need something they can tell the electorate is an absolute. It's no good to them saying; "well, the cause of Global Warming isn't yet clear, so we're better off, for the present, not doing anything until we are sure". Much better to agree to protocols, like Kyoto and then they can be seen to be doing something - they have a cause. Whether they are doing the correct thing means very little politically, but inertia in the face of a percieved problem, is electoral suicide.

TWS; well said.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Dawlish

[noggin]

"Global Warming" is just the current bandwagon upon which the media and politicians are all jumping. A decade ago it was the environment (generally), before that it was the Cold War, before that it was the atom bomb. There will always be some "fright" or another. Give it another few years and some other issue will be hitting the headlines instead of "Global Warming". In any case (and in my humble opinion) it isn't "Global Warming", it's "Climate Change"......some places on Earth are heating up and some places are cooling down. Mother Nature can balance things out.

PS That's not to say we can be complacent.......we do have to respect the Earth and all it's life forms.

Edited May 22, 2006 by noggin

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

trouble is everybody thinks everybody else should be do'ing something about it and if G W is going on nobody wants to admit it in case they are contributing to it.

IT'S THE GOLDFISH EFFECT

No the real problem is that there are an awful lot of scientists who do NOT subscribe to the theory of continued GW due to mankind. Messages are very mixed and no proof either way. Safest bet is to be green and recycle and don't be complacent in your daily life. I don't go with irreversible GW as many know but I go with recycling and conservation of energy and minimalising pollution.

regards

BFTP

[Dawlish]

No the real problem is that there are an awful lot of scientists who do NOT subscribe to the theory of continued GW due to mankind. Messages are very mixed and no proof either way. Safest bet is to be green and recycle and don't be complacent in your daily life. I don't go with irreversible GW as many know but I go with recycling and conservation of energy and minimalising pollution.

regards

BFTP

True, BFTP. There are many scientists who do not subscribe to the theory of anthropomorphic GW. I'm not 100% convinced, though I'm not a research scientist in the field of GW. At the same time I must point out a critcal distinction: there are very few scientists who do not subscribe to the fact that the earth is currently warming.

I'm also as green as my Devon lawn - which in this rather wet May is just about as green as it gets!

[West is Best]

They know a lot more than most.

It was a superb programme, carefully researched using top scientists (many of whom have changed to the GW view in the last 5 years). The Hadley research at the end on human causation was instructive. Human causation on CO2 seems near-certain now.

It's GW ... and the sooner we face it and try and sort it, if we can, the better.

[Guest Mike W]

The only thing that's confusing is that I thought water/water vapour is the biggest warming agent playing a bigger role in warming than CO2 or is that not right.