The Nonsense That is Global Warming

[West is Best]

Less of the sarcasm please.

Oh OON. Coming from you?! :o

Now I'll keep out of it ...

[rob48]

"Perhaps you could take more than a handful of posts before you start accusing the volunteers that run this place of having an "agenda"? It's highly irritating and very disrespectful"

I don't mean to irritate or display a lack of respect.

However, the handful of posts is of no consequence, as I've read the forums of this site for close on 3 years so I'm well aware of the way the wind blows.

Perhaps annoying would be the suitable adjective?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Interesting that you've chosen to join a forum where there's a hidden agenda then. Sorry, but I don't get it.

What gets me about this whole subject isn't so much people's points of views, but the way that some people think they're somehow more elightened or "brave" for having a viewpoint different to that of the majority.

[Bobby]

The more I see the way AGWers behave the more I doubt the science. Sociologically they are sooooooo like religious cult members, some of them. Really quite frightening - especially when you see otherwise intelligent people close out their minds to any emerging evidence, or even to the possibility that they might just have some things wrong.

Scary. Very scary.

Refering to me? Well, I tried to use science in my post, used no personal jibes, yet you didn't address any of the scientific points and instead threw more personal insults about. I really wish we could be more civilised and just talked about the facts.

[rob48]

"Interesting that you've chosen to join a forum where there's a hidden agenda then. Sorry, but I don't get it. "

I wasn't conscious of the "agenda" until after I'd joined, and my posts were subsequently deleted.

Do you "get" that?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

So the only reason your post was deleted was because there's an agenda?!

[West is Best]

Refering to me?

No, not to you. It was a generic point, although some of what I suggested might have had something to do with one person I know. But, no, not you and not personal. Just a generic series of thoughts for the purposes of this thread.

Anyway, off to bed. Night all. Sleep well and don't be cross. Life's too short.

[WhiteXmas]

I apologise for my thread starting an argument! :o . No need for insults thought, just some good heated, respectful discussion night WIB have a good one

[osmposm]

Oh and sorry I meant to mention that it was from a site

Hmmm, just forgot, did you? In my opinion more than a matter for a jolly little smiley. I believe Ken Ring specifically warns against uncredited use of his writing: you should be more careful.

I'm afraid you have shot yourself in the foot. Anyone who cuts and pastes long essays - let alone cuts and pastes without mentioning it - completely removes any right to be listened to seriously. What we are interested in on here is your thoughts and opinions. Quoting some passages is fine, but please tell us what you think about them and why.

As it happens your choice of source is about the worst you could have made. For most of us here, even those anti-AGW, Ken Ring is synonymous with great tracts of ludicrous, easily disprovable 'facts', coupled with a complete refusal to engage objectively - indeed, often at all - with those who point out the flaws in his quasi-astrological arguments. Much energy has been expended on here in the past in trying to have meaningful discussions with the man: I remember a long exchange with him a year or two back when he continued insisiting that the word "meteorology" derived from "meteors" long after it was pointed out that it comes from the Greek for "the study of things in the air".

[Methuselah]

Just an observation: if CO2 is too heavy to rise, then how does radon gas (very heavy methinks?) move upward from rocks into houses, or mercury vapour (again very heavy?) creep upward from a shattered thermometer? Diffusion, Brownian motion, turbulence?

Whatever the precise mechanisms involved, they do all rise.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Pete Tattum

[ANYWEATHER]

I respect everyone on here with all those facts and figures on climate change/ global warming, but with all the books and everything else ive read to do with this im still not at all convinced by this theory! Ive heared so much nonsense over the years with climate change and because its mentioned so much/tomuch ,on a daily basis ,even if I did go along with this theory I think its been watered down by the media, and they have done more harm then good by barraging the public with there so called new foundings of our climate. :lol:

Dont get me wrong, I like to conserve energy and look after the area I live in, its cost effective for one thing so I would say i do as much as I can to look after my enviroment...recycling etc, but whatever I do personally wont make any difference at all to our climate...we all have to join in and we know lots of folks just dont care.

I think its safe to say that our climate is so complicated , that with respect no one " really" understands it, and its pointless making predictions for 100 years time , its hard enough forecasting tommorows weather. :lol: The more we get to understand our climate ,the more questions arise and it seems we have less answers .I really love learning about our planet and our climate, and in a hundred years we will have more questions and one or two new answers.

Another point is that we have so much more data and weather monitoring devices today, and only a few years ago many places were not even known, so when people say records have been broken whether it hot/cold wet/dry its only recently reliable instruments that have measured the weather and its true to say that theres big gaps in the overall weather records even going back a few decades, so basing on what has happened in the past to what the future will be, is open to criticism. just like globalwarming!

[RedShift]

Things here are just getting very silly now...slaps on the back for whitexmas copy and pasting vast tracts from Rong Ken's website, is this the best we can come up with?

[Stratos Ferric]

...Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. ...

HOw is the molecular weight of air arrived at, and whereabouts on the periodic table is 'air'?

If CFCs are so heavy, how come they are doing so much damage to the ozone in the stratosphere?

Just an observation: if CO2 is too heavy to rise, then how does radon gas (very heavy methinks?) move upward from rocks into houses, or mercury vapour (again very heavy?) creep upward from a shattered thermometer? Diffusion, Brownian motion, turbulence?

Whatever the precise mechanisms involved, they do all rise.

And how the hell do 'planes get off the ground? And how can we explain the presence of nucleii in clouds - yes the fluffy ones all the way up there - upon which super-saturated air can coalesce to initiate raindrop formation. And that sand that we occasionally get in autumn rains, all the way from the Sahara, surely sand has a weight far ihn excess of 'air'?

Pffff - there's some real mysterious stuff going on out there Pete isn't there?

Hmmm, just forgot, did you? In my opinion more than a matter for a jolly little smiley. I believe Ken Ring specifically warns against uncredited use of his writing: you should be more careful.

...I remember a long exchange with him a year or two back when he continued insisiting that the word "meteorology" derived from "meteors" long after it was pointed out that it comes from the Greek for "the study of things in the air".

My favourite was his attempt to validate a prediction he made for the UK by citing events in Spain that, in any case, happened about a week later - arguing that Spain was close.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Paul

[laserguy]

To illustrate the point of just how disastrous climate change could be,the government has warned that in 25 years time it's effects will be rivalled in severity by the consequences of...obesity!! I just don't know whether to laugh,cry or explode with rage.

http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6397395. So,if the worst effects of alleged climate change,regardless of cause are as much to worry about as a bunch of folk getting a bit podgy we might as well drop the whole subject right now and look for something else to lose sleep over.

While I'm at it,I expressed disbelief and bewilderment at Al Gore being awarded a Nobel Prize. Along with many others on here,we're not the only ones:

http://smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

I know that belongs in another thread,strictly speaking,but it seems to sit well here while we're on the nonsense theme. Just to keep things good humoured,here's a related joke: Why did the bull get a Nobel Prize?......Because he was out-standing in his field! Geddit?

[Stratos Ferric]

To illustrate the point of just how disastrous climate change could be,the government has warned that in 25 years time it's effects will be rivalled in severity by the consequences of...obesity!! I just don't know whether to laugh,cry or explode with rage.

http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6397395. So,if the worst effects of alleged climate change,regardless of cause are as much to worry about as a bunch of folk getting a bit podgy we might as well drop the whole subject right now and look for something else to lose sleep over.

While I'm at it,I expressed disbelief and bewilderment at Al Gore being awarded a Nobel Prize. Along with many others on here,we're not the only ones:

http://smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

I know that belongs in another thread,strictly speaking,but it seems to sit well here while we're on the nonsense theme. Just to keep things good humoured,here's a related joke: Why did the bull get a Nobel Prize?......Because he was out-standing in his field! Geddit?

In which case laserguy you too might want to go and look at the NObel announcement before jumping to a hasty assessment. As ever on N-W there's a lot of opinion without much checking of facts to test whether the opinion is robust. As I have said to one or two others it would be enlightening if you would share the reasoning behiond the opinion.

I think comparing obesity with GW is daft, though you have slightly misrepresented the argument. I think the point made by the Minister is that efforts to combat obesity wiull present as big a challenge as efforts to change climate. Not sure I agree with him; for the most part we can choose to control our own weight, climate could easily pass a tipping point.

[laserguy]

Hello Stratos! I'm not going to go over past arguments about whether climate change is real and the causes of it etc. Not here anyway,though of course the debate will rumble on forever in some form or another. But do you (and be honest!),and anyone else who cares to comment truly believe that anything that we and the rest of the world do from here on in can alter whatever course the climate is taking? The whole thing fascinates me,otherwise I'd have nowt to say,but really the ways of the world aren't going to change. I'll be honest with you,I've not read anything about A.Gore's award and how he came to be deemed worthy of it. The guy annoys me and he's a politician,so on those grounds alone I'd be as well off reading an article from 'Toad Sexing Weekly' for the interest I have.

But I've said this elsewhere on numerous occassions:raising awareness of alleged climate change and actually doing something are two different things. I'm still looking around for the truly drastic measures (worldwide) which need to be taken by governments if they are to have any credibility. Alright,awareness has been well and truly raised. Now what? Answer:nothing. I know,you know,and I'm 100% certain that no-one in the industrialised world is going to take a retrograde step,bar the odd and utterly futile gestures we can make to reduce our CO2 emissions by a miniscule amount. And certainly,the only way is 'up' for developing nations,until resource depletion says otherwise. So whether one accepts the diagnosis or not,there is no cure. That's what really gets me in all this climate change stuff;it matters not whether the cause is natural,down to us or a mixture of both. Either way there is nothing that we can,or are willing to do about it. Unless industry and consumerism worldwide grinds to a halt (and it won't,quite the opposite in fact),we're just going along for the ride. The true cause of current climate change then is unknown and will remain so until our CO2 output is forcibly removed from the equation. The truth may well reveal that certain quarters have been barking up the wrong tree all along,but they'll be happy presumably,because there's nothing left to produce it.

You're right,comparing climate change with the Big-Mac chomping habits of the fair people of this land is mind-bogglingly ridiculous and shows the ludicrous depths politicians are willing to sink to and the degree to which they see us as complete morons. Actually,I feel grievously insulted by them. No comment on my joke! Didn't you find it amusing??

[SMU]

My favourite was his attempt to validate a prediction he made for the UK by citing events in Spain that, in any case, happened about a week later - arguing that Spain was close.

Didnt ken also argue that if you left an open pan of boiling water in a room it wouldnt warm the room???

S

[osmposm]

.....Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory. Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started getting burst pipes......

I never dealt with this bizarre claim when we were arguing with Ken a while back - partly because there seemed more important things to discuss, and partly because I wasn't absolutely sure it wasn't true. This seems an appropriate time to deal with it.

I have since discussed it with a number of people - older builders, plumbers, developers, even a retired planning officer. Nobody knew what on earth Ken was talking about. From at least Georgian times, and especially in the Victorian housing boom, rainwater and later waste/soil systems were almost always built on the outside of houses, initially in lead, then in cast iron, and finally plastic (occasionally aluminium). This was generally not a problem during even bitter winter weather, as the water in them does not sit, it flows away. In the late 50s/early 60s building regulations changed so that soil stacks on new buildings had to be put inside - this seems to have been partly aesthetic, and partly so that if a partial blockage occurred it would not be exacerbated by freezing. This was, generally-speaking, the first time that such pipes had been brought inside, but regs never demanded that older systems had to be relocated - the problem was not frequent or severe enough. Rainwater goods have remained on the outside throughout, and continue so.

The much narrower and more vulnerable water supply pipes, were water stands immobile within, have always been brought into houses internally and indeed below ground, and continue their distribution or journey to a loft cistern on the inside of a house. These used to be run in lead (the feed into the house sometimes still is), later replaced by copper and/or plastic. At no time had any of the people I spoke to come across or heard of water distribution pipes being fixed on the outside of a house. I suppose it is just possible that those that were so located during the "balmy" 1930s had all been removed without trace a decade later. However, anyone who renovated a house in the 70s & 80s will know that under the floorboards there was (often still is) a mass of old pre-WWII cabling and gas pipes that had already been replaced and (usually!) disconnected: it is just not worthwhile pulling it all out. Similarly I find it inconceivable that no evidence whatsoever would have remained of redundant external water supply pipework and/or its connections.

It is a complete myth that frosts in Britain were "only a memory" in the 1930s, even in the south: the record shows that although the decade was warmer than its predecessor and successor, hard frosts were a great deal commoner than today. It would have been madness to put the water supply on the outside, and despite a warming climate it still would be.

Ossie

Edited October 15, 2007 by osmposm

[Bobby]

I never dealt with this bizarre claim when we were arguing with Ken a while back - partly because there seemed more important things to discuss, and partly because I wasn't absolutely sure it wasn't true. This seems an appropriate time to deal with it.

The average temperature for the 10 years of the 1930's was 9.61c

The average tempearture for the last 10 years is 10.46c.

The 30's had just 1 year above 10c.

The last 10 years have had 9!

Fair to say, this debunks Ken on the 1930's. We are in a far warmer period than then. So where the claim of "some of the hottest years came from the 1930's" comes from I don't know.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Magpie

[Essan]

Fair to say, this debunks Ken on the 1930's. We are in a far warmer period than then. So where the claim of "some of the hottest years came from the 1930's" comes from I don't know.

I assume that derives from North America having some hotter years then (due to natural oscillations I might add )

[Bobby]

I assume that derives from North America having some hotter years then (due to natural oscillations I might add )

Those figures were for the UK. Not sure exactly what's happening over there.

[The PIT]

So the only reason your post was deleted was because there's an agenda?!

I do remember some of Ken Rings posts disappearing as well which I found annoying because I was sure he'd contradicted himself but couldn't prove. Must be a dodgy database.

Didnt ken also argue that if you left an open pan of boiling water in a room it wouldnt warm the room???

S

Well sort of but if it was a large room it wouldn't would it. Can't understand when I leave the oven door open it warms the kitchen up though. Only kidding.

[Bobby]

I do remember some of Ken Rings posts disappearing as well which I found annoying because I was sure he'd contradicted himself but couldn't prove. Must be a dodgy database.

Well sort of but if it was a large room it wouldn't would it. Can't understand when I leave the oven door open it warms the kitchen up though. Only kidding.

Well, not by much, but would still measurably warm it.

[Roo]

Rong Ken's website

Noooooooooooooooo....can't take it again........................noooooo.................need.............therapy...

..........now.................help!

Edited October 15, 2007 by Roo

[Iceberg]

The argument that CO2 is so small it couldn't possibly be important has to be one of the most lame brained thoughts that an AGW sceptic can come up with. My suggestion for all people that somehow support this claim is a) invest in a good book or spend an hour in a room with the same levels of Sarin gas that CO2 exists in the atmosphere or acts as a greenhouse gas. A little of something can certainly have a very powerful effect....

I'd also suggest that those that read and believe such sites as Krings should seriously consider the state of their mental health. It's like going to your granny for an indepth dicussion on football tactics in the upcoming England/Russia match or reading the daily sport for an indepth analysis of the credit crunch.

The freedom to do so is yours however the intelligence probably isn't.