Climate Change

[I get around]

In my opinion, even if we arent causing it, the less natural and finite resources we use the better - as well as keeping a high living standard.

Exactly, well put.
The less stuff wasted, the more stuff we have for future generations, the less likely a shortage of anything is to be.

 

[HeadlessChicken]

anyway because the oil will not last forever (i.e. the next hundred years).

Peak oil will hit us much sooner than 100 years (try 5 - 10) and will most likely effect the human race more than global warming ever will

 

[ColdAsIce]

Until China and America sort the pollution created by industry, I wouldn't worry about the affect you are having by buying a new car or going on holiday.

Look at the state of the economy when people stop buying products

 

[Chinook]

a lot of people don't seem to understand that we're actually in an ice age now since ice sheets still remain at both poles. Perfectly normal for the climate to fluctuate, though perhaps we have accelerated the process. Whether there's propaganda behind the emphasis given to global warming to promote the use of more sustainable resources is a possibility, but I personally have no problem if that's the case

 

[Keltik THC]

Climate has always changed an always will it is not a static entity, the whole 'green movement' has been taken over by ther government and they no longer care about real issues like Genetic modification of our food, cross species chimera creation etc..etc.. they care about the life giving gas that we exhale, carbon dioxide, one of the most neccesary building blocks of all life.

to show you some of my research, here is an email i sent to my wrk when they tried foricng down the whole 'climate change' myth down our throats, showing pictures of polar bears on tiny ice floats full well knowing that most people dont realise that the polar bear population is exploding (apart from 1 specie) and that they can survive without ice, they are the worlds greatest swimmers swimming up to 300 miles per day.

anyway, heres my email... i have all the peer-reviewd papers and documents but dont have time to post them at the moment as my lunch break is quickly coming to an end.

Hi Charlie,

I have a few issues regarding the environmental learning module, I asked who I should notify my concerns with and I was advised to send them to you if this is not correct please advise.

In one of the first sections titled ‘Environmental Challenges’ it advises that the ‘Scientific Community agrees climate change is caused by Humans’ this is an erroneous statement at best as the scientific community is divided on this issue, this is a reference to the IPCCs 2,500 panel of scientists. Ignoring the fact that the 2,500 scientists didn’t all agree, the IPCC is corrupt in the way in which it tackles the question of climate change as one of the expert reviewers details in the following article, (he was an original member of the IPCC panel from the early 1990’s until he recently left due to the IPCCs conduct) (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32).

I have also attached a letter (Letter to IPCC.doc) that was sent by a group of scientists to the IPCC detailing the inconsistencies with their view that humans drive climate change via CO2 emissions.

Also attached, is an article written by Christopher Monkton (Monckton_Jakarta Post.pdf) who is an international business consultant who specialises in scientific fraud, and another document (Shwartz IPCC SR Analysis 120407.pdf) which all detail the reality of this ‘consensus’ the media and establishment like to talk about to much.

All this information illustrates that that there is no ‘agreement within the scientific community’ that humans, man-made CO2 specifically cause climate change, as the learning module claims and the mainstream media want us to believe.

A good resource of documents by scores of scientists who disagree with the UN’s view on climate change can be found here: http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

In regards to the E-Learning Module, it advises me when I click the artic region that the ice caps are melting due to green house gases and that polar bears are threatened because of this although the polar bear population is on an upwards trend (except one type of specie), you can read here about the flawed research the media references when trying to persuade us that the Polar Bears are in danger (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm).

Also, in the report GWReview OISM600.pdf it shows you that glacier shortening and sea level rise began a century before the 60 year 6 fold-increase in hydrocarbon use, and have not changed during that increase, so from what I’ve read and what scientists have researched the ice isn’t melting because of increased C02 its because we have just emerged from a mini-ice age, our climate is always changing from cold to warm periods.

Also, when you click the African continent the E-learning module tells me that climate change increases desertification, although this is contradictory to the previous assertion that increased C02 in our atmosphere increases climate change as recent research shows that an increase in CO2 means a decrease in desertification as the more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it easier for plants to grow. Research now shows that elevated CO2 levels decrease desertification due increased water-use efficiency by the plant this primarily allows the plants to maintain larger leaf canopies or to maintain photosynthesis and growth longer into the dry season This occurs primarily as a result of compounding leaf-level water savings through an individual plant and, within a plant community, improving water balance at a number of scales. Such changes would stimulate greater annual production and store more carbon in dryland soils. Additionally, this may result in the expansion of plants into currently non-vegetated areas.

Also, this learning module advises me that increased climate change will mean more severe weather systems which is incorrect, this has never been proven. It’s a fact that anomalous extreme, and unusual weather phenomena are not directly related to the manmade greenhouse effect. (the manmade greenhouse effect is represented by a slow increase of temperature at the rate of 0.6C/per 100 years. (please reference file: Request to the IPCC.pdf).

This learning module also advises that ‘human activity increases the global temperature via green house gases, primarily CO2’:

Here you can see in the pie charts the amount our C02 attributes to the worlds greenhouse gases (Globalwarmingprimer low.pdf):

(Pie charts showing (top) the relative volume of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, (middle) the volume of CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gasses and (bottom) the ratio of human-caused CO2 to natural sources.)




As you can see in the grand scheme of things the amount of CO2 we contribute to the atmosphere is very small compared to all the other gases in that only 3.62% of all greenhouse gasses are C02 and then of the 3.62%, only 3.4% of that is man made C02 the rest (96.6%) is natural processes releasing CO2 (decomposition of organic matter etc..).

So if we play devils advocate and ignore the fact that CO2 levels lag 600-800 years behind world temperature changes and say that CO2 does drive climate change and then look at these figures, what are we to do? If we eliminate all human made CO2 emissions (we wouldn’t be able to breathe!) then that still only eliminates a tiny fraction of CO2 from out atmosphere. It is indeed jaw-dropping when you consider that the establishment wants everyone to believe that atmospheric CO2 - a mere 0.03 percent of the total volume of the atmosphere - is said to elevate global temperature by massively disobeying physical science.

We have also had higher CO2 levels in out atmosphere in the past (as the report IceCore.pdf shows), but once again the IPCC and the mainstream media ignore the ice core samples that show more CO2 parts per million in our atmosphere in the past than in modern times.

Predications of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modelling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of the earths temperature and climate show no man made warming trend at all. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Finally I have attached a great in-depth scientific report by Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine (file: GWReview OISM600.pdf): which shows everything I have previously stated in the form of scientific research, that we have just emerged from a mini-ice age so the earth should be warming, and that the main driving force behind atmospheric temperature is the Sun (sun spots, varying orbit of the earth etc..) it details how that the world temperature fluctuates due to solar activity and not hydrocarbon usage.

All in all, I found the Environmental E-Learning module full of erroneous claims, half truths and blatant misrepresentation. I agree that the climate is changing (its always has) but I side with a large body of peer reviewed scientific evidence that shows its not down to Human CO2 emissions, I also agree that humans cause massive problems to the world but CO2 is not one of them.

The problem is that many people assume what the media tells them, when it is all controlled by a very small number of vested corporate interests, things like this module do not help, people just need to take the time to research the things that we are being constantly told.

Kind regards,

apply the laws science and reject the propaganda.

 

[Chinook]

snip.

Interesting. What kind of feedback did you receive? and out of interest, what kind of work do you do?

 

[LordSplodge]

The climate chnages all the while with or without our help and historically the planet always warms up before an ice age. We simply don't know anything about the climate and how it works nevermind how we are interacting with it. It's all just complex math and guesswork.

For example there is a theory that if we drastically reduce the amount of pollution and clean the air then the planet will suddenly drastically warm up as a hell of a lot more light (and thus heat) will be hitting the Earth's surface.

Humans need to stop being wasteful as that cannot go on but we also cannot stagnate and need to keep pushing forward. Thus I think that the 3rd runway at Heathrow should be built quickly (we need more jobs and planes don't account for much C02 on a global scale) and that we should continue to strive to push oursleves off world even if this has a massive increase in C02 as we should look long term not short term.

As for the Prius mentioned earlier that has a terrible environmental cost.

 

[checjb]

Keltic, I like your approach and applaud your use of peer-reviewed data but I do feel that some of the effect upon "Charlie" will probably be lost due to the spelling/grammar errors in your email. Not to sound like a grammer Nazi but some proof reading would have made it far punchier.

None the less, well done for standing up for science over sensationalism.

C.

 

[v0n]

People need to stop having such a throwaway attitude towards their cars (especially in America) and stop treating them like mobile phones (which is also really bad) and chucking them out every three years or whatever.

Actually this might be one thing Americans are NOT guilty of. In UK 10 year old car is almost worthless. 20 year old car is rarity. 30 year old car is almost impossible to find in regular traffic. 40 year old car is something that film studios have on special lists and pay good buck to rent. You go to any place in US, any small town, any mall parking lot and 20-30 year old trucks and large saloons are literally everywhere. 40 year old cruisers and muscle cars are not out of place in regular commuter traffic. Yanks keep their cars beyond any reasonable timeframe. Where we get obsessive about number of air bags and ipod sockets and average rotation is 5 years in US they spend on repairs of what would be considered dead heap of rust by Europeans. No wonder their car market collapsed, they have much better attitude towards their vehicles, to most people in rural areas pickup truck is for life.

 

[Chimerical]

Actually this might be one thing Americans are NOT guilty of. In UK 10 year old car is almost worthless. 20 year old car is rarity. 30 year old car is almost impossible to find in regular traffic. 40 year old car is something that film studios have on special lists and pay good buck to rent. You go to any place in US, any small town, any mall parking lot and 20-30 year old trucks and large saloons are literally everywhere. 40 year old cruisers and muscle cars are not out of place in regular commuter traffic. Yanks keep their cars beyond any reasonable timeframe. Where we get obsessive about number of air bags and ipod sockets and average rotation is 5 years in US they spend on repairs of what would be considered dead heap of rust by Europeans. No wonder their car market collapsed, they have much better attitude towards their vehicles, to most people in rural areas pickup truck is for life.

Oh okay, I didn't know that.

Well, I was aware of the fact that some people do keep their cars for a long time in America, that makes sense.

I'm just refering to my percieved assumption that most American cars are of poor build quality, so they just break down in 5 years or whatever and the customers buy new ones.

I agree about their car market collapsing, but that was also because of the fact that the manufacturers were just producing un-economical 4x4's and the like during the credit crunch.

Aren't Japanese cars now doing well in America? due to their fuel-efficiency & reliability.

 

[v0n]

I agree about their car market collapsing, but that was also because of the fact that the manufacturers were just producing un-economical 4x4's and the like during the credit crunch.

Their market collapsed decades before credit crunch. The fall of Detroit and motor towns and all that. Nothing to do with "un-economical" 4x4s. In fact I think the Escallades and the like - large town SUVs were most crunch proof of them all.

Aren't Japanese cars now doing well in America? due to their fuel-efficiency & reliability.

Actually, Japanese cars built for US petrol market have relatively poor fuel efficiency record compared to what we, in Europe, would expect from them. Most of Europeans would be really disappointed if their Vectra equivalent Toyota Camry did only 22mpg or if their Toyota Hilux would suck fuel tank dry on 130 mile trip between London and Birmingham. Just like we are disappointed with 44mpg from hybrid Prius. Different needs, different approach. Economy isn't that important for US buyer.

 

[Keltik THC]

Interesting. What kind of feedback did you receive? and out of interest, what kind of work do you do?

i basically was told to be quiet, they said im entitled to my opinion etc..etc.. off the record i was told that most people who actually look into the whole 'man made climate change' myth come to the same conclusion. Which is logical, i mean how can anyone believe that 0.003% which is what man contributes in C02 to the atmosphere be a driver in changing the climate? A climatologist once told me that to blame man for the climate is akin to blaming the wheel nut on your car for engine failure.

Again, off the record i was basically told that the company needs to be seen to 'tow the government line' in regards to climate change, as we would loose our contracts to other companies who do 'tow the line', so its not about morals and ethics rather than money and maintaining the status-quo.. suprise, suprise. In the end i voiced my opinion and refused to complete the course, and that was the end of it... i wasnt going to rock the boat anymore as it would serve no purpose but for me to probably be labelled a trouble maker, or worse case loose my job.

In the end, the man made climate change myth only serves to take our standard of living down a notch or two, whilst putting money in the pockets of the world central bankers. Its another tax plain and simple.

Also, people forget that when we finally institute these pointless and arcane carbon taxes the price of EVERYTHING will go up, and most companies will jump ship, why? because when the developed nations start taxing companies for emmisions, and developed nations like India & China, who have already said that they will never sign up, dont subject companies in their countries to the same standard then companies will simply leave the UK and the US (as they already have done on a smaller scale), and go and set-up shop in a country where they dont get hit by crazy fines for trying to manufacture goods.

a lot of research has also shown that if we do institue these crazy taxes then emissions will actually increase, because of the lack of standards and controls in developing countries compared to already developed nations. i.e. when a company who is subject to UK law moves to China, its a bit like the wild west over their, they will get away with anything.

oh, and ironically enough, i work for a Subsea service company that provides service companies with subsea equipment... not the career of choice, trying to get into computers but living in the oil capital of Europe their is not much work outside of it, aside from Mcdonalds or Tesco.

Keltic, I like your approach and applaud your use of peer-reviewed data but I do feel that some of the effect upon "Charlie" will probably be lost due to the spelling/grammar errors in your email. Not to sound like a grammer Nazi but some proof reading would have made it far punchier.

None the less, well done for standing up for science over sensationalism.

C.

i have to say, my problem is when i get onto these issues which i research in great depth in most of my freetime and i feel so strongly about my brain is racing way ahead of my fingers when typing or even writing, and my grammer etc. suffers, but i hope that it wasnt too bad.

but thankyou for your kind words, im glad my hours of research wasnt just for the benefit of myself and i could share it with you.

 

[V4NT0M]

Actually this might be one thing Americans are NOT guilty of. In UK 10 year old car is almost worthless. 20 year old car is rarity. 30 year old car is almost impossible to find in regular traffic. 40 year old car is something that film studios have on special lists and pay good buck to rent. You go to any place in US, any small town, any mall parking lot and 20-30 year old trucks and large saloons are literally everywhere. 40 year old cruisers and muscle cars are not out of place in regular commuter traffic. Yanks keep their cars beyond any reasonable timeframe. Where we get obsessive about number of air bags and ipod sockets and average rotation is 5 years in US they spend on repairs of what would be considered dead heap of rust by Europeans. No wonder their car market collapsed, they have much better attitude towards their vehicles, to most people in rural areas pickup truck is for life.

Isn't that because the US don't have an equivalent to the MOT meaning they can drive any hunk of crap on the road?

 

[v0n]

Isn't that because the US don't have an equivalent to the MOT meaning they can drive any hunk of crap on the road?

Nah, most states have them in one shape or another...

 

[I get around]

Until China and America sort the pollution created by industry, I wouldn't worry about the affect you are having by buying a new car or going on holiday.

Thats the problem though isn't it, if everyone thinks that, mass pollution is created, it's everyone doing a bit which matters, you've gotta be part of the solution or you're part of the problem.

Being more green saves resources, saves money and creates jobs. It's win win.

 

[Keltik THC]

Thats the problem though isn't it, if everyone thinks that, mass pollution is created, it's everyone doing a bit which matters, you've gotta be part of the solution or you're part of the problem.

what problem? C02 doesnt effect the climate.

Being more green saves resources, saves money and creates jobs. It's win win.

how does being green save money? i mean, when we all get hit by the pointless 'carbon tax' we will loose money and it will actually move more jobs away from the UK and over to China/India and in the end will actually increase emmisions due to the non-existant environmental standards in the developing world.

my god some people are so blind its unreal.

The main driver of climate change, that has always existed is the sun which is a fact as i fail to see how 0.003% of what makes up our atmosphere could effect the climate. Just as our ice caps melt and re-freeze the same as the ice caps on Mars, it isnt your car doing that its a little star called the sun and its fluctuations amongst a million other variables such as our orbit that changes all the time etc..