Global Warming & The Environment



Global Warming & The Environment

Postby peterchecksfield » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:03 pm

Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!
by Professor David Bellamy
Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we've had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere - and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist - will blame the weather on global warming.

But they will be 100 per cent wrong. Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

Instead, they have an unshakeable in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.

Dreaded
To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.

For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.

That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.

Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.

They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'

You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is Antarctica.'

At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of England and subsequent flooding along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.

But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of England is gradually sinking below the waves.

And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of Scotland.

Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.

It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.

Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.

Melted
The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.

The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.

Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.

It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

Ignored
But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.

The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.

If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.

Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.

It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
Last edited by peterchecksfield on Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
peterchecksfield

 

Postby Stephanie » Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:15 am

Well, there you go! Sounds good to me.
Stephanie

 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Kentucky, US

Postby peterchecksfield » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:23 am

There's absolutely no doubt that all these emissions are polluting the climate, & recycling & cutting down on pollution are obviously a good thing. But I'm not entirely convinced that this is all changing the climate, & many scientists aren't convinced either. The biggest boom in cars & industry this century was in the 50s & 60s, but nothing happened then.

Anyway (& supposing this is all true), the best thing we can all do is to become vegetarians. It's estimated that it takes only around 10% of the same energy & land to maintain a vegetarian lifestyle. There'd also be more than enough food to feed everyone in the world. Far more effective than changing a few lightbulbs or not using plastic bags...

Peter Checksfield (the non-smoking tee-total vegetarian who doesn't drive).
_________________
peterchecksfield

 

Postby Perk » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:02 am

Last month an article was published in "Nature", a journal for Science and medecine. The article is on their website, but it seems you need to be a member to read it there. It´s called "The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests". I read it myself in several swedish newspapers. But here i managed to locate a link to the same one, but in English. In short, the pollution from cars can apparently prevent the global warming.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Human ... s_999.html

:D

Perk (filling up his car, ready to drive for a better atmosphere)
Perk

 
Posts: 1628
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 1:49 pm

Postby peterchecksfield » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:06 am

Perk wrote:Last month an article was published in "Nature", a journal for Science and medecine. The article is on their website, but it seems you need to be a member to read it there. It´s called "The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests". I read it myself in several swedish newspapers. But here i managed to locate a link to the same one, but in English. In short, the pollution from cars can apparently prevent the global warming.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Human ... s_999.html

:D

Perk (filling up his car, ready to drive for a better atmosphere)


This is pretty much what David Bellamy (above) says. But whether this is true or not the fact remains that cars still pollute the atmosphere (you admitted this yourself in the "smoking ban" thread).

The most riduculous thing I read recently was how one local council in England couldn't cope with all the rubbish they were collecting for "recycling", so they shipped it all the way to India...where it was burnt! Crazy.....
peterchecksfield

 

Postby yappin*yappin*yappin » Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:53 pm

okay, i saw this article today and then saw this thread...
click this link and pay particular attention to paragraph four:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1


eeeeeeek?



"I am pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciatively instead of skeptically and dictatorially." - E.B. WHITE



"We have forgotten how to be good guests, how to walk lightly on the earth as its other creatures do."
- Barbara Ward, Only One Earth, 1972.
yappin*yappin*yappin

 

Postby Tony Papard » Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:30 am

yappin*yappin*yappin wrote:okay, i saw this article today and then saw this thread...
click this link and pay particular attention to paragraph four:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1


eeeeeeek?



"I am pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciatively instead of skeptically and dictatorially." - E.B. WHITE



"We have forgotten how to be good guests, how to walk lightly on the earth as its other creatures do."
- Barbara Ward, Only One Earth, 1972.


I usually keep my head out of and above the water when I'm swimming in lakes/ponds, and definitely will from now on. Thanks.
Long ago in Ferriday down in Louisiana, They all watched Jerry play and pump that old piana

My blog: http://www.tonypapard.info/

My Jerry Lee Lewis page:
http://www.btinternet.com/~tony.papard/JERRYLEELEWIS.HTM
Tony Papard

User avatar
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: London, England, EU

Postby peterchecksfield » Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:15 am

yappin*yappin*yappin wrote:okay, i saw this article today and then saw this thread...
click this link and pay particular attention to paragraph four:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1


eeeeeeek?



"I am pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciatively instead of skeptically and dictatorially." - E.B. WHITE



"We have forgotten how to be good guests, how to walk lightly on the earth as its other creatures do."
- Barbara Ward, Only One Earth, 1972.


I'm not disputing all this. But everyone seems to be confusing pollution & destruction of the planet (which I'm against of course) with climate change (which many scientists & other experts dispute, but is accepted as 'fact' by the media & government).
peterchecksfield

 

Postby bailbath » Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:28 am

The problem is governments now see climate change as a income opportunity which people don't like. There has been vast changes to the amount and types of pollution starting in the last century including mass car and transport use, intensive farming and factory pollution.
The Earth is in a constant flux reacting to natural changes the question is are there too many unnatural changes for the Earth to cope to enable Mankind to survive?

IAN
Image
bailbath

User avatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:49 am
Location: Bath, uk

Postby peterchecksfield » Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:36 am

bailbath wrote:The Earth is in a constant flux reacting to natural changes the question is are there too many unnatural changes for the Earth to cope to enable Mankind to survive?



Exactly, that's the question. But no-one really knows the answers at the moment.

What annoys me is that everytime we have adverse weather conditions the media automatically blame climate change, but if you check back through history you'll find there's always been the occasional freak weather (even in the UK), & long before the industrial revolution.
peterchecksfield

 

Postby bailbath » Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:51 am

That annoys me as well too many uninformed people jumping on a bandwagon. It is a shame that this subject has been hijacked.Now people can't see the wood for the trees!!
IAN
bailbath

User avatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:49 am
Location: Bath, uk

Postby yappin*yappin*yappin » Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:59 pm

i do know that the earth has been warmer than it is now for MOST of it's existance and that we are in the middle of the warmest time since about 10,000 years ago (which is why scientists may be making such a big deal about it?)
i am actually more concerned about the loss of our ozone layer. i just posted that article in this thread because i saw it yesterday and it FREAKED ME OUT and i noticed this seemed to be an environmental thread. i apologize for injecting a completely different environmental concern into a thread about global warming.
yappin*yappin*yappin

 

Postby bailbath » Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:34 pm

Its all connected we have a new problem in the UK of 'blue tongue' disease that has hit farms and their lifestock. Brought across northern Europe from Africa by migrating flies attracted to warmer temperature.
IAN
bailbath

User avatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:49 am
Location: Bath, uk

Postby yappin*yappin*yappin » Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:52 pm

i guess we're going to find out all about the creepy-crawlies that flourish in warmer climates.

i'm sorry to hear that's going on over there.
yappin*yappin*yappin

 

Postby peterchecksfield » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:11 am

I'm actually amazed that washing lines are banned in some parts of the USA:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11417677

They're still quite common place in this country (I do all my washing by hand & then hang it up to dry).
peterchecksfield

 

Next

Return to Off topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest