Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Royal society review climate change

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893

    Royal society review climate change

    Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism - Times Online

    Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

    The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.

    Of course these people are all nazi deniers and do not understand scientific method.
    I think the cracks are starting to appear in the ecoworrier case.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4
    climate change is a reality and denying it wont change the fact. but our reaction to it should, by necessity change.
    I agree we need ‘to be more organized’ and I want to state the following. I do not see any possiblity of African countries being able to feed themselves only by being more organized. what is needed is a seismic shift in agricultural policies, and like south africa is doing, there may be only one choice available: acceptance of GM foods. it might not be the best thing to do for such a continent where most agriculture is still organic, but death by hunger is worse. at ziarra.wordpress.com attempts are made to expose the obvious link between climate, famine, hunger, and of course productivity and economy.
    Good grounds for debate.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3

    Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

    There was a time when the clergy and scientists harmoniously declared that the Earth was FLAT. This dogma was mandated and forced upon everyone until the flat-earth theory was undeniably disproved.

    Presently, the hot-air notion that carbon emissions are causing global warming is backed by scientific dogma. The hot-air dogma has been repeatedly drummed into people’s heads. Any who dare to question the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) dogma are ridiculed and labelled as ignorant sceptics.

    There is supposedly sufficient scientific basis behind the hot-air notion of the correlation between carbon emissions and global warming that is so overwhelming that to question or debate the notion is deemed irresponsible and ignorant. In other words, the proponents of this notion expect everyone to swallow their dogma.

    One has to wonder why this carbon dogma has been elevated to an unassailable “fact”. Why are all scientists expected to accept the carbon dogma and convince the public to believe in it?

    There was a time when environmentalists were very concerned with pollution issues, and they constantly warned people of the dangers of nuclear reactors. It was not long ago that environmentalists cringed, violently protested and even stopped trains when nuclear power was advocated, and they were quick to bring up the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to justify their concerns. Many of these same environmentalists have now been “educated” to believe that nuclear power is carbon friendly. These “newly enlightened” environmentalists have shifted 180 degrees in their positions regarding nuclear energy. They now openly accept that nuclear power will combat global warming because they believe so strongly in the notion that carbon emissions are directly responsible for global warming.

    The environmentalists who now propose nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions have been “educated” to forget that many nuclear reactors use water to cool them. The heated water is then discharged into the streams. This may be defined as carbon friendly, but it is detrimental to the environment. These new “greens” were once the “save-the-planet” environmentalists, but they have been “educated” to now actively lobby for more nuclear reactors to be constructed! So thorough has been their “education” that these environmentalists have forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the fact that nuclear reactors heat up the rivers and kill the fish. They have forgotten that nuclear waste is not really biodegradable. In short, they have forgotten their self-proclaimed mission to protect the planet.

    According to the current “scientific” notion, carbon emissions in the atmosphere are the main culprits for global warming, and all other factors are disregarded in the ETS equation. Most scientists are supporting the carbon dogma by claiming that increases in glacial melting, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water temperatures around the world indicate that the truth behind the carbon dogma is irrefutable. However, the mere existence of these symptoms does not necessarily make them correlative, and as such they cannot conclusively support, let alone verify, the carbon dogma. This begs the question, “Does the concept necessarily explain the environmental symptoms, and do the symptoms preclude the validity of any other concept?”

    My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

    It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

    In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
    The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

    It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?

    Amitakh Stanford

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.
    43 out of 1300? Wow, powerful lobby. What you didn't include in your teaser here was telling:

    Sir Alan, 72, an electrical engineer, is a member of the advisory council of the climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    He said: “I think the Royal Society should be more neutral and welcome credible contributions from both sceptics and alarmists alike. There is a lot of science to be done before we can be certain about climate change and before we impose upon ourselves the huge economic burden of cutting emissions.”

    He refused to name the other signatories but admitted that few of them had worked directly in climate science and many were retired.

    Of course these people are all nazi deniers and do not understand scientific method.
    I think the cracks are starting to appear in the ecoworrier case.
    Let's see. 43 out of 1300. That's 3.3%. So 96.7% of the members of that group have no problem with the "alarmist" position. And Sir Alan (an electrical engineer) even admits that few of them worked directly in climate change, and many are retired. It's not a crack, it's a vent...to bubble out the impurities.

    The problem is that real science and rational minds have already left the question of whether or not AGW is real. We have moved on to working on solutions to try to minimize it.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    You mean solutions to try and make money from irrational fear of it.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    You mean solutions to try and make money from irrational fear of it.
    How exactly do you define "irrational fear of (global warming)"?
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    The report has been published. Global warming is a con!.................

    Just kidding! Despite some of the splinter group being on the panel...

    " ...The document entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarised by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In previous years, the Royal Society has lent its weight to joint communiqués on climate change issued by leading science academies around the world, and these have even extended to making policy suggestions, such as calling on world leaders to agree emission reductions at the climate change summit held in Copenhagen in December.

    The Royal Society's new report, by contrast, limits itself entirely to the physical science of climate change, and it is careful to lay out every qualification and uncertainty. But Pethica stresses that this approach does not signify an acceptance of criticisms that scientists had overstated their case in the past. "If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science." ..."
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Man-made climate change evidence 'hidden' by sulphur emissions - Telegraph

    Who would of thought it?
    The Chinese are keeping us cool by their sulphur emissions

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    Exactly. The climate is being altered by man made emissions.
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
    Exactly. The climate is being altered by man made emissions.
    No. Man made emissions are being blamed for climate change..even when there is no climate change.
    You seem to make a habit of missing the point Pentroll

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Man-made climate change evidence 'hidden' by sulphur emissions - Telegraph

    Who would of thought it?
    The Chinese are keeping us cool by their sulphur emissions
    Temperatures have declined in recent years? Really? Even from the first paragraph that article looks to be BS. Seems to me the temperature record points to last year being second hottest on record, and of the 11 warmest years, only 1 is outside of the last decade.
    File:NOAA Land Ocean temperature anomaly.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    Temperatures have declined in recent years? Really? Even from the first paragraph that article looks to be BS. Seems to me the temperature record points to last year being second hottest on record, and of the 11 warmest years, only 1 is outside of the last decade.
    File:NOAA Land Ocean temperature anomaly.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I dont believe the ' deniers' where the ones that blamed the Chinese for world temperatures not matching the computer models.
    Seems to me its all BS.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    I dont believe the ' deniers' where the ones that blamed the Chinese for world temperatures not matching the computer models.
    Seems to me its all BS.
    Temperatures haven't risen as fast as they might because of other pollutants in the atmosphere (this effect has been noted before, it's thought that rises in the 90s were exacerbated by the switch away from coal which reduced atmospheric pollution in Europe).
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    Temperatures haven't risen as fast as they might because of other pollutants in the atmosphere (this effect has been noted before, it's thought that rises in the 90s were exacerbated by the switch away from coal which reduced atmospheric pollution in Europe).
    Keep telling yourself that Jo.
    You may find it some consulation.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    'There's too much climate change denial on the BBC' ? The Register

    A snail biologist says there is too much climate change 'denial' on the BBC and the supposedly impartial BBC agrees WTF

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •