Here's a link to the New Scientist article AH mentioned. http://environment.newscientis ... ate-change/mg18524861.400
Thx for providing the link
It also mentions the land exposed by ice retreating causes more heat to be absorbed and that in turn accelerates the ice melting further, in a positive loop, but there are so many different factors involved, some man-made, some natural, esp. solar activity, that you can bet any one summary of the problem is an inaccurate simplification. i still believe things like air travel are pretty negligible in all this but try telling that to the field of protestors camped outside heathrow at the moment.....
It also mentions the land exposed by ice retreating causes more heat to be absorbed and that in turn accelerates the ice melting further, in a positive loop, but there are so many different factors involved, some man-made, some natural, esp. solar activity, that you can bet any one summary of the problem is an inaccurate simplification. i still believe things like air travel are pretty negligible in all this but try telling that to the field of protestors camped outside heathrow at the moment.....
Those protesters don't really care about anything - they just enjoy protesting. I bet over 80% of the protesters have protested at other, entirely unconnected events over the last few years, and none have done anything else for their 'causes' other than protest.
Why do people think CO2 is waste gas?
Humans need CO2 to survive.
Humans need CO2 to survive.
the main problem is that most effects in global warming are positive feedbacks (like most things in life are for some odd reason)
the only negative feedback ive heard of so far is clouds (which as you pointed out though are rather more complicated than that)
maybe its just propaganda and im not in deep enough to know all the various loops at play but from what i know every bit does indeed count in a system dominated by positive loops
We need O2. CO2 is what comes out of us. And plants convert CO2 to O2...
I like the way you didn't treat me like a retard for saying that, as most people would, but i don't like the way you totally misunderstood what i meant by it. Plants need CO2, We need O2, what we excrete, they need, and visa versa. Meaning we need CO2 to Survive, indirectly, but STILL heavily directly. With all the CO2 Emissions or what not, at WORST, the world will be just a planet of plants.. And im sure some bugs and little lifeforms can survive, evolution all over again.
*Thinks of the next end of the world movie will be called "Planet of the Hippies"*
LOL!!
While the protestors are using the climate change argument as a hook, I have to say my sympathies are with that event. In reality, it is a local protest against the expansion of Heathrow airport. The plans will mean the loss of about 700 homes and the eviction of up to 2000 people. One local school will be demolished and the others will be severely affected by noise.
Having suffered an eviction recently, due to the short-term financial thinking of a supposedly 'social' landlord, I know that the villages of Sipson and Harlington will welcome any support in defending their homes against similar short-termist thinking from BAA.
Ok, I haven't read through the whole thread but I'd just like to post this video/documentary here. I just watched it and thought it was excellent and well presented. If you still believe that humans are the cause of global warming after watching this well... you might aswell go pray to your god to save the planet because, imho, that's just as crazy.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
And btw, if you do believe in a god, I suggest you watch "ZEITGEIST" linked in my signature, which, in the first 30-40mins, explains the origins of religion.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
And btw, if you do believe in a god, I suggest you watch "ZEITGEIST" linked in my signature, which, in the first 30-40mins, explains the origins of religion.
I'm sorry mate but if it gets onto 60 minutes I would be very skeptical of it's motives. It's all only words. He doesn't go into detail of how he got his findings? Only to say "...the Bush administration/NASA is censoring me... we have 10 years to save the planet...blah blah...", so that makes what he's saying is true? I'd need more than just words to change my mind on this, sorry. And tbh, if it's on CBS I wouldn't believe a word of it. That's the biggest propaganda station of them all... Do some more research and watch some presentations or documentaries not TV stations or news channels.
Ok, I've done some searching about this guy James Hansen. There's not many videos of him online but I did watch this one on Youtube just now. It's 11mins long and the first 2mins are intro so in the 9min video you get to see some pictures of blurry graphs and some fluffy animals. He just reads from a prepared "script". I'd need to see more of his work to be able to come to a better conclusion about this chaps motives/aims.
I also looked up "The Global Roundtable on Climate Change" because this is at the start of the video, they obviously sponsor the event. Anything that is decided at a roundtable is dodgy, imo, so I had to look it up. Here is the first paragraph on their website -
Ok, so high-level, critical stakeholders? Stakeholders of what exactly? . Senior exec.'s from the PRIVATE sector? Leaders of governmental and NON-governmental organizations? Why are these people put together to discuss climate change? IMO, it's because these are the lads who are making the money from the global warming issue and why would they want to disprove it? They'd loose their income from that industry. I wouldn't believe a word of anything these lads promote, sorry. I want to see information promoted and gathered by professors and scientists, not executives, stakeholders and leaders of governmental and non-governmental organizations.
The last piece gives it away, big time. "...to discuss and explore areas of potential consensus regarding core scientific, technological, and economic issues critical to shaping sound public policies on climate change." Where would these lads get the knowledge to know the scientific issues on global warming? See they put that there first, then say, the technological and economic issues, now they would know about them issues. Then this last piece is what roundtables are all about, shaping sound public policies, why would they want to shape public policies which are already sound? All of this tells me they have an alternative motive.
So, in conclusion, I think that James Hansen is just a gofer for these executives who have certain policies they want to shape or achieve and James is the perfect person to front it for them and him being on CBS 60mins being watched by the NASA representative is just a show/pantomime to make it look like he has some very important information he can't tell the people. It's all BS, IMHO.
I also looked up "The Global Roundtable on Climate Change" because this is at the start of the video, they obviously sponsor the event. Anything that is decided at a roundtable is dodgy, imo, so I had to look it up. Here is the first paragraph on their website -
Ok, so high-level, critical stakeholders? Stakeholders of what exactly? . Senior exec.'s from the PRIVATE sector? Leaders of governmental and NON-governmental organizations? Why are these people put together to discuss climate change? IMO, it's because these are the lads who are making the money from the global warming issue and why would they want to disprove it? They'd loose their income from that industry. I wouldn't believe a word of anything these lads promote, sorry. I want to see information promoted and gathered by professors and scientists, not executives, stakeholders and leaders of governmental and non-governmental organizations.
The last piece gives it away, big time. "...to discuss and explore areas of potential consensus regarding core scientific, technological, and economic issues critical to shaping sound public policies on climate change." Where would these lads get the knowledge to know the scientific issues on global warming? See they put that there first, then say, the technological and economic issues, now they would know about them issues. Then this last piece is what roundtables are all about, shaping sound public policies, why would they want to shape public policies which are already sound? All of this tells me they have an alternative motive.
So, in conclusion, I think that James Hansen is just a gofer for these executives who have certain policies they want to shape or achieve and James is the perfect person to front it for them and him being on CBS 60mins being watched by the NASA representative is just a show/pantomime to make it look like he has some very important information he can't tell the people. It's all BS, IMHO.
tha things utter tosh
anyone who gets his views from something made in the same way as this piece of misinformation should be hung
and more tosh ... at least figure out what hes done properly
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/files/cv/cv_hansen_200702.pdf
Misinfo you say? Coming from someone who gets his info from someone who is supported by NASA and this roundtable group? Sorry mate but I have looked at enough of what this James Hansen has to offer now and nothing will change my views on him. He is supported by people who have alot to gain from this global warming issue.
I wonder did you even watch the full hour video.
And you say what I posted was "utter tosh", posting a CV of someone who works for NASA and is supported by "The Global Roundtable on Climate Change" is definately not going to change my mind. Anyway, what does a CV prove? There's nothing in there that proves to me that global warming is caused by humans, sorry...
What about the edited documents they show? What about the, shall I say questionable background of the guy doing the edits? What about the chaperon from NASA the guy needed to have to be able to talk to journalists?
This isn't even about GW for christ's sakes. It's about scientists being censored by non-scientists when trying to present their research to the public. Even if you don't believe in GW that should piss you off.
I have come to the conclusion it's the rivers!
Think about it. The sea is rising and getting warmer - it's because of all the rivers flowing into it. It we get lots of beavers and make them dam all the rivers then it'll stop the sea from filling up. Either that, or we all drink (after boiling/condensing) as much sea water as possible to offset the filling effect. Or both.
Anyone got one of those magic clothes that can soak up vast amounts of water?
Think about it. The sea is rising and getting warmer - it's because of all the rivers flowing into it. It we get lots of beavers and make them dam all the rivers then it'll stop the sea from filling up. Either that, or we all drink (after boiling/condensing) as much sea water as possible to offset the filling effect. Or both.
Anyone got one of those magic clothes that can soak up vast amounts of water?
That is probably the stupidest solution to global warming I have ever heard....
..I'll grab the straws.
That's all a show I can assure you. Nothing gets onto CBS unless it is approved to be aired.
So, why hasn't this chap James Hanson made a long documentary documenting his findings like the one I posted? Well I'll tell you, because he doesn't look at every possible angle and every possible "thing" that affects our planet. He just mainly talks about what humans are doing to the planet/atmosphere. He doesn't go into the effect that sun spots and sun cycles have on the planet and that's just one thing I haven't seen him talk about that is contained in the documentary I posted.
I suggest you take the time to watch the great global warming swindle because it's another point of view that you WILL NOT see on CBS or CNN or whatever news/TV station you watch...
Come on lads, don't drag this topic down by posting crap. It's a very seriuos issue and needs to be sorted because we are getting more controlled by this shit when it's not even caused by us... It's a cycle which the Earth goes through. The first line in that video, the global warming swindle, sums it up for me. "Greenland isn't called Greenland because it's white...", which means at some stage, obviously when it was discovered, Greenland was green, ie it wasn't cold enough there for snow...
Approved by whom? The CBS? If so, does the fact that they "approved" it make it less true somehow?
So for you to believe him he has to make a documentary? The guy's a scientist, not a damn film-maker. He does research, and writes papers. The problem is the White House feel they have the right to censor the guy's work before it's published. That's just wrong in so many ways. Let him publish, and then debunk his research if you feel it's wrong somehow. That's how science works.
Approved by the "top dogs" of CBS, the unknown faces who say "yea or nea". The fact that it was approved to be aired means, imo, that it's what they want the people watching to think so yes I would say that because it was approved to be aired makes it less true.
So, why do you think the people who are saying that global warming is a scam are not getting onto 60 Minutes for an hour long interview about what they think? It's because they are not getting approved or even asked to go on air to say what they think.
Just because he's a scientist doesn't make what he says on TV to be true. There are just as many, if not more, scientists who would disagree with him and have put together presentations to show their findings but you don't see these guys on TV or getting interviews on 60 Minutes to put their point across.
Ehm. They said right there in the clip they tried to get an interview, but that he would "never be available". (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure that's part of cover up of the big GW conspiracy too. :rolleyes
But let me get this straight. James Hansen is lying about being censored by the White House, he went to 60 minutes with this lie, the tops at CBS thought "that'll help our cause, so let's put him on", the CBS then lies about talking to the White House and makes up a story instead, and they do all this without the White House going public to debunk their reportage. Yep, that's the most likely scenario.
It´s the fault of the fishes in the rivers. The huge friction the fishes are producing by swimming in water heats up the rivers. 
This thread is closed
Global Warming: Human's Fault?
(269 posts, closed, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG