Global Warming and The British Bullsh*t Corporation

I watched a short video about an apparent slowdown in solar activity on the BBC website earlier:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

For most of it I thought, "wow, they're actually admitting that the Sun plays a huge role in the weather and temperatures of the planet"...but no, at the end we get the usual global warming propaganda rubbish.

The people in the film telling us that human activity is responsible for the warming of the planet don't even look convinced, as if by saying anything different they know their cushy number at the BBC will be over. It's as if questioning the validity of man-made global warming is similar to denying the holocaust.

When will people realise the earth goes through cycles of thousands of years where there is ice, there's gradually no ice, then there's ice again...

 

too much money is made from scaring normal hard working people to death to actually admit such a thing
Many leading people have admitted there doubts about such things but its amazing how quickly such claims dissapear!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWmdUqJBcKE

 

Google why David Bellamy the botanist is no longer on the telly

 

Consider yourself well and truly hoodwinked by the corporate industrial polluters who have the most to lose.

 

I'm not a climate scientist. I don't know for sure whether global warming is a man made construct or not. I do, however, believe in science, I believe in peer review and the overwhelming findings are that global warming is a result of man's effect on the environment. So I go along with that. Doesn't make it 100% right, it's just that our knowledge at this moment in time points us in that direction.

There are some dissenters. David Bellamy is one. David Bellamy is no more a climate scientist than I am. He knows a hell of a lot more about botany than I do, what with that being his area of study at university. He's a better public speaker than I and a much better television presenter. For sake of argument, let's just say he's better than me at everything, but he's no more qualified to talk about climate change than I am. We both have a BSc Hons in subjects nothing to do with it and that's as far as it goes. David Bellamy also believes in homoeopathy. Does that make homoeopathy credible?
He seems to suggest he's no longer on TV because of his views on climate change, but he was actually dropped from the TV schedules 10 years before he even commented on the subject.

There a few climate scientists, not many, but a few, who don't believe climate change is anything to do with our impact on the environment. These people are more credible. However, if 998 scientists believe one thing and 2 the opposite, why are 2 right? Why does a link to what one of the 2 say debunk what the other 998 are saying? They might be right, but you've got to go with weight of opinion surely?

Has the world's weather always gone in cycles? Yes, but I'm pretty sure climate scientists are taking this in to account when producing their models. It's not a revelation to them, summat they've never thought of. I'm pretty sure, what with all their study and that, they have a better understanding of the subject than me, so when discussing something as complex as our weather I don't believe a layman's opinion is the worth the same as years of study, so I go with science.

 

man made global warming or no man made global warming
still doesnt excuse people f'ing the planet up with pollution and the rest.

Deforesting and polluting rivers and oceans aint nothing to turn a blind eye to.

Agree on the ice caps things tho.

 

30 odd years ago when I was still at school there was talk of an ice age being the next cycle,then during the late eighties and nineties it was all global warming because we were having mild winters,then as the winters got colder again they decided it was now climate change,so whatever the weather does mankind can be blamed for it and governments can tax us on it.The only ones hoodwinked are the climate change sympathisers and the people that make money out of green technology.

 

I've got a David Bellamy's Endangered Wildlife CD-ROM. I still love that thing!!

 

You should have your own show.

 

Of course Belamy has not been an academic botanist for years. He was a TV presenter, but not seen much of him for many years. Not sure his view carry any weight. If he was still an active plant scientist he would know that as plants evolved more efficient form of photosynthesis global atmospheric CO2 levels feel as did temperatures. As fungi with the ability to break down cellulose evolved, coal deposits were no longer laid down and CO2 rose and so did temperatures. Nature has experimented with out atmosphere in the past and the results have all be consistent. This times humans are driving the experiment and guess what – the results are the same. Human driven climate change is a reality and I fear we have already lost the battle.

 

The jury may be out on the weather debate but what about deforrestisation and the natural ability to soak up carbon waste let alone the effects on animal/bird/insect/plantlife habitat. The pollution of the seas is very worrying for the marine life as the sea is breaking plastic up into minute particles which the small sea life are consuming and dying off.
All this is via human pollution then there's the direct effect of hunting and fishing to extinction of wildlife and the concreting of their habitat.

I'd say yes human activity is having g an effect on our planet and for the worse imo

 

His last BBC series was 1994 well before the rant he made that he alleges was the reason he got frozen out.

 

You're living in a dream world. Albeit one which feels much more comfortable I imagine. You should listen to what 99% of scientists regardless of political allegiance believe in. The world does move in cycles but not ones which are destabilised in decades by pumping prehistoric levels of carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases into the atmosphere.

It frightens me how much people would rather bury their heads in the sand

 

Disclaimer: My background is in physics (Bsc) and I have not looked seriously into climate change or any related phenomenon.

However, if you drew a graph of climate over the history of the planet with a 1mm=1year scale, it would stretch nearly from Boston, MA to Dublin *and* the accurate readings on it would cover the last 50cm (at best). According to the experts, we are in a warmer period that is part of the fifth major ice age that they are aware of. From my science background, I know that estimating a trend from such little data is a nearly impossible task.

At some point, the ice will expand again and probably be quite thick over the Barnsley region. The upside is that we'd probably be able to build roads across the land that used to be the North Sea. Also, at some point in the future, the ice will retreat further and some of the low-lying islands will be lost under the waves.

Given that climate is changing naturally *and we don't know how* (yet), it is currently impossible to determine what effect man will have on a chaotic and unknown system.

 

Here's the non-evil communist BBC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's opinion (thousands of international non-paid scientific experts working with the United Nations. Try reading this instead of your Daily Mail or Express:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

 

Eg "

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years." Based on ice cores I believe

 

Thats 650,000 years out of an estimated 4.5 billion, or about 0.01% of the lifetime of the planet...

Greater CO2 atmospheric concentrations are better environments for plant life, which in turn leads to higher levels of 02 being released.

It was only last year (IIRC) that the CERN boys found the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Increased cosmic rays lead to higher levels of cloud cover, which increases the albedo of the planet and reflects more sunlight back into space cooling the surface. Its a *very, very* complex natural system.

 

Sure, but given people are arguing the natural cycle of ice ages, that's about five ice ages, isn't it?

 

Do we think global warming us to blame for our League position after all the bullyshite that Flitcroft and Hill spouted we must be major contributors to the heating up of the planet and maybe both Tom Kennedy's legs have already frozen in part 1 of the ice age it would explain his inability to either run tackle or mark or cross.