• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Global cooling??? (2 Viewers)

And don't we agree on the long term solution, whether acheivable or not - fewer (rich) people buying less crap?

Graham

Hi Graham-no I don't agree that fewer "rich" people is a solution to anything.
Nor do the Chinese or Indians-and they know something about poverty which neither you nor I can begin to comprehend. They believe that there should be more "rich" (un-poor) people-and so do I.

By the way "rich " people don't buy "crap"-poor people do because it's cheaper usually....but I don't understand what this has to do with Chinese products whose quality is increasingly high.

As a matter of interest Graham -how do you personally ensure that you don't buy any Chinese products ?

Finally may I make a suggestion -You are clearly concerned about the exploitative results of China's rapid industrial expansion. Why not complain to the Chinese authorities who allow the houses of the poor to be bulldozed for development land, without recompense-who allow party officials to hold rural peasants in virtual slavery in their private factories. Why not write to them and insist that they implement Western standard Labour laws -or even better-allow multi party elections .

Colin
 
Regardless as to your opinion on the argument agreeing or disagreeing with science on the issue of global warming, if it results in a heightened awareness of climate issues, a reduction in Co2, reductions in waste, the conservation of habitat etc, etc, it can't be a bad thing. Even if climate change turned out to be flawed science (not a view I hold) the planet needs more care to be taken of it for all our sakes.
 
Regardless as to your opinion on the argument agreeing or disagreeing with science on the issue of global warming, if it results in a heightened awareness of climate issues, a reduction in Co2, reductions in waste, the conservation of habitat etc, etc, it can't be a bad thing. Even if climate change turned out to be flawed science (not a view I hold) the planet needs more care to be taken of it for all our sakes.

Quite right - regardless of whether you think we're causing climate change with CO2 or not, it's still not the greatest idea to pump billions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere.
 
Scampo and The Tom - please follow some of the links provided. Realclimate provides robust rebuttals to all of the deniers.

Also, for a critique of Melanie Phillips position on climate change see:
http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=23
although if you want to save time take Tim's word for it!!

cheers
Gordon

I read Real Climate regularly, Gordon - and convincing it certainly is. I posted this link as it appeared that Ms. Phillips' sources might be interesting. I still find it difficult to believe that all of them are a load of nonsense.

I thought this thread had died, though, as I haven't had a single email from BF on it - it was just fluke that I came upon it again.
 
Last edited:
"Yes, climate change has occurred since time immemorial, but never* at the rate it is changing now.
*for never, read at any time in the last half a million years or so."

Hmmm, strange definition of "never"??
Man can now show that there was life on Earth 3.9 billion years ago, and perhaps as far back as 4.1 billion years. How many "nevers" there then??

Regards

Malky
 
"Quite right - regardless of whether you think we're causing climate change with CO2 or not, it's still not the greatest idea to pump billions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere."

I just did the CO2 thing on the web,

http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/index.html

which told me how much of CO2 I produce per year. What a load of tosh!! The generalisations within the questions were to say the least farcicle. At the end, they show a figure which is supposed to represent your individual carbon footprint, or whatever, they then show you what the average is, and then the show a figure that they wish you to go to, which is 20% lower than at present. Anyone with the slightest incline of an education would laugh out loud at their methodology. It's rather sad that some of the population actually believe what they read!!
Mind you, it's a government web page!!

Regards

Malky
 
Is it just me, or does anybody else here find her writing...difficult? Not the words or syntax or anything. Just her sentances are way too long to follow.

I find her thinking difficult. She is a bully and will shout down and verbally abuse anyone who disagrees with her as anyone who listens to The Moral Maze on R4 will know. A revolting mad woman.

Melanie Phillips?
stark raving loony with well-documented outlandish ideas on many subjects...

Agreed.

However ... there are grains of truth in her article. There is not a concensus that GW is man made, rather the majority of climate scientists do accept that the weight of evidence points in that direction. I remember reading a New Scientist article on GW, and there were quite a few leaps in the reasoning. Whether that was just the article, or the actual state of the science is unclear.

I know from experience as a scientist many years ago that scientific concensus can change overnight, though it is rare.


Sorry, Colin, I wasn't suggesting that Chinese industrialisation and the consequent pollution and increasing carbon emmissions were solely the fault of the 'wicked west'. I well appreciate that the situation is a great deal more complex than that. But do you not accept that consumer demand in the west has played a significant role in enabling China's rapid growth?

Both China and India are rapidly industrialising, along with Mexico, and many other countries. And of course Russia, Ukraine etc are now free to explore capitalism too.

In the case of China they are producing huge amounts of consumer goods for the West, and absorbing raw materials like never before. That is why the cost of raw materials has escalated dramatically. But inflation is growing, as are wages, so China's labour costs will start to become less favourable in 10 years or more. But by then they will be the largest economy in the world. Anyone with an interest in the stock market will know that the Chinese stock market has been growing at an amazing rate.

India is somewhat different, as they are providing services to the rest of the world, especially call centres, software, and financial services. I know this from first hand. I am a software engineer, and most of the people I work with are Indians. Many of these are contractors supplied by an Indian 'body shop' which puts bums on seats. The rest are ex-contractors who obtained work permits and gained permanent jobs in the UK. They are well educated, intelligent, and they speak decent English. It is now difficult for a UK software engineer to get a job in telecoms in the UK as there are so many experienced Indians. Basically 5 or more years ago the UK government auctioned 3G licences, the high cost of which crippled the UK telecoms industry. So they got rid of lots of permanent UK staff, and hired Indian contractors on lower salaries. Now the only people with experience are foreign, mainly Indian. Is it right that foreigners can enter the country so easily and displace UK workers? I am sure many low skilled workers displaced by Polish immigrants might echo those sentiments.

Incidentally Indians I know own one or more houses in India near the the technical centres, and they are doubling in value in a couple of years, such is the rise in demand for housing near computer companies.

Unless you see this from close by you might not realise how fast the world is changing. It really is incredible.

But who are we to say that Indian and Chinese cannot share the Earth's resources with us?
 
"Yes, climate change has occurred since time immemorial, but never* at the rate it is changing now.
*for never, read at any time in the last half a million years or so."

Hmmm, strange definition of "never"??
Man can now show that there was life on Earth 3.9 billion years ago, and perhaps as far back as 4.1 billion years. How many "nevers" there then??

Regards

Malky

Not the sort of life that you would feel at ease with though. Didn't flowering plants, and insects appear rather recently in geological terms? And there have been many mass extinctions in pre-history, where a significant fraction of species disappeared. Just as is happening now.
 
"Yes, climate change has occurred since time immemorial, but never* at the rate it is changing now.
*for never, read at any time in the last half a million years or so."

Hmmm, strange definition of "never"??
Man can now show that there was life on Earth 3.9 billion years ago, and perhaps as far back as 4.1 billion years. How many "nevers" there then??

Regards

Malky

Ok, I'll redefine never (I figured there would be questions hence the * on edit-never hurry these things or the questions get more sarcastic!), this time in long form as the period of time in which we have verifiable means of recording the climate of the planet (as far back as we can see, in other words). There is experimental evidence for hypothetical rapid changes as posted by Tyke, but as far as the accepted measures of recording this kind of thing go ,this is the fastest period of warming recorded-and about the warmest our planet has been in those 600,000 years.
 
There is experimental evidence for hypothetical rapid changes as posted by Tyke, but as far as the accepted measures of recording this kind of thing go ,this is the fastest period of warming recorded-and about the warmest our planet has been in those 600,000 years.

That isn't my reading of the material Imaginos-indeed the short term spikes in the Antarctic Ice Core record are referred to as the first confirmation of the rapid nature of some climate change aspects. The Sea Level changes too are attested as rapid & very significant over the last 2.5m years. This is perhaps the finding most significant for us.

....but hey-this doesn't really matter unless you are one of those who feel it is mandatory to have folk believe this is all new & unprecedented.

I don't believe that-the science suggests that it isn't so.
For me the key messages are:-
* It's getting warmer
*We may have made the warming worse than it otherwise would have been in an interglacial period.
*Climate has changed rapidly in "flips" before-it may do again.
*Species in the past have adapted to these changes-but we have reduced their chances this time round because our population has grown so large over the last 10k years, and in the process fundamentally changed vast tracts of natural habitat.
* We continue to breed & spread & destroy.

I feel sure we will pay a heavy price for this.

Colin
 
There is experimental evidence for hypothetical rapid changes as posted by Tyke, but as far as the accepted measures of recording this kind of thing go ,this is the fastest period of warming recorded-and about the warmest our planet has been in those 600,000 years.

That isn't my reading of the material Imaginos-indeed the short term spikes in the Antarctic Ice Core record are referred to as the first confirmation of the rapid nature of some climate change aspects. The Sea Level changes too are attested as rapid & very significant over the last 2.5m years. This is perhaps the finding most significant for us.

....but hey-this doesn't really matter unless you are one of those who feel it is mandatory to have folk believe this is all new & unprecedented.

I don't believe that-the science suggests that it isn't so.
For me the key messages are:-
* It's getting warmer
*We may have made the warming worse than it otherwise would have been in an interglacial period.
*Climate has changed rapidly in "flips" before-it may do again.
*Species in the past have adapted to these changes-but we have reduced their chances this time round because our population has grown so large over the last 10k years, and in the process fundamentally changed vast tracts of natural habitat.
* We continue to breed & spread & destroy.

I feel sure we will pay a heavy price for this.

Colin

It seems that although we may differ on interpretation of (pre)historic records, our understanding of the key messages you cite are broadly similar. (One may even say we have consensus :) )
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top