Are we being conned about Global warming.

**JDNSW** · 1st June 2009, 07:14 PM

A couple of comments.

1. The major reason that the Frost Festival in London came to an end was the demolition of the old London Bridge in about 1807. This resulted in more movement of the water in the Thames upstream of London Bridge (the old bridge has been described as more a dam than a bridge!) and preventing it from freezing. But the advent of the almost annual freezing came about as a result of the mini-ice age starting about 1600. I have seen the suggestion that this cooling resulted from a massive reduction in agriculture in North America as a result of the introduction of smallpox by Europeans in the previous century. This same theory places the start of human effects on climate with the start of large scale agriculture about 5,000 years ago.

2. While it is almost certain that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to increased temperatures compared to what they would have been, the amount of these increases is much less certain, and the temperatures to be reached even less certain - as the underlying influences on temperature are not well understood. And the computer models used to predict future temperatures do not inspire me with great confidence - similar types of models are unable to reliably predict weather three days ahead, or climate a few months ahead.

3. One thing that is absolutely certain, is that nothing that Australians do will have a significant effect on human induced climate change. If Australia ceased all carbon dioxide emissions completely, the difference in world levels would not be measurable. To pretend otherwise is to be completely deceitful. The only way that emissions will be reduced in a meaningful way is if it major reductions are made by the major emitters - China, US, India and Europe, roughly in that order. And furthermore, the atmosphere knows nothing of per capita emissions - these are meaningless.

4. This leads to the next point - The root of this problem, as with most of the world's problems, is population growth. And here, unlike, for example, many European countries, Australia does not look good!

5. The corollary is that for Australia to reduce emissions unilaterally, without the major emitters also joining, will simply export the emissions and jobs and profits, without any effect on climate. Unfortunately, this applies to most countries, and in my view makes it unlikely that anything substantive is likely to happen until most of the damage (assuming the worst predictions are true) has been done - and this is regardless of anything Australia does. For example, if Australia stopped all coal mining, which is probably the most effective step we could take, apart from having to pay a lot more for power, many people would be out of work, most manufactured goods would get a lot more expensive as the dollar fell dramatically (although this would slowly result in increased local manufacture, with jobs going from high paying mining jobs in rural areas to low paying assembly line jobs in the major cities, offset by the loss of heavy industry along with coal mining.

Just my views - it does not matter whether you are a climate sceptic or a believer - Australia is not in a position to make any difference, and to believe otherwise is to delude yourself.

John

**rick130** · 1st June 2009, 07:21 PM

All good points John.

There is some interesting theories floating around that if the large glaciers in the North Atlantic continue their current rate of melting that the resulting diluting of the salt in the great Atlantic conveyor ocean current would make it run at a deeper depth which may trigger an ice age in Europe and North America !

**awabbit6** · 1st June 2009, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Chenz

... I think it is a simple matter of using the stats wrongly to justify a cause.

The scientists are using climate info based on such a small sample and timeframe as to make it next to worthless. There have been climate variations since the dawn of time, ice ages global warming and vice versa. When I was a kid back in the 60s I remember vividly my teachers saying we were on the verge of another ice age.

Now I am not saying that man's activities are not having any effect and that we need to modify our behaviour ...

I agree entirely. If we put the sample data into perspective, it becomes difficult to believe that we are solely responsible for climate change.

Lets over-estimate the time that we have been recording weather patterns accurately for, and say we have 1000 years of data. The Earth is aproximately 4.5 billion years old. This means that we only have data for 0.000022% of the time that Earth has existed. For the remaining 99.99998% of the time we have geological data which clearly illustrates that our climate goes through dramatic cycles well before the existance of humans.

I'm not saying that we aren't having any impact. A single species whose population is increasing rapidly will definitely have some impact on its environment. I just think that there are far more significant factors to consider and I'm not convinced by the tiny bit of data that we have.

**Rosco** · 1st June 2009, 07:29 PM

I read somewhere not that long ago, something along the lines of .... If the age of Earth was put at 24 hours, we've been here for 1 second. Hardly long enough to garner statistics of any relevance I would think.

As for the hole in the ozone layer, I recently heard an eminent scientist state that Mt Erebus spews out more chlorofluorocarbons than we ever have.

It's all a great big con al'la 1984. But that's not to say we shouldn't do something about all the pollution we are foisting upon nature.

**amtravic1** · 1st June 2009, 07:57 PM

I believe the weather is changing. I do not believe we are having much effect at all. In the past the world was much warmer, then it cooled, and got warmer and cooled. It had nothing to do with humans.
I suppose it keeps a few people who would otherwise have nothing to do in a job, trying to scare us all into believing thier hype.

The Climate Sceptics - The world's first up-front political party representing climate sceptics.

Ian

**dullbird** · 1st June 2009, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by rick130

All good points John.

There is some interesting theories floating around that if the large glaciers in the North Atlantic continue their current rate of melting that the resulting diluting of the salt in the great Atlantic conveyor ocean current would make it run at a deeper depth which may trigger an ice age in Europe and North America !

Am I right in thinking though that there wasn't even ice caps until the last ice age

.....So them disappearing is only reverting back to what we already had before we lost the dinosaurs

**JDNSW** · 1st June 2009, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by dullbird

Am I right in thinking though that there wasn't even ice caps until the last ice age

.....So them disappearing is only reverting back to what we already had before we lost the dinosaurs

There have been ice ages on and off throughout earth's history (glaciation leaves unmistakable signs!), but it seems very likely that for the majority of the time, since the atmosphere stabilised at around the current oxygen levels perhaps in the Cambrian, the global climate has been a lot warmer than the present climate (and no permanent ice caps). It is probable that ocean currents have a major impact on global climate, and it needs to be pointed out that these are affected in a major way by the slowly changing positions of the continents.

John

**wardy1** · 1st June 2009, 08:10 PM

We have accurate meteorological records for something under 150 years worldwide and from these, they are saying that they can predict the future conditions???? This planet has had an atmosphere which has changed dramatically over many millions of years and will continue to do so.... no matter whether we do nothing, or everything. The one thing we cannot do, is to stop it changing!
Over history our atmosphere has coped with massive sulphur discharges (volcanoes etc), rising aoceans, falling ocean and massive land masses changing positions (which would certainly have effected rainfall in areas).
Yes we now have a large population and NO, I'm not saying we should continue to pollute as we have. What I AM saying is that we don't have to panic and make it all happen in 12 months and create massive problems in our already troubled economies.
Carbon trading will make some people a hell of a lot of money.... will it be you? Or will you be like me...just paying for it all.

**rick130** · 1st June 2009, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Rosco

<snip>
As for the hole in the ozone layer, I recently heard an eminent scientist state that Mt Erebus spews out more chlorofluorocarbons than we ever have.

<snip>

Firstly, CFC's are man-made, I think you mean chlorine gas as hydrogen chloride, and secondly, that's been proven as one of the great myths/hoaxes of our time

I'll try and dig up the relevant links, I was only reading abut it a few weeks back, there is no valid science behind it, it's like one of those email things that go round and round and take on a life of their own.

**one_iota** · 1st June 2009, 08:12 PM

Anyone wanting a basic grounding on the topic of life should spend many hours studying here:

Palaeos

The answer to the original question was are we being conned...the answer is no or 42

Thread: Are we being conned about Global warming.

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions