10913 David vs Goliath ?

I know that my Global Footprint is not that big............cos I drive everywhere !!

(What's Tuscanhills up to now??? He keeps prancing about asking for sunshine!!!)

I think that we don't know and that we will never know the whole truth. I respect Bellamy's opinion as he is a great scientist and I have always admired him. Perhaps, what we are seeing is a combination of factors but then the media tends to focus on some only... Respect of nature and the environment is only a matter of common sense... which is the less common of all senses.

Interesting article, but I was most amused by one of the comments, which said in part:

[INDENT]"I came to this article via the equally intelligent David Icke, yes everyone condemed him years ago too. They are not laughing at him now though are they?"[/INDENT]

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I am still laughing at Icke and so is anyone else with any sense, since he persists in believing that the world is ruled by giant lizards disguised as humans.

I would hope that Bellamy is not thrilled to have Icke's endorsement, but who knows?

I accept that Bellamy was a great populariser of science, but I'm not sure about him being a "great scientist". Nor am I clear on whether he has the background and knowledge to have such definite views on climate trends and what's causing change, if change there be. I [I]do[/I] know I'm not qualified to be sure about those points, so I tend to fall back on gut feelings and I'm afraid my feelings are not too positive if a point of view attracts the support of the likes of David Icke. I also hear Obsessive Nutter alarm bells tinkling if someone (regardless of how quirkily appealing his personality might be) starts hinting that there's a conspiracy of silence at the BBC to prevent the Truth from being told.

While I suspect (as you do, Torchiarolan) that human activities are having an impact on our world's climate, I'm more sceptical about whether things are as clear-cut as the doom-merchants would have us believe. Perhaps that's partly due to one of my earliest memories of being worried about the world beyond my immediate neighbourhood was when I read an article in a popular science magazine in the 1960s which said there was irrefutable evidence we were heading for The End of the World As We Know It because much of the Northern Hemisphere would soon be covered with immense glaciers in a new Ice Age.

That theory seems to have been forgotten. Or maybe the scientists of those days were right: perhaps the only reason the entire world's population is not now shivering in the tropics is due to global warming caused by all the carbon dioxide we've pumped into the air over the last 200 years.

Al

Allan, you have mist a critical point,"global warming" is old news now.We now refer to "global change"Makes you think does it not.

The news for the last decade was all about global warming,so why has that now been changed from "warming" to merely "change"
There has always been global change in the history of our planet! Indeed they are trying to sell sand to the Arabs.

What is clear though is this is a westernised theory,Of course change will take place,god knows how our interference will effect it either way but change there will be,no matter what we do.

So we have gone from Global warming, which happens naturally anyway, to Global change, the very reason why we exist in the first place.You might as well try to make us buy the very air we freely breath!

[quote=giovanni;102380].You might as well try to make us buy the very air we freely breath![/quote]

Gio please be careful you don't want to give Brelu or Brown any ideas!

Global ‘whatever; may well be happening but it is politically driven. With the end of the cold war, western governments needed something else to frighten the people with.

And while we are at it, why haven’t we all died of bird flu?:veryconfused:

"moved to italiauncovered.co.uk"

Well, I'm qualified, insofar as I have a Physics degree, and as I see it, there is simply no question that the climate is changing, and that we're causing it.

The atmosphere contains 30% more carbon dioxide than it did 300 years ago. Anyone who thinks that such a massive increase won't have a major affect just doesn't understand basic physics.

It's called the "greenhouse effect" because it's the same principle as a greenhouse. Take 30% of your greenhouse windows out and see if it still works.

It seems to me that the media's concern for "balance" is what misleads people into thinking that there is a scientific debate to be had, because the journalists think they have done their job if they present "both sides of the argument". But, in fact, it's only a tiny fringe who deny climate change, and few of them are qualified.

In the Express article, some of the claims that Bellamy makes are flat wrong. ("According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder", for example.) I can't tell whether he's deliberately lying or deluding himself.

A very interesting article.
One thing that I do agree with is the comment on the destruction of rain forests and over fishing of our seas. These are two very important items that need addressing by all nations, before it is too late.

Francesca

Stephen, could you please explain to me why at certain times of the year the moon looks 10 times its normal size.? It always looks like its coming straight at us.

[url=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/bigmoon_000105.html]SPACE.com -- Scientists Offer Answer to Baffling Lunar Illusion[/url].

Thanks for the link! I'd been musing about that very subject just a week or so ago when there was a big crescent moon on the horizon. I think the researchers have a good answer.

[quote=Steve Graham;102395]Thanks for the link! I'd been musing about that very subject just a week or so ago when there was a big crescent moon on the horizon. I think the researchers have a good answer.[/quote]

but is it right? and how come only now is this theory half expectable.
What about this one below.

[url=http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/28/earths-atmosphere-is-leaking-into-space/]Earth's Atmosphere is Leaking into Space | Universe Today[/url]

my understanding was particles/ions could not escape the gravitational pull of the earth.or that was what was taught only 3 decades ago.

[quote=Steve Graham;102392]Well, I'm qualified, insofar as I have a Physics degree, and as I see it, there is simply no question that the climate is changing, and that we're causing it.

The atmosphere contains 30% more carbon dioxide than it did 300 years ago. Anyone who thinks that such a massive increase won't have a major affect just doesn't understand basic physics.

It's called the "greenhouse effect" because it's the same principle as a greenhouse. Take 30% of your greenhouse windows out and see if it still works.

It seems to me that the media's concern for "balance" is what misleads people into thinking that there is a scientific debate to be had, because the journalists think they have done their job if they present "both sides of the argument". But, in fact, it's only a tiny fringe who deny climate change, and few of them are qualified.

In the Express article, some of the claims that Bellamy makes are flat wrong. ("According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder", for example.) I can't tell whether he's deliberately lying or deluding himself.[/quote]

But we were told it was global warming! just 3 years ago, the same scientist were saying global warming.The planet is getting colder that is not global warming is it,and we are indeed in the right time scale for an ice age anyway..

Who can you believe when they keep changing stories, that only months earlier were supposedly accurate.

"moved to italiauncovered.co.uk"

But does it matter? This global warming/climate change debate (brainwashing) is stupid. It isn't necessary to take a 'side' - it is much more sensible to hedge your bets and reduce consumption of energy (or leverage consumption which is what geothermal is all about). Saves you money, too!

Woodburning stoves are not terribly wonderful if you are concerned about CO2 emissions...which is just a thought presented to annoy some of you!

It all sounds very much as the story of Aspirin, first it was a great discovery, then it was dangerous, then, again it was a panacea, then, they changed their mind again.... then.... you do not know what they are going to say next... Still, if I have a headache or a cold, I take one and it works......

[quote=Torchiarolan;102401]... but the phrase that I always hear most when any form of science is being discussed is [I][B]"It used to be thought that... "[/B][/I][/quote]
Well, yes, but I think what you're talking about is changing theories and explanations. Observable evidence doesn't change: carbon dioxide isn't suddenly going to become a thermal non-insulator if someone dreams up a new theory.

Change of climate is observable, now. (I happened to see a report on BBC News 24 last night about the Alaskan arctic, and it featured a very worried Coast Guard admiral, who doesn't have the resources to rescue cruise ship passengers in an emergency should lines decide to sail the North-West Passage. It will be passable next Summer.)

Fair enough, the question of explanations -- is the warming due to human activities? -- certainly is a matter of theories. But it seems to me that for the non-expert, when you need guidance on what is correct, you have the choice of following mainstream, concensus science, and 999 climate scientists out of every 1,000; or going for fringe beliefs espoused only by a tiny minority.

It's an old canard that "They laughed at and he was right; therefore, since they're laughing at Bellamy, he must be right also." If that kind of logic were true, we would indeed all be desciples of David Icke.