would you agree that "Climate Change" is just a natural phenomenon, and governments are using it to screw us

Question

Mark r...your obviously a complete spanner...how do you, or anyone else for that matter really know what it was like a thousand years ago!

Answer 1

I would agree. The term "climate change" is a relatively new one to give the fanatics cover when their "global warming" conferences were being cancelled by cold and snow.

The earth has warmed slightly over the last century, but that warming has not been global in scale. The warming effects have been seen to be stronger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. In fact, according to the IPCC, Antarctica has been cooling recently, not warming. Of course, this short period of warming followed a 500 year cool spell known as the "little ice age." The LIA was also not truly "global." The effects of the LIA were seen around the earth at different times and to different degrees with the northern hemisphere seeing stronger effects of the cooling (just like the current warming trend.) The cooling of the little ice age was mainly caused by 4 solar minimum periods, the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minimums, in which the output of the sun was greatly reduced. Since the end of the Dalton minimum (around 1820AD) the sun's output has been increasing in correlation with the earth's rising temperatures.
Studies of the increase in solar irradiance over the last century have shown that the increase in irradiance correlates to 80% of the warming over that time period.

Answer 2

Trevor says GW has been studied for over a century, which is not true. There have been records kept, but right after WW II many weather scientists were worried about cooling and the possibility of an Ice Age.

Climate Change is natural and the total destruction of our civilisation would not stop it. Draconian regulations and taxes benefit the politicians while lowering our standard of living and increasing the cost of everything. Even if Man is contributing a tiny bit to the rate of the change, is it worth the cost when nothing will actually stop nature? Change is not bad or good, it is just change. Only the environmentalist crazies say any change is bad, while they try to change the way we live.

Ask who gains power over everyone's lives, who gains money from taxes that can be used to buy votes with government money used in public programs? The politicians do. Then ask, which political party is most strident about GW? Then look at the environmentalists and which party they support.

Is it possible that these groups could put pressure on scientists to report only results they want and suppress opposing opinions? They do it to other opposing groups, why not scientists?

It is obvious that the opposing scientists are refused funding, employment and publication by those who support GW in the government, scientific journals and in education. They are vilified and mocked in the media, called "false" scientists, stupid, ignorant and accused of having base motives. It is the same as is done to political opponents, which makes the political group the obvious supporter of GW for their own gain.

Study the average temperatures of the Holocene, the time from the last Ice Age to the present. Explain the earlier causes of climate change without the influence of Man. The present warming appears to be a trend from medieval times. Then define what is a "normal climate" for the entire 10,500 years to the present. Check out those scientists who have opposing opinions and their explanations. Then think.

Answer 3

The speed of climate change may be from natural phenomenon, but the acceleration is only paralleled with a global catastrophy, and the last time I checked, there weren't any recent armagedon comets in the past century. So, as Mr. Holmes says, "once you eliminate all as imposible, what ever's left, however improbable, must be true."

One of the recent years - I think the year before last - the Rose ice shelf, that big one on Antarctica, melted eight fold faster than it should have. Nothing short of a HUGE: comet, astroid, volcano, or HUMAN activity could have caused this. The natural causes - and yes, they are there - DID NOT CAUSE THIS. Not even El Niño can do this, or even come close.

About, those natural causes: they do exist. Take for example the Rusian methane plains. Methane is a powerful green house gas. But, human activity greatly increased the rate of releasal of methane. A chunck of these natural causes are coming from us.

And I think that the megatons of human released CO2 just might have an impact on the environment. And 'playing god' with the environment with a coal factory just might get us a whomping spanking. And if this continues, government intervention will be THE least of our concerns.

But it's just a hunch.

The goverment has a conspiracy that there IS global warming. Now, that's definitely a first. LOL

Answer 4

NOPE, can't agree at all. Except for the bit aboiut governments using any excuse to increase taxes, they all love doing that, even while they are making a big show and dance about reducing taxes. (eg. Australian govt offering tax cuts in last few annual budgets as actual tax revenue keeps growing because of inflation and hidden taxes getting bigger).

But Global warminng a conspiracy, nope can't believe that at all. Basic o level science really, put more blankets on you get warmer! We have been doing the atmospheric equivalent ever since we started burning fossil fuels. The Carbon in fossil fuels was locked away out of the carbon cycle, we have been increasingly putting it back into the cycle and in the process increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The numbers add up!

Add to that our passion for destroying natural forests, and you can see why we very likely are the main cause for any global warming.

As many contributers have pointed out, most governments are not doing enough. And blaming the Indians and Chinese for the problem, or using their increasing economic activity as an excuse to not act is stupidity of the highest order. Even now, the average Chinese produces only 20% of the CO2 of the average Westerner. There is no justification for denying them the same pollution rights you claim for yourself. Add in the historical discrepancy and they would have every right to double and tripple your CO2 output per person.

But then we would all be in deep sh*t. So the answer is for those heavy CO2 producers to cut down emissions and for the world as a whole (every body and every government) to share any good technology that reduces emissions so that we can minimize the problem.

It is high time people learnt to pay not just for the cost of ripping some valuable item from the earth, but also for the damage that results. If we do that, then renewables will become comparatively dirt cheap.

Answer 5

Yes, totally, absolutely 100%
Natural climate change does and has happened abruptly. I belive that if we were put on this earth and not meant to use fossil fuels then we would have smaller brains and alot of fur, however, being green isn't a bad thing, but what the government are doing is. We need to become self sufficient and prepare for what will happen, instead of blaming.

Answer 6

The fact of the matter is that the Earth entered a natural cooling cycle in the mid 1980s due to declining solar output (since 1985), and we should have been experiencing a period of global cooling since then. The world, however, continues to warm up as a direct result of human activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

Yes the government are "screwing us", but not in the way you mean. The measures they are taking to combat global warming are totally inadequate to deal with the extent or the urgency of the problem. They seem to be doing little other than shifting the responsibility for global warming onto the general public, when what they should be doing is taking real action on finding alternate means of energy production, and curbing CO2 emissions in industry. Certainly we should all strive to do our part, but it will all be for nothing if our government, and governments world wide, don't start taking genuine and significant action very soon.

Answer 7

No I wouldnt say that, we need ot make a change on how we live our lives to help the environment. Also in the long run alot of the new energy productiom methods such as solar power and wind turbines may have an initial cost, but the cost in almost nothing in the longrun, therefore saving money after the pay-back period. like energy saving light bulbs may be slightly more expensive at first, but last alot longer than normal lightbulbs

Answer 8

Does it really matter whether its natural or man made, it IS happening, surely most people and governments agree on that at last. Could you be more specific about how governments are 'screwing' us. I don't doubt they will if they can, I just cannot think of any way in which they are doing so right now.

Answer 9

I agree for the most part. I think that the Earth's climate is definitely getting warmer, mostly through natural causes. But I think the pace of modern life and the speed with which we consume raw materials is not helping the matter either.
The government is "jumping on the band wagon" a bit and trying to be "right-on", and of course using any excuse to tax us into the ground. They can't seem to keep anything in perspective and are now making a knee-jerk reaction because it will improve their chances at the next election.
There is a lot to be said for recycling (i.e to reduce the volume of waste and to save money); saving energy, turning off lightbulbs, etc (saving money again) and all the rest but we're kidding ourselves if we think it's going to make the tiniest bit of difference to the global climate.
While China is churning out coal fired power stations at the rate they are (is it one a day?) then no amount of effort we make is going to help.
But personally, if saving energy and suchlike means that British Gas and their chums get less money out of me, I'm quite happy!

Answer 10

Sorry Herbs but I disagree with you.

There have been thousands and thousands of studies into global warming conducted for over more than a century (it's not a new issue by a long way) and almost every one of them come to the same conclusion - we're largely to blame.

There is a natural element to the current global warming but we can calculate a maximum and minimum contribution that is attributable to natural causes because we know what the natural cycles are that cause warming and cooling events.

If it is governments trying to screw us then it's the most elaborate hoax in the history of the world as it involved every single government in the world (they all acknowledge manmade global warming). Such a hoax would involve hundreds of thousands of people, probably millions - not a single person has 'broken ranks'. A government can barely keep a secret that's known to just a few people, how would they ever silence millions of people. Further, why would governments that have everything to loose and nothing to gain want to join in - the Saudi's for example who don't even have tax yet are entirely dependent on oil revenues.