• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Global Warming

Graham Tremble

Graham Tremble

Senior Member
Hi Guy,s,
To quote Jim Royle 'my ar*e'.:eek:

I was never a believer my self....far too old to be taken in by a load of self appointed 'experts'.

What do you think?
Regards,
G.T.
 
I'm certainly no expert on this sort of stuff but arguably the weird weather we are having (I was wearing flip flops this time last year. And other things of course) supports the notion that global warming or "climate change", is having an impact on weather patterns. And on the plus side, right now I don't suppose many folk are getting worked up by the existence of a close season for rivers.
 
It's even harder for me to think that we havan't altered the climate in some way, given the amount of chemicals we've pumped into the air and water over the last century or so. Natural cycle? I don't think so.

Dave
 
Have to agree with Graham on this one, having never bought into the 'man-made global warming' scam. Well,..I suppose I have though,...every time I pay a gas or electricity bill, or fill up the car I can be satisfied in the knowlege that I'm subsidising some rich so-and-so who is trousering huge goverment grants to manufacture and install ugly useless wind turbines.
What about the fish munching river wrecking 'green' turbines that are popping up in our rivers, all in the name of saving the planet?
Oops,..sorry about the rant, but as the sticker in the back of my car exclaims,..'It's the sun you fools!'
 
Dave Taylor said:
Have to agree with Graham on this one, having never bought into the 'man-made global warming' scam. Well,..I suppose I have though,...every time I pay a gas or electricity bill, or fill up the car I can be satisfied in the knowlege that I'm subsidising some rich so-and-so who is trousering huge goverment grants to manufacture and install ugly useless wind turbines.
What about the fish munching river wrecking 'green' turbines that are popping up in our rivers, all in the name of saving the planet?
Oops,..sorry about the rant, but as the sticker in the back of my car exclaims,..'It's the sun you fools!'
Click to expand...

I share your anger at misguided 'green' energy schemes but that doesn't change the fact that the climate is changing.

Dave
 
global warming is happening, fact, our weather all over the planet is changing, the ice caps are melting, fact!...but it's all mans fault, i don't buy it, the earths weather patterns have changed for millions of years, even in recent history, the last 1000 years.
it is used to put tax's up, cat converters on cars is the biggest con, most new cars have now 3, all nice when new, not so good if you need to replace em.
 
Graham. What you are experiencing is 'weather', on the other side 'climate' is much longer term trends that require the analysis of vast amounts of data.

Personally I'd rather take the view of those with the ability to understand, model and make reasoned conclusions from that data.

Are there's any other widely accepted scientific theories you'd like challenge?

Amazing how much this denial disinformation has been taken taken root over what has been accepted science for more than the last decade, strange they can never provide verifiable data to make their case, still with disinformation you don't have too
 
Some fairly mixed views, probably as expected, but whatever the cause - and it's difficult to look past man's intervention - we're clearly in a period of climate change and changing weather patterns. The repercussions of this will no doubt change a lot more than our angling opportunities.

It's a little facile to deny there's a problem, because of a bit of March snow.
 
Stewart Kemp said:
Graham. What you are experiencing is 'weather', on the other side 'climate' is much longer term trends that require the analysis of vast amounts of data.

Personally I'd rather take the view of those with the ability to understand, model and make reasoned conclusions from that data.

Are there's any other widely accepted scientific theories you'd like challenge?

Amazing how much this denial disinformation has been taken taken root over what has been accepted science for more than the last decade, strange they can never provide verifiable data to make their case, still with disinformation you don't have too
Click to expand...

So what about about the theories of people like David Bellamy? Are we to just dismiss people like him who dare to question the new religion of man made global warming? As has been pointed out, the earth has undergone climate change long before man had an input. Not only that, all the global warming supporting scientists were allocated a lot of money to come up with the "proof" the likes of Al Gore rammed down our throats. So they weren't going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg were they? As for challenging any other "widely accepted scientific theories" Stewart, this is an ongoing process. Otherwise we would still consider the earth flat and the sun to revolve around it! :)
 
So we should carry on poisoning the environment and chopping down rainforests because what we're seeing is perfectly natural? There are none so blind......

Dave
 
We have had some mild autumns over recent years which I think people tend to forget. Could it just be the seasons have shifted by a month or so?

Climate is cyclical and we are only 10,000 years past the end of the last ice age and maximum glaciation occured around 22,000 years ago. Maybe we are entering the next cycle?

We used to get told about "holes in the ozone layer" but can't remember when I last heard that talked about. The latest phrase seems to be "greenhouse gases".

Cutting carbon dioxide emmissions can only be a sensible idea but how it is achieved is in my opinion questionable.

For example hybrid cars which use lithium batteries. The lithium is mined, shipped to the other side of the world to be made into batteries then shipped half way back across the world to be installed in a new vehicles which also have a petrol engine!
 
Alex Gowney said:
So what about about the theories of people like David Bellamy?

In 2005 Bellamy wrote a letter to New Scientist claiming 555 0f 625 monitored Glaciers were advancing and not in retreat. This was challenged as there was no scientific background to this claim and it was essentially 'made up'. As a result Bellamy wrote to the Times in 2005 to say he was stepping back from the debate on 'global warming' and admitting he was wrong. He's had very little to say on the subject since so you must be a close personal friend to have knowledge of his 'theories'

Other prominent deniers include
Viscount Monckton - No science background, an uber right wing low tax nut job who claims to be responsible for winning the Falklands war

Lord Lawson- Former Tory Chancellor and another free market low tax man. Again no science background

Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail columnist. No science background.

Others are paid, for instance this year it was revealed that "Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires donated nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 anti-climate groups casting doubt on the science behind climate change." Didn't see the Daily Mail covering that one

The believers on the other hand are the scientists who have studied the subject for most of their adult lives, are the acknowledged leaders in their fields of research.
They publish the research in peer reviewed journals where their data, methods and conclusions are debated and challenged where necessary. For their skills they are relatively poorly paid and do not have a political low tax agenda.

Given that we don't have the time to study the data and follow the science in its minute detail I'd say it comes down to which side do you believe.

Scientists on one hand or Politically motivated economic interests and Conservative Billionaires with interests in Oil, Gas, Coal on the other
Rationally there is only 1 answer
Click to expand...
 
QUOTE=Dave Powell;124293]So we should carry on poisoning the environment and chopping down rainforests because what we're seeing is perfectly natural? There are none so blind

Plenty of bind people on both sides of the argument Dave. Of course it doesn't mean we should tear into the rainforests with a chainsaw, that's obvious. Sadly,this type of reply is typical of the global warming religion. If anyone dares to question this doctrine then obviously they must approve of all types of pollution and the wholesale destruction of the rain forests. What the Al Gore and his cronies followers should accept is that maybe, just maybe, their conclusions are not 100% correct and written in stone.
 
Last edited:
Stewart Kemp said:
Alex Gowney said:
So what about about the theories of people like David Bellamy? In 2005 Bellamy wrote a letter to New Scientist claiming 555 0f 625 monitored Glaciers were advancing and not in retreat. This was challenged as there was no scientific background to this claim and it was essentially 'made up'. As a result Bellamy wrote to the Times in 2005 to say he was stepping back from the debate on 'global warming' and admitting he was wrong. He's had very little to say on the subject since so you must be a close personal friend to have knowledge of his 'theories' Other prominent deniers include Viscount Monckton - No science background, an uber right wing low tax nut job who claims to be responsible for winning the Falklands war Lord Lawson- Former Tory Chancellor and another free market low tax man. Again no science background Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail columnist. No science background. Others are paid, for instance this year it was revealed that "Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires donated nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 anti-climate groups casting doubt on the science behind climate change." Didn't see the Daily Mail covering that one The believers on the other hand are the scientists who have studied the subject for most of their adult lives, are the acknowledged leaders in their fields of research. They publish the research in peer reviewed journals where their data, methods and conclusions are debated and challenged where necessary. For their skills they are relatively poorly paid and do not have a political low tax agenda. Given that we don't have the time to study the data and follow the science in its minute detail I'd say it comes down to which side do you believe. Scientists on one hand or Politically motivated economic interests and Conservative Billionaires with interests in Oil, Gas, Coal on the other Rationally there is only 1 answer
Click to expand...

I am not a personal friend of David Bellamy (??) but the fact he has been outcast by the TV companies would hinder him getting any point across at all.

You make a sound argument Stewart, but for the all the apparrent "facts" the scientists come up with they cannot explain what has caused previous climate change in the planet long before fossil fuels were burned for fuel. They may be right, they may not be. What irritates is the almost hysterical fervour with which this subject is presented and the outright refusal to even consider that maybe all isn't quite what they claim. History is littered with balls ups made by science so if you want to buy 100% into their theoies, that's up to you. I prefer to keep an open mind, which does not suggest of course, that I approve of pollution and the destruction of the rainforests!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scientists on one hand or Politically motivated economic interests and Conservative Billionaires with interests in Oil, Gas, Coal on the other
Rationally there is only 1 answer[/QUOTE]

Stewart,

You seem to have conveniently left out those with an interest in windfarms and other renewables!

Dave,
Having spent a good part of my adult life fighting pollution in our rivers and streams, it grates when people make the assumption that because I choose to be sceptical about 'man-made' [ induced] global warming I care not one jot about the environment,..but when one holds a view not shared [apparently] by the status quo one should expect to be demonised I fear.

Many 'believers' also seem to side step the fact [David Attenborough being an exception] that man's biggest carbon legacy is it's offspring, I don't hear many politicians proposing 'green' taxes on our kids.
 
Last edited:
Hi Guys,
As I expected, a very divergent set of opinions. I can't help smiling at how easily people are mesmorised by so called scientific opinions ( do you mean 'Al Raving Gore'::eek: ).
Its just weather chaps, and yes it does change from time to time and has done for millions of years.
Of course that does not mean that we should poison our planet and I am all for monitoring our excesses so that we don't do just that but that is a different argument.
Regards,
Graham.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top