I’m just watching ‘Arctic Live’ and very good it is too, but they just mentioned that the Arctic is shrinking due to man’s impact on the environment causing global warming. In the next breath he mentions that there are unlimited amounts of oil and gas under the ice that man is seeking to recover…
Surely, there must have been trees and vegetation there at some time to have produced the oil and gas, and if there was, the shrinking ice shelf must have taken place before without man’s help? So a perfectly natural phenomenon then?
1 Like
I’m watching it too. Yes there must have been something which formed the oil.
I seem to remember something about the World flipping over every so many years, I wonder if that caused the climate change.
I may have got it wrong though.
And it’s only in the Arctic? If there is true global warming, sic, I.e not cyclic, then what about the Antarctic?
Sits back with a bag of popcorn and a beer, waits for the howls of doom and destruction from the Greenpeace hippies and assorted ‘experts’
Read about that too TessA, magnetic poles flipping, apparently we are overdue for one.
The main difference between natural swings in climate and anthropomorphic or human caused is the rate of change. Nothing in the geological records, ice core records, fossil records, historical records, etc. indicates that climate change ever occurred with the current rapidity. Since the industrial revolution the greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane, etc. have been increasing dramatically beyond what previous human populations, fires, volcanoes, etc. ever produced. At bottom line, it is cause and effect.
That makes sense to me Shadowman 
I have always considered the period from industrial revolution onwards has played a big part in global warming and it is only the scientific advances in recent years that have enabled us to realise and monitor what is happening to our planet.
Back in the seventies it was assumed that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses would bring on an impending Ice Age. Now some scientists believe that it will be ‘Global Warming’ that will be the result, when in reality they are just best guess scenarios using incomplete and limited geological records that can be interpreted to suit a theory, that is by no means accepted by every climatologist.
Consider this Shadowman:
Carbon Dioxide and Methane are heavier than air and would not rise into the atmosphere.
Assuming they did rise into the atmosphere and cause the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ and the resulting global warming, surely the higher temperatures would precipitate more water vapour being picked up from the oceans and the resulting cloud cover would negate the greenhouse effect. When you consider that 70% of the Earths surface is covered by water this would indeed be the logical outcome.
We in the UK are been taken for fools. Based on the theory that nobody wants to deliberately harm the planet, and throw into the mix that it will be our children who will suffer. Proven or not who will argue against Global Warming? Add to that the fact that energy companies can charge what they like and play the green card to justify it. Whole businesses have sprung up on the back of Global Warming. Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, and numerous other experimental so called sustainable sources of energy production. This is big business and too valuable to dispel the myth that is ‘Man Made Global Warming’ so the guilt trip is used to grease the wheels.
It has it’s down side though. By putting the blame on the developed world in an attempt to make you feel guilty and cough up your hard earned brass, third world countries have seen an opportunity to receive large amounts of aid. If we are admitting responsibility for the worlds severe weather events then surely, by our own standards, where there’s blame there’s a claim.
It’s never made sense to me at all and the idea this lite island can make a difference seems mad when so many others are causing smog and fumes. It feels like a way to tax us all rather than a true danger. If it really was us then they would be stopping the third world countries as its a danger to everyone not just them.
Absolutely Julie, this was a report from one year ago in Greenpeace’s News sheet.
We are shutting the few that we have left when there is no alternative other than buying electricity in from France.
China’s coal bubble: 155 coal-fired power plants in the pipeline despite overcapacity
November 11, 2015 - 3:00 am
by Zachary Davies Boren
@zdboren
At least there must be more trees less at risk of being felled and growing nowadays with less paper being used due to the internet and phone texting virtually replacing the written word.
Good for trees, bad for kids wanting to actually write a physical letter.
Unfortunately Floydy, Timber is still heavily used in the building trade but we are becoming more aware of their importance and are making an effort to replace them…
The claims about an Ice Age Coming in the 1970s were not scientific theories, not even hypothesis and were soon sifted out by peer review of scientists. They were popularized by magazines such as Time magazine and these publications were not scientific journals. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
Climate science has advanced much.
The flat-earthers reckon that the actions of 7+ billion people, coal power, vehicle emissions, massive daily destruction of native forests, changed farming practices including synthetic fertilizers etc etc etc etc
have no impact on the planet ???
Reckon I’ll go with the overwhelming majority of genuine climate scientists who say otherwise.
Not only scientists but most of the world’s governments who have nothing whatever to gain in the popularity-stakes by imposing additional taxes and other measures to counter the problem.
When I check out the sites of the non-believers, it is amazing how most can be tracked back to fundie-christian creationists or oil companies.
My suggestion for those who think it is all crap ?
Invest in one of those beautiful South Sea Islands with coral atolls and pearly white beaches where you can buy a home for peanuts.
Only problem ? Some are no more than 1 - 5 metres above current sea levels.
But if there is no climate-caused rise in ocean levels, you’re on a winner !
Like to chance it ?
Now that Trump is in the Whitehouse there is absolutely no chance that temperature rise will be halted within 2’C. Life will be hard for your kids and grandkids.
Combine climate change with the end of antibiotics (yep, there is nothing to replace them in sight) and the human race is in for a rough time over the next century or so.
That was one bad winter (1962-63) I remember Cliff Michelmore (sp) hosting a program called some thing like “The New Ice Age?”. No science just the result of a single very cold winter and an ice age was coming. I remember it very well I had to walk to school in it.
Good hypotheses Pummie, and I would love for all forms of pollution and fossil burning to stop tomorrow and when the sea levels continue to rise, and ‘Global Warming’ continues unanabated, all you tree huggers will turn round and say “Oh we didn’t realise that other factors were causing Global Warming instead”
You are absolutely right about fertilisers and exhaust emissions, but only on a local scale. You have not taken into account the size of our atmosphere and the miniscule effect that we are having upon it. 70% of the Earth surface is covered by water or Ice and of the remaining 30% only about 5% is inhabited. Australia is even less than this with the majority of the population restricted to the coastal areas. The Earth is a constantly changing entity, if you are basing all of your theories on statistics collected over the last few thousand years you will have observed that - like a pendulum - our climate alternates between hot and cold.
The Earth is around four and a half Billion years old and has experienced just about every scenario, practically covered in a far reaching Ice sheet, or covered with treeless deserts - In Edinburgh there is a road called ‘Vine Street’ because vines could be grown there when the temperature was far warmer than it is now - excesses of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination but this planet has a way of equalising itself without our help.
One thing I’ve always wondered about the likes of the latest Arctic watch,man is always blamed ie: the ice is forming later to enable the Polar Bears to get back on it,why not feed them? the argument then becomes we are interfering,well if the ice forming later is down to man we are interfering any way.
Maybe.
But what dire suffering might humanity have to endure - and for how long - until this “equalization” process returns the planet to a comfortable, livable state ?
Decades, centuries, millenia, millions of years with no surviving humans ?
If there is a chance that we can assist that “equalising” process, why should we not ?
Consider this Shadowman:
Carbon Dioxide and Methane are heavier than air and would not rise into the atmosphere.
Methane is lighter than air.
Hi
The Planet Earth has always been cyclic.
Much of the UK was covered in Ice not that long ago in Geographical Terms.
Let us for a moment forget CO2, fossil fuels emit far nastier pollutants.
We have renewable energy in our grasp, no need to be dependant on rabid Sunni Muslim States controlling our economy.
We should go for it.
If we do, we shall be our own Masters.
The Saudis, with their Radical Islam, would be out of the Equation.