The "Global Warming would be good for us" thread.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

Scientists used to believe that if you travelled faster than 20mph you would suffocate. They were wrong. Science can be wrong, fact. So what's changed?

Sure scientists can get things wrong but they often get it right too. There are a number of high profile cases where scientists and engineers got it wrong. The Tay Bridge was one. But, in general, bridges don't collapse in overwhelling proportions. In short, they generally get it about right.

Anyway, this GW thing is not just one scientist who doesn't refute the human influence - it is nearly 1000 peer reviewed papers by scientists concuring.

BTW, that suffocation at above 20 mph - which scientist(s) believed that?

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Britannist

As for number 10 above - if ice melts in a place like Greenland - that makes more land become available for farming or housing.
[/quote]
If the ice melts (actually continues to melt) sea levels will rise. So, while some land land will be gained, some will be lost.
I don't know what the trade off would be, but the land that is lost is more likely to have been inhabited and productive than the land which is gained.

[g hall]

Anyway, this GW thing is not just one scientist who doesn't refute the human influence - it is nearly 1000 peer reviewed papers by scientists concuring.

Science is not about concurring and peer review it is about studying the evidence and formulating a theory which the evidence may support and then finding more evidence to support the theory.
As far as GW goes there are many peer reviewed papers and theories against man made GW.
There are even theories that the increase in CO2 follws the increase in temperature

links http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V2/N12/C1.jsp
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...s/V2/N8/C3.jsp

all peer reviewed

Have you looked at the Oregon Petition as well and the analysis by Christopher Monkton in the Torygraph

Of course all the Cassandras want global warming to be man made so that humanity can be controlled - no more flights abroad, widening horizons - stay at home and have no heating and die young of bronchitis and pneumonia and other illnesses caused by not having cheap heating and washing facilities of course the wealthy and connected will be ok it'll just be the great unwashed who suffer <rant mode off>

Just how much water is locked away in ice, water is denser then ice hence smaller volume and spread over 70% of the earths surface thats an awful lot of ice - are we sure there's enough ?

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by g hall

Science is not about concurring and peer review it is about studying the evidence and formulating a theory which the evidence may support and then finding more evidence to support the theory.
As far as GW goes there are many peer reviewed papers and theories against man made GW.
There are even theories that the increase in CO2 follws the increase in temperature

links http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V2/N12/C1.jsp
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...s/V2/N8/C3.jsp

all peer reviewed

Both links lead to the same article.
A website with ten scientific and legal advisors.
I'm not sure who reviewed the article. But it just seems to be a non-scientific response. Sure, references are cited and selected bits used.

I have also seen the graphs posted that purportedly show a lag between temperature rise and atmosperic levels of CO2. As I posted elsewhere, one can just as easily show the reverse.

I can't claim to know what the human influence, if any, is on global warming. But I wouldn't discount it.

[Lazyguy]

Let's not forget the new wildlife that moves here! Boy, GW is the gift that just keeps on giving!

[g hall]

Both links lead to the same article.

same site different articles and I wasn't searching very much I'm sure if I had a lot of free time I could find more, the benefits of beeing self employed

[Clippo]

lazyguy wrote:-

Let's not forget the new wildlife that moves here! Boy, GW is the gift that just keeps on giving!

Yeah, just think of all those plant & animal (inc. human) bugs that need just a bit more warmth to survive permanently. I'm sure you'll love the regular outbreaks of malaria & dengue fever to name but a few. Of course, if you go into the sea to cool off, you might meet a friendly great white or a box jelly. ! :roll:

[Clippo]

g.hall wrote:-

Have you looked at the Oregon Petition ....

debunked & discredited see:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
&
...

the analysis by Christopher Monkton in the Torygraph

- Christopher Monckton, classics degree from Oxford plus journalsim degree from I know not where, criticising the firstly the work of many thousnads of experimental scientists through the IPCC and then the Stern report (Nicholas Stern ex-chief economist of the world bank). Need I say more!!

[Clippo]

From g hall's link
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...balwarming.jsp

1st para

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

Last para

Supporting references. This brief was written in 1998. References to the voluminous scientific literature that supports the many factual statements of this position paper may be found on our website - www.co2science.org - which we update weekly.

Which planet have they been on since 1998 !!!!

[mkpdavies]

I love the way you write off thousands of scientists opinions, because they don't agree with your narrow view. That's the true definition of a fascist in my book.