[Chris Kane]

Neil, what a shame it would be if Governments act on the basis that your view is correct, and do nothing, only to realise thirty years from now that the problem is real.

I'd rather be safe than sorry.  Being young, I have a lot more to lose than you do.

[George Pazin]

I love the term climate change.

Kinda seems like "Think Global Act Local" has morphed into "Think Local Act Global", but then again, that's pretty much the idea.

[Rich Goodale]

This is a very old story, with no compelling new evidence in the 10+ years I've been aware of this scenario.

I'm damned pleased that Bob Huntley will still be able to enjoy cocktails from the 2nd floor members terrace of the R&A.  That he will be viewing wind surfers and dolphins rather than badly dressed golfers is probably a plus.

[Kalen Braley]

Neil:

I have no dog in this fight other than accuracy.  Do you think Wikipedia gives a reasonable description of the issue? 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Jason,

Do you know where that data comes from?

The IPCC. 

Did you know the IPCC doesn't even do its own work.  Take a look at this, straight from thier site:  http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

So how does on validate thier findings?  Once again, straight from thier site.

When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content

They have got to be kidding right?  When govt's put a rubber stamp to it, its legitimate? 

Furthermore, despite all thier attempts to claim nuetrality and objectivity, they say on the same page.

The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

So thier goal is follow UN human development goals?  And who sets these goals?  What happened to getting the facts and basing decisions around the findings?

This whole thing is madness, and reflects very little of what the scienctific process is all about. 
 

Kalen:

Here is a partial quote from a caption in the article you linked:

  "A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by the global warming swindlers."

I have no idea if sea levels are rising.  Nonetheless, language such as this undercuts the credibility of the article.

Jason,

I would say swindler is the correct term in this case.

Some more info on Al Gore that the main-stream talking heads always fail to mention.  Did you know Al Gore has a very real vested interest in govt's adopting these policies he preaches and does his whoremongering about?  He goes out there, get everyone whipped up into a frenzy saying we must do this and that or its the end of the world. And then he's got all this setup behind the scenes (see links).  If this isn't manipulating the market in a "swindler" kind of way, I don't know what is.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/al-gores-fund-manager-green/story.aspx?guid=%7BAD36430D-4AFD-48AE-8CFA-4A20E83CFAF0%7D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/al-gore-investment-body-c_n_99309.html

http://riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528


This stuff is all out there, its no secret what he's trying to do and get filthy rich in the process over speculative unscientifically based measures at best.  And the left liberal press never mentions one word about this.  Just coincidence??   

And this is just Al Gore's world.  We haven't even gotten into all the funding that would dry up for grants, research and otherwise if the "findings" don't match what these "green" companies want to pollute your mind with.

Its pure madness and its amazing how many people are gulping the kool-aid.


P.S.  I enjoy how you didn't quote the whole thing.  In the very next sentence.

A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroying the evidence that their “theory” was false.

P.P.S.  Just so we know...the definition of a "swindler"

someone who leads you to believe something that is not true

[Rick Shefchik]

Neil, what a shame it would be if Governments act on the basis that your view is correct, and do nothing, only to realise thirty years from now that the problem is real.

I'd rather be safe than sorry.  Being young, I have a lot more to lose than you do.

Chris,

I recommend you accept the limitations of any government to stop such an inevitable catastrophe, and sign up for a slip at the Old Course Yacht Club.

[Anthony Gray]

 



    Now I see why they built the Castle Course !!!!!!!!

[Mark Pearce]

Mark
That's your argument is it? George Bush has accepted it so it must be real? So which facts are we ignoring - that global temperatures have been cooling since 2000? Please don't go on about "oil interests" when the scientists that do believe in anthropogenic global warming are dependent upon government grants every few years for their existence - it's in their own pecuniary interests to keep that gravy train going. And there are many scientists, and especially geologists who do not agree with the "accepted wisdom". Please do not suggest that those who are skeptical of AGW are 'flat-earthers' as it can just as easily be said that the AGW believers are 'religious zealots'. Do you like that?

While it is understood the exercise that the professor (who is an accountant by the way) participated in was one of "possible futures" and not predictions, she still looked into her crystal ball and foresaw St Andrews under water, while she could have just as easily foresaw a future where St Andrews was covered by a glacier (again) and there was a land bridge connecting Scotland to Europe. I wonder why she didn't foresee that future? Because it would not have got picked up on the BBC that's why.

I'm sure all owners of seaside property are relieved you won't be moving in next to them!

And that's yours, is it?  How do temperatures since 2000 compare to, say 50 years ago?  They're higher.  2000 was a spike, but the trend remains upwards.  I'm not a climate scientist but a long conversation a couple of years ago with a UCL professor working for Shell (so with a vested interest to be a denier, and you'd have to admit that Shell would be unlikely to choose an extremist to sponsor) persuaded me that global warming is very real (in fact, as I've said, the vast majority (which means in excess of 95% of climatologists accept that global warming is real).  Incidentally, there are some who argue that it is still unclear as to what the cause is.  The professor I spoke to was in no doubt that greenhouse gases were the major cause.

You appear to want to believe it's all a myth.  I'd rather work on the basis that we should do something while we still can.  If you're right and there's no anthropogenic global warming then what do we lose?  A bit of financial pain, for which we get a cleaner atmosphere.  If you're wrong and we do nothing, my children have to live through economic and social crisis, just so we can carry on living life the way we do, rather than making some (relatively) minor sacrifices.

[Chris Kane]

You appear to want to believe it's all a myth.  I'd rather work on the basis that we should do something while we still can.  If you're right and there's no anthropogenic global warming then what do we lose?  A bit of financial pain, for which we get a cleaner atmosphere.  If you're wrong and we do nothing, my children have to live through economic and social crisis, just so we can carry on living life the way we do, rather than making some (relatively) minor sacrifices.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Consider the following:



If mankind is to blame for the current increase in temps over the last century of less than 1 degree.  Then who is to blame for the nearly 14 degree differentials (in Celsius) caused in the last 400,000 or so years as extracted by ice samples?

Did the dinasaours get tired of walking to thier feeding grounds and fire up the old Fred Flinstone car to get there?  Oh wait, that car was run by foot power.  Perhaps it was the enusing friction that heated up the enviroment and cooled off in 14 degree swings.

The earth has been in and out of ice ages, completely caused on it own over the last how many millions of years.  Yet the advent of the petrol run car in the last 80 or 90 years is now the cause of world destruction?  Even though in the 70's these same phonies were talking about heading into the next ice age?

The kool-aid is tasty kiddies, everyone drink up!!

[George Pazin]

You appear to want to believe it's all a myth.  I'd rather work on the basis that we should do something while we still can.  If you're right and there's no anthropogenic global warming then what do we lose?  A bit of financial pain, for which we get a cleaner atmosphere.  If you're wrong and we do nothing, my children have to live through economic and social crisis, just so we can carry on living life the way we do, rather than making some (relatively) minor sacrifices.

Couldn't have said it better.

Doesn't make it right...

[Bruce Katona]

Martin: Shortly after the stewards have gently relocated your fine private stock to the upper level of the R&A, please give me a shout so we can sample the contents to insure all have survived the ordeal in good working order.

BK

[JNC Lyon]

Jason,

I would say swindler is the correct term in this case.

Some more info on Al Gore that the main-stream talking heads always fail to mention.  Did you know Al Gore has a very real vested interest in govt's adopting these policies he preaches and does his whoremongering about?  He goes out there, get everyone whipped up into a frenzy saying we must do this and that or its the end of the world. And then he's got all this setup behind the scenes (see links).  If this isn't manipulating the market in a "swindler" kind of way, I don't know what is.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/al-gores-fund-manager-green/story.aspx?guid=%7BAD36430D-4AFD-48AE-8CFA-4A20E83CFAF0%7D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/al-gore-investment-body-c_n_99309.html

http://riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528


This stuff is all out there, its no secret what he's trying to do and get filthy rich in the process over speculative unscientifically based measures at best.  And the left liberal press never mentions one word about this.  Just coincidence??   

And this is just Al Gore's world.  We haven't even gotten into all the funding that would dry up for grants, research and otherwise if the "findings" don't match what these "green" companies want to pollute your mind with.

Its pure madness and its amazing how many people are gulping the kool-aid.


P.S.  I enjoy how you didn't quote the whole thing.  In the very next sentence.

A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroying the evidence that their “theory” was false.

That story about the advocates is so classic.  Environmentalists get so insane that they actually destroy the environment in an attempt to prove they are right.

I totally agree with Kalen, George, Neil, et al on this.  You can show me as many hockey stick graphs and doomsday videos as you want.  No one has established that the temperature is rising uncontrollably and permanently, and no one has established any accurate correlation between rising temperatures and man's influence.  Personally I think this is liberal propaganda to gain political control through fear (like Crichton says) and stick it to businesses.  The fact that George Bush or any other politicians (claim to) believe in the phenomenon is immaterial and has nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[Kalen Braley]

Chris and Mark,

You're really on to something here.

Please immediately read the following:

Ever feel like someone is listening in?
Ever seem like your just not your usual self?
Ever do something and say wait a minute, its just not like me?

Well fear no longer, get your tinfoil hats exlcusivly from me, because you can never be sure when you've been targeted for electromagnetic fields, alien interference, mind control, and mind reading.  Never mind theres no science behind this, I've got sworn testimony that Uncle Sam has unleashed a army of aliens and mind control folks on you to set you straight.

But we'll strike one back on them. For the low, low price of $19.95 you can have your very own tinfoil hat and foil, (no pun intended), even thier most effective methods.



Order within the next 30 minutes and I'll even throw in a free pet version for each corresponding human hat purchase.

Don't delay and get those orders in now because you need to:

"Do something while we still can"

and by all means wouldn't you

" rather be safe than sorry"

Disclaimer: All sales are final, no refunds....because your safety is more important than getting your money back.  Any inquiries should be forwarded on to Shivas Products, Inc.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark
The precautionary principle is your guide to life then? Sorry, but I just don't buy it. While I accept that CO2 has some minor abilities to capture and re-radiate warmth, its power as a greenhouse gas reduces exponentially with each doubling of its concentration. But this power is dwarfed by the most potent greenhouse gas of all - water vapour. And the means by which water vapour and clouds act to regulate temperatures is not well understood. There is also the complex matter of the impacts of the sun's changing cycles have on our climate - this is also an evolving science and no one can say for certain what those impacts are precisely. personally, I'd rather look at that big ball of nuclear reaction in the sky and think it has more effect on our climate than a few hundred parts per million of a trace gas that is essential for life on this planet. Did you know that at very low levels of CO2 plants go into shutdown mode? It is a very effective plant fertiliser and is artificially controlled in many plant greenhouses at levels around 1000 to 1200ppm to make the plants grow better and faster. So in your perfect world, you'd rather have a cold planet with low levels of CO2 so that the plant growth (and hence food) is limited? Personally, I'd prefer it the other way round.

While temperatures are higher than 50 years ago, the temperature graphs and the CO2 graphs show no correlation whatsover - how do you explain that? And explain that there is no rise in temps in the last 10 years. There is still an increasing trend as you say, but it is flattening. Examination of ice cores show that increases of temperatures in the past lead increases of CO2 by around 800 years rather than the other way round - another inconvenient truth.

And I think we are already living through global economic crisis. Hopefully this might hold back the carbon tax programs somewhat.

Chris, same arguments go for you - the history of mankind shows that civilisations expand in warm climates and contract in cold. What is it about a warmer world - if that happens - that is SO scary for you? What, precisely, do you have to lose, can you please explain? And by the way, I have 3 children and the only thing that scares me is how the AGW nonsense is being rammed down their throats at school and in the media. It is delusional for man to think he can control the climate - this whole thing is more about certain people wanting to control the way we live our lives - we must eat kangaroos, must not fart, we must not drive our cars, we must become vegetarians, we must not breathe out............ and on it goes.

George
yes "Climate Change" is clever marketing on their part to morph Global Warming into Climate Change. Why they needed to add the change on the end is a puzzle as that is what climate does, change, like Time. Why not rename Time "Time Change"? Because it makes no sense that's why.

Here's the UAH satellite temperatures of the lower troposphere from 1979 until September 2008. Doesn't look too scary to me.

[Steve Lang]

Better start practicing the American style of golf, Melvyn.

At least the quaint little golf shop a short chip shot up the street from the 18th hole corner should survive.. a very nice lady i remember running it..

[Melvyn Morrow]

I fully understand Mark’s concerns.

I don’t have a problem doing something, its just that I want all to agree as to exactly what to do. Having said that we keep missing one major factor and that is Nature herself.

On massive volcano erupting above sea level will do more harm that Man has done in 3,000 years to our Earth, But an underwater eruption of equal violence will be even more destructive.

My own belief for what’s its worth is that the Earth goes through these cycles from time to time. The land mass is changed, but life goes on in its various forms. So we should certainly help our planet but we are not responsible for climate change, I feel that’s not proved nor has a sensible solution to the problem been properly worked out for the damage we actual do.

Will the Old Course be flooded, yes I expect in time as nothing is forever. Is Mark right to be concerned, yes he is, but have we found what is actually causing the climate change or is it yet another long list of unproven theories or opinions? Let’s get an answer before taking action, just in case we make matters worse as Hamilton did when he took over from Old Tom (put that in to keep a golfing topic going on this thread). 

Rick - think Scotland is bad wait till you see the predictions for the North America - I understand that a massive inland sea is formed by the joining of the Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico

[Rick Shefchik]

Melvyn,

That's the best news I've heard since the stock market crashed. I live in Minnesota -- oceanfront property, baby!

[Mark Chaplin]

You only have to look at parts of the east coast of England to see that erosion is a serious problem, houses that were once hundreds of yards from the sea have crumbled into the waves.

I am sure TOC is so important to the Scottish economy that breakers/barriers could be built using cash borrowed from English banks - we nationalised their banks this week - to stop the problem.

There are some seriously good British links courses that may not be the same in 100 years time, Brancaster probably being the most serious case. Remember Deal lost 2 Opens in the 30s and 40s due to sea flooding, the sea wall now helps to reduce the risk for the next 50-100 years.

[Ally Mcintosh]

You only have to look at parts of the east coast of England to see that erosion is a serious problem, houses that were once hundreds of yards from the sea have crumbled into the waves.

I am sure TOC is so important to the Scottish economy that breakers/barriers could be built using cash borrowed from English banks - we nationalised their banks this week - to stop the problem.

There are some seriously good British links courses that may not be the same in 100 years time, Brancaster probably being the most serious case. Remember Deal lost 2 Opens in the 30s and 40s due to sea flooding, the sea wall now helps to reduce the risk for the next 50-100 years.

Hi Mark,

There was some serious coastal management solutions put in place on TOC around the turn of this century to try and stop the 11th green and 12th tee from falling in to the water... I'm sure Martin knows a lot about this...

However, where there is erosion on one part of the coastline, there is often accretion further down. For example, all of the links courses on the Dublin coast are actually gaining sand (land). Portmarnock has gained about thirty yards in fifteen years.

I guess we need to look at the whole picture to work out the nett gain or loss due to erosion / accretion, something which could only be partly related to possible rising sea levels in any case.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark
Coastal erosion of sandy land has been and will always be an issue. This lady is not talking about the Old Course eroding, but being inundated by rising sea levels. Once upon a time St Andrews Bay was right on the edge of TOC and then further sand was deposited and they had room to build the New, and then more land was gained and they could build the Jubilee. Now there is a decent strip of land between the Jubilee and the water and in another 50 years or so they will have land to build another course. So for each section of erosion there is deposition at another location. No coastal course will be the same in 100 years time, in the same way they are not the same as they were 100 years ago.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Guys

There is a positive side to all this talk of rising sea levels, it will allow for more Links course to appear. To those interested, Templates of TOC can
be incorporated at many new sites.

As I have always said ‘Links for Ever’ and of course those old favourites from Braveheart ‘but they'll never take our’ - Links courses followed by ‘Alba gu bra!’ (for the uneducated that means ‘Scotland Forever’).
Those who agree should reply ALBA GU BRA! ALBA GU BRA! ALBA GU BRA!

However if it ‘rains’ then I have spelt it wrong.

Alternative, I have been lead to believe that Gordon Brown after his success in impoverishing our Nation is set to stand on the West Sands and re-enact  Canute The Great by lifting his kilt to turn the tide and save The Old Course – another sound and deeply thought out Labour idea.

[Mark Pearce]

If the planet is not warming up, why are the icecaps melting?  Has the freezing point of water changed?

[Jim Nugent]

If the planet is not warming up, why are the icecaps melting?  Has the freezing point of water changed?

Actually, my understanding is that the Antarctic ice cap is increasing. 

[Rich Goodale]

Not all the icecaps are melting, Mark.  By far the largest one (the Eastern Antarctic, containing >75% of the world's ice) is in fact growing, and has been for years.

[Adam Clayman]

NASA claims Black Ice is causing the global melting. According to them soot gets in the air and deposits on the ice caps. This then prevents sunlight from reflecting bacl into space and is absorbed.  I'm not sure if that's the problem but I'm fairly certain Al Gore is full of greenhouse gases. What really strikes me as odd in reading the responses to the article is how many seem to think its non-fiction.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()