Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Isonomia: quote: Originally posted by Isonomia: quote: Originally posted by askubala:
The "global" in the term "global warming" means global, not local....Idiots
Anyways, cleaning up our act is definatly not a bad thing.
In my industry (mechanical building services engineering) we have to now design building systems that rely on between 15 and 20% renewable energy source.
Even if man made global warming is not true, how can this possibly be a bad thing. As we get more populated, surly it would be a good idea to clean up our act.
The problem with global warming is that it fed us the lie that "if we choose to continue as we are .... floods, doom, gloom for polar bears, ... , but otherwise fine" So for the last decade the public have been under the mistaken belief that we have a choice about how much energy we can use as if continuing to consume more and more will always be possible despite the limited stocks of fossil fuel. Perversely the result has been a massive increase in energy use, and a massive increase in energy intensive economic infrastructe like out-of-town supermarkets and leisure centres which are inaccessible without burning oil. Whilst, we could easily live with a third the energy we use now (I.e. go back to around the 1970s usage), we can't do this if our entire economic infrastructure is designed to consume 100% ... no more than 100% because we are still designing new roads expecting more and more oil to be available. That is the real damage of global warming. 2C rise in temperature was never going to be noticed by anyone except climate nerds, but a 5 fold rise in energy prices as some are predicting after peak oil is something we are all going to suffer ... particularly if we have no option but to continue using fuel at today's rates of consumption because the infrastructure has been designed to consume more oil than we can realistically obtain.
ok so what do you propose, use all energy sources untill it runs out. great plan!! I'm under no illusions that GW issues has been exploited and exadurated by politicians and celebs, but the science behind it is very real and there's a very big chance that it could happen. Better to be proactive than reactive in case it does happen. And if it does happen, and we didn't prepare for it, im sure many people will be complaining that we didn't do enough when the warning signs were there. and as i said before, even if it doesn't happen we've haven't done any harm. |
| |
|
|
We are still in an ice age today; Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances. During each Ice age, many glacial advances and retreats Occur. Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. The earth has spent more time without ice-caps than it has with. We are quite insignificant.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by askubala:
and as i said before, even if it doesn't happen we've haven't done any harm.
but you have done immense harm - trillions have been spent on iniative to reduce emissions. That is a vast amount that could have been spent on projects that will have a guaranteed effect (as opposed to hypothetical) on the lives of millions. Say instead of spending the money on Kyoto the industrialised nations spent the money giving every person in the world access to clean water - what would have the most benefit? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bonmot: quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron: quote: Originally posted by Bonmot:
Well I have read extensively on this subject and it is this scientists opinion that there is little we can do to change the climate. It is too big and powerful and too complex for our over-inflated opinions of our intelligence to comprehend. When data don't show anything but after a computer modeller gets hold of it it does then you know there's something amis.
Now if they simply said that fuel is gonna run out and we better cut back, then I would stoke up my wood burning stove and save on my Gas bill. Come to think of it, I'll save a few bob and do that anyway.
Bonmot, there are a couple of facts you can't escape. Carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas, and the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere has greatly increased since the industrial revolution. Even most skeptics agree that the excess CO2 is man-made. Whatever some bloggers say, temperature trends are on the up! FACT! Yet you still choose to to say the earth is flat despite all the evidence showing it is round!
How strong a greenhouse gas is it, is the trend with concentration linear by any chance? Does CO2 correlate with temperature at all? What has happened with other greenhouse gases and are they affected by temperature? Are you happy to discard the sun as a factor in temperature changes, especially when our means of measuring potential effects is limited to ones we can measure? Got any answers?
Of course the sun is a factor, its the heat source. But our temperature is also maintained by the level of insulation provided by green house gasses. Too little, too much heat escapes, too much, not enough heat escapes and we heat up. Anyway the great myth politicians peddle is that carbon dioxide is the most damaging gas. Wrong, i don't know which gas is, but i know that gram for gram Nitrus Oxide contributes more than 10 times to global warming that CO2. I irony is that more NOx is produced the cleaner the combustion process is. This is true for wood and gas burners. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by London Lad: quote: Originally posted by askubala:
and as i said before, even if it doesn't happen we've haven't done any harm.
but you have done immense harm - trillions have been spent on iniative to reduce emissions. That is a vast amount that could have been spent on projects that will have a guaranteed effect (as opposed to hypothetical) on the lives of millions. Say instead of spending the money on Kyoto the industrialised nations spent the money giving every person in the world access to clean water - what would have the most benefit?
There's plenty of money flying around that could help the clean water cause. But say we do carry on relying on fossil fuels at the rate we do. Tell me what will happen when it eventually runs out? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by askubala:
But say we do carry on relying on fossil fuels at the rate we do. Tell me what will happen when it eventually runs out?
world war as industrialised countries attempt to grab the remaining resources followed by a mad max scenario as society breaks down. On the plus side, veggies who will no longer have access to out of season food being shipped around the world via diesel powered container ships, will either starve to death on principle, or will be eating rabbits within a week.  |
| |
|
|
3 billion more people in 50 years is not sustainable. What are we going to do about that?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bonmot:
3 billion more people in 50 years is not sustainable. What are we going to do about that?
eat the rich |
| |
|
|
It's climate change not warming, but climate change would not appeal to the masses when there is a cold spell. It's about unpredictability of the weather system, not cloudless skies over Orkney at 90 in the shade. Indeed, it will more than likely lead to cold wet summers and warm wet winters in the UK. The term global warming seems to be used to confuse the issue.
Even if natural processes are going on we don't want to be adding to them.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by askubala:
ok so what do you propose, use all energy sources untill it runs out. great plan!!
I'm under no illusions that GW issues has been exploited and exadurated by politicians and celebs, but the science behind it is very real and there's a very big chance that it could happen.
Better to be proactive than reactive in case it does happen. And if it does happen, and we didn't prepare for it, im sure many people will be complaining that we didn't do enough when the warning signs were there.
and as i said before, even if it doesn't happen we've haven't done any harm.
Askubala, we have to stop saying "if we carry on using fossil fuel" and start saying "when fossil fuel is too expensive to use". Basically, we need to get rid of this global warming nonsense and start dealing with the serious problem of living within the available energy resources we can obtain. To be honest, the obsession with global warming is only possible in a society where energy and food is not a concern. By telling us all that a few inches rise in sea level and the death of a few polar bears (which are actually flourishing right now) is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind, you are trying to tell us that the end of oil, gas, even coal eventually is such an insignificant problem that it is equivalent to not having to walk a few meters to the sea at the beach! When will the global warming numbskulls get it into their thick heads that for the majority of the worlds population a "50% reduction in energy usage" means a "50% reduction is food" means a "50% reduction in population". There is only so much sunshine, there is only so much fertile land, and without oil-based fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and oil-based tractors and oil-base transport, basically without oil, we can't hope to feed anything like the current world population. And don't think that doesn't apply to Britain. When North Sea oil runs out we will be like every other nation ... dependant on the good will of the Muslims (of the middle east) whose oil will last decades after the rest of the world runs dry. Why would the UK be any different from Ethiopia? We don't produce enough food to support our population even with oil based fertilisers ... there's not a hope we can do it after. We don't pay our way economically, we've consumed much of our national resources, e.g. there's no copper or tin mining ... the type of things that we could barter for oil. In energy terms we are a basket case country still building an infrastructure designed to consume masses of oil, unable to feed itself and unable to pay its way economically and if we don't see millions of people literally starving in Britain and begging the middle East for oil to help feed us before the end of this century I would be very suprised. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by pwg: quote: Originally posted by Bonmot:
3 billion more people in 50 years is not sustainable. What are we going to do about that?
eat the rich
I suspect they will be the tastyest. Another idea might be to let nature do what it does best and assist the fittest to survive. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by pwg: quote: Originally posted by askubala:
But say we do carry on relying on fossil fuels at the rate we do. Tell me what will happen when it eventually runs out?
world war as industrialised countries attempt to grab the remaining resources followed by a mad max scenario as society breaks down. On the plus side, veggies who will no longer have access to out of season food being shipped around the world via diesel powered container ships, will either starve to death on principle, or will be eating rabbits within a week.
that will teach 'em veggies for being so smug |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bonmot: quote: Originally posted by pwg: quote: Originally posted by Bonmot:
3 billion more people in 50 years is not sustainable. What are we going to do about that?
eat the rich
I suspect they will be the tastyest. Another idea might be to let nature do what it does best and assist the fittest to survive.
With comments like that I've little doubt I will live to see WWIII this century. ... and just in case you think we'll be on the winning side, what does it take to drive a tank, to fly a plane and even propel a ship ... oil ... and what are we doing with the oil we need to fight WWIII? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Isonomia:
Me: Another idea might be to let nature do what it does best and assist the fittest to survive.
With comments like that I've little doubt I will live to see WWIII this century. ... and just in case you think we'll be on the winning side, what does it take to drive a tank, to fly a plane and even propel a ship ... oil ... and what are we doing with the oil we need to fight WWIII?[/QUOTE]Well at least WW3 will be a little slower coming, and not as big when it inevitably does. 9 billion fighting over limited rescource, will be bigger than 6 billion. I think you forget that it does not take a lot of oil/fuel to wipe countries out these days. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bonmot: quote: Originally posted by Isonomia:
Me: Another idea might be to let nature do what it does best and assist the fittest to survive.
With comments like that I've little doubt I will live to see WWIII this century. ... and just in case you think we'll be on the winning side, what does it take to drive a tank, to fly a plane and even propel a ship ... oil ... and what are we doing with the oil we need to fight WWIII?
Well at least WW3 will be a little slower coming, and not as big when it inevitably does. 9 billion fighting over limited rescource, will be bigger than 6 billion. I think you forget that it does not take a lot of oil/fuel to wipe countries out these days.[/QUOTE] especially as some countries have nuclear powered ships and subs capable of turning most countries into glass if they dont hand over the goodies. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by pwg:
especially as some countries have nuclear powered ships and subs capable of turning most countries into glass if they dont hand over the goodies.
That will be the saviour of the world. |
| |
|
|
See who cares about global warming, we should start to think about how it's really gonna be with too many people fighting over too few resources. Let's have a world plan for survival.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by askubala:
But say we do carry on relying on fossil fuels at the rate we do. Tell me what will happen when it eventually runs out?
Technology will find an alternative as it always has in the past - in the 1800's the preferred oil for use in lighting was Whale Oil - as the Whale's were hunted to the brink of extinction the price rose astronomically and alternatives were developed - hence the growth of Kerosene. The idea that the world is going to end as soon as oil runs out is a bit alarmist. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by pwg: quote: Originally posted by Bonmot: quote: Originally posted by Isonomia:
Me: Another idea might be to let nature do what it does best and assist the fittest to survive.
With comments like that I've little doubt I will live to see WWIII this century. ... and just in case you think we'll be on the winning side, what does it take to drive a tank, to fly a plane and even propel a ship ... oil ... and what are we doing with the oil we need to fight WWIII?
Well at least WW3 will be a little slower coming, and not as big when it inevitably does. 9 billion fighting over limited rescource, will be bigger than 6 billion. I think you forget that it does not take a lot of oil/fuel to wipe countries out these days.
especially as some countries have nuclear powered ships and subs capable of turning most countries into glass if they dont hand over the goodies.[/QUOTE] Oh no, back to the myth of total nuclear anihilation. Which is about as good as the myth that the US could bomb Sadam or that they can bomb I'll-kid-yer out of existence. OK, I'll admit that a quick strike against a civilised area would rapidly destroy perhaps 50% of the population, and the rest would be quite unwell for a few decades, but it's not the total anihilation we are promised, and those 50% that are left are going to be as angry as a swarm of killer bees and ... if the opposition have any sense they'd come in million small boats, with rifles and knives and swarm like ants. Anyway ... the numbers don't work in the UK's favour, there are 60,000,000 of us (including immigrants) and 6,000,000,000 of them and I wouldn't trust many countries not to sell us out to get their hands on some of the remaining oil! |
| |
|
|
quote: quote: Originally posted by London Lad:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by askubala:
But say we do carry on relying on fossil fuels at the rate we do. Tell me what will happen when it eventually runs out?
Technology will find an alternative as it always has in the past - in the 1800's the preferred oil for use in lighting was Whale Oil - as the Whale's were hunted to the brink of extinction the price rose astronomically and alternatives were developed - hence the growth of Kerosene. The idea that the world is going to end as soon as oil runs out is a bit alarmist.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Isonomia: quote: quote: Originally posted by London Lad:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by askubala:
But say we do carry on relying on fossil fuels at the rate we do. Tell me what will happen when it eventually runs out?
Technology will find an alternative as it always has in the past - in the 1800's the preferred oil for use in lighting was Whale Oil - as the Whale's were hunted to the brink of extinction the price rose astronomically and alternatives were developed - hence the growth of Kerosene. The idea that the world is going to end as soon as oil runs out is a bit alarmist.
Technology did find a way ... it found fossil fuels, and now those fossil fuels are nearing their end. We have all this technology because we have cheap easily available energy. Coal created the industrial revolution, oil and gas fueled our current luxury lifestyle, and when oil and gas run out we will be like the Roman empire. Remember the circus games, where the Christians were thrown to the lions? Well by the end of the Roman empire, they have consumed so much of their natural resources that there is a story of one of the last games where the only animals they could find were some crocodiles and an old lion which promptly fell over and died of a heart attack when the crowd roared. All civilisations think they are special and will last forever and all worship some form of god and think it will "save them", the only difference is our society worships technology and thinks that technology somehow owes us something and will "find a way" to save us from our own stupidity. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by London Lad: quote: Originally posted by askubala:
But say we do carry on relying on fossil fuels at the rate we do. Tell me what will happen when it eventually runs out?
Technology will find an alternative as it always has in the past - in the 1800's the preferred oil for use in lighting was Whale Oil - as the Whale's were hunted to the brink of extinction the price rose astronomically and alternatives were developed - hence the growth of Kerosene. The idea that the world is going to end as soon as oil runs out is a bit alarmist.
Thats one huge assumption you've made that a new technology will suddenly appear in time to save us. |
| |
| |
