Page
1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Little RJ: So what things?
take the climate change research budgets and offer them as competition prizes for energy ideas. better electric cars and bikes biofuel processing wind and water generators anything useful |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron: quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol: quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: JulesCapriboyBioethonol  people aren't listening to you, which is a shame.
My friends call me Julz. And i wouldn't turn anyone away for something as petty as politics.
so do you drive a bioethanol ford capri? 
taking the food out of the mouths of third world children to feed the car. The corn fields of the US are no longer feeding the Jolly Green Giant they are feeding the Jolly big hummer belonging to the terminator (how apt). |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron: so do you drive a bioethanol ford capri?
given the chance i would. I have designs for an energy efficient continuous hydropnic biofuel plant that uses water/wave power instead of heat. The us has been using 10% ethanol for decades. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Little RJ:
Whoever is proved right in the Global Warming argument
How can anyone deny the planet is warming up? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al: taking the food out of the mouths of third world children to feed the car.
If its managed badly, yes. If its managed well - greenhouses in the sahara could be our best hope. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: quote: Originally posted by Little RJ:
Whoever is proved right in the Global Warming argument
How can anyone deny the planet is warming up?
I doubt it. but they certainly could argue that: 1) The science is very young and anthropogenic warming is far from certain (away from the political and media hype) 2) The consequences of warming are not the greatest environmental worry even though it is generally portrayed to be by vote hungry but exceedingly lazy politicians and media people. 3) The likelyhood that any global cooperation to reduce co2 output is exceedingly remote - so why not expend energy doing something more worthwhile. 4) That carbon trading is a lucrative business that does no good apart from making multi national companies even more rich. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol: quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron: so do you drive a bioethanol ford capri?
given the chance i would. I have designs for an energy efficient continuous hydropnic biofuel plant that uses water/wave power instead of heat. The us has been using 10% ethanol for decades.
given the chance you would cruise in a Capri? Not really a babe magnet anymore, maybe you should upgrade to an Audi tt. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol: quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al: taking the food out of the mouths of third world children to feed the car.
If its managed badly, yes. If its managed well - greenhouses in the sahara could be our best hope.
and what plant would grow under such extreme conditions with virtually no nutrients? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al:
4) That carbon trading is a lucrative business that does no good apart from making multi national companies even more rich.
That is one point I agree fully. Very dubious about these carbon credits, people probably spend more time making money on trading credits than doing any carbon reduction. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al: quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: quote: Originally posted by Little RJ:
Whoever is proved right in the Global Warming argument
How can anyone deny the planet is warming up?
I doubt it.
But we get alot less snow than we did, the ice caps are receeding, what more proof do you need? Is the planet staying at the same temperature or getting cooler? If not, then the planet is warming up. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al: quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol: quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al: taking the food out of the mouths of third world children to feed the car.
If its managed badly, yes. If its managed well - greenhouses in the sahara could be our best hope.
and what plant would grow under such extreme conditions with virtually no nutrients?
Fertile land, that old chestnut. I'm not sure Bio's also examined the logistics of delivering fresh water to the driest place on earth. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al: quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: quote: Originally posted by Little RJ:
Whoever is proved right in the Global Warming argument
How can anyone deny the planet is warming up?
I doubt it.
But we get alot less snow than we did, the ice caps are receeding, what more proof do you need? Is the planet staying at the same temperature or getting cooler? If not, then the planet is warming up.
Sorry I misread your last sentence. I was agreeing that it was hard to deny that the planet was warming but I was demonstrating that other more important things were worth arguing. you wrote "How can anyone deny the planet is warming up?" and I read it as "can anyone deny the planet is warming up?" - I doubt it. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode:
But we get alot less snow than we did, the ice caps are receeding, what more proof do you need?
Is the planet staying at the same temperature or getting cooler?
If not, then the planet is warming up.
warming is not a constant over the entire planet. For instance, scientific measurements have proven that Antartica is warming at the edges and cooling in the middle. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas:
This is a pretty comprehensive site answering all skeptical views on climate change. Also allows views from readers on the articles. Should answer any question skeptics have out there.
I've tried talking some of them on here, but I think there's something else going on. The skeptics on this thread don't appear to have read the articles on that site and I get the feeling they don't really want to know, which is why perhaps Global Warming Deniers is a more accurate term. If you can convince yourself either that the warming isn't happening or that we are not the cause of it then it frees you from the responsibility of having to do something about it. On here we have the most vocal deniers, but there are many more silent deniers, people who if you asked them whether the planet was warming and whether human emissions of greenhouse gases were the main cause would say yes to both questions, but then they carry on as before, perhaps making a few token efforts with things such as recycling and not leaving the TV on standby, but not really changing their lifestyles in a way that's going to make a significant difference. If governments take action on this issue with the kind of boldness they showed in banning smoking in public places - which as a smoker I'm not too happy about, but I think I understand the motivation - forcing us to collectively change our ways for our own good, then maybe we have a chance. But if our civilization can't face up to what's going on and take the necessary action then perhaps it deserves to perish. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints: quote: Originally posted by heujas:
This is a pretty comprehensive site answering all skeptical views on climate change. Also allows views from readers on the articles. Should answer any question skeptics have out there.
I've tried talking some of them on here, but I think there's something else going on. The skeptics on this thread don't appear to have read the articles on that site and I get the feeling they don't really want to know, which is why perhaps Global Warming Deniers is a more accurate term. If you can convince yourself either that the warming isn't happening or that we are not the cause of it then it frees you from the responsibility of having to do something about it. On here we have the most vocal deniers, but there are many more silent deniers, people who if you asked them whether the planet was warming and whether human emissions of greenhouse gases were the main cause would say yes to both questions, but then they carry on as before, perhaps making a few token efforts with things such as recycling and not leaving the TV on standby, but not really changing their lifestyles in a way that's going to make a significant difference. If governments take action on this issue with the kind of boldness they showed in banning smoking in public places - which as a smoker I'm not too happy about, but I think I understand the motivation - forcing us to collectively change our ways for our own good, then maybe we have a chance. But if our civilization can't face up to what's going on and take the necessary action then perhaps it deserves to perish.
Tell me why there is such a heated debate if it's obvious? |
| |
|
|
I wrote this in another thread - it is also relevant here: quote: Originally posted by MadWorld: From /. quote: An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at DailyTech, a blogger has discovered a Y2K bug in a NASA climate study by the same writer who accused the Bush administration of trying to censor him on the issue of global warming. The authors have acknowledged the problem and released corrected data. Now the study shows the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states as being 1934, not 1998 as previously reported in the media. In fact, the corrected study shows that half of the 10 warmest years on record occurred before World War II." The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DaveCH:
Tell me why there is such a heated debate if it's obvious?
In the scientific community there isn't. The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible. The IPCC (more than 2000 scientists from more than 100 countries) has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. A very small group of skeptics continues to deny that climate change exists or that humans are the cause of it. Within the scientific community these people, most of whom are not practicing scientists, are not taken seriously. Rather than debating with the scientific community by publishing peer-reviewed papers or by attending climate change conferences, they tend to direct the attention towards the media and politicians in the hope of delaying action on climate change. The leading skeptics have well documented links to PR companies hired by the oil and coal industries to (in the words of a leaked memo) "reposition global warming as theory, not fact." Added to that, I think it is such an incredibly difficult thing to accept, the idea that we could actually be changing the climate of our planet. It seems like only yesterday that we were hunting and gathering and living in caves, but I think now it like hamanity has reached puberty, and that's always a difficult time. We're no longer children who can treat the planet however we want, knowing the planet will soak up whatever we throw at it. Since Hiroshima we've known we have the ability to destroy our environment, now we know we are destroying our environment but I think even those of us who accept that intellectually haven't fully come to terms with it emotionally. It's totally understandable that people want to deny what's happening, either by not thinking about it and carrying on as normal or by clutching at whatever the latest wacky theory is that appears to let humanity off the hook. Like in the Matrix: do you take the blue pill or the red pill? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
It's totally understandable that people want to deny what's happening, either by not thinking about it and carrying on as normal or by clutching at whatever the latest wacky theory is that appears to let humanity off the hook. Like in the Matrix: do you take the blue pill or the red pill?
I do not deny that it is likely happening - I just want proof - simple things like: 1. It isn't cyclic. 2. That 'man-made' CO2 is the primary cause. 3. That other factors could still not prevent global warming happen. 4. That mans CO2 contribution can be altered enough to prevent it - in the unlikely event the world will be cutting man-made CO2 by half. 5. Loads more points - just don't think anybody can answer those above. If this was SCIENCE - then things like this would be simple to prove. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
1) Heck, let's keep on burning until the boffins are 100% sure.
or
2) We must cut back our emissions as soon as we possibly can because if those scientists are right the consequences will be catastrophic and I, as a benevolent leader, have no right to take that risk with so many people's lives at stake.
Well said, but the most powerful nation on earth is run by men who have spent vast amounts of money to get into power. Ultimately, money talks and moving to a greener living is going to hurt America's carbon dependant economy. Therefore there is vast amount of literature disputing the general consensus and often misrepresenting the position stated by the IPCC. However, I believe, it is our suspicion of our governments telling what to do and making us pay that is more of a friction against change. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
It's totally understandable that people want to deny what's happening, either by not thinking about it and carrying on as normal or by clutching at whatever the latest wacky theory is that appears to let humanity off the hook. Like in the Matrix: do you take the blue pill or the red pill?
That's the heart of the matter. Everyone knows serious sacrifices are required. The future for all of us may lie more with how selfish we are than how intelligent we are. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MadWorld: quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
It's totally understandable that people want to deny what's happening, either by not thinking about it and carrying on as normal or by clutching at whatever the latest wacky theory is that appears to let humanity off the hook. Like in the Matrix: do you take the blue pill or the red pill?
I do not deny that it is likely happening - I just want proof - simple things like: 1. It isn't cyclic. 2. That 'man-made' CO2 is the primary cause. 3. That other factors could still not prevent global warming happen. 4. That mans CO2 contribution can be altered enough to prevent it - in the unlikely event the world will be cutting man-made CO2 by half. 5. Loads more points - just don't think anybody can answer those above. If this was SCIENCE - then things like this would be simple to prove.
There is only ever proof in mathematics. In science it is always about probabilities. At present the IPCC scientists say they are 90 percent certain that human production of greenhouse gases is the main driver behind global warming. How much certainty do you need? How high does that percentage have to go? Perhaps the only way we're ever going to be able to convince you is if we keep pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere at our present rate, or faster, and then when the predictions made by the current climate models become a reality, then perhaps you'll be satisfied, though of course by then it'll be too late to do anything about it. As policy makers (which, if you live in a democracy, that's what you are effectively) you have to assess the risks and make a decision based on the information you have. On that basis it seems clear to me that we should work to dramatically cut our emissions. Fossil fuels are a finite resource anyway, so even without global warming we would have to switch to a low/no-carbon based economy sooner or later. So why not go down that road now? Answers to most of your points can probably be found at the site which started this thread. Your first point is dealt with under Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle], though I think this particular page is the most relevant overall since it deals with the idea of proof: Climate models are unproven It mentions there that "over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate." If the climate had not warmed over the past century the name Svante Arrhenius would probably not bring up 188,000 pages in a Google search and we would not be having this discussion. Theories can be disproven when their predications fail to match observation, as has been the case with theories suggesting that increased solar activity is the main cause of global warming. Theories that cannot make testable predictions cannot be said to be scientific. Also, the Met Office has just released a forecast based on current climate models, so perhaps within 5 years you'll be able to see if that's borne out, but the longer we wait before taking action the more difficult that action becomes and the less liklihood it has of being successful (whatever successful means). You ask if "mans CO2 contribution can be altered enough to prevent it" - which is really a political question. There are a number of models based on different rates of emission over the coming decades. If we carry on at our present rate the predictions are quite catastrophic, whereas if we make significant cuts there will still be bad things happening, but not nearly as bad. The more we cut our emissions and the sooner we do it the better. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MadWorld: quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
It's totally understandable that people want to deny what's ha
| |
