You cant watch the news these days without some media bandwagon numskull uttering the words "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", I can live with that to a degree.
Whats really p1ssing me off now, is that these same morons are now saying co2 is now a pollutant.
Let me get this right, CO2 - Carbon Dioxide ie Carbon and Oxygen - a pollutant? - yeah right.
Hmmm, what is the gas that every living thing on the planet exhales 24/7.... ah yes that would be CO2!!! - the great pollutant
Does the Global Warming fraternity think that maybe Hilter and Saddam weren't crazed dictators, maybe they were ahead of their time, by slaughtering millions of people they were actually reducing carbon emissions. poor example i know.
No one has ever mentioned human made CO2, they all say reduce carbon emissions by cutting back on this, turning down that, but they never discuss the implications of 6 billion people exhaling this so called pollutant gas.
Heres another, whats the composition of the atmosphere?
The worlds population is 6 billion people, in the 1960s, it was 3 billion people, surely this increase would also increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere enough to warrant investigation?
Well apparently not, as the only thing that hits the news is CO2 produced by industry, cars, electric light bulbs etc etc.
This only reinforces the scam that is being pulled here by laying a huge guilt trip on the public so that they spend more on whatever is deemed to be green friendly.
When will everyone wake up and realise that man made CO2 is not driving climate change.
Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB): Surely the obvious thing to do is to pump more of the other gases into the air, which would then reduce the proportion of CO2....
Now we're getting somewhere!
Amazing where a little lateral thinking will get you. Normally horizontal .
The worlds population is 6 billion people, in the 1960s, it was 3 billion people,
Let try out my hobby horse here.
Cerveau, the extract above is the scary stat ?
'e's gone. Name sounded French. Bike-by troll? I'd have him tested for performance degrading drugs.
Ha-ha! I’m still here; I’ve been reading lots of the threads and while its clear that most of the characters on here have by far a much larger intellect than my own, obviously with degrees and letters after your names, most of the “scientific” stuff has gone straight over my head still, I’ve enjoyed reading the cut and thrust.
It’s been very informative, much more so than just hearing various newsreaders on the TV claim some such disaster as being “caused by global warming” or “due to climate change” but then never going further and actually explain anything.
Compared to my own little dagger, you are all waving pretty big broadswords around, and while this was my first post, it was nice to receive such a warm welcome, I guess I make a pretty soft target for you all ;p
I wont be posting very often you will be pleased to know, but I will be “lurking” around reading all your posts and leeching any knowledge I can from you, that’s the beauty of the net, knowledge is available for all and what you post can be read by anyone, even the common herd like myself.
I did notice in the Temperature rises 'not caused by sun' thread that John M’s post had been removed apparently because of the broken link? Well it wasn’t broken, just a typo, there was a little biddy comma at the end of the URL, simply removing the offending comma would then take you to the correct page.
I was interested to learn about GW on other planets and that Mar’s atmosphere is astonishingly made up of 95% CO2, and still has its polar caps. The inference I get from the media is that our ice caps would completely melt away by just few extra % of the dreaded CO2, so it amazing to know that Mar’s caps are still there, even with a huge 95% of the stuff. Though I’m sure one of you will wave your broadsword again and cut me down to size
So here I am, one of the common herd on your site, you won’t see me or hear from me but in the words of Robert DeNiro in “Meet the Parents” - “Ill be watching you….”
I do think you have a point about CO2. We are all very quick to label things as pollutants when they are really just common or garden molecules in quantities we wouldn't normally expect to see.
For example, methyl iodide is cited as one such pollutant when it is found in reasonable small quantities in-land (because of our industrial processes), but then it is also found in out at sea (produced by algae) and there acts to seed cloud formation. But because it is "natural", it's all OK.
A lot of the fuss over so-called pollutants is because for many of them, we just don't understand what they are likely to do in the long term, and because we are so efficient at producing them, maybe we should be taking a little bit more care.
All organisms, by adapting to their environment, end up changing it as a consequence. Some organisms change their environment so much that they end up leading to their own extinction. Some end up just displacing other organisms. The fear is that we may end up doing both.
Originally posted by Lucibee: All organisms, by adapting to their environment, end up changing it as a consequence. Some organisms change their environment so much that they end up leading to their own extinction. Some end up just displacing other organisms. The fear is that we may end up doing both.
Well said. But what does it have to do with the global warming? Yes, we have reached the power to exterminate all life on the planet. But we've got a long way to go before we're able to radically affect an entire planet's thermal balance.
There are some very real environmental issues, far more urgent, which need to be solved. The misguided concern over AGW only diverts effort and resources. Do you really expect a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions at the price of stalling industrial development in the third world to, for example, save the jungle? It is being cut for totally different reasons. In fact, a stronger industrial development may reduce the need for cutting.
In a certain way, I'm very green myself. I just don't follow the party line regarding the global warming issues. I strongly suspect that it leads in a wrong, and maybe even dangerous, direction. Because, if the truth comes out too late, after entire countries have suffered economical hardship and the global warming fails to respond to our efforts, a strong backlash is bound to occur--the kind of backlash that will not only be directed against the carbon dioxide laws, but against everything else the green stand for, including the jungle.
Originally posted by Lucibee: All organisms, by adapting to their environment, end up changing it as a consequence. Some organisms change their environment so much that they end up leading to their own extinction. Some end up just displacing other organisms. The fear is that we may end up doing both.
Well said. But what does it have to do with the global warming? Yes, we have reached the power to exterminate all life on the planet. But we've got a long way to go before we're able to radically affect an entire planet's thermal balance.
There are some very real environmental issues, far more urgent, which need to be solved. The misguided concern over AGW only diverts effort and resources. Do you really expect a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions at the price of stalling industrial development in the third world to, for example, save the jungle? It is being cut for totally different reasons. In fact, a stronger industrial development may reduce the need for cutting.
In a certain way, I'm very green myself. I just don't follow the party line regarding the global warming issues. I strongly suspect that it leads in a wrong, and maybe even dangerous, direction. Because, if the truth comes out too late, after entire countries have suffered economical hardship and the global warming fails to respond to our efforts, a strong backlash is bound to occur--the kind of backlash that will not only be directed against the carbon dioxide laws, but against everything else the green stand for, including the jungle.
Leo
Leo
Sustainability is the key surely. Anything that threatens that is ignored at our peril by definition. What is the point of continued full paced industrial development if it ultimately pushes us over an irreversible threshold? Is that not just plain dumb? Are you really convinced that a eminient scientist such as James Lovelock is playing games or is simply incompetant? Lovelock is not Green in the accepted sense because he advocates Nukes.
At any point in the last 300 years someone could have defined "what is sustainable" and every generation to follow them would disagree that it was the right level because the real objective wasn't sustainability but growth ie social, economic, and scientific improvement (call it development).
We're no better placed now to call it a day and say "this is what we sustain". I do note that populations of developed countries have stabilised without some specification of what is sustainable. As 1st world civilisation spreads to 2nd and 3rd world countries (as it is at a growing pace) so populations there will stabilise - all the result of individual decisions. When folk have individual choice they tend to make good choices.
As long as we continue to develop and implement safe new energy sources as peak oil is reached I see no reason not to continue to improve and stabilisation of world population will follow. At least then we'll know what level of sustainability is necessary to stand still.
At any point in the last 300 years someone could have defined "what is sustainable" and every generation to follow them would disagree that it was the right level because the real objective wasn't sustainability but growth ie social, economic, and scientific improvement (call it development).
We're no better placed now to call it a day and say "this is what we sustain". I do note that populations of developed countries have stabilised without some specification of what is sustainable. As 1st world civilisation spreads to 2nd and 3rd world countries (as it is at a growing pace) so populations there will stabilise - all the result of individual decisions. When folk have individual choice they tend to make good choices.
As long as we continue to develop and implement safe new energy sources as peak oil is reached I see no reason not to continue to improve and stabilisation of world population will follow. At least then we'll know what level of sustainability is necessary to stand still.
If I earn £10 and spend £11 each week that is not sustainable (Mr Micawber). If we chew up rain forest (that may be vital to our survival) faster than it can be regenerated that is not sustainable. Lomberg says 14% of Amazon rain forest has been lost. Not as much as the scare mongers would have us believe I agree but enough to start being concerned?
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Sustainability is the key surely. Anything that threatens that is ignored at our peril by definition. What is the point of continued full paced industrial development if it ultimately pushes us over an irreversible threshold? Is that not just plain dumb? Are you really convinced that a eminient scientist such as James Lovelock is playing games or is simply incompetant? Lovelock is not Green in the accepted sense because he advocates Nukes.
Ah, the fifth fundamental force of nature, the strongest one--the force of authority. Don;t you pull the rank on me. See for my review of one of his articles, see
I don't know about the others, but this particular one is rather unimpressive. PR raised around it is far more interesting ("The solar cause disproved for any mechanism whatsoever!"--yeah, riiight). For the impact of Joule heating on our atmosphere, see
For your information, Joule heating occurs due to the electric currents induced in the atmosphere by the solar wind; it is NOT due to absorption of sunlight in any form. The numerical simulations quoted in my post (cf. link above) show that it is comparable in magnitude with the solar UV absorption and stronger than the absorption of the visible sunlight. The simulation was run on the CCM SOCOL climate model, with real NASA-collected data for the minimum of solar cycle, and with a control simulation running with the same data and boundary conditions but without taking the Joule heating into account. And this is just the beginning. Look for more research of this kind.
Until this enormous contribution is properly accounted for, I am more than justified to doubt the existing climate models' predictions.
And speaking of sustainability. Your argument is flawed. I never advocated an unbridled industrial development. It has to be sustainable--but I'm not sure if the global warming is part of it. If the developing countries want to develop, let them develop. Help them to make this development sustainable, but without overly strict restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions--which, coincidentally, do not make anything more sustainable, because those emissions are not the cause of the global warming.
Do you know why the jungle is being cut? It's because the developing countries' growth industries demands it--and "growth industry," in this context, is not necessarily something that pumps CO2 into the air; it is a fixed term that may, for example, refer to certain areas of agriculture. Spend your efforts to make them sustainable, instead of following wrong scare theories.
If I earn £10 and spend £11 each week that is not sustainable (Mr Micawber)
But if what I build with the £11 investments then provides a roof for someone else and rent for me then I've made an investment which overall makes the development sustainable, the world a better place and life moves on.
And speaking of sustainability. Your argument is flawed. I never advocated an unbridled industrial development. It has to be sustainable--but I'm not sure if the global warming is part of it. If the developing countries want to develop, let them develop. Help them to make this development sustainable, but without overly strict restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions--which, coincidentally, do not make anything more sustainable, because those emissions are not the cause of the global warming.
Do you know why the jungle is being cut? It's because the developing countries' growth industries demands it--and "growth industry," in this context, is not necessarily something that pumps CO2 into the air; it is a fixed term that may, for example, refer to certain areas of agriculture. Spend your efforts to make them sustainable, instead of following wrong scare theories.
Leo
Leo, I think we violently agree that developing countries should continue develop - sustainably. Sustainability is the key. Are we sure this is the case in practice? Lomborg has his doubts even though his stats say things are not nearly as bad as many environmental organisations claim. He tries to point out where the most important improvements can be made - I think I support that so long as he is right about AGW. The June/July floods here aren't helping my thoughts on that. Lets hope its JUST weather.
I watched a "scare mongering" program a few years ago that stated a fast food company had decimated the Costa Rican Rain Forest for short term pasture for cattle for sh@#ty burgers. Is this wise? Was it untrue?
I can't get my head around the AGW thing. Leo says its not happening, the world wide consensus of leading scientists on the subject says it is. In my general ignorance (as Stephen Fry would say) who you think I'm gonna go with if my gene's survival hopes are on the line?
If world population were to be strategically planned, would we need 6 billion people (rising to 9 billion where it is supposed to level off)? Would not life be alot easier for all concerned (including the other species we share the planet with) if we reduced it to 1 billion over say 150 years? Where are 3,000,000,000 extra people going to fit BTW?
