Despite all the rhetoric - and having looked at all the available evidence - I can still see NOTHING that proves removing even half of man made CO2 will solve GW problems.

Given the wider and LONG TERM nature of climate change - not one scientist has even proven that this isn't just a fluctuation.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Despite all the rhetoric - and having looked at all the available evidence - I can still see NOTHING that proves removing even half of man made CO2 will solve GW problems.

Given the wider and LONG TERM nature of climate change - not one scientist has even proven that this isn't just a fluctuation.

Not proof in the usual sense.

Anyway it really doesn't matter what we do, we do know that oil will run out eventually so why don't we put all this effort into finding alternatives and putting them in place. Turning your light off will have no noticeable effect on supply or CO2. Get all these minds working on a solution to a real problem I say.

Yes yes yes.

THIS is the thinking that will bring solutions.

I am baffled by the GW evangelists that are convinced - yet STILL want to spend billions on getting more evidence...

Why?

Is it just to punish us?

They believe - we don't

There will be no evidence that will convert either of us.

So lets call it quits and develop the batteries we wiil need for electric motorbikes and the cellulose enzymes that will turn a kilo of old newspapers into a litre of bioethanol.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Despite all the rhetoric - and having looked at all the available evidence - I can still see NOTHING that proves removing even half of man made CO2 will solve GW problems.

Given the wider and LONG TERM nature of climate change - not one scientist has even proven that this isn't just a fluctuation.

Like you said, before we accept it is just a fluctuations. Scientists should prove that it is and the force driving it. And if not one scientist has managed to prove it, surely it strenghthens the possibility that it is most likely man-made.

Bio - if the problem is 'real' (and solvable) we need more people like yourself in charge of developing solutions.

Our current 'leaders' are more interested in what they can get out of it in the way of screwing extra taxation - the poorer you are, the more punitive.

From what I have seen, wind farms are nothing but wind i.e. inefficient and over-rated.

Tidal power seems an easier solution but hasn't been exploited fully.

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Despite all the rhetoric - and having looked at all the available evidence - I can still see NOTHING that proves removing even half of man made CO2 will solve GW problems.

Given the wider and LONG TERM nature of climate change - not one scientist has even proven that this isn't just a fluctuation.

Like you said, before we accept it is just a fluctuations. Scientists should prove that it is and the force driving it. And if not one scientist has managed to prove it, surely it strenghthens the possibility that it is most likely man-made.

Err.. logic dictates that any hypothesis has to be proven by investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
Like you said, before we accept it is just a fluctuations. Scientists should prove that it is and the force driving it. And if not one scientist has managed to prove it, surely it strenghthens the possibility that it is most likely man-made.

Hu, the burden of proof is on the one who has the theory. The theory is man-made, now prove it. If this were a mathematical hypothesis it would be disproved andit would be for you to refine your proof. Somehow the whole burden of proof has been switched around from normal.

But nevermind, what are we achieving by turning our lights off when the population of China increases by our population size in several decades. I do object to paying for further reseach on what appears a done deal and of little consequence anyway. I recall when I was young we had no such thing as central heating and in the morning there was frost on the inside of the window, but when in my bed I was fine. I don't think we will freeze and if we get a great big cloud of CO2 with no deflecting aerosol particles over us before then we'll be a few degrees hotter than when I was a lad.

As fas as i can tell - the predictions for co2 rise continue long after the oil will run out.

THAT is the challenge we must face.

quote:

Originally posted by et al:

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Despite all the rhetoric - and having looked at all the available evidence - I can still see NOTHING that proves removing even half of man made CO2 will solve GW problems.

Given the wider and LONG TERM nature of climate change - not one scientist has even proven that this isn't just a fluctuation.

Not proof in the usual sense.

Anyway it really doesn't matter what we do, we do know that oil will run out eventually so why don't we put all this effort into finding alternatives and putting them in place. Turning your light off will have no noticeable effect on supply or CO2. Get all these minds working on a solution to a real problem I say.

But part of the solution is for us to consume less. Turning off a light will not reduce emission much but 1000,000 lights will.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Despite all the rhetoric - and having looked at all the available evidence - I can still see NOTHING that proves removing even half of man made CO2 will solve GW problems.

Given the wider and LONG TERM nature of climate change - not one scientist has even proven that this isn't just a fluctuation.

Like you said, before we accept it is just a fluctuations. Scientists should prove that it is and the force driving it. And if not one scientist has managed to prove it, surely it strenghthens the possibility that it is most likely man-made.

Err.. logic dictates that any hypothesis has to be proven by investigation.

...and there's plenty of science proving that man-made emissions have an effect.

There's yet to any proof that it is JUST fluctuations...

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
Hu, the burden of proof is on the one who has the theory. The theory is man-made, now prove it. If this were a mathematical hypothesis it would be disproved andit would be for you to refine your proof. Somehow the whole burden of proof has been switched around from normal.

exactly, and there's no proof it is just a fluctuation, so how can that be a strong candidate?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
But part of the solution is for us to consume less. Turning off a light will not reduce emission much but 1000,000 lights will.

what emissions are these and where from?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
But part of the solution is for us to consume less. Turning off a light will not reduce emission much but 1000,000 lights will.

When we run out we will consume less. My 1.0 L car consumes less than my old 3.0 L TT. My Mrs emits much less CO2 than me and I'm probably doing a Kg a day, if I eat less will I emit less? The resultant reduction in girth will require some new pants and they will have to be manufactired and offset some of my girth reduced carbon foot print. OK a long way of saying it is of little consequence how we work things out apart from it creates cost which I say would be better put into alternative sources of energy.

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
Hu, the burden of proof is on the one who has the theory. The theory is man-made, now prove it. If this were a mathematical hypothesis it would be disproved andit would be for you to refine your proof. Somehow the whole burden of proof has been switched around from normal.

exactly, and there's no proof it is just a fluctuation, so how can that be a strong candidate?

The earth/sun has since time began regulated the temperature. You now have an alternative theory to what has always been the case, you prove it I say.

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
...and there's plenty of science proving that man-made emissions have an effect.

but not how much - or whether contrails affect weather more than co2

or how much is natural fluctuations

one thing is sure - we will still have inconclusive evidence when the oil runs out.

so whay not use 90% of the climate research budget to research better batteries or celluloseic production of biofuel?

there is no difference chemical wise between old newspapers and ethanol

trash = treasure

quote:

Originally posted by et al:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
Hu, the burden of proof is on the one who has the theory. The theory is man-made, now prove it. If this were a mathematical hypothesis it would be disproved andit would be for you to refine your proof. Somehow the whole burden of proof has been switched around from normal.

exactly, and there's no proof it is just a fluctuation, so how can that be a strong candidate?

The earth/sun has since time began regulated the temperature. You now have an alternative theory to what has always been the case, you prove it I say.

If it's a fluctuation, what is the driving force behind it? does it follow a pattern? Can't just tell people 'oh it is because it is'.

As for AGW, there's plenty of literature. I direct you to Real Climate in google. Good section in explaining emissions and AGW.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:

From what I have seen, wind farms are nothing but wind i.e. inefficient and over-rated.

How do you come to that conclusion?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: If it's a fluctuation, what is the driving force behind it?

Chaos theory.

Butterflies in the amazon.

Basically random acts of clouds.....

Look back at the charts BCE - see any straight lines anywhere?

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
From what I have seen, wind farms are nothing but wind i.e. inefficient and over-rated.

They said the same thing about the car a century ago.....

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:

From what I have seen, wind farms are nothing but wind i.e. inefficient and over-rated.

Tidal power seems an easier solution but hasn't been exploited fully.

Things like wind and todal power are just too much in their infancy. New technologies can take 30 or 40 years to develop before they're really efficient and reliable, so in the next 10 or 20 years these things aren't going to be able to replace fossil fuels, and possibly never will. The thing we have now that we know works and we know can deliver enough power is nuclear. It's not ideal, but it's our best option. We should still research renewables, and nuclear fusion, which is looking promising but still a long way off.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: If it's a fluctuation, what is the driving force behind it?

Chaos theory.

Butterflies in the amazon.

Basically random acts of clouds.....

Look back at the charts BCE - see any straight lines anywhere?

So the warming trend we are seeing is happening for no particular reason.

I would be prepared to believe it could be natural forces if someone can prove a direct correlation with e.g. 'the sun's irradiance', 'the earth's orbit' etc.

quote:

Originally posted by pwg:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
But part of the solution is for us to consume less. Turning off a light will not reduce emission much but 1000,000 lights will.

what emissions are these and where from?

The coal/oil powered stations that are connected to the grid...

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:
but not how much - or whether contrails affect weather more than co2

or how much is natural fluctuations

so whay not use 90% of the climate research budget to research better batteries or celluloseic production of biofuel?

Huh, there's plenty of literature out there. Start with Real Climate website. If only people are prepared to follow these before they jump onto a 'GW conspiracy site'.

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: So the warming trend we are seeing is happening for no particular reason.

Might be natural - might be man made

might be c02, might be methane, might be contrails.

Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things because the oil will run out long before we ever find out.