Climate change

2,019 posts in this topic

It's hard to have a discussion when the opposition keeps saying 'but the earth is going to be destroyed!' louder and louder.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

well see here I thought a discussion meant a reasoned consideration of the evidence by both sides. Yourself and wheel just disagree with everyinthg on the 'eco' side without analysis. this has not been a discussion its an argument.

Im not necessarily on wheels side, Im just saying that there are varying levels of panic about this, and some of you seem to be on "code red", im more of a "code lets not get carried away with ourselves now chaps because there are various points to look at from all sides" - surely not unreasonable?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The eco-agenda is a belief that there should be less humans on the planet.

I haven't heard of this eco-agenda. Can you please provide a link to an organisation that promotes this agenda?

 

A specific example is the successful campaign to persuade the World Bank to stop supporting the Narmada Dam in India.

A dam is one of the most controversial constructions humankind makes, the damage it does to a natural eco system as well as the people it displaces is cause for concern, it's not that surprising that the world bank pulled funding.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's hard to have a discussion when the opposition keeps saying 'but the earth is going to be destroyed!' louder and louder.

Ok - nobody has said that. People are saying that bad shit looks likely to happen and alot of people might die. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and shouted - nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah - so you don't have to hear it

 

 

Im not necessarily on wheels side, Im just saying that there are varying levels of panic about this, and some of you seem to be on "code red", im more of a "code lets not get carried away with ourselves now chaps because there are various points to look at from all sides" - surely not unreasonable?

Yeah but at some point you start procrastinating and just gotta make a decision. The experts are telling us we still have time to change things but we've got to act now. The evidence is unequivocal - you rarely get 99% agreement amongst scientists on anything. Time to start doing something.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And how about this, just to make the debate a bit broader. Who actually cares if there's global warming or not when pumping tonnes of poisonous gasses into the air, polluting rivers, destroying natural environments for the sake of money and all the other stupid crap that humans do is so clearly destroying the planet?

Not to mention cartoons showing the earth on fire.

 

 

Yeah but at some point you start procrastinating and just gotta make a decision. The experts are telling us we still have time to change things but we've got to act now. The evidence is unequivocal - you rarely get 99% agreement amongst scientists on anything. Time to start doing something.

Making drastic changes to systems you do not fully understand is as likely to make it worse as it is to improve it. Simple point really. No reputable climatologist would claim that we understand the climate system. Time to analyse, not act.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather patterns change with or without man's help. Hence we had an ice age for example. The argument is really whether man is speeding it up with his behaviour. Another question would be why the dinosaurs disappeared. Did they not have enough time to adapt? What caused that?

 

This thread is a reflection of what is happening in the world today. As soon as you say you doubt global warming is caused by man, you can pack your bags as a scientist and start studying something else which is why very few risk sticking their neck out. That there still are speaks volumes for the amount of eveidence there must be contradicting global warming being a result of man's behaviour.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say on CNN that when you go back to the North or South Pole the ice is melting so much that you wont recognise the place.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They say on CNN that when you go back to the North or South Pole the ice is melting so much that you wont recognise the place.

Well I doubt any of us have enough experience to recognize the place regardless of its current state ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They say on CNN that when you go back to the North or South Pole the ice is melting so much that you wont recognise the place.

apparently the north pole has shrunk quite alot lately, but the south pole is growing? where does that fit in with peoples theories?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main problem I see in the CO2 cult (true, it's not a religion because there's no supernatural being), putting aside for one second the debate about whether GCC is happening or not and just beginning with the premise that it is, is the following: Although there is some, not entirely convincing evidence that ethnogenic CO2 is driving GCC, it still might be the case that the models are totally off, that the other models that show CO2 cannot be the cause of GCC are right, and that the significant body of evidence against the ethnogenic CO2 theory that was unscientifically disregarded and its proponents shoved aside by the IPCC was actually more crucial. This is why it's a cult - because all of this evidence is being systematically disregarded, not accepted for publication, stating anything like it is a CLM for climatologists, and in general, the CO2 cult doesn't need to be confused by more evidence; it already knows what's true.

 

If it is indeed the case that the CO2 theory is wrong, what we are basically doing by focusing all our efforts on emission reduction is putting all the eggs in one basket. A pretty expensive basket at that, for various reasons mentioned above by others, including stifling developing economies, leaving them to hang in their medieval poverty, as well as putting developed countries in for a pretty hefty recession with all the production restraints. What happens if its the wrong basket? Right. We get all the bad sides of anti-CO2 policies, and none of the projected benefits. In other words, we turn out suckers for the CO2 cult.

 

It might also be the case that even though the CO2 theory were to turn out to be true, attacking this problem would be so prohibitively expensive that it would be doomed to fail, whatever effort we put into it, because of the reluctance of developing countries to join the bandwagon. In this case, we are simply wasting our time while the pot we're sitting in, so to speak, is starting to boil.

 

But there are alternatives. Nobody reasonable will object that the sole significant source of heat on the planet is the sun. Even alternative GCC theories that downplay the effects of greenhouse gases start from that point. So why not attack the global heating problem at its source? I will link to these alternative solutions when I find them, but in general there are 3 that I know of - the space-mirror (giant mirror launched into space to reflect the suns rays), the SO2 seeding project (hurling SO2 particles into the atmosphere, blocking the sun from reaching earth) and investing more money into cloud formation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If it is indeed the case that the CO2 theory is wrong, what we are basically doing by focusing all our efforts on emission reduction is putting all the eggs in one basket. A pretty expensive basket at that, for various reasons mentioned above by others, including stifling developing economies, leaving them to hang in their medieval poverty, as well as putting developed countries in for a pretty hefty recession with all the production restraints. What happens if its the wrong basket? Right. We get all the bad sides of anti-CO2 policies, and none of the projected benefits. In other words, we turn out suckers for the CO2 cult.

Excellent post Genie.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They say on CNN that when you go back to the North or South Pole the ice is melting so much that you wont recognise the place.

To bring it a bit closer to home for you, what do you think caused the disappearance of the glaciers that formed the Alps? Global warming?

 

I have a friend who works as a forestry engineer so you can imagine which side he is on. What really irks me is that whenever we talk about the subject and I voice my doubts he shouts me down and calls my intelligence into question. That someone with such obvious credentials in that field must resort to such tactics is beyond me. Unfortunately, I get the impression that the entire green movement behaves like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ulysees, you're missing a basic point. Of course climate changes over time, but it is a very slow process. Ice ages are caused by an average drop of just a couple of degrees, but a drop that lasts hundreds or thousands of years. The changes in temperature currently being experienced and predicted for the next century or so are happening over a much shorter period of time. This is why most scientists believe that humans are contributing towards it.

 

Think about it logically: it is too much of a coincidence for a largely-unprecedented increase in climatic changes to be occurring at the precise geological moment when the human impact on the planet is at its greatest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Think about it logically: it is too much of a coincidence for a largely-unprecedented increase in climatic changes to be occurring at the precise geological moment when the human impact on the planet is at its greatest.

Its a pretty big coincidence that the right amino acids bonded together on a planet with the right atmosphere and right distance from the sun to form life too..

 

Out of curiosity, what are our levels of accuracy of past climate trends? (not being contrary just curious)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true STB, the last IPCC report mentioned several large changes which appeared to have taken place in a few decades, which is close to the time resolution possible using current methods. When climate change takes place it seems to be rapid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but wasnt there a 'mini ice age' a few hundred years ago? and a period around 10-1100 when it was really hot in the northern hemisphere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Little Ice Age is what you mean. What is even more interesting for the GCC hysterics is the Medieval Warm Period that took place before the LIA.

 

Of course the IPCC debates whether this actually existed or not, but I think it's quite established this body will do anything in order to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is warming up more than it ever did in recent history, and that ethnogenic CO2 is the cause.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I object to this prediction of economic doom if we decide to take global warming seriously. this same argument was used back when CFC's were banned and there was no economic slump. Everyone keeps sayin how expensive it would be. Eh no - its expensive for folks who try to cling to outdated practices. For those who adapt and develop new technologies its a MASSIVE opportunity. Green technology is a massive growth industry. This argument that cleaning up our act will result in economic doom is completely arbitrary and frankly I think its scaremongering by those with something to loose. If its costing one company to upgrade their technology then the company selling it to them is making money - simple as. The cycle of money continues

 

Don't believe me - its already happening:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6983117.stm

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now