what happened to all that? hmm, too much greehouse gasses and carbon dioxide in the atmoshphere (i gather they mean up in the sky like on the edge of space) co2 is heavier than the air we breathe, so.....
That's according to a paper published in Dec' 2007 - this paper carries 400 signatures of prominent scientists.
See HERE
Thats right, IMO its all a load of horlicks.
Global warming is caused by the SUN.
Some sense at last.
The Romans were growing wine grapes happily in the UK 'When they were here' so things must have got colder since then and now they are
warming up again. Plus we have only been mearsuring it 'accuratly' for 50 or 60 years thats not a long time considering how long the planet
has been going.
But hey lets not remove a reason for the Fecker to tax us more !!!!!!
Regards
Agriv8
Global Warming.
Global Polution.
Two very seperate things. Yes, everything man-made contributes to one of them and we should all do our bit to reduce the effects of it, but its NOT
global warming.
i remember when all this used to be casued by CFC's in the ozone layer what happened to all that?
hmm, too much greehouse gasses and carbon dioxide in the atmoshphere (i gather they mean up in the sky like on the edge of space) co2 is heavier than
the air we breathe, so.....
Well we stopped using CFCs.. The data I get back at work shows that the CFCs have been decreasing, so the ozone hole is in fact able to recover
C02 emissions we can't stop unless people stop burning fossil fuels.. Come to you own conclusions..
Working as a scientist in the field I can ensure you most people agree on climate change it is happening, as to what this means this is open to
argument.
Dan
It's hardly from an unbiased source though, is it? - The US Government.
The matter is essenitally unproven and unprovable.
350 years of Central England Temperature records show that the Earth is warming at an accelerating rate. 8 of the 10 hotest years on record are in
the last 10 years, 9 of them in the last 50. The world is heating up and sea levels are rising. The link with CO2 is unproven but either way,
I'm glad I don't live near the sea.
In science there is and should always be debate, unfortunately at the moment it appears that the 'theory' and 'hypothesis' of of
climate change is turning into unquestionable undebatable dogma where any sceptic is ignored - this can't be good for ongoing development of any
theory or argument - no matter whether its right or wrong....
Chris
I f you don't believe carbon and methane is causing the world to warm you need to do research of your own.
I work in science and also studying the planet thro open uni. I started doing this as i am keen skier and saw first hand thro' my work the
retreating of glaciers in the alps.
Its not that i am greeny i have a BEC i fly however it makes me feel sick to see the tax we pay to offset our carbon when.
government choose to put very little of this money into solving the problem.
400 scientist is nothing, i reckon i could get that saying it does in about 2 hours.
Bring on forced hydrogen research and Nuclear power.
Im also one of those who beleive its an excuse to creat fear to then tax or make a living on.
The human race has effected the world, how could it not, but when you think how the sun can 'blip' and change things on earth 50 times more
then we could ever do then i cant see why they have said its our fault.
The problem is that because its politically driven people then choose (like me) not to do anything, why should i pay extra tax to have my bins emptied
less, which doesnt make me save the world but makes some bloke in the local council richer?
In 100 years the human race will look back at us now and smile at us like we did and those who burned witches. I honestly think its that stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by chrsgrain
In science there is and should always be debate, unfortunately at the moment it appears that the 'theory' and 'hypothesis' of of climate change is turning into unquestionable undebatable dogma where any sceptic is ignored - this can't be good for ongoing development of any theory or argument - no matter whether its right or wrong....
Chris
seeing as there are some knowledgeable people on here then (reading the above comments) is it true that when a volcano erupts in kicks more co2 into
the atmosphere than has ever been done by man?
I read it somewhere and I am interested in how true it is.
Oh and I completely agree with the comments about Scientific theories being labeled as fact - to be honest that happens LOADS, with a lot of stuff we
can only guess at - just watch a documentary on dinosaurs behavior, or evolution to hear these cast iron "facts" *rolls eyes*
Think this underlines we live in a media controlled world, what they pump out, becomes commen opinion very quickly, which impacts on vote clambering
politicians policy.
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
seeing as there are some knowledgeable people on here then (reading the above comments) is it true that when a volcano erupts in kicks more co2 into the atmosphere than has ever been done by man?
Super volcano true.
I read it somewhere and I am interested in how true it is.
Oh and I completely agree with the comments about Scientific theories being labeled as fact - to be honest that happens LOADS, with a lot of stuff we can only guess at - just watch a documentary on dinosaurs behavior, or evolution to hear these cast iron "facts" *rolls eyes*
Think this underlines we live in a media controlled world, what they pump out, becomes commen opinion very quickly, which impacts on vote clambering politicians policy.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
Anyone noticed there's no sun spots at all right now, magnetic fields about to flip again...the 11 year cycle, one of many.
Mr Wippy Scientists don't agree most of the time that's how it works..
A scientist proposes a theory, scientists then check/run experiments to see if the theory holds true.. It takes years and years until eventually get a
consensus as to whether a theory is correct or not. Eventually the theory might become excepted as a law of physics etc..
As a scientist it is the disagreements that makes it fun and helps progress things..
Dan
I think the best we can do is;
1) Say that the Earth is definitely warming up.
2) The increase is over a tiny amount of time and COULD be a part of the overall warming/cooling cycle that our planet goes through every so often.
3) WE DO NOT KNOW what is causing this change.
Everything else is IMHO speculation and so far unproven.
To the 'scientists' above;
Tell us how many papers you've published (with links please) and whether any of them cover this subject before you get any more credibility than
the rest of us 
the amount of Co2 from Catle VS Co2 from Cars in a year Discuss
Ps I am all for saving fosil fuels ( I need em for my v8 )
A few years ago we were all going to die of skin cancer due to Ozone depletion. A decade before that we were going into another ice age and we were
all going to need triple glazing.
Reagrds
Agriv8
we discussions that have to be stopped to stop all out brawls awesome at times.
quote:s
Originally posted by JAG
I think the best we can do is;
1) Say that the Earth is definitely warming up.
2) The increase is over a tiny amount of time and COULD be a part of the overall warming/cooling cycle that our planet goes through every so often.
3) WE DO NOT KNOW what is causing this change.
Everything else is IMHO speculation and so far unproven.
To the 'scientists' above;
Tell us how many papers you've published (with links please) and whether any of them cover this subject before you get any more credibility than the rest of us
I'm tempted to have a rant but seeing as Global Warming is now a multimillion dollar industry it will be waste of time. Too many people rely on
the lies to make a living, there are even lists on the stock exchange for ISA's and the like so global warming will never go away.
Eee, I can remember the good old days when we were going to freeze to death cause CFC's had made a big hole in the earths blanket, oh, and
getting the sledge out for weeks on end, digging a path to the coal house every morning...
People have very short memories and this is just the latest fad.
No problem,
Take a look at:
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
I think the best we can do is;
1) Say that the Earth is definitely warming up.
2) The increase is over a tiny amount of time and COULD be a part of the overall warming/cooling cycle that our planet goes through every so often.
3) WE DO NOT KNOW what is causing this change.
Everything else is IMHO speculation and so far unproven.
To the 'scientists' above;
Tell us how many papers you've published (with links please) and whether any of them cover this subject before you get any more credibility than the rest of us
Hellfire - 11/4/08 at 11:38 AMJAG - get your coat...
Steve
Benzine - 11/4/08 at 11:44 AMYou can prove anything with facts
MikeR - 11/4/08 at 12:07 PMgood god .... here we go.
ok, sun warming - proposed by a scandanavian, promoted by everyone who didn't want to believe CLIMATE CHANGE (don't call it global warming please). Most scientists didn't believe it - but as it was what lots of people wanted to hear it was promoted.
Recently debunked by scientists from (i think) Lancaster and Reading. I believe there work has / is being peer reviewed and no one has found fault with it (yet).
CFC-s yep we messed up the ozone layer, luckily it stuck over the south pole, its now slowly reducing from being something like the size of America. Thank god we stopped using CFC's eh.
Ice age approaching / 26 other reasons why we're not going through climate change - read here.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
please, honestly PLEASE do read. Its very interesting, presented in an easy to understand way and explains why the theory arose and why its now no longer believed along with lots of other crap sprouted by people.
Obviously if you want to keep your head in the sand and ignore the facts - then don't bother, but please shut up when people who have looked into this subject, who have researched it, who's lifes work is on the subject speak. They might just know a little more than someone like you or me who've read the the Sun or Mirror in the morning.
Edited to add a (yet) and to apologise as i've just ranted a bit, its friday and i'm annoyed with work, you lot got the brunt of it, but this topic frustrates me.
[Edited on 11/4/08 by MikeR]
Benzine - 11/4/08 at 12:16 PMtl;dr
02GF74 - 11/4/08 at 12:35 PMquote:
Originally posted by smart51
It's hardly from an unbiased source though, is it? - The US Government.
The matter is essenitally unproven and unprovable.
yep ^^^^ smart51 got t his right - what are the bets the so-called prominent scientist were specifically chosen?
JAG - 11/4/08 at 01:20 PMquote:
JAG - get your coat...
Err No. This is a grown up debate and I can acknowledge that Bluemoon has some specialist knowledge on this subject. He has my respect as someone who has worked hard to gain knowledge in his field.
However most seem to think this means all scientists will ALWAYS be right on everything - I don't.
My biggest problem with the global warming/CO2 link is that the data I have seen presented only talks about the last 150 years. From memory the claim is 0.5 Celsius (on average) in 150 years.
Sounds like nothing in no time to me.
It is believed that our planet is 4000,000,000 years old so 150 years is a very small sample.
I don't doubt that we ARE warming
My biggest beef is with the claim that it's because of something we are doing or have done.
Bluemoon - 11/4/08 at 02:07 PMHi Jag.
Temperatures collated from the last 1000 years:
Green house gas output:
(IPCC report)
Does that help?
Dan
twybrow - 11/4/08 at 02:13 PMquote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
Personally I really couldn’t give a toss what others believe whether its science, theoretical science or religion and certainly not going to get into a debate about which group of scientists are correct when they can't even agree amongst themselves.
Mr Whippy, you are talking out of your derriere. They do agree amonst themselves - we are experiencing global warming - fact. What they can not agree on (and it really is a very small minority now) is the cause of the change in climate. If you want to understand some of the research done, then check out this webiste. I see no reason for the worlds governments to make us all panic. After all, we are screwing ourselves when we sign up to emissions cuts etc, as the 2nd/3rd worlds are really not likely to follow suit.
The evdence is there, and with the exception of America, the majority of developed countries are in agreement.
And if you think we only have data for the last 50 or so years, then what about ice cores/pollen grains/fossils etc. There is loads of evidence, just not evidence you can assoiciate with a thermometer!
Just for your info, the last ice age in the UK was in fact just 400 years ago, and during that time the Thames frooze over so much they had 'ice fairs' on it as a regular event.
You are all entitled to your opinion, and this is just mine!
Jon Ison - 11/4/08 at 02:17 PMDont all the farts from cows n the like cause more problems ?
Bluemoon - 11/4/08 at 02:19 PMHi Jag as above link this shows the C02 increase:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html
Taken this is the figure from the page (metoffice):
The thing is the CO2 has not been this high for a very very long time..
Dan
[Edited on 11/4/08 by Bluemoon]
twybrow - 11/4/08 at 02:21 PMThe don't fart, they burp, and yes it it a problem, which is why a lot of UK farmers are being advised to move to other form of feed that makes them burp less. I think they have the potential to cut it by 65% by diet change alone (my Mrs is one of the people advising them and the government).
Bluemoon - good data there mate, and a series of well made arguments. Is your second name Gore?!
Bluemoon - 11/4/08 at 02:25 PM
Bluemoon - 11/4/08 at 02:35 PMRight Cow farts, this is relase of CH4.
IPCCradiativeforcing
The above IPCC figure shows the relative amount that different things are thought to contribute to climate change. A positive radiative forcing equals a warming effect. as you can see the CH4 contribution is much less than the CO2 forcing part.. But it is still significant but not the dominate effect.
Just as a bit of background I work on aerosols at the moment (particles in the atmosphere) these tend to cool the atmosphere..
Cheers
Dan
[Edited on 11/4/08 by Bluemoon]
chrisg - 11/4/08 at 02:51 PMWhat caused the other Ice ages?
Them dinosaurs must all have had V12 jags!
Don't know anything about it but I just find it a little suspicious, that every "solution" to this problem involves taking more money from the tax payer.
Why is that?
Cheers
Chris
larrythelathe - 11/4/08 at 02:52 PMi don't think anyone feels fluffy at the tax side of things
[Edited on 11/4/08 by larrythelathe]
JAG - 11/4/08 at 02:53 PMBluemoon;
Thanks for the data.
Your first graph shows departures in temperature from a 1961-1990 average. It also contains the 95% confidence interval* for the data. The calculated data (taken from tree rings, corals etc...) has a huge confidence interval band that in some cases covers the range of data at the right hand end of the same graph. Hence similar departures to those currently observed COULD have occured anywhere between 1000 and 1600.
*Confidence Interval means that we are 95% confident that the actual result lies somewhere in the range shown by the grey bands. The only way to narrow the band is with more sample data - which is very difficult to obtain.
Your second graph once again proves that the possible temp' range is enormous and we just can't be sure of the actual temperatures for the last 1000 years. Hence we've got no solid baseline for comparison.
Your third graph demonstrates something I have NO PROBLEM believing - we emit lot's of gas and we've only been doing it for a very short period (in terms of earth history anyway).
But this data still only covers 1000 years in a lifespan, so far, of 4,000,000,000 years.
That's less than 0.000025% of the actual time in which this planets atmosphere has existed and show variation.
So I find the data interesting but no way is it conclusive.
How about all other influences?
Correlation does not mean causation afterall.
Bluemoon - 11/4/08 at 02:59 PMIndeed Jag,
but can you explain why the increase in CO2 dose not increase radiative forcing? this must be the point in your argument.
Dan
ps the 2nd graph is a running avarage so the random (but not systematic) error is reduced so, but like you say more high quality data would be nice.
[Edited on 11/4/08 by Bluemoon]
Rob Palin - 11/4/08 at 04:56 PMIt's clear Bluemoon's got the technical side of this discussion covered but can i just raise a couple of points?
On this forum and another (motorsport related) i have seen big discussions like this about Climate Change and clearly a large proportion of the demographic that uses these car-related forums have a very sceptical view of the subject.
As a Chartered Scientist what drives me crazy is that a lot of the criticism implies (or directly states!) that the scientists involved in research into Climate Change are incompetent or corrupt, and either just trying to justify increasing their research budgets or acting as puppets of corrupt governments. Perhaps some are, and indeed it would be naive to think every single one was entirely altruistic, but we're talking thousands of professional people from all across the globe here. The generalised implication of mass dishonesty is offensive, frankly, and especially on such an important subject.
Secondly, many of the criticisms cite random pub facts like the contribution of volcanic eruptions or solar cycles or whatever. Seemingly the suggestion is that these haven't been taken into account by the qualified and experienced experts in this field. The actual physics of these mechanisms IS included and discussed in detail in the report. The reason they are not allocating responsibility to any of these things is because they've investigated it and found evidence that they are not responsible. That's how the method works.
I just don't understand how so many people can criticise the science of the subject yet concede that, for example, they haven't even read the IPCC report and examined its claims and evidence critically. They just assume that it will be incorrect or misleading propaganda of some sort and that actually reading it is not necessary or useful when forming an opinion on it. Now *that's* bad science! I'm not talking about anyone specifically on here, by the way, just ranting on this subject in general.
On the point of "correlation does not imply causation", which someone quoted earlier from the funny people with the whole Spaghetti monster thing, that's a good soundbite but it's actually a misrepresentation of scientific method and is more a criticism of bad science in general rather than that specific logical relationship. Scientific method fundamentally relies on being able to establish cause and effect. The design of a proper scientific experiment should be done in such a way that the relevant variables are isolated and, for the conditions given, correlation does then indeed equal causation. So, by designing the experiment properly we should be easily able to prove that the decline in pirate numbers isn't responsible for Climate Change then!
RK - 11/4/08 at 05:00 PMIt's not what causes it, it's what we can do to reduce the possibility thereof...
Fact: humans cut down the very last tree on Easter Island and they died out because they lost their source of food.
JAG - 11/4/08 at 05:42 PMquote:
but can you explain why the increase in CO2 dose not increase radiative forcing? this must be the point in your argument
No because that's not the point of my argument. My argument is that there is not enough data to provide a strong trend - hence any conclusion of causation is prone to massive error. Yet this conclusion (CO2 causes global warming) is taken as fact and trotted out whenever it suits the politicos and the general public swallow it and (as you can see on this thread) trot it back out as though it's proven fact.
quote:
Scientific method fundamentally relies on being able to establish cause and effect
I accept this point but don't think we have any fundamental evidence that establishes cause and effect and yet we have a conclusion.
quote:
As a Chartered Scientist what drives me crazy is that a lot of the criticism implies (or directly states!) that the scientists involved in research into Climate Change are incompetent or corrupt
Not the scientists - but I do believe that their political masters (who provide huge funding for all research) are corrupt and prone to claiming whatever suits them. I also think that the scientific community has been duped by them in the same way we are all being duped.
Afterall is said and done I appreciate all of the inputs (even the childish stuff) and wish you all well. I feel better for getting it off my chest
As ever time will tell
MikeRJ - 11/4/08 at 05:53 PMhttp://www.icecap.us/index.php is a very interesting site, with contributions by some big names.
http://climatesci.org/ also offers some useful insights, one of the conclusions being that whilst CO2 is undoubtedly a contributor to GW, the IPCC have been blinkered by it to the exclusion of other human influenced GW effects.
The biggest issue I have with GW is it's abuse by governments as a huge source of revenue, and from there is not difficult to see how scientists could be influenced to come up with the "correct" data.
Mark Allanson - 11/4/08 at 06:24 PMThere was a documentary on Channel 4 (?) about a year ago which was very sceptical about the links between CO2 and global warming.
It was VERY convincing and I have not believed a word about emmisions related global warming since.
It was also on youtube or similar but seems to have been disappeared - does anyone else remember it?
twybrow - 11/4/08 at 06:38 PMI do remember it. But how hard would it be to find a group of people who disagree with the majority and are willing to participate in a tv program that gives them a platform?
Rob Palin - 11/4/08 at 06:54 PM"The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, i remember that. A nice, balanced piece of technical journalism, as you might infer from the title. For a while Channel 4 had a feature on the mini website they created for it where you could ask questions of the experts featured in the show. Reading them gave a very diferent impression than was presented during the programme itself.
Sensationalist shows attract more attention than dry documentaries. The show gave a voice to those most critical of the IPCC methodology & findings but didn't balance that properly. For a more even-handed view of the strengths & weaknesses of the IPCC report, check out http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
which is the detail of the peer review procedure where thousands of experts in the field were asked to examine the report before publication. It also contains a list of who they are and where they're from, so you can get an idea of whether their views are authoritative or not.
jono_misfit - 11/4/08 at 08:08 PMI remember that program, i also remember a couple of the scientists they interviewed said that their names were on that report. The went on to say that it was significantly changed between the review draught that they were given and the final release. Despite complaints their names were not removed from the supporting scientists list.
Im sitting on the fence as im not convinced either way, however i dont believe CO2 is THE issue. It seems illogical to me that with the amount of different factors that there is a singular responsible item. It is more likely to be a combination of issues and occurances.
I try to minise my energy usage but thats mainly because it cost me less and I would rather spend the money on my car.
JoelP - 11/4/08 at 08:27 PMits all well blaming cows farting but at the end of the day (and indeed the next morning too) its us who are breeding them.
The fact is we will in the space of 300 years turn most of the fossil fuels into free CO2. This is a colossal amount of CO2, storing it took millions of years of solar power.
On the plus side, when they run out there wont be such a problem!
I think we can safely say that man will not start any proceedures likely to store CO2 again due to the energies involved. So the before (the industrial age) is seperated from the after (the fossil fuels run out) by a vast amount of free CO2.
Now im not man enough to work out how many tonnes or what percent this might actually be, but does it not seem likely that this change in atmospheric CO2 might have some effect? To me its obvious that it has to.
Agriv8 - 11/4/08 at 08:44 PMtoo Hot for me I am of to the Pub for some Co2 propelled beer.
Regards
Agriv8
Bluemoon - 12/4/08 at 07:35 AMThe link with CO2 and warming can be proven in the lab, it's a simple experment, you measure how much (longwave) radiation passes though a test cell of gass, you will find a percentage is removed/and abosrbed by the gas. As energy is conserved this "loss" heats the gase up... So more CO2 equals more warming to first order...
Where it get's intreasting is the other effects that might counter this (aerosols for example, a negative feedback).. Also some effects make it worse (positive feedback). This is the real can of worms, we then get into talking about chaotic systems etc etc but even so all the observations and models are still pointing to a warming effect..
If you look into the responce of a chaotic system you will become very wored about what we are doing to the atmosphere/earth.. Predicting what is going to happen is difficult...
Dan
t.j. - 12/4/08 at 10:38 AMAfter 2012 the temperature will drop!
The Maya's knew.
So then all the "CO2-believers" can say:
All Al's input did help......
It's not that i'm not into envoirment.
It's only this: put your help and money into the things which are proven.
Help the poor, help the Africans, stop war (if possible), be carefull with waste,
So if you want to donate ......
smart51 - 13/4/08 at 01:26 PMquote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
There was a documentary on Channel 4 (?) about a year ago which was very sceptical about the links between CO2 and global warming.
It was VERY convincing and I have not believed a word about emmisions related global warming since.
It was roundly criticised a day or two after broadcasting as its makers deliberately misrepresented what the experts said to sound as if they said there was no global warming. It wasn't as crude as editing the word 'not' out of the sentence "this does not prove global warming is a lie" but essentially that's what they did. C4 was very embarrassed.
smart51 - 13/4/08 at 01:31 PMsparkling bottled water, fizzy drinks, champagne, beer and wine all release CO2 into the air. As does baking bread and cakes. How much global warming does this account for, compared with beef and ham?
JoelP - 13/4/08 at 02:03 PMquote:
Originally posted by smart51
sparkling bottled water, fizzy drinks, champagne, beer and wine all release CO2 into the air. As does baking bread and cakes. How much global warming does this account for, compared with beef and ham?
depends where the CO2 came from. Bread and beer at least it comes from fermentation, which is just from sugars i believe. This would be counted as carbon neutral as the CO2 was free in the air months before anyway. Cant tell you anything about the fizz in champaign though!
darrens - 13/4/08 at 02:27 PMquote:
Originally posted by Bluemoon
Mr Wippy Scientists don't agree most of the time that's how it works..
A scientist proposes a theory, scientists then check/run experiments to see if the theory holds true.. It takes years and years until eventually get a consensus as to whether a theory is correct or not. Eventually the theory might become excepted as a law of physics etc..
As a scientist it is the disagreements that makes it fun and helps progress things..
Dan
Problem lies, in that allot of theories are proposed as facts, which whip round the media and gov which we are then meant to accept.
Few years down the line when the theory has been proven incorrect were all led to believe another theory/fact. You then begin to see why allot of people are sceptics.
Just my 1p worth
chrisg - 13/4/08 at 09:08 PMI don't pretend to understand the science on either side but I don't like the way that all touted solutions rely on taking more cash from us.
The government has used this issue as an excuse to increase the tax on petrol every year for as long as I can remember.
The theory being that if fuel is expensive then we will use less.
This of course hits the poorer person hardest, whether or not they rely on a car, maybe the government want to take all the poor people off the road to cut pollution? Or maybe they just want more room for both Jags?
But will we actually drive less?
Some people might, but most of us have jobs to go to, some have jobs that involve driving to clients or driving lorries, vans, ambuances. What about the disabled who rely on their cars? Should we nail their front doors up?
Is the work that people who rely on vehicles going to be superfluous? If they suddenly didn't do what they're doing, would we notice a difference?
I think we might.
No lorries - no food in the shops.
No ambulances - You die (although of course that may be seen as a benefit, less people, less drivers)
It's extremely difficult to do a job like sales rep on the bus, in fact lets face it some jobs can't be done on public transport.
Speaking of the buses, what would happen on the first day that we all switched to the bus?
Buses that trundle about empty now would be full at the first stop and just cruise to their destination without stopping again.
Ah, you say, we can put more buses on to cope with the increase.
I drive into Sheffield most days. There are always traffic queues. What is the hold up? 80% of the time it's a bus.
During a recent bus strike the journey time was cut from 45 to 25 minutes despite there being more cars. You can always spot the buses by the clouds of acrid smoke, which takes us full circle.
Pollution - why are there no solutions that don't involve more tax?
All in all it strikes me as a second "Safety camera" scam.
Pay up or you're a dangerous hooligan knocking over old ladies/ Pay up or you're killing the planet.
The government rely on the "It's a good cause so if you say anything against it you're anti social" ploy.
I can't help but think that whatever raises the most cash is "Government policy"
/rant
Cheers
Chris
Simon - 13/4/08 at 11:46 PMGlobal warming - utter shite. Even the IPCC has admitted that there's been no change in global temps for the last ten years - during the spectacular growth of the filthiest economy on the planet. NASA has recorded thickening of the ice caps.
And then there's the fact that NO warming/cooling patterns have EVER been predicted by the men in white coats. They've ALWAYS been WRONG.
It's just an excuse to tax us. If it wasn't, why hasn't GB lined all our motorways with trees from extra revenues.
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 13/4/08 by Simon]
RK - 14/4/08 at 02:33 AMIf people can't accept that their cherished hobby (in its present form - ie. polluting, and not HELPING) is basically socially irresponsible, then there are more stupid people around than I previously thought. I can live with the criticism, and so should you.
That sounds a little harsh, but I realise that in Europe (and you count as far as I'm concerned) society in general is more regimented, and somewhat less "free" than over here in the colonies, and the car represents a source of personal freedom, one of the only ones you perceive you have left, after government controls on almost everything else. I understand the anger, but you do have to see the bigger picture, don't you?
Otherwise, I start complaining about how our beer is taxed much more heavily than yours.
[Edited on 14/4/08 by RK]
MikeRJ - 14/4/08 at 07:44 AMquote:
Originally posted by RK
Otherwise, I start complaining about how our beer is taxed much more heavily than yours.
Complain away, at least you'd be complaining about something that doesn't have thousands of scientists arguing about whether it's fact or fiction. I won't even accuse you of being stupid.
And then visit Sweden and find out what really expensive alcohol is like.
Bluemoon - 14/4/08 at 09:00 AMAs the the arguments about Climate change, time will tell.. Personally I think we are playing at a game that has high stakes and I'm not a gambling man...
I wouldn't get to worried about high performance cars, after all how many miles do you actually do, how much petrol do you use compared with a commuting to work? Also if you want to feel better about it, you have built a locost you will have recycled most of the parts, this is a good thing as the energy (and CO2) used to make the parts has been re-used...
Nearly all the scientist I know DONT were white coats
As to TAX the government will always think of new ways to raise money... Climate change or not...
Dan
chrisg - 14/4/08 at 09:57 AMI'd be much more willing to believe if someone gave ONE solution that doesn't involve fleecing the populous, otherwise (even if it isn't) it LOOKS like another reason to raise tax.
cheers
Chris
smart51 - 14/4/08 at 10:42 AMquote:
Originally posted by chrisg
I'd be much more willing to believe if someone gave ONE solution that doesn't involve fleecing the populous
If it were that easy, we'd have done it already.
Assuming climate change is largely caused by a green house effect due to man made emmissions of Carbon Dioxide, Methane and high altitude water vapour (from jet engines), the only obvious solution is twofold: 1) stop emmitting so much pollution, 2) invent some way of removing what we've already put out there.
If you can think of a way of doing this without charging the population, reducing their freedom to consume energy hungry products, travel, eat; then you'll be the richest man in the world.
chrisg - 14/4/08 at 01:48 PMI think that's the point, If the were two actions and one of them raised billions in tax revenue and the other didn't, which one do you think the government would go for?
I've been looking into this over the last few days and it's clear that no one really knows whether this is fact or not, but why wait to find out before you take the cash?
It's naieve to believe that the government is increasing the tax with the only intention of reducing global warming (if it exists). it's a bandwagon and they are more than happy to jump on, and we should not be accepting it at face value without question.
Do you believe that speed cameras are purely for road safety?
The government lies - fact.
Cheers
Chris
JoelP - 14/4/08 at 04:19 PMquote:
Originally posted by Simon
Global warming - utter shite. Even the IPCC has admitted that there's been no change in global temps for the last ten years - during the spectacular growth of the filthiest economy on the planet. NASA has recorded thickening of the ice caps.
5 mins on google puts that last part in perspective. Icecaps have thinned at the edge and thickened in the middle. This is because warmer seas melt the edges faster, whilst warmer air carries more moisture for snow to form from. Overall, total frozen mass is reducing.
quote:
And then there's the fact that NO warming/cooling patterns have EVER been predicted by the men in white coats. They've ALWAYS been WRONG.
they predict long term trends, there hasnt been time to see if any prove correct.
Incidentally, your wording above is a bad as the people who argue blindly for every media hyped environmental issue. You cant say its a fact that non exist, thats not scientific. You can only say that non have come to your attention.
quote:
It's just an excuse to tax us. If it wasn't, why hasn't GB lined all our motorways with trees from extra revenues.
Trees would have little affect, they dont store carbon for long enough. They tend to fall over and rot with a few centuries.
Simon - 14/4/08 at 10:51 PMYes and when they rot, they produce......
The way to resolve this, is to remove the cause. Man.
Ahhh, but that wouldn't be right. Let's all go live in caves and let the population reach, oh a hundred billion, then we can all be taxed for breathing. God help anyone who wants to exercise and use more air (and create more CO2) than anyone else.
Don't tax me because you think there might be a problem. Prove there is a problem, let me show you how insignificant that problem is when compared to people like the Chinese who couldn't give a flying ...., and no matter what changes the "civilised west" are doing is going to make the slightest difference.
Then go jump on a plane, or if you concerned about the environmental impact of said plane, walk or cycle to China and start your protestations there.
I sold my V8 daily driver because of GB's taxation policy, and what happend, I bought a new car.
How very environmentally friendly is that.
Water vapour from jets is already there, it just condenses so it can be seen. About 1/3 to 1/2 the planet at any one time is covered with cloud, that's water vapour.
Worst green house gas (according to the telly this evening) is methane (20+ times worse than CO2). Not only produced in vast quantities by belching cows, but in bigger quantities by termites.
Perhaps man isn't the "problem", perhaps it's life itself. Get rid of life and you get rid of the problem, once all the corpses have finished decomposing anyway.
Simon
Benzine - 15/4/08 at 09:46 AM
I don't understand the people who are so sure that the obliteration of humanity is upon us.
Do they lead by example and stop using their car, stop going on holiday by plane, turn the oil-fired central heating off and wear a jumper and get out on the streets preaching?
No. Seems weird.
[Edited on 15/4/08 by Benzine]
smart51 - 15/4/08 at 10:12 AMquote:
Originally posted by Benzine
Do they lead by example and stop using their car, stop going on holiday by plane, turn the oil-fired central heating off and wear a jumper and get out on the streets preaching?
No.
[Edited on 15/4/08 by Benzine]
Generalism Alert! Generalism Alert!
Benzine - 15/4/08 at 10:19 AMYou could at least go to the trouble of making a brightly coloured annoying animted GIF to say that
It's not a generalisation, it's a piquant observation. Are you saying the majority of people who believe in man-made global warming have stopped using their cars and cut out luxuries? The percentage of such people is certainly in single figures.
If you're going to stick to what you believe in don't go for it half arsed, practise what you preach. (not in a Theodore Kaczynski kind of way though)
[Edited on 15/4/08 by Benzine]
Syd Bridge - 15/4/08 at 11:03 AMMy eldest is doing his Ph.D with the Oceanography Centre in Southampton, and has shown me a good amount of data that backs up, and refutes a lot of what is being spoken.
The oceans are warming. But, the amount of heat to do that is far more than man can lay claim to, the source is the sun. As the oceans heat up, so does the air above them.
Hotter climates with more Co2 produce more vegetation, which dies and rots and produces more Co2, but this is seen as 'carbon neutral', but is it?
Geologic activity (volcanoes and vents etc) put many times more Co2 into the atmosphere everyday than man. (In the order of many hundreds) This is recorded scientific fact. This Co2 comes from what is in rocks and the earth's crust, or what's just under it.
Work by an Aussie scientist on 'Global Dimming' since the late Fifties is being conveniently ignored by the scientific community, but will be the next 'Big Find' in science. This work shows that the amount of sunlight being transmitted to the surface is diminishing because of atmospheric gas and dust buildup, and this buildup also prevents heat from being radiated back into space. So, acts like a big blanket keeping in heat, which used to be radiated outwards again.
How hot is the earth's core? This has to come out somehow, and in real amounts. And as it cannot be radiated, it is also a contibutor to 'Global Climate Change', and is far greater than man's contribution.
Lastly, the one thing mentioned but not really made properly known, is that the earth is at a point in its orbital cycles where it is the closest it has been to the sun for thousands of years. The earth will start to drift away before long, and things will cool down.
Make of all that what you will, but I believe that the sun is the source of the warming, as it is the biggest source of heat, with no exception.
Why the heat is staying in? I believe that the aussie scientist has the answer, and the findings in his work will be the next reason for our taxes to up.
Global Warming may or may not be happening. But me, I hate snow and bloody dismal weather, so anything to warm things up can't be all bad.
Cheers,
Syd.
smart51 - 16/4/08 at 09:57 AMquote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge The oceans are warming. But, the amount of heat to do that is far more than man can lay claim to, the source is the sun. As the oceans heat up, so does the air above them.
Of course the heat source is the sun. Just as it is in a green house. The green house effect is keeping the heat from sunlight in more due to extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge Geologic activity (volcanoes and vents etc) put many times more Co2 into the atmosphere everyday than man. (In the order of many hundreds) This is recorded scientific fact. This Co2 comes from what is in rocks and the earth's crust, or what's just under it.
Yes it does, but its a balance. I used to work for a weighing scale company. They had a museum in which was an original roman weighing scale. It had a 1 tonne weight on one side and 1 tonne of goods on the other. When the needle pointed to the mark, the two weighed the same. They kept an old 1/2p coin on the side and would place it on the pan for demonstration purposes. The needle moved a long way to the side when they did.
The world has been in environmental equilibrium for several millenia. Volcanoes are balanced by rain forests etc. A couple of centuries of industrial CO2 may only be like a 1/2p coin compared with the tonne of nature, but it can be enough to shift the balance.
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge Work by an Aussie scientist on 'Global Dimming' since the late Fifties is being conveniently ignored by the scientific community, but will be the next 'Big Find' in science. This work shows that the amount of sunlight being transmitted to the surface is diminishing because of atmospheric gas and dust buildup, and this buildup also prevents heat from being radiated back into space. So, acts like a big blanket keeping in heat, which used to be radiated outwards again.
Global dimming is caused by dust and particulates in the air. Since catalytic converters were introduced, airborne particulates have dropped, reducing global dimming. The fear is that global dimming has been slowing down global warming. Never fear though. Western cars may be cleaner now, but China is building Coal Power stations at quite a rate.
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge How hot is the earth's core? This has to come out somehow, and in real amounts. And as it cannot be radiated, it is also a contibutor to 'Global Climate Change', and is far greater than man's contribution.
Same as it's always been? A bit cooler perhaps? I bet it hasn't suddenly got hotter over the last few decades.
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge Make of all that what you will, but I believe that the sun is the source of the warming, as it is the biggest source of heat, with no exception.
You are quite right, as stated above. It's called the green house effect. Your son's knowledge sounds like a fine thing. Your interpretation of it might be a bit lacking.
[Edited on 16-4-2008 by smart51]
Syd Bridge - 16/4/08 at 07:10 PMThe world's climate has been in equilibrium ??
Not so, it has been forever changing, hot and cold, and proven in all sorts of earth records.
Global dimming is reducing.
Again not so. It is actually accelerating.
Again, I'd say from what was put in front of me, that this is all due to the earth's orbit being the closest to the sun for thousands of years. And as it moves away, the whole lot will cool down. Shame I won't be around for the few thousand years it will take top see it happens!
Cheers,
Syd.
NS Dev - 16/4/08 at 07:34 PMquote:
Originally posted by smart51
It's hardly from an unbiased source though, is it? - The US Government.
The matter is essenitally unproven and unprovable.
350 years of Central England Temperature records show that the Earth is warming at an accelerating rate. 8 of the 10 hotest years on record are in the last 10 years, 9 of them in the last 50. The world is heating up and sea levels are rising. The link with CO2 is unproven but either way, I'm glad I don't live near the sea.
heh heh this whole argument make me so amused
when will the human race wake up and smell the roses that it is a small insignificant speck that has bugger all effect on anything.
350 years records..........why even bother looking at them???
that is such a small speck in time of the earth's history its not even worth any consideration.
if you looked at the last 250,000 years records then at least you'd have something statistically valid, even though it would still not be worthy of any conclusions.
We are actually currently in a global COOLING phase if anybody would actually care to examine the facts.
What we should perhaps worry more about than our STUPID little political world is the fact that by the time we reach the coolest part of this cooling phase (which if you examine the geologocal evidence, is on a pretty regimented cycle) then, if there are humans left on the planet, they will most certainly NOT have much fossil fuel for a good few thousand years......by which time WE will probably we the next lot of fossil fuel.
WHY do we all look at the past 1000 years and the next 1000 years as if they are the ends of time, they are not, and we are insignificant little insects thinking the universe revolves around us!!
Rob Palin - 16/4/08 at 10:06 PMPlease, please, please, actually do some research before spouting stuff like that and presenting it as fact.
Look at the actual IPCC report and see that they've not just taken a snapshot of the last few hundred years but actually considered the last 10-15 ice ages or so.
There is also a vast abundance of evidence to show that human activity can have an effect on the Earth, especially on local weather systems, but now also on the planetary climate as a whole.
You laugh at the people taking this seriously but then you've evidently not taken the time to actually find out why. Take a look at what they've done and then criticise it, don't just assume you know better than them. To get you started, the official FAQ is here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
Benzine - 16/4/08 at 10:12 PMquote:
Originally posted by Rob Palin
To get you started, the official FAQ is here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
tl;dr
smart51 - 17/4/08 at 07:06 AMquote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
The world's climate has been in equilibrium ??
Not so, it has been forever changing, hot and cold, and proven in all sorts of earth records.
Over millions of years. I said several thousand years. The climate is always in an equilibrium between things going in and things going out. Changes shift that equlibrium but then it settles again for a while. For thousands of years, the earth has been in its current balance. The point is that it doesn't neet a change the size of all the world's volcanoes to shift the balance. A few hundred years of industry may well be enough.
Syd Bridge - 17/4/08 at 08:31 AMWere the many years of the 'Dark Ages' (early 1300's?) not directly attributed to the massive eruption of Krakatoa? And a couple of other volcanic events of the time.
That has got to be global pollution on a massive scale. People died in millions through starvation and disease, the earth recovered, as did mankind, and it will again. The form it will be in may be something completely different to what it is today, though.
Cheers,
Syd.
Simon - 17/4/08 at 07:51 PMListen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yACE9rYy84
ATB
Simon
NS Dev - 17/4/08 at 08:38 PMHaven't listened, and here's my OPINION!
I don't give a flying **** about global warming, simple as that.
If I could burn more hydrocarbon fuels without incurring cost then I would.
In a few thousand years, if it still exists, people will be educated on the whim of the do-gooder, and the huge and great good that it did on earth, and then how it made absolutely not one jot of bloody difference........
Stop fannying around trying to burn a touch less oil here and there.
Let's try and keep PROGRESSING as a human race.
Analysing what we HAVE doesn't do that, creating what we NEED does.
woodster - 17/4/08 at 09:50 PMcars don't cause global warming ............ rappers do
I'm sorry I'll get my coat
I'm double sorry for quoting Goldie lookin chain
JoelP - 18/4/08 at 06:28 PMi went to a GLC gig
