smart51
|
| posted on 13/4/08 at 01:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 13/4/08 at 01:31 PM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 13/4/08 at 02:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 13/4/08 at 02:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 13/4/08 at 09:08 PM |
|
|
I 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
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 13/4/08 at 11:46 PM |
|
|
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.
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
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 02:33 AM |
|
|
If 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
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 07:44 AM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 09:00 AM |
|
|
As 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
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 09:57 AM |
|
|
I'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 
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 10:42 AM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
I 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
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 04:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
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. But then, have you read every paper on the issue?
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
|
| posted on 14/4/08 at 10:51 PM |
|
|
Yes 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 15/4/08 at 10:12 AM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 15/4/08 at 10:19 AM |
|
|
You 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
|
| posted on 15/4/08 at 11:03 AM |
|
|
My 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
|
| posted on 16/4/08 at 09:57 AM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 16/4/08 at 07:10 PM |
|
|
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.
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
|
| posted on 16/4/08 at 07:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
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!!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 16/4/08 at 10:06 PM |
|
|
Please, 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
|
| posted on 16/4/08 at 10:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Palin
To get you started, the official FAQ is here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
tl;dr
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 17/4/08 at 07:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 17/4/08 at 08:31 AM |
|
|
Were 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.
|
|
|
