- This topic has 30 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Very interesting snippet I picked up…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A8yjGc8qWk
This on top of two bulletins I caught on Radio 4 probing the validity of the whole Global Warming debate. Although, it’s not really a debate as you’re not allowed to speak out against it existing… apparently.
K.
Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!!!!! er no hang on a moment that might cause global warming ๐
You cynical lot.
Ask the people who inhabit the islands of the South Pacific what they think of global warming and you will hear a very different response.
Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
Not cynical, pragmatic.
The Met Office can’t tell me, reliably, what the weather will be like next week with any greater than a 50{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} chance of being correct. This uses computer modelling of the local climate on a small scale over a small geographic area with lots of data and history on local weather patterns.
They then tell me that, in 50 years time, it will be up to 2รลกC warmer due to carbon emissions pumping Co2 into the atmosphere. This based on computer models on a global climate on a massive scale over a large geographic area with no data on weather patterns that far into the future, they seem to ignore the historic stuff for this.
Meanwhile there is loads of evidence to say that we’ve had warmer periods in the past and are, in fact, just coming out the Little Ice Age.
I’m sorry but, for me, the science just doesn’t stack up and the evidence is, at best, sketchy.
I’m not saying it’s an excuse for waste or needless and senseless use of resources because, it’s not. I’m just saying that, IMO, the argument is flawed, very flawed.
Plus, it’s the boy that cried wolf. If the same groups of climatologists (some same scientists!) were to be believed in the 70’s we should be under about six foot of ice by now! They were wrong.
If I were cynical, I’d say that politicians were using the “evidence” to support so-called “green” taxation but I didn’t say that, I just implied it. ๐
If I were cynical, I’d say the oil and energy companies were being done a huge favour here by the prices being pushed up due to fear of melting the planet or whatever. I didn’t say that. ๐
Damn Al Gore and his hockey stick. ๐
K.
Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
kwatt wrote:
The Met Office can’t tell me, reliably, what the weather will be like next week with any greater than a 50{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} chance of being correct. This uses computer modelling of the local climate on a small scale over a small geographic area with lots of data and history on local weather patterns.
They then tell me that, in 50 years time, it will be up to 2รลกC warmer due to carbon emissions pumping Co2 into the atmosphere. This based on computer models on a global climate on a massive scale over a large geographic area with no data on weather patterns that far into the future, they seem to ignore the historic stuff for this.
K.
You can’t tell me with any degree of certainty what will go wrong next with my washer.But you’re pretty sure that in the long term I’ll be better off with an ISE.
You’re an appliance expert and you expect people to listen to you on the things you know about. When they don’t listen and carry on buying crap, all you can do is shrug your shoulders.
If you choose not to listen to experts in climate science offering you the results of the best science they can do in an extremely complex field, then all they will do is shrug their shoulders and go on investigating.
Like the punter who buys the cheap washer because it saves him money now, you buy the climate change scepticism so you can carry on business as usual.
(No offence intended).
Mike.Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
No offence taken.
I’m not a climate expert by any stretch but what annoys me is that there is no debate at all on the subject, just uniformity asking for compliance. Or, forcing compliance.
It is, as I have said all too often, a new religion. You’re either a follower or an outcast, criticism is unacceptable. That isn’t right.
Ignoring facts on either side of the argument for or against, isn’t right.
I can predict exactly, to a couple thousand cycles, how long an ISE10 will last with a good degree of accuracy given enough information but, it is an estimate. This is true.
I can tell you, with enough information, how long any other machine will last as well, also true.
What I can’t tell you is, if someone changes the variables on how it is used, if the environment in which it is kept alters or what sort of treatment it gets, how long it will last. If the rules are changed part ways through the game, the results are unpredictable. That is a pragmatic and scientific view.
I do choose to listen to experts in the field but, from both sides of the debate that isn’t happening. Gut instinct and hard facts tell me there’s a lot that isn’t being made as available as perhaps it might.
But Mike, since I know you’ve got a green tinge, you have to understand that I’m not for or against, I just want the truth. And, as ever, I suspect it lies somewhere in the middle.
That said, I’m dead set against needless waste that doesn’t have to be. Isn’t that the point or is it a crusade?
K.
Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
kwatt wrote:
1 I’m not for or against, I just want the truth. And, as ever, I suspect it lies somewhere in the middleThat said, I’m dead set against needless waste that doesn’t have to be.
2.Isn’t that the point or is it a crusade?
K.
1 That’s about where I fit too, believe it or not. I don’t think there’s much doubt that we’re ruining the future for our own and many other species. (Rats and cockroaches will probably come out of it pretty well though.) The real problem is: What are the best ways to delay that ruin?
For example: Do we get on with building nuclear power stations now, or wait in the hope of cracking fusion? Or concentrate on energy efficiency?
2 Is what a crusade?
Mike.Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
1. We are all breathing in air with 40{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} higher co2 compared with pre- industrial revolution levels, that is easily measurable by taking ice core samples.
2. co2 is a gas which acts as an insulator.
Does that automatically mean we can expect a rise in temp when we’re talking about a complex system like our planet..? i dunno ๐
I do think its in all our interests to take the destinct possibility very seriously mind you.It has become a new religion though, very polarized debate , people tend to believe whatever suits their own agenda.
The way i look at it is, even if it turns out to be bollox, with almost 7 Billion people on this planet (& rising fast :rolls: ) its in all our interests to minimize our impact regarding energy use.Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
…..and plant more trees. Especially in the equitorial regions of our planet.
Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
I do think most tree planting to sequester carbon is a bit less than useful.
The most it seems able to achieve is to salve a few consciences, and make a good living for some shareholders and directors of carbon offset companies.
There’ve been one or two science programmes on radio 4 visiting experimenters in South America and in Germany. (IIRC.) The jury is still out as to whether the trees store more carbon during their lifetimes than they give off during and after they die. Even whilst they are growing fast they may be storing no more carbon than grass would in the same land space. When they die and rot down, most of the stored carbon will be returned to the atmosphere. Also a new plantation with species composition chosen by humans is not anything like as biodiverse as a forest growing off it’s own bat.
Preventing the over exploitation of already existing forests is another matter entirely and that I would support wholeheartedly.
Mike.Re: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
yup, preserving the existing equitorial forests should be our main goal, yet everything we do in the west seems to work against that ๐ How many of us have hardwood garden furniture sitting in our garage.. do we REALLY know it has come from a sustainable source? Theres so much corruption / poverty in a lot of the countries these hardwoods are sourced i dont believe a word of it.Just stick a ‘planet friendly’ label on any old lump of Mahogany & Bobs yer uncle :rolls:
We cant even eat a bloody Biscuit with a clear conscience cos the greedy manufacturers choose to maximize profits by using palm oil ๐
I dunno, its all too depressing.. think i’ll go out & buy a V8 Range Rover, book 5 foreign holidays for next year & turn the central heating to MAXXX!! ๐ฏRe: Global Warming – Scam Says EU President
The earth spins round and round on its axis, the sun shines and the air circulation flows from the equator over and through the high density forests. The air lifts and circulates both north and south is cooled toward the cooler latitudes, condenses in an endless cycle. Round and round the earth spins again and again, good clean air to breath, water to grow our crops, round and round we go.
In the forests the trees rot and decay and become a new soil level, soil on soil. The subsoil is compressed and a chemical reaction to that compression creates oil and gas pockets of great magnitude and quantity. We tap those natural resources and fuel our homes and cars. Make plastic tray tables from it and toys for our kids, computer keyboards and sealed washing machine tubs.
We chop down the hardwood forests for barbecue tables and designer dashboards. Meanwhile the earth still spins round and round……………
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.