The Global Warming Megathread

[discodown]

Do you deny that you were arguing that we shouldn’t discover which if any human activities are causing global warming and seek to reduce and/or end them?

Yes I deny it because i didn't explain myself properly.

Yet despite your lack of knowledge on the subject you still consider yourself to be in a position to say that we shouldn’t try to find the causes of global warming and seek to reduce and/or end them.

No

Considering how you’ve behaved in this and the previous thread on global warming a certain phrase concerning pots & kettles springs to mind.

So essentially you don't like it when your own tactics are used against you?

On what grounds do you doubt it?

I doubt it on the grounds that the planet throughout its history has warmed and cooled. The worst that human activity has done is alter that cycle.

So basically you are posing a false dilemma.

 

Why do you assume that we have a choice of trying to reduce human activities or dealing with the problems that global warming causes? Does the possibility of doing both escape you?

No as i've explained

If burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming (and it’s almost certain that it does) then wouldn’t it be sensible to try and move to alternate energy sources whilst improving our flood management and so forth?

Absolutely. thats what i'm saying. Lets find the problem and fix it. Not faff around deciding who did what and why and how to punish them.

 

I'm bored of constantly arguing with you because I can't seem to explain myself properly (which is my fault not yours). If you care what I think ask me one question at a time and i'll answer it. That would seem to be the way forward. If not then fair enough.

[Phanerothyme]

one power station could supply the full domestic market for electrical energy if we had safe, cheap, small, simple and 95% efficient electrical power storage. That would also make a lot of difference to the impact of domestic power generation from secondary sources (solar, thermal, kinetic etc.)

 

Larger electric vehicles would be more viable and cheaper without the large matrices of lead-acid deep cycle batteries on board

[discodown]

How long would it take to power the country without fossil fuels if we genuinely made the effort and started doing today? If anybody can can tell me Phan can!

[Grandad.Malky]

How long would it take to power the country without fossil fuels if we genuinely made the effort and started doing today? If anybody can can tell me Phan can!

 

I bet he can !

 

[LordChaverly]

Jeremy Clarkson recently proved conclusively that global warming is a load of ****te, by driving to the North Pole in a Toyota Hilux. What more proof could anyone need?

[Dick]

.

This "fear of loosing research budgets" is BS, please show some evidence for that.

Referring back to post 212 by Downtroad

Sorry it's taken a while to reply to this one, but in yesterdays Times, Sat Nov 10, page 22, Letters to the editor, under the heading "Great global warming switch off" a letter from Dr Milton Wainwright, University of Sheffield.

He says "We know that many scientists nowadays hype their work to get government funding, often to the extent of forming "hype cooperatives" which effectively exclude any counter-discussion. This has led many scientists to uncritically accept man-made global warming and to desperatily find tenuous links between their work and climate change, simply to increase their chaances of funding"

[BasilRathbon]

Did anyone see The Spectator magazine last week? The front page story is that Ian Plimer, an eminent geologist, has stuck his head above the parapet and proved that the whole global warming myth is indeed a con, just as most of us suspected.If you have an open mind and a few minutes spare, read the interview on the link here;

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

[DaFoot]

Interesting find Basil, might have to track down a copy (Of course that is half the point of him giving the interview but hey-ho ).

 

Maybe he has the answer with his '5 years of research' put into the book, maybe the ?? years put in by many more people has the answer.

 

For now, I'm sticking to the 'better safe than sorry' approach. If the man-made climate change if wrong, I've still saved on power bills and stopped stuff going to landfill.

 

If man-made climate change is real and that theory is correct then I've done more than just save myself a few quid/reduce size of future landfill sites.

[Paul2412]

Having not read all 29 pages, I'll no doubt duplicate what other people have said. But here's my thoughts...

 

For as long as has ever been recorded, the earth's temperature have never been stable (ice age anyone?). It always rises and falls, and there is nothing that anything living on the planet can do about it. Didn't the dinosaurs become extinct because of global temperature changes? As far as I remember, there wasn't a local businessman driving around in a BMW 7 series at that time.

 

The encouragement to save energy is only fuelled by one thing, the fact that fossil fuels are drying up. If we have to rely on unstable countries in the Middle East for all of our fuel then the USA and Western Europe will be screwed. It has nothing to do with the earth warming, the earth will warm regardless of whether I leave my sky box on overnight or not.

 

Global warming is now responsible for thousands (possible tens of thousands) of jobs worldwide. To say it is nothing to do with us, and that we should carry on as normal will probably be the nail in the coffin for the worlds economy. Add to that the companies who sell energy efficient electricity and other items, you'd have a catastrophe.

 

To think that humans can someone control what has been happening for millions of years is pure fantasy. If we directly affect the environment, why during the industrial revolution did temperatures actually reduce? Global temperature changes have caused havoc with species in the past, and if it means that in 100 years time London will be beneath the waves then that's what's going to happen whether I buy an electric car or not.

 

Another thought, we keep getting told that CO2 is bad, but don't plants and trees require CO2 to survive? If CO2 is reduced, surely there would be less for the trees and so they wouldn't produce as much oxygen? If cars are the ugly polluting things they are made out to be, why doesn't all the flowers that are planted at the side of the road instantly shrivel and die?

Edited July 22, 2009 by Paul2412

[DaFoot]

To think that humans can someone control what has been happening for millions of years is pure fantasy.

To dismiss it that easily is a mistake IMO.

 

We can cause massive changes to the way things work. We wipe out huge swathes of Jungle everyday. Cause species extinction without thinking about it.

 

We may not be causing climate change, we may be speeding it up. I don't know, but to dismiss it purely on the basis that 'the environment' is so big as to absorb our impact seems foolish.

 

Your analogy with the BMW + dinosaurs pretty much ruins the credibility for the rest of the argument I'm afraid.