MikeR
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
Found it ....
26 myths about climate change ....
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
covers things like does co2 affect the climate, mans co2 emissions are too tiny to matter.
folks, have a read then come back and discuss. I'm not going to claim everything in here is gospel, but its written by people far more qualified
than I (and probably you).
edited to add - just realised its what i originally posted. Ooops.
So Flak monkey how does your "our co2 emissions are too tiny" view stand having read the article posted above? Do you have something I can
read to counter the argument?
(thats not supposed to sound as aggressive as i think it might - i'm very interested in this topic and like to hear anything that's got
some evidence behind it, esp as by the time i finish my car i'll probably need to power it via hydrogen and include air con)
[Edited on 2/4/09 by MikeR]
|
|
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 12:14 PM |
|
|
The emissions from the Alberta Tar Sands oil recovery projects are a very small percentage of Canada's total pollution too, but if you go there
and take a look, as my brother in law does every day because he works there, you will see a vast wasteland of pollution. No other word for it. Dead
birds etc. They are improving their environmental impact, but the oil is worth it to them, so they continue.
The Americans like to say how awful it is, but they intend to use that argument to pay for more extraction in Alaska. Have you seen the impact from
the Exxon Valdez accident?
One planet, more and more and more people. NOT a good thing
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 12:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Found it ....
26 myths about climate change ....
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
covers things like does co2 affect the climate, mans co2 emissions are too tiny to matter.
folks, have a read then come back and discuss. I'm not going to claim everything in here is gospel, but its written by people far more qualified
than I (and probably you).
edited to add - just realised its what i originally posted. Ooops.
So Flak monkey how does your "our co2 emissions are too tiny" view stand having read the article posted above? Do you have something I can
read to counter the argument?
(thats not supposed to sound as aggressive as i think it might - i'm very interested in this topic and like to hear anything that's got
some evidence behind it, esp as by the time i finish my car i'll probably need to power it via hydrogen and include air con)
[Edited on 2/4/09 by MikeR]
Great link to the New Scientist, and he's my favourite quotes so far:
In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
And more:
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by
"many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's
new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate
change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
[Edited on 2/4/09 by Jasper]
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
Try having a read of this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?z1onotynt3j
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 03:34 PM |
|
|
for everybody in this forum who is basing their opinions on non peer reviewed science (thats aimed at both sides) you might be interested in
HERE for your holidays. 
Craig
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 03:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
Try having a read of this:
http://www.mediafire.com/?z1onotynt3j
Had a quick look, it's from 2 years ago, and clearly some of it is already out of date..... I'll have more of a look later 
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 03:44 PM |
|
|
I think this thread neatly sums up the situation quite nicely.
Those who believe in global warming not only exclude the possibility that they could be wrong, deny the fact that there is no consensus, and use the
bastard principal of quietening those who'd rather find out the truth before acting.
I could be wrong, I'm not sanctimonious enough to use moral majority politics to shout down all other possibilities.
Just because you subscribe to every "new man" sandle wearing, treehugging theory in an effort to be liked it don't, neccesarilly,
make it right.
Look into the facts and don't come down on the trendy side for the sake of it - ask questions, it's how we move on.
And that's me done - go in peace
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!
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
Those who believe in global warming not only exclude the possibility that they could be wrong, deny the fact that there is no consensus, and use the
bastard principal of quietening those who'd rather find out the truth before acting.Chris
As a human geneticist, evolutionist and atheist I've had this statement presented to me a number of times in kinder and nastier ways.
I'm afraid its not true. There is no conspiracy, scientists get no benefit from increased taxation and they certainly make no attempt to quiet
others.
If the royal society was presented with equally thoroughly researched counter evidence their position would be neutral or, in fact, completely
reversed.
[Edited on 2/4/09 by cd.thomson]
Craig
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 05:25 PM |
|
|
Global warming has been going on for approximately 7000 years, this does coincide with the manufacture of the first Pinto 2.0.
Point proven
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
ROLF!!!!
Nice one mark.
I started out as a non believer. I started to read up, i now believe. I'm reading flak's links now cause I want to understand all view
points just in case everyone I believe so far is wrong.
(heck, lots of people believes the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the planet. Eventually this was disproved - maybe global warming
isn't happening.....)
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 06:37 PM |
|
|
i do love how fanatical people get on both sides. If its 50:50, that means half the worlds population is delusional, whoever is right.
Seems AMPLE evidence for me to accept that human actions is causing more CO2 to end up in the atmosphere. Cant deny that really, though id love
someone to pipe up if they do think we arent freeing up carbon stores.
And it seems entirely possible that causing an atmospheric gas to end up at 25% higher concentrations than the normal range for the last million
years, can cause some major knock on effects.
If i could go one step further, i think its naive madness to think that 6 BILLION people wont affect their environment.
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
I think this thread neatly sums up the situation quite nicely.
Those who believe in global warming not only exclude the possibility that they could be wrong, deny the fact that there is no consensus, and use the
bastard principal of quietening those who'd rather find out the truth before acting.
I could be wrong, I'm not sanctimonious enough to use moral majority politics to shout down all other possibilities.
Just because you subscribe to every "new man" sandle wearing, treehugging theory in an effort to be liked it don't, neccesarilly,
make it right.
Look into the facts and don't come down on the trendy side for the sake of it - ask questions, it's how we move on.
And that's me done - go in peace
Chris
Although not specfically aimed in my direction, as one of the people who finds the evidence for Climate Change quite convincing, I actually find this
to be quite an insulting generalisation.
I'm a Chartered Scientist and fully support and apply the fundamental principle of hypothesis and evidence. At no point would I ever advocate
someone *not* doing further research into a subject where they find some of the derived conclusions to be questionable; that's how science works
and how it progresses.
In truth, to get a unified concensus on the specific formulation of a physical model for a system as complex as the environment of an inhabited planet
is unrealistic, even on a theoretical level. It's fundamentally different to proving f=ma, or similar. To therefore imply that total consensus
is required for something to be believable is a manifestation of a misunderstanding of the scientific method as it is applied to complex systems.
Far from shouting people down, there are plenty of examples in this discussion of people linking to further information. Regardless of which side of
the discussion people currently find themselves on, I'd absolutely advocate that everyone go and read as many of the available sources as
possible and consider the believability of the methodology and findings of each one.
It's easy enough to Google Climate Change and find plenty of extreme viewpoints on either side but, ultimately, it's obvious that the
extreme viewpoints are what tend to get more air-time and column inches.
If, however, you go direct to the more established and specialised research institutions like Oxford / Cambridge / Harvard universities or the Met
Office, or many others (over 10,000 dedicated research entities are listed as contributors to the IPCC report), you'll find that a more
realistic level of consensus does already exist.
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 07:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by gazza285
No matter what we do, life on Earth will continue, either with us or without us. The human herd could do with a bit of thinning out anyway.
An entirely acceptable position. The Earth will continue. Life with climate change will be more difficult for many, perhaps better for some. It is
a respectable political standpoint that we do nothing and bear the consequences. Brave, even, if you're prepared to be one of the victims.
Live near the sea do you? Want to move inland a bit?
I live on a hill, in the Pennines. Should be good for the old property vales!
DO NOT PUT ON KNOB OR BOLLOCKS!
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 2/4/09 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
Have you ever been to Banff and Jasper National Parks in Alberta? See how small the glaciers are compared to what they used to be?
I don't know how big they used to be, but then again I don't know how big the one that used to be outside my front door was either, the
bloody thing melted 15,000 years ago. I blame farting mastadons, and I'm sure that they got what they deserved, just like we will.
DO NOT PUT ON KNOB OR BOLLOCKS!
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 3/4/09 at 01:10 AM |
|
|
I think actually the latest research indicates burping mastadons rather than farting ones contributed to the problem. Not to say farting is a good
thing or anything, unless you are the one doing it.
|
|
|
