Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
oh I was enjoying that....
Can’t believe that post was deleted, sigh
It’s been ages since we had a decent topic to discuss and now he's deleted it, I was just about to go on about global warming......the myth
[Edited on 4/2/08 by Mr Whippy]
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
|
|
stuart_g
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
I was just about to go on about global worming......the myth
Are these mutant worms by any chance
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
I was just about to go on about global worming......the myth
Now that's a topic I'd rather not discuss! Ewww!
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
Can’t believe that post was deleted, sigh
It’s been ages since we had a decent topic to discuss and now he's deleted it, I was just about to go on about global worming......the
myth
Is this something to do with the Green Peace fanatic campaigning against driving 4x4s off road as they kill worms?
^^^^^ you lot are fast .... or not got much work to do!!?!! 
[Edited on 4/2/08 by 02GF74]
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 12:11 PM |
|
|
oops didn't notice that, I have this window shrunk to 50% so I can hide it so it's a little hard to read.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
Ok, i believe some 4x4 are very economical - when you consider the total cost of the vehicals life from mining the ore to finally scrapping it. The
issue is i can't remember where i found the proof (the example is 2/3 to 3/4 of a vehicles emissions are from its construction, if you keep a
landy for 20 years instead of the average 10 to 12 for a car now its got a smaller footprint (from raw materials, C02 etc etc).
If you really don't believe CLIMATE CHANGE (global warming is a term that is abused, climate change is much more accurate). Go to the new
scientist and start reading. Once you've finished if you honestly don't believe we're experiencing climate change i'll happily
shake your hand. I completely disagree with your views but you'll have made your mind up having some of the facts instead of the mass media
hocus pocus.
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 01:34 PM |
|
|
Manmade climate change is like the four-headed, man-eating haddock fish-beast of Aberdeen... it doesn't exist.
New Scientist is my kind of mag - soft, strong and thoroughly absorbant. Right up my alley!
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 01:50 PM |
|
|
i have always found it amusing that the climate change models that have been produced by scientists generally don't include the sun as an input.
Mostly because if they did the man made effects would be negligible.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 01:59 PM |
|
|
Climate change and global warming are not the same thing. Climate change is the observation that the climate has been changing recently. It started
gently, speeded up a bit in the 50s or 60s. A bit more in the 80s and then a lot in the mid 90s. There is plenty of evidence that the climate is
changing.
Global warming, on the other hand, is a hypothisis that explains why global warming is happening. It may be that global warming is not the reason /
the only reason / even part of the reason why the climate is changing, but changing it is.
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 02:06 PM |
|
|
in the age of the dinasours it was alot hotter than this, life did quite well then.
by the way polar bears do not live on the ice caps, they live in Alaska and the top of Russia. They hiberate in dug out snow holes in the side of
mountains. If i see another one of those stupid ad's with a polar bear falling in the water off a melting bit of ice I scream.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 02:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
in the age of the dinasours it was alot hotter than this, life did quite well then.
Life, yes. Human life will survive climate change, just not all of it. I'm glad I live on the top of a hill a long way from the coast.
If you live in a costal village, or Bangladesh, or New Orleans, you might not be quite so optimistic.
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 06:10 PM |
|
|
Whether you believe it or not, there is rarely an event where the vast majority of the worlds scientists are all in agreement as they are now.
Admittedly, there are some who still campaign that it is all bollox - however, surely it is worthwhile being slightly cautious on this? No one can
argue it a good idea to be polluting/abusing our natural resources quite as we have been. It won't be us that pays for it, it will be our
children. I for one don't want to have to explain to my grand kids why we all sat around saying its bollox for 30 years.
Take the right actions now, and we can slowly begin to change the way we live and work for the better. Ignore it all and I'm sure we will all be
sorry. (By the way, if anyone does have doubts, give me your email address and I'll get the Mrs to post you some rather compelling evidence to
the contrary - she does this for a living, so better to argue with someone who actually knows the facts.)
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 06:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
however, surely it is worthwhile being slightly cautious on this?
sounds a bit like pascal's wager to me which is a steaming pile of horse manure
|
|
|
jono_misfit
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 06:27 PM |
|
|
Kill all the cows, sheep, pigs and other food animals and everyone become vegitarian. Livestock outputs is hugelly poluting, but they are damb
tasty.
I give it 30 to 50 years before our use of hydrocarbons as a fuel source stops. Our dependence on the other products derived from them has priority
for society.
With the reserves left and any new reserves increasingly difficult to extract it cant remain an ecconomic proposition to continue.
Beyond this point it'll be a different fuel stock, of which ethanol seems to be popular (rightly or wrongly) which is alegedly a carbon neutral
or low net emmission product.
Does anyone have a link to a climate change model that factors this in?
I try to minimise my energy consumption, not from any sense of trying to save the plannet, mainly just to save me money to spend on my cars.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 07:21 PM |
|
|
If you're talking about vehicle pollution then cutting our use of oil and gas has got to be a good thing.... if for no other reason than look
who's getting the money from it all....
...the middle east and Russia!!!
We send Billions of dollars to these god-awful countries that are run by despots and psychopaths.
Oil price is now such that Russia now has enough money that it's re-started it's bomber incursion flights over NATO countries.
As for the middle-east.... most of our current foreign policy issues can in some way be traced back to how we (and the US) have acted due to
garanteeing oil resources.
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 07:53 PM |
|
|
trogdor - you are talking shite I am afraid. Virtually every climate change model includes the sun as a factor. They looked extensively as the effect
of sun spots and solar flares, as well as other natural variation (volcanos, Milankovitch
cycles etc), but these are not sufficient to explain the change in climate we have experienced.
Benzine - yes it does sound like Pascal's wager, but he did have a point!
Jono - killing all livestock is an idea, but it doesn't work. Our country looks like it does (green and pleasant land) because of years of
farming/grazing. As such, it would change dramatically if we just stopped rearing animlas for meat. Furthermore, how do you expect to fertilize crops
without muck to spread?
If any of you want to read what the Met office have produced, then look at this
link. These scenarios are due to be updated again this year, using even more collected data. The results will again show we are having an impact.
Scary fact for you - eight of the warmest years on record around the world have taken place in the last decade...
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 08:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
Benzine - yes it does sound like Pascal's wager, but he did have a point!
It was a naff point. "it's better the believe in god and be wrong that to not believe in god and be wrong"
In that case it's better to believe in zeus, rah, apollo, thor, odin, krishna, Mercury, Poseidon etc etc you know, just in case.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
Climate change has been happening since the day the earth was born. That is indisputable.
There is also evidence to suggest that the temperature of the earth has peaked and we may well face a small ice age in the not too distant future
(~2060 according to one russian scientist) which is due going on previous temperature cycles.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14022
http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html
|
|
|
jono_misfit
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 08:09 PM |
|
|
twybrow - My post was written in a sarcastic tone, it might not have come over that way to some.
I am aware that killing all the animals isnt a viable solution (nore one i am advocating). They are however a considerable man made contribution to
"climate change" due to their hydrocarbon emissions (i think about 9million tons per year in uk for cows alone). From what ive read
hydrocarbon emission have a considerably greater impact on the environment than CO2.
The shear quantity that exist are there to sate our protein appetite (which on average is far above our dietary requirements). If we didn't
demand to have such a large quantity of meat there would be less animals and less pollutants.
Didn't England's "green and pleasant land" partly occur due to additional woodland clearances to provide grazing land for
sheep (more for wool than meat i think)? Without animals grazing on it within a few centuries / millenia it'd revert to its natural wooded
state. Else wise we could ease the housing problems by building on all the arrible land no longer required (joke).
A lot of crop fertilisation is with petrochemical derived fertilisers, not animal waste. Yes some is done with animal waste but im pretty certain
agribusiness usually demands more from the ground than nutrients in waste can give.
[Edited on 4/2/08 by jono_misfit]
[Edited on 4/2/08 by jono_misfit]
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
Agreed, most ferts are petrochemical based, but if we were killing off all stock, I had assumed we would probably not be using oil quite like we do
now either!
Sheep were for wool, but I would bet money they still ate them too! Thrifty bunch those ancient Britons!
I did see it was tongue in cheek, but I thought it warranted an actual answer (as some might think it was a viable solution)! I also agree we do not
need the protein levels we consume, or indeed need to get it only from meat (but we are men and we like BBQ's!).
Yes, places like Dartmoor only look like they do becuase of sheep grazing. Dartmoor is supposed to be covered in minature trees!
The principal of Pascal's wager is valid (if you substitute God for something else! I just think we should be cautious when faced with such
overwhelming evidence (not something Pascal had to hand).
[Edited on 4/2/08 by twybrow]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
cows are carbon neutral, since they only process grass which came from CO2 anyway. The fact that they produce lots of methane is valid, but you could
always cram something up their backdoor to catch it and either store or burn it off.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 4/2/08 at 10:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
cows are carbon neutral, since they only process grass which came from CO2 anyway. The fact that they produce lots of methane is valid, but you could
always cram something up their backdoor to catch it and either store or burn it off.
Bovine methane comes mainly from the mouth. You need to fit them with some kind of space mask, but then how would they eat?
|
|
|
