skinned knuckles
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 04:40 PM |
|
|
was the climate stable for the millions of years before the arrival of homosapien folk?
I was led to believe we have had a few ice ages and thaws inbetween. is it a bit far fetched to picture a pteranadon or stegosaurus sat at the
controll desk of a coal fired power station or petrol refinary?
climate change is a natural event and has been going on since long before we arrived and i'm fairly sure will continue long after we are gone.
but until we are gone, we will do what we need to to adapt. we are the most intelegent species to set foot on earth and we have thrived.
I would also question the sea level rise claims. when i have a drink with ice in it and the ice melts, the contents have never spilled over the sides
of my glass. why should our oceans be significantly different?
alternatives will be found for the internal combustion engine when the oil runs out. nuclear power stations will become more popular and the wind
turbines that are popping up around our coast will become a more common site, giving rise to an increase to our depleating fish stocks by providing a
"nursery" area for vulnerable young fish that the trawlers cannot get to.
in short, we will be fine for generations to come. humans can adapt and overcome most problems.
A man isn't complete until he's married, then he's finished
|
|
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 04:49 PM |
|
|
My god, there are SO many things wrong with this argument I don't even know where to start....
Anybody else want a go???? I'm off home now .....
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 04:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skinned knuckles
I would also question the sea level rise claims. when i have a drink with ice in it and the ice melts, the contents have never spilled over the sides
of my glass. why should our oceans be significantly different?
only floating ice will have no affect, so part of the north polar cap can be ignored. Southern cap is mostly on land, plus a touch extra from non
polar glaciers. This will all run into the sea and drown you. 
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
boggle
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 04:57 PM |
|
|
my theory..its the planets natural warming and cooling cycle...
i remember worse weather back in 87 i think....
maybe its all the hot air coming from the poloticians?
just because you are a character, doesnt mean you have character....
for all your bespoke parts, ali welding, waterjet, laser, folding, turning, milling, composite work, spraying, anodising and cad drawing....
u2u me for details
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
scootz
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 04:59 PM |
|
|
So a quick resume of our findings thus far:
Yes - climate change is a natural thing for the Earth.
Yes - modern lifestyle is probably quickening the process.
Yes - seals murder fish.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 04:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skinned knuckles
was the climate stable for the millions of years before the arrival of homosapien folk?
I was led to believe we have had a few ice ages and thaws inbetween. is it a bit far fetched to picture a pteranadon or stegosaurus sat at the
controll desk of a coal fired power station or petrol refinary?
climate change is a natural event and has been going on since long before we arrived and i'm fairly sure will continue long after we are gone.
but until we are gone, we will do what we need to to adapt. we are the most intelegent species to set foot on earth and we have thrived.
I would also question the sea level rise claims. when i have a drink with ice in it and the ice melts, the contents have never spilled over the sides
of my glass. why should our oceans be significantly different?
alternatives will be found for the internal combustion engine when the oil runs out. nuclear power stations will become more popular and the wind
turbines that are popping up around our coast will become a more common site, giving rise to an increase to our depleating fish stocks by providing a
"nursery" area for vulnerable young fish that the trawlers cannot get to.
in short, we will be fine for generations to come. humans can adapt and overcome most problems.
Jasper - go right ahead. I was about to highlight some of the problems, but I thought why bother when he clearly hasn't read anything that was
said before.... Sorry if that is not the case, but I am just calling it like I see it.
Skinned knuckles - a few things for you to think about:
1. Does all of the worlds ice float?
2. Nuclear power isn't renewable. Ultimately, it is not a solution.
3. Wind turbines are made from carbon, glass and resin (typically epoxy). These materials need considerable energy, and in some cases, oil itself to
manufacture
4. Humans can adapt - but by the time enough people agree, adaptation might not be an option
5. Climate change is a natural occurence, but the rate and severity of the changes does not have to be - no one is claiming the climate doesn't
change, it is what is causing it and what the effects could be that are being debated.
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 05:33 PM |
|
|
There are significant number of zealots on either side of this 'debate' with the scientific community passing off computer predictions as
scientific fact....which it isn't. This is the greatest job creation scheme in the history of the world.
Regardless of if I believe in 'Climate Change' or not (and, for the record. I don't, I believe it will be consigned to the same
historical rubbish bin as Eugenics) there is an overriding issue which we will all have to face up to in the end.....
There are too many people...and we are increasing the population globally to an increasing rate. Because of our scientific advances we are able to
stop diseases like Smallpox and reduce infant mortality rates. We are all living longer...but we are still producing children at the old, disease
riddled, rates. This increased population needs more energy & other natural resources (water and food). Unless we reduce the worlds growth in
population it doesn't matter a rat's arse what we do about "climate change" it will not make any difference.
The population of the UK was a stable (ish) 56-57 Million of most of the time since the 1960s until the late 1990s. We are now at 61Million and
climbing. The recent immigrants to this country have many more children per family than the average om the UK and we will see population rise to 70+
Million before long. Regardless of what we do on CO2 emmissions we are fighting a loosing battle. Be prepared for wars over basic natural resources
(Water, Food and various minerals) especially as the Oil runs out.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 05:46 PM |
|
|
And finally......
The only way for the human race to save this planet is for us all to......................
Get the heck off of it and colonise Space.
But then the politicians and scientists will say we are killing space, backed by some specialist advisor, they will then tax us to death again. Just
to justify there existence.
  
And in answer to the original question, this is just like I remember winters used to be. Nothing special.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 06:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
There are significant number of zealots on either side of this 'debate' with the scientific community passing off computer predictions as
scientific fact....which it isn't. This is the greatest job creation scheme in the history of the world.
This is the one that always makes me laugh, the argument that 'there's scientists on both side of the argument with equally valid facts
and figures'.
Sorry, but this really isn't true - the VAST majority of climatologists and other related scientists all agree that human actions over the last
100 years are having a very significant effect on the worlds climate.
Unfortunately, there is a significant number of people who won't believe these experts or don't want to believe them for their own
personal reasons (usually as it has a negative impact on the way they lead their lives or the lives of the people they govern).
Only hard proof will be enough for them, and by then it will be too late to do anything about it. It still does amaze me how many seemingly educated
people stick their heads in the sand on this one.
And yes, humans may well come up with ways of combating the worse effects, but it will be the people in the richer countries who will benefit from
this, and those in poorer countries - many of whom had very little impact on climate change in the first place, will be the ones to suffer - those
living in flood plains in Bangladesh, or in already arid regions of Africa.
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
There are significant number of zealots on either side of this 'debate' with the scientific community passing off computer predictions as
scientific fact....which it isn't. This is the greatest job creation scheme in the history of the world.
This is the one that always makes me laugh, the argument that 'there's scientists on both side of the argument with equally valid facts
and figures'.
Sorry, but this really isn't true - the VAST majority of climatologists and other related scientists all agree that human actions over the last
100 years are having a very significant effect on the worlds climate.
Unfortunately, there is a significant number of people who won't believe these experts or don't want to believe them for their own
personal reasons (usually as it has a negative impact on the way they lead their lives or the lives of the people they govern).
Only hard proof will be enough for them, and by then it will be too late to do anything about it. It still does amaze me how many seemingly educated
people stick their heads in the sand on this one.
And yes, humans may well come up with ways of combating the worse effects, but it will be the people in the richer countries who will benefit from
this, and those in poorer countries - many of whom had very little impact on climate change in the first place, will be the ones to suffer - those
living in flood plains in Bangladesh, or in already arid regions of Africa.
+1
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
oldtimer
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
The most effective tool against global warming has got to be the condom.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 22/12/09 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
There is a lot of divided opinion in the scientific community. Some like to say there isnt, but there really is. However those who are seen as being
against the idea are generally suppressed whilst those that are for it get all the air time.
I have a copy of an interesting report compiled by a group of scientists (several 1000 of them), well respected in their fields, giving their own
opinions as to whether or not global warming is affected by human activity or not. Its a very interesting read. I will try and find it (on my pc at
work) tomorrow and upload it.
In the mean time, this and the links in it are rather interesting reading too
http://www.climatecheck.org/Notes_on_climate_change.pdf
By no means a peer reviewed paper, but interesting nontheless.
One final thing:
Global temps on average have actually fallen since 2000. Not widely publicised, but there have been some rather interesting articles in my IET mags
about it giving both sides of the argument. Well presented and balanced.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
There is a lot of divided opinion in the scientific community. Some like to say there isnt, but there really is. However those who are seen as being
against the idea are generally suppressed whilst those that are for it get all the air time.
Not in the scientific community there isn't.... those that actualy do this professionally, rather than those who represent
comapnies/organisations with a vested interest in denying any change is occuring. If there were so many conflicting views, you should be able to
supply a fairly solid list of peer reviewed articles, that support your point. In your own words, you have one paper, which is not peer reviewed.
Furthermore, the comment that ony those who agree are given any attention is quite a statement. Seeing as nore than 95% of the world climate scentists
agree with the global warming theory, surely you expect the final 5% to be considerably less vocal. thinking purely on numbers, those who do not agree
will publish 1 paper for every 20 produced by those who agree on climate change. Hardly supression, just honest figures really....
I would be interested to read the article if you manage to dig it out. The pdf you have linked to also raises some interesting points - and I will try
to find the time to give it a good read.
One final point, you mention global temperatures falling... remember that 'weather' is defined as a 40 year average cycle, so looking at
just the last 10 years would give either side a distorted view. It is climate being considered, not weather.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
This is the file I was looking for:
http://kitcarservices.co.uk/Global%20Warming.pdf
400 scientists giving their views. I know its compiled by the US senate, but look past this into the info and it is quite interesting. There are also
links within it to their peer reviewed articles.
There are plenty of peer reviewed articles and papers available, but they dont get a lot of publicity. Like I said there have been some very
interesting articles giving a balanced view of both sides of the argument in the IET (Institute of Engineering and Technology - formerly IMechE and
IEE) magazines this year, the upshot was you could argue it either way. All written by climate experts well reviewed before being published by such an
organisation.
[Edited on 23/12/09 by flak monkey]
[Edited on 23/12/09 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 11:36 AM |
|
|
Here's a fun game:
All those adamant that man's actions will cause unprecedented changes (e.g. rising sea levels, adverse weather, failing crops, general chaos)
answer the following:
1. Do you have oil/gas/fossil fuel fired central heating still?
2. Do you own a massive TV?
3. Are you still eating meat?
4. Is a large percentage of your food eaten hot (instead of eating a largely raw diet to save energy on boiling/heating water/food)
5. Do you drive a petrol/diesel car or have more than one car?
6. Do you go on holiday?
7. Do you run a fridge/freezer over winter?
Obviously the answer to the above will be 'no' to all questions, as you'll be doing your bit as best you can. Otherwise it'd
be good old hypocrisy. Obviously you wouldn't be making a change, of say, just 10%, you'll be going all out.
"oh but I couldn't give all those things up! I need to go to work!" what's more important... a job or the potential
obliteration of humanity?
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 12:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
Here's a fun game:
All those adamant that man's actions will cause unprecedented changes (e.g. rising sea levels, adverse weather, failing crops, general chaos)
answer the following:
1. Do you have oil/gas/fossil fuel fired central heating still?
2. Do you own a massive TV?
3. Are you still eating meat?
4. Is a large percentage of your food eaten hot (instead of eating a largely raw diet to save energy on boiling/heating water/food)
5. Do you drive a petrol/diesel car or have more than one car?
6. Do you go on holiday?
7. Do you run a fridge/freezer over winter?
Obviously the answer to the above will be 'no' to all questions, as you'll be doing your bit as best you can. Otherwise it'd
be good old hypocrisy. Obviously you wouldn't be making a change, of say, just 10%, you'll be going all out.
"oh but I couldn't give all those things up! I need to go to work!" what's more important... a job or the potential
obliteration of humanity?
For the purpose of this discussion, that is nothing more than an inflammatory comment, posted only to provoke a reaction. Many of thos epoints are
valid whether you beleive in global warming or not - the fact is fossil fuel are finite, and sooner rather than later, we will run out of oil.
The discssusion wasn't on our personal commitments to reducing our energy consumption. Lets face it, we are on a website here that specializes
in 'toy' cars, with no practical purpose other than fun.
Oh and Flak - looking past the 'Made in America' stamp is quite tricky, as this is from the same people that 'found' a link
between 9/11 and Iraq and was produced under the Bush administration, who refuted virtually all climate change science. Still an interesting read for
tonight!
[Edited on 23/12/09 by twybrow]
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 01:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
This is the file I was looking for:
http://kitcarservices.co.uk/Global%20Warming.pdf
400 scientists giving their views. I know its compiled by the US senate, but look past this into the info and it is quite interesting. There are also
links within it to their peer reviewed articles.
Flak - that pdf is a bit of a joke...! Have you seen the credentials of a lot of the 400? the so called expert 400 include: mining experts, nuclear
power consultants, economists, virology experts, public health experts, etc etc. Not exactly where I would go for a second opinion on climate
change/global warming.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 01:07 PM |
|
|
I think your mind was made up before you opened it to be honest. Of course its biased to those against the idea, but then most is biased to those for
the idea.
There also a lot of people cited who DO have a background in climatology and there are a lot of linked papers from it which make interesting
reading.
ETA I would say the vast majority of those sources actually do have some experience. Its certainly the minority that you pointed out.
[Edited on 23/12/09 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 01:23 PM |
|
|
So the US Senate, has searched the globe, for any credible sources who are willing to go on record as refuting the accepted thinking. And that list of
400 is the best that they could come up with? Don't get me wrong, it is interesting reading, so please forgive my rant, but this is just
crazy....
To understand why Inhofe's claims are fundamentally wrong, consider the following scenario: imagine a child is diagnosed with cancer. Who are
his parents going to take him to in order to determine the best course of treatment?
Most people would take the child to a specialist. Not just someone with a PhD in a technical subject, but an actual medical doctor. And not just any
medical doctor, but someone who was a specialist in cancer. And not just any specialist in cancer, but someone who was a specialist in pediatric
cancer. And, if possible, not just any pediatric oncologist, but someone who specialized in that particular type of cancer.
Expertise matters. Not everyone's opinion is equally valid (my own included!).
Do you honestly beleive that the US senate would choose to include such a random group of people if they had another way? Quite simply, there just
aren't that many people out there with expert knowledge in a relavent area, who disagree with the majority and who are prepared to put their
professional opinion in the public domaine.
And Flak - my mind was not and is still not made up, I am just calling it like I see it. There are some great points made in the report, but I am
simply questioning the validity of some of the sources. It is a report written with the sole intention of discrediting others - this is hardly a
balanced view.
[Edited on 23/12/09 by twybrow]
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 01:29 PM |
|
|
Like I said, I know its biased, but it provides and interesting list of linked articles and papers, mostly written by knowledgable people, presenting
the other side of the discussion for those who want to read them.
Agreed not all the sources are ideal, but there are a vast number who are experienced in the field.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 01:44 PM |
|
|
I think we agree to be honest. We take whatever information we can muster, but we must be aware of the limitations of the data source.
"When examined more closely, however, the Inhofe report was an amateurish fraud. Those 400 prominent scientists included more than 80 who had
received funding either directly or indirectly from the oil and coal industries and more than 90 who had no scientific expertise in climate science,
along with 49 retired scientists and 44 television weathermen." Sounds like someone was scraping the bottom of the barrel to me....
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
Yep, hence why you do have to be careful about blindly reading things.
Even if you take out the questionable sources, there's still alot of interesting reading material.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 01:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
Yep, hence why you do have to be careful about blindly reading things.
Even if you take out the questionable sources, there's still alot of interesting reading material.
You see - we agree perfectly....! 
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 23/12/09 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
The discssusion wasn't on our personal commitments to reducing our energy consumption.
oh cool that's convenient. i mean internet threads have always stayed 100% on topic in the past XD
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 24/12/09 at 10:22 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
The discssusion wasn't on our personal commitments to reducing our energy consumption.
oh cool that's convenient. i mean internet threads have always stayed 100% on topic in the past XD
...about as conventient as it has been for you to ignore the main concept of this discussion, and instead try to provoke a reaction. Well done you....
|
|
|
