rightplacerighttime...suggest that we ignore TZF until he posts something sensible (ie a rational argument backed up with even a little evidence).
CHB - I have done so already when I pointed out that your link was pretty pish from a scientific POV.
My standpoint on this one is that we simply do not know for definite what effect our emissions are having on the climate. I think that we should try and reduce our emissions to improve the air quality and reduce respiratory illnesses and allergies. I also think that we should reduce waste production and power consumption so that our finite resources last a bit longer.
i dont really have any inteest in your position I just want your evidence. I can make my mind up from that...isn't that what you argued we should all do?
EDIT :Excellent more thoughts ZERO DATA /Evidence ...given this governments treatment of scientists/data you could probably head up a task force for them on climate change.
I decided to bow to peer pressure and started spouting whatever I felt like instead.
Wow, you said something I agree with. Conserving finite resourses makes sense.
My personal view is that its lack of resources and desertification/soil errosion that will have the really painful effect.
Personally I remain convinced of man made climate change. Your post above is not evidence. Evidence needs something a bit more thorough than saying its pish.
Just as an aside, whats your education/background? ie is it scientific/engineering? Just wondering if you are being willfully obtuse or just a bit uneducated. 😈
CHB - BSc(Hons) Environmental Science. Then a number of years editing scientific journals.
Yours?
My standpoint on this one is that we simply do not know for definite what effect our emissions are having on the climate.
Actually I agree with that statement too. We don't know whether we are ****ing the planet or REALLY ****ing the planet. ie I don't think its debateble that humans are effecting climate. I do accept that there is changing evidence about the rate at which we are doing it. However the range of data deviation suggests that even the "optimistic" levels are not going to be fun.
BSc(Hons) Environmental Science. Then a number of years editing scientific journals.
I don't believe you 🙂
Really..wow then you will have links to journals with your name on to post as evidence.
So in one link you can prove BOTH that you are not an idiot and that you have evidence.
;-P
Editor of Scientific Journals (note plural) with just an ordinary degree...
Blox 🙂
Yeah, puts my Chemistry degree to shame.
mind I did only get a II/I
Mark - as you'll know there are various types of editor... Including production editor.
Ah.. you mean admin! yes.. I see now 🙂
Or skiving and drinking coffee as I used to call it.
TZF,
Was it whilst editing a scientific journal 8 years ago that you discovered that the scientific consensus was that we only had 6 years oil left?
Bugger me, you lot are still at it? 🙄
If there is one thing I can be certain of after dealing wtih environmental issues for a large part of my career its this; If anything does happen its unlikely to be immediate and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
I'm off back to the fridge for more beer...chill out chaps.
No, it was during a lecture on fossil fuel depletion funnily enough.
Who was speaking ..... so we can google their ressearch ?
I see where we are going wrong, this is a religious argument.
Must not question the ayatollahs of green...
BTW I would still appreciate numerical answers to my questions where the manmade output was expressed as a % of the natural output, be it sun, volcano, or bushfire etc.
Oh, and has coal run out yet? That scientific consensus must be right soon, just like phrenology, phlogiston, etc.
epicyclo,
I've twice replied to the best of my ability with answers to your questions, but you've not replied to mine.
You said:
I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.
I asked:
Can you try to explain what you think we are supposed to infer from this? What mechanism do you think is in place to link subsidies for alternative energy (which subsidies are you talking about BTW?) to the issue of global warming.
TZF,
Which one?
TZF, you saidBut 6yrs ago, the scientific consensus said that we only had 8yrs worth of oil left.
Can you tell us all where this was reported. It must have been reported widely after all, if it was "the scientific consensus"
Six years ago is 2003, so the critical date is 2003 plus 8 = 2011. Based on this, a Google search reveals predictions by a team from the University of Uppsala that oil supplies will peak soon after 2010 ([url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4216-too-little-oil-for-global-warming.html ]New Scientist, 2003[/url]).
So possibly the original comment was simply confusing predictions of a [b]peak [/b]in world oil flow with oil actually [b]running out[/b]? Easy mistake to make.
p.s. I make no judgement on the premise of the linked article that "there is too little oil for global warming".
Remember that man that has been granted leave (using religious discrimination legislation) to take his Co. to tribunal for being made redundant? (he argues that this is because of his 'Environmental beliefs')
So for all the people who tout irrefutable science for 'man made' climate change (as is this mans beliefs), the Law has deemed it akin to religion!
It seems to me that by chasing his own agenda, he has undermined what he stands for.
[i]I see where we are going wrong, this is a religious argument.[/i]
I think the fact it is a scientific one has been pointed out many times.
I think the fact it is a scientific one has been pointed out many times.
ahhhh yes but creationism and intelligent design theory is also touted as a "science"
more religious claptrap
I'll get back under my bridge now
It should be purely about examinable science, however the 'religious zeal' that some pro anthropometric climate change 'scientists' extol is not conducive to scientific 'betterment' and the science discipline as a whole.
rightplacerighttime - Member
epicyclo,
I've twice replied to the best of my ability with answers to your questions, but you've not replied to mine.
I did, but you may have missed it because it was in a general reply to people who took me to task for it. Here it is again:
I can't remember when I read it (I'm fairly sure it was in the Times) but there was concern that the Mafia had got its hooks into companies concerned with wind generation and they were pushing these for the subsidies. I'm happy to be corrected on this.
Here's a fresh thought:
Subsidies are bad for the environment. They come out of taxes. To pay taxes we need to consume more and create more output to get the same nett position.
Subsidies attract crooks and distort the market. Butter mountain, fictitious cattle ring any bells?
unfortunately you will never get examianble science without some form of tester bias. Even fully peer reviewed documents are still subject to the bias of the peers. it's human nature no one can be completely objective. It's also a shame that people who could be genuinely interested in making changes to lifestyle etc.. based on balanced views are put off by the screaming hysteria on both sides and just think "bugger it, i'll just carry on as usual for a quiet life"
More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”
link to the open letter (babel fish it if you can't do german)
this isn't a subject that's open to debate.'debate' is something you do when you're deciding whether to give women the vote.
but you can't debate evidence.
The debate is about man's influence. The evidence on global warming and climate chance is not disputed. Man's contribution is certainly debatable. Myself, I'd say it's not that there is a contribution, but to what extent that contribution makes a blind bit of difference.
THE NORTH POLE HAS NEARLY MELTED.
Only in the summer, and it hasn't nearly melted. Current predictions have been revised as this year's sea ice minimum has actually grown, not receeded, and belief is that it [u]may[/u] be gone by 2030, [b]in the summer[/b]. Sea ice will form in the winter even with the predicted global temperature rises as the angle of the earth results in temperatures still lower than freezing.
Should be noted that sea ice melting makes only a very tiny difference to sea levels (due to salination), as ice displaces water (try it yourself by melting ice in a glass of water 😉 ). Same goes for Antarctic sea ice. Think of those satellite photos of ice sheets breaking up, then forget about them as you can be assured your house on the coast will not be in danger from these 😉 . The only concern with melting ice is from glaciers and ice sheets on land, and only if they are likely to slide into the sea at a faster rate than they currently do (as coastal glaciers naturally slide into the sea, but are usually replenished).
Note that sea ice minimums are based on "since records began" which was in 1979. Hence why so many of the "lowest on record" reports have been in the last few decades. That the last few decades have been warmer is again not debatable. I refer again to the fact we are just out of a mini ice age (extending from around 1400 to the early 1900s).
Funny thing climate science. Scientific consensus in the 1960s concluded that we were heading for global cooling rather than warming!
kcr said
So possibly the original comment was simply confusing predictions of a peak in world oil flow with oil actually running out? Easy mistake to make.
Possibly. But rather than us trying to guess, it would have been much easier if TZW had just answered the question in one of the many posts he/she made since I asked the question.
deadkenny - Member
...Funny thing climate science. Scientific consensus in the 1960s concluded that we were heading for global cooling rather than warming!
Yup, I was taught that in school as being the scientific consensus.
There are millions of unknown variables that are not and cannot be taken into account in the models that are being used to try to scare us. The present state of climate modelling would be just as effectively done using haruspication techniques.
[b][u][url= http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/forget-doppler-radar-pig-spleens-are-more-accurate/753 ]It is apparently more accurate[/url]
[/u][/b]
epicyclo,
Actually I did see that. I just didn't realise that it was your answer to my question - because it isn't the answer to my question.
Just to recap:
You said:
I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.
I asked:
Can you try to explain what you think we are supposed to infer from this? What mechanism do you think is in place to link subsidies for alternative energy (which subsidies are you talking about BTW?) to the issue of global warming.
To which your answer is:
can't remember when I read it (I'm fairly sure it was in the Times) but there was concern that the Mafia had got its hooks into companies concerned with wind generation and they were pushing these for the subsidies. I'm happy to be corrected on this.
That doesn't make sense - on any level.
rightplacerighttime - Member
epicyclo
...That doesn't make sense - on any level.
Your response seemed to addressing other issues than my statement, so I tried to explain why I made my statement.
I'll rephrase it - if there wasn't money in it, there would not be the large amounts of money being spent on PR for inefficient sources of alternative energy, so we would not be hearing so much about it.
Large areas of the highlands are being raped by alternative energy companies producing negligible amounts of power and they do this because they are heavily subsidised.
And do you really believe that no-one is abusing the free money?
tazzymtb,
stop stirring it please. You've already told us you're trolling and there are enough loose ends on this thread as it is.
More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
This is more rubbish. If you're going to put up stuff like this give us the source. But I'll save you the bother, it's the Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE), which sounds good, but is another made up body that doesn't do anything except publish climate denial opinion pieces. I looked into it a couple of months ago when I first heard this particular story.
epicyclo,
Are you saying that the mafia are behind a global climate change conspiracy?
rightplacerighttime - Member
epicyclo,
Are you saying that the mafia are behind a global climate change conspiracy?
Eh? No. I was quite specific about that and gave the source, and am willing to be corrected on it. What I am saying is that subsidies attract parasites.
It's no conspiracy as far as I'm concerned, just the latest apocalypse fashion. I've seen out a few in my time and they all work the same way, just like this one - a few salient facts, and a very long bow used to shoot them.
I still don't get it though. Why would the issue of global warming disappear if subsidies to alternative energy schemes were dropped? Do you think global warming was some brilliant scheme that was made up just so people could sell alternative energy?
rightplacerighttime - Member
I still don't get it though. Why would the issue of global warming disappear if subsidies to alternative energy schemes were dropped?
I think we would hear a lot less about the issue of global warming if there was no money in it for large corporations.
rightplacerighttime - Member
Do you think global warming was some brilliant scheme that was made up just so people could sell alternative energy?
Not at all, they just are opportunists jumping on the bandwagon.
I don't see any conspiracy in this, it's just the latest trendy thing to be concerned about.
Last year we saved the rainforest dolphins, this year climate change.
I'm off to bed now, so you can have the last word 🙂
I think you'll find epicyclo that if we can reduce the rate that deforestation is occuring the total effect of man made global warming can be reduced or offset. If you weren't aware. Alot of people in this thread don't seem to understand. There is a 'carbon cycle'. In many ways similar to the water cycle where by carbon is taken from the atmosphere and eventually replaced back into it. This cycle must exist for life on Earth to exist and unsurprisingly it causes global warming again which is needed for life on Earth. However, for the lamen such as I who have no green credentials or no higher understanding of increased global warming. By burning fossils with carbon in them to get energy we are increasing carbon levels in the atmosphere and by destroying the trees that absorb some of the carbon in the atmosphere, to grow. We are impacting negativley on the planets delicate balance. The reduced number of trees in the Amazon rain forest is having an unknown affect on other carbon 'sinks' such as algae in the oceans. Basically the rain forests as I understand it are an intermediate step if you like for carbon being taken and returned from the atmosphere, far more is abosorbed by the algae however we are impeding the effectivness of this algae as we are pushing it to a saturated point. Then after that no one really knows what will happen but it'll probably not be great. Us westeners probably won't be too badly affected just our servents in the developing world will suffer. But who care about them they just grow rice for us and scrap our ships.
Also worth pointing out its not so much Earth we're screwing its 'life on Earth'. The Earth with afew million years can return itself to an equilibrium. Or a state of smaller sporadic changes.
As for the heat of the sun I think that has very little to do with ice ages global temperature etc. I think you will find global temperature varies more with the orbit of the Earth around the sun and the ratio of green house gases in the atmosphere. Read Mallankavich cycles (if thats how you spell his name).
"Funny thing climate science. Scientific consensus in the 1960s concluded that we were heading for global cooling rather than warming!"
You deniers are doing a pretty good job of recycling all the old myths.
There was never a consensus regarding global cooling. A minority of climate scientists held this view into the 1970s, and when the evidence showed them to be incorrect, they changed their view.
"I think we would hear a lot less about the issue of global warming if there was no money in it for large corporations."
I think we would hear a lot less climate change denial if it wasn't for the vested interests of large corporations.