Forum menu
So it would be better if we didn't make batteries more efficient?
Not if the [b]overall[/b] production cycle is more polluting to the environment.
Well no, we'll have more efficient batteries, less particulates in the air,
But no fish in chinese rivers
More than the value of third world debt?
Makes no difference if that third world debt was accumulated buying guns instead of building schools.
The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific - be it the ecological effects of a proposed tidal barrage in the severn, the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries, or the revived focus on nuclear power as a source of energy.
Um.... burning lots of fossil fuels doesn't just produce carbon dioxide you know.
we could have focused our effort on developing more robust systems of agriculture, increasing health outcomes in the third world, alleviating famine, etc - hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall on first world vanity projects that its likely will have had no effect at all.
Well, we could quite easily do both of those things, if the will was there, and some people weren't so greedy. Please don't dress this up as being about you caring too much about the developing world FFS.
And the main point of green taxes etc is to try and reduce consumption - see how petrol consumption in this country dropped significantly when petrol prices went up by not really that much. What's your problem with reducing consumption/being more energy efficient exactly - still part of the great green conspiracy eh?
Its all going to end in a hot heat kinda way in about 4-5 billion years when the sun goes mental. So the planets long term prognosis is bad.
So just use it and abuse it as you would a good MTB
then this money has not only been wasted,
Er no, cos there's more than one issue here. Reducing CO2 also generally means reducing consumption of finite energy sources. Their high price is already putting a strain on economies. If we could significantly lower demand then the price would go down.
And there'd be more of it available for other things too.
But no fish in chinese rivers
And if we weren't trying to make better batteries, the Chinese wouldn't be polluting? Really?
Er no, cos there's more than one issue here. Reducing CO2 also generally means reducing consumption of finite energy sources.
Which is more polluting and uses more resources in the grand scheme of things - keeping your old gas guzzler, or buying a new prius?
Their high price is already putting a strain on economies. If we could significantly lower demand then the price would go down.
Most of the high price is tax anyway
Am I a bit late with the silly graphs thing?
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
why keep mentioning the Severn Barrage when it is still being debated?
Because it [b]is[/b] still being debated. I'll stop mentioning it when they realise that actually it's a pretty bad idea - something which doesn't yet seem to have happened because of all the emphasis on decreasing CO2 emissions above other environmental considerations.
Have you mentioned it to your MP?
Which is more polluting and uses more resources in the grand scheme of things - keeping your old gas guzzler, or buying a new prius?
But those aren't the only two options, obviously. I think you are trying to discredit the entire concept of sustainability by cherry picking examples of generic flawed logic. Not clever.
Most of the high price is tax anyway
Most of the price of petrol at the pump is tax, however that's always been the case, and the price of crude oil is also at record highs anyway.
that's consensus.that's chasing funding and keeping a job.
Thats BS if you discover theat AGW is false you will have evoidence , get a noble prize and create a new consensus. knowledge moves on for sure but do you really think evolution will ever be false or not the case? We may just have slightly more knowledge than primative man and have discovered some genuine truths which are so compelling they are a consenus. there is a consesus the earth orbits the sun - is it worng now will it ever be wrong? consenus is not a bad thing - its only riased by dissenters who seem tolike to highlight the fact no one believes them 😉
Its a rubbish argument put forward because folk dont have any data - it usually coupled with the lie that they all do it for funding - realy you think the oil and car industry dont and have not funded research to show AGW is wrong - there are plenty of rich anti agencies who will fund your research especially if you allready agree with them.
yes i am sure the scientific community has a consensus and currently NOW man is doing it not nature. Again pointing out that there has been periods of ice age and of a molten earth in our past is a pointless thing to keep bringing up - the issue is whether we are affecting change not whether other factors can affect change. It is not a debatable fact EVERYONE AGREES THEY CAN AND HAVE- why do you keep repeating this,I dont even see what point you are trying to make not least because no disoutes that it changes naturally.In which case, are you really sure there is one on humanity being the dominant factor in climate change? Given the scale of current temperature changes compared to the scale of historic temperature changes, I'd suggest that's far from an obvious point
The value of the consensus is directly related to the depth of the knowledge and understanding that supports it. We are very fortunate that professional bodies of climate scientists, including our own Met Office recently, are very open about the current level of knowledge. From this we are able to apply the appropriate weight to their conclusions.
bit vague any chance you could say what you think without it being a snidey dig?
to answer your point and aracers
The Earth's climate has changed many times in response to natural causes. However, since the early 1900s, our climate has changed rapidly due to persistent man-made changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/what-is-it
Would you like to make a statement on what you claim their position is that is clear and unambiquous like that statement from the website as it seems clear they all agre ethat AGW is reall hence you ha re left with this sort of "point" to make when you could have used data and an argument instead
The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific
Capitalism however has been wonderful at protecting the environment but these bloody greens eh what a shower . everything has an impact all we can do is reduce it as best we can.
hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall
of all the things you have ever said on here your concern that the money is being wasted and could be better spent on the poor and the needy is the most incredolous I have ever read from you
Nice one 10/10 really feeling your love and concern for the needy it is clearly one of your core values 😀
Lovely that has made my day
the issue is whether we are affecting change not whether other factors can affect change
Not when the question is about "humanity being the dominant factor in climate change?" - from the bit you quoted just above that.
Interestingly, from the link you gave, "The world has warmed by three-quarters of a degree in the last century" - yet from the graph posted a way back there, the inter-glacial temperature variation is rather larger than that.
So we are not suffering from global warming then ?
If STW emits much more hot air it's a certainty.
So we are not suffering from global warming then ?
Speak for yourself - I'm certainly not suffering from any sort of warming here at the moment.
nope aracer still not getting your point - its hard to debate when i dont even know what your view is. Could you tell us please what it is ?
Interestingly, from the link you gave, "The world has warmed by three-quarters of a degree in the last century" - yet from the graph posted a way back there, the inter-glacial temperature variation is rather larger than that.
so you proved once more a fact not in dispute but I am still not sure why you keep doing this or its relevance. Well if natural change, that no one disputes, does not disprove that man is having an effect they what will 😕
Seriously why are you doing this and what is your point?
It makes no sense to keep doing this
The graph shows it varied by and I quote "Approx 0-9.1.1 degree" in 8 thousands years and we did 0.75 in a century and you think this suggests it is still within the range of natural 😕
it is perhaps 3 degrees of warming in 4 thousand years
Again why /what is your point?
We dont see changes,this rapid, naturally. this seems to be the point?
unless you actually state a position it seems pointless to just keep repeating it has varied before as no one disputes this and this fact does not mean AGW cannot occur.
aracer - MemberSo we are not suffering from global warming then ?
Speak for yourself - I'm certainly not suffering from any sort of warming here at the moment.
No I dont either 🙁
We dont see changes,this rapid, naturally. this seems to be the point?
Japanese earthquake was enough to shift the earths axis so why not put the blame somewhere else ?
🙄
"Earth's rotation changes all the time as a result of not only earthquakes, but also the much larger effects of changes in atmospheric winds and oceanic currents," he says. "Over the course of a year, the length of the day increases and decreases by about a millisecond, or about 550 times larger than the change caused by the Japanese earthquake.[b]"The position of Earth's figure axis also changes all the time, by about 3.3 feet over the course of a year, or about six times more than the change that should have been caused by the Japan quake."[/b]
Gross said the changes in Earth's rotation and figure axis caused by earthquakes should not have any impacts on our daily lives. [b]"These changes in Earth's rotation are perfectly natural and happen all the time," he says. "People shouldn't worry about them."[/b]
Lifer - Member"People shouldn't worry about them."
🙄
They would say that wouldnt they ?
So a giant meteorite is going to hit the earth or maybe an ice age happening.
Would the government tell us so as we can go all anarchistic ? I dont think so.
you are david Ike and I claim my £5
Easy money.
Junkyard - Memberyou are david Ike and I claim my £5
Inflation boy its now £2.50
you have as good a grasp on inflation as you do on any other fact
the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries
Just so you know, progress in this area is also being made in changing the battery chemistry and using more common materials such as sodium and carbon.
Junkyard - Memberyou have as good a grasp on inflation as you do on any other fact
Yep and twice as much as 1/2 the posters.
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.
There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).
[url= http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm ]Clicky[/url]
See its on the internet so its true
Well here we go again......The BBC still doing their best to portray the current data in the worst possible light, even reporting that we could have an ice free arctic by 2050.
Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 95% sure its caused by humans! Hmmm.... will it be 90% next year?
Meanwhile, temperatures remain static for the past 17 years! 😯
Meanwhile, temperatures remain static for the past 15 years!
[img] 
[/img]
sigh
Meanwhile, temperatures remain static for the past 17 years!
I was once stuck on the M4 for 45 minutes, not moving at all.
I still got to my destination though.
I was once stuck on the M4 for 45 minutes, not moving at all.
I still got to my destination though.
I was once stuck on the M62 for an hour.
Eventually we got turned round back to the next junction and I went home again.
😉
[img] 
[/img]
It's fine for people to disagree with prevailing opinion.
It's not fine for people to disagree because they WANT to and simply lack a complete understanding. Or for people to simply assume that after a few newspaper articles they know more than expert scientists who've been studying it their whole careers.
I was taught of the impending ice age as a kid. Are you suggesting the expert scientists were wrong?
Climate scientists aren't much better than economists.
Not that it matters. It's just a political issue.
[i]I was once stuck on the M62 for an hour.
Eventually we got turned round back to the next junction and I went home again. [/i]
Any excuse not to go any nearer to Leeds or L'pool is a winner in my book.
I was taught of the impending ice age as a kid. Are you suggesting the expert scientists were wrong?
Did an expert scientist teach you?
Or did your teacher get that out of some textbook, which was in fact poorly reporting speculation about statistics?
Did they say WHY an ice age was 'impending' ?
Was that before or after a huge effort on climate research?
I'm surprised this is still going on. Lifer killed it on the first page IMHO.
[img] 
[/img]
Regardless of the number crunching, the vast majority of resulant actions of the whole climate change stuffs is for the good of all.
Oh, and a recent posting on the bad_astronomy blog demolished David Rose's Arctic ice argument with one graph.
It's fine for people to disagree with prevailing opinion.
Ageed.
It's not fine for people to disagree because they WANT to and simply lack a complete understanding.
No. That's fine too.
Or for people to simply assume that after a few newspaper articles they know more than expert scientists who've been studying it their whole careers.
No. That's also fine.
They may not be right....but ......that's fine as well.
A simple question:
Can anyone point to a prediction of today's climate from 10 years ago that is correct? (from any side)
I'm beginning to suspect the science of haruspicy is just as credible, and at least it has the benefit of being able to provide a haggis afterwards.
Did an expert scientist teach you?Or did your teacher get that out of some textbook, which was in fact poorly reporting speculation about statistics?
Did they say WHY an ice age was 'impending' ?
Was that before or after a huge effort on climate research?
The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong. Quite how wrong is open to speculation.
The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong. Quite how wrong is open to speculation.
Newton's theory of gravity is wrong.
Yet its good enough to put men on the moon.
If we wait for a perfect theory before taking any action we will be screwed
The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong.
Why do you say that?
They may not be right....but ......that's fine as well.
It's fine in the 'I don't care abotu science' world, but the problem with assertions about climate is that they are definitely in the science world.
I could bang on and on about 2+2 making 79, legally, but if I waded into a debate about arithmetic with that one, I'd be considered wrong on quite a few levels.
Regardless of the number crunching, the vast majority of resulant actions of the whole climate change stuffs is for the good of all.
Like more expensive food and deforestation because of biofuels?
Like more expensive heating so more people die in winter?
http://www.eas.org.uk/key_issues_fuel_poverty.php
No, not like those.
That's just crap policy.