Global Warming - What a load of shite!

[Bubbs]

Have a watch of this and tell me what you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
____________________
Life begins at the end of your comfort zone.

[colin1]

I think it's quite possible that global warming or climate change may not exist or may not be a direct result of human activities or may not be that serious.

However, its a bit of a jump to say its a swindle or lies.

I think the people popularising the idea believe it even if its also quite handy to bring in extra taxes on fuel duty that also helps us limit our imports of foreign oil.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[Ayrton]

[arry]

[colin1]

[thegubner]

as long as my skin is not frozen solid or melting in the heat then I don't really give a fuck, let em argue.

[ThoughtContro...]

[GrumpyGuts]

Isn't it a cycle? Big bang > Ice age > Gets warm > Gets warmer (now) > Gets slightly more warmer > HOT > Sun goes (6 billion years later) > new big bang?
____________________
My Bikes: Lifan Beat 125cc '11 -> Suzuki B120P '76 -> Suzuki EN 125-2A '08 -> Honda CG 125 '04 -> Honda CB600F Hornet '98 -> Kawasaki ZZR 600 '99 -> Kawasaki GPZ 500S '95 (Current)
Theory test passed - 09/02/2012 >>>> Module 1 passed 24/07/2012 >>>> Module 2 passed 24/10/2012

[andym]

didn't watch the video, but I get the impression that it's either the governments excuse to tax people more or someone that has probably mysteriously commited suicide disagreeing with the government.

my take on the whole thing, it's a big ol' planet, it can take care of itself, if we f**k it up too much then mother nature will step in and wipe us all out instantly... the government BS about the new buzzwords to hit us with a new stealth tax is just that... BS.... seriously for all the countless billions that they are ripping us off for... where are they going to buy the new ozone layer, CFC replacements, global warming measures, CO2 replacements, carbon footprint fillers, etc etc....

OK so we have used up most of the fossil fuels on the planet allegedly (when I was at school they would be used up by 1999), but we have moved on to methane gas from household waste (which we pay to have the waste removed only to pay to have the gas byproduct returned to the home), we buy into the whole bollocks about the planet is dying and pay a fortune for crude oil (which isn't exactly crude oil, but a mixture of oil and plant extracts etc)... I'd like to know where the world governments is shopping to buy this new environment which is going to save the human race (which is costing countless billions of pounds/dollars)....

My opinion is that the planet earth goes through the odd ice age every now and then, a species is wiped out in the process, the human race has f**ked the planet up so much that before the next century ends we'll all be more or less extinct and in the grip of a major ice age.... but that just my opinion.... and thank f**k I'm not going to be here to see it.

So I've had a drink... I've thought the same when sober.... I've lay awake thinking how we've f**ked up the planet, but the government is going to tescos/asda/lidl/aldi/sainsburies/co-op, (feel free to add your own choice of shop), and going to the replacement environment isle and stocking up for the future.... so I've killed the human race by leaving my TV on standby with it's <.5w power consumption... I claim my place in an ice cube with great pleasure..... f**k the rest of you

[Im-a-Ridah]

It's basically a taxation and wealth redistribution programme. If the problem was what they suggest, they'd go about the solution in a completely different way. Nobody would bother with solar panels or wind turbines as they aren't a suitable solution, they'd just go nuclear for power and drop all oil/coal/gas sources. Wind turbines etc are only of interest to hippy types as they seem "more at one with nanture and less industrial", oh and those with a stake in a renewable energy company of course!

The only real threat of "global warming" is sea level rises. Most liberal/greeny types seem to work in the media, and so have no concept of the construction of items such as walls. Well, these walls as we call them, can stop sea level rises! A bulldozer, and some concrete, and a big wall you have.

Finally, oil isn't running out. This is complete horse manure! We are approaching peak oil, where demand becomes greater than supply, and so prices increase. This is due to there being gradually less easily accessed oil available. That last point is critically important. To use a crude analogy (no pun intended), it's like being in a swimming pool full of beer, with two bottles left on the side of the pool, so you're running out of the beer that you want to drink, but there's still stupid amounts of beer left in less accessible forms!

[andym]

[Skudd]

No one ever says that the freezing of the polar caps was a catastrophe and we are just getting back to normal.
the earth will do what it wants when it wants. we can't stop the tides and we can't stop the earth going round. when we can then we can start all the climate change crap .
____________________
Famous last words of Humpty Dumpty. " Stop pushing me "
Petty Anarchists look at "1984".............. The Visionary looks at "Animal Farm".

[Kickstart]

[Im-a-Ridah]

[Bubbs]

[colin1]

[mentalboy]

Nose pinched, eyes firmly shut aaaaannd in he goes.

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution Man has been happy to live in an environment created by his tinkerings.
Regardless of whether the global patterns are influenced by fossil fuel burning, the planet's climate changes - iirc (from my geology 'o' level days) this planet hasn't stopped changing since day one.

Certainly Man's industrialisation has made some impact upon the environment, just what the effect on the globe has been is impossible to quantify purely because of the earth's historical geological unpredictability ( certainly when you're talking about the effect a few thousand years here and there has anyway).

We can talk authoritatively in terms of just how much crap we've thrown into the atmosphere and what the planet has done in those years but just what the affect one has upon the other is a little harder to correlate.

Environmentally we know that it's not good for us to live in a smog created by oil burning industry or to holiday on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, just as well as we can say that the current rate of glacial melt, if it continues at such a rate, will require the wearing of waders ( in the near geological future).

Each of us will have our own take on the effect Man has on the planet. The pro and anti camps will always feature those for whom that camp suits best. J R Ewing is hardly going to take the same view as a polar bear vet or the residents of Bhopal.

The only liars in this whole debate are those who state categorically that the two are irrefutably connected/unconnected
____________________
Make mine a Corona.

[tbourner]

These are the words of a Physics Ph.D grad I know, who's been studying "the influence of atmospheric aerosols on cloud formation, and subsequently climate."



The public obtain most of their scientific news not from reading scientific journals, but from the main news channels and broadcasters themselves. Whether privately or publicly owned, the science is typically reported not by scientists but reporters (often with undisclosed scientific knowledge). As with any news, sensationalism sells. Drama captivates the mind. The British also love nothing more than to moan and complain about something (see Daily Mail & its comments section). Due to the manner in which the public obtain their information, it is therefore not surprising that most of the common consensus is plain wrong.
I have heard people say things such as "how could it be possible, though? I mean, humans are so small and the Earth is so big!". Of course I can see the reason behind the statement, but there are north of 6 Bn people in the world at present; unless one goes to somewhere such as China or Bangladesh, one cannot imagine what real "crowding" is. Secondly, all scientific reason points towards a man-made hole in the Ozone layer. If we can put a hole in the ozone layer, it stands to reason that we can change the climate of the planet.

People also say, with complete conviction in their words, that the changes are all within the "natural cycle" and that "changes in the Sun's power happen all the time". My favourite is "we are due an ice age". Firstly, the changes are outside of the natural record, dating back thousands of years:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Secondly, the sun does change its intensity, but we don't know the exact affects as the conditions have changed on Earth now. There are also strange "events" which are not completely understood.

As for the ice ages, well, there hasn't been one since people were able to talk to each other. Example conditions for an ice age are known, but the physical processes behind the an ice age starting are not known. So we don't know when the next one will be, if ever.


CO2 levels have risen across the world, in a manner unlike any historical record. We have an ability to go back and see the CO2 concentrations thousands of years ago from bubbles trapped in ice cores. CO2 has a huge lifetime, and as a greenhouse gas, absorbs large amounts of short-wave radiation from the sun and traps it as long-wave radiation in the atmosphere. This is how greenhouses work (on a much smaller scale), and hence why the first "back of the envelope" calculation is that global temperatures will rise. But it is not CO2 alone which contributes to the greenhouse effect; methane (emitted from cows, humans and decomposition etc) is also increasing and is a far more potent greenhouse gas (see this paper). Water vapour is another greenhouse gas but has very different removal pathways to the former greenhouse gases (i.e. will rain out). So, Methane and CO2 are increasing, to levels not seen before...

Though gases are a major driving force for global climate change, there is another key player. Atmospheric aerosols (e.g. dust, pollen, soot from cars) both absorb and scatter incoming solar radiation directly, and alter cloud properties (such as how long a cloud sticks around for before raining). The potential atmospheric changes are numerous and complex, and in fact will cool the earth's atmosphere. Aerosols, however, are very short lived (~ days) vs the gases (~ 100s of years).

So, the answer to stopping uncontrollable warming from the gases is to make more dust, like when the meteor hit Earth 65M years ago and ceased vegetation for the dinosaurs? Not exactly. The volcanic eruption in Iceland a few years ago actually cooled the planet slightly (the link takes you to a free scientific journal's special issue on the topic). Pumping large amounts of aerosol into the atmosphere is not desirable for two main reasons. The first, is that we don't know what would happen, due to the numerous complex processes. The second is that it is directly bad for our health, to have fine particulate matter enter our lungs (hence PM1 and PM10 regulations in most cities).

Science most certainly points to a changing climate in the future, much like climate change happened in the past. It is also sensible to assume that man has had significant influence on future climate, by introducing both numerous aerosols and large quantities of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Powerful computers using our current knowledge of physics, chemistry and many other disciplines are being used to estimate potential climate change. What will actually happen? Only time will tell.
____________________
Trev, now a biker?
Looking for first big bike.

[Hetzer]

[Im-a-Ridah]

@tbourner

You'll also know then, that scientific research is FAR more likely to get funded if it is popular with scientific research councils and is going to reach the desired conclusions. I wonder how many scientists were given ph.D funding to destroy the man made global warming theories? Not many I suspect. I don't trust any statistics from either side, they've been fiddled more than most catholic choir boys.

[el_oso]

[Alpha-9]

Call it glboal warming and people don't believe in it, call it climate change and people believe in it. There was a survey done on this. People are stupid, of course the climate is changing, just look out the window.

We had drought warnings and hosepipe bans in the same week
____________________
Fzr-600 1999

[EazyDuz]

We are all just vessels maturing until we pass away and enter the next dimension of reality.

So who cares what happens to the planet?
____________________
To shreds you say? Tss tss tss

[mistergixer]

[Srengam]

I watched a documentary on this a few years ago, an old English scientist who worked for NASA was a leading part in the discovery of the Ozone layer, but disagreed with protecting it because he said it's most likely controlled by natural living organisms. He was denied an award he was due to recieve and his theory dismissed. He developed a very basic computer program called "daisyland" to try and explain to people what he thought happened (basically; hole gets too big, daisies open and absorb excessive ammounts of problematic substances, holes gets too small they close up).
He was seen as an embarresment to science and in the end had to leave NASA, he funded his own research and spent his life trying to find a living organism that could actually give out ozone "repairing/recreating" gasses. He was in his early 90's when he found an algea in every sea and ocean that sinks when the ozone is ok, but rises near the surface when the gasses are "problematic", absorb them and give out the ozone repairing/replacing gasses.

Sorry for the lack of scientific terms or even his name (I have googled but had no luck).

Anyway, he was then given the award years and years later, and his "daisyland" theory was accepted as an official "theory".

Good viewing, i'll see if SWAMBO can remember his name when I get in, she's into things like this.
____________________
Suzuki GSX600F Katana (1997)