Environmentalism

[poddle]

Thanks Jonno, my point exactly

Look at the available evidence, do not berate the entire content of the net though as there a many very accurate journals posted there by top accredited scientists, then decide for yourself.
I used to think that Co2 was responsible for climate change, but dug a little deeper and found scientific evidence that they are completely wrong. Wrong to the point of being damaging.

 

[jonnno]

I always find that a strange attitude - I'm for the idea of man made climate change but I'm forced to admit that there is some evidence for the other side. The attitude of "definitely not" with no ambiguity can't be a skeptical outlook because there is solid sciency evidence that can't be discounted.

I see definitely yes and definitely no to be the same side of the coin - there's at least some compelling evidence either way so if you leave no room for the counter argument then you're a believer rather than a critical thinker and probably haven't looked at the actual scientific evidence as much as just gotten a feel for opinion or read something by someone else that you feel compelling without necessarily checking the facts for yourself.

In a nutshell if you ever say something like "dug a little deeper and found scientific evidence" then you need to cite where that evidence was so other people can review it and make a decision (and it really must be somewhere peer reviewed or at least that cites it's references to be trustworthy). You saying you've seen the evidence and we should take your word for it is back to belief again.

Here's a great example of the sort of misrepresentation that goes on that cites references from a dude called Ben Goldacre (who wrote a book called Bad Science which should really be required reading for the whole world!)
http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/t...-refuse-to-correct-it-when-he-writes-to-them/

Thanks Jonno, my point exactly

Look at the available evidence, do not berate the entire content of the net though as there a many very accurate journals posted there by top accredited scientists, then decide for yourself.
I used to think that Co2 was responsible for climate change, but dug a little deeper and found scientific evidence that they are completely wrong. Wrong to the point of being damaging.

 

[BorderReiver]

Regardless of what is causing climate change, the people who could do something to modify it are instead inventing ways of making shed loads of money out of it.

Whether or not it is happening, or what the causes are, is irrelevant.

As I've mentioned before, when the Yellowstone caldera explodes, it won't matter what we have or haven't done about it anyway.

 

[poddle]

I have already stated to have a look at the Channel four production of The Great Global Warming Swindle, it's a starting point.Then look further
If you look through Google video's there are many such productions featuring major Climatologists and University Professors that all analyse the evidence on offer and show very clearly why the science is bad and flawed to the point of being unacceptable nonsense

I'm not going to write a essay on this subject for the purposes of this thread, but invite anyone to check the facts properly for themselves.
You will probably enjoy the vids so check them out.

 

[jonnno]

I think that programme was more of an arguement for the other side. A quick look at Wikipedia gives an idea of how balanced it was:

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12] Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting some errors in subsequent releases.[13] The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists.[14][15] Ofcom ruled on 21 July 2008 that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality; however the Code rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 1-4, because the link between human activity and global warming had largely been settled before March 2007. OfCom did not rule on the programme's accuracy. OfCom did rule that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence."[2][16] On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings,[17] though it will not face sanctions.[13]

Obviously you can't take Wikipedia verbatim but it does cite references. Again, you can't listen only to the popular media - they are very capable of distorting the facts for excitement. You have to go to the actual studies.

I have already stated to have a look at the Channel four production of The Great Global Warming Swindle, it's a starting point.Then look further
If you look through Google video's there are many such productions featuring major Climatologists and University Professors that all analyse the evidence on offer and show very clearly why the science is bad and flawed to the point of being unacceptable nonsense

I'm not going to write a essay on this subject for the purposes of this thread, but invite anyone to check the facts properly for themselves.
You will probably enjoy the vids so check them out.

 

[alecf]

I disagree with your comments on the IPCC, okay they may have made some mistakes, but there is absolutely no incentive for them to lie about climate change, they are an independent commitee, not funded directly by governments, but through UN funding. Im sure there are other people linked to oil companies and such who would love to see climate change squashed though...

As for those mentioning the change from global warming to climate change, this is because not everywhere is going to get warmer, but temperatures over a global average will rise.

The key evidence I see as being that global temperatures are linked to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and since the industrial revolution there has been a signficant increase in the levels of CO2 as a result of our activities. Im not doubting that there are also natural reasons for a CO2 increase either, although some of this could also have resulted from feedback systems like silvergirl mentioned with the likes of increased forest fires and CO2 being released from melting permafrost. But with this rapid an steady increase in CO2, all indication is that the global temperatures will follow.
No one has also mentioned that we have to be aware of the possibility of a tipping point where feedback systems will take over and the effects become irreversible.

And for all those against the likes of green taxes. Okay they do make governments a bit of money, but how many people now look for more economical cars because of the price of fuel? Fuel economies for cars have almost doubled in my life time... I bet that wouldn't of happened if there weren't the taxes. It can be proved that wouldn't of happened even, just by looking at the yanks.

I say all this but I know I don't understand it all fully, I am just an A level geography student. What I will say though, is that I would rather listen to accredited scientific journals than some random videos that an unknown person uploaded onto the internet.

Edit: Oh and the water vapour only stays in the atmosphere for short amounts of time, CO2 for a hell of a lot longer.

 

[wingstoo]

I saw this link on another forum I read.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

Interesting article about cyber bullying, but the 1000+ comments that follow are the real interesting read, some useful and informative, some not, but both sides entered the ring.

Wings

 

[locum76]

I saw this link on another forum I read.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

Interesting article about cyber bullying, but the 1000+ comments that follow are the real interesting read, some useful and informative, some not, but both sides entered the ring.

Wings

good link. very diplomatic.

 

[rik_uk3]

I hate to say it, but for once I agree with the French

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_nuclear_energy

 

[Adze]

And for all those against the likes of green taxes. Okay they do make governments a bit of money, but how many people now look for more economical cars because of the price of fuel? Fuel economies for cars have almost doubled in my life time... I bet that wouldn't of happened if there weren't the taxes. It can be proved that wouldn't of happened even, just by looking at the yanks.

However, one of the key things which would actually change the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, how said economical car is driven, has remained unchanged since the late 60's. I got overtaken by a Prius the other day... not I hasten to add, while bimbling along a dual carriageway at my customary 55mph, but on a single carriageway road within two miles of the (signposted) next bit of dual carriageway. For the preceeding two miles the Prius driver had been tailgating me having come roaring up behind me at a pace which was obviously in excess of the 60mph speed limit.

I can imagine his thinking - "Bah! B***dy Land Rover polluting my environment and getting in my way! He's just not going fast enough! Aye up a 200 foot clear spot, I'll just barge my way through and then I can carry on doing 80 so I get where I'm going much faster!"

This does completely ignore the fact that, when driving like a 'computer user non-technical', his Prius is probably getting fewer miles per gallon and is certainly worse for the environment. As it happened, all he did was get to the back of the next queue about 20 seconds before I did.

Changing the speed limits to make people drive more economicaly would be a piece of cake requiring only a token of statute change. As would enforcing it on all new cars, using the GPS which is now, more or less, routinely built into them.

Are 'they' doing any of this? Not while there's money to be made, it seems.

 

[Nagual]

One of my major contributions to the environment that I'm very proud of is simply "Not Breeding". IMO the most damaging thing you can do to the planet is put another consumer on it.

Save the World, kill all humans.!

Not what you said, of course, but you're right.

 

[locum76]

I hate to say it, but for once I agree with the French

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_nuclear_energy

I'm a treehugger (i know I am, i have a badge that tells me so) and I agree with this too.

The question is what kind of reactor to use. sooner or later we'll reach peak plutonimum just as we have reached peak oil and peak coal, thorium on the other hand is massively abundant.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

 

[alecf]

I hate to say it, but for once I agree with the French

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_nuclear_energy

Yes! I agree completely too, and it annoys me greatly when the greenpeace people complain about it. The only way were going to see a significant reduction in CO2 produce from our power generation is from converting to largely nuclear stations. Okay it would be nice if we could be generating 70% of our electricity from renewables like they do over in new zealand, but the fact is thats just not going to be realistic for a long time.



I also must say to lowering the speed limits, I think its more of a case of doing so will create unpopularity for the political party in power which none want, even if it is better for the country. Even if they did change the speed limits anyway, I still don't see that as making a big difference as the people your describing will still be putting the foot to the floor untill they reach the next car/traffic light and break suddenly, then foot the the floor as soon as they can again. As I mentioned earlier aswell, that prius could well be doing more harm to the environment than your land rover even if driven sensibly if you consider its production and such aswell.

 

[Broch]

There's always a 'third truth' - that is, either extreme view is almost certainly wrong.

I may be a cynic but it seems to me that just as soon as some countries start developing their economies and really competing with the West we slap a whole load of new rules on what is acceptable to hinder their development.

Also,our governments seem scared stiff that if we carry on the way we are we will be in such debt to the oil rich countries that we will be poor in comparison. So, instead of just saying 'slow down or we'll be poorer than the Arab nations' which isn't politically correct, we say stop using petrol or we'll boil the earth. okenest:

Cheers,

Broch

 

[alecf]

I'm a treehugger (i know I am, i have a badge that tells me so) and I agree with this too.

The question is what kind of reactor to use. sooner or later we'll reach peak plutonimum just as we have reached peak oil and peak coal, thorium on the other hand is massively abundant.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Our reactors use uranium, plutonium is synthetically created in a lab for weapons if I recall correctly.

The amount of uranium a reactor uses is minute to the amount in the ground that is possible for enriching. Apparently in all of the UK's nuclear history we have yet to fill two small house sized stores of spent nuclear fuel.

 

[locum76]

That was kind of my point, thanks for elucidating.

 

[wingstoo]

Surely one (or two) of the ways of creating less CO2 is to need less, I reduced my electricity usage by 25% in one year just by changing all my lamps to CFLs and a few minutes less in the shower, (my Gas usage has gone down as well). And of course a growing population is only adding to the problem, but nature will sort that one out soon enough

Concrete, or should that be Cement, is one of the highest producers of carbon emmisions during its manufacture, so every new house has a carbon foot-print, every motorway fly-over has a carbon foot-print and the size of the carbon foot-print for the concrete needed to hold up a wind turbine is HUGE

Prius cars have a huge carbon foot-print because of the places all the bits come from to make it

Oh well, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, it all came from the planet, and one day it will return to the planet, in the mean time we just have to remember that we don't own the planet, we have it on loan, from our children and our grand-children, hopefully they will have something left to enjoy, if not, let's hope that the end is quick and painless, but I doubt it.

Wings

 

[poddle]

A little food for thought

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/?p=1400

 

[alecf]

A little food for thought

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/?p=1400

And then you go onto that bloggers about me page where it shows that the height of his scientific background is a few degrees in electrical engineering...

I'll stick to the full time climate scientists published in journals thanks.

 

[poddle]

You choose to ignore all the other facts and data, based on the fact that the blogger only has a few "degrees"