global warming vs pollution
- Thread starter hammock monkey
- Start date
Wink said:
Seems strange considering the amount of evidence that New scientist has shown regarding mans role in climate change and especially the Bush administrations misleading role in climate change research
"A former editor of New Scientist" is not a very good qualificaiton for making judgements about climateology. New Scientist has become the "Weekly World News" of popular science magazines.
I prefer to get my climate science from real climateologists.
I didn't watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The science is settled, as far as I can tell. However, there are a number of very well-funded PR agencies trying to do for climate science exactly what they did for the link between smoking and lung cancer.
I prefer to get my climate science from real climateologists.
I didn't watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The science is settled, as far as I can tell. However, there are a number of very well-funded PR agencies trying to do for climate science exactly what they did for the link between smoking and lung cancer.
Oh, and I see the good folks at RealClimate have already debunked most of the claims apparently made in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"... Seems my guess that it would be the same old discredited rubbish was bang on the mark.
As a general tip, anytime someone claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humanity (they don't, not by a very long way indeed) or that solar forcings are more responsible for climate change than CO2 levels (we have a very good handle indeed on solar forcings, because they're easily measurable, and they don't come close to explaining what we see in the 20thC record) then you know you're dealing with either a crank, a fool, or a PR agency.
Good to see they even managed to get the old "vineyards in England" chestnut in too...
As a general tip, anytime someone claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humanity (they don't, not by a very long way indeed) or that solar forcings are more responsible for climate change than CO2 levels (we have a very good handle indeed on solar forcings, because they're easily measurable, and they don't come close to explaining what we see in the 20thC record) then you know you're dealing with either a crank, a fool, or a PR agency.
Good to see they even managed to get the old "vineyards in England" chestnut in too...
gregorach said:
i think its on tonight E4, 10pm, i'd really like to hear your opinion as to why they're wrong...basically:
some people say
more co2 = hotter earth,
others say
more co2 = colder earth.
i just want to know the truth..
its a shame this subject often gets so emotional...it doesnt help if scientist gets condescending and a tad sarky!... the 'heresy' point made on the 'swindle' was very interesting.
if what the 'swindle' are saying is completely wrong, ch4 should retract and explain themselves...they almost gave me some hope there...the b4st4rds!
You can do some research on the effects of CO2 by looking at are closest neighbor Venus. If memory serves me correctly, the atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2 and the surface temperature is 860 degrees Farenhiet. Hotter on Venus then Mercury. Just some food for thought.
Just some food for thought.Gregorach, please watch it! It is a little thin criticising a programme you haven't watched. (Try Youtube)
Thanks, though for flagging up the inaccuracy of the volcano thing. It would be nice to know where they got that from, as I can't find it justified online anywhere.
I would be a little more cautious about your friends at RealClimate though, if I were you. I have looked at your links (mostly from there), and they seem to be a kind of "preaching to the converted" type setup. That's like looking to Richard Dawkins for a balanced debate about the existence of God...
I think that the programme has usefully flagged up some questions that I, for one, will do some more research on, to try and separate fact from spin/interpretation/vested interest/opinion.
madrussian said:You can do some research on the effects of CO2 by looking at are closest neighbor Venus. If memory serves me correctly, the atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2 and the surface temperature is 860 degrees Farenhiet. Hotter on Venus then Mercury.
thanks, you may have a good point there!! - but one thing i've learned from all this is that its pure facts from our records here on earth that are about the only evidence that we can go with though - distance to the sun etc, shield from cosmic rays etc considered.
does anyone know the answer for definate? seems to me that they dont at the moment. I find it hard to 100% discredit the 'swindle' tho. I'm an engineering grad, my wifes a physics phD - it didnt seem unreasonable to us at all. admittedly we arent climate specialists of course - but we do understand english!
one thing that stuck in my mind was that the guy that actually led Al Gores study said the opposite to mr gore...and he was obviously some kind of specialist!
Wink said:
I really do have better things to do with my time.
No, it's like looking to Richard Dawkins for a balanced debate about evolutionary biology. If you can find me a genuine, honest-to-goodness climateologist who seriously doubts AGW, I'll read 'em.
hammock monkey said:
That would be perhaps be Carl Wunsch? Who apparently feels that the programme completely misrepresented his views and has issued this rebutal?
Obviously the climate is changing, it's always changing... Now it does so quite fast, but that happened many times before. The sun has increased in temperature, Mars is warming up as well, though the earth is warming up faster because we've got some extra fires heating us: in every car, electricity generators, boats (I saw in a containership the huge 15 meter high motors!), airplanes, factories, etc.
[I also read that volcanoes generate far less CO2, methane then civilised humans, just as mentioned before]
In general I might say CO2 etc from burning oil isn't that bad if it just increases temperature, because climate always changes. But I know for sure that I don't like those stinking automobiles driving past me when I'm walking or cycling, I think cars are boring to drive except when going fast, but then accidents happen or I get fines so I better go fast on the bike. I don't want to waste a quarter of my life working to pay for a car either. A car might be useful to drive to the fitness center in the evening though.
I agree with the topic starter (don't remember who it was) that climate change (erm, I meant Al Gore -but those almost have gotten synonyms) is really getting stuffed in our heads by the media. I do wonder though if it would've been possible to have such a big impact with his movie if it wasn't for the fact that we do clearly notice ourselves that nature around us is changing.
Anyway, I think we again get a very narrow topic thrown at us in the media, and all too often the bigger picture is left out. What I mean by this is obvious to most people here I think, but I'd say the bigger picture is the fact that civilisation:
- is polluting everything we know with very harmful UNnatural poisons, everytime there get new synthetics (pesticides, fireprotection, clothes, toys, food additives, etc) on the market which are told not be harmful but after some decades it has proven to be harmful and gets banned only to be replaced by some new "healthy alternatives".
- is destroying all life on earth by overconsumption, or better said the greed of the few elite who are making more n more money. The oceans are near empty in comparison to fifty years ago, still 9 tenth of the animals caught with deep sea trawlers is thrown back DEAD in the ocean. Cars, computers, mobile phones, factories, etc are unsustainable, whether they run on "biodiesel" or not. (There was a serious "carbon neutral computer" article on slashdot.org last week.. what a joke).
-is no higher form of human organisation. People are more healthy, happy and live just as long and have a satisfying life when NOT civilised. The blunt dumb primitive people who have a brutish, nasty and short life is a myth. People who actually go and live with indigenous tribes always notice that. But, just as clearly demonstrated by Weston Price in his book "Nutrition and physical degeneration", if civilisation starts to have contact with them and brings in white bread, sugar, jams,.. the indigenous start to get caries and other diseases following their destruction if they don't return to their primitive diet.
[Makes it clear why they always drop white flour, white pasta or white rice in wars and in "poor" areas in africa... it's making them sick. Makes it less ironical that sometimes the same kind of airplanes used for bombs are used to drop "food"].
Civilisation makes their healthy survival mostly impossible. When they are desperate (robbed of their land, game and what not) the missionaries are sent in to make sure they'll go to heaven. These missionaries make sure to tell at home about how terrible the life is of primitive people.
-etc etc
---------------------
The great solution offered by technology is hydrogen, biodiesel powered cars, wind energy, dams and solar. I've read that these are not at all sustainable, yet they keep on being called renewable. Without the government subsidies and cheap oil these things would cost more then they produce...
Another belgian calculated that without all the tax advantages etc the photovoltaic solar panels he bought would have taken 80 years to give back the money he invested. Only problem they last only around 20.
Electricity is wasteful by defenition anyway..
Heating water with solar energy looks interesting though.
Hydrogen is the biggest hype of all. It's just a form of battery, as there's much more energy used (mostly in form of electricity generated by oil, gas, nuclear) to split the hydrogen from the oxygen then there is gained from rejoining them.
Dams are putting more CO2 in the air then a gas plant with equivalent electricity output (by a research from a university) because of all the rotting material which has been put under water and some other causes. They are killing the rivers, salmon and other creatures (if that ain't enough!). Globally they are mostly replacing poor people from their land... but powering the homes and factories of the rich.
There are quite many rivers in the world which used to end in the ocean but they don't even reach it anymore.
Windenergy doesn't produce much energy. It has an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of almost 1:1. They're killing birds.
Some energy info: http://anthropik.com/series/deusex
Bottom line: I bet on learning to live primitively and hope to get a good tribe to spend the rest of my life in. But also, I want to do anything to stop the psychopaths who are in control at the moment.
Only take what you need.
Don't see me wrong for a boring utalitarian though, as I think colours, sex, party n laughter, good tasting food, good looking wife, healthy good looking surroundings all are necessary to be healthy. They can be achieved with minimal means though, by being creative .
http://users.skynet.be/six/gpure/links.html
Ofcourse I could only remember a fraction of the stuff I wanted to say... lol, I'm sure there's loads of topics I just forgot. That's what's so great about forums, we're all together with lots of people having their word said without being interrupted.
[I also read that volcanoes generate far less CO2, methane then civilised humans, just as mentioned before]
In general I might say CO2 etc from burning oil isn't that bad if it just increases temperature, because climate always changes. But I know for sure that I don't like those stinking automobiles driving past me when I'm walking or cycling, I think cars are boring to drive except when going fast, but then accidents happen or I get fines so I better go fast on the bike
. I don't want to waste a quarter of my life working to pay for a car either. A car might be useful to drive to the fitness center in the evening though. I agree with the topic starter (don't remember who it was) that climate change (erm, I meant Al Gore -but those almost have gotten synonyms) is really getting stuffed in our heads by the media. I do wonder though if it would've been possible to have such a big impact with his movie if it wasn't for the fact that we do clearly notice ourselves that nature around us is changing.
Anyway, I think we again get a very narrow topic thrown at us in the media, and all too often the bigger picture is left out. What I mean by this is obvious to most people here I think, but I'd say the bigger picture is the fact that civilisation:
- is polluting everything we know with very harmful UNnatural poisons, everytime there get new synthetics (pesticides, fireprotection, clothes, toys, food additives, etc) on the market which are told not be harmful but after some decades it has proven to be harmful and gets banned only to be replaced by some new "healthy alternatives".
- is destroying all life on earth by overconsumption, or better said the greed of the few elite who are making more n more money. The oceans are near empty in comparison to fifty years ago, still 9 tenth of the animals caught with deep sea trawlers is thrown back DEAD in the ocean. Cars, computers, mobile phones, factories, etc are unsustainable, whether they run on "biodiesel" or not. (There was a serious "carbon neutral computer" article on slashdot.org last week.. what a joke).
-is no higher form of human organisation. People are more healthy, happy and live just as long and have a satisfying life when NOT civilised. The blunt dumb primitive people who have a brutish, nasty and short life is a myth. People who actually go and live with indigenous tribes always notice that. But, just as clearly demonstrated by Weston Price in his book "Nutrition and physical degeneration", if civilisation starts to have contact with them and brings in white bread, sugar, jams,.. the indigenous start to get caries and other diseases following their destruction if they don't return to their primitive diet.
[Makes it clear why they always drop white flour, white pasta or white rice in wars and in "poor" areas in africa... it's making them sick. Makes it less ironical that sometimes the same kind of airplanes used for bombs are used to drop "food"].
Civilisation makes their healthy survival mostly impossible. When they are desperate (robbed of their land, game and what not) the missionaries are sent in to make sure they'll go to heaven. These missionaries make sure to tell at home about how terrible the life is of primitive people.
-etc etc
---------------------
The great solution offered by technology is hydrogen, biodiesel powered cars, wind energy, dams and solar. I've read that these are not at all sustainable, yet they keep on being called renewable. Without the government subsidies and cheap oil these things would cost more then they produce...
Another belgian calculated that without all the tax advantages etc the photovoltaic solar panels he bought would have taken 80 years to give back the money he invested. Only problem they last only around 20.
Electricity is wasteful by defenition anyway..
Heating water with solar energy looks interesting though.
Hydrogen is the biggest hype of all. It's just a form of battery, as there's much more energy used (mostly in form of electricity generated by oil, gas, nuclear) to split the hydrogen from the oxygen then there is gained from rejoining them.
Dams are putting more CO2 in the air then a gas plant with equivalent electricity output (by a research from a university) because of all the rotting material which has been put under water and some other causes. They are killing the rivers, salmon and other creatures (if that ain't enough!). Globally they are mostly replacing poor people from their land... but powering the homes and factories of the rich.
There are quite many rivers in the world which used to end in the ocean but they don't even reach it anymore.
Windenergy doesn't produce much energy. It has an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of almost 1:1. They're killing birds.
Some energy info: http://anthropik.com/series/deusex
Bottom line: I bet on learning to live primitively and hope to get a good tribe to spend the rest of my life in
. But also, I want to do anything to stop the psychopaths who are in control at the moment.Only take what you need.
Don't see me wrong for a boring utalitarian though, as I think colours, sex, party n laughter, good tasting food, good looking wife, healthy good looking surroundings all are necessary to be healthy
. They can be achieved with minimal means though, by being creative . http://users.skynet.be/six/gpure/links.html
Ofcourse I could only remember a fraction of the stuff I wanted to say... lol, I'm sure there's loads of topics I just forgot. That's what's so great about forums, we're all together with lots of people having their word said without being interrupted
.OK, I know this has been done to death, but I've just found out how badly "The Great Global Warming Swindle" mangled their data...
Turns out the graphs shown in the programme do not resemble the real data.
Turns out the graphs shown in the programme do not resemble the real data.
there was a report on bbc news this weekend criticising the over blown coverage of the whole GW topic - seems like its going to rattle on until positive hard facts are presented to monkey-brains like me that can actually make full sense of them!
their point was that scientists will struggle to be taken seriously in the media if they make huge unproven claims about GW. i think any scientist would aggree, media takes comments so far out of context it becomes next to useless sometimes.
possibly its a tad too complex (apart from the obvious) to be very clear on, but we'll see i guess.
maybe david cameron will even start recycling at some point...ah, who am i trying to kid!
their point was that scientists will struggle to be taken seriously in the media if they make huge unproven claims about GW. i think any scientist would aggree, media takes comments so far out of context it becomes next to useless sometimes.
possibly its a tad too complex (apart from the obvious) to be very clear on, but we'll see i guess.
maybe david cameron will even start recycling at some point...ah, who am i trying to kid!
hammock monkey said:
You see, this is what really gets me... I follow the science quite closely, and it's very rare to see a scientist making "huge unproven claims". What usually happens is that a scientist makes a very carefully qualified claim, which then gets horribly misrepresented by the media, who then turn round and berate the scientists for being overly alarmist. The media misrepresentation of this subject is the closest thing I've ever seen to a perpetual motion machine - if only we could harness it to generate energy!
The whole slowdown-of-oceanic-circulation issue is a perfect example of this. Scentists say "there is a small possibility that there may be some reduction in oceanic heat transport at some point in the medium to long term future, but we need a lot more data and research", the media reports "we're all going to die horribly, real soon!", and then six months later reports "scientists overstated case for imminent death, so global warming isn't actually happening at all". Rinse and repeat...
gregorach said:You see, this is what really gets me... I follow the science quite closely, and it's very rare to see a scientist making "huge unproven claims". What usually happens is that a scientist makes a very carefully qualified claim, which then gets horribly misrepresented by the media, who then turn round and berate the scientists for being overly alarmist. The media misrepresentation of this subject is the closest thing I've ever seen to a perpetual motion machine - if only we could harness it to generate energy!
The whole slowdown-of-oceanic-circulation issue is a perfect example of this. Scentists say "there is a small possibility that there may be some reduction in oceanic heat transport at some point in the medium to long term future, but we need a lot more data and research", the media reports "we're all going to die horribly, real soon!", and then six months later reports "scientists overstated case for imminent death, so global warming isn't actually happening at all". Rinse and repeat...
haha, like the perpetual motion idea, good point well put!!
i think you should be in charge!
Wink said:
Intrusive and inefficient but never ugly. Great, gentle flailing giants.
Still, beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that?
gunnix said:Only take what you need.
Don't see me wrong for a boring utalitarian though, as I think colours, sex, party n laughter, good tasting food, good looking wife, healthy good looking surroundings all are necessary to be healthy
.
The Chinese have a proverb: Only the brave deserve the fair, but only the fat, rich, cowardly merchants can afford them.
So how do you get a beautiful wife with minimal means, or are you being creative?
i was going to raise a point a while ago about using green energy servers...the energy used to keep websites up 24hrs a day and the air con systems that support them is horrendous.
maybe we should ask the powers that be if this site is powered by one of the green energy servers? I'd be prepared to pay membership (which i dont currently) to help, or just make a donation or whatever.
the facts behing how much power the web uses are pretty frightening. committing to green sources would be a great thing, leading by example and all that.
maybe we should ask the powers that be if this site is powered by one of the green energy servers? I'd be prepared to pay membership (which i dont currently) to help, or just make a donation or whatever.
the facts behing how much power the web uses are pretty frightening. committing to green sources would be a great thing, leading by example and all that.
Similar threads
