Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

As I said peer review does not make something true.

Its not about testing the theory. It cannot be tested as there is only one Earth. It can be modelled and the models are constantly being refined and improving the results. There is nothing else you can do. The ice cores show CO2 and temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. The scientific principles are widely understood. I won't be able to convince you and I shouldn't because I'm not an expert but maybe you need to look at it in another way seeing why the general consensus is true rather just why it isn't and the comebacks to the skeptic argument.

---

Well previous models (not simulations but what has actually happened over the last 4 billion years) contradict what the scientists model's say. Ice core samples show that temperatures have been high at times while CO2 has been low and quite low while CO2 levels have been high. Exactly the opposite of what's supposed to be going on today.

The thing is a climate is so complicated and fairly static thing which we don't understand so I think we'll only know in 20 years time if the models are accurate. The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be.

---

Yeah that's called the weather. Climate is more the seasonal variation over much longer timescales than two days..... :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

---

Let's not get het-up about this. I think people are perfectly entitled to use technical terms if they wish without being told to 'stop'. We now know what it means, which can only be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be.

---

Neither does it mean that it's automatically wrong, or somehow less legitimate a view on the subject than any of your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

---

Under what circumstances would you be convinced otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

Kind of makes you wonder what the world government's reasons are for combating climate change, protecting the planet, preventing extinction, preventing millions or billions dying or as they seem to focus on, minimising the cost to the economy.

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. The biggest fear of any government is that the population they govern will figure out that they don't need as much government as they have, much less to allow it to grow larger. Doesn't matter if they are doing good or not, they just have to look like they are trying to do something about anything to sell their bill of goods. Bear in mind these issues you bring up have their roots outside the government. The private sector brought these to the government and the once the issue got big enough and loud enough, then government, while donning it's superman cape, cried "I'll save you!" and jumped on the band wagon and opened the cash flow gates. Thats why governments love social and welfare programs. Generations of voters that owe their very existance to that monthly government check. Make the people believe they need us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

---

Do you know what's ironic. I was invited by Daniel to view this thread to demonstrate how to debate a point politely and this was the first post I read. Just don't say it's BS whatever you do :laugh:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...3&postcount=29

Dont worry RAH, I don't find the term Anthropogenic Global Warming (or the global warmin attribitable to us humans) confusing in the slightest.

Daniel does have a good point though in asking for some further evidence to your claim about solar fluctiations not being the cause of recent warming. We seem to be in a particulaly turbulant spell of extreem climatic events and the more contributing factors we can discount allows us to concentrate of the few remaining which could mean AGW.

Similarly Daniel, can you provide some credible sources debunking AGW that are not sponsored or linked to bodies that have a vested interest in debunking these theories.

Either way it is a fascinating bedate and I think we all owe it to ourselves and future generations to maintain an open mind. Afterall, reducing the alledged causes of AGW will undoubtly have benefits but if we're wrong and AGW doesn't exist, we would have conserved some resourses and cleaned up our atmosphere a bit. Not much wrong with that.

Just my 5c AU worth (2p)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

Show me where and how the theory of the sun being the cause of the warming trend has been "debunked". Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be. My mum's car once broke down and when it got towed home I said to my dad "has it got fuel in it" and he said "yes" so I said "does it actually have fuel in it?" to which he of course said "yes" so I asked when it had last been filled up and it turned out that it had been filled up two weeks before. My point is that sometimes the obvious things can be the thing that is wrong and sometimes there's no need to look for an insanely complicated and convoluted explanation to something that may be explained by rather simple factors.

I have a lot of time for people who are suggesting that we are causing global warming because it would be stupid not to listen because the stakes are high. But just because the majority of people who get on TV say this is what happening doesn't mean I'll blindly follow. We question the actions of our governments in regards to Iraq and so on. So why not our scientists?

Btw that graph probably stops at 2000 because it might have been made around that time? Hmmmmm. Hardly a reason to consider it inaccurate or misleading.

---

Don't get too aggressive champ. AGW is the best term as what we are talking about is man made global warming. If you don't understand what I mean let me know and I will try to explain further.

Mate, let you fingers do the walking.You never know, a little research might help you out on this subject. A good place to start is http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11650
Or http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
Or this is one of my favourites http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...h-connections/
Unfortunately your simple explanations have already been investigated. Funnily enough, the global climate proved not to be simple.

Well why don't you find a newer graph? Maybe because it is used in a context that is misleading. Where did you get the graph from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

Yeah that's called the weather. Climate is more the seasonal variation over much longer timescales than two days..... :P

---

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Let's not get het-up about this. I think people are perfectly entitled to use technical terms if they wish without being told to 'stop'. We now know what it means, which can only be a good thing.



Neither does it mean that it's automatically wrong, or somehow less legitimate a view on the subject than any of your own.

---

Yes but lets just use terms which don't complicate matters :)

If we wanted to have a discussion on teflon I could said "teflon" "PTFE" or "polytetrafluoroethylene". For the sake of discussion I would of course call it teflon on this forum. If most people read AGW they wouldn't know it meant. Just like if I said "PTFE" or "polytetrafluoroethylene" so to make discussion easier a discussion on a forum which doesn't specialise in the topic being discussed should always be conducted in laymans terms ;) It just minimises confusion and makes for easier discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well previous models (not simulations but what has actually happened over the last 4 billion years) contradict what the scientists model's say. Ice core samples show that temperatures have been high at times while CO2 has been low and quite low while CO2 levels have been high. Exactly the opposite of what's supposed to be going on today.

The thing is a climate is so complicated and fairly static thing which we don't understand so I think we'll only know in 20 years time if the models are accurate. The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

---

It is significantly closer to being fact than the opposition and is a far more widely respected view. I do not believe the media does present it is fact and will generally say things like according to the IPCC etc which is being used as a basis for political decisions.

My personal view is that man made climate change is most likely occurring as it has the weight of scientific opinion behind it. As such the consequences could be catastrophic and action should be taken. While I agree that some theories may be incomplete or flawed disagreeing with them or not acting would be completely illogical. I also believe that the anti man made global warming view should not be presented equally as it has considerably less support.

From a risk assessment point of view the money spent on preventing the risk taking place should be the chance of an event occurring multiplied by the cost of it's consequences. Also factored in should be the chance of detecting it before catastrophic failure and the potential cost after detection relative to the time before catastrophic failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

---

I think you should have another read of that wiki article. I don't think it says what you want it to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Don't get too aggressive champ. AGW is the best term as what we are talking about is man made global warming. If you don't understand what I mean let me know and I will try to explain further.

Mate, let you fingers do the walking.You never know, a little research might help you out on this subject. A good place to start is http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11650
Or http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
Or this is one of my favourites http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...h-connections/
Unfortunately your simple explanations have already been investigated. Funnily enough, the global climate proved not to be simple.

Well why don't you find a newer graph? Maybe because it is used in a context that is misleading. Where did you get the graph from?

---

Quite possibly. But it was about midnight so I took what first came to hand. That's an honest answer and I didn't intend to mislead anyone if the data suddenly becomes less favourable after 2000 :) Of course it could be used to mislead because it contains data that makes someone's theory seem more plausable but you've not shown any data that contradicts this :)

I have said that global warming may be caused by man but just that it seems like a lot of scientists who disagree with popular views aren't as well funded, aren't publicised as well and if they do get funding from an oil company they're instantly dismissed as being biased which I can understand perfectly well and it may even be justified. All I ask is that there's balance to the discussion and when you see the news it doesn't appear that there is. I also dislike the fact that anything strange that happens is immediately put down to global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

would you rather be happy living in a dark cave, happy in the knowledge that the world is flat, that you need to pray for a new sun to come up and that your newborn has just died from measles? :p :

---

Sure, gimme this today! :) No need to pray for the sun to come up, I know and trust that it will come up. World flat? No problema, I'll just make sure I don't get too close to the edge and I'm safe. :)

Too bad about the newborn really. :( But I don't think it would be very probable to get measles in that cave anyway - it's a contagious disease and only few people are around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Quite possibly. But it was about midnight so I took what first came to hand. That's an honest answer and I didn't intend to mislead anyone if the data suddenly becomes less favourable after 2000 :) Of course it could be used to mislead because it contains data that makes someone's theory seem more plausable but you've not shown any data that contradicts this :)

I have said that global warming may be caused by man but just that it seems like a lot of scientists who disagree with popular views aren't as well funded, aren't publicised as well and if they do get funding from an oil company they're instantly dismissed as being biased which I can understand perfectly well and it may even be justified. All I ask is that there's balance to the discussion and when you see the news it doesn't appear that there is. I also dislike the fact that anything strange that happens is immediately put down to global warming.

---

Let me help you out on the sun. There has been no increase n solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellites began observing the sun.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant
The temperature has change, the sun has not.

Trust me thereis plenty of funding available from companies like exxon if you want to doubt AGW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

I think you should have another read of that wiki article. I don't think it says what you want it to say.

---

I should point out that I don't support using wiki links as evidence. I'm at work and I don't have time to do a lot of research because I'm doing my job. I think the evidence of grapes being grown in colder places kind of says a lot of the people who disagree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

---

Good point. When people look at average temperature figures and manipulate results to show 5 year averages, 10 year averages, 100 year averages, 1000 year averages etc, you can get very different results and come to different conclusions. Some people say they saw the "hockey stick" graph and then believed in man made global warming. Some people see a graph over hundred and thousands of years and say that man made global warming isn't happening. Neither of these conclusions can be made from the graphs alone as the former shows that the global temperature is rising and the latter shows that the climate can change. On they're own they prove nothing but in conjunction with other data and theories they can help tell a story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Let me help you out on the sun. There has been no increase n solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellites began observing the sun.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant
The temperature has change, the sun has not.

Trust me thereis plenty of funding available from companies like exxon if you want to doubt AGW.

---

I have no bias. I'm simply after balanced discussion. Don't suggest that. If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree. If it turns out you're wrong will you agree or are you to proud to admit you could be wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes but it's science that went "ooh thallidomide!" and certain scientists that said "You don't need to vaccinate your child, it can cause autism plus these illnesses aren't around anymore".

They were wrong and could quite possibly be wrong now. Just like I could be wrong in doubting them.

---

Errrrr. What can I say to that post?

Thalidomide and Wakefield are both examples of what happens when people decide to shortcut or circumvent standard protocols for introducing a drug or for publishing a research paper.

Thalidomide was released because it wasn't tested on animals sufficiently, had it been tested for teratogenic effects on rabbits as it was after its side effects were found it wouldn't have been released.

Wakefield wrote a paper with no scientific merit whatsoever. Sadly the Lancet saw merit in it and the press and public didn't understand how flimsy the science behind it was. In his case the mainstream scientific and medical community shunned him.

Unfortunately in the case of global warming the mainstream scientific community are all for it. You're quite right in that science is inexact, it is quite possible that in the future something is found that discredits global warming and mankinds effect on it but right now with the evidence we have, there does appear to be a link between CO2 and climate change.

In a sense the science doesn't really matter, just like with Wakefields paper. What does matter is what the public believe, and how that shifts behaviour. Companies and organisations don't have to sign up to climate change and change their products and behaviour but the market will shift away from them. What amuses me is watching the car industry fight legislation against limiting pollution when past history shows that such legislation always gets introduced in the end. The companies that fight it and don't do the relevant research end up having to buy the technology from the companies that just did research into cleaner technologies. Eventually the Americans, Australians and Chinese/Indians are going to have to fork out a lot of money paying licence fees for green tech to European and especially Japanese companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree.

---

One of the problems is that it's no good if everybody who doubts it comes round to it in 50 years.

I think it's very sad that you say just because it's not so well supported that it shouldn't be funded and looked into.

If the boot was on the other foot and man made global warming was happening but we were trying to dismiss it as being natural occurences going on would you want me to use that same argument on you? I'd suspect not. I'm not poo-pooing anyone's idea because a lot of people agree with me which is what a lot of people who believe that man is causing global warming are doing.

I don't think you're going to MAKE China do anything it doesn't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

It kind of reminds me of the Islamic thing. You have a bunch of little suicide zealots running around honestly believing, because of what and how they've been taught or told, that they will find themselves with Allah in paradise and the world's supply of virgins. The people above them suspect the whole thing is a crock and they are in it for the money (see the late Mr. Arafat) and the personal power. You really think Bin Laden is going to strap on a bomb and lead from the front?

---

Taking the religion thing a step further, a friend of mine once explained it to me in this way.

There are four options regarding God or religion.

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. You're safe

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. You're f@£$ed.

Of course that assumes God is a vengeful God but thats another discussion altogether.

However the comparison with global warming is there, we don't actually lose that much beyond having a lighter wallet if we choose to act to reduce emissions regardless of whether that causes climate change. However we stand to lose a whole lot more if we don't adjust our behaviour and the link turns out to be real.

Thats a Ricky Gervais gag :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Errrrr. What can I say to that post?

Thalidomide and Wakefield are both examples of what happens when people decide to shortcut or circumvent standard protocols for introducing a drug or for publishing a research paper.

Thalidomide was released because it wasn't tested on animals sufficiently, had it been tested for teratogenic effects on rabbits as it was after its side effects were found it wouldn't have been released.

Wakefield wrote a paper with no scientific merit whatsoever. Sadly the Lancet saw merit in it and the press and public didn't understand how flimsy the science behind it was. In his case the mainstream scientific and medical community shunned him.

Unfortunately in the case of global warming the mainstream scientific community are all for it. You're quite right in that science is inexact, it is quite possible that in the future something is found that discredits global warming and mankinds effect on it but right now with the evidence we have, there does appear to be a link between CO2 and climate change.

In a sense the science doesn't really matter, just like with Wakefields paper. What does matter is what the public believe, and how that shifts behaviour. Companies and organisations don't have to sign up to climate change and change their products and behaviour but the market will shift away from them. What amuses me is watching the car industry fight legislation against limiting pollution when past history shows that such legislation always gets introduced in the end. The companies that fight it and don't do the relevant research end up having to buy the technology from the companies that just did research into cleaner technologies. Eventually the Americans, Australians and Chinese/Indians are going to have to fork out a lot of money paying licence fees for green tech to European and especially Japanese companies.

---

I wasn't saying that thalidomide was causing global warming. I'm simply pointing out that scientists can make mistakes. Perhaps it was a bad example but I'm simply saying science whether it be one scientist or 99% of them is not infallible :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I don't think you're going to MAKE China do anything it doesn't want to.

---

Its possible, if large markets were to introduce tariffs that somehow relate to emissions during production and transport or there was a rating system whereby consumers could be made aware of them thus affecting sales the Chinese would face a stark choice, reduce emissions or lose market share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

But science is just that, a sciecne. It is neither exact nor always completely correct. For instance, in my field of academic research there are several seminal papers that were published in the 1970s, all in the leading journal in the field (Journal of Fluid Mechanics). These papers, authored by some of the best fluid dynamicists around, discovered something new and interesting and went into great detail about the specifics of the dynamisc of this new discovery. Zip forward 30 years and some of my research has shown that these researchers didn't fully appreciate the subleties of their discovery, and hence some of their assertions were ill-founded. The problem I have is that as these old ideas are so ingrained in the minds of the wider scientific community, it is extremely difficult to convince them otherwise.

I'm not saying that I'm brilliant either, I'll happily admit that since the publication of my thesis, I have found some of it to be slightly wayward and have had to re-perform my simulations to produce better results. Any journal paper, report, or news article is a marker in the sand of the knowledge of the scientist at that time - further research can solidify, contradict, or outright disprove what has gone before.

Producing results from scientific examination is easy - interpreting their results (particularly those from computer simulations) is where the problems begin.....

---

cool. :cool:

thanks

:s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I wasn't saying that thalidomide was causing global warming. I'm simply pointing out that scientists can make mistakes. Perhaps it was a bad example but I'm simply saying science whether it be one scientist or 99% of them is not infallible :)

---

I didn't suggest you were making a link between thalidomide and global warming, I explained that both thalidomide and Wakefield are examples of cases whereby standard protocols (scientific ones as it were) were bypassed.

The bulk of the research behind global warming conforms to those protocols, published in peer reviewed journals with agreement between many different observers.

Yes its easy for one scientist to make a mistake. You're being charitable there, its also easy for one or a few scientists to be 'bought' too, but its very rare for 99% of the scientists to be wrong or 'bought'. Are you willing to risk so much on the basis that they're wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

One of the problems is that it's no good if everybody who doubts it comes round to it in 50 years.

---

Which is why I advocate developing renewable energy sources and not ignoring what is possibly a huge problem ;)

It's also why I dislike twonks like this....
http://www.saveourscenery.com/
....publishing pictures which give misleading impressions on the impact of a windfarm which could be a big part of averting a major worldwide catastrophy.

I guess that's my version of not believing in God but still going to church and having that insurance policy in case he does exist and is a mean turd :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Wakefield wrote a paper with no scientific merit whatsoever. Sadly the Lancet saw merit in it and the press and public didn't understand how flimsy the science behind it was. In his case the mainstream scientific and medical community shunned him.

...

In a sense the science doesn't really matter, just like with Wakefields paper. What does matter is what the public believe, and how that shifts behaviour.

---

These two things are directly linked in this case, because some of the national newspapers decided to run with it and, as so often, lots of people just believed what they had read in the press. All that happened was that a lot of people got scared of something there was no need to be scared about, a perfectly good vaccine was tarnished and a perfectly decent form of preventative medicine not given to lots of children.

The same thing can be seen with global warming. Right-wing columnists like Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson write stuff saying that it doesn't exist on the basis that they choose to believe one argument and ignore the other, and people believe them because they read the paper in question and nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Thats a Ricky Gervais gag :p

---

Is it? I heard it a long time before Gervais became famous, from when I was at school, and that was a very long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Taking the religion thing a step further, a friend of mine once explained it to me in this way.

There are four options regarding God or religion.

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. You're safe

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. You're f@£$ed.

Of course that assumes God is a vengeful God but thats another discussion altogether.

However the comparison with global warming is there, we don't actually lose that much beyond having a lighter wallet if we choose to act to reduce emissions regardless of whether that causes climate change. However we stand to lose a whole lot more if we don't adjust our behaviour and the link turns out to be real.

---

I don't think you are going to reduce anything, anytime soon with out major population reductions, regardless of light your wallet becomes. The need to support our population is the very cause of higher emissions.

Don't forget, before you have God, you have to have hell or something similar to drive the fearful into the hands of God. Fear is what drives that business and to some extant, the man-induced global warming business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I didn't suggest you were making a link between thalidomide and global warming, I explained that both thalidomide and Wakefield are examples of cases whereby standard protocols (scientific ones as it were) were bypassed.

The bulk of the research behind global warming conforms to those protocols, published in peer reviewed journals with agreement between many different observers.

Yes its easy for one scientist to make a mistake. You're being charitable there, its also easy for one or a few scientists to be 'bought' too, but its very rare for 99% of the scientists to be wrong or 'bought'. Are you willing to risk so much on the basis that they're wrong?

---

Of course it's rare and that's why I don't totally discount the arguments for man made global warming :) But like I said the world is flat! Or at least it was 500 years or so ago :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Which is why I advocate developing renewable energy sources and not ignoring what is possibly a huge problem ;)

It's also why I dislike twonks like this....
http://www.saveourscenery.com/
....publishing pictures which give misleading impressions on the impact of a windfarm which could be a big part of averting a major worldwide catastrophy.

---

Before
http://www.saveourscenery.com/View%2...%20(Small).jpg

After
http://images.jupiterimages.com/comm...1/22834185.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I think it's very sad that you say just because it's not so well supported that it shouldn't be funded and looked into.

If the boot was on the other foot and man made global warming was happening but we were trying to dismiss it as being natural occurences going on would you want me to use that same argument on you? I'd suspect not. I'm not poo-pooing anyone's idea because a lot of people agree with me which is what a lot of people who believe that man is causing global warming are doing.

---

Most of those people who agree with you are non scientists influenced by pressure groups funded by interested parties. I hate saying that because its a bit like a conspiracy theory but unfortunately seems to be true. All I can say is look at the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Taking the religion thing a step further, a friend of mine once explained it to me in this way.

There are four options regarding God or religion.

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. You're safe

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. You're f@£$ed.

Of course that assumes God is a vengeful God but thats another discussion altogether.

However the comparison with global warming is there, we don't actually lose that much beyond having a lighter wallet if we choose to act to reduce emissions regardless of whether that causes climate change. However we stand to lose a whole lot more if we don't adjust our behaviour and the link turns out to be real.

---

Alternatively

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. God is angry that you believed in Him despite the lack of evidence

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. He appreciates that you weighed up all the information available and came to a reasonable conclusion and rewards you.

Don't worry kids, God loves you anyway. :)

In German, the word God should be Liebgott, not Hassgott. (Lieb=love, Hass=hate)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Which is why I advocate developing renewable energy sources and not ignoring what is possibly a huge problem ;)

It's also why I dislike twonks like this....
http://www.saveourscenery.com/
....publishing pictures which give misleading impressions on the impact of a windfarm which could be a big part of averting a major worldwide catastrophy.

---

I don't see how renewable resources really solve the problem especially since the ones being looked at will compete with land set aside for agriculture, not a problem in places with a massive food surplus like Europe or the US but not viable for poorer areas. They won't reduce emissions either although arguably they reabsorb much of the CO2 produced in their burning.

The website you have a link to does have a point, few people in places like Europe which are relatively cramped will tolerate huge noisy unsightly wind turbines which will also rely on the windstrength which can be variable.

Nuclear to me seems to be the way ahead, it is safe in properly designed and maintained reactors and is zero emissions, silent and relatively compact. Its a pity that the green groups have helped give nuclear power such a bad name that many people dismiss it out of hand.

Another option is that the Middle Eastern countries currently producing oil will push for a fuel cell based economy, the reason being that they have lots of desert in which they can build solar farms without upsetting anyone which can then be used to produce H2 which can then be shipped to the west using logistics currently used for oil, ie pipes and ships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I don't see how renewable resources really solve the problem especially since the ones being looked at will compete with land set aside for agriculture, not a problem in places with a massive food surplus like Europe or the US but not viable for poorer areas. They won't reduce emissions either although arguably they reabsorb much of the CO2 produced in their burning.

The website you have a link to does have a point, few people in places like Europe which are relatively cramped will tolerate huge noisy unsightly wind turbines which will also rely on the windstrength which can be variable.

Nuclear to me seems to be the way ahead, it is safe in properly designed and maintained reactors and is zero emissions, silent and relatively compact. Its a pity that the green groups have helped give nuclear power such a bad name that many people dismiss it out of hand.

Another option is that the Middle Eastern countries currently producing oil will push for a fuel cell based economy, the reason being that they have lots of desert in which they can build solar farms without upsetting anyone which can then be used to produce H2 which can then be shipped to the west using logistics currently used for oil, ie pipes and ships.

---

The sea off LLandudno is of no importance when it comes to food and neither is the land on which the llyn alwen windfarm is based. I know because I live in this part of Wales. The turbines off the coast where we live aren't noisy and the wind is not as "variable" as they make it sound and most days the turbines are spinning along generating power.

Projects like the proposed Gwynt y mor windfarm have little or no impact upon food production because little or no fishing happens just off the coast of North Wales.

Seems like you've been brainwashed by a pressure group funded by an interested party ;)

I do agree on Nuclear power though :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The sea off LLandudno is of no importance when it comes to food and neither is the land on which the llyn alwen windfarm is based. I know because I live in this part of Wales. The turbines off the coast where we live aren't noisy and the wind is not as "variable" as they make it sound and most days the turbines are spinning along generating power.

Projects like the proposed Gwynt y mor windfarm have little or no impact upon food production because little or no fishing happens just off the coast of North Wales.

Seems like you've been brainwashed by a pressure group funded by an interested party ;)

---

That may be so for that particular site, but given how cramped Europe is you'll struggle to build enough windfarms to supply a significant proportion of our energy needs without disrupting agriculture and/or fishing or causing a major blight on the landscape. Not every part of Europe is identical to Wales.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I do agree on Nuclear power though :up:

---

I don't have a link to reference this to but I have read and heard that we are not even aware of how much damage nuclear energy pollution does to our planet and to our health.
It is said that mental deseases, alzheimers for example, are on the rise because of levels of radioactivity that our 'geiger" detectors can't even sense and that are out there creating havoc.

I don' have a graph or an expert's quote but I look forward to the time when we can get our energy from the sun, that big red hot power generator in the sky.


:s mokin: