We can't realistically stop it, no matter what we do.
However that doesn't stop governments using it as an excuse to put up our taxes.
Printable View
We can't realistically stop it, no matter what we do.
However that doesn't stop governments using it as an excuse to put up our taxes.
Bingo, bullseye, right on target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
So, do you believe outright that it is a conspiracy?
I don't. I think most scientists are generally at a loss to explain why the temperature of the planet is rising. So they've used CO2 as an excuse because we're emitting more CO2 than ever and the temperature is going up. But I feel they're falling into the trap that the earth is the centre of the universe. But it's not and there's a sun out there which is the biggest influence on our temperature. I mean an obvious example is night and day. I don't discount the fact that CO2 could be causing this warming but there are a lot of powerful factors at work which we don't have control over such as the sun, ocean temperatures and currents which can have an effect on the climate as a whole. Everyone is aware that there have been ice ages and hot periods in the past but most scientists seem to put it down to us :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Conspiracy? No, I've never thought of it that way. I've always viewed it as more of a religion/cult kind of thing. Like religion where you can't prove there is a God and you can't prove there isn't a God. It's a matter of faith and a personal choice based mainly upon fear. Like any religion or cult, you have a certain number of upper level players that realize this could benefit them from a financial aspect or an increased power aspect or both, so they do what they can to keep the passions fueled. Kind of like the big Y2K scare.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The split amongst scientists only proves that neither side can prove anything conclusively to the other side in which case I refer back to my tie-breaker post.
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?
I think that if you were to tell a scientist who does believe in climate change that you believe this to be their motivation for so doing, they might disagree and with good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I would imagine that this has not been discounted in the research that has concluded that climate change is the causal factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Galactic dust, long-term sunspot activity, impact of meteorites on the Earth, volcanic activity, any other geological catastrophe you can name, the flipping of the Earth's magnetic poles, although some people suggest that the flipping of the Earth's poles doesn't do much to the human population, it will have an effect on satellites and possibly weather systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Humans are but a tiny blot on the landscape of the evolution of the Earth - sure we aren't helping things by polluting the atmosphere, but I honestly don't buy the idea that we're solely responsible for all the climate change we see around us. Once humans have died out the Earth will still remain and some other species will come along to dominate the environment.
Religion doesn't work in scaring the hell out of people any more, so telling people that they're going to die at the hands of terrorists, or that their children's children will suffer due to our ignorance is a good way of getting people to do what governments want. Of course, any measures the serve to rectifiy the wasteful nature of human beings are welcomed, but I feel that the information is presented to the general public in the wrong way.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
They were wrong and could quite possibly be wrong now. Just like I could be wrong in doubting them.
don't know where to start on this, especially as i'm no expert and have no personal scientific study to fall back on.
there are many valid points on this thread, on both side of the fence, and for that i think we should be congratulated, its not often a subject of this magnitude can be discussed without everyone falling out!
i think i see it all like this:
there is no doubt that Global Warming is a phenomenon that is occurring now.
there is no doubt that phenomenon similar to this have occured in the past, before man was able to have an impact on CO2.
for some that fact alone is enough to belive that there is no link between our actions and the warming of the planet.
i think that is too simplistic a view to hold, and i feel the same about the other hardline that Man is solely responsible for Global warming and that it will destoy the planet.
in the past a number of factors have caused varying temperature, both by increased greenhouse gases, and also releasing increasing amount of greenhouse gases. the planet does have a natural cycle over hundreds of thousands of years, in and out of ice ages - i am in no position to say what the tipping point was, or if one thing or a combination of factors caused a shift in these, but, there is a good deal of evdience that temperature rise and CO2 levels are linked (i don't say which has caused which).
throw approx 300 years of intensive man made CO2 emissions into a period where the cycle tended towards a rise in temperatures and you find us where we are today - temps rising faster than before, and forecasts based on the pre-man made CO2 evidence and being overtaken.
it could all be coincidence, it could be a cycle, but also increased emissions may be contributing not soley repsonsible, for the trend in temperatures - hence the fact it has happened before, but has it happened on the scale that scientists are predicting now? i don't belive the worst case scenarios, nor do i hold that we are doing nothing and its all natural, somewhere in between should be enough to make us at least look at what we are doing
couple this to facts such as we are also responsible for stripping the globe of huge proportions of lush forest that thrive on CO2 and convert to oxyge, also that we also contribute to massive amounts of methane from agriculture, land fill and (i think i read this) rice production (?) which is also a greenhouse gas and i tend to feel that we are pushing the natural cycle to its limits and are perhaps on the edge of seeing something that hasn't happened on the same scale in the past, and perhaps, may not drop of as predictably as in the past.
with all this possibly occuring we would be massivley foolish not to research the phenomenon as thoughroughly as possible, and also foolish not to explore avenues that may decrease our part in the global warming.
there is massive amounts of research and revenue in low carbon energy sources both for power and vehicles, and lets face it, the oil and coal reserves on the planet are running out (although thanks to global warming the arctic oil fields have never been so accessible, and thanks to that we may be closer to global conflict than you realise as the fight to control these reserves intensifies and everyone is looking to the middle east scared of anyone with a tan! - please read up on this!).
its very easy to say that you personally can have no effect, that you don't believe it, that developing nations are ignoring tha calls from the west. but its really not that difficult to make a small effort, not just cutting emissions, but other things too.
for the record, i am no Green Freak - i drive a pretty quick and high emissions car, i commute long distances to work, i take foreign holidays, i love motorsport, but i try to be careful and i'm happy to try and offset my emissions if possible and support "green" initiatives.
if it all turns out to be a crock then i'm happy to look foolish, whilst at least having made an effort to save some energy/resources, which is still useful regardless of the motive. however, if it is proved that the science is right, and that we are at least partially reposnsible for a phenomenon that will play havoc with many highly populated and relatively poor areas of the globe that are already lving on the edge of marginally hospitable climates, then i don't wan to think i couldn't be arsed, or chose to belive it was all a conspiracy - i've got a daughter who i want to have a decent life, if making a few sacrifices helps then great, if they don't, then no great loss.
personally i think that big business will increasingly get into "green" technologies and that there will likely be an explosion of carbon cutting products and technologies in the next 20-50years, and that it is these that will make the big difference.
like i said before, regardless of the motive, can anyone really say that saving energy, not being reliant on fossil fuels and saving other scarce resources, or not contrubuting to the amounts of landfill waste is a bad idea?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
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.....