Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

But if one of the keystones of the belief in global warming and it's effect is unseasonal weather then surely if global warming markers are there then it goes into long term forecasting..... I'm not talking day to day stuff like the fog I had this morning. I'm talking major weather events.

Surely if they can in retrospect put it down to global warming then there were indicators before the event happened?

---

How successfully can we predict the onset of hurricanes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

Is the use of my post in highlighting that article to do with the links I had provided and how they do not pass through the peer-review process, or are you suggesting that I do not understand scientific method?

The academic peer-review system is not as well-balanced and as fair as some people may suggest. As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, attempting to publish ideas that contradict your reviewer's work does not go down very well. I know of a few academics who have established their own journals in order to get information out, as other journals would not touch it. Whether that was due to their work being garbage or innovative I don't know, but it has happened.

---

That link wasn't my words its just something to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeall

That link wasn't my words its just something to think about.

---

Ah, my apologies, I took the use of my post as some kind of rebuttal of my points. My mistake :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

But if one of the keystones of the belief in global warming and it's effect is unseasonal weather then surely if global warming markers are there then it goes into long term forecasting..... I'm not talking day to day stuff like the fog I had this morning. I'm talking major weather events.

Surely if they can in retrospect put it down to global warming then there were indicators before the event happened?

---

But 'they' haven't put it down entirely to global warming, if my reading was correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes but that's my point. We've not been studying it for long enough to actually draw any reasonable data from it.

---

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

---

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

---

I would generally agree with that. The lack of smog in major Western cities is one indication of how we have cleaned up our act. Aircraft, too, are more fuel-efficient, less smoky and noisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

---

You've not been reading every second post of mine which basically says that I doubt CO2 is the major contributor to the problem BUT I advocate being more efficient. Eh? Eh? Eh?

I also think that if places like the US and UK were to take up renewable energy sources that it might be a bit easier to compete economically with China which is still going to the effort of mining coal and burning it and dealing with the consequences of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

You've not been reading every second post of mine which basically says that I doubt CO2 is the major contributor to the problem BUT I advocate being more efficient. Eh? Eh? Eh?

I also think that if places like the US and UK were to take up renewable energy sources that it might be a bit easier to compete economically with China which is still going to the effort of mining coal and burning it and dealing with the consequences of that.

---

Coal can easily be burned without billowing black clouds of smoke using precipitator units prior to the stacks. You can also control the s02 and nox gasses, but you still have the co2 that you're going to have when you burn anything.

This may have been mentioned before, if so, my apologies. This system uses bouys and as they sway they operate pumps to send high pressure water to shore and spin turbines for power. Sounds good.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...671797016.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

---

Much of what you say is true however, a few points: Many cars were banned from the US in 70's because of emissions standards and fuel economy legislation. Unfortunately these laws were scrapped by Reagan and now the average US car is less fuel efficient than a model T (because of the popularity of SUV's).

I think you will also find that most of the power supplied in Europe is still coal fired. Nuclear energy is too expensive to produce most of the power needed in Europe or the rest of the world.

I feel strongly about climate change and environemtal issues, I dont know what has been said in the thred so far, but I think its genuine, and a potentiall hugely destructive problem. Just my op.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pawprint

I feel strongly about climate change and environemtal issues, I dont know what has been said in the thred so far, but I think its genuine, and a potentiall hugely destructive problem. Just my op.

---

Go back and read the thread. It's actually been a pretty good one for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Go back and read the thread. It's actually been a pretty good one for us.

---

So you are now dismissing the sincerely-held views of others on the grounds of some perceived superiority in a thread on an internet forum?

It had generally been quite polite up until that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Much of what you say is true however, a few points: Many cars were banned from the US in 70's because of emissions standards and fuel economy legislation. Unfortunately these laws were scrapped by Reagan and now the average US car is less fuel efficient than a model T (because of the popularity of SUV's).

I think you will also find that most of the power supplied in Europe is still coal fired. Nuclear energy is too expensive to produce most of the power needed in Europe or the rest of the world.

---

I was under the impression that Europe and especially France had quite a few nuclear plants. Your coal plants should be or could be burning pretty clean though.

There are other environmental/health issues I left out like getting lead out of paints and gasoline.

Reading back, I should also have pointed out that most European auto manufacturers could have met the emissions standards, but to do so and put the stuff in cars that Americans want, like air conditioning, would have required investment in larger engines. Considering the Japanese were beginning their sweep of the American market, it probably didn't make financial sense for the European companies to compete. American manufacturers started loading cars up with all kinds of devices that killed gas mileage. Honda came in with their beautiful little CCVC engine and got low emissions and great mileage without all the gimmicks.

I do think that once a consensus is reached on an issue, the industrialized nations do a pretty good job in dealing with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

So you are now dismissing the sincerely-held views of others on the grounds of some perceived superiority in a thread on an internet forum?

It had generally been quite polite up until that point.

---

No. What I meant was that for us, a collective group, you, me and everyone involved, it has been a good, polite thread, with honestly exchanged views on both sides.

In other words, it hasn't broken down into one of our furniture-smashing bar room free-for-alls.

I meant it as a compliment to all those who have participated.

Even you, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Considering the Japanese were beginning their sweep of the American market, it probably didn't make financial sense for the European companies to compete. American manufacturers started loading cars up with all kinds of devices that killed gas mileage. Honda came in with their beautiful little CCVC engine and got low emissions and great mileage without all the gimmicks.

---

I think you're giving the European car makers too much credit with the exception of the Germans. In the 1970s, the era you're talking about, the British, French and Italian car makers were in no position to catch the Japanese in terms of clean burn technology either financially or technologically. Also most of them were facing such big problems with industrial action that merely getting cars out of the factory door was a major triumph let alone getting them past US emissions standards. End result? Possibly billions of dollars worth of lost sales after having to pull out of the US market and being locked out for the last three decades. Not all major industries are capable of reacting quickly enough to changes in legislation, however far ahead they learn of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

No. What I meant was that for us, a collective group, you, me and everyone involved, it has been a good, polite thread, with honestly exchanged views on both sides.

In other words, it hasn't broken down into one of our furniture-smashing bar room free-for-alls.

I meant it as a compliment to all those who have participated.

Even you, my friend.

---

Ah, forgive me. Apologies, and no hard feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I think you're giving the European car makers too much credit with the exception of the Germans. In the 1970s, the era you're talking about, the British, French and Italian car makers were in no position to catch the Japanese in terms of clean burn technology either financially or technologically. Also most of them were facing such big problems with industrial action that merely getting cars out of the factory door was a major triumph let alone getting them past US emissions standards. End result? Possibly billions of dollars worth of lost sales after having to pull out of the US market and being locked out for the last three decades. Not all major industries are capable of reacting quickly enough to changes in legislation, however far ahead they learn of them.

---

A very good assessment.

Your mention of Germany (West Germany, to be more precise) is very worthwhile, because the same could be said of many of the small environmental initiatives to do with recycling, alternative energy, etc that would be seen as revolutionary in many other countries, like the UK, but which became commonplace in West Germany years ago. They are now a part of life there, and no great burden on anyone. Many other nations would do well to go some way towards embracing Germany's all-round environmental awareness, which is in no way obsessive — this is, after all, a country that certainly used to have one of the highest rates of car ownership per capita in Europe. Yet, still, people often choose to take the train...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Ah, forgive me. Apologies, and no hard feelings.

---

One of the drawbacks of communicating in text is that lack of voice tone that gives one an insight into how a comment is meant.

Aside from a few absolute, fulltime knotheads that used to be here all the time, I don't have any hard feelings for anybody on this forum. I even like Eki.

No problems Mr. Dunnell and what it's worth I'm begining to explore the CO2 kind of thing. I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to look with an open mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I think you're giving the European car makers too much credit with the exception of the Germans. In the 1970s, the era you're talking about, the British, French and Italian car makers were in no position to catch the Japanese in terms of clean burn technology either financially or technologically. Also most of them were facing such big problems with industrial action that merely getting cars out of the factory door was a major triumph let alone getting them past US emissions standards. End result? Possibly billions of dollars worth of lost sales after having to pull out of the US market and being locked out for the last three decades. Not all major industries are capable of reacting quickly enough to changes in legislation, however far ahead they learn of them.

---

America wasn't real sharp on clean burn either. thats why when you popped a hood in 1974 on an American car all you saw were hoses, cannisters, filters, and tubing running everywhere. You almost couldn't see the engine. They piled on so many anti-pollution devices that gas mileage dropped like a rock.

One reason SUVs even came about was the absolute lack of regulation on them. There were regulations for pickup trucks and passenger cars but none for SUVs. What the hell is an SUV? Now, slowly, SUVs are also growing regulations. Next we'll have PTCs, personal transportation craft, to avoid more regulations.

It's a big dog chasing it's tail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

One of the drawbacks of communicating in text is that lack of voice tone that gives one an insight into how a comment is meant.

Aside from a few absolute, fulltime knotheads that used to be here all the time, I don't have any hard feelings for anybody on this forum. I even like Eki.

No problems Mr. Dunnell and what it's worth I'm begining to explore the CO2 kind of thing. I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to look with an open mind.

---

Just as I have come to understand that the opinions regarding global warming of pretty much everybody, including myself and those that think this way, who isn't a climate scientist has to be based on some form of opinion or belief rather than hard facts, because the whole thing is bloody difficult to digest. I don't think I'm about to change my view, but I do believe that panicking isn't the best way forward, because certain things simply will not change. Thankfully, industry does have a habit of finding ways round this and moving technology on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

A very good assessment.

Your mention of Germany (West Germany, to be more precise) is very worthwhile, because the same could be said of many of the small environmental initiatives to do with recycling, alternative energy, etc that would be seen as revolutionary in many other countries, like the UK, but which became commonplace in West Germany years ago. They are now a part of life there, and no great burden on anyone. Many other nations would do well to go some way towards embracing Germany's all-round environmental awareness, which is in no way obsessive — this is, after all, a country that certainly used to have one of the highest rates of car ownership per capita in Europe. Yet, still, people often choose to take the train...

---

A good example of how far the UK is behind is recycling in Australia. Australia is supposed to be a backwards country with kangaroos in every backyard and so on.....

But we've been recycling anything with a recycling logo on it plus paper and tins and so on for 15 years at least where I lived and for about 12 or so of those years you haven't even had to sort it out into glass, paper, plastic and so on.

Yet here in Denbighshire (Denbigh****e I like to call it) you have to sort it out and they don't even accept cardboard and they've only been recycling for a few years :crazy: Now of course there will be places that do a better job but I think this sort of "attempt" at recycling is pitiful at best. Then there's the fact that they only supply a small rubbish bin and because of the fact that they don't recycle cardboard and only collect the rubbish every fortnight two people like Caroline and myself sometimes end up with a bin that can't close :mark: I hate to think of how families cope.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Your mention of Germany (West Germany, to be more precise) is very worthwhile, because the same could be said of many of the small environmental initiatives to do with recycling, alternative energy, etc that would be seen as revolutionary in many other countries, like the UK, but which became commonplace in West Germany years ago. They are now a part of life there, and no great burden on anyone. Many other nations would do well to go some way towards embracing Germany's all-round environmental awareness, which is in no way obsessive — this is, after all, a country that certainly used to have one of the highest rates of car ownership per capita in Europe. Yet, still, people often choose to take the train...

---

I know a lot of countries prefer to fight against efforts to fight global warming citing the cost etc but I think they're missing a trick in a way. As you said the Germans and Scandinavians embraced environmentalism a long while back and some of their companies have developed technology that is instrumental in reducing pollution. Payback will come when they get to sell or licence their products to allow countries like the UK or US to get them to meet future emissions regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

America wasn't real sharp on clean burn either. thats why when you popped a hood in 1974 on an American car all you saw were hoses, cannisters, filters, and tubing running everywhere. You almost couldn't see the engine. They piled on so many anti-pollution devices that gas mileage dropped like a rock.

---

There's a fantastic story about Lee Iacocca who revered Mr Honda and went to do a deal with him over CVCC. Ford, Iacocca's then employer, would agree to buy several hundred thousand CVCC units to be installed in a compact FWD Ford. In return Ford would buy a large stake in Honda. The deal was set up, the Ford engineers started work then Iacocca took the plans to Ford Jr, then running the company, to sign. On realising that the cars would have Honda engines, he is supposed to have said "I ain't having Jap engines in my cars" and cancelled the deal.

Imagine an alternative history where Ford, not Honda, introduced lean burn engines to the US, where the Civic never existed and where Honda ended up as a subsidiary of Ford.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I know a lot of countries prefer to fight against efforts to fight global warming citing the cost etc but I think they're missing a trick in a way. As you said the Germans and Scandinavians embraced environmentalism a long while back and some of their companies have developed technology that is instrumental in reducing pollution. Payback will come when they get to sell or licence their products to allow countries like the UK or US to get them to meet future emissions regulations.

---

On a minor level, can you imagine the outcry if the UK brought in rubbish separation? Quite a lot of people would be up in arms about it, yet it is simple and doable. I know that some councils do insist on separating different goods for recycling, but I also know that some then lump it all in together (or at least used to), which is really pathetic. So too is not allowing businesses to recycle, because of the cost, as was (and maybe is) the policy of the council local to a former workplace of mine.

Since most of us agree that the climate is changing, the main argument is about whether man is speeding it up, causing it, or innocent. Since we all accept that the climate has changed before man's influence I would suggest the majority of any funding and technology in the short term be directed at identifing exactly who and what will be affected and preparing for them to move from or adapt to the changes. I doubt whats happening now can be stopped but if we can ease the transition over this bump, then we can focus on the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

There's a fantastic story about Lee Iacocca who revered Mr Honda and went to do a deal with him over CVCC. Ford, Iacocca's then employer, would agree to buy several hundred thousand CVCC units to be installed in a compact FWD Ford. In return Ford would buy a large stake in Honda. The deal was set up, the Ford engineers started work then Iacocca took the plans to Ford Jr, then running the company, to sign. On realising that the cars would have Honda engines, he is supposed to have said "I ain't having Jap engines in my cars" and cancelled the deal.

Imagine an alternative history where Ford, not Honda, introduced lean burn engines to the US, where the Civic never existed and where Honda ended up as a subsidiary of Ford.....

---

I believe it was Ford Jr. that blew the deal to buy Ferrari also when he refused to promise Enzo that Ford would keep the racing division operational. Honda should feel lucky Ford didn't buy them out, although I believe Ford did help Jag very much with their quaility control.

Dylan, you connected with Honda or just a big fan? Don't answer that if it's going to land me, you, or both of us in an Italian courtroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I believe it was Ford Jr. that blew the deal to buy Ferrari also when he refused to promise Enzo that Ford would keep the racing division operational.

---

That is my understanding. Of course, without this there would probably have been no GT40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Honda should feel lucky Ford didn't buy them out, although I believe Ford did help Jag very much with their quaility control.

---

They did. They should feel doubly lucky, because the tie-up with Rover produced some of the most memorable cars of all time. Sorry, I think I had a temporary blackout while writing the last sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Dylan, you connected with Honda or just a big fan? Don't answer that if it's going to land me, you, or both of us in an Italian courtroom.

---

Nah, I read a book called 'six men that changed the car industry' or something similar that had plenty of anecdotes of incidents that could have changed the course of automotive history. There's plenty more stories where that came from and I'd definitely recommend it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Since most of us agree that the climate is changing, the main argument is about whether man is speeding it up, causing it, or innocent. Since we all accept that the climate has changed before man's influence I would suggest the majority of any funding and technology in the short term be directed at identifing exactly who and what will be affected and preparing for them to move from or adapt to the changes. I doubt whats happening now can be stopped but if we can ease the transition over this bump, then we can focus on the future.

---

But it can be stopped. Realistically it must be stopped. To let it go as is poses too many risks.

I believe the latest IPCC AR4 report has some regional predictions if you are after it.

Scientists in the salary of tax hungry goverments and/or environmental groups are just as biased as those paid by exxon mobil etc :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

Scientists in the salary of tax hungry goverments and/or environmental groups are just as biased as those paid by exxon mobil etc :mad:

---

State funding for scientific research is nothing compared to industrial funding for research in just about every field. The difference is so great there isn't much point comparing the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain VXR

Scientists in the salary of tax hungry goverments and/or environmental groups are just as biased as those paid by exxon mobil etc :mad:

---

So, what is your view as to whether global warming exists based on? This alone?

I dont really know what it is but the suns radiation levels affecting climate seems more convincing. Im not anti-green just reckon the co2 stuff is overhyped. Recycling in Bath is crap they take cardboard and garden waste on different days to paper, metal and plastic and have no incentives and few facilities to recycle

Maybe the GW isn't so bad after all? :) My proposal is to pump out that oil and dig out all the resources and then freeze that cap again. You heard it here first. :p

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...av_OYpstqCHZgA

http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2990161.ece

actually Erki, maybe he isn't? check out this little spot of news, even if it is a crock, the worlds leaders are at least finally agreeing to make an effort to do their bit, few other interesting stories on here

http://environment.independent.co.uk/

i have no doubt that it won't do anything to convert the sceptics, but a decent source of info at least, and for me i find the independent to be some of the best journalism around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erki

Maybe the GW isn't so bad after all? :) My proposal is to pump out that oil and dig out all the resources and then freeze that cap again. You heard it here first. :p

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...av_OYpstqCHZgA

---

Terrible news that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7010522.stm

very interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

But it can be stopped. Realistically it must be stopped. To let it go as is poses too many risks.

I believe the latest IPCC AR4 report has some regional predictions if you are after it.

---

You my friend have to not believe everything you saw in the Movie "Inconvenitent Truth".

IT CANNOT BE STOPPED. Mother Nature will do what she does. The fact the earth was warm in the past without our help says to me that the climatic cycle is still part of the Earth's future, and I suspect we like to think we can do something, but as the dinosaurs found out, we cannot.


It is human conceit in our abilities (and maybe a lack of faith in something larger than ourselves) that leads us to believe that we are the source of this global warming and that we can stop it. A realist would look at the effects, and try to change human behaviour and where we live to take either advantage of it ( farming farther north ) or to mitigate its effects. There is so much propaganda about how this is all caused by CO2 but when no one is paying attention, the sun is the source of all heat and energy on this planet, and if its effects are up by 1 %, it has HUGE ramifications to our climate. Maybe someone should take note that Mars is reportedly warmer now too....and there are no SUV's there.