Jump to content

Globel Warming


Coffee
 Share

Recommended Posts

What puzzles me with this global warming is that governments only seem to see it as a way of making a fast buck from the electorate.If there was a real will to do anything about it the nations who were capable would be supplying cheap green energy now. Take Britain for instance, we have millions of roofs......houses,offices ,factories,public buildings all with roof area that is unused. I am sure that, in the interests of ecology , solar panels could be fitted for a nominal figure ,say £5k per house & all the energy the country would need would be coming from the same piece of sky as your neighbour ,whether in John o'Groats ,Lands End or the cultural hub of Britain.People only have so much money & if a project like this is affordable  then it is attainable & one of the most annoying things for the British is that we don't like being ripped off ,but the government don't seem to understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good stuff Dave, but as we cut back (rightly) on consumption, the Third world (rightly from their point of view) is increasing their energy consumption. It's all to do with increasing demand through increasing populations and economic aspirations. Bit like the guy in the smoker's shelter who packs in smoking, when the rest are lighting up ! So I'll be surprised if the Paris Conference delivers anything significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be ner ner ne ner ner next.

 

Yeah, we've all been there with "the special one".

 

I was just browsing through the Federal Report to Congress on US expenditure on climate change in 2013, I know, I really should get out more.

In just that one year the American government threw $22,596,000,000 into the trough for Global Warming Incorporated to snuffle up.

Kerr-ching!

 

Was you really? Did you come across this in your browsing? I mean, if subsidies for the cleanest and cheapest form of energy around worry you, then this kind of stuff should really break your heart:

 

http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-agrees-2-billion-taxpayer-subsidy-for-nuclear-power-project/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/oct/22/hinkley-point-uk-energy-policy-is-now-hunkering-in-a-nuclear-bunker

 

Don't mention that though fella 'cos it supports all the tree huggers and stuff.

 

Sheesh.

 

No doubt a lot more than the Indians or Chinese

 

Don't know about India, but China is taking the threat of climate change far more seriously than we are and are doing more than they used to do about addressing the issues, maybe due to serious pollution problems in the major cities bringing it home, but I'm guessing; you're a bit out of date here, obs.

 

<sigh> re #139

 

You might well say so, but in reality they are just examples of climate change which is, in itself,natural.

 

Oh, silly old me thinking that 1 °C is a measure when in someone else’s “reality” it’s something completely different.

 

You’re knocking the pieces over again in saying I’m wrong when I’m not. Is this your idea of reasonable debate? There’s a qualitative difference between the first and the other two links; that you can’t recognise this perhaps says something about your approach to scientific method.

 

So, what's your evidence that it isn't?

 

Is this another example of your idea of reasonable debate? Answering a question with another question without attempting to answer the first one? You're crapping all over the board.

 

Again.

 

Since I’m so well mannered, I’ll answer your question before you answer mine. My position is simple and I’m sure you know what it is: carbon emissions contribute to increasing greenhouse gases which in turn speeds up climate change towards a warmer planet and, as a whole, global warming isn't good for us. Something like this:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb

 

I can see there's no point in bombarding you with evidence to support this view, so I'll just go with what Exxon's own scientists say:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/25/two-faced-exxon-the-misinformation-campaign-against-its-own-scientists

 

So,what have you got, other than your oft repeated mantra of “it’s all natural”, to support your, er, reality view that it's all natural?

 

Oh, and I was laughing at something that was funny, you should try it sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what you, I or all the scientists in the world say, do or believe, the reality of the situation is that the global climate is too chaotic for anyone or any computer to model or predict. The global temperature has been rising, (and falling, but in general rising) since the end of the Little Ice Age. It is generally accepted that the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period had temperatures higher than those we are experiencing today. This is what happens to climate - it changes. I accept that emissions of carbon dioxide (a benign trace gas in the atmosphere which we need to survive) may possibly have some small effect on the rate of change of global temperatures, but it is impossible to verify or quantify this as any change likely is within the natural variability of the global temperature.

 

So I'll just sit back when I retire next year and watch as the world burns, or freezes or stays the same while the arguments continue, and the world's politicians fly to some other exotic location to decide how they are going to spend even more taxpayers money, while enjoying the luxuries on offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errm, not out of date Green one; smog bound Beijing is regularly on the news, they now close their factories down to reduce it ! But nothing strange in smog, every Town and City in pre-war UK suffered from it, until we stopped burning coal in homes and factories; now cars have taken their place ! I don't dispute the possibility of "global warming", even though Jeremy Corbyn's brother does ! Watching a geology prog the other night, describing "global warming" as the cause of several mass extinctions; now as there were no humans around at the time of dinosaurs, I think it fair to assume that "global warming" is a natural phenomena, that appears from time to time, and that the puny efforts of mankind are powerless to affect the forces of nature, although selling the idea that we can, is no doubt quite profitable in some quarters . (Sorry Asp. I'm replying to Fugs!). btw. the prog talked about the global conveyor, whereby melt ice from the poles sinks to the bottom of the ocean and is carried by deep water currents, oxygenating the seas, it then rises at the equator and returns as shallow warm water currents; if this conveyor fails, all sea life dies, and it's all happened before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've been watching too many sci-fi films..

 

Haha, no, with a turn of phrase like your using, I think you'll find that's you.

 

if you have the arrogance and illusion to believe that we'll be the only species in the history of the planet to control it's environment

 

So, go on then, show me where I've said such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acidification of the oceans? Another load of nonsense as it's impossible to make the alkali salt laden oceans "acid".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we "affect" our environment, but so does Mt Etna in Sicily, that's just started spewing out gases; so too the dinosaurs allegedly through their flatuance; but to extend "affect" to an ability to control, would be as nonsensical as it is arrogant. Climates change, continents move, nature is powerfull and way beyond the ability of man to control it. So all that leaves us with, is the ingenuity to adapt to such changes and try to survive, as man has done since he evolved onto the planet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you obviously believe we have the power to control nature.

 

I don't think that was what fugtifino was trying to say at all. Of course we don't have the power to control nature, but we can influence it.

 

If we were to lower our carbon dioxide emissions, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would stop growing at such an alarming rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...