Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by zraver

Right or wrong will it hurt us to assume its right and act to become better stweards of our one and only home?

That's pretty much the point. On another thread on oil running out or some such thing, people aplenty talk about how many alternates there are to fossil fuel based energy systems. Clean Air is hardly a bad idea.

Originally Posted by chankya

No. Scientific consensus if you'd read through the link I put up would have meant that 70% of the peer-reviewed scientific papers agree with global warming due to human intervention.

Blah blah blah. And a comet killed the dinosaurs. And continents don't move. And the new Ice Age is right around the corner. Blah blah blah. All the same.

Of course science can be wrong. It has been wrong. But science is about evaluating the world with the data at hand. It always has been.

So you think industrial emissions affect the planet's heat engine. Prove it.

Science works on proof. Scientific papers work on proof. Y'all can go on gut feeling, other hypothesis and the like but it ain't science. Not till your methods are reviewed and reproduced by your peers. And I don't see a helluva lotta papers that disagree with AGW. In fact Oreskes states there are none. (To be fair she went for the term "Climate change")

Sing it, brother!

So you can either belive the entire scientific community studying AGW is in some kind of global conspiracy or you can belive them. I chose the latter. What you choose is really upto you. I posted to point out that science, the established version is in agreement on AGW for now.

Conspiracy, no. Self-delusion (and tenure, and hopes for publication, and grants), yes.

You imply some kind of choice. How can there be a choice if something is real? If I drop a hammer, do I choose to believe it falls down, or do I know it falls down? See the difference?

Prosleytize all you want, but it's all Flying Spaghetti Monster to me.

-dale

Originally Posted by zraver

Right or wrong will it hurt us to assume its right and act to become better stweards of our one and only home?

Not at all. You want to raise the price of oil and develop new energy sources, I'm right behind ya. Reduce plastic use and utilise recycling wherever possible, I'll back you all the way. Improve production methods and reduce harmful byproducts, hoorah says I.
But tell me that scientific advancement is bad, that we need to cut back on technology and lead a more agrarian existence, that we should travel less, buy local instead global, do without, and I'll call you a luddite and a charlatan.
In other words I believe we should do what we are now doing, but smarter. Most Gorebal warmers want to end what we are doing, and 'revert' to some simplistic agrarian utopia that never existed and never will.
Chankya on the other hand just doesn't like to be told he might be wrong and repeats the same mantra 'scientists agree.. scientists agree...' in the old magi edict of "invoke often"

The climate is changing. At least here in Europe.

the climate IS changing!

you accept or not...this does not matter...here in Turkey timing of seasons changed, temperatures changed everything changed.

all we are killing the planet in a very fast way...

We cannot kill the planet but the planet is more than capable of killing us ... and it really doesn't care if it does or not.

Climate is really changing . But it´s always changing. Is it our fault ? Nobody can tell , because the smallest time needed to analyse it would be at least 200 year scale . Insufficient data . At least that´s what I gathered from talks with my father who is meteorologist .

our planet always has something, global worming, global floods, global cooling, ice age, one time or another, it happened before us, and will happend after, pollution thou is something we did, this should be adrresed first, this global warming crusade, is a big waste of money.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Not at all. You want to raise the price of oil and develop new energy sources, I'm right behind ya. Reduce plastic use and utilise recycling wherever possible, I'll back you all the way. Improve production methods and reduce harmful byproducts, hoorah says I.
But tell me that scientific advancement is bad, that we need to cut back on technology and lead a more agrarian existence, that we should travel less, buy local instead global, do without, and I'll call you a luddite and a charlatan.
In other words I believe we should do what we are now doing, but smarter. Most Gorebal warmers want to end what we are doing, and 'revert' to some simplistic agrarian utopia that never existed and never will.
Chankya on the other hand just doesn't like to be told he might be wrong and repeats the same mantra 'scientists agree.. scientists agree...' in the old magi edict of "invoke often"

And thats why your view of the situation will fail and we will be force dinto cutbacks in nour way of life. Better to embrace the concept of climate change and even its catch phrases and lead the discussion from the technology standpoint instead of resisting it why the gorebals win the hearts and minds of the mostly under-educated masses of humanity.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Chankya on the other hand just doesn't like to be told he might be wrong and repeats the same mantra 'scientists agree.. scientists agree...' in the old magi edict of "invoke often"

No. I admitted on pratically every post that science often is wong. But Science is the only thing that works on proof or what we have of it now.

And FYI no one is asking you to go to an agrarian society. Neither is the essay. Nor do most of the papers I have read. I want a switch to cleaner fuels. If nothing else ones with lesser residue, better burn. So don't tell me you know what I'm going on about because you don't know the first thing.

The real trouble is you don't even want to acknowledge that there might be a problem.

Originally Posted by entropy

The climate is changing. At least here in Europe.

Climate is always changing. That's what the earth does.

Climate on the moon hasn't changed for a long time. What a lovely place that is.

The next question is "who or what is changing the climate?"

Rev. Al says it's us, through an unproven process called "greenhouse" effect, fed by carbon dioxide emissions from our industrial activities.

Some other people, including me, believe that climate changes regardless of what we do. It gets warmer when it wants to. It gets cooler when it wants to. We have no say in it. We're just along for the ride, and have been for millions of years.

Originally Posted by chankya

acknowledge that there might be a problem.

What is the problem? YOU tell me what the problem is. You tell me what the solutions are. You tell me what YOU are doing about whatever the problem is.

Me, I know what problems I have. Some examples.
Benzenes are bad, very carcinogenic, and we need to be rid of them. Same goes for carbon monoxide, nasty little buggers, the sooner we can be rid of them the better. Personally, 2 -3 days a week I bike to work, my trusty 15 gear roadbike, 11 kms each way. And I'm hanging out for mass production of hydrogen and hydrogen turbines so I can throw away my petrol motor (not the car body though, I'll keep that).
I'm perfectly happy for electricity generation from dams, coal fired generators and shale-oil generators as long as they have effective carbon scrubbers, but according to our local greens, no we can't have those because even though they're clean, they're just not right. I'm happy with nuclear power but no we can't have that because it's just not right. None of their opinions are based on science, none take account of actual science and real life, they're just emotive policies from emotive people.
While I recognise wind generation is only useful as infill generation, I still think it's a grand idea, but not the greens, no no, it despoils the natural landscape.
Same goes for tidal generation, and one of our local electricity generators had to spend seven years fighting its way through the courts just to get a renewal on its license to use it's geothermal plant at Wairakei.
So I'm not going to get my clean burning hydrogen car, and my access to any other energy technology is going to be more and more curtailed, despite the fact the greens who are dictating the restrictions to my energy supply ride aeroplanes to and from parliament each week while I ride my bicycle.

We produce the most energy efficient food in the world. Despite the distance, we can produce food and put it in BRITISH supermarkets for less energy, less price, and lower carbon footprint than local British growers and producers can, even though we are on the opposite side of the globe. We can do this because we are truly efficient, in that we minimise production and shipping costs. Despite this, the green parties of Britain (backed by local British farmers) want our produce banned because of 'food miles'. They say if it has traveled a long way, it can't be as efficient as if you bought it from a farmer down the road. No science, just mantra.

Here of course we live with human generated environment change, namely the southern ozone hole, a product of the northern hemispheres ongoing love affair with chlorofluorocarbons. I used to be able to do high altitude climbing and ski touring with no more than an spf15, my (admittedly fair) daughter needs spf30 to survive an hour at the beach.
All this was a big noise a few years ago, but virtually disappeared from northern consciousness since then, only to reappear now linked somehow or other to co2 induced global warming hypotheses.
Why just this week I've had two members of this board tell me that the ozone hole is caused by global warming and co2.

I've had people staying with me after summering in Antarctica, who won't be publishing their data in anything other than raw form, because the information in the ice cores doesn't support the carbon/inducing/warming cycle and they'll loose their funding.

And I've been preached to time and again by people who haven't experienced any restriction on their life, who wish to drastically restrict mine, and who can never give any reason for it other than to say, 'scientists agree'... and 'there is no alternative', both of which I know as false.

I'm happy to get rid of oil dependence, what's your alternative.
I'm happy to get rid of chlorofluorocarbons, stop putting it in your aeroplanes.
I'm happy on behalf of my country to reduce your energy bill and carbon footprint by supplying you with efficiently produced food, stop imposing restrictions and tarrifs on us.
I'm happy to listen to your theories about co2 induced warming, stop telling me 'all scientists agree'.

So...
What is the problem? YOU tell me what the problem is. You tell me what the solutions are. You tell me what YOU are doing about whatever the problem is.

Oh, and I bought flourescent lights for my house even though they are still very expensive because I know that the law of supply and demand would eventually drive the cost down and I was helping that to happen. And I turned off the towel rail heaters and extractor fans in the bathrooms when we bought our current house, because towels dry in the air, and you can get dry air by opening the window.

Okay. So lets take this one by one.

First you seem upset by green parties in your country. Well, I am too. They do what they do for political mileage.

Two, flourescent lights. I'm from India. And that's all we ever used. I haven't seen a normal light bulb in years. Flourascent lights are brighter, more natural looking light, last longer and are cheaper on the electric bill. So that's what I use in America too.

Three, I turn off lights wherever I can all the time. That's another legacy of living with power cuts when I was a kid.

Four, I use bottles when I can rather than plastics because they can be recycled. I have a set of four big paper bags from Target that I lug around everywhere so that I can avoid those plastic bags at supermarkets( They're the really bad ones. The thin ones that you can't do anything with. )

Five, I'm all for wind energy. It simply can't be used for large scale in developing countries because of the space required for wind farms. But lets use them where we can. Let's use hydroelectric power. Let's use nuclear power.

Six, I take the train to work most days of the week because I want to live what i preach. Mind you, to be fair its not really inconvinient or anything. I just moved to San Jose and the public transportation is pretty nice.But I'll tell you what, I see so many SUVs out there and for the life of me I don't get it. I know a few friends who own farms and they really need it. But for the rest I simply fail to get the idea of burning so much gas for nothing.

And I've been preached to time and again by people who haven't experienced any restriction on their life, who wish to drastically restrict mine, and who can never give any reason for it other than to say, 'scientists agree'... and 'there is no alternative', both of which I know as false.

I don't want to restrict your life. I'm just saying there is a problem and lets figure out the solution. I said there is a scientific consensus. I said 70%. I said science is sometimes wrong. I'm apparently still failing to get my point across.

I'm happy to get rid of oil dependence, what's your alternative.

I don't want to get rid of it today. But lets start trying. Use more energy efficient cars. I drive a Civic. I want to buy a hybrid. Lets move towards nuclear power.

I'm happy to get rid of chlorofluorocarbons, stop putting it in your aeroplanes.

AFAIK the Montreal Protocol was successful and CFC manufacture has mostly ceased. I know there was an exception on aircraft for fighting fires since there was no satisfactory alternative. Let's fight the fights we can.
As for ozone depletion, I've never heard it linked with CO2 and I've only ever read about them caused by halons and CFCs.

I'm happy to listen to your theories about co2 induced warming, stop telling me 'all scientists agree'.

My apologies for failing to communicate effectively and my admiration( for what its worth) for doing your mite.