Interesting responses. No one seems to have changed their mind so far in our tiny sample.
Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Phwooorr...look at her....CRASH
-
Bob Singleton
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Global warming and climate change exist... a bit of snow in early December doesn't mean it isn't. Those who argue against the notion of climate change need to understand the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER
Is Global warming/climate change wholly down to our excessive use of carbon fuels? Who knows for sure. Many scientists believe it is... but even if it isn't, our reliance on and use of diminishing resources such as coal, gas and oil isn't helping.
Those who belong to the Jeremy Clarkson school of thought on this subject are cunts for fucking up the earth for future generations just so that they can enjoy themselves.
Is Global warming/climate change wholly down to our excessive use of carbon fuels? Who knows for sure. Many scientists believe it is... but even if it isn't, our reliance on and use of diminishing resources such as coal, gas and oil isn't helping.
Those who belong to the Jeremy Clarkson school of thought on this subject are cunts for fucking up the earth for future generations just so that they can enjoy themselves.
"But how to make Liverpool economically prosperous? If only there was some way for Liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a whiny voice."
- Stewart Lee
- Stewart Lee
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
alicia_fan_uk wrote:
> I presume it's just pure coincidence this post arises around
> the time of the cold snap.
>
> Most of us rely on experts for questions such as this one,
> given it is so difficult to have an fully informed view in such
> a complicated area. We read up and research as much as we can
> understand/be arsed/have time for and form our view
> accordingly. (With my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek, I'd
> suggest some on here don't even go as far as that...)
>
> Do I believe it? Yes, because a hell of a lot of scientists
> who dedicate their whole lives to this area and who have access
> to the best equipment known to man can provide good evidence to
> support it. They outweigh their sceptical equivalents
> substantially.
>
> Scientific wisdom isn't infallible, but I'll take it over
> conventional wisdom any day.
>
> alicia_fan_uk
The so-called experts are just rent seekers like any others. The release of the CRU e-mails proved it, they are more than willing to distort or hide information if it does not prove their theories. There's no money in it for them if AGW is fake.
The fact is that the earth's climate is incredibly complex and cannot be modelled, there is no computer which is up to the job. CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere, and man made CO2 is a trace element of that. The actions of the sun and the oceans, and water vapour in the atmosphere are not fully understood, yet governments have fixed on C02 as the driver of climate change, and are seeking to tax us for using carbon. Now there's a surprise.
> I presume it's just pure coincidence this post arises around
> the time of the cold snap.
>
> Most of us rely on experts for questions such as this one,
> given it is so difficult to have an fully informed view in such
> a complicated area. We read up and research as much as we can
> understand/be arsed/have time for and form our view
> accordingly. (With my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek, I'd
> suggest some on here don't even go as far as that...)
>
> Do I believe it? Yes, because a hell of a lot of scientists
> who dedicate their whole lives to this area and who have access
> to the best equipment known to man can provide good evidence to
> support it. They outweigh their sceptical equivalents
> substantially.
>
> Scientific wisdom isn't infallible, but I'll take it over
> conventional wisdom any day.
>
> alicia_fan_uk
The so-called experts are just rent seekers like any others. The release of the CRU e-mails proved it, they are more than willing to distort or hide information if it does not prove their theories. There's no money in it for them if AGW is fake.
The fact is that the earth's climate is incredibly complex and cannot be modelled, there is no computer which is up to the job. CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere, and man made CO2 is a trace element of that. The actions of the sun and the oceans, and water vapour in the atmosphere are not fully understood, yet governments have fixed on C02 as the driver of climate change, and are seeking to tax us for using carbon. Now there's a surprise.
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
alicia_fan_uk wrote:
> I presume it's just pure coincidence this post arises around
> the time of the cold snap.
>
> Most of us rely on experts for questions such as this one,
> given it is so difficult to have an fully informed view in such
> a complicated area. We read up and research as much as we can
> understand/be arsed/have time for and form our view
> accordingly. (With my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek, I'd
> suggest some on here don't even go as far as that...)
>
> Do I believe it? Yes, because a hell of a lot of scientists
> who dedicate their whole lives to this area and who have access
> to the best equipment known to man can provide good evidence to
> support it. They outweigh their sceptical equivalents
> substantially.
>
> Scientific wisdom isn't infallible, but I'll take it over
> conventional wisdom any day.
>
> alicia_fan_uk
The so-called experts are just rent seekers like any others. The release of the CRU e-mails proved it, they are more than willing to distort or hide information if it does not prove their theories. There's no money in it for them if AGW is fake.
The fact is that the earth's climate is incredibly complex and cannot be modelled, there is no computer which is up to the job. CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere, and man made CO2 is a trace element of that. The actions of the sun and the oceans, and water vapour in the atmosphere are not fully understood, yet governments have fixed on C02 as the driver of climate change, and are seeking to tax us for using carbon. Now there's a surprise.
> I presume it's just pure coincidence this post arises around
> the time of the cold snap.
>
> Most of us rely on experts for questions such as this one,
> given it is so difficult to have an fully informed view in such
> a complicated area. We read up and research as much as we can
> understand/be arsed/have time for and form our view
> accordingly. (With my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek, I'd
> suggest some on here don't even go as far as that...)
>
> Do I believe it? Yes, because a hell of a lot of scientists
> who dedicate their whole lives to this area and who have access
> to the best equipment known to man can provide good evidence to
> support it. They outweigh their sceptical equivalents
> substantially.
>
> Scientific wisdom isn't infallible, but I'll take it over
> conventional wisdom any day.
>
> alicia_fan_uk
The so-called experts are just rent seekers like any others. The release of the CRU e-mails proved it, they are more than willing to distort or hide information if it does not prove their theories. There's no money in it for them if AGW is fake.
The fact is that the earth's climate is incredibly complex and cannot be modelled, there is no computer which is up to the job. CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere, and man made CO2 is a trace element of that. The actions of the sun and the oceans, and water vapour in the atmosphere are not fully understood, yet governments have fixed on C02 as the driver of climate change, and are seeking to tax us for using carbon. Now there's a surprise.
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
There is a very interesting article here: about Global warming. I'm a bit sceptical about Global warming, simply because I cannot, in all the time I have been alive, see any difference in atmospheric warming,only changing weather patterns, and although scientist's deal in facts, maybe they dont have the correct one's yet. I also think there is a lot of money to be made in tailoring the 'known' facts, to create money making opportunities, and high profile Jobs, I do know a lot of people have become wealthy dabbling in the global warming profession, ie: scientists, quango's etc, but I have no problem with people becoming wealthy (A bit like Mandleson)
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Bob Singleton wrote:
> Global warming and climate change exist... a bit of snow in
> early December doesn't mean it isn't. Those who argue against
> the notion of climate change need to understand the difference
> between CLIMATE and WEATHER
>
> Is Global warming/climate change wholly down to our excessive
> use of carbon fuels? Who knows for sure. Many scientists
> believe it is... but even if it isn't, our reliance on and use
> of diminishing resources such as coal, gas and oil isn't
> helping.
Well, it actually is helping that they are diminishing: because they become rarer, as a result more expensive, and thus we cannot burn them just as freely as we were used to.
> Those who belong to the Jeremy Clarkson school of thought on
> this subject are cunts for fucking up the earth for future
> generations just so that they can enjoy themselves.
I do believe climate change is real, but I don't think we can do fuck all about it. We can perhaps slow it down a little, but whether that makes the subsequently needed repair job any easier...
The thing is that the kind of action that would be needed to prevent it from escalating are politically not realisable, for various reason, part of which are the attitudes towards it in the US, China, etc. but essentially these are attitudes rooted in human nature. The only time when such actions become politically feasible is when the climate change reaches a level where it visibly threatens the survival of our species.
When that happens and we're very lucky we may get a few very rough years (of failing harvests etc.) in which the worlds human population could be drastically reduced to, at best, 50% of what it is now. If we are really unlucky though, climate change will trigger the release of large amounts of ocean-trapped methane into the atmosphere - which would be the end of our species, and possibly the end of all mammals on the planet.
What can we do? Keeping our fingers crossed that it's not the latter, but the former.
> Global warming and climate change exist... a bit of snow in
> early December doesn't mean it isn't. Those who argue against
> the notion of climate change need to understand the difference
> between CLIMATE and WEATHER
>
> Is Global warming/climate change wholly down to our excessive
> use of carbon fuels? Who knows for sure. Many scientists
> believe it is... but even if it isn't, our reliance on and use
> of diminishing resources such as coal, gas and oil isn't
> helping.
Well, it actually is helping that they are diminishing: because they become rarer, as a result more expensive, and thus we cannot burn them just as freely as we were used to.
> Those who belong to the Jeremy Clarkson school of thought on
> this subject are cunts for fucking up the earth for future
> generations just so that they can enjoy themselves.
I do believe climate change is real, but I don't think we can do fuck all about it. We can perhaps slow it down a little, but whether that makes the subsequently needed repair job any easier...
The thing is that the kind of action that would be needed to prevent it from escalating are politically not realisable, for various reason, part of which are the attitudes towards it in the US, China, etc. but essentially these are attitudes rooted in human nature. The only time when such actions become politically feasible is when the climate change reaches a level where it visibly threatens the survival of our species.
When that happens and we're very lucky we may get a few very rough years (of failing harvests etc.) in which the worlds human population could be drastically reduced to, at best, 50% of what it is now. If we are really unlucky though, climate change will trigger the release of large amounts of ocean-trapped methane into the atmosphere - which would be the end of our species, and possibly the end of all mammals on the planet.
What can we do? Keeping our fingers crossed that it's not the latter, but the former.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
I think if you've an IQ of 160+ and want to make money, scientific research isn't the profession you'd choose. Hell, your local Tesco's manager will be on more money than your average climatologist.
Let us look at our economy. How much of all technologies and industry is linked to scientific research? The figures say 30-40%. Without scientific research we'd never have had an industrial revolution. We wouldn't have telephones, tvs and radios, cars and planes, x-rays and mmr scanners....no porn due to the camera/film/vhs tape/dvd/mp4/avi formats never being invented....which means no porn or bgafd! Of course, the list goes on and on.
And how much funding does the whole of scientific research get? 0.2% of our GDP. Studying the climate and green technologies is only a fraction of that 0.2%. Scientific funding is so little compared to what it has given us.
I'd say the 'other side' (oil companies and various vehicle manufacturers/almost all industry) have more money to gain in preventing green industries from becoming the norm. At least until the oil runs out anyway...but what do they care of that? They'll be retired and sat on a luxury yacht admiring the 2048 Monaco Grand Prix by then.
Regardless of whether you believe global warming is man-made or not, what we can all agree on is that this planet hasn't an infinite supply of carbon-based energy resources. This means we have to find alternatives and thus any research into these is a good thing.
Let us look at our economy. How much of all technologies and industry is linked to scientific research? The figures say 30-40%. Without scientific research we'd never have had an industrial revolution. We wouldn't have telephones, tvs and radios, cars and planes, x-rays and mmr scanners....no porn due to the camera/film/vhs tape/dvd/mp4/avi formats never being invented....which means no porn or bgafd! Of course, the list goes on and on.
And how much funding does the whole of scientific research get? 0.2% of our GDP. Studying the climate and green technologies is only a fraction of that 0.2%. Scientific funding is so little compared to what it has given us.
I'd say the 'other side' (oil companies and various vehicle manufacturers/almost all industry) have more money to gain in preventing green industries from becoming the norm. At least until the oil runs out anyway...but what do they care of that? They'll be retired and sat on a luxury yacht admiring the 2048 Monaco Grand Prix by then.
Regardless of whether you believe global warming is man-made or not, what we can all agree on is that this planet hasn't an infinite supply of carbon-based energy resources. This means we have to find alternatives and thus any research into these is a good thing.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re:just to lighten the mood:
I saw a funny digg comment a few years ago where people were discussing this topic. Someone suggested trading cars for horses and this was one guy's response. He had me in stitches and made a few good points to boot!
[quote]Please, trade in your car for a horse. Do you realize the environmental impact of the entire nation or world owning horses. They shit 9 tons of manure each year, that?s about 50 pounds a day. You also have to stockpile their shit and you can?t have it close to any water sources, so anyone living in rural areas with a well wouldn?t have a place for that, if the water source comes near the stockpile, all local water sources will be contaminated. Then you have to worry about feeding your shitting horse, which requires approximately 25-30 pounds of dry food per day and we have to clear out significantly more land for farms to accomodate for our 300 million new horses (there are approximately 5.5 million horses in the United States) which in turn will destroy the environment and ecosystem as it is. Not only that, but your dumbass shitting horse can only go about 9 mph for 25 miles before having to break, it would take me over 3 hours to get to work which is 30 miles away from where I live instead of the 30 minutes it takes right now. So instead of an hour of driving every day, I?d have 6 hours of riding and 2 hours of shit stockpiling and 2 hours of feeding my shit factory. Not only this but I have to build an accomodation so it can shit all day, and buy a ridiculous amount of feed and have more land? but I guess I wouldn?t care about money at this point since I spend 10 hours of my non-working day taking care of my crappy horse.
We have technology for a reason and the environmental impact of 300 million horses, and 300 million horse pens and 2.7 billion tons of horse shit every year would be absurd?[/quote]
[quote]Please, trade in your car for a horse. Do you realize the environmental impact of the entire nation or world owning horses. They shit 9 tons of manure each year, that?s about 50 pounds a day. You also have to stockpile their shit and you can?t have it close to any water sources, so anyone living in rural areas with a well wouldn?t have a place for that, if the water source comes near the stockpile, all local water sources will be contaminated. Then you have to worry about feeding your shitting horse, which requires approximately 25-30 pounds of dry food per day and we have to clear out significantly more land for farms to accomodate for our 300 million new horses (there are approximately 5.5 million horses in the United States) which in turn will destroy the environment and ecosystem as it is. Not only that, but your dumbass shitting horse can only go about 9 mph for 25 miles before having to break, it would take me over 3 hours to get to work which is 30 miles away from where I live instead of the 30 minutes it takes right now. So instead of an hour of driving every day, I?d have 6 hours of riding and 2 hours of shit stockpiling and 2 hours of feeding my shit factory. Not only this but I have to build an accomodation so it can shit all day, and buy a ridiculous amount of feed and have more land? but I guess I wouldn?t care about money at this point since I spend 10 hours of my non-working day taking care of my crappy horse.
We have technology for a reason and the environmental impact of 300 million horses, and 300 million horse pens and 2.7 billion tons of horse shit every year would be absurd?[/quote]
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
BGAFD Admin
- Posts: 3779
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re:just to lighten the mood:
By happy coincidence, this weeks episode of QI...
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Sam:
The scientific research you are citing concerns tangible, applied science. Get the engineering wrong when you are designing a jet engine and the bloody thing will explode, as Rolls-Royce have just found out. Global warming is a theory, and it is by no means accepted by all scientists in the field, yet governments have seized on it as a means of taxing carbon, the very substance we are all made of. They'd tax the air we breath if they could, but CO2 is a good substitute.
The scientific research you are citing concerns tangible, applied science. Get the engineering wrong when you are designing a jet engine and the bloody thing will explode, as Rolls-Royce have just found out. Global warming is a theory, and it is by no means accepted by all scientists in the field, yet governments have seized on it as a means of taxing carbon, the very substance we are all made of. They'd tax the air we breath if they could, but CO2 is a good substitute.