Global warming? Oh no not again!!!

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
11,258
Reaction score
414
Location
North Yorkshire.
As there is in so many recent big issue arguments, this one seems to go in for total polarity. The assumption is that you are an absolute believer, or you are an absolute denyer. There's no room for grey areas in modern debate.

As much as many refuse to allow it, I'm utterly cynical about it all and remain somewhere in the middle. I firmly believe that the climate is changing, just as it always has. However, I'm less convinced that human activity plays such a massive part. There's a good chance that human activity has accelerated an underlying cycle, but that's about all.

As far as I'm concerned, the extremists on both sides are largely driven by self interest. There is huge money riding on either extreme. Far too much vested interest for me to ever take it all at face value. Some of the money is so confused as to which way things might go that it's hedgeing its bets and backing both sides.

If you wish to discern the truth of these big debate points, look at where the money is. There will undoubtedly be folks shouting loudly that have more altruistic ideals. Sadly, an awful lot of them are likely to be being manipulated by the money anyway. Chances are that if anyone has the inclination to lecture the general public on any topic, they'll have some kind of vested interest. If those individuals don't, then the media that gives them a platform will.
 

lambert1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
38
Location
Berkshire
The real concerns we can all reunite around and agree on: habitat destruction, invasive species, plastic pollution, pesticides, GMO's, over-fishing, clearcutting, deforestation, destruction of whole eco systems (dredging), wildlife poaching, fracking, the list goes on..



Merry Christmas to one and all!

YouTube[/QUOTE]

Yes these are major concerns Chris and perhaps they sometimes fall under the banner of climate change. Deforestation in particular springs to mind. I remain unconvinced, but watched the youtube clip with interest. Thanks for putting it out there. There were certainly things that I was not aware of.

Merry Christmas to you too.
 

mikench

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
15,149
Reaction score
1,339
Location
leafy cheshire
My stance is that regardless of the truth and I'm on the fence generally, can we take the risk and do nothing. If the warming is cyclical then it won't change any time soon. Beware of big business however. It would sell a thermal suit to a Bedouin.
 

fishface1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
It is cold in the desert at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

nottskev

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
194
I agree the debate gets unhelpfully polarised. But I'm not inclined to think that because "both" (of course there are more than two) sides can be said to be funded, neither is to be believed. Being funded doesn't invalidate scientific work, and there's a world of difference between work on risks to public health funded by government, and work done for industrial and business sponsors to serve their interests, even when their interests are plainly at odds with public health. The motivation, not the money, is the key.

I get the impression that the debate is often not between people with conflicting ideas about eg the part played by CO2 v water vapour in producing greenhouse effects. It seems more that people pick a side, usually in line with other political (small p) views, stick to it and use any scraps of information they come across to beat the other side over the head with. It's no coincidence, for example, that climate change denial sits comfortably and predictably with support for Trump-ish politics, even when the leaders, expressed views on the issues are barely coherent and involve no detail, let alone science.
 

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
11,258
Reaction score
414
Location
North Yorkshire.
Being funded doesn't invalidate scientific work, and there's a world of difference between work on risks to public health funded by government, and work done for industrial and business sponsors to serve their interests, even when their interests are plainly at odds with public health. The motivation, not the money, is the key.
Being funded doesn't necessarily invalidate scientific work. However, the source of the funding can certainly influence the direction that the work takes and how much work in a particular direction that there is. Before we even consider wider industry (wind, solar etc), there are an awful lot of scientific, endeavours, and scientists, whose futures depend entirely upon man made global warming being as significant a factor as they might try to suggest. In an equal and opposite manner, there are plenty on the opposite side of the coin whose future rides on it being insignificant. I don't have much faith in either side and suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Right or wrong, I don't believe that scientific endeavour is the incorruptible academic one, that's entirely benevolent, that some would like to believe.
 

peterjg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,176
Reaction score
238
And you have to remember that very nearly half the people in this country are below average intelligence.....
Are you referring to the head half or the feet half of the people in this country? Sorry, silly joke, I'll shut up .....
 

rich66

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
838
Reaction score
229
Location
Leicestershire
As much as many refuse to allow it, I'm utterly cynical about it all and remain somewhere in the middle. I firmly believe that the climate is changing, just as it always has. However, I'm less convinced that human activity plays such a massive part. There's a good chance that human activity has accelerated an underlying cycle, but that's about all.

As far as I'm concerned, the extremists on both sides are largely driven by self interest. There is huge money riding on either extreme. Far too much vested interest for me to ever take it all at face value. Some of the money is so confused as to which way things might go that it's hedgeing its bets and backing both sides.
I agree Sam, follow the money.

I believe it’s a cycle and we may just be speeding up the inevitable.
I’m far more concerned about the overuse of pesticides,herbicides artificial fertilisers, Plastic waste etc
 

Richox12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
409
Reaction score
14
Ultimately man will outgrow the planet and disappear up its own rectum. It's just a matter of when.

But the planet will go on albeit perhaps radically changed.
 

bennygesserit

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
40
Location
.
The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than is present in the atmosphere or oceans. Some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Volcanic emissions are a small but important part of the global carbon cycle. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.


Line another one up and i will knock it down armed only with an open mind and some Kung Fu search engine skillz
 

markg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
5,084
Reaction score
586
Location
South East England
The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than is present in the atmosphere or oceans. Some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Volcanic emissions are a small but important part of the global carbon cycle. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of

I read that the earth had 14% emissions when the Thames used to freeze over, man-made emissions are always part of the earth, wood burning , charcoal burning metal smelting etc. We have always had the burning of fossils fuels. So, if we reach zero emissions by 2050 or whenever it is, will the Thames freeze over again or worse? Do we know what we are doing? I am not saying we shouldn't reduce it if we can but is this a bit stupid?
 
Last edited:

fishface1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
I think that when you put up a joke post you are supposed to use emoticons.

:eek:mg::wacko::j:peep::frusty::frusty::frusty:
 
Top