The great global warming swindle-9pm tonight (thursday 8/3/07)

watsdcraic

Weathercheck wrote:

All i'll say about the show is :rolleyes:

I agree with you' we will never really know the full truth.
But it's good that it is being questioned, all the media hyp I mean.

Danno

Anywhere I can see the show online??

Belfast

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

BBC Horizon on Global dimming
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382&q=Global+Dimming

In spite of the title this book tells lot a global climate in the last and how it changed.
http://www.amazon.com/Atlantis-West-Britains-Megalithic-Civilization/dp/0786711450/ref=sr_1_1/002-0787288-8432847?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174482717&sr=1-1

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias
on Climate Change
United Nations IPCC scientists blame human interference, not natural variation, for causing our changing climate, and manipulate the data to suit their arguments.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/climate.html

stopusingoil

Do you blieve it?

I wanted to post a thread asking the question "Do you care about it?" but, I have realised, some people think either carbon emmissions have nothing to do with climate change or its all a bunch of ****

In my opinion, we caused it and its very very real.

Worst case scenario:
No food, water or shelter for your children. Global chaos.

Best case scenario:
World peace and unlimited possibility for man.



Please post something. Anything. Let me know someone cares, or why you don't.

MooseJam

I believe in global warming, it's going to be total chaos for our kids, pillage and strife and cannibalism will prevail, it was pissing rain in Dublin today and its summer ! this is the start.

Takeshi_Kovacs

You might be better off posting in the 'Green Issues' sub forum, where you will get more replies, to your questions. Not that we don't care for the environment, or why the weather is as 'freakish' as it is at the moment, but this is a weather forum discussing weather events.

djpbarry

First of all, some of the data used in this documentary was falsified:

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

For example, data from the British Antarctic Survey was completely misrepresented:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178

Some of the statements made in the documentary are completely untrue:

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

Even Eigil Friis-Christensen, one of the scientists who contributed to the show, is unhappy with how his data was presented:

http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading, has dismissed the documentary's claim that cosmic rays are a greater contributor to global warming than greenhouse gases:

"First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."

Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, stated that "Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game":

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6089

A group of 37 British scientists have written an open letter to Martin Durkin, in which they state that they ""believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest":

http://climateofdenial.net

One of the documentaries central claims, that solar activity is causing the earth's temperature to rise, has recently been disproved:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/05/climatechange.climatechange

The Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society presented a critique of the documentary by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan (WARNING!! PDF FILE!!!):

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_new.pdf

Carl Wunsch of MIT, another prominent scientist featured in the documentary, has also voiced his displeasure about how he was represented on the show:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1977366.htm

In light of all this criticism, I think it is safe to say that Martin Durkin's documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", is nothing more than a "great swindle" itself.

edanto

Great post djp, and for those that would like to read why Durkin told two leading scientists to 'Go fu*k yourself', see here.

lucernarian

I agree. A great post there, and food for thought.

It should have struck me sooner that a documentary with a sensationalist title mightn't be all that accurate as it portrays itself to be. Nothing is ever as black and white as "Everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue."

Trogdor

Good post alright, that programme has been ripped to shreads:D:D. I severely doubt that there's just data tampering on their side though. There's so many reports of tampered, falsified etc. data on both sides that maybe thats the reason that quite alot of people are just ignoring the global warming "crisis"

kmick

To be honest it seems that everyone on the planet accepts global warming apart from US Business interests. However I think we can all agree no one REALLY knows what is causing it suffice to say most people accept it is probably C02 related.

edanto

I think the reason the people ignore the problem relates to the way that it's covered in the media. Journalists are trained to tell a story as if it has two sides, so you have the paragraph with one side of view and then the other.

So, a small loud group of people (e.g. oil lobby funded climate change denialists) can appear to have the same weight of argument as a group of scientists trying to speak with one voice.

The data is in, the debate is over.

Thing is though, when the oil runs out, we'll have an even worse problem. No oil, no wheat, no dairy if you believe the very rational Robert Newman in 'The History of Oil'.

djpbarry

I find it very worrying that such a large number of intelligent people could be so easily swayed by what is essentially a piece of political propaganda :eek: .

rc28

djpbarry wrote:

I find it very worrying that such a large number of intelligent people could be so easily swayed by what is essentially a piece of political propaganda :eek: .

Are you talking about the programme or GW in general?

edanto

Read the rest of the thread and you'll know what he thinks of the programme!

rc28

edanto wrote:

Read the rest of the thread and you'll know what he thinks of the programme!

Lol, should have thought of that:o

You Suck!

The wolf came.

The dirty bástard!

Saw a mention in focus lately that a temperature increase has been noticed on other planets recently, a quick search turned up this baby: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

So that would make me wonder how well we are measuring solar output.

Also in regards to the gw debate in general, just break it down to first principles.

Co2 trap's heat.
Mans activity's produces Co2.
The argument should really begin with how much human activity's have.

But in any case, I find it all somewhat delusional. Gw is here regardless of cause and arguing about it won't change it's reality's. Even as we change our habits, the fact is that these changes will take too long and will have a minimal impact in what will probably be too late a timeframe.

As such, this is where I dump all conventional rationality and go for the nuclear option: Climate control.

If we have the ability to obliterate ourselves 50 times over, then is it too much to think that maybe we can start to tweak the weather. I could list endless problems with this approach, not to mention the explicit dangers of fúcking with such a complex system. But barring we cut out all co2 emissions in the near future, then what other alternative is there. Also the sooner we start, the better equipped we will be for any contingency's should our efforts to reduce carbon not succeed. Along these lines, would there be any harm in starting an academic effort now in earnest?

But then again......maybe the effects of gw will be somewhat less then we expect and maybe this will all be much ado about nothing

djpbarry

You Suck! wrote:

Even as we change our habits, the fact is that these changes will take too long and will have a minimal impact in what will probably be too late a timeframe.

As such, this is where I dump all conventional rationality and go for the nuclear option: Climate control.

If we have the ability to obliterate ourselves 50 times over, then is it too much to think that maybe we can start to tweak the weather. I could list endless problems with this approach, not to mention the explicit dangers of fúcking with such a complex system. But barring we cut out all co2 emissions in the near future, then what other alternative is there. Also the sooner we start, the better equipped we will be for any contingency's should our efforts to reduce carbon not succeed. Along these lines, would there be any harm in starting an academic effort now in earnest?

A few points:

1. It is true that a certain amount of damage has already been done, but the longer it takes for us to change our habits, the more severe the impact we will have.
2. Nuclear is a daft option; it is non-renewable and the nuclear industry will face the same problem in 50 years as the fossil fuel industry is facing now. There is only so much uranium in the world, and its refinement is an extremely energy-intensive process - not very environmentally friendly. Let's not even get into the whole toxic waste issue.
3. You're suggesting we try to alter weather patterns to counter the influence of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations? You've been watching too many science fiction movies my friend. The Earth's atmosphere is an incredibly chaotic system - you cannot control something that behaves so unpredictably. And besides, it is thought that CO2 concentrations could pass 500ppm by the end of this century. A concentration above 600ppm is actually toxic! So, you can try to control the weather if you want, but the atmosphere will still be poisoned.
4. Yes, there would be a great deal of harm in researching frivolous ideas, rather than tackling the real problem.

Trogdor

The way i see it is that there are very pessimistic people that believe there is nothing we can do to stop it, and very optimistic people who believe that reducing emissions now will have any impact at all, assuming that GW is caused by carbon emissions

You Suck!

Er.....serious reply to a post with tongue firmly in cheek :rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote:

A few points:

djpbarry wrote:

[*]It is true that a certain amount of damage has already been done, but the longer it takes for us to change our habits, the more severe the impact we will have.

And your going to get developing economy's such as china and india to reduce their emissions how? And within the next 20 to 50 years?

djpbarry wrote:

[*]Nuclear is a daft option; it is non-renewable and the nuclear industry will face the same problem in 50 years as the fossil fuel industry is facing now. There is only so much uranium in the world, and its refinement is an extremely energy-intensive process - not very environmentally friendly. Let's not even get into the whole toxic waste issue.

Eh, "nuclear option" is also a phrase of speech.

djpbarry wrote:

[*]You're suggesting we try to alter weather patterns to counter the influence of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations? You've been watching too many science fiction movies my friend. The Earth's atmosphere is an incredibly chaotic system - you cannot control something that behaves so unpredictably. And besides, it is thought that CO2 concentrations could pass 500ppm by the end of this century. A concentration above 600ppm is actually toxic! So, you can try to control the weather if you want, but the atmosphere will still be poisoned.

Thanks for the put down, but all Im saying is that perhaps our current approach is a little naive and that we should perhaps start to explore options other then deluding ourselves that we can simply change things with a shake of wand and some groovy advertising.

djpbarry wrote:

[*]Yes, there would be a great deal of harm in researching frivolous ideas, rather than tackling the real problem.

Yeah, same as the frivolous idea that we could split atoms and control electrons, measure the speed of light, go to the moon etc, etc, etc.

Also much research related to what im suggesting is already in progress. Climatologists and meteorologists are very interested in how the global climate system works, it is only inherent that they will notice avenues of control and interference same as quantum physicists once noticed new ways of utilizing quantum physics leading to the electronics and computing revoloutions.

bonkey

You Suck! wrote:

And your going to get developing economy's such as china and india to reduce their emissions how?
...
but all Im saying is that perhaps our current approach is a little naive and that we should perhaps start to explore options other then deluding ourselves that we can simply change things with a shake of wand and some groovy advertising.

So maybe we should stop deluding ourselves that the likes of China and India are insurmountable problems, and start exploring options regarding how we can crack that nut?

Why is it that you can happily advocate "research" or "thinking outside the box" when its in a direction you think might be worth going, but when it comes to something else, the same approach doesn't even bear consideration.

Yeah, same as the frivolous idea that we could split atoms and control electrons, measure the speed of light, go to the moon etc, etc, etc.

No, not the same. Perhaps comparable to the frivolous idea that we could send a colony-ship to Alpha Centauri....but not to sending man to the moon.

it is only inherent that they will notice avenues of control

Well yes. They've noticed that if you add large amounts of CO2 to the system over a long period of time, you end up with more heat trapped from the sun, and consequently a more energetic system. They've noticed that if we reduce the CO2 levels gradually, over a long period of time, that will reverse.

Strangely, this avenue of control is exactly where the entire debate is stemming from....mostly because a lot of people refuse to believe it exists.

djpbarry

You Suck! wrote:

And your going to get developing economy's such as china and india to reduce their emissions how? And within the next 20 to 50 years?

This is used as a cop-out far too much :mad: . People in the developed world are constantly using the "developing economy" argument as an excuse to do nothing about climate change. "Nothing we do will make any difference, right?" Wrong.
First and foremost, the developed world should be setting an example by using cleaner technologies where possible. For example, there is absolutely no reason why every new house in Ireland cannot be built with a solar panel and wind turbine. Ok, the price of a house would increase further, but your energy bills would be drastically reduced.
At the moment, countries like India and China have no incentive to reduce emissions. If developed nations applied gentle pressure, they could make a big difference. For example, Beijing is going to great lengths to clean up its act in time for the Olympics. And besides, economies develop far quicker today than they did at the time of the Industrial Revolution. As economies grow, people become more affluent and develop concerns about their environment - look at South Korea.
And finally, one of the main reasons the likes of India and China are polluting so much more is because the developed world is withholding "clean" technologies from them. Take China's automobile industry for example. Both GM and Volkswagen have Chinese subsidiaries, but the Chinese plants are churning out brand new models based on designs that are up to 20 years old!! If China was forced to raise fuel efficiency standards, then GM and Volkswagen would have to provide more recent designs. There's no way they'd pull out - China is far too lucrative a market.

You Suck! wrote:

Thanks for the put down, but all Im saying is that perhaps our current approach is a little naive and that we should perhaps start to explore options other then deluding ourselves that we can simply change things with a shake of wand and some groovy advertising.

I don't know anyone who thinks things are that simple. I think it's generally accepted that in order to tackle climate change, a massive overhaul of our planet is necessary.

You Suck! wrote:

Yeah, same as the frivolous idea that we could split atoms and control electrons, measure the speed of light, go to the moon etc, etc, etc.

I think you're being a touch hypocritical here. You seem to be dismissing the "frivolous" idea that climate change can be combated by using the conventional approach of cleaning up our act .

You Suck! wrote:

Also much research related to what im suggesting is already in progress. Climatologists and meteorologists are very interested in how the global climate system works, it is only inherent that they will notice avenues of control and interference same as quantum physicists once noticed new ways of utilizing quantum physics leading to the electronics and computing revoloutions.

Of course climatologists and meteorologists are interested in how the global climate works - that's their job :cool: . The point is you're proposing that we simply paper over the cracks. This sort of approach has already been proposed by a research group in Germany:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070817-volcano-warming.html
But, problems with this sort of approach have already been discovered:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070817-volcano-warming.html

You Suck!

So maybe we should stop deluding ourselves that the likes of China and India are insurmountable problems, and start exploring options regarding how we can crack that nut?

Er how? "You guys stay poor cos we messed up the planet and are now feeling guilty about it?" Would that work? China builds 2 new coal powered stations a week to feed it's demand for energy, no one whines, but were they to be building 2 nuclear stations a week there would be convulsions. And lets put this in context, the worlds no.1 co2 emmiter the us, despite being a developed and rich nation will also not attempt to reduce its emissions despite supposedly having the capacity to do so.

What suggestions would you have?

Why is it that you can happily advocate "research" or "thinking outside the box" when its in a direction you think might be worth going, but when it comes to something else, the same approach doesn't even bear consideration.

No, if any solutions outside the box for the current approach can be found, im more then on for it. Just I share the cynisism with the program makers, that much of what is going on is bull, and that this is yet another avenue to get gullible consumers to buy in to what is in essence what every companys sells nowadays: "a lifestyle".

No, not the same. Perhaps comparable to the frivolous idea that we could send a colony-ship to Alpha Centauri....but not to sending man to the moon.

Another put down, and you don't even have the decency to state why your revised analogy would be anymore valid.

If it is so frivoulous then why are companys already researching cloud seeding, why are suggestions being made that we could induce global dimming, why is there a un treaty that prohibits using the weather as a weapon?

Well yes. They've noticed that if you add large amounts of CO2 to the system over a long period of time, you end up with more heat trapped from the sun, and consequently a more energetic system. They've noticed that if we reduce the CO2 levels gradually, over a long period of time, that will reverse.

We've also notice the melting of permafrost in the siberian artic and the release of methene, a gas that has approxamately twice the warming effect of co2. So how exactly will we put this genie back in the bottle?

Also just to highlight this:

They've noticed that if we reduce the CO2 levels gradually, over a long period of time, that will reverse.

So far we have only been talking about reducing our Co2 emmisions, reducing co2 levels in the atmosphere is ironically more along the lines of what I am suggesting. Also how long a time period have you got, because last I heard this planets climate cycles lasted thousands to tens of thousands of years.

And just to go back on what you said:

Why is it that you can happily advocate "research" or "thinking outside the box" when its in a direction you think might be worth going, but when it comes to something else, the same approach doesn't even bear consideration.

Im game for all approachs, but what I think we fail to comprehend is the sheer scale of the problem we are facing. That we can plant a few forests here and there, that a few airlines can buy out their carbon emissions, that turning off a few light bulbs here will offset chinas new coal fired stations, that being pious little gits in the first world will stop others in the developing world to not want to acheive the same wealth as us. These things imho are far more frivolous then what ive been accused of being frivolous for.

Simply put all im saying, is that this problem is a product of technology and that technology is what will probably be required to solve it, and that we had better start thinking on a manhatten project scale because that is the scale of the problem we face.

You Suck!

First and foremost, the developed world should be setting an example by using cleaner technologies where possible. For example, there is absolutely no reason why every new house in Ireland cannot be built with a solar panel and wind turbine. Ok, the price of a house would increase further, but your energy bills would be drastically reduced.

And they will follow our example how? With what money? So easy for us to say with our 44000$ gdp in comparision to theirs.

And besides, economies develop far quicker today than they did at the time of the Industrial Revolution. As economies grow, people become more affluent and develop concerns about their environment - look at South Korea.

Still a time frame of 20+ years, which if we are to belive some current estimates means too late.

And finally, one of the main reasons the likes of India and China are polluting so much more is because the developed world is withholding "clean" technologies from them.

Yes, we are hiding those technologys from them under our beds. Those countrys have the same access to research and development same as we do. But their a little more worried about the cost to benefit ratio because they don't quite share the same luxurys as ourselves. Also, is the us withholding "clean" tech from it's self?

I don't know anyone who thinks things are that simple. I think it's generally accepted that in order to tackle climate change, a massive overhaul of our planet is necessary.

I do, the endless number of companys who see a profit in keeping things that simple, the endless number of people who know nothing of the issue outside of what they see in everyday media. But we can agree on one thing here, a massive overhaul is nessisary, something so massive that what im suggesting might not seem so crazy.

I think you're being a touch hypocritical here. You seem to be dismissing the "frivolous" idea that climate change can be combated by using the conventional approach of cleaning up our act

Also I hope you and bonkey will both note that no where have I stated that current efforts should be curtailed in anyway. The arguements seems to be that I have, which is somewhat disengenous as I merely suggested an alternative and complementary approach. As also already stated, we can reduce our co2 emmissions but that will not change or reduce the co2 that is already present and the agrevating factors such as methane release. When i suggest something on the scale of climate control, I also envision efforts to develop technologys that could remove carbon from our atmosphere on such a scale. So far the attitude has been, that we reduce our emmissions when in fact its even somewhat contentious how much of an impact emmisions from human activity are having. Add to this the removal of carbon sumps such as rainforest, and it becomes clear that emmisions are not the sole source of the problem we are facing. So even if we do successfully reduce man made emmisions, we're still going to have a problem.

Despite my cynicism, I do favor effencicy, especially that inherant in the philosophy that we only use as much energy as we need, and the current approach to reducing emmisions suits me grand. But behind it all it simply won't be enongh....IMHO.

The point is you're proposing that we simply paper over the cracks. This sort of approach has already been proposed by a research group in Germany:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...o-warming.html
But, problems with this sort of approach have already been discovered:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...o-warming.html

And where am I suggesting we paper over the cracks?

And as I stated in my original post:

If we have the ability to obliterate ourselves 50 times over, then is it too much to think that maybe we can start to tweak the weather. I could list endless problems with this approach, not to mention the explicit dangers of fúcking with such a complex system.But barring we cut out all co2 emissions in the near future, then what other alternative is there. Also the sooner we start, the better equipped we will be for any contingency's should our efforts to reduce carbon not succeed. Along these lines, would there be any harm in starting an academic effort now in earnest?

djpbarry

You Suck! wrote:

And they will follow our example how? With what money? So easy for us to say with our 44000$ gdp in comparision to theirs.

The point I was trying to make is that it is possible for every single person in the developed world to drastically reduce their energy consumption, with very little effort. This in turn would significantly reduce global CO2 emissions .

You Suck! wrote:

Still a time frame of 20+ years, which if we are to belive some current estimates means too late.

Do you think we’re going to be able to control the weather within the next 20+ years ?

You Suck! wrote:

Yes, we are hiding those technologys from them under our beds.

Sarcasm is not your strong point :rolleyes: . I have already explained why the Chinese in particular are using such out-dated technologies, but you conveniently chose to ignore my point.

You Suck! wrote:

much of what is going on is bull, and that this is yet another avenue to get gullible consumers to buy in to what is in essence what every companys sells nowadays

Suddenly it all becomes clear – may I ask what you do for a living? The very last thing that “companies” want is for people to become more eco-friendly – it makes life much more challenging for them and also cuts profits.

You Suck! wrote:

We've also notice the melting of permafrost in the siberian artic and the release of methene, a gas that has approxamately twice the warming effect of co2. So how exactly will we put this genie back in the bottle?

Methane has a large effect for a brief period (about 10 years), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). On a global scale, CO2 has a much greater influence (about 5 times) on warming:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm

In other words, it makes more sense to tackle CO2 emissions first.

You Suck! wrote:

Those countrys have the same access to research and development same as we do

Name any city in China and I can guarantee you they spend more money on R&D than the whole of Ireland. Do you know how much money Ireland spent on research in this area last year? An absolutely pathetic €100,000; that’s barely enough to fund 2 PhD’s :eek: .

You Suck!

The point I was trying to make is that it is possible for every single person in the developed world to drastically reduce their energy consumption, with very little effort. This in turn would significantly reduce global CO2 emissions

And all Im saying is that it is not that simple. First of all, its not an option to "every single person" because even developed economys have people who can't afford these new technologys. It's great that developed countrys will attempt to reduce thier own emission, but Im still cynical when you take other factors in too account.

Do you think we’re going to be able to control the weather within the next 20+ years

No, but if we don't start researching and looking at it now, we'll be 20 years behind when we reach a point the developing economys are just starting to have the same ability to implement the same measures.

Sarcasm is not your strong point.I have already explained why the Chinese in particular are using such out-dated technologies, but you conveniently chose to ignore my point.

And comprehension is not your strong point :rolleyes: I've taken the time to post comprehensive replys and it's still not enough. Shall we drag this thread into base pedantry where I start highlighting and quoting the points I have raised that you have not addressed. Sorry, Im not in a mood for such tedium, esp. when all this came from a post I highlighted was tongue in cheek. :rolleyes:

But since you insist:

Take China's automobile industry for example. Both GM and Volkswagen have Chinese subsidiaries, but the Chinese plants are churning out brand new models based on designs that are up to 20 years old!!

And this shows that the "clean" tech is being withheld how?

If China was forced to raise fuel efficiency standards, then GM and Volkswagen would have to provide more recent designs. There's no way they'd pull out - China is far too lucrative a market.

And who will force china? Also care to think that these outdated designs are being used as a means of providing the chinese with cars they can actually afford? The cost of repairing modern car's has become rediculous since electronic engine management systems now require cars to be repaired only in garages where that technology is available. The simplicity and ease of maintance of an 1990 corolla in comparision with a modern avensis is a chasim of epic proportions. Maybe, just maybe there are rational reasons behind the decisions of these car makers.

Suddenly it all becomes clear – may I ask what you do for a living? The very last thing that “companies” want is for people to become more eco-friendly – it makes life much more challenging for them and also cuts profits.

What do's it matter what I do for a living? Stupid point to raise in any arguement, especially as I haven't yet claimed to be an authority of any kind. You always know the arguement is going south when this little gem is pulled. Also Ive frequented this forum for a few years now, and know that it has some very qualified opinions from people who are professional meteorologists. To be honest, I was more interested in their opinions........

Oh and the "companies" see a lot of profit potential in eco-friendly. Dosn't mean it has to be real, just the image of being eco-friendly can be quite profitable in and off itself. Look up "greenwash". Also not all companies are in a sector of industry that emits excessive carbon. There are companys who are making a tidy profit just from selling carbon credits. All the energy companys now see a huge avenue of profit in providing renewable energy solutions to governments. Renewables and carbon credits are burgeoning new industrys with huge profit potential, so no, it does not mean the profitability will become harder merely that a new avenue of profit is now available.

I can guarentee you one thing, despite all the hulabulu more money will be made then emissions cut in the near future.

Methane has a large effect for a brief period (about 10 years), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). On a global scale, CO2 has a much greater influence (about 5 times) on warming:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm

In other words, it makes more sense to tackle CO2 emissions first.

Well I never said otherwise now did I. The problem will still remain that even if and when we do cut emmissions, existing co2 levels won't be going anywhere fast.
And to state again:

So far we have only been talking about reducing our Co2 emmisions, reducing co2 levels in the atmosphere is ironically more along the lines of what I am suggesting.

Name any city in China and I can guarantee you they spend more money on R&D than the whole of Ireland. Do you know how much money Ireland spent on research in this area last year? An absolutely pathetic €100,000; that’s barely enough to fund 2 PhD’s

So despite this:

one of the main reasons the likes of India and China are polluting so much more is because the developed world is withholding "clean" technologies from them.

They can't develop their own clean tech?

Supercell

Theres some great debate going on here, lets all keep calm heads and stick to getting our points across civilly ,its an emotive issue for many people myself included.

I have to admit I'm extremely sceptical that humanity isn't going to let this run away train derail the worlds climate before it's too late.

As already pointed out - countries such as China releasing huge amounts of co² without seeming to make any serious efforts to stop.
Philosophically I could say, why should they? , what did the rest of the 1st world do when it was undergoing the industrial revolution, they are playing catchup - its our lifestyle they aspire to, not the other way round.

The responsibility is very much on the so called 1st world to do something (because while we still want cheap goods , China etc will just keep making them as cheaply as they possibly can).

Ironically, I feel peak oil will do more for reducing co² than any green measures that governments half-heartedly take whilst oil keeps their homes warm and their cars moving. Scientist will have to develop alternative fuels - lets hope they are greener...

Look at Ireland - probably the worst polluter per capita in Western Europe, yet all our government seems to care about are house prices and bailing out their builder buddies in the Galway races tent..honestly, seriously, we are so parochial it just beggers belief.

Then there are the AGW sceptics, the world is getting warmer, there is no denying this, how warm does it have to get before they admit we aren't going to get any cooler any time soon - does the AGW effect have to be runaway before they accept what we are already seeing? -


If thats not a trend that shows the earth getting warmer, I don't know what is. Call its global warming or whatever moniker floats your boat - the world is still getting warmer by the year.

Trogdor

Longfield wrote:

Theres some great debate going on here, lets all keep calm heads and stick to getting our points across civilly ,its an emotive issue for many people myself included.

I have to admit I'm extremely sceptical that humanity isn't going to let this run away train derail the worlds climate before it's too late.

As already pointed out - countries such as China releasing huge amounts of co² without seeming to make any serious efforts to stop.
Philosophically I could say, why should they? , what did the rest of the 1st world do when it was undergoing the industrial revolution, they are playing catchup - its our lifestyle they aspire to, not the other way round.

The responsibility is very much on the so called 1st world to do something (because while we still want cheap goods , China etc will just keep making them as cheaply as they possibly can).

Ironically, I feel peak oil will do more for reducing co² than any green measures that governments half-heartedly take whilst oil keeps their homes warm and their cars moving. Scientist will have to develop alternative fuels - lets hope they are greener...

Look at Ireland - probably the worst polluter per capita in Western Europe, yet all our government seems to care about are house prices and bailing out their builder buddies in the Galway races tent..honestly, seriously, we are so parochial it just beggers belief.

Then there are the AGW sceptics, the world is getting warmer, there is no denying this, how warm does it have to get before they admit we aren't going to get any cooler any time soon - does the AGW effect have to be runaway before they accept what we are already seeing? -


If thats not a trend that shows the earth getting warmer, I don't know what is. Call its global warming or whatever moniker floats your boat - the world is still getting warmer by the year.

Bit of a debate getting going here! I don't think there are many people at all denying that the world is getting warmer, just what is causing it. Whether it be CO2 emissions, solar variation, underground magma current etc. I know it sounds terribly selfish, but I'd like to see the effects of warming here, whether it means hotter sumer, more violent storms, or the NAD shutdown resulting in cooler weather .I'm still on the fence about whats causing it though.

Weather BOFH

The EPA released a new report today, "Key Meteorological Indicators of Climate Change in Ireland" which according to RTE "has found the temperature in Ireland is currently increasing at twice the global average."

You can download the report from the EPA site.

I'm not sure anyone can say for certain what's causing climate change, but regardless of what the cause is, surley walking to work or the shops instead of driving if you can, using CFL bulbs and such and being a bit "greener" in general can't do the world any harm.

Trogdor

nemonoid wrote:

I'm not sure anyone can say for certain what's causing climate change, but regardless of what the cause is, surley walking to work or the shops instead of driving if you can, using CFL bulbs and such and being a bit "greener" in general can't do the world any harm.

No, by all means, i agree with that, even if only to bring back the levels of pollution.