"Climate Change" aka Global Warming in the media

red menace

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

This is a serious matter, whether I buy a paper or not is irrelevant, the fact is that the 'scientists' you refer to are overpaid c**nts that will defend their position...

wow

af_thefragile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKmUoDyQEU

bobblepuzzle

red menace wrote: »

wow

WOW

My name is URL

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

This is a serious matter, whether I buy a paper or not is irrelevant, the fact is that the 'scientists' you refer to are overpaid c**nts that will defend their position...

So every scientist that supports the idea has decided to go against their vocation and submit to corruption?

red menace

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Have you proof??

Never said I did but didn't launch into defending either position.

I didn't launch into defending it with a Scientists are sound are doing this for our own good to counter you.
I like to research these things, this includes questioning people who profess to have a knowledge on the subject

bobblepuzzle

My name is URL wrote: »

So every scientist that supports the idea has decided to go against their vocation and submit to corruption?

They would never support a theory, even though it's in thier faces, that the climate does natural things... to save their jobs... pathetic I know, but there you go!

bernadeli

dont know much about global warming but last time i went out the door it was fukn freezing..bring on the global warming & get rid of this snow & ice...brrrrrrrrrrrrrr:cool:

dr.bollocko

TBH I am rapidly losing faith that this thread is going to facilitate a debate on climate change that is in anyway helpful or interesting to anyone.

mgmt

red menace wrote: »

Nope just use whats available readily.. Solar, wind, water
Maybe the 3rd world can become the 1st world in renewable energy research

Who are them top UN scientists I would be interested in reading up on them

Yes, good old Al Gore.

Let them have wind turbines:rolleyes:

Son Of A Vidic

Ice core samples going a back hundreds of thousands years, have clearly demonstrated the cycles of Global warming and cooling the planet goes through. CO2 levels rise and CO2 levels fall, the Atlantic conveyor speeds up and slows down. I believe in energy efficiency, I believe in environmental protection. Humanity can indeed have a negative impact on the environment, but I think the carbon tax lobby flatter us with how great the effect is.

Who was paying the Carbon taxes before the Last ice age started? That’s right nobody; the Earth will go through its cycle regardless of our presence here or not. But no we can’t say that now, sure how can we. We won’t be able to generate new and imaginative tax revenue now will we. It’s all about the big picture and the Earth has left a long legacy of evidence. I won’t even start a how some in the climate camp, discount the important role the Sun plays in all of this. No it’s all our fault, more taxes, blah, blah, blah. There’s climate change occurring alright it’s happened before we arrive and it will occur long after we’re gone.

mgmt

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Tomorrow they'll be claiming that the severe cold snap is due to human made global warming.... by they I mean the supposed top scientists (who get paid a lot of money to prove the myth)... where do we draw the line folks? They've built a mini economy out of it worth billions... it is even political suicide these days to deny it (even though it isn't proven) and it is bad science... media outlets employ so called "Global Warming Correspondents", you think they are going to deny it... not a hope! One day we'll all fry, the next we'l freeze to death! Make up your minds! and don't give me bs about a chunk of ice breaking off

Fock, they even have a goddam 'Climate Change' Minister in the UK. Turn on any kids news show and its all about global warming disaster stories.

starbelgrade

Global warming, me hole.

Sure it's fuckin' freezin'.

I've two jumpers on.

El_Dangeroso

bleg wrote: »

Man made climate change is a fact.

I almost missed the sarcasm in your post, close call. Because to state that something is a fact based solely on computer models and correlation would be naive to say the least.

bobblepuzzle

Judging by a few posts, we think that the third world should use renewable energy to support their pretty much non existant economies... why should we stop a third world country using coal and oil???

mgmt

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Ice core samples going a back hundreds of thousands years, have clearly demonstrated the cycles of Global warming and cooling the planet goes through. CO2 levels rise and CO2 levels fall, the Atlantic conveyor speeds up and slows down. I believe in energy efficiency, I believe in environmental protection. Humanity can indeed have a negative impact on the environment, but I think the carbon tax lobby flatter us with how great the effect is.

Who was paying the Carbon taxes before the Last ice age started? That’s right nobody; the Earth will go through its cycle regardless of our presence here or not. But no we can’t say that now, sure how can we. We won’t be able to generate new and imaginative tax revenue now will we. It’s all about the big picture and the Earth has left a long legacy of evidence. I won’t even start a how some in the climate camp, discount the important role the Sun plays in all of this. No it’s all our fault, more taxes, blah, blah, blah. There’s climate change occurring alright it’s happened before we arrive and it will occur long after we’re gone.

Stop breathing please.

Carbon is a dangerous substance.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574582284174773944.html


:eek:

red menace

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Judging by a few posts, we think that the third world should use renewable energy to support their pretty much non existant economies... why should we stop a third world country using coal and oil???

Who's this "We"

,actually before we start this debate what's your position on peak oil

Herb Powell

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

They've built a mini economy out of it worth billions...f

what? how?

mgmt

red menace wrote: »

Who's this "We"

,actually before we start this debate what's your position on peak oil

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=91795

mgmt

Herb Powell wrote: »

what? how?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2320--carbon-scam-al-gore-profits-and-copenhagen

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore-an-inconvenient-portfolio.html

My name is URL

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Judging by a few posts, we think that the third world should use renewable energy to support their pretty much non existant economies... why should we stop a third world country using coal and oil???

They shouldn't be stopped.. and I'm pretty sure they aren't. They should however be shown alternative infrastructures. The route the already developed world went down isn't sustainable so why give room to a problem that exists on the ground floor when it's just as easy to fix it before continuing to build? It's far easier than changing an already established system.

Herb Powell

mgmt wrote: »

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore-an-inconvenient-portfolio.html

"Sustainability" is hardly a bad thing. And the only link between that and climate change I can see is Al Gore
Try harder brahhhhhhhhh

bobblepuzzle

My name is URL wrote: »

They shouldn't be stopped.. and I'm pretty sure they aren't. They should however be shown alternative infrastructures. The route the already developed world went down isn't sustainable so why give room to a problem that exists on the ground floor when it's just as easy to fix it before continuing to build? It's far easier than changing an already established system.

It is far fairer to let them develop the way they see fit. And Oil , coal and gas is what they have, so they should use it

mgmt

My name is URL wrote: »

They shouldn't be stopped.. and I'm pretty sure they aren't. They should however be shown alternative infrastructures. The route the already developed world went down isn't sustainable so why give room to a problem that exists on the ground floor when it's just as easy to fix it before continuing to build? It's far easier than changing an already established system.

I'd love for you to explain how wind, solar and wave are sustainable. Maybe start with the PSO on your ESB bill?

mgmt

Herb Powell wrote: »

"Sustainability" is hardly a bad thing. And the only link between that and climate change I can see is Al Gore
Try harder brahhhhhhhhh

Yes, Al Gore that slimey lying ****er.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Herb Powell

mgmt wrote: »

I'd love for you to explain how wind, solar and wave are sustainable. Maybe start with the PSO on your ESB bill?

They are more sustainable than oil in that by the time they run out, we are more than likely ****ed anyway

twinytwo

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I almost missed the sarcasm in your post, close call. Because to state that something is a fact based solely on computer models and correlation would be naive to say the least.

Meh climate change is the least of our problems... we should be more concerned about the demise of the honey bee. There is something really wrong there but no body seems to be too worried given the fact that if the bee goes we are fcuked worse than any global warming.

twinytwo

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

All the stats indicate a natural cycle since 1500... also, CO2 is not the cause as the oceans give out 75%, 15% by plants and animals and a meager 0.1% by human consumption of fossil fuels... please re-evaluate your position... (oh wait you can't... because you'll loose your careers :O)

open to correction but Co2 was never the problem... was it not the man made CFC's that destroyed the ozone in the atmosphere?.. which then caused the hole of the poles -> caps melting-> possible shut down of the NA current,?

Herb Powell

mgmt wrote: »

Yes, Al Gore that slimey lying ****er.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

your second link was better, but I had a little poke around that website, and it's a bit biased. they use "liberal" as an insult, and came out with this too
"White House Council for Community Solutions, a group of influential individuals from differing walks of life who essentially help think up ways to spend tax dollars on mostly wasteful social programs."
hmmmmmmmmmmm
they also seem to be extremely anti-immigration, so IDK if I should just trust it like they have no agenda

Knasher

To be honest I don't know if climate change is man made or not, I haven't looked at the science so I'm not an authority. However I'm 100% certain that we are largely reliant on fossil fuels which are rapidly running out, I'm also 100% certain that out uranium supplies won't last forever.

So fact of the matter is that we need to start switching over to renewable energy supplies anyway, so if we do it because of climate change and if we are proven wrong. So what, we lose nothing.

The whole debate is at best a scientific curiosity, we need to change simply because we can't rely on fossil fuel forever.

red menace

mgmt wrote: »

I'd love for you to explain how wind, solar and wave are sustainable. Maybe start with the PSO on your ESB bill?

This for a start

In 2008, renewable energy sources meet about 3.9% of Ireland’s total final consumption. This figure breaks down into roughly half of all renewable energy from renewable sources of electricity, 30% from heat (wood fuel in the domestic and wood processing sectors) and 10% from biofuels. EU policy targets an increase in the contribution of renewables to 12% of Europe’s total energy by 2010.

from http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/
Maybe because our usage is low seeing as we were late to the game

It's not so much a sustainability issue as a economic viability issue.
We simply don't produce enough

mgmt

Knasher wrote: »

To be honest I don't know if climate change is man made or not, I haven't looked at the science so I'm not an authority. However I'm 100% certain that we are largely reliant on fossil fuels which are rapidly running out, I'm also 100% certain that out uranium supplies won't last forever.

So fact of the matter is that we need to start switching over to renewable energy supplies anyway, so if we do it because of climate change and if we are proven wrong. So what, we lose nothing.

The whole debate is at best a scientific curiosity, we need to change simply because we can't rely on fossil fuel forever.

You've been sold a pup though. Wind WILL NOT work. It is not reliable. You need reliable energy. You cannot store electricity. Wave power WILL NOT work. We are wasting billions on a fraud.

red menace

mgmt wrote: »

You've been sold a pup though. Wind WILL NOT work. It is not reliable. You need reliable energy. You cannot store electricity. Wave power WILL NOT work. We are wasting billions on a fraud.

You can store potential energy, read some interesting stuff about using wind mills to pump water up to a reservoir and then running the turbines from the water

mgmt

red menace wrote: »

This for a start



from http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/
Maybe because our usage is low seeing as we were late to the game

It's not so much a sustainability issue as a economic viability issue.
We simply don't produce enough

Look at this website

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/


Look through previous dates. Some days wind produces nothing. Most days it produces next to nothing. Power plants takes days to shut down and restart. You cannot rely on wind. We can never demolish any of our existing power plants even if we had 50,000 wind turbines in this country. Why? Because it is not reliable, you cannot store it and sometimes the wind just stops blowing.

mgmt

red menace wrote: »

You can store potential energy, read some interesting stuff about using wind mills to pump water up to a reservoir and then running the turbines from the water

Nooooooo


Thats that bull**** idea, Spirit of Ireland or something. Basically a bunch of engineers produced a report in order to get some government funding. Much like the Tuskar tunnel. Turlough Hill is the only suitable place in Ireland and its already built.

El_Dangeroso

Knasher wrote: »

The whole debate is at best a scientific curiosity, we need to change simply because we can't rely on fossil fuel forever.

True that, in any case oil is getting way too expensive to get out of the ground. The low hanging fruit is running out. Not sure whether renewables can ever fill the gap that will be created by the end of cheap oil.

We could sustain a planet with about a billion people before the advent of oil, now it's closer to 7 billion. I don't like the odds.

wonderfulname

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

All the stats indicate a natural cycle since 1500... also, CO2 is not the cause as the oceans give out 75%, 15% by plants and animals and a meager 0.1% by human consumption of fossil fuels... please re-evaluate your position... (oh wait you can't... because you'll loose your careers :O)

The % contribution of CO2 by humans - which by the way extends beyond our usage of fossil fuels, is not the problem. CO2 levels are balanced, just enough to keep us alive but not so much as to KILL US ALL!!!1!! ehem...
We are simultaneously increasing CO2 levels whilst decreasing the area of land covered by forestry. Now interestingly trees are responding to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and growing at a faster rate but its not enough.
All the stats do not suggest a natural cycle since 1500 - that suggestion is a bit ridiculous, however I wouldn't disagree that "climate change" is likely to be partially caused or aggravated by a larger cycle.
You will find that there are scientists who disagree with the major theories behind the scaremongering - however you'll be hard-pressed in finding a reputable one who debunks it altogether.
As for assuming they would lose their jobs, who wants a crummy research job when they can get an awesome book deal detailing how climate change is a scam in layman's terms? Ka-ching! Look how well Lomborg did out of it and he didn't even actually disagree with the theory.

I'm a sceptic btw, I don't agree that the current information should lead us to the conclusion that has been come to, I do however see it as a concern and something which should be addressed. As it stands the current political promises are a start.

A bit of advice: back up your points - reference, refusing to reference just makes you look like you don't have a clue what your saying and base your opinion on sweet f all, possibly a conversation down the pub or such.
Be open to what people say, what on earth is the point of starting a thread in which you refuse to consider more than half the responses.

red menace

mgmt wrote: »

Look at this website

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/


Look through previous dates. Some days wind produces nothing. Most days it produces next to nothing. Power plants takes days to shut down and restart. You cannot rely on wind. We can never demolish any of our existing power plants even if we had 50,000 wind turbines in this country. Why? Because it is not reliable, you cannot store it and sometimes the wind just stops blowing.

We should probably look into building a couple of nuclear power plants

Knasher

red menace wrote: »

We should probably look into building a couple of nuclear power plants

Been thinking that for a while myself as well, I'd be very surprised if we don't end up with some eventually. That or more links to the English power grid so we can leach off theirs, for the moral victory.

mgmt

Knasher wrote: »

Been thinking that for a while myself as well, I'd be very surprised if we don't end up with some eventually. That or more links to the English power grid so we can leach off theirs, for the moral victory.

The French are proud of their nuclear plants. Energy independence and all. It would be political suicide here in Ireland though.

sink

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't understand climatology. I can't argue the merits of one theory of anthropomorphic climate change against a counter theory. I haven't received the education and training to possess sufficient knowledge to make an accurate judgement one way or the other. Neither have the vast majority of self proclaimed climate septics or self appointed eco-warriors.

One thing I do understand is the scientific method. It is the best method of natural inquiry man has ever devised. If you're looking for proof just look around you, it gave us the modern world. I recognize that it is not perfect and it is open to error, but it also has it's own error detection system. If there is an error in a scientific theory the only thing that will uncover it is science.

I have a strong faith in science, possibly the strongest faith I have in any field of human endeavor. On the other hand I have little faith in the media or politicians or private corporations or however strongly motivated individuals.

Is anthropomorphic climate change a reality? I'll let the scientific consensus rule on that one.

Atlantic Dawn

The earth is cooling and will soon be going in to a severe winter cycle that will kill millions, the sooner these CO2 complaining idiots clear off and let us warm the earth by in their own simple theories the better. Driving large cars will warm the planet for us all and provide us with nice warm winters as it has the last two years in Ireland :rolleyes:

wonderfulname

mgmt wrote: »

The French are proud of their nuclear plants. Energy independence and all. It would be political suicide here in Ireland though.

Unfortunately... but sur' look what they did to chernobyl :rolleyes:

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The earth is cooling and will soon be going in to a severe winter cycle that will kill millions, the sooner these CO2 complaining idiots clear off and let us warm the earth by in their own simple theories the better. Driving large cars will warm the planet for us all and provide us with nice warm winters as it has the last two years in Ireland :rolleyes:

My sarcasn detector has just exploded.

sink

sink wrote: »

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't understand climatology. I can't argue the merits of one theory of anthropomorphic climate change against a counter theory. I haven't received the education and training to possess sufficient knowledge to make an accurate judgement one way or the other. Neither have the vast majority of self proclaimed climate septics or self appointed eco-warriors.

One thing I do understand is the scientific method. It is the best method of natural inquiry man has ever devised. If you're looking for proof just look around you, it gave us the modern world. I recognize that it is not perfect and it is open to error, but it also has it's own error detection system. If there is an error in a scientific theory the only thing that will uncover it is science.

I have a strong faith in science, possibly the strongest faith I have in any field of human endeavor. On the other hand I have little faith in the media or politicians or private corporations or however strongly motivated individuals.

Is anthropomorphic climate change a reality? I'll let the scientific consensus rule on that one.

I'll just give you this link to consider. read it and make up your own mind.
There are many reasons for the way the climate has behaved over the past century. first warming, then cooling, then warming again and now cooling.

My understanding is that the Earth is 98% solar powered, so therefore any variations in solar activity will affect the Earth's climate. Mankind is of course doing some damage, you just have to look out the window to see that. But is mankind doing enough to wreck the climate? I don't think so.

Variations in solar activity will trump anything that man can do (with the possible exception of a "MAD" nuclear war!

AntiMatter

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll just give you this link to consider. read it and make up your own mind.
There are many reasons for the way the climate has behaved over the past century. first warming, then cooling, then warming again and now cooling.

My understanding is that the Earth is 98% solar powered, so therefore any variations in solar activity will affect the Earth's climate. Mankind is of course doing some damage, you just have to look out the window to see that. But is mankind doing enough to wreck the climate? I don't think so.

Variations in solar activity will trump anything that man can do (with the possible exception of a "MAD" nuclear war!

The latest evidence suggests the suns importance in climate change may have been exaggerated...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101006-sun-activity-climate-change-global-warming-environment-space-science/

sandmanporto

If salt levels change in the Carribbean , the gulf of Mexico will stop and affect the Entire Global climate resulting in another Ice Age.

sink

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll just give you this link to consider. read it and make up your own mind.
There are many reasons for the way the climate has behaved over the past century. first warming, then cooling, then warming again and now cooling.

My understanding is that the Earth is 98% solar powered, so therefore any variations in solar activity will affect the Earth's climate. Mankind is of course doing some damage, you just have to look out the window to see that. But is mankind doing enough to wreck the climate? I don't think so.

Variations in solar activity will trump anything that man can do (with the possible exception of a "MAD" nuclear war!

Everyones has an opinion, everyones an expert.

Tell me why so many people suffer from a lack of opinion when it comes to my area of study 'computer science'? From my perspective it's a lot easier to understand than climatology and a lot less complex and yet no one without years of education on the subject would ever question the current thinking on the subject.

How about neuroscience why don't people form their own opinions based on news articles they read in the sunday times and then publicly challenge neurologists.

What do you do? Are you an accountant, what merits do you think non-accountants views are on current accounting best practices? Are you a barber? What useful insights do you think people from outside the hair styling profession and without any experience can offer you?

I'm not going to base my entire judgement on climatology on an article I read in 20 mins on the web, nor should you, nor should anybody. How anyone can think they have sufficient knowledge to be the judge on these matters without years of study is baffling to me.

sink

sink wrote: »

Everyones has an opinion, everyones an expert.

Tell me why so many people suffer from a lack of opinion when it comes to my area of study 'computer science'? From my perspective it's a lot easier to understand than climatology and a lot less complex and yet no one without years of education on the subject would ever question the current thinking on the subject.

How about neuroscience why don't people form their own opinions based on news articles they read in the sunday times and then publicly challenge neurologists.

What do you do? Are you an accountant, what merits do you think non-accountants views are on current accounting best practices? Are you a barber? What useful insights do you think people from outside the hair styling profession and without any experience can offer you?

I'm not going to base my entire judgement on climatology on an article I read in 20 mins on the web, nor should you, nor should anybody. How anyone can think they have sufficient knowledge to be the judge on these matters without years of study is baffling to me.

I have bee reading such scientific journals for the last 30 years or so, so I have therefore formed my own opinion on these matters ans am still reading such material. My opinions may be influanced by new information but only if I believe it has merit.

My profession is insignificant in this issue as has no influence and what does it matter what I am paid to do.

The most important thing is to study all the relevant infirnation from all sides of the issue and form your own opinion not just become a "sheeple" and follow some tead ram.

sink

Deleted User wrote: »

I have bee reading such scientific journals for the last 30 years or so, so I have therefore formed my own opinion on these matters ans am still reading such material. My opinions may be influanced by new information but only if I believe it has merit.

My profession is insignificant in this issue as has no influence and what does it matter what I am paid to do.

The most important thing is to study all the relevant infirnation from all sides of the issue and form your own opinion not just become a "sheeple" and follow some tead ram.

Following the scientific consensus is now considered to be one of the herd, now is it? Forgive if I don't have the time to read 30 years worth of climatology science journals, or medical journals, biology journals, chemistry journals or physics journals for that matter.

If I trust medical science enough to allow a suitably qualified surgeon to open me up and I trust the biology enough to create GM crops which I consume and I just chemistry enough to ensure that the mix of fuel in my petrol tank won't explode and I trust physics enough to ensure that the aircraft I fly in won't fall out of the sky, why should I not trust climatology to make predictions about the climate?

riffmongous

I love when people say a sentence like 'global warming... I'm freezing here' and then claim that therefore climate change must be made up, that always cracks me up