Excuses not good enough

vassa

DragonQ wrote: »

It's very true that there's a whole new industry surrounding "green" movements and a lot of what green campaigners claim isn't based on good science, e.g. nuclear power has often been a bone of contention yet remains the most efficient, cleanest form of energy we have on a large scale. I'm sure when fusion power is viable there'll be something wrong with it.

That doesn't change the fact that the evidence clearly points to the current bout of warming (from the last 50 years or so) being mostly man-made. I suppose there's nothing to say that the planet "should" be a certain temperature but in the past, large changes have brought about totally different ecosystems and dominant species. Presumably most humans would prefer things to stay roughly as they are so we can continue enjoying life.

There's no need to be an "extremist" green campaigner to want to protect the planet as best you can. Obviously using less energy is the best way for individuals to do this but governments and corporations have the ability, and duty IMO, to do more.

Depends who it is that's giving you this 'evidence'. According to a lot of credible people this is nonsense.

But i do agree with reusing and recycling as much as possible, in fact i'm pretty militant when it comes to recycling and disposing of waste properly so we can conserve the planets natural resources.

tberry6686

There is absolutely no evidence that man has been responsible for any of the climate warming over the last fifty years (how come if CO2 increasing is the cause of warming, there was little or no warming over the last 10 or so years). There is plenty of evidence that the climate variation we are now seeing is completely natural, but admitting this would remove almost all of the money being spent on climate research and turkeys don't vote for christmas.

The truth is that outside of the climate scientist group, many scientists do not accept AGW and that if this subject were to be treated the same way as all other scientific theories would have been thrown out as fatally flawed long before now

DragonQ

Wow, didn't realise this forum was filled with conspiracy theorists. I suppose you all deny evolution too?

vassa wrote: »

To think that we can affect something as powerful as mother nature to such an extent that we're going to completely ruin the planet, within 200 years is completely laughable.

Of course we can't "ruin the planet" but it doesn't do us much good to make the planet worse for us.

tberry6686 wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence that man has been responsible for any of the climate warming over the last fifty years (how come if CO2 increasing is the cause of warming, there was little or no warming over the last 10 or so years).

Sorry but this is Daily Mail nonsense. There are plenty of sites and videos that refute this kind of stuff that use actual peer-reviewed scientific papers as sources.

It's a shame that most journals can't be accessed for free by the general public because it means that most people are totally reliant on headlines and journalists quote mining and cherry picking data for their own agendas.

vassa

DragonQ wrote: »

Wow, didn't realise this forum was filled with conspiracy theorists. I suppose you all deny evolution too?


Of course we can't "ruin the planet" but it doesn't do us much good to make the planet worse for us.


Sorry but this is Daily Mail nonsense. There are plenty of sites and videos that refute this kind of stuff that use actual peer-reviewed scientific papers as sources.

It's a shame that most journals can't be accessed for free by the general public because it means that most people are totally reliant on headlines and journalists quote mining and cherry picking data for their own agendas.

There are plenty of credible and qualified people (more qualified than some goon like you posting on here) that say opposite pal.

Not beliving the papers and the media and the government doesn't make someone a conspiracy theorist, it means they've read the evidence from both sides and chose not to believe the 'official' account of things (which is used as a basis to TAX people and nothing more.)

Ignorance is astonishing.

MillicentBystander

Aah, the old 'anyone who questions what the Govt tell us is a conspiracy theorist' chestnut. I would imagine the people who insisted the Earth wasn't flat also got called this at some stage, though obviously not on the internet

DragonQ

vassa wrote: »

There are plenty of credible and qualified people (more qualified than some goon like you posting on here) that say opposite pal.

Not beliving the papers and the media and the government doesn't make someone a conspiracy theorist, it means they've read the evidence from both sides and chose not to believe the 'official' account of things (which is used as a basis to TAX people and nothing more.)

Ignorance is astonishing.

You're right, not believing what the media or the government say doesn't necessarily make you a conspiracy theorist. Scepticism is healthy. However, when your beliefs counter those of the vast majority of scientists who work in a particular field, that makes you a conspiracy theorist. I'm also not sure what makes you more qualified to analyse evidence than those scientists either, particularly as an average person almost certainly doesn't have as complete a picture as said experts do.

There's no need to call me a goon.

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Aah, the old 'anyone who questions what the Govt tell us is a conspiracy theorist' chestnut. I would imagine the people who insisted the Earth wasn't flat also got called this at some stage, though obviously not on the internet

What? I never mentioned the government. I'm sure they love the fact that they can get more tax revenue from "green taxes" and I don't necessarily agree with all of them, especially if the money doesn't actually go towards anything useful.

tberry6686

DragonQ wrote: »

Wow, didn't realise this forum was filled with conspiracy theorists. I suppose you all deny evolution too?


Of course we can't "ruin the planet" but it doesn't do us much good to make the planet worse for us.


Sorry but this is Daily Mail nonsense. There are plenty of sites and videos that refute this kind of stuff that use actual peer-reviewed scientific papers as sources.

It's a shame that most journals can't be accessed for free by the general public because it means that most people are totally reliant on headlines and journalists quote mining and cherry picking data for their own agendas.

Sadly the cherry picked data belongs to the AGW brigade. their mantra is if the data doesn't fit then we will adjust it till it does.

The fact of the matter is that if you look at the long term data (not just the last 50 years) the warming we have seen is actually insignificant and cannot be distinguished from natural climatic variation.

Until the global warming group can explain what has happened in the past with global temperatures and how CO2 has gained the ability to alter the climate when it never has before, then I will remain a skeptic, as will many scientists who do not rely on climate change pseudo science for funding.

Having said that I do believe that we should reduce pollution where reasonable. Who defines reasonable though ?

ValHaller

vassa wrote: »

There are plenty of credible and qualified people (more qualified than some goon like you posting on here) that say opposite pal.

Calling people goons and addressing them as pal' must sound very credible and learned. But it hardly makes for a convincing argument.

thor

tberry6686 wrote: »

Until the global warming group can explain what has happened in the past with global temperatures and how CO2 has gained the ability to alter the climate when it never has before, then I will remain a skeptic, as will many scientists who do not rely on climate change pseudo science for funding.

If you want to see what CO2 can do to a planet's climate then maybe you should check out the one nearest to us. There is no 'gaining the ability' about it, it is a global warming gas. Are you denying this?
It is truly amazing how much the oil and gas plcs with their vested interests have managed to delude the public with such loon ideas.

unholyangel

societys_child wrote: »

My point is (obviously) that whilst we're paying green taxes to "save the world", the rest of the world say sod it.

Seems to be a British thing that we think anything we do is going to make any difference. How many new coal powered stations have China brought on line recently?

btw, have you seen todays news - some very large rocks heading our way over the next few years . . suppose if we pay enough green taxes they'll go round us:rotfl:

I've often marvelled at being told to switch off lights when leaving rooms etc to conserve energy/save the world when towns like vegas exist.

Of course could also say all us parents have said sod it, since we've brought in more mouths to feed and another person to pollute the earth, putting the earth under further strain.

Lets face it, the world would likely thrive without humans. Its ironic that we - as the source of the problem - are trying to "save" it - all the while demanding cheaper products (they just don't build them like they used to) which means they end up in the landfill much sooner.