'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

scott1985_2

Simply put the problem is not immediately what is being presented. We all are presented with the information that the South West coast of England will drown, London will hit a 35[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]°[/FONT] springtime average.

It irritates me the religion and politics meddle in the affairs of legitimate science and development. While I have read that some of you are believing that these scientists that are against the current popular theory, are on the payroll from oil and energy institutions, I can say that this is not the actual trend.

When the UN released its paper on climate change it was credited as having over 2000 professionals researching and collaborating. While some where scientists, there were administrators, legal and all sorts of people being credited for this.

As the paper was released, a good number of the scientists rejected the claims, some even went to removing their names off the list of credits. The UN would not remove these names, and so legal action was taken. People are still trying to remove their names from these credits, as they believe the work has been fabricated to produce a report that fits “their [UN] needs”.

The only reason so many people can't stand up against it, is due to the ramifications this will have upon their career. If a scientists does not follow, what has been presented to be fact, then they will be shunned by their community. The same has happened for many people who worked within quantum physics, and more specifically the “M theory”... but that's another story. What it does come down to is the level of acceptance... The political and media sectors have capitalised on a theory that is flawed. The information has been manufactured in a way that is DESIGNED to present fear.

Fear has always been a useful tactic in politics, it has helped the way we start wars, the ways in which we raise national capital, or in today's state the insecurity of the global economic markets.

We would not have been called to a state of war if the quote was “Saddam has badass weapons, he wont use them, but lets get him out to make sure.” The original agenda was to get him out, by unifying people though fear. The same is happening with climate. This has more impact on us because, we are all apparently equally to blame, and all face equal consequences.

While small groups of people unify over smaller matters, we are being forced to unify over a threat that will encompass the earth. Both the media and political institutions are focused on revenue generation. Higher taxes, means more money can be wasted on ineffective measures that came 120% over budget. Higher profits, allow for more attention to be focused on more outlandish claims.

Don't get me wrong, I am completely in favour of new technologies that take us off oil. I don't think its ethical however to scaremonger half-truths into the minds of the general public. Hydrogen power, once pushed will be great. But the money isn't there yet. People don't want it because all the attention is focused on other industries. I run my van on veggie-oil both as a form of recycling and cost effective fuel.

In 5 years time there will be new tactics to scare people in or out of stuff. I guarantee it. The route of politics has strayed away from honesty, democracy and development. Its not revenue, lies, and pointless bureaucracy.

nectarfreak

:money: The polar ice caps have been getting smaller since the last iceage when the whole of europe was covered in ice and wooly mamoths where about

wake up its a way of taxing us

engery saving bulbs what rubbish they use 15w

strip lights use 5w

leds use 1w

simple maths

the gov is making house holders feel guilty for using electricity and they linked carbon emissions ! this is rubbish as electricity is clean it is the way you make it that is dirty and that is not our fault it is the power stations

if the government change the planning law to redfine a pylon as the same status as a wind turbine and replaced each pylon with a wind turbine we would not need power stations nuclear or coal / gas !!!!!!

sign the government petition

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WindTurbinePylon/:money:

gobbinlander

Twelve thousand years or so ago most of the UK was covered in ice and glaciers. What caused it to melt ? it certainly wasn't me or my car or foreign holidays. It was a natural event.
Limestone, of which this country has plenty, was at one time the bottom of the sea. If you don't believe that, then pick some up and look at the small shells in it. What caused this sea bed to be above sea level now ? A natural event or fossil-fuel power stations ?
So the sea is predicted to rise a metre or two (depending on who you listen to). It is a natural event. Those living near the coast or in East Anglia or Lincolnshire better get used to the idea.
But [EMAIL="DON'T@T"]DON'T[/EMAIL] blame ME or what I chose to do for the next natural event.

ZTD

scott1985 wrote: »

The only reason so many people can't stand up against it, is due to the ramifications this will have upon their career. If a scientists does not follow, what has been presented to be fact, then they will be shunned by their community. The same has happened for many people who worked within quantum physics, and more specifically the “M theory”... but that's another story.

Do you have any pointers on this? (the persecution rather than M-theory)

scott1985 wrote: »

What it does come down to is the level of acceptance... The political and media sectors have capitalised on a theory that is flawed. The information has been manufactured in a way that is DESIGNED to present fear.

You talk as though the media is seperate from politics. Alas - it's all one big happy family. China does the "you will not criticise us" overtly - the West, subvertly...

scott1985 wrote: »

While small groups of people unify over smaller matters, we are being forced to unify over a threat that will encompass the earth. Both the media and political institutions are focused on revenue generation. Higher taxes, means more money can be wasted on ineffective measures

I would disagree with this. The Government is like no other institution, in that if it wants £50, it doesn't need to produce, or obtain it from anywhere else - it just prints it. However, higher taxation and the Green thing may be a way of forestalling a "crack-up" boom by putting off a transition to material things, and giving value to the intrinsically worthless. :think:

scott1985 wrote: »

that came 120% over budget.

Only 120%?! Where do you live? Can we all move there?!

scott1985 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I am completely in favour of new technologies that take us off oil. I don't think its ethical however to scaremonger half-truths into the minds of the general public. Hydrogen power, once pushed will be great.

No it won't. Do more research.

ZTD

nectarfreak wrote: »

:money: The polar ice caps have been getting smaller since the last iceage when the whole of europe was covered in ice and wooly mamoths where about

To be fair - although they were a lot larger then, they haven't reduced steadily since. They have waxed and waned since the ice age until out present time, nature doesn't go anywhere in a straight line.

nectarfreak wrote: »

if the government change the planning law to redfine a pylon as the same status as a wind turbine and replaced each pylon with a wind turbine we would not need power stations nuclear or coal / gas !!!!!!

The problem with that, is that for every Kwh of wind turbine production, you need a Kwh of coal/gas/nuclear powerstation production for those times when the wind doesn't blow.

I suppose you could go for a "fractional reserve" system, if you were willing to cope with the occasional "blow up".

tomhill

ZTD wrote: »

That's old news - he was cleared. However the timeline and sequence of events is interesting. It does show that if you don't sing the right song - you will be persecuted, just like the heretics of old.

Genuine legitimate criticism of the science isnt criticised as being based upon agenda but poor science is. It remains that Lomborg isnt a climatologist and is severely isolated in his opinion. Consensus science does have its problems but how else would you decipher reliable information - there are scientists who believe in creation, who believe that smoking doesnt cause cancer and that HIV doesnt cause Aids (incidently many of the same scientific groups who were sponsored by the tobacco industry to refute health claims are now being funded by oil companies to fund climatic skepticism).

Or by the sunspot cycle (see the link previously supplied).

It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.

Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion.


And dwarfing changes in carbon dioxide emissions.

Yer but no but. Water will dwaft the effect of carbon dioxide but it will be carbon dioxide which is responsible for changing the 'conditions' in which the water operates. Higher temperatures - caused by co2 - will increase humidity.


So why would you want to gear up demand for a loss leader?

It doesn't matter how many times you fly to Bratislava, there are only a certain number of big businessmen who wish to fly there. If we take your assumption that people are only going there because of the cheap fares, then all that flying more frequently (given a fixed number of profitable passengers) does, is increase costs. Airlines doing that face going out of business.

However, if there is real demand, then they are responding to it, and also responding to it's erratic nature.

Why exactly ... there is little doubt that demand for air travel has increased dramtically over the last few years. There is little doubt that this has happened by accident. Without the cheap flights strategies implemented by the air industry many of the flights would be too uneconomical to service. Create the need and and the demand will follow.

tomhill

oops my quoting boxes were a bit off that time.:s

westernpromise

ZTD wrote: »

The problem with that, is that for every Kwh of wind turbine production, you need a Kwh of coal/gas/nuclear powerstation production for those times when the wind doesn't blow.

That's exactly the problem. Because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, you have to keep all your normal power generation on standby to replace that capacity. Turbines running up and down are inefficient in the same way that a car is more efficient when cruising at a constant speed than when stopping and starting all the time. The actual contribution of wind farms to emissions reductions is fatally undermined by this.

abbeytec

sharkmark wrote: »

I realise there is a tendency to think - oh what can I do the problem is so large - but you can start by doing the simply stuff (lightbulbs, switch off TV) and in time work you way to cycling to work, using train/bus...becoming vegetarian (farm animals release a stupid amount of methane - another greenhouse gas!!!)...

Oh Dear.... WHY will switching your TV off (instead of on standby) make the SLIGHTEST bit of difference???

You may know about Environmental Chemistry, but you know nothing about power generation.

The current technology in power stations is such that they take several days to cycle up to full production, and several days to wind down again.

Think about it - TV's are (usually) on standby at NIGHT, when everyone is in bed and NOT using hairdryers, kettles, lights, ovens, electric showers, Etc, Etc. Even if we threw a big trip-switch on our entire house, the excess energy (still being produced, remember), will simply be lost to ground, I.E. WASTED.

I am all for decreasing our OVERALL and PEAK energy consumption with low energy bulbs, smart kettles and so-forth, but PLEASE stop peddling the Red Herring of appliances on standby... ITS JUST WRONG!!!

Oh, and BTW, the earth has always heated and cooled cyclically, but we should still conserve the natural resources we have. :T

abbeytec

westernpromise wrote: »

That's exactly the problem. Because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, you have to keep all your normal power generation on standby to replace that capacity. Turbines running up and down are inefficient in the same way that a car is more efficient when cruising at a constant speed than when stopping and starting all the time. The actual contribution of wind farms to emissions reductions is fatally undermined by this.

:T :T :T :T

Absolutely right!!

Its a shame that all these UN "scientists" aren't putting more into developing compact and efficient energy storage systems... There's plenty of renewable power out there - It just aint consistent...:rolleyes:


BTW, why is ground-source heating so much more popular on the continent?