'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

feesh

ZTD - recycling is NOT an environmental issue.

It's more often an economic one (because we're running out of landfill space and it's costing Local Authorities more and more to dispose of it).

It really winds me up when people think they're being green because they recycle. It aint that black and white (is anything?!).

Recycling can use a lot of energy and fossil fuels. I do recycle almost everything we use at home (although we try and reduce our consumption too) but I don't think I'm doing it because I'm saving the planet from climate change - I do it because I used to live near a landfill site and I can't bear to think of all these plastics and godknowswhat just being left to rot in the ground.

And to address another of your points, actually there is a heck of a lot of research going into life cycle analyses now, in fact I'd say it was one of the fastest growing areas of the industry. You can even do an MSc in it. Most EIAs include it, the car industry is doing it, every industry is doing it! It's pretty basic stuff taught on most degrees (I did a biology degree and one of our modules was looking at the whole life impacts of nuclear v coal v gas power stations, which included looking at the extraction of the fuels and transport of workers to the site, as well as decomissioning).

Mark_Beech

There has been steady progressive global warming on Mars too ...... but as far as I know there aren't many TVs left on standby up there.
The notion that humankind can have any influence on the temperature of the earth is simply preposterous. It is still possible to get the entire population of the earth squeezed on to the Isle of Wight .... and they are really saying that ANYTHING they might all collectively do could have a warming effect on our cute teeny weeny 'little' earth? Get real! The earth is in a warming cycle at he moment sure ... no question .... but it will start to cool again at some point.
Who else remembers the 'Ice Age' scare of the mid 70s when supposedly glaciers where soon to be seen encroaching on the higher reaches of Scotland.
And if CO2 really does increase the earth's temperature ... then why during the post war economic boom years from 1945 - 1970 was the earth actually in a cooling phase ... despite the biggest expansion of industry and car and fridge ownership that the world has ever seen?
This paranoid response to a non-crisis is puerly politically driven ... and it saddens me to see a huge proportion of our population being suckered into believing all this piffle. If you'll pardon the pun its just pie in the sky (uncooked!).
Stay cool :cool:

feesh

ZTD wrote: »

No - it [being green] doesn't. If it is cheaper. But why isn't is cheaper? Is it because all this recycling is wasteful? And before you say "No" - tell how how you know it isn't.



Did it? Or was it Goverment grants? After all Agenda 21 has been around years, but without money - not much happens.

I agree, I was an LA21 officer with NO budget to use. That's why I concentrated on energy efficiency. We did everything without any government grants - the buildings were 1960s typical council block type things and we had a field day slashing the energy bills. It didn't take much effort! The lights used to stay on all night, the staff were hopeless at turning their electrical kit off - it was pretty easy to get some major wins without spending anything.

davetrousers

ZTD wrote: »

On balance they don't. Trees are - over their lifecycle - carbon neutral.

You are having a laugh, you really cannot be serious with that statement!

Someone else take the bait on this one please?

davetrousers

Mark_Beech wrote: »

There has been steady progressive global warming on Mars too .....

Easy tiger, try using a sensibly sized font!

mrstabby_2

cuttersblade wrote: »

Ok well lets look at this 0.0383%, it doesn't all come from Humans, in fact most of it comes from plants and animals. The % that comes from humans is around a quarter of that figure which means human CO2 emmissions make up around 80 parts per million in the atmosphere, CO2 is a byproduct of life, no one can deny that. The level of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere is less than the amount trees put into the atmosphere when they loose their leaves in autumn.

maybe the first step for Al Gore should be to plant evergreen trees.

So what say you about the fact that carbon dioxide levels were relatively stable until the industrial revolution? By burning fossil fuels we're sticking a lot more carbon into the biosphere and atmosphere, and thus displacing an equilibrium.

star2007

Reading the thread thus far, I'd like to make the following points to the debate:

1)The greenhouse effect is a FACT. Although the proportion of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane etc) in the atmosphere is tiny - less than 0.5%, this tiny amount of CO2 is critical. Without it the average temperature of the planet would be around -18C. So these gases have a major effect keeping the Earth at comfortable temperature for life.... like having a duvet of the appropriate TOG rating over you.

2)The greenhouse effect happens because the Sun's radiation can easily enter the Earth's atmosphere. When it hits the Earth's surface, however, it changes wavelength slightly. At this new wavelength, it is much more difficult for it to escape, due to the blocking effect of CO2 on radiation at this wavelength. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more intense this blanket effect.

3)The global temperature/ climate is always in a state of flux due to natural variations in the Earth's eliptic path around the Sun/ wobble on its axis/ precession etc (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ). However, my point is that we shouldn't be contributing further to effects that vary the climate any further.

4)Likewise there is a natural flux in CO2 levels. If you remember the carbon cycle from school science lessons, trees/green plants and animals are constantly exchanging carbon dioxide and oxygen, hence maintaining a balanced feedback effect between the two gases. This "short cycle" carbon exchange is fine, as it is carbon neutral. However, since the start of the industrial revolution, man has been burning "long cycle" carbon, i.e. long dead plants that have been transforming into energy dense forms of carbon over 100's of millions of years of geological time. Man has released millions of tons of this fossil carbon in only a couple of hundred years of historical time. There is only a finite appropriate amount of carbon in the biosphere (i.e. the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere where life exists). If we are emiting more carbon into the biosphere from the lithosphere (underground rock layers of the Earth) - will this not throw the balanced carbon cycle way out of kilter?? This is what I find so worrying about the issue.

5)Hence why I find the selling of carbon offsets a worrying "get out of jail free card". You can't burn "long cycle" fossil carbon e.g. taking an aeroplane flight, then simply savle your conscience by getting a company to plant trees on your behalf, which will only balance out the "short cycle" carbon. It is exactly like the medieval Church selling religious favours to the wealthy, in order for them to salve their sins for being rich and ensure a place in Heaven, according to the medieval worldview..... Such corruption being one of the reasons that led to the schism of the Church in the Reformation. We ALL need to take responsiblity for our actions, not simply outsourcing the consequences of our actions onto another agency.

6)Some posters have come up with libertarian arguments on here to dispute the issue of climate change (i.e. it's all an authoritarian socialist conspiracy for governments to control/ snoop on/ raise taxes/ dictate how many holidays we can take ... blah blah). Well my political views are neither authoritarian, nor socialist but transcend traditional distinctions of left and right. I believe in small scale, grassroots, holistic models of social organisation; whereby people have the will and the means to take resposibility for their own welfare, at the same time taking personal responsibilty for the effect their actions have on others and the wider environment (trite example: "I'll cycle to the shops instead of driving today.... I'll improve my own health with the exercise, and won't be emiting fumes that might contribute to someone's asthma"). Just because I'm not a libertarian capitalist, doesn't mean I believe in monolithic socialism. Indeed, I find that the current model of large corporations and a shareholder elite the opposite side of the same coin as statist socialism. I personally believe the current environmental problems can only be solved by small scale, local, grassroots organisations and businesses (à la Schumacher - Small is Beautiful) - not macro power structures - whether they be socialist or capitalist.

But global warming shouldn't be made into a political issue. It's not a political punch bag to beat out old debates over statist control against individual liberty. It's a scientific debate, and the debate should take place in a scientific arena, not a political one (even though we all have our own political views relating to it). Whether it turns out to be true or not, the fact is it's an important debate that's cropped up in the current discourse amongst humans at the moment and we need do need to have this debate. Philosophically it goes to the crux of what it means to be human, and what our relationship with nature is/ ought to be.... and where we go from here.

Please read widely on this, and question everything you read, whether it be from Greenpeace, or the sceptics, on what the author's agenda is. Don't polarise the issue in your mind into black and white political positions, but ask yourself if there's an alternative dimension to the way you've constructed your stance on this issue in your mind. Don't believe what you read/ watch in the popular media, pro- or anti-. Try to read a science mag like New Scientist (rather than the Mail, or indeed the Independent) which is level headed rather than shrill on the issue.

P.S. ...oh, and biofuels aren't a solution either.... they will take up land that is needed for growing food crops for a growing population in the developing world, and are not particularly energy efficient anyway - it takes approaching the energy equivalent of a litre of biofuel to produce & manufacture a litre of biofuel. We need to wind down the intenstiy of our dependence on concentrated forms of energy, period

mrstabby_2

Mark_Beech wrote: »

There has been steady progressive global warming on Mars too ...... but as far as I know there aren't many TVs left on standby up there.

In what proportion to earth's warming?

Mark_Beech wrote: »

The notion that humankind can have any influence on the temperature of the earth is simply preposterous. It is still possible to get the entire population of the earth squeezed on to the Isle of Wight .... and they are really saying that ANYTHING they might all collectively do could have a warming effect on our cute teeny weeny 'little' earth? Get real! The earth is in a warming cycle at he moment sure ... no question .... but it will start to cool again at some point.

You neglect to consider the millions of tonnes of carbon that were deposited over millions of years released into the biosphere over 150 years. That's got to be significant.

Mark_Beech wrote: »

Who else remembers the 'Ice Age' scare of the mid 70s when supposedly glaciers where soon to be seen encroaching on the higher reaches of Scotland.

That was media hype, and there was never a scientific consensus on that one. There is a big one on this

Mark_Beech wrote: »

And if CO2 really does increase the earth's temperature ... then why during the post war economic boom years from 1945 - 1970 was the earth actually in a cooling phase ... despite the biggest expansion of industry and car and fridge ownership that the world has ever seen?

You are talking about short term fluctuations (which are perfectly normal). The topic of global warming is about a long term trend. If it weren't for man's effect then that period would have been even colder.

antonio_3

As far as global warning is concerned, it is all according to which corner of the yard you talk to. Governments rarely talk to astronomers who will quickly tell you that all earths activity is controlled by the sun. They do not want to hear that because they know that in the end (whenever that comes), our fate is well out of our control. In the meantime, it's a great excuse to levy more taxes on the people who can least afford it making our lives even more difficult than it is.

denny250

it never ceases to amaze me that the very people who tell us its wrong to fly etc and tax us to try to stop us from doing are the same people that fly round the world to talk to someone instead of using a telephone
The governments love this topic as its an easy way of making you feel they have to tax you
The media of the world love it because its an easy subject to scare you with

My personal opinion is that yes the world is getting warmer and the arctic circle is melting sadly for us we are coming out of an ice age which inevitably will lead to this happening there is also proof that antarctica is expanding explain that if you can