For those of you that don't believe in global warming

jbloggs said:
To be honest I'm not terribly concerned about Global Warming, but what is going to happen when WWIII starts, as we are quite overdue for another one!

I think Global Warming will be quickly forgotten about when it starts... ;)
Click to expand...


actually on a time line world wars are possibly the rarest man made occurrence in history.


After all there have only been 2 in something like 150,000 years.
 
snowdog said:
Because they can't survive in changing conditions ?

No, you don't understand, I don't care if they exist or not, not saying they shouldn't, but if a species can't survive on it's own then why would you care?

And yes you obviously draw the line somewhere, don't tell me you feel guilty about the bacteria in your body that make you sick. Why don't you want to admit your line for caring about living beings is somewhere around animals, or mammals, or anything non insect or whatever ?


That is your opinion, in my opinion we do. We already do what we want with it.
Click to expand...

You seem very happy to climb abourd the "survival of the fittest" train but has it not occured to you that humans got off a LONG time ago? If we were still in that frame of mind we wouldn't help those in natural disasters, we wouldn't help the disabled or diseased, and 90% of us wouldn't ever get laid because only the alpha males would get to tap that.

As a species we are the fittest because we have the ability to develop cures and technology etc. Individually however, were the holocaust to come and we had to survive without the amenities we have become accustomed to we would be as vunerable as every endangered species on the planet.

Survival of the fittest suggests that we stop digging water wells in Africa to help people, why dont they just move somewhere wetter? It says that when you get smacked by a car we let you die becuase you were too stupid to look out for yourself. It declares that when you make that one mistake that you or your body cant deal with on its own, you dont get a second chance.

We dont do that, we havn't done that for hundreds if not thousands of years. Why on earth would you gladly have species die instead of trying to save them? This planet could well be the only one harbouring life in the entire universe and you'd happily see the variety dwindle because you're ok?

Also bear in mind that we are finding new cures for different things every year, often from odd plants or animals that have been found that we didnt know about. With your attitude, what might we miss?
 
daz said:
A lot of those will need power from the grid, however that can be generated using a number of sources - tidal, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear should all be a part of our future energy strategy. It would be irresponsible to rely on only one source.
Click to expand...
I totally agree here but just one problem.........no one wants the power sources near them......every time there are plans for wind farms and solar farms people object to it being near them saying that they are an eyesore.....MORONS!
They are more interested in what they see rather than the impact that not using them will have on their children.
 
groen said:
We do ?

I would say that plane emissions (which don't look like they are CO2 emissions) have more of impact on temperature than the PPM reading of co2. Have you seen the ppm readings taken from the amazon jungle ?

Why don't we have an act on-green house gasses.org then ? instead we have an actonco2... Wouldn't an increase in any of the atmospheric gasses, green house or not, potentially cause climate intensity and eventually kill life.

Reputation can be bought and we all know how scientists like the big lab budgets.

From my understanding plants "breathe" co2 and exhale oxygen and we do the opposite. So the increase in human population and the simultaneous reduction in plant life has caused the increase in co2. Not fossil fuels. Why would a warming climate be a bad thing, Sure if we saw a sharp increase in temperature and people were dieing all over the place, then your concern would be justified. But we have had one of the coldest winters for decades. Looking at some data the temps and the sea level and everything has been pretty much the same since the start of recorded history. thousands of years. there might have been fluctuations but the graph looks like a wave not a hockey stick.

I wanted a co2 meter so i could go behind a car exhaust and take a reading of the ppm. but they cost too much
Click to expand...

Yes, CO2 concentration has an effect on temperature in the way I described. It's a simple process popularly known as the "greenhouse effect".

They take CO2 ppm measurements out in Hawaii as it's far away from any major sources of CO2 (cars, power stations) so they get a good average value. Sure it would be slightly higher in the rainforest (what's left of it).

CO2 so far is thought to have the largest effect. This opinion is changing, as methane for example is shown to also do a good job of keeping heat in. Yes, of course a large enough release of any gas would have an effect, for the better or worse.

Reputation cannot be bought, but exposure to the public can. This is the reason we have such widespread confusion about climate change. Exxon in particular has given billions of dollars to scientists to produce "climate skeptic" material. See exxonsecrets. Almost every "documentary" with a title like "the truth about global warming" etc. etc. will feature scientists documented on exxonsecrets, and the amount of money exxon have paid them.

Yep, plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen. But the increase in carbon dioxide we have seen can't be explained by that alone. You can measure the amount of carbon dioxide coming out of a car, plane, factory, power plant very accurately, and indeed get a good estimate of the CO2 output of forests. The big increase in the third graph in post 101 is mostly due to fossil fuel burning.
 
Todge said:
You seem very happy to climb abourd the "survival of the fittest" train but has it not occured to you that humans got off a LONG time ago? If we were still in that frame of mind we wouldn't help those in natural disasters, we wouldn't help the disabled or diseased, and 90% of us wouldn't ever get laid because only the alpha males would get to tap that.
Click to expand...

No we're very much on the train.

We help those who are in need as it ensures our species survives, and hopefully if we are ever in need there is someone else to support us.



Even hyenas will help the lame, on one documentary one of the pack had a permanently damaged leg, yet it was still allowed to east and parts of the pack moved slightly slower so it could stay with the group.


Survival of the fittest is not just about the individuals it's is also about the group.

That and we do a lot of our "evolution" through sexual selection rather than natural selection (although yes sexual selection is a part natural selection)


Individually however, were the holocaust to come and we had to survive without the amenities we have become accustomed to we would be as vunerable as every endangered species on the planet.
Click to expand...

No we wouldn't, people live from the ice caps to the deserts and the jungle all without mod cons and have for hundred of thousands of years.

Within a day a man can make the tools necessary to best a lion in a fight, with a few hours we can build a shelter to rival the thickest coat, and when it comes down to it we can eat pretty much anything.


We will live we just wont live to 90.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
No we wouldn't, people live from the ice caps to the deserts and the jungle all without mod cons and have for hundred of thousands of years.

Within a day a man can make the tools necessary to best a lion in a fight, with a few hours we can build a shelter to rival the thickest coat, and when it comes down to it we can eat pretty much anything.


We will live we just wont live to 90.
Click to expand...

Oh i'd love to see it, there are SOME people who would survive, the vast majority however would die off rapidly as the key skills for individual wild survival were have been mostly erased from modern society.

It would be the first true natural selection the human race would have seen in thousands of years.
 
Todge said:
You seem very happy to climb abourd the "survival of the fittest" train but has it not occured to you that humans got off a LONG time ago? If we were still in that frame of mind we wouldn't help those in natural disasters, we wouldn't help the disabled or diseased, and 90% of us wouldn't ever get laid because only the alpha males would get to tap that.
Click to expand...
How do you suggest we cooperate with tigers then ? We have evolved from that because of cooperation because our intelligence told us that is the best solution. Fittest does not mean the strongest, it means a combination of the strongest and smartest.
As a species we are the fittest because we have the ability to develop cures and technology etc. Individually however, were the holocaust to come and we had to survive without the amenities we have become accustomed to we would be as vunerable as every endangered species on the planet.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but the world population graph tells a different story at the moment.
Survival of the fittest suggests that we stop digging water wells in Africa to help people, why dont they just move somewhere wetter? It says that when you get smacked by a car we let you die becuase you were too stupid to look out for yourself. It declares that when you make that one mistake that you or your body cant deal with on its own, you dont get a second chance.
Click to expand...
No, survival of the fittest for the species as a whole. As I said in my perfect world, the whole world would be unified, democratic and liberal, rather than authoritarian, divided by belief, nationalism, etc...
We dont do that, we havn't done that for hundreds if not thousands of years. Why on earth would you gladly have species die instead of trying to save them? This planet could well be the only one harbouring life in the entire universe and you'd happily see the variety dwindle because you're ok?
Click to expand...
Because we should improve ourselves, not a different spicies.
his planet could well be the only one harbouring life in the entire universe
Click to expand...
I find that very hard to accept, but I'm not stopping anyone from saving the tigers, just don't bring me into it, don't tax me for it

Also bear in mind that we are finding new cures for different things every year, often from odd plants or animals that have been found that we didnt know about. With your attitude, what might we miss?
Click to expand...
Fair point I guess...
 
Last edited:
Yes, CO2 concentration has an effect on temperature in the way I described. It's a simple process popularly known as the "greenhouse effect".

They take CO2 ppm measurements out in Hawaii as it's far away from any major sources of CO2 (cars, power stations) so they get a good average value. Sure it would be slightly higher in the rainforest (what's left of it).

CO2 so far is thought to have the largest effect. This opinion is changing, as methane for example is shown to also do a good job of keeping heat in. Yes, of course a large enough release of any gas would have an effect, for the better or worse.

Reputation cannot be bought, but exposure to the public can. This is the reason we have such widespread confusion about climate change. Exxon in particular has given billions of dollars to scientists to produce "climate skeptic" material. See exxonsecrets. Almost every "documentary" with a title like "the truth about global warming" etc. etc. will feature scientists documented on exxonsecrets, and the amount of money exxon have paid them.

Yep, plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen. But the increase in carbon dioxide we have seen can't be explained by that alone. You can measure the amount of carbon dioxide coming out of a car, plane, factory, power plant very accurately, and indeed get a good estimate of the CO2 output of forests. The big increase in the third graph in post 101 is mostly due to fossil fuel burning.
Click to expand...

You are making some serious claims there and it would be difficult to produce convincing evidence. A graph is far from convincing evidence. But that is the very nature of the theory, we are talking about our planet and we are trying to understand it. I laugh that you say the sceptics are paid by the oil companies when of course i will say that the climate conference last year and the carbon trading scheme and the scientist budgets all depend on this co2 causes temperature to rise theory. A lot of interest there depending on some dodgy science.
 
Not really, developed countries have a hell of a lot of supplies the armed forces at least would survive as long as there's land, as would a large number of civilians required to keep them going.

in the poorer countries huge numbers would die but again there would be a lot of people more equipped to survive.

all in all way more than a few hundred million (possibly well over a billion or two) would survive which is more than enough to ensure mans survival.

It isn't just going to go from "huge amounts of supplies, knowledge and equipment" to "huh everything disappeared"


iirc in our past the entire human population got devastated down to about only 10,000 and we bounced back. (it's the reason we have a surprisingly limited gene pool iirc.)


If we're going to die out it will be through something unsurvivable like a massive comet/meteor or whatever suer weapon we make next in which case everything is ****ed.


Meh I don't mind if the panda's die out because they won't breed in captivity, much in the same way I honestly don't lose sleep over the millions of people who will starve to death this year.


You just can't feel everything, and care about everyone.
 
I laugh when I hear people talk about saving the world. Barring catastrophe beyond any comprehension, the earth will always be there. We might not. We can perhaps save ourselves, the earth itself doesn't need looking after.

You can bring a billion Tzar Bomba's, strategically place around the world where humans congregate and detonate them, load the same amount of chemicals into the air, chop every tree down and kill every biological animal. The earth will survive. Life will inevitable burst forth again and might look completely different than it does now, but it will survive, somewhere.

Save yourself and the way you live your life, Mother Earth is fine.
 
Tefal said:
All of them are pretty polluting to make though, especially the hybrids.


fuel cells wont become common still we can find something slightly cheaper and more abundant than platinum either.
Click to expand...

Interestingly you can make Platinum, or at least PGMs such as Rhodium, Palladium and Ruthium, also Gold and Silver in Nuclear reactors. While Ruthium and Rhodium are a little to radioactive, Palladium is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals
 
Vanquish-Storm said:
I read "State of fear" by Michael Crichton, thats all about global warming i dont know how true it is (he did a lot of research) but it basically shows global warming happens in cycles anyway with or without human interference.
Click to expand...

Very good book which I mentioned once or twice here. It's not absolute proof wrapped in fiction, but rather a way to think about things.
 
The whole problem of climate change, food supply, water supply, biodiversity and resource depletion ad infinitum can all be solved with one simple solution.

Quit having more than 2 children. Everyone globally.
 
groen said:
You are making some serious claims there and it would be difficult to produce convincing evidence. A graph is far from convincing evidence. But that is the very nature of the theory, we are talking about our planet and we are trying to understand it. I laugh that you say the sceptics are paid by the oil companies when of course i will say that the climate conference last year and the carbon trading scheme and the scientist budgets all depend on this co2 causes temperature to rise theory. A lot of interest there depending on some dodgy science.
Click to expand...

Tell me where evidence is needed and I will do my best, please.
 
i can guarantee you that we will run out of fossil fuels before the pollution (not co2) becomes such a problem that it raises the temperature of the planet. If burning of fossil fuels is the problem, then it is not co2 we should be worried about. It is the more toxic by products of burning fossil fuels that does the most damage. If it is true then based on your evidence we should be going into a global warming stage right away. If co2, based on your data, is at such a high, we will see a noticeable increase in temperature. Looking at the way the planes affected the planet, the thick emissions, or smog does not increase the temperature at all. It actually decreases temperature.
 
Last edited:
groen said:
i can guarantee you that we will run out of fossil fuels before the pollution (not co2) becomes such a problem that it raises the temperature of the planet. If burning of fossil fuels is the problem, then it is not co2 we should be worried about. It is the more toxic by products of burning fossil fuels that does the most damage. If it is true then based on your evidence we should be going into a global warming stage right away. If co2, based on your data, is at such a high, we will see a noticeable increase in temperature. Looking at the way the planes affected the planet, the thick emissions, or smog does not increase the temperature at all. It actually decreases temperature.
Click to expand...

Well, no. The models suggest we could expect a temperature anomaly of plus 2-5 degrees C by 2100. For comparison, plot 2 in post 101 shows the entire interglacial variation is maybe 10 C, which is the difference between the climate we see today and an ice age, so humans bringing about an increase of 2-5 degrees is serious stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions.png

I always like to show people a presentation by climateprediction.net (the distributed computing project I'm running, see sig). I've saved it as a pdf as the original was massive:

http://www.mediafire.com/?mtzzvyemjij

I think it's pretty good. Originally from here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom