Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
- Thread starter Housey
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,313
- Location
- Norwich
Hydrogen is seen as intermediate to long. We really need to address the UK's electricity generation 1st IMO. With an actual decent renewable (& nuclear) grid, hydrogen might actually just work. Currently it seems a tad pointless in having a nice hydrogen car when the electricity used to produce it came from coal. Kinda defeats the whole reasoning. And the current renewable grid certainly ain't good enough to drive (excuse the pun) a hydrogen revolution.
Also not sure about hydrogen cells and large haulage and especially aviation. Haven't looked into that side of it, only personal transport.
I think biofuels have been carefully inched around recently, especially considering their bad press with 3rd world farmers and sustainable development folk.
Algae I'll be honest I don't know much about. I guess it could be interesting, assuming the space needed to cultivate them was small, and not very energy intensive. A bit of photosynthesis makes up for the combustion of the end product. But biology really ain't my subject
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,313
- Location
- Norwich
But CO2 & global warming are only 1 of the many problems we are facing due to our exponential population increase and crappy consumption practices. I'm more concerned about many things before global warming;
Species numbers disappearing
Habitat fragmentation
Fossil fuel depletion
Polluted and rubbish tipped land
These things are all happening, but carry the same sorts of answers to help slow the processes down. AGW is just a nice front, so people don't feel so guilty about the last 70 years of rubbish treatment we have given to the earth.
Climate change is a natural occurance. Anthropogenic climate change is the result of man.
Engage your critical thinking - this whole present situation is far from being validation of a GW conspiracy.
Here's a basic analogy for you: all the carbon we use today (from coal, oil, etc.) where we warm our homes, make our plastics and power our pornography was all once in the ground. Depending on certain variables, the flora and fauna which dies will become some form or another (coal, oil, etc.) over the space of many thousands of years. This has been going on far before man entered the picture. In the grand scheme of things, we've barely been around for a couple of seconds in terms of the planet's clock-face.
The entry of man - or rather, when we first learned to domesticate wildlife and farm - is known as the 'Holocene' which we are still very much a part of. During this time there was an increase in fires and general CO2 emissions - due to bush clearing, and general human activity. But here's the interesting part: the planet barely noticed it - just enough for us to point it out within our records - and it was coping fine. But then something happened called the 'Enlightenment' which eventually led to the 'Industrial Revolution' around 200 years ago.
At present, there is much talk about us having reached 'peak' oil - which doesn't necessarily mean we've used half and half left; we need to consider the fact that there's more people now wanting a slice of the pie. When all is considered - especially considering a large degree of the oil we think we have is actually speculative - oil is going to run out very, very quickly. So that's what? 250-300 years where we've managed to burn all that stored carbon which took tens of thousands of years to get there. That is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than our planet has had to deal with in a long time - at least, not since humans arrived. We've basically taken all the safely stored away carbon and released it back into the envirionment within a fraction of the time it took to put there. Quite frankly, you'd have to be an idiot not to realise what this means.
The environment is a very complicated thing - some gases effect certain things a certain way, whilst certain temperatures will cause positive-feedback in one place, whilst reducing it in another. We cannot concretely map this and therefore we cannot concretely prove it. However, it is evident that from the studies which do exist that the planet is warming, CO2 is a GHG and just so happens to be the one we play with the most (titbit: CH4 - Methane - is pound for pound around 14x worse than CO2 as a GHG).
It has never been a question of whether climate change is a nautral occurrence or not - any respectable scientist understands this. The question comes down to: how will the planet react to what we're doing and how bad will the consequences be for us?
If current reports are within the correct area (notice how the IPCC uses terms such as 'highly likely' and 'unlikely') I personally wouldn't bother investing in any real-estate in Kent.
The fact of the matter is, we're left with one of four possible scenarios*:
1. (TA) AGW science is correct - we do something [Expensive, but avoid huge disaster].
2. (TB) AGW science is correct - we don't do something [That's it, we're screwed. Even if we manage to survive, it'll cost us hugely in terms of war, famine, industry, etc.].
3. (FA) AGW science is incorrect - we do something [Hedging our bet, we look an idiot, but at least we didn't take any chances.].
4. (FB) AGW science is incorrect - we don't do something [Everybody is happy and goes back to their sad little existence like it never happened at all. But seriously? How likely is this as an actual scenario?].
If we've really got to hedge our bets on this one, I'd much rather be safe than sorry.
The planet is currently in a state of equilibrium - at least one in which human-life was able to develop. If the science is correct and the planet shifts from this state, it will only end badly for humanity.
* I borrowed this from a youtube video I saw many years ago, but cannot currently find the damn thing.
Last edited:
The alleged "Climategate" is a complete non-event, whipped up by lashings of hot bloviation from the usual suspects. It's already been debunked (see the article here).
In other, more serious news:
(Source).
In other, more serious news:
The 2nd of February 2007 will one day hopefully be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from the debate on whether human activities are driving climate change, said the head of the UN Environment Programme at the launch of the most authoritative scientific report on climate change to date.
The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change. Read the global reaction to the report here.
"The word unequivocal is the key message of this report," said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, adding that those who have doubts about the role of humans in driving the climate "can no longer ignore the evidence".
The IPCC report says the rise in global temperatures could be as high as 6.4°C by 2100. The report also predicts sea level rises and increases in the intensity of hurricanes. It is the work of 1200 climate experts from 40 countries, who have spent six years reviewing all the available climate research.
The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change. Read the global reaction to the report here.
"The word unequivocal is the key message of this report," said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, adding that those who have doubts about the role of humans in driving the climate "can no longer ignore the evidence".
The IPCC report says the rise in global temperatures could be as high as 6.4°C by 2100. The report also predicts sea level rises and increases in the intensity of hurricanes. It is the work of 1200 climate experts from 40 countries, who have spent six years reviewing all the available climate research.
(Source).
It's not obvious that climate change is catastrophic, artificial and reversible. So it's not as simple as people not realising that profit at the expense of the planet is a bad business plan. Many people don't think much about "at the expense of the planet" because it isn't obvious enough. When enviromental factors are very obvious, steps are taken. For example, the first Clean Air Act was a direct response to a very obvious enviromental issue that was clearly artificial (the deadly amount of pollution in major cities, especially London).
I think there are other benefits, even if the environment is ignored. Pouring incomprehensible amounts of money into the middle east to buy oil has caused and continues to cause a lot of trouble. The amount of oil that can be extracted at reasonable cost is finite and rapidly being used up. Alternatives really need to be developed, and soon.
Let's not forget the god father of AGW and hockey stick graphing - NASA/IPP's James E. Hansen, is the dude who wrote software to prove global cooling and inevitable ice age within 50 years back in 1971. Many of these peer reviewed "climate scientists" are in government sponsored doom prediction business for almost half a century now. For some of them this is third or fourth self penned global this, antropogenic that or hole-in-a-layer-out-there something else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
Load of cobblers, you can't seriously take the telegraph seriously?
Either way cutting down on waste is a good idea, being we have finite resources and all. Money aint gonna matter when your grandkids or however many future generations are drinking dirty water and warming themselves on burning furniture, know what i'm saying?
Either way cutting down on waste is a good idea, being we have finite resources and all. Money aint gonna matter when your grandkids or however many future generations are drinking dirty water and warming themselves on burning furniture, know what i'm saying?
Last edited:
At the very most, these emails merely prove that a tiny handful of scientists conducted sloppy work and perpetuated a few dodgy practices. It is no reflection on the greater body of scientific consensus with regard to AGW and it certainly does not discredit the myriad international scientific bodies whose united agreement on this issue have rendered it just as certain as gravity.
This is the key point. Even if every bit of climate research conducted at CRU is removed from the table (for which there is no reason to do), the anthropogenic global warming case is still strong. Irrefutably strong in my opinion.
That so many people have a hard time accepting this is no surprise of course, it isn't what people want to hear!
Even if the case is irrefutable strong (although that is debatable, given that the CRU aren't the only agency investigating climate change that refuse to release all their data, source code etc for review, and the massive uncertainties still in the research and models), it doesn't address the issue of providing useful and workable recommendations that are actually going to have a meaningful impact in reducing climate change. Indeed, if you read many of the IPCC reports, it appears that many involved believe the trend is too late to reverse no matter what steps we take?
When is climate change science going to be held to the same standards as the rest of science and earn its reputation, rather than surf on the validity of other areas of science despite the distinct lack of similarities in process/data/confidence?
,
I agree...
Whether you support the idea that mankind is contributing to global warming or not; continuing to accelerate the rate we're burning through finite resources and pumping the atmosphere full of poisonous gasses is a "Bad Thing" by any standards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,045
Adaption is likely to be the process with the best cost benefit for all potential climate outcomes.
Climate change is happening and man made but stoppable - adaption may be cheaper than carbon dieting with a net outcome of world wide higher lifestyles.
Climate change is happening and man made but now unstoppable - adaption is the ONLY rational option.
Climate change is happening but natural and unstoppable - adaption is the only choice.
Climate change is not happening - adaption is a strategy that only needs to be employed as the effects appear so money is saved.
I have never read anything about cost benefit of adaption done by an organisation that is pro-climate change the Stern report seemed only to concentrate on mitigation not adaption.
The Copenhagen consensus argued that if you're going to spend the money more net good wouod be done tackling clean drinking water, malaria, Aids and other genuinely achievable goals than trying but failing to prevent AGW.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation claims to be science netrual and is at least tackling the concepts of climate change economics.
Where the warmists lose my empathy is in their all or nothing anti-society solutions and inability to constructively discuss the economics of dealing with the issue beyond carbon dieting. If I wanted orignal sin I'd join the church they carry it off with far more panache.
Climate change is happening and man made but stoppable - adaption may be cheaper than carbon dieting with a net outcome of world wide higher lifestyles.
Climate change is happening and man made but now unstoppable - adaption is the ONLY rational option.
Climate change is happening but natural and unstoppable - adaption is the only choice.
Climate change is not happening - adaption is a strategy that only needs to be employed as the effects appear so money is saved.
I have never read anything about cost benefit of adaption done by an organisation that is pro-climate change the Stern report seemed only to concentrate on mitigation not adaption.
The Copenhagen consensus argued that if you're going to spend the money more net good wouod be done tackling clean drinking water, malaria, Aids and other genuinely achievable goals than trying but failing to prevent AGW.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation claims to be science netrual and is at least tackling the concepts of climate change economics.
Where the warmists lose my empathy is in their all or nothing anti-society solutions and inability to constructively discuss the economics of dealing with the issue beyond carbon dieting. If I wanted orignal sin I'd join the church they carry it off with far more panache.
Last edited:
And you are calling us blind for refusing to accept the "facts" about climate change none of which are completely backed up and valid.
Then there you are denying the clear written evidence that the people who are out there to help us and protect us from the "disasters" of the dreaded climate change are trying their damndest to discredit those who are proving their own arguements wrong. Rather than have a reasoned debate they revert to subterfuge, lies and misinformation.
It smacks to me that these pro-climate change scientists are too busy feathering their own nest and protecting the nice gig they have gotten off the mugs in government rather than actually trying to do anything useful.
I will say it again, provide me with indisputable, or at least pretty damn impossible to discredit, proof of climate and I will happily back the campaign all the way to the hilt! But this will never happen because it is false and (puts on the tin foil suit, thanks for the loan Teki) god knows why we are so desperate to make everyone beleive that it is true.
If a full release is made of all the information that has been hidden by the pro-climate change lobby is made, then the facts are discussed and debated rather than once again brushed under the carpet I will be happy (introducing into the AGW a body of climate change sceptics to allow full and reasoned debate rather than hiding the facts from them would be best)
Until then ***** to the lot of you hippies you can have your green cars and homes and everything but let me get on with my life, my way without taxing me for the privilege of living it.
I can speak for hours and hours on this subject but will refrain from doing so now as this might be going off topic. Spent the past weekend in a 'poorer' country, everyone was happy, laughed with their eyes not just mouth, could talk to each other without having a PC or TV on in the background. Basically, there was no material luxuries around, just the incalcuble luxury of having truly happy people around that loves you.
Came back to rainy dumpy London today and almost burst out laughing watching the fat people wobbling around dressed in designer trash with frowns on their mugs.
- Joined
- 3 May 2004
- Posts
- 17,710
- Location
- Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
Nix the video you're thinking about is called something like 'The most terrifying video you'll ever see' about environmental risk. This one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ