Earth Hour 2010 @ 20:30

[kibblerok]

I don't believe in man made global warming but turned mine off.

I believe that we are consuming the earth's resources beyond the level which is sustainable and we should all do more to cut back.

There are some really immature people on this forum.

 

[jp_bl_68]

Its more the idea that counts

I suppose. But you don't need the wwf to tell you to turn off appliances when you don't need them, the leccy bill should tell you that much.

 

[gurusan]

I don't give a crap about climate change. I still don't buy into the whole thing.

 

[Fenris]

I believe that we are consuming the earth's resources beyond the level which is sustainable and we should all do more to cut back.

Will you turn them off for an hour tomorrow as well? I would guess not.

 

[Jet]

I don't believe in man made global warming but turned mine off.

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

You know something they don't?

 

[kibblerok]

Will you turn them off for an hour tomorrow as well? I would guess not.

No because I don't like to sit in darkness too often. The only light on in the house was in the lounge - it was switched off for an hour.

The whole point is to raise awareness and highlight ways which can save energy.

People see action like this and think everyone should live in the dark ages - when in fact a lot of people can walk round the house and turn off or unplug several things that will save energy, themselves some money and cut down on the amount of resources we are using to power something not needed.

Can't see a problem with that personally.

 

[scorza]

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

You know something they don't?

Of course he does, The Daily Mail knows more about this than any scientific body of national or international standing

 

[rypt]

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

You know something they don't?

And yet I can show you a number of professors who have worked at the very top of their industry (including in F1, le Mans, WRC engine design) who disagree with the fact that climate change is MAN MADE. Most will accept that the climate is changing, but a lot of it due to the solar activity - hence the last warm decade and the now soon to follow slightly cooler time period.

 

[HeadlessChicken]

There is a huuuuge thread in SC dedicated to AGW, can I suggest you go and read up / post there.

I think the most simple thing to say is that the science is not settled, either way.

I actually would have preferred this stunt had it been aimed at sorting out our un-sustainable resource use rather than CC.

 

[bloodiedathame]

I lit candles and read a book for an hour.

I feel like some sortta Saint. Bow to me wretched heathens!

Actually the candles are still going.

 

[Rainmaker]

Saving energy is not just about stopping climate change. Why pollute the environment even more than we have to? Why dig up more resources than we have to?

The big problem I have with the media banging on about climate change is everyone has forgotten that the climate isn't the only thing that suffers when we are wasteful of resources. Worst still, as more and more people disbelieve the idea of climate change they suddenly think our actions are completely harmless to the planet.

There may or may not be any such thing as man-made climate change, but there is definitely man-made pollution. Turning off a few lights wont kill you and will have some positive impact - no matter how slight.

As I have pointed out several times in this thread, I treat the environment with respect, I am an energy Nazi in our house (cost based), and I recycle. I don't think we COULD use less energy than we do now, without going stone-age. We use one 6 watt lightbulb at a time in our house; if one goes on the other goes off. We line-dry clothes, cook carefully and quickly, heat minimally (more clothes not more heat), and basically do what we can to keep energy usage down.

As I also alluded, my main problem with these stunts is the fact they're ineffectual, badly targeted and are aimed at guilting a brainwashed public while industry and government continue to rape the populace and the environment. Have you ever seen the Story of Stuff? An interesting short film/presentation.

As it is, I'm on the fence. But I'll be damned if I'll feel guilty about our meagre energy usage while industry, government and nature are WAY bigger users and polluters than we are.

I lit candles and read a book for an hour.

I feel like some sortta Saint. Bow to me wretched heathens!

Actually the candles are still going.

I do hope they were the expensive hand-made beeswax candles, not the 'normal' candles, which are all made of fossil fuel (i.e. paraffin). How ironic that this 'campaign' promotes movie nights and everyone stands around burning tons of fossil fuel (pumping out carcinogenic fumes in the process) to highlight pollution.

 

[Jet]

And yet I can show you a number of professors who have worked at the very top of their industry (including in F1, le Mans, WRC engine design) who disagree with the fact that climate change is MAN MADE. Most will accept that the climate is changing, but a lot of it due to the solar activity - hence the last warm decade and the now soon to follow slightly cooler time period.

Tbh I don't care if they're at the top of their field unless their field is climate science. Their opinion is as worthless as yours or mine on such an important issue. And according to wiki:

The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.

 

[rypt]

Tbh I don't care if they're at the top of their field unless their field is climate science. Their opinion is as worthless as yours or mine on such an important issue. And according to wiki:

The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.

The scientific consensus of who exactly?
There are many people within the IPCC who are not climate scientists but are more akin to politicians and business people, equally should we trust scientists if they have a vested interest?

Solar activity matches the pattern we have seen in the weather and temperatures, and has been used to predict cold periods (such as this Winter)

 

[Angilion]

I'm not going to. I believe we shouldn't be trying to reduce energy consumption dramatically (only where it's stupid), but generating our energy in a more sensible fashion, that doesn't have massive environmental implications. Invest in solar power. It's the only energy generation method that can realistically meet out energy demands, but it needs more money to research and produce efficient cells and storage methods.

Arguably not even that. Many Stirling engines (cheap to make in quantity, low maintainence) in deserts in north Africa, HVDC lines through Europe, artificial lakes to act as hydroelectric batteries for when it's night for the solar power stations. The figures work out well enough and the technology already exists.

For the UK, it's possible that wave power could meet our energy demands, or at least a large part of them. We've got a lot of waves. Professor Salter, who knows a bit about the subject, thinks it's possible to build a 20GW tidal power station in Pentland Firth. That's GW, not MW. Then there's the Salter Duck, which was binned because the government got the cost figures wrong by an entire order of magnitude and ignored that fact when it was pointed out. Salter's team were getting 90% efficiency with it. They're not cheap to make and they take up a lot of space, but they work very well.

Wind power could provide a lot too, if you can move it further up. The winds are stronger and more dependable at altitude. A Dutch researcher has built a functioning generator using kites. It's a proof of concept and only generates 5KW, but the point is that it does prove the concept. Simple idea...the wind pulls the kites up, turning a dynamo to generate electricity. At the end of the cable length, you change the angle of the kite and it falls back down. Rewinding the cable takes less electricity than was generated by the kite on the way up. Repeat.

There's an immense amount of power in solar, air movement and water movement. It's just a matter of converting some of it efficiently enough and that does look plausible.

 

[Stellios]

Was in work at that time, I think id get sacked if i turned the lights off on the shop floor

 

[Red Porsche]

Climate Change is a natural event. I won't bother, my power comes from Sizewell Nuclear Power station anyway so doesn't effect man made climate change.

Bit blunt. Its anthropogenic.

 

[Jet]

The scientific consensus of who exactly?
There are many people within the IPCC who are not climate scientists but are more akin to politicians and business people, equally should we trust scientists if they have a vested interest?

Solar activity matches the pattern we have seen in the weather and temperatures, and has been used to predict cold periods (such as this Winter)

http://www.newscientist.com/article...al-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1

From a brief Google search. An interesting paragraph from the Guardian article:

Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty.


Either way I'm done. I haven't got the time nor inclination to debate this subject.

 

[Tombstone]

To be fair though, both those articles were written nearly 3 years ago. There has been quite a lot of debate this way and that since then.

I for one, rightly or wrongly, would not say that mankind is the main driver of climate change. I'm no scientist but regardless of what effect mankind has on climate change I would still think that the main driver of climate change is natural climate change, irrespective of the effect that we ourselves make upon it.

 

[James J]

Ok so when you burn fossil fuels you release CO2, Then there is all the extra methane, then lots of other chemicals..

This causes global warming, Its not part of the natural cycle

Vast amounts of fossil fuels dont just come to the surface and set on fire naturally

The only thing which is up for debate is from when/how much we have influenced

They do actually as volcano's are the worst largest polutants

 

[BigglesPiP]

Would I also have to light enough candles to balance out the saving in CO2? I'd also like to point out that a candle isn't very clean burning.

I didn't do it BTW.