climate change and the future: debate.

[Sinophile]

If I understand the debate correctly, the conservatives claims that climate change is natural, and therefore unpreventable. Whereas the progressives claim that climate change is caused by human behavior, and therefore preventable. Both sides agree that the climate IS changing, whether humanity is responsible for it or not. Thus if:

1.) Humans are unwilling to reduce Co2 emissions.

 

OR

 

2.) if said increase in emissions is natural.

 

THEN

 

We as a species need to adapt to a world that has greater temperature extremes. We'd have less usable land( more deserts, tundra, underwater) for crops and for living on. Regardless of the causes of global warming, it is happening, and it will change the way we live drastically by the end of the century. If it doesn't, we won't be here.

 

Your ancestors were already driving a car 4.5 billiion years ago, taking planes quarterly and working in the industry etc. pp., right? Or are you a Mormon still living in the pre-industrial epoch and thus indeed dismissed as complice, as one of us?

According to my Astronomy teacher, there has been high levels of Co2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago, but that does not mean that we can drive around our SUVs with impunity.

[phoneyLogic]

I'm more and more sceptical regarding the climate change and the impact humanity has. A new goal has been defined: 2°Celsius.

 

Does some one think that it is realistic?

I seriously doubt that. :confused:

[Keanumoreira]

 

Some say global warming from human activity,but severe global warming happens without human activity at all and has.

 

 

Exactly, and that's what most people forget....

 

Global Warming: The process by which, any given planetary body (In this case the Earth) heats up due to excessive Co2 emissions in the atmosphere in addition to other harmful, heat trapping gases.

 

A lot of people say it is our fault for Global warming, but the truth of the matter is that it has been happening since the first violent days of the Earth's birth. It's just us who's speeding up the process...

[Keanumoreira]

Unfortunately, the modern man has heavily influenced the natural cycle of climate change. And the effect is accumulative, the result irreversible.

Trivial ostrich policy in the sense of "everything is quite normal and God-given" is here... huuh ... close, but no banana!

 

http://www.abload.de/img/anne9hol.gif

 

Normal? What is normal? All I said is that climate change doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things; it was going on 4.5 billion years before us.

 

Your ancestors were already driving a car 4.5 billiion years ago, taking planes quarterly and working in the industry etc. pp., right? Or are you a Mormon still living in the pre-industrial epoch and thus indeed dismissed as complice, as one of us?

Normal is the change in climate caused by planetary means, the cyclic shift of the poles, the streams and so on.

Our blame is to have negatively influenced this natural course of events since the midst of the 19th century, no more, no less.

 

Ignorance is no strength, my friend.

 

Was that seriously necessary or are you trying to get on someone's nerves?

 

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe it is not impossible to not deliberately attack someones intelligence or beliefs because it doesn't match up with your own. Mind you that not everyone shares your particular views...

[Vindekarr]

Well I have one good bit of news: the car industry really does seem commited to making electric the new way forward. better still, they arent opressive little lumps of something unmentionable anymore, but are infact, starting to be genuinely desirable.

 

The electric car has had a troubled existance. First people hated them for their short battery life. Then people(rightfully) hated them for being opressively dull and ugly. Now people love them because Detroit has made an effort this time and made them able to seriously compete with petrol for performance, distance, and most importantly, fun and practicality.

 

Lets face it, this piece of crap was never going to take off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reva_i_silver.jpg Since it's slow, embarrisingly ugly, too small for adults, and hideously badly made. But worst of all, it's actualy a bigger environment risk than a petrol car, since it's all plastic, non recyclable, and has a volatile Lead-Acid battery that causes irrepairable damage both when disposed of, and due to the Indian REVA coro's ironicaly environment killing factory procedures. Opressive tacky crap made by cynics.But this? well would you say no to the keys? I think not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Porsche_918_Spyder.jpg Gecause it's sleek, luxurious, face destroyingly fast, well built, and doesnt kill the environment when it's built, scrapped, or crashed. Lean, and very green.

[Mr Ham]

Lets face it, this piece of crap was never going to take off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reva_i_silver.jpg Since it's slow, embarrisingly ugly, too small for adults, and hideously badly made. But worst of all, it's actualy a bigger environment risk than a petrol car, since it's all plastic, non recyclable, and has a volatile Lead-Acid battery that causes irrepairable damage both when disposed of, and due to the Indian REVA coro's ironicaly environment killing factory procedures. Opressive tacky crap made by cynics.But this? well would you say no to the keys? I think not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Porsche_918_Spyder.jpg Gecause it's sleek, luxurious, face destroyingly fast, well built, and doesnt kill the environment when it's built, scrapped, or crashed. Lean, and very green.

Are you seriously comparing a stupid, impractical sports car to a viable and functional hybrid car? If you're the kind of person who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on a hybrid Porsche which has a top speed of 320 km/h I don't think you care about the environment, at least not as much as being a smug, pretentious hipster.

(By the way, the Porsche is made of carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic, magnesium and aluminium and is probably even worse for the environment than the little Reva. Oops?)

[JimboUK]

Climate change used to be known as "The Weather", however you can't tax the weather. Leaked E-Mails that proved climate change "scientists" have been manipulating data should have put an end to this scam. CO2 makes up a tiny proportion of the atmosphere and our contribution is a tiny fraction of that, much lower than the natural variation that was happening long before we appeared on the scene. I guess this will continue while Gore and his cronies are busy lining their pockets and governments are looking for new ways to part us from our hard earned money.

 

On electric cars, they are not clean, they just move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant.

[Mr Ham]

Climate change used to be known as "The Weather", however you can't tax the weather. Leaked E-Mails that proved climate change "scientists" have been manipulating data should have put an end to this scam. CO2 makes up a tiny proportion of the atmosphere and our contribution is a tiny fraction of that, much lower than the natural variation that was happening long before we appeared on the scene. I guess this will continue while Gore and his cronies are busy lining their pockets and governments are looking for new ways to part us from our hard earned money.

 

On electric cars, they are not clean, they just move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant.

The weather is not a suitable basis for any conclusions about climate change. Furthermore, a single institution manipulating empirical data hardly spells the end of the anthropomorphic climate change debate. Current CO₂ levels are nowhere near historical variation, even if we were at the peak of the natural warming period. The precautionary principle still holds.

[JimboUK]

Climate change used to be known as "The Weather", however you can't tax the weather. Leaked E-Mails that proved climate change "scientists" have been manipulating data should have put an end to this scam. CO2 makes up a tiny proportion of the atmosphere and our contribution is a tiny fraction of that, much lower than the natural variation that was happening long before we appeared on the scene. I guess this will continue while Gore and his cronies are busy lining their pockets and governments are looking for new ways to part us from our hard earned money.

 

On electric cars, they are not clean, they just move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant.

The weather is not a suitable basis for any conclusions about climate change. Furthermore, a single institution manipulating empirical data hardly spells the end of the anthropomorphic climate change debate. Current CO₂ levels are nowhere near historical variation, even if we were at the peak of the natural warming period. The precautionary principle still holds.

 

I didn't say the weather was a basis for anything, I said climate change is another name the weather. As for the manipulated data, that university is one of the leading centres for climate change study and as such their bad data will have found its way into models worldwide. Our own national weather service has been using data provided by that university and their forecasting has become so bad even the BBC are thinking of using another service, this years "Warmest winter on record" may be the last straw, so far it's been one of the coldest.

 

So far every prediction these alarmists have made as turned out to be wrong, instead of going away and looking again they just move the goalposts. The "science" is bad and the whole debate has been hijacked by vested interests, scientists who disagree with the alarmists are finding themselves out of work because the institutions they work for are terrified of being thrown off the gravy train. Thankfully the percentage of the population who buy into this nonsense is decreasing at a rapid rate, something that hasn't gone unnoticed by world leaders who didn't bother turning up for the latest conference, the exception of course being those leaders with the begging bowls out.

[Mr Ham]

I didn't say the weather was a basis for anything, I said climate change is another name the weather. As for the manipulated data, that university is one of the leading centres for climate change study and as such their bad data will have found its way into models worldwide. Our own national weather service has been using data provided by that university and their forecasting has become so bad even the BBC are thinking of using another service, this years "Warmest winter on record" may be the last straw, so far it's been one of the coldest.

 

So far every prediction these alarmists have made as turned out to be wrong, instead of going away and looking again they just move the goalposts. The "science" is bad and the whole debate has been hijacked by vested interests, scientists who disagree with the alarmists are finding themselves out of work because the institutions they work for are terrified of being thrown off the gravy train. Thankfully the percentage of the population who buy into this nonsense is decreasing at a rapid rate, something that hasn't gone unnoticed by world leaders who didn't bother turning up for the latest conference, the exception of course being those leaders with the begging bowls out.

I highly doubt the UEA CRU is "one the the leading centres for climate change study". The BBC uses data from the MET Office which draw their data from a number of sources including the Royal Meteorological Society, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, the Hadley Centre and the Walker Institute as well a multitude of institutions outside UK. Inconsistencies with UEA's data would've been found against other institution's data before being released. Furthermore, in response to the UEA being hacked, the MET Office responded by stating "The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be." ¹ The bottom line is, predictions are fallable; they can be true or false.

 

Now if you really feel so strongly that a whole branch of the scientific community is simply a con, I doubt I'd do very much to sway you even if I did give a rebuttal. I simply find the sheer volume of scientific claims too overwhelming to deny. Sure, some of these publications are simply to get money and attention, can you honestly deny every single paper?

 

Oh, and can you explain how climate change and the weather are interchangeable terms?