Climate Change

[marharth]

When people here actually use real evidence to support their "idea" that climate change isn't man-made, then maybe I'll give a full answer instead of a cheap sentence.

 

So instead here's a link to a TV Q&A show with one of the world's leading climatologists over climate science. Whether it'll change your mind after watching, I do not care.

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/401#watchonline

Climate change IS NOT man made.

 

It is sped up by man, it is not created by man.

[ginnyfizz]

And here's a link for you;-

 

Facts About Climate Change Science

 

I am with both Ghogiel on the premise that we should not squander resources unnecessarily, and HeyYou on the premises that climate change is a natural occurrence, that green energy sources are often anything but and are unreliable, and that we are in danger of ruining our own economies tilting at the (hehe) windmill of "OMG we have to stop it, no more nasty fossil fuels!", whilst the Chinese, Indians and former Soviet countries snicker at our misfortunes, give the finger to the idea of reducing their emissions and jack up their prices for things we can no longer produce ourselves.

[Skevitj]

If "climate change" is "man made", how exactly do you explain the ice ages which have occurred well before human interference? How do you explain the hot and cold periods within any age? How to you explain the historical climate indicators which are changing slower today than in the distant past? (Just to clarify because someone is going to misread this, I'm not talking about all, but there are indicators which suggest aspects of climate change have slowed down). The question is not if it's man-made or not, but instead whether our actions have hastened/slowed the natural cycle. That in itself is a topic far too complex for anyone to be able to produce a unarguable proof that a particular view is correct. Then it comes back to the point which I made before, that debating the factors which influence climate change is useless as our main goal should be improving human society to be able to cope with any conditions reasonably likely to be present on our planet and in doing that minimizing our impact is a critical part.

 

"Going green" might have caused a hit to the economy a while ago, while most of the systems and technologies were still in the experimental stage, but you can't suggest that it's possible for an economy to ruin itself going green nowadays. There have been a heap of industrial precincts which have adopted the closed loop system principal (where the waste from one industry is fed directly to another industry which can make use of it). They didn't do this on the back of government incentives or "green PR", but on the basis that is has significantly improved the companies financial standing: Direct and immediate reductions in resource use -> Lower costs. Salable waste products -> Receiving money for usable waste instead of having to pay to dispose of it. There are plenty of "green" technologies out there, capable oh helping the fiscal bottom line as much as they help the environmental one. That's the whole idea behind setting up a global carbon market, it will allow the market to determine which green technologies are developed as financial and environmental benefits are being chained together, meaning the technologies which provide value-for-money changes will have no end of backing, while the waste of time ideas will be quickly filtered out and forgotten about.

 

The need for all countries to chip in evenly is obvious, it's related to my point above, many countries haven't participated in the experimental stages because they don't have the resources to spend or they're just happy to sit back and let others do it, but there are technologies now which benefit both the environment and finances, and if they don't adopt them then it's they who will fall behind in the long run. It follows a pattern very close to military buildup, you can either research it yourself and build it yourself. It will cost a truck load, but you'll be sitting at the top, or you can let someone else do it, and purchase from them when they're ready/willing to sell. But if you choose to buy it, you'll end up losing out on the research boon, meaning you're always going to be on the back foot, while everyone else stays one step ahead.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Skevitj

[JimboUK]

When people here actually use real evidence to support their "idea" that climate change isn't man-made, then maybe I'll give a full answer instead of a cheap sentence.

 

So instead here's a link to a TV Q&A show with one of the world's leading climatologists over climate science. Whether it'll change your mind after watching, I do not care.

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/401#watchonline

 

If someone expects me to change my behaviour or pay "green" taxes then it's up to them to provide proof, not me. The science behind climate change has been discredited so alarmists have now turned it into a religion, they're being supported in this by various vested interests.

[HeyYou]

When people here actually use real evidence to support their "idea" that climate change isn't man-made, then maybe I'll give a full answer instead of a cheap sentence.

 

So instead here's a link to a TV Q&A show with one of the world's leading climatologists over climate science. Whether it'll change your mind after watching, I do not care.

 

http://www.sbs.com.a...401#watchonline

 

Say what? What part of my post wasn't based on actual facts? Things that can be easily verified with just a few keystrokes? (or, if you live in lenawee county, just a short drive...... the end moraines from the glaciers are patently obvious, as are the beach ridges from the meltwater lakes.)

 

Keep in mind here, that I am not just some layman spouting 'facts' that I have heard second hand. I have eight years of college under my belt studying environmental geoscience. This is my bag. Well, ok.... it WAS my bag at one point. :D

[Sync182]

There was a topic about this at some point I think, no idea where it went...

 

Not going to post any opinions yet.

 

1. Do you think man contributes to it?

 

2. Do you think it is a serious threat?

 

3. Do you think the media correctly reports on it? (Does the media make it seem like a big threat or a small threat?)

 

4. Why do you think people act like its not a issue, and what is your reason behind it? Why do you think people act like it is a issue, and what is your reason behind it?

 

1. No.

 

2. No.

 

3. No (I think they overstate the problem, and anyone can use numbers to say what they want to say...kinda like the apocryphal "67.3% of statistics are made up on the spot"). :thumbsup:

 

4. (a) Non-issue because: it's happened plenty of times during the planet's history, and the only time life was wiped out was during the cataclysm that wiped out the dinosaurs; and let's not forget that if we lower our CO2 emissions we'll be doing the plants we so desperately want to save a major disservice (plants convert CO2 to oxygen...I read that on the back of a matchbox once). :rolleyes:

 

4. (b) People act like it's a big issue because a few nut-cases who think that mankind is the scourge of existence (let's make the world a happier place by removing them first, can we...? ;) ) have got it into their heads that we've got it all wrong and we're about to destroy this planet that nurtures us daily. Has anyone ever noticed that it's these same people who use 747s to travel from one part of the planet to another to spruik their message that we should be reducing our carbon emissions? Am I the only one's who's noticed the inconsistency there...? :facepalm:

 

 

//EDIT: hit the "Add Post" button too soon... :-/

Edited June 15, 2011 by Sync182

[marharth]

There was a topic about this at some point I think, no idea where it went...

 

Not going to post any opinions yet.

 

1. Do you think man contributes to it?

 

2. Do you think it is a serious threat?

 

3. Do you think the media correctly reports on it? (Does the media make it seem like a big threat or a small threat?)

 

4. Why do you think people act like its not a issue, and what is your reason behind it? Why do you think people act like it is a issue, and what is your reason behind it?

 

1. No.

 

2. No.

 

3. No (I think they overstate the problem, and anyone can use numbers to say what they want to say).

So another ice age wouldn't be harmful to man kind...?

 

If anything it would drastically hurt the world economy.

 

You can say that extra CO2 doesn't add to it despite the overwhelming proof that it does, but you can't say that global climate change is not a natural occurrence that has happened before.

 

Unless your willing to say that the ice age was no big deal, or that it never happened. It is likely there were multiple ice ages by the way.

[Sync182]

There was a topic about this at some point I think, no idea where it went...

 

Not going to post any opinions yet.

 

1. Do you think man contributes to it?

 

2. Do you think it is a serious threat?

 

3. Do you think the media correctly reports on it? (Does the media make it seem like a big threat or a small threat?)

 

4. Why do you think people act like its not a issue, and what is your reason behind it? Why do you think people act like it is a issue, and what is your reason behind it?

 

1. No.

 

2. No.

 

3. No (I think they overstate the problem, and anyone can use numbers to say what they want to say).

So another ice age wouldn't be harmful to man kind...?

 

If anything it would drastically hurt the world economy.

 

You can say that extra CO2 doesn't add to it despite the overwhelming proof that it does, but you can't say that global climate change is not a natural occurrence that has happened before.

 

Unless your willing to say that the ice age was no big deal, or that it never happened. It is likely there were multiple ice ages by the way.

 

...apart from the fact that I added to my post while you were quoting me... :tongue:

 

The alarmists aren't generally talking about ice ages. So far they're all busy trying to tell us that we're adding to Greenhouse gasses...and unless my knowledge of Botany is horribly wrong, a Greenhouse makes things warmer, not colder.

[marharth]

There was a topic about this at some point I think, no idea where it went...

 

Not going to post any opinions yet.

 

1. Do you think man contributes to it?

 

2. Do you think it is a serious threat?

 

3. Do you think the media correctly reports on it? (Does the media make it seem like a big threat or a small threat?)

 

4. Why do you think people act like its not a issue, and what is your reason behind it? Why do you think people act like it is a issue, and what is your reason behind it?

 

1. No.

 

2. No.

 

3. No (I think they overstate the problem, and anyone can use numbers to say what they want to say).

So another ice age wouldn't be harmful to man kind...?

 

If anything it would drastically hurt the world economy.

 

You can say that extra CO2 doesn't add to it despite the overwhelming proof that it does, but you can't say that global climate change is not a natural occurrence that has happened before.

 

Unless your willing to say that the ice age was no big deal, or that it never happened. It is likely there were multiple ice ages by the way.

 

...apart from the fact that I added to my post while you were quoting me... :tongue:

 

The alarmists aren't generally talking about ice ages. So far they're all busy trying to tell us that we're adding to Greenhouse gasses...and unless my knowledge of Botany is horribly wrong, a Greenhouse makes things warmer, not colder.

If large amounts of ice melt it will alter the ocean currents, which would have a large effect on the weather.

 

The above likely won't happen though.

 

Right before the start of a ice age it is believed that there is high CO2 emissions. What this could be is the planet heating up and killing plant life, and other kinds of life with it. Since life is reduced, it would lower CO2 emissions for a long time.

 

CO2 is taken in by plants, but the CO2 we emit is mixed in with other gases.

 

Also what about ozone holes? That doesn't really have anything to do with CO2.

[HeyYou]

Well, there has been some debate on the data collected so far, as to whether CO2 levels LEAD global temp increase (the greenhouse affect), or FOLLOW temp change...... (warmer temps cause ice to melt, water to evaporate, leaving less mass to contain the CO2, so, as temp rises, CO2 levels would as well.)

 

Water Vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. :) Shall we start a campaign against that as well?

 

Another Ice Age would most certainly be a 'bad' thing.