This is a very interesting article from november
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change
Topic: On the topic of climate change... - page 2. (Read 2559 times)
But don't they say we are now on year seventeen of no increase in temperature? That's contrary to all the predictions, right?
From where did you get the idea of 17 years of static temperature?
I thought it was well known?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
The important thing here is not that there were 17 years of no warming, but that it illustrates obvious and glaring errors in the premises and constants used in computer modeling. Which means, don't believe their computer models.
From where did you get the idea of 17 years of static temperature?
He probably means something like this:
But that's only 12 years.
This is a cool interactive tool that shows how hot it will get in your lifetime. 
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive
But don't they say we are now on year seventeen of no increase in temperature? That's contrary to all the predictions, right?
From where did you get the idea of 17 years of static temperature?
The only question that needs to be asked is why is it now referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming"?
Not too confident that the globe is warming? Have to hedge your bets in case of global cooling?
Not too confident that the globe is warming? Have to hedge your bets in case of global cooling?
People overall are stupid. They thought "Global Warming" meant temperatures were going to increase over the entire planet. The term was changed to "Climate Change" to make it easier for people to understand that it is an overall trend, and not something that happens everyday.
I thought they probably changed it to stop getting laughed at, like when Gore went to give a talk in the midst of the worst snowstorm in a town's history....on "global warming".....
Basically they want to be able to blame anything weather they can call 'extreme' on man's activities.
This is actually really, really dumb. Dumber than the dumb that people are assumed to be.
.....
I don't see any benefits from rising temperature.
Seems like the average number of growing days for crops would increase.I don't see any benefits from rising temperature.
But don't they say we are now on year seventeen of no increase in temperature? That's contrary to all the predictions, right?
I'll say it more simply in this thread.
"Green" technology has economic and environmental benefits other than those that support the global warming theory. Why not just adopt it anyway?
So supporters of the global warming theory can mitigate ecological disaster, and carbon tax skeptics can avoid paying a charge related to science they don't recognise. Everyone's a winner when you look at it that way. Stop crying everybody!
Solyndra. "Green" technology has economic and environmental benefits other than those that support the global warming theory. Why not just adopt it anyway?
- Cheaper energy prices (fossil fuels are finite and running low)
- Greater potential for local and/or individualised energy independence
- Less/zero non-controversial atmospheric pollutants
- More efficient altogether (less waste in acquisition, in processing, in transporting the resources, in using them... etc)
- Further research into alternative energy will have spin-offs, i.e. not only vehicle fuels and electricity production will benefit
So supporters of the global warming theory can mitigate ecological disaster, and carbon tax skeptics can avoid paying a charge related to science they don't recognise. Everyone's a winner when you look at it that way. Stop crying everybody!
Nuclear energy is great, why else do you think the us govt won't issue new permits for reactors (they only issue permits to add reactors to plants already in existance.
The Coal lobby is too strong in the US and many other developed nations. Increased production of nuclear power can mean massive losses to the coal industry.
Prevent the loss of forest. OK, look what the US and Canada has done and model that. there is now more forest in N America than ever before (depending on what stats you use)
No. I don't want timber plantations to be classified as forest. The amount of bio-diversity which we have in the primary forest is tens of times of that present in the plantations.
And Canada is still cutting down a lot of primary forest, especially in British Colombia.
I still have yet to understand why people are so up in arms about co2 levels... the increase of greenhouse gasses as they are called have a very beneficial use and it is much easier to adapt to it
I don't see any benefits from rising temperature.
The only question that needs to be asked is why is it now referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming"?
Because global warming is not the only side-effect of the rising Carbon di Oxide levels that we face. The ongoing droughts in many parts of the world, for example is another aftermath of rising CO2 levels. So climate change is the ideal terminology.
Exactly. Don't forget about the increasing ocean acidification which has profound effects on marine life, the accelerate migrations of plant life in various microclimates, and potentially even impacts on the frequency of severe weather events (e.g. hurricanes), all due at least in part anthropogenic CO2.
Hence we refer to it as climate change, because far more than the average surface temperature is changing.
I'll say it more simply in this thread.
"Green" technology has economic and environmental benefits other than those that support the global warming theory. Why not just adopt it anyway?
So supporters of the global warming theory can mitigate ecological disaster, and carbon tax skeptics can avoid paying a charge related to science they don't recognise. Everyone's a winner when you look at it that way. Stop crying everybody!
"Green" technology has economic and environmental benefits other than those that support the global warming theory. Why not just adopt it anyway?
- Cheaper energy prices (fossil fuels are finite and running low)
- Greater potential for local and/or individualised energy independence
- Less/zero non-controversial atmospheric pollutants
- More efficient altogether (less waste in acquisition, in processing, in transporting the resources, in using them... etc)
- Further research into alternative energy will have spin-offs, i.e. not only vehicle fuels and electricity production will benefit
So supporters of the global warming theory can mitigate ecological disaster, and carbon tax skeptics can avoid paying a charge related to science they don't recognise. Everyone's a winner when you look at it that way. Stop crying everybody!
I agree, if all of these global warming nuts focused on making green products better and more cost effective than regular products their self interests may just get accomplished.
Instead they tend to push the government to just stand in the way of progress in the most inefficient way possible against their own interests.
The CO2 levels in the atmosphere has increased by around 30% during the last 150 years or so. And the lion's share of that increase occurred within the last 50 years. Scientific study has proven that the burning of fossil fuels, both by thermal power plants and by automobiles has caused much of that increase.
The only options to save our planet are:
1. Replace thermal energy with nuclear energy
2. Replace gasoline / diesel oil with bio-fuels
3. Prevent the loss of forest, especially in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia and Central Africa
The only options to save our planet are:
1. Replace thermal energy with nuclear energy
2. Replace gasoline / diesel oil with bio-fuels
3. Prevent the loss of forest, especially in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia and Central Africa
Nuclear energy is great, why else do you think the us govt won't issue new permits for reactors (they only issue permits to add reactors to plants already in existance.
Diesel has it's own problems, even though it is favoured in the UK, biofuel generally uses oil that is not in ready supply for mainstream.
Prevent the loss of forest. OK, look what the US and Canada has done and model that. there is now more forest in N America than ever before (depending on what stats you use)
I still have yet to understand why people are so up in arms about co2 levels... the increase of greenhouse gasses as they are called have a very beneficial use and it is much easier to adapt to it than to resort to giving up all of our freedoms for big government in the hope that getting the environment sorted out doesn't lead to utter catastrophe, which I think is vastly more likely.
Also, the herds of cattle worldwide are probably as much to blame if not more than industry, I certainly don't want to give up having meat in order to hopefully knock down co2 levels a few notches.
I'll say it more simply in this thread.
"Green" technology has economic and environmental benefits other than those that support the global warming theory. Why not just adopt it anyway?
So supporters of the global warming theory can mitigate ecological disaster, and carbon tax skeptics can avoid paying a charge related to science they don't recognise. Everyone's a winner when you look at it that way. Stop crying everybody!
"Green" technology has economic and environmental benefits other than those that support the global warming theory. Why not just adopt it anyway?
- Cheaper energy prices (fossil fuels are finite and running low)
- Greater potential for local and/or individualised energy independence
- Less/zero non-controversial atmospheric pollutants
- More efficient altogether (less waste in acquisition, in processing, in transporting the resources, in using them... etc)
- Further research into alternative energy will have spin-offs, i.e. not only vehicle fuels and electricity production will benefit
So supporters of the global warming theory can mitigate ecological disaster, and carbon tax skeptics can avoid paying a charge related to science they don't recognise. Everyone's a winner when you look at it that way. Stop crying everybody!
The only question that needs to be asked is why is it now referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming"?
Not too confident that the globe is warming? Have to hedge your bets in case of global cooling?
Not too confident that the globe is warming? Have to hedge your bets in case of global cooling?
People overall are stupid. They thought "Global Warming" meant temperatures were going to increase over the entire planet. The term was changed to "Climate Change" to make it easier for people to understand that it is an overall trend, and not something that happens everyday.
The only question that needs to be asked is why is it now referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming"?
Because global warming is not the only side-effect of the rising Carbon di Oxide levels that we face. The ongoing droughts in many parts of the world, for example is another aftermath of rising CO2 levels. So climate change is the ideal terminology.
That is also true, people have gotten so antsy about it a lot of scientists refuse to call it global warming anymore 
The only question that needs to be asked is why is it now referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming"?
Not too confident that the globe is warming? Have to hedge your bets in case of global cooling?
Not too confident that the globe is warming? Have to hedge your bets in case of global cooling?
I think we know fuck all and we need far more data to come to a conclusion that global warming is actually going to be a problem as well as human caused climate change which I view as two different things, the people out their who bring out only a few years of global temperature data ( which I remember reading were based off averages anyway ) and declare they know everything really piss me off especially when you take into account the Earth itself is billions of years old and we have very little actual evidence as to the cycles of the planet.
p.s. OP your poll sucks and is very skewed in favour of climate change not being man made and doesn't go into any detail lol. I haven't dismissed the possibility entirely because there is at least circumstantial evidence pointing to Carbon Dioxide affecting planetary temperature
I believe the only way we're going to tell whether or not man made climate change is causing a problem is if we do the opposite of polluting the earth with Carbon Dioxide and put in a ton of Oxygen instead to see if that has any affect.
p.s. OP your poll sucks and is very skewed in favour of climate change not being man made and doesn't go into any detail lol. I haven't dismissed the possibility entirely because there is at least circumstantial evidence pointing to Carbon Dioxide affecting planetary temperature
I believe the only way we're going to tell whether or not man made climate change is causing a problem is if we do the opposite of polluting the earth with Carbon Dioxide and put in a ton of Oxygen instead to see if that has any affect.
Here is another bad idea regarding deforestation
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-raising-cane-the-trouble-with-brazils-much-celebrated-ethanol-mi/
From the same website celebrating banning climate change deniers on reddit... It must be true then.
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-raising-cane-the-trouble-with-brazils-much-celebrated-ethanol-mi/
From the same website celebrating banning climate change deniers on reddit... It must be true then.
That doesn't mean that ethanol is a bad idea. No deforestation should be conducted for cane farming. A lot of fallow and barren land is available for cultivating cane, if irrigation schemes can be implemented properly.
And Brazil is a horrible place. Anyone can cut down the forest and anyone can massacre the tribal people. No one is going to be prosecuted. Lawless country. Entire timber / agricultural industry is in the hands of the organized mafias.
I think this poll is irrelevant, because belief doesn't enter into it. That's the beauty of scientific facts - they're going to stay the same, no matter what you think about them. The world is going to stay round even if you really believe it's flat.
As for the policy enacted in regard to these scientific facts, that's something we should all debate. We're all entitled to our political opinion, and we should certainly have our say when it comes to responding to climate change. Hence, a better poll might ask whether or not we believe in carbon regulation and taxation, cap and trade schemes, alternative energy subsidies, and other such environmental policy. But whether or not we believe in the existence of anthropogenic climate change is entirely irrelevant.
As for the policy enacted in regard to these scientific facts, that's something we should all debate. We're all entitled to our political opinion, and we should certainly have our say when it comes to responding to climate change. Hence, a better poll might ask whether or not we believe in carbon regulation and taxation, cap and trade schemes, alternative energy subsidies, and other such environmental policy. But whether or not we believe in the existence of anthropogenic climate change is entirely irrelevant.
Jump to: