Jump to content

The Global Warming Megathread

Do you believe human inflicted climate change is real?  

113 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe human inflicted climate change is real?

    • Absolutely, unequivocally.
      57
    • Maybe, i need more evidence
      20
    • Not at all, it's all made up!
      35
    • Whats global warming?
      1


Recommended Posts

Well i think we've mucked it either way.

 

How can we stop something that we don't even understand. With no emperical evidence to point to either conclusion on our responsibility, it's an inevitability that we'll have to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a load of bunkem, Scientists have to agree with the government or funding for research stops, this was stated on a programme on TV not so long back, by a retired scientist. The governments equation does not include water vapour, which absorbs CO2 in the atmosphere. There is a 50 minute video on my freespace, just click on Global Warming on my sig if you would like to watch it. It adds the information that the government doesn't want you to know about. Global Warming is a phenomenon of nature, and has happened before many times before man inhabited earth. It occurs every 10,000 years or so, and recalling my days at school, I don't remember learning that the last event of global warming was caused by Neanderthal man taking his kids to school in his 4 x 4 dinosaur, or by them taking long haul flights on their Boeing airbus pterodactyls. Watch the video, it is interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all science (not even most science) is funded by the government, so your first point is incorrect.

I'm not sure what 'government equation' you refer to, there is no single equation that has predicted global warming. The warming can be measured directly, there are various hypotheses trying to explain why it's happening.

Water vapour may well absorb CO2, but it's not an endless sink for it. If extra CO2 is placed in the atmosphere then what makes you think that it can be absorbed? Indeed direct measurements of CO2 levels show a massive rise in the last 100 years, no one with a basic grasp on reality would argue this point.

 

There is no cyclical global warming phenomena, there are cycles, 10k years ago would be the end of the younger dryas, a period of time when temperatures were relatively low. Non of which proves either way whether the atmospheric changes we are making are affecting these natural cycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a load of bunkem, Scientists have to agree with the government or funding for research stops,

And why exactly would the government want to fabricate evidence of global warming and force scientists to go along with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe Global Warming is an issue that the world is facing. The problem is we get govenments telling us there is global warming but are not putting as much money in as they should. It is all talking and no action.

 

Ok so we are building wind terbines and eco housing. The problem is all the eco housing is been built down south and not up here. There is another thing that funding for eco projects or even recycling charities always gets stopped or not enough given.

 

Its like they tell us to recycle but don't put provisions in to do it, yes ok we have green bins, blue boxs or bins to put recycling stuff in. But they onely take paper, plastic, thin cardbord and tin and foil, but no glass. At the end of the day recycling is down to money. More often than not it costs more to recycle than to prduce a new product. There is also the fact that recycling stuff gets contaminated so it can't be used and has to go to landfill.

 

So I think we should have better recycling facilities and like a county wide recycling plants, for example south yorkshire having say 4 recycling plants one for paper and thin cardboard, one for glass, one for plastic and the other for tins, foil and drinks cans. Also us all have a 5 bin system for every house hold, there would be no excuses for mixing things up.

 

With cars, I think people should traded there old pertol cars in for cleaner diesel ones so they could use diesel which is less polluting than petrol or use bio diesel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diesel is dirtier than petrol...

And if I have 5 bins, will you mind if I store them on your garden, as I don't have room for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why exactly would the government want to fabricate evidence of global warming and force scientists to go along with them?

 

Raising revenue ? Forcing through an unpopular nuclear power generation programme ? Or merely to divert attention from pressing problems like social cohesion.

 

I'm not a denier of climate change by any means but our present govt. is so mired in mendacity that any kind of emergency measure they advocate for any supposed crisis is now highly questionable.

 

If the govt. were to give a solemn undertaking, accompanied by an independent audit trail, that every pound of revenue they raised on the back of the climate change bandwaggon would be spent on research and development of alternative green energy generation and an improved public transport infrastructure, then I might be a little less cynical.

 

I suspect though that I have more chance of seeing a flying pig :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or use bio diesel.

 

There are millions of people starving in the world and you want to use good agricultural land to grow crops to power you car ? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all science (not even most science) is funded by the government, so your first point is incorrect.

I'm not sure what 'government equation' you refer to, there is no single equation that has predicted global warming. The warming can be measured directly, there are various hypotheses trying to explain why it's happening.

Water vapour may well absorb CO2, but it's not an endless sink for it. If extra CO2 is placed in the atmosphere then what makes you think that it can be absorbed? Indeed direct measurements of CO2 levels show a massive rise in the last 100 years, no one with a basic grasp on reality would argue this point.

 

There is no cyclical global warming phenomena, there are cycles, 10k years ago would be the end of the younger dryas, a period of time when temperatures were relatively low. Non of which proves either way whether the atmospheric changes we are making are affecting these natural cycles.

 

Watch the video ...... The equation that the government says we are contributing the ridiculous amount of 25% CO2 to the atmosphere. Watch Scientists reduce that figure to .2% using all the data they have to hand collected from satellite stations anb underground plotting stations.

 

The statistics for global warming are provided by government scientists .... so my point about funding is NOT incorrect. FACT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why exactly would the government want to fabricate evidence of global warming and force scientists to go along with them?

 

Wellllllllll ............... since the advent of global warming and the "Carbon Footprint" we suddenly have taxes on our carbon emissions. I wonder who pays the taxes for the carbon that volcano's, peat fires, natural fires and vegetation put into the atmosphere, as this "Carbon Footprint" is greater, and has been happening long before man inhabited earth, and is still ongoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raising revenue ?

Cheap energy is what makes our economy work, making energy more expensive will put stress on the economy lowering revenues.

 

Forcing through an unpopular nuclear power generation programme ?

And why would they want to implement an unpopular nuclear power generation programme if they didn't genuinely believe in climate change?

 

Or merely to divert attention from pressing problems like social cohesion.

The measures needed to limit climate change will make improving or even maintaining our standard of living difficult damaging social cohension so that would be a very very bad plan.

 

I'm not a denier of climate change by any means but our present govt. is so mired in mendacity that any kind of emergency measure they advocate for any supposed crisis is now highly questionable.

 

If the govt. were to give a solemn undertaking, accompanied by an independent audit trail, that every pound of revenue they raised on the back of the climate change bandwaggon would be spent on research and development of alternative green energy generation and an improved public transport infrastructure, then I might be a little less cynical.

 

I suspect though that I have more chance of seeing a flying pig :D

You are looking in entirely the wrong direction for your conspiracy here, there is a conspiracy when it comes to climate change and that conspiracy isn't amongst those concerned about it but the energy companies and their proxies who deny it. And unlike the vague unspecified motives ascribed to those who say climate change is real and caused by humans the deniers motives are all too obvious - money.

 

A brief look into the clear majority of those who deny climate change reveals they are in the pay of big oil usually through 'foundations' and 'think tanks' funded by the energy industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wellllllllll ............... since the advent of global warming and the "Carbon Footprint" we suddenly have taxes on our carbon emissions.

So you think there's a global conspiracy amongst pretty much all governments to fabricate scientific research which suggests climate change is real and caused by human activity just so that they can switch taxation towards energy consumption? A policy change which the governments know full well will stress our economies which are reliant upon cheep energy thus restriction economic growth.

 

Why exactly would the worlds governments want to restrict economic growth?

 

I wonder who pays the taxes for the carbon that volcano's, peat fires, natural fires and vegetation put into the atmosphere, as this "Carbon Footprint" is greater, and has been happening long before man inhabited earth, and is still ongoing.

Will you please provide some evidence to substantiate these assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.