the biggest crock of sh1te - climate change

[chubbster]

I don't remember the alligator thing at school - probably had my radio on at the time.

 

However, I clearly remember EVERYONE telling us that the oil was going to have run out by 2020 (I believed it, which is why my garage is full of half empty cans). Looks like they might have got that one wrong.

 

Currently, I believe in the greenhouse effect and global warming. It worries me so much that I've limited myself to 3 vehicles, several computers, TV's, central heating, buying tons of supermarket food for my family and pets, countless other consumer items including a nice size house, foreign holidays and regular unnecessary trips out, just because I like to drive, when I could have been sooo much more greedy. Oh - and I separate my waste. God, we're a selfish bunch of creatures, aren't we? Really - seriously.

[Stutopia]

The frustrating thing with anything you read or see around global warming and climate change is you simply can't peruse it in the press/news and expect a balanced viewpoint. For whatever reasons, there's the Guardian type on one side trying to push a green agenda then the Mail/Murdoch Group trying to push the other side, most of the stuff you do read cites only the research which supports the specific journo's angle. Most of the press couldn't give a @*!# about being right or wrong, just sensational. Then you throw in your average bellend saying, "well it snowed more last year in my postcode area than ever before, so that proves the world isn't warming all over, given a multi-thousand year timescale". That leaves you with having to go through peer reviewed material yourself and most of that will be impenetrable.

 

It's an extremely tricky one to weigh up, but science doesn't need to be right, it just needs to keep posing, testing and refining theories. There are no absolutes. Sadly the people who have the loudest views on it in either the media or press, seem to be only interested in absolutes. The use of the word theory doesn't mean something is not correct, it's just the approach. Equally just because Newton had Laws of Thermodynamics, does mean they can't be disproven tomorrow.

[sipar69]

Sipar get back in your box and take a joke lol

 

Back off or I'll unleash my ninja squirrel on you

[ioneabee]

Ricey is too easily spotted in his denims

Edited September 30, 2013 by ioneabee

[docwra]

People need to start doing their own research instead of blindly following the manure that's being fed to us from the top. Rant over

 

If youd done that you would find there is far, far more evidence that our actions are causing global warming than there is to say we arent affecting anything. The increase of the ice cap, as someone else has said here is down to a solar minimum, not anything we have/havent done.

 

I hate to say it but when you are quoting the Daily Mail and a guy with no background in climate science who has been proven to be a sensationalist to back up and argument most people would tell you to dig bit deeper yourself. Like this, for instance: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/prof-plimer-answers.pdf

[rtbiscuit]

i have done my own research i'm also aware that climate change has been happening since the dawn of time, i'm not an idiot to think we have no impact on the environment, but i'm also aware that there is a lot of stuff happening which isn't related to us. the planet has gone through 2 ice ages, global warming and global cooling multiple times. its what the planet does. what gets my goat is that the information is used as a tax benefit scheme for government to support contracts and suppliers that don't actually support us. if they were bothered about green energy they wouldn't be investing in solar and wind energy. for a country that has minimal sun and unreliable wind sources. and a scheme that will eventually only produce 10% if they are lucky of what we need, not including the growth in our power consumption. with several of our coal power station due for closing and same with some of our nuclear reactors coming to the end of their life cycle. little windmills are going to do bog all. our fannying around with taxing people for being ungreen will do fanny all, compared to the pollution being done by the americans, Chinese and Indians. me using energy saving light bulbs and bio diesel makes bog all difference. in fact even if our whole country went fully green. china and india alone would consume our green savings in about 6 months alone. I've done my research and i'm sorry but I think we'd be going through a climate change regardless of if we were here or not. all we've done is speed it up a little.

[coldel]

To be honest I think the idea that governments are using it as a reason to tax us is way off the mark. If it wasn't climate change, they would find another way they already tax us in hundreds of ways there would be another reason, they have been doing it for centuries. I am going to have a punt and say its more likely a political tool to enforce change on the likes of China who chuck out the most crap in the world (but of course means they are developing at a rate that threatens the likes of the US).

 

From what I read, I don't think we are just speeding it up, it looks like we are shifting it beyond a natural recoverable limit?

[docwra]

I've done my research and i'm sorry but I think we'd be going through a climate change regardless of if we were here or not. all we've done is speed it up a little.

 

A little? Jesus man, understatement of the millenium ........... two graphs. First shows average temperature, second shows emissions, are you telling me the two arent linked?

 

 

 

Of course, there will be natural warming and cooling going on but its pretty clear that use of fossil fuels is intrinsically linked to global warming. Whether that justifies taxing the ass off us is another argument but you cant claim that mankind has had some input ..........

[rtbiscuit]

nothing over the last 2 pages says I didn't think we've had no impact, infact I've mentioned several times that I agree with sustainable stewardship of the planet. i'm not for burning all the oil and all the next generations can go f'k themselves. and like a said earlier we've had an impact but we'd have gone through something anyway regardless. the planet runs in long term cycles. Two thousand years ago (ish) the Romans used to grow good quality red wine in the heat of the south of England, which we can't today.

 

Must've been the V8 chariots caused it all!

[Chesterfield]

We cant afford for the affect of humans on climate change to be proven false. The MASSIVE economy built on this whole concept would crumble overnight. Just look at the green taxes applied to everyday life. Car tax is based on emissions, climate change levy on energy bills, Renewables obligations, Feed-In-Tariff, the "green deal", the BILLIONS energy companies are being forced to invest in items such as wind farms and green taxes to achieve the 2020 targets (which have added a huge chunk to everyones bills over the last decade). Carbon storage prices, the carbon offset schemes.

 

There are massive, massive amounts of global taxes, trade and economy all revolving around the concept that we as humans have contributed to global warming. If this were ever proven false, then economies would collapse overnight. We've already seen funding pulled from any scientists that disagree - its all about keeping this myth (and it is a myth imho) going. If it ever comes undone, then there will be global chaos and crisis on a scale never before seen.

 

If Im going to point the finger at a culprit for our planets warming, then Ill be pointing it at the big orange ball in the sky thats chewing through 600 million tonnes of Hydrogen every second and firing a portion of that energy at our little ball of rock.

 

 

I'd also like to know when we are going to dig up prehistoric coal burning power plants and prehistoric V8 engines - as clearly if CO2 emissions are the culprit, somebody was burning stuff. They were even at it just a few hundred thousand years ago. Maybe the egyptians didnt use whips and slaves to build the pyramids. Perhaps they used big dirty diesel cranes afterall..

 

[StevoD]

Here's a question that I would like to know the answer to, if anybody has it. Why is an increase in carbon dioxide bad for planet Earth? I know it creates an insulative layer in our atmosphere which means more heat is trapped and I know it breaks down our o-zone layer which protects us from some of the suns heat. But we can't produce carbon dioxide, we can only extract what is already there which means at some point in the Earth's history, it was in our atmosphere. Also I remember reading that although the number of tress and rainforests has declined, which in turn means that the amount of carbon dioxide that is being recycled through the trees is less but there is also a lot less and much smaller forest fires now than there was in the past. Personally, I think there is a set amount of carbon released in to the atmosphere on a cycle, if we don't create the amount that should be there then mother nature will do it for us.

 

This is a good point which i never thought off, everything that's here has always been here we have bought new carbon emissions into the earths atmosphere, the carbon was always here

 

Also if C02 is heavier than air how come we haven't all suffocated yet and how come it rises all that way to effect the o-zone?

[Flex]

Here's a question that I would like to know the answer to, if anybody has it. Why is an increase in carbon dioxide bad for planet Earth? I know it creates an insulative layer in our atmosphere which means more heat is trapped and I know it breaks down our o-zone layer which protects us from some of the suns heat. But we can't produce carbon dioxide, we can only extract what is already there which means at some point in the Earth's history, it was in our atmosphere. Also I remember reading that although the number of tress and rainforests has declined, which in turn means that the amount of carbon dioxide that is being recycled through the trees is less but there is also a lot less and much smaller forest fires now than there was in the past. Personally, I think there is a set amount of carbon released in to the atmosphere on a cycle, if we don't create the amount that should be there then mother nature will do it for us.

 

This is a good point which i never thought off, everything that's here has always been here we have bought new carbon emissions into the earths atmosphere, the carbon was always here

 

Also if C02 is heavier than air how come we haven't all suffocated yet and how come it rises all that way to effect the o-zone?

 

just read your signature!

[rtbiscuit]

CO2 is turned into oxygen by tree's, CO2 isn't the only green house gas that is the issue. Methane is another product of global warming, and from memory a large amount of the yearly methane production can be traced back to cows, which have been greatly over populated for feeding the human race. removing the cow population would make a huge dent in the green house gasses produced. CFC's are no longer in production, leaded fuel has not been in production for nearly 20 years. they could avoid the coal fire burning power stations by building new nuclear reactors, they'd produce more power, and less waste, and be more economical than wind turbines for the investment spent.

[Chesterfield]

I hate to say it but when you are quoting the Daily Mail and a guy with no background in climate science who has been proven to be a sensationalist to back up and argument most people would tell you to dig bit deeper yourself. Like this, for instance: http://www.climatech...mer-answers.pdf

 

A government department that would all be unemployed if the case were disproven? As I say, nobody working in an industry or job that would disapear if human involvement in climate change were disproven will ever come out and say we aren't having an effect.

[Stutopia]

The point above about "green" being an industry we can't afford to upset, is frankly insane, when you compare it against the industries dependent on fossil fuel consumption or carbon production or carbon absorption reduction. Which are far wider ranging than the impact green has on consumers. Aside from power and it's main consumption being industry not consumers, or aviation, you could stretch it is far as deforestation to create space for soya bean crops in Brasil.

 

Green industry is so much smaller than carbon industry it is crazy to even draw such a conclusion.

[Chesterfield]

Really? So what happens to the car tax situation in the UK if it is disproven?

 

What happens to the billions that the energy companies around the world would be looking to claw back from governments that have imposed emmisions reductions. What of the car manufacturers that have had to develop entire new vehicles (Aston Martin Cygnet as an example) in order to satisfy emissions averages?

 

What of the billions raised by the CRC scheme (which has morphed into a tax rather than a cost neutral scheme as advised).

 

Almost half of every business and household energy bill in the UK is made up from green taxes. If these were no longer justifiable, governments around the globe would suffer billions in lost revenue, making todays "austertity" measures look like dropping a quid down the back of the sofa.

 

The UK's green goods and services market is worth over £120bn alone. Never mind the tax takes on such initiatives.

 

Yes, there is no denying it its small compared to the oil/carbon industry, but thats irrelevant. Though the carbon absorbtion reduction sector would be obsolete overnight too. It is still large enough to sink an economy if it were discredited.

[StevoD]

What of the car manufacturers that have had to develop entire new vehicles (Aston Martin Cygnet as an example) in order to satisfy emissions averages?

 

 

Im sure aston wouldnt care about the cygent toyota might not be to happy tho.

[Stutopia]

They'd simply dream up a new reason to harvest the same taxes. In the same way smokers pay for their treatment in the NHS by paying outrageous tax on a packet of fags. They justify it by saying it's paying to treat you as you're extra high risk, blah blah, but the revenues generated pay for treating smokers many times over and lots of non-smokers too.

 

The green label is just the most palatable, trendy excuse to gather revenue. Something else will come along that they can justify it with. Window tax, candle tax, both non-modern examples of made up taxes for taxes sake. It'll be the same if global warming turns out to be a massive hoax.

 

Anyway why would scientists make it up? To simply furnish governments with revenue tools, or is it the classic, to justify their own grants? It's fundamentally opposed to the mindset of the vast majority of scientists. They don't get a slice of the green pound in their pockets in anywhere near the same way as the pro carbon lobby, which is driven entirely by shareholder profit maximisation and commercial pressures.

 

[coldel]

I could be very cynical and think bigger than the UK, and think that the likes of the UK and Europe want to curb China's global presence by stopping them from churning out production using inefficient and pollutant methods that we have self imposed bans on ourselves. I really don't think a couple of hundred quid tax on a car makes jack all difference, industry or not. I reckon we pay about 100 taxes many stealth a few more obvious every year we just don't know it or care to find out unless its headline stuff that political parties stick on the front of manifestoes.

[wls350]

Well as a layman, having moved back to south Africa seven years ago let me tell u the last two summers are without question cooler then the ones before that,

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Desey]

i for one dont care - climate change - who gives a toss, really

 

omg we need to save the baby supercutebear from total annihilation by nature and all be vegans and marry women with beards

 

screw that im gonna run over animals, do 8mpg and p*ss in the sea

[wls350]

And yes it was 95f today, perfect weather no wind, just blistering sun

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[ddcboyle]

I blame the dinosaurs for the ice age. If it wasn't for all those Threefiftyzedsauraus polluting the air, they would still be here.

 

Global warming, climate change etc has very little to actually do with humans. As a whole, yes humans "may" be speeding it up .. slightly. We pollute the ozone with our fuel and waste, we create more animals to eat, therefore they are producing more waste, and cut down trees which fix the ozone.

 

However, by a general sense, we have only sped it up by like 3%. The Ice Age happened because its what happens. Its like Earths extra season that comes every few million years.

[sipar69]

i for one dont care - climate change - who gives a toss, really

 

omg we need to save the baby supercutebear from total annihilation by nature and all be vegans and marry women with beards

 

screw that im gonna run over animals, do 8mpg and p*ss in the sea

 

If you're being serious about running over animals, this post alone is good enough evidence to suggest that the Human Race being wiped out and letting something else have a go might not be a bad thing! Anyone who deliberately does that has major mental health issues!

Edited January 5, 2014 by sipar69

[Ricey]

Bloody chucking it down in oz on xmas day so summats going a bit crazy