Climate change

[Saint George]

Heh ...Plenty of peeps around to cash in on the dim and gullible non the less http://execed.bus.umich.edu/Programs/Climate-Change-Whats-Your-Business-Strategy.aspx?gclid=COWRjof76J0CFQQM2godLGWEJw

 

“Don't think of climate change as an environmental issue; think of it as a market shift. In fact, you can remain completely agnostic about the science of climate change but still recognize its importance as a business issue.” This mindset is required to develop effective strategy."

 

LOL Even funnier is that some peeps 'PAY' for that advice

[TopGun]

Great thinking. All of mans CO2 will stop. That means that a MASSIVE 2% of CO2 will cease, thereby curing climate change.

 

Oh, hold on. Nearly 98% of the CO2 entering our atmosphere is produced NATURALLY, BY the PLANET.

 

Read the FACTS, by the MAJORITY of INDEPENDANT scientists, and not be fooled and whitewashed into thinking what the government WANT you to believe.

 

 

Why is it that climate change deniers invariably cannot spell simple words like independent?

[St Will]

I wish everyone would drive Range Rovers....it's too frigging cold.

[JackFrost]

temperature of the earth hasn't risen since 1998.

 

We have to focus on countries like the US, China and India to make any significant difference to the amount of CO2 pumped out. If the UK went carbon neutral tomorrow it would make practically no difference overall. The main reason why climate change is one of the hot topics right now is that it's an excuse to tax.

 

Besides, methane is about 20 times more harmful to the atmosphere than CO2 is

[Ponty]

Why is it that climate change deniers invariably cannot spell simple words like independent?

 

Why is it that people who make sweeping generalisations believe in all the sweeping generalisations about climate change?

[TopGun]

Why is it that people who make sweeping generalisations believe in all the sweeping generalisations about climate change?

 

What a sweeping generalisation.

[Ponty]

Yeah, it's called irony.

[Special K]

Over the weekend i had to have a pop at my mate, who is a confirmed peace loving tree hugger, about him inviting me to a bonfire night celebration at his place, where he will set fire to a facking great big bonfire, unleashing all sort of unnecessary smoke and CO2 into our fragile atmosphere (non tree-hugging), all in the name of a renegade Catholic who wanted to cause some anarchy by killing the ruling classes (non-peace loving).

 

Needless to say i'm no longer invited.

[Joensuu]

Scares me how many people don't understand science. Either you agree with the process of scientific method (and therefore agree with the current scientific concensus the human caused climate change is occuring); or you disagree with the process of scientific method - thereby making your posts on the subject erm complete and utter 'non-science'.

[Saint George]

Why is it that climate change deniers invariably cannot spell simple words like independent?

 

Why is it, that when some peeps have lost the argument, they revert to picking on spelling and punctuation?....I guess they just feel the need to be right about 'something'?

 

BTW...I see there's now a whole day dedicated to you and some of your friends ....."Climate Fools Day" LOL http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/30/climate_fools_day/

[saintfully]

Hmmm - who to believe ? 3000 scientists who've each spent there entire working lives on climatology etc., who are at least as intelligent as anyone on this forum and who say there is a problem after following scientific method.

 

Or, the same bunch of ****s who elected George Bush and sell oil.

 

Tricky.

[aintforever]

temperature of the earth hasn't risen since 1998.

 

We have to focus on countries like the US, China and India to make any significant difference to the amount of CO2 pumped out. If the UK went carbon neutral tomorrow it would make practically no difference overall. The main reason why climate change is one of the hot topics right now is that it's an excuse to tax.

 

Besides, methane is about 20 times more harmful to the atmosphere than CO2 is

 

1998 was a freak year, caused by an exceptional El Nino event, the recent La Nina effect have cause a relative cooling but the general trend is still towards global warming. This decade is still set to be the hottest on record. 2005 was the 2nd hottest year ever and that was without any El Nino effects so much will be learnt during the next exceptional El Nino.

 

There is always a chance that the Earth equilibrium is more robust than previously thought but the vast majority of scientific bodies still agree that man made global warming is taking place - only an idiot would think they know better.

[Joensuu]

only an idiot would think they know better

Absolutely! For me there are three categories:

 

1) People who understand scientific method and agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence.

 

2) People who don't understand science; are easily manipulated by whatever they read in the Sun, or whatever Clarkson says (aka idiots).

 

3) People who understand scientific method and secretly agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence; but who have a selfish reason for attempting to distort public opinion (oil/money/unwillingness to give up 4x4 etc). These few individuals malliciously attempt to hamper the process of science, and sadly seem to have struck a vein with the more lazy and selfish in society.

[JackFrost]

1998 was a freak year, caused by an exceptional El Nino event, the recent La Nina effect have cause a relative cooling but the general trend is still towards global warming. This decade is still set to be the hottest on record. 2005 was the 2nd hottest year ever and that was without any El Nino effects so much will be learnt during the next exceptional El Nino.

 

There is always a chance that the Earth equilibrium is more robust than previously thought but the vast majority of scientific bodies still agree that man made global warming is taking place - only an idiot would think they know better.

 

I may be wrong here, but I believe the government's recent climate change advert stated that only 40% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere was man made.

 

A significant majority of this 40% comes from 4 countries on earth - US, Russia, China and India anyway.

 

It's also a scientific fact that methane is 20 times more harmful than CO2 is, I don't hear a lot of the press talking about that.

Edited 3 November, 2009 by JackFrost

[Joensuu]

I may be wrong here, but I believe the government's recent climate change advert stated that only 40% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere was man made.

 

I think the true figure for man made CO2 is actually significantly lower than 40%; somewhere around 1-2% is the true figure. If the Government were indeed claiming that 40% of CO2 is anthropogenic they were wrong. However 1-2% may sound small, but it is having a significant impact.

 

A significant majority of this 40% comes from 4 countries on earth - US, Russia, China and India anyway.

 

True, but these countries also have the largest populations (for industrialised countries). The best way is to represent CO2 on a per capita basis - whereby Luxembourg is by far the most polluting country on earth (with the USA second). As most of the European countries are relatively small it would be fairer to amend you sentance to say, 'Most of the anthropogenic CO2 is produced by wealthier counties - predominately in North America, Europe, South Asia and East Asia.' (However even that would overlook the significant C02 per capita produced by countries like Brazil and Australia!)

 

It's also a scientific fact that methane is 20 times more harmful than CO2 is, I don't hear a lot of the press talking about that.

 

Methane (alongside other gases which have an impact) is indeed factored into scientific thinking. The problem you have correctly identified is that some gases (such as methane) have more impact than others. As a result science needed to establish a base measurement: CO2. That is why carbon trading schemes make use of 'CO2 equivalents'.

 

So yes, you don't normally hear scientists talk specifically about the impact of methane - but often it isn't being ignored, instead it is being included within discussion on 'carbon dioxide equivalents' (which of course the media simplify to just 'CO2').

[Saint George]

heh, so there ya go.....Like i always said, environmentalism, particularly in the UK is more like a religion than a science....and now its 'Official'...No surprise there then LMAO!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224961/Green-views-religion-environmentalist-wins-claim-sacked-beliefs.html

[hypochondriac]

I love how you quote the Daily Mail and then take that as "what the UK believes." Makes me laugh.

[Saint George]

I love how you quote the Daily Mail and then take that as "what the UK believes." Makes me laugh.

 

Its not what the "UK" believes that matters in this instance...Its what the Judge who just set a precedent believes that counts.....and guess what?...even though its been reported in the Daily Mail...It 'really did' happen....If you could have been arsed to actually read the link you'd have seen that all on your own.

 

This is going to be a cracker, along with the already hilarious "Human Rights Act"...Will be pulling up a chair and making my self comfy to watch the fall out from this one LOL

[aintforever]

Its not what the "UK" believes that matters in this instance...Its what the Judge who just set a precedent believes that counts.....and guess what?...even though its been reported in the Daily Mail...It 'really did' happen....If you could have been arsed to actually read the link you'd have seen that all on your own.

 

This is going to be a cracker, along with the already hilarious "Human Rights Act"...Will be pulling up a chair and making my self comfy to watch the fall out from this one LOL

 

I don't see the problem, sacking someone for their beliefs is clearly wrong wether it's to do with the environment or not is irrelivant.

[hypochondriac]

What a load of nonsense. If he was sacked for his beliefs then that is clearly wrong. The fact it is to do with climate change is irrelevant.

[TopGun]

Absolutely! For me there are three categories:

 

1) People who understand scientific method and agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence.

 

2) People who don't understand science; are easily manipulated by whatever they read in the Sun, or whatever Clarkson says (aka idiots).

 

3) People who understand scientific method and secretly agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence; but who have a selfish reason for attempting to distort public opinion (oil/money/unwillingness to give up 4x4 etc). These few individuals malliciously attempt to hamper the process of science, and sadly seem to have struck a vein with the more lazy and selfish in society.

 

Spot on.

[Saint George]

Absolutely! For me there are three categories:

 

1) People who understand scientific method and agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence.

 

2) People who don't understand science; are easily manipulated by whatever they read in the Sun, or whatever Clarkson says (aka idiots).

 

3) People who understand scientific method and secretly agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence; but who have a selfish reason for attempting to distort public opinion (oil/money/unwillingness to give up 4x4 etc). These few individuals malliciously attempt to hamper the process of science, and sadly seem to have struck a vein with the more lazy and selfish in society.

 

I'll just add group four to this list

 

4/The dim and gullible who 'think' they understand because they've allowed themselves to be indoctrinated by the Left wing media, Gordie and his chums and the bed wetting bleeding hearts and fanatical eco zealots....Not to mention the peeps who have a huge financial vested interest....Like the Messiah himself.

 

How many peeps here fell for this....http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/06/times_fishy_ad_abandoned/

 

and this.....http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/north_eastern_passage/....I know some here did, because i remember explaining it was bull**** at the time.....But no one was having any of it, because it was on the BBC...so it had to be true.

 

Thankfully, it looks like us good 'ole 'mericans have managed to strike another blow for common sense, despite Chairman 'O's best efforts.....http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0

 

...........................................................................

Oh and Hypocondriac and Aint.....He was sacked for not carrying out his duties and continous critism of the way the company was managed....I'd have done the same if he'd worked for me....After sending him half way round the world on a aircraft to pick up a ball point pen of course....

 

Looks like the environmentalists are going to take over from the unions and put the final nail into British businesses......Still, there's plenty of room for those that can uproot in places like India, China and even here in the South (US)...We'll take them and let them conduct their business without interference.

[hypochondriac]

Well I'm convinced.

[badgerx16]

Why don't you get off the fence, and let us really know how you feel about this topic ?

 

PS; are you sure you actually ever were British ?

[Verbal]

Why don't you get off the fence, and let us really know how you feel about this topic ?

 

PS; are you sure you actually ever were British ?

 

No, he's definitely British - but left for New Orleans knowing that it would never suffer from anything remotely connected with climate change. And if it did, his mate George W would sort everything out.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It's my understanding that the proportion of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is tiny (0.03%) - a very small part of that trace component is the result of Human (fossil burning) activity . I'm no scientist you won't be surprised to hear but it seems to me counter-intuitive (to the layman anyway) to claim that the extremely small alteration to the Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere that can be laid at the door of mankind is responsible for a potentially catastrophic increase in the planet's future temperature . There are enormous natural forces at work on the planet (such as Volcanism or Solar Radiation for instance) that seem to dwarf human effects .

 

But putting these doubts aside the vast majority of climate scientists seem convinced that man made global warming is a very real threat to the living planet and must be tackled , so the 'Precautionary Principle' demands we take it seriously and do what we can to avert a disaster for all our children and our children's children .

 

Even if the 'man made global warming' theory is wrong the advantages of developing sustainable clean energy technology and countering pollution on our oh so small planet are both obvious and urgent . We either learn to live in harmony with nature or we accept that Homo Sapiens are just another species heading for extinction as the forces of natural selection decide we just aren't smart enough to endure .

[saintfully]

It's my understanding that the proportion of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is tiny (0.03%) - a very small part of that trace component is the result of Human (fossil burning) activity . I'm no scientist you won't be surprised to hear but it seems to me counter-intuitive (to the layman anyway) to claim that the extremely small alteration to the Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere that can be laid at the door of mankind is responsible for a potentially catastrophic increase in the planet's future temperature . There are enormous natural forces at work on the planet (such as Volcanism or Solar Radiation for instance) that seem to dwarf human effects .

 

But putting these doubts aside the vast majority of climate scientists seem convinced that man made global warming is a very real threat to the living planet and must be tackled , so the 'Precautionary Principle' demands we take it seriously and do what we can to avert a disaster for all our children and our children's children .

 

Even if the 'man made global warming' theory is wrong the advantages of developing sustainable clean energy technology and countering pollution on our oh so small planet are both obvious and urgent . We either learn to live in harmony with nature or we accept that Homo Sapiens are just another species heading for extinction as the forces of natural selection decide we just aren't smart enough to endure .

 

 

OMG, 'common sense on Saintsweb' shocker!! I am a scientist (microbiology as it happens), but wouldn't claim to have any better understanding than anyone else on this matter - unlike StGeorge (Bush I presume). However, common sense along the lines you have outlined seems the rational path.

Didn't anyone tell St George that oil/carbon based fuels are finite?? Alternative/ sustainable fuels are not (the clue is in the name.

[Saint George]

There ya go....Some peeps around here can loosen their grip on their comfy blankets a little now.....The Armageddon climate models have yet again been proven to be wrong .....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

 

Not 'One' Climate model has been able to accurately replicate the past 'or' the present and yet so many peeps are prepared to blindly accept that they can accurately represent the future.....Time to build some official places of worship for man made climate change...Would make the religion complete

 

......................................................................

 

BTW Saintfully...where did you get that figure of 3000 from?....care to elaborate?

[Saint George]

OMG, 'common sense on Saintsweb' shocker!! I am a scientist (microbiology as it happens), but wouldn't claim to have any better understanding than anyone else on this matter - unlike StGeorge (Bush I presume). However, common sense along the lines you have outlined seems the rational path.

Didn't anyone tell St George that oil/carbon based fuels are finite?? Alternative/ sustainable fuels are not (the clue is in the name.

 

Sure they are, although there's a fair bit of emerging research , that suggests that Oil may well be being produced from the Earths core at a near limitless rate...As a scientist, I'm sure you would have heard about it?

 

However that's currently only theory and cant be relied on at this time.....So assuming fossil fuels as we know them are finite, I agree we need to move to sustainable energy sources at some time in the future. having said that, If we accept Man made global warming as the scam it is, we end up with a completely different road map for the transition to renewable energy.

 

All the current panic and bull**** over Anthropogenic Global Warming is doing, is clouding the 'real' issues....The end result may well be the same, but the way to get there is completely different.

[St Will]

Has anyone felt how cold it is outside? There's no such thing as global warming....unfortunately!

[St Landrew]

Has anyone felt how cold it is outside? There's no such thing as global warming....unfortunately!

 

Do remember that this is The Lounge, and not TMS. Unless you actually believe that because we may have global warming it should be warm in GB at this time of the year.

 

My apologies for your ignorance if you do. Google up the Earth's energy budget and see if that helps.

[St Will]

Do remember that this is The Lounge, and not TMS. Unless you actually believe that because we may have global warming it should be warm in GB at this time of the year.

 

My apologies for your ignorance if you do. Google up the Earth's energy budget and see if that helps.

 

Sorry, it was a joke.

 

FWIW I still think that there is no such thing as global warming, although if there was, I wish more people had Range Rovers so we could have more of a Mediterranean climate....

 

Sorry, that too was a joke.

[badgerx16]

Sure they are, although there's a fair bit of emerging research , that suggests that Oil may well be being produced from the Earths core at a near limitless rate...As a scientist, I'm sure you would have heard about it?

St G, this is, I am afraid, complete hokum of the highest order, such that I am suprised that even you would quote it

 

( And I am another microbiologist, ( at least by training ), BSc from Swansea Uni; Hello Saintfully )

[Wade Garrett]

Scientists are paid by people with a vested interest to 'prove' things that are useful to their interests.

 

Interesting that just a few short years ago it was 'global warming' and the scientists had studied everything from the last few thousand years to come to this conclusion. Fair enough you may think, they must know their onions.

 

Why is it now 'climate change'? Because heaven forbid, they were wrong. Perish the thought.

[St Landrew]

Why is it now 'climate change'? Because heaven forbid, they were wrong. Perish the thought.

 

It is referred to as Climate Change nowadays because it is thought that this more accurately reflects what is happening to the planet on a scale that people can relate to, or understand. Not because scientists apparently got it wrong. Global Warming is just part of a naturally occurring Earth cycle. Human influenced GW, is the subject that is up for debate amongst many people, and is undeniable in that, however small and insignificant we are to the planet, our pollution makes a difference the Earth's climate.

 

It's the degree of difference which is up for grabs. Many people say, let's be cautious, as we cannot undo our damage, if we truly are doing it. And others say, we're hardly making any difference at all, and anyway, we don't a f***.

 

But most people stick their heads in the sand and say, don't bother me with cramping my lifestyle, I don't want to know.

[Thedelldays]

i am yet to be convinced.....

 

I am still unsure whether this is all too convenient TAX for us all...something has to pay for the increasing population and the dropping revenue from ciggys

[Saint George]

St G, this is, I am afraid, complete hokum of the highest order, such that I am suprised that even you would quote it

 

( And I am another microbiologist, ( at least by training ), BSc from Swansea Uni; Hello Saintfully )

 

just puting it out there .....But none the less, maybe not quite as Hokum as you may think.......I know the theory has been around a while and was fairly well thrown into touch a few years back...but are you aware of some of the very latest research?....this could very well be earning a place back on table some at some time in the future http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/peak_oil_not_if_deep_earth_hydrocarbon_theory_true

[Joensuu]

Scientists are paid by people with a vested interest to 'prove' things that are useful to their interests.

I agree, it's an awful state of affairs when energy companies (with a vested interest) pay 'scientists' to attempt to 'prove things that are useful to their interests'.

 

Thankfully a large number of scientists are funded by their positions at universities and via relatively independent governmental grants. Frankly, as human caused climate change is currently the established theory, the rewards for finding evidence against it would significantly outweigh those for finding yet more evidence supporting the theory (i.e. you could build a career out of being the person who actually manages to disprove ACC; whereas barely anyone would notice if you provided yet more evidence to support it).

 

Why is it now 'climate change'? Because heaven forbid, they were wrong. Perish the thought.

 

Mainly because the term 'Global Warming' is misleading - while the climate is indeed warming globally, there will be large regional variations. 'Global Warming' was also frequently misunderstood by some as an advantageous occurrence, hence many people still get completely the wrong end of the stick, i.e.:

 

FWIW I still think that there is no such thing as global warming, although if there was, I wish more people had Range Rovers so we could have more of a Mediterranean climate....

[aintforever]

There ya go....Some peeps around here can loosen their grip on their comfy blankets a little now.....The Armageddon climate models have yet again been proven to be wrong .....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

 

Not 'One' Climate model has been able to accurately replicate the past 'or' the present and yet so many peeps are prepared to blindly accept that they can accurately represent the future.....Time to build some official places of worship for man made climate change...Would make the religion complete

 

......................................................................

 

BTW Saintfully...where did you get that figure of 3000 from?....care to elaborate?

 

You obviously missed this bit...

 

"But Dr Wolfgang Knorr cautioned that the world should still be trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as part of any climate change deal decided in Copenhagen next month."

[hypochondriac]

i am yet to be convinced.....

 

I am still unsure whether this is all too convenient TAX for us all...something has to pay for the increasing population and the dropping revenue from ciggys

 

FWIW I agree with you. That doesn't mean I believe that it's all rubbish like Saint George does. Dismissing it completely would be incredibly foolish.

[badgerx16]

just puting it out there .....But none the less, maybe not quite as Hokum as you may think.......I know the theory has been around a while and was fairly well thrown into touch a few years back...but are you aware of some of the very latest research?....this could very well be earning a place back on table some at some time in the future http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/peak_oil_not_if_deep_earth_hydrocarbon_theory_true

 

The counter argument, ( the one that link tries to poo-poo ) ;

http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/2009/07/peak-oil-myth-or-reality-list-of.html

 

Plus see this : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080625004821AAarTwn

( which is a 'debunk of this 'experiment' http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf047/sf047p12.htm )

 

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x39111

 

And a brief explanation of the true science behind the production of oil ;

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Formation-of-Oil-in-the-Earths-Surface&id=813883

 

( See St G, you are not the only one who knows how to trawl GOOGLE ) :cool:

[Saint George]

The counter argument, ( the one that link tries to poo-poo ) ;

http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/2009/07/peak-oil-myth-or-reality-list-of.html

 

Plus see this : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080625004821AAarTwn

( which is a 'debunk of this 'experiment' http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf047/sf047p12.htm )

 

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x39111

 

And a brief explanation of the true science behind the production of oil ;

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Formation-of-Oil-in-the-Earths-Surface&id=813883

 

( See St G, you are not the only one who knows how to trawl GOOGLE ) :cool:

 

This is quite incredible!

I provided a link referencing an experiment carried out at Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory in July 2009 That has produced hydrocarbons by synthetically reproducing the temps and pressure present at the Earths Core, with No Organic material involved and you post a totally unrelated link to supposedly back up your argument!

 

Then you reference an anonymous post on yahoo answers as if its gosple and even more incredibly, a link to a article you say debunks the experiment, despite the fact it was written 23 years before the experiment took place????

 

Then you follow up a link to some emotive clap trap and a educational piece suitable for 7th graders lol

 

You're right about google though...anyone can use it....It's just that peeps who use it when they haven't a clue what they're talking about, end up looking stupid

 

You've just put your self firmly in group '4', along with Verbal and one or two others on here.

[St Will]

Mainly because the term 'Global Warming' is misleading - while the climate is indeed warming globally, there will be large regional variations. 'Global Warming' was also frequently misunderstood by some as an advantageous occurrence, hence many people still get completely the wrong end of the stick, i.e.:

 

It was a joke....

[badgerx16]

This is quite incredible!

I provided a link referencing an experiment carried out at Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory in July 2009 That has produced hydrocarbons by synthetically reproducing the temps and pressure present at the Earths Core, with No Organic material involved and you post a totally unrelated link to supposedly back up your argument!

 

Then you reference an anonymous post on yahoo answers as if its gosple and even more incredibly, a link to a article you say debunks the experiment, despite the fact it was written 23 years before the experiment took place????

 

Then you follow up a link to some emotive clap trap and a educational piece suitable for 7th graders lol

 

You're right about google though...anyone can use it....It's just that peeps who use it when they haven't a clue what they're talking about, end up looking stupid

 

You've just put your self firmly in group '4', along with Verbal and one or two others on here.

The point I was trying to make is that trolling can be a two-way street, ( as that is, I believe, all you are in fact doing ).

[badgerx16]

 

Then you reference an anonymous post on yahoo answers as if its gosple and even more incredibly, a link to a article you say debunks the experiment, despite the fact it was written 23 years before the experiment took place????

.

May I suggest you actually go back and read my post again ?

 

The YAHOO answer I quoted was debunking an 'experiment' from 1986, which involved some experimental drilling in Sweden under the guidance of Thomas Gold, who had plagiarised some earlier Russian theories from the 1950s. I did not claim the 1986 experiment was counter to the one you quoted, it is, in fact, based on the same theoretical ideas.

 

And if you would prefer a 'named' retort to the theory of Deep Earth Hydrocarbons, Gold's 'masterpiece' and the basis of the Russian experiments, try this http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml,

and part 2 :- http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml

 

And if you can manage it, try this abstract from a 2005 conference in Alberta http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm

 

BIOGENESIS, you KNOW it makes sense

[Saint George]

The point I was trying to make is that trolling can be a two-way street, ( as that is, I believe, all you are in fact doing ).

 

How on earth can a reference and link to a recent scientific breakthrough be considered "trolling"?

[Saint George]

May I suggest you actually go back and read my post again ?

 

The YAHOO answer I quoted was debunking an 'experiment' from 1986, which involved some experimental drilling in Sweden under the guidance of Thomas Gold, who had plagiarised some earlier Russian theories from the 1950s. I did not claim the 1986 experiment was counter to the one you quoted, it is, in fact, based on the same theoretical ideas.

 

And if you would prefer a 'named' retort to the theory of Deep Earth Hydrocarbons, Gold's 'masterpiece' and the basis of the Russian experiments, try this http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml,

and part 2 :- http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml

 

And if you can manage it, try this abstract from a 2005 conference in Alberta http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm

 

BIOGENESIS, you KNOW it makes sense

 

Why do you insist on referencing old and now outdated theories and opinions when the recent work at Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory has clearly blown the whole subject wide open?

 

Hell, if peeps like you were around when Man invented the wheel, they'd have reshaped into a square!

[Joensuu]

the recent work at Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory has clearly blown the whole subject wide open?

This new research certainly sounds interesting, but I wouldn't start getting too excited until it has had time to be thoroughly peer reviewed. At the moment, it is interesting, and might even have potential, but certainly not yet blown the whole subject wide open!

 

Anyhow, it's all irrelevant at the moment - human caused climate change is currently the only theory which adequately explains the available evidence; this might change given more research. However, currently there isn’t even much of a debate within science. The evidence (and the consensus of opinion) is overwhelming. The only ‘debate’ that is occurring is being conducted in the media by self-interested and politically motivated members of the ‘Anti-Climate Change’ movement - unfortunately it seems you’ve swallowed their nonsense unthinkingly.

[badgerx16]

Why do you insist on referencing old and now outdated theories and opinions when the recent work at Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory has clearly blown the whole subject wide open?

 

Hell, if peeps like you were around when Man invented the wheel, they'd have reshaped into a square!

 

Try to understand, the theory behind the Carnegie work is not new; http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1286972.html

 

( A paper by one of the authors of your favourite scientific work of the moment, look for the mention of Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev's work in 1951 ).

 

The following extract from the 2005 Alberta paper puts the BIOGENIC theory in the context of being MORE MODERN than the Abiotic ;

"

The abiogenic origin of petroleum thrived over a period in which scientific knowledge in biology, geology, and chemistry was in the dark ages. Mendeleyev, Kudryavtsev and Porfirev's abiotic evidences was well accepted at the beginning and in the mid-20th century because it offered an explanation for the presence of petroleum deposits in metamorphic rocks of the basement.

With the advances of analytical chemistry, around the fifties, geochemical evidence start to suggest, and latter proved that oils are related to biological precursors (Forsman and Hunt, 1958; Eglinton and Calvin, 1967 and Tissot, 1969). In the late seventies Albrecht, Seifert, Moldowan and Maxwell performed numbered studies that definitively proved the relationship between hydrocarbons and their putative biological precursor, burying the abiogenic hypothesis forever. Unfortunately, Thomas Gold convinced the Swedish Government and some neophyte people, in the nineties, that oil could be found everywhere in the planet, but more specific in an ancient meteorite crater, into fractured granite under the Siljan Ring, in Sweden. For this, two deep wells were drilled and millions of dollars were thrown in the deep earth granite (Gravberg-1 in 1986-1990 and Stenberg-1 in 1991-1992). In such adventure, no hydrocarbon was found and again the abiogenic hypothesis was put in its proper place (Kerr, 1990)."

 

 

Try to get things in the correct chronological order, it always helps with perspective.

[TopGun]

From the Times last week.

 

Spain was celebrating its commitment to renewable energy yesterday after wind turbines dotted across the country produced more than half of all its electricity for the first time.

 

High winds across Spain on Sunday meant that for over five hours, over 53 per cent of the country’s power came from wind energy. The towering white wind turbines which loom over Castilla-La Mancha — home to Cervantes’s hero Don Quixote — and which dominate other parts of Spain, set a new record in wind energy production.

 

Most of the wind power was used immediately, 6 per cent was stored and 7.7 per cent was exported to France, Portugal and Morocco.

 

In the past decade Spain has relentlessly invested in wind power, along with other renewable sources, making it the third-biggest supplier after the United States and Germany. Luis Atienza, president of Red Eléctrica which runs Spain’s electricity grid, said: “This makes us proud. There is no other country of our size which has completed and bettered a renewable energy production of over 50 per cent in such a timescale.”

 

José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s Prime Minister, a strong believer in renewable energy, has hinted his Government may phase out nuclear plants.

 

The move has provoked opposition from within the nuclear industry, his own party and from the opposition conservative Popular Party.

 

Spain began its wind power push in 1997, but five years ago critics believed it could not produce more than 14 per cent of the country’s electricity.

 

Wind farms have produced 17,700 megawatt-hours (mWh) of electricity so far this year, but renewable energy industry figures believe this figure could rise to 40,000mWh by 2020.

 

Spain’s Socialist Government invested €991 million (£890 million) in wind power in 2007. Already it has reaped a return on its investment; in 2007 it saved €1 billion on fossil fuels, according to the Spanish Environment Ministry.

 

José Donoso, president of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, said: “A few years ago no one would have predicted these figures but we believe we can go on rising.

 

“It will be good for the environment and reduce our importation of fossil fuels.”

 

Red Electrica said this year wind power is expected to produce 13 per cent of all electricity, hydroelectric power 10 per cent and solar power 2.5 per cent. Spain’s solar industry is one of the fastest growing in the world.