trousers Posted 20 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 June, 2011 trust me, it's true. Trust me, we will never know that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 June, 2011 Share Posted 20 June, 2011 Maybe that's how it's supposed to be? A species destroying most life on the planet so that new life can be re-born again. A bit like the growth of new plant life after being destroyed by massive bush fires (for example) How do we know whether our 'destruction of the planet' isn't pre-ordained by mother nature (afterall, the human race is simply a collection of molecules grouped together in a certain way) You really are clutching at straws here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 20 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 June, 2011 You really are clutching at straws here. Possibly. Possibly not. We'll never know for sure. That's what makes human debate so futile. There's ultimately no way of knowing who is right or who is wrong, Fact (possibly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 20 June, 2011 Share Posted 20 June, 2011 (edited) Indeed, a great many things correlate but one rule that was stressed when I did my statistics stuff many years ago was "Correlation does not imply causality". Exactly! Examples: "Down on the esplanade there is an ice-cream van selling the same ice-creams all year round. One day the owner of the van was chatting with the beach lifeguard and he discovered that the more ice-creams he sold the more people were reported to have drowned. He concluded that ice-cream caused people to drown." errr.... well maybe in the summer more people visit the beach. "in the last 50 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. Also, over the same period, the proportion of the population which is obese has increased. Therefore surely CO2 causes obesity." mmm... maybe as more people bought cars they stopped walking so much. "whenever I am at St Mary's there is a football match on. Therefore, in order for a football match to be played I must be present" "whenever my owner says 'Walkies!' we end up in the pub. Therefore my owner is a **** head and only keeps me to give him an excuse to go for a drink' (ok, so this one might be correct. But she is also great company) Edited 20 June, 2011 by 1976_Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Do you know how much rainforest is destroyed on an annual basis? What about the coral reef destruction? What about the changing pH of the oceans? Three examples there. Directly related to human activity. It really is our fault. Seriously, lighten up. You are 18, get out, meet girls... You give the impression that you are a bit scared of leaving the house. If mother nature selects us for extinction there is nothing we can do. Nor will be have contributed to it..!!! You know what, the scientists may not be completely correct.. Once they were certain the earth was flat... Sounds silly now. But who is to say that in 100 years time it might be the belief that man has had minimal effect on the environment Having been to the north pole and other arctic areas can inform you there is plenty of ice and at the time we were told there was deffinately going to be ice free area in the north pole due to global warming...(remember that phrase) Guess what, it was a load of turd, there was not one ice free area and the north pole was thriving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 I can confirm that it's bloody freezing down here this morning on midwinter's day. Had to scrape the ice off my windscreen. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Seriously, lighten up. You are 18, get out, meet girls... You give the impression that you are a bit scared of leaving the house. If mother nature selects us for extinction there is nothing we can do. Nor will be have contributed to it..!!! You know what, the scientists may not be completely correct.. Once they were certain the earth was flat... Sounds silly now. But who is to say that in 100 years time it might be the belief that man has had minimal effect on the environment Having been to the north pole and other arctic areas can inform you there is plenty of ice and at the time we were told there was deffinately going to be ice free area in the north pole due to global warming...(remember that phrase) Guess what, it was a load of turd, there was not one ice free area and the north pole was thriving. But it's not mother nature selecting species for extinction - it's us and our arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 But it's not mother nature selecting species for extinction - it's us and our arrogance. I agree that we as man can do more. But to say "it's all our fault" we are causing mass extinction is a tad silly really.. Man has been horrifically wrong before about mother earth. Better to keep an open mind IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Do you know how much rainforest is destroyed on an annual basis? What about the coral reef destruction? What about the changing pH of the oceans? Three examples there. Directly related to human activity. It really is our fault. Some time soon Klaatu will drop in with his giant robot companion and the Earth will be purged of the human plague. I know this is true because I saw it on TV on Sunday. ( And for the record, I broadly agree with you ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 June, 2011 (edited) But it's not mother nature selecting species for extinction - it's us and our arrogance. And the molecules that make up the human species are somehow not part of nature....? *scratches head* Mother nature 'created' humans (possibly) ergo humans are part of nature. Sigh If we're pre-ordained to destroy life on Earth (as part of the natural and regular life creation / life destruction cycle) then so be it. That's nature. Humans are so full of self-importance sometimes. Edited 21 June, 2011 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 bet it isnt... As much as I would like to trust the judgement of a submariner with no scientific qualifications, I'm afraid the overwhelming scientific consensus says you are wrong... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 (edited) You know what, the scientists may not be completely correct.. Once they were certain the earth was flat... Sounds silly now. Not sure scientists ever said the Earth was flat. Think that was more a religious thing, a bit like the Earth being the center of the universe. Incidentally, to a two dimensional being the Earth is flat. Also, given recent discoveries in the realm of cosmology, it appears that far from bodies in the universe slowing their rate of expansion they are actually speeding up and expanding (into what we do not know). Therefore trying to apply standard Euclidean geometry to the Universe will indeed result in the curious case that the statement 'the Earth is at the center of the universe' is not able to be proven incorrect. Think 'what is infinity plus one?' Answer: 'infinity'. Edited 21 June, 2011 by 1976_Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 So what if the oceans die? So what if we are contributing to climate change.... We're not that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 (edited) Seriously, lighten up. You are 18, get out, meet girls... You give the impression that you are a bit scared of leaving the house. If mother nature selects us for extinction there is nothing we can do. Nor will be have contributed to it..!!! You know what, the scientists may not be completely correct.. Once they were certain the earth was flat... Sounds silly now. But who is to say that in 100 years time it might be the belief that man has had minimal effect on the environment Having been to the north pole and other arctic areas can inform you there is plenty of ice and at the time we were told there was deffinately going to be ice free area in the north pole due to global warming...(remember that phrase) Guess what, it was a load of turd, there was not one ice free area and the north pole was thriving. Arctic Ice has been reaching record lows every summer. Earth will help those that help it. If we mistreat earth then Earth will rid itself of us. On the earth being flat, how can you compare that to the discussion we are currently having?! The world being round, and the greenhouse effect are based upon hard solid evidence. The world being flat was based upon nothing but religious based dogma and many scientists paid with their lives in disagreeing with it. As for the personal attack, I feel I need to tell you again that you know nothing of my life from some posts I make on an internet forum so please do not make broad assumptions. Edited 21 June, 2011 by Saintandy666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Seriously, lighten up. You are 18, get out, meet girls... You give the impression that you are a bit scared of leaving the house. If mother nature selects us for extinction there is nothing we can do. Nor will be have contributed to it..!!! You know what, the scientists may not be completely correct.. Once they were certain the earth was flat... Sounds silly now. But who is to say that in 100 years time it might be the belief that man has had minimal effect on the environment Having been to the north pole and other arctic areas can inform you there is plenty of ice and at the time we were told there was deffinately going to be ice free area in the north pole due to global warming...(remember that phrase) Guess what, it was a load of turd, there was not one ice free area and the north pole was thriving. Says the person with a mere 18,000 posts more than saintandy to his name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 June, 2011 So what if the oceans die? So what if we are contributing to climate change.... We're not that important. Hallelujah....that's just two of us that understand mankind's insignificance. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Says the person with a mere 18,000 posts more than saintandy to his name bit of a daft remark seeing as I have been all over the world...from the far east to the north pole...and have experienced many many things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Yep, ocean is a big absorber of CO2. And CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. While this is fine to a degree, if we push the balance too far the pH of the ocean will drop and everything will die. We are in the middle of a mass extinction at present. All over the world, in all habitats on an unprecedented scale and it's all our fault. CO2 levels have been far higher than this in the past and the world has not cooked. The dinosaurs thrived on it for many millions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Arctic Ice has been reaching record lows every summer. Earth will help those that help it. If we mistreat earth then Earth will rid itself of us. On the earth being flat, how can you compare that to the discussion we are currently having?! The world being round, and the greenhouse effect are based upon hard solid evidence. The world being flat was based upon nothing but religious based dogma and many scientists paid with their lives in disagreeing with it. As for the personal attack, I feel I need to tell you again that you know nothing of my life from some posts I make on an internet forum so please do not make broad assumptions. There have been many periods in the earth's history when the planet has been ice-free, and it's still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 There have been many periods in the earth's history when the planet has been ice-free, and it's still here. Oh yes, the Earth will survive us. It will recover from our damage eventually, but only once it's kicked us off here. We are quite insignificant to the Earth and if continue to damage it as we do it will not hesitate in finishing us off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 CO2 levels have been far higher than this in the past and the world has not cooked. The dinosaurs thrived on it for many millions of years. Dead rite Whitey, And just like dinosaurs we are waiting for Uncle Rock to drop by, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 There have been many periods in the earth's history when the planet has been ice-free, and it's still here. And exactly how much of the land surface was arable and capable of growing food ? And it is estimated that the the sea level was up to 200 metres above where it is now during the Cretaceous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Maybe that's how it's supposed to be? A species destroying most life on the planet so that new life can be re-born again. A bit like the growth of new plant life after being destroyed by massive bush fires (for example) How do we know whether our 'destruction of the planet' isn't pre-ordained by mother nature (afterall, the human race is simply a collection of molecules grouped together in a certain way) there he goes with the science again ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 June, 2011 there he goes with the science again ;-) Science my arse... "If you can't beat them..." ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 Maybe that's how it's supposed to be? A species destroying most life on the planet so that new life can be re-born again. A bit like the growth of new plant life after being destroyed by massive bush fires (for example) How do we know whether our 'destruction of the planet' isn't pre-ordained by mother nature (afterall, the human race is simply a collection of molecules grouped together in a certain way) Or maybe we're just a nasty virus that's taken root in an otherwise healthy system. Your scenario might be right but is it worth chancing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 I'm no expert, and I'm not rubbishing the scientific theories on global warming, but the weather has been crap again. We haven't had a decent Summer for a while now. Global warming doesn't seem to have hit Southampton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 I'm no expert, and I'm not rubbishing the scientific theories on global warming, but the weather has been crap again. We haven't had a decent Summer for a while now. Global warming doesn't seem to have hit Southampton. But look at worldwide climate trends. As in worldwide average temperature and the story is very different... Ironically, global warming for britain could lead to cooler weather due to the breaking of the gulf stream, but worldwide this is not repeated. Don't confuse weather with climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 21 June, 2011 Share Posted 21 June, 2011 But look at worldwide climate trends. As in worldwide average temperature and the story is very different... Ironically, global warming for britain could lead to cooler weather due to the breaking of the gulf stream, but worldwide this is not repeated. Don't confuse weather with climate. Like I said, I'm no expert. But when I look out of the window in June and it's ****ing down and miserable I do wonder about global warming. At the moment I'd welcome some decent weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 22 June, 2011 Share Posted 22 June, 2011 Like I said, I'm no expert. But when I look out of the window in June and it's ****ing down and miserable I do wonder about global warming. At the moment I'd welcome some decent weather. As Saintandy pointed out in his previous post, weather and climate are two completely different things and are not to be confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 22 June, 2011 As Saintandy pointed out in his previous post, weather and climate are two completely different things and are not to be confused. Indeed. It was wrong to link the droughts and hot summers of 10 - 15 year ago to "global warming".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 22 June, 2011 Share Posted 22 June, 2011 Like I said, I'm no expert. But when I look out of the window in June and it's ****ing down and miserable I do wonder about global warming. At the moment I'd welcome some decent weather. Are you mad? Weve just had the hottest, driest spring for decades!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 23 June, 2011 Share Posted 23 June, 2011 (edited) As some of you know, energy is the area I work in but these days I can't really be bothered responding to the omniscience of Dune on climate change. The long and the short of it is that whether you subscribe to man made climate change or not, fossil fuels are increasingly finite and getting more expensive all the time to use for energy generation. Over dependent use on fossil fuels also has the potential to cause the UK energy supply problems because we have to import the coal or gas. All will cause energy bills to rise for a householder on an ongoing and exponential basis. It's unarguable. The new nuke proposal is on tenterhooks and not just because of Fukushima fears. The costs to build new nukes are immense and there is no answer yet to dispose of the waste. It currently gets transported to Sellafield where it is building up in "temporary" stores. Nukes also take 10 years to build after getting planning permission which takes years in itself. Additionally, two of the companies who have outline permission to build new nukes in the UK at designated sites like Hinckley Point are German (RWE and Eon) and have just been shafted in a business sense by the German decision to abandon nuclear power so will be struggling to gain R&D and construction finance as their debt leverage will now be far worse with sound bets removed. It is noteworthy that the media Dune calls on incessantly (Telegraph, Express and Mail) to justify his stance to continually rail against wind energy development have also recently gone loopy about rising energy bills - which are ultimately caused by global fossil fuel market speculation that will only get worse and has no benefits for UK consumers in the future. The reactionary media, led by non-scientists and non-economically qualified "journalists" such as Christopher Booker in the Telegraph, contradicts itself ever more to sell newspapers and pander to people like Dune. The only answer to the UK's upcoming energy security and price problems are to widen the generating portfolio - that means far better planning to have a mixed baseload of coal (preferably with carbon capture and storage), gas and nuke power generation which is supplanted whenever the wind, tide or waves do the right things. That means creating an energy generation portfolio that is about 1.5x as much as we use at any one peak time to cover the bases. The upside is that if the government bites the bullet to do that properly, there will be thousands of skilled jobs created in the energy construction, generation and transmission sectors that can also be exported to other countries subsequently. Equally, when the UK has too much energy generation we can sell that to other less windy and tidal European countries in the future. The UK has the natural resources for an ongoing win-win situation. It's expensive and long term thinking but far better than the bodged theories spouted by the Express and Mail and reiterated continuously by the likes of Dune. It's an argument of national and profitable self-sufficiency that people need to understand. Topgun - Energy Expert! Edited 23 June, 2011 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 23 June, 2011 Share Posted 23 June, 2011 Are you mad? Weve just had the hottest, driest spring for decades!! No, have you been out in the last few weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 23 June, 2011 Share Posted 23 June, 2011 As some of you know, energy is the area I work in but these days I can't really be bothered responding to the omniscience of Dune on climate change. The long and the short of it is that whether you subscribe to man made climate change or not, fossil fuels are increasingly finite and getting more expensive all the time to use for energy generation. Over dependent use on fossil fuels also has the potential to cause the UK energy supply problems because we have to import the coal or gas. All will cause energy bills to rise for a householder on an ongoing and exponential basis. It's unarguable. The new nuke proposal is on tenterhooks and not just because of Fukushima fears. The costs to build new nukes are immense and there is no answer yet to dispose of the waste. It currently gets transported to Sellafield where it is building up in "temporary" stores. Nukes also take 10 years to build after getting planning permission which takes years in itself. Additionally, two of the companies who have outline permission to build new nukes in the UK at designated sites like Hinckley Point are German (RWE and Eon) and have just been shafted in a business sense by the German decision to abandon nuclear power so will be struggling to gain R&D and construction finance as their debt leverage will now be far worse with sound bets removed. It is noteworthy that the media Dune calls on incessantly (Telegraph, Express and Mail) to justify his stance to continually rail against wind energy development have also recently gone loopy about rising energy bills - which are ultimately caused by global fossil fuel market speculation that will only get worse and has no benefits for UK consumers in the future. The reactionary media, led by non-scientists and non-economically qualified "journalists" such as Christopher Booker in the Telegraph, contradicts itself ever more to sell newspapers and pander to people like Dune. The only answer to the UK's upcoming energy security and price problems are to widen the generating portfolio - that means far better planning to have a mixed baseload of coal (preferably with carbon capture and storage), gas and nuke power generation which is supplanted whenever the wind, tide or waves do the right things. That means creating an energy generation portfolio that is about 1.5x as much as we use at any one peak time to cover the bases. The upside is that if the government bites the bullet to do that properly, there will be thousands of skilled jobs created in the energy construction, generation and transmission sectors that can also be exported to other countries subsequently. Equally, when the UK has too much energy generation we can sell that to other less windy and tidal European countries in the future. The UK has the natural resources for an ongoing win-win situation. It's expensive and long term thinking but far better than the bodged theories spouted by the Express and Mail and reiterated continuously by the likes of Dune. It's an argument of national and profitable self-sufficiency that people need to understand. Topgun - Energy Expert! Good post. Russia and the like have us over a barrel at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 23 June, 2011 Good post. Russia and the like have us over a barrel at the moment. I see what you did there... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 23 June, 2011 Share Posted 23 June, 2011 Good article unusually in the Telegraph which focuses on options - written by Centrica CEO which is why it makes more sense than the energy & environment journalists on that paper who have to toe the editorial line. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/utilities/8592681/We-have-a-year-to-make-a-low-carbon-future-happen.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 23 June, 2011 Share Posted 23 June, 2011 Been awhile since I've jumped on one of these threads so here goes... Seriously, lighten up. You are 18, get out, meet girls... I think it is entirely to Saintandy666's credit that he shows such a healthy respect for other people and the wider environment. I fully understand many of the doubts that exist on this thread and in the wider world about climate change, global warming, man's influence etc, and it is entirely right to question these things in the pursuit of better knowledge. However, if it weren't for people being interested in and concerned by things like this, and wanting to improve things for future generations then the world would be a hell of a lot different than how it is. Hallelujah....that's just two of us that understand mankind's insignificance. Anyone else? Probably every scientist in existence. It is entirely correct that we are but a mere pimple on the arse cheek of the universe, existing for a tiny proportion of the universes expected trillion year life (as we understand it!). But that doesn't mean that we should stop looking at how we influence the environment and each other to try and improve quality of life for future generations. For me this comes down to how much we care about our fellow man. Is it the case that we will all die anyway, and man will become extinct, so what does it matter what we do and when? I can slightly understand that when it comes to people on the other side of the Earth, because we are naturally detached from them and human nature is very generally to be concerned with that which affects us directly. But what about your own children? If you are a parent, you want what is best for them, yes? You would not do anything that might put them at risk of harm, no? So, if we have a large body of evidence that clearly tells us of possible consequences of for our current and planned actions, over which we may well have some significant control, what should we do? Do we take on board this body of evidence, which is the best we know of at this time, and act accordingly in the interests of our children and their children, so we can look them in the eye in later life and be happy in ourselves that we acted in good faith to try and protect them? Or do we ignore the body of evidence and consensus of opinion and tell our kids... well, tell them what exactly? "Yes, there were warnings, but we ignored them because we didn't think your lives and your childrens' lives were worth putting in any effort, just in case they are wrong?" Is that not entirely against every parental instinct we have? Look upon it as a risk assessment if you like. The potential for harm may not change... we may well end up extinct as a race anyway. But if the body of evidence indicates that we can reduce the likelihood by amending our ways and living more sustainably, then what is the prudent course of action? I may tend to waffle a bit on this subject, so I think a Native American Indian proverb sums it up best for me: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now