Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[alpine_saint]

So until the larger polluters in the world begin to make serious reductions in their output, we should just say "f*ck it, it's not our problem"? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

I disagree entirely. Briatin was one of the original pioneers of industry and it could be argued that our colonial influence in India is partly to blame for their current industrial and economic boom. The way I see it is that we have a duty to lead the way for others to follow. As does everybody.

 

Alpine argues against reducing our greenhouse gas emissions on the basis that we would be damaging our economy, but to my mind that is senseless. My recent (admittedly limited) studies on this subject have taught me two important lessons... Firstly, that everything in this biosphere is inter-connected in some way and as the dominant species on this planet we have a repsonsibility to protect biodiversity as much as possible, and secondly that a healthy environment and a healthy economy are not mutually exclusive.

 

Look at the example of Masdar in the UAE. It's a massive project that aims to create a clean-energy driven and sustainable city. It has required a lot of external investment but the construction of it will provide jobs and revenue for all of the contractors involved (the main architects are British I believe). Why could that not be recreated in the UK?

 

F**k me, I wondered how long it would take for the British Empire to get blamed for it, like everything else is blamed on it....

 

 

I dont agree with you at all, and I dont agree with Mintys assertain that the issue of scale is flawed. IMO you, Minty and Andy have sucked up every piece of emotional blackmail-cum-brainwashing that has been fed to you.

[alpine_saint]

The issues of scale doesn't matter. It's no good saying, well if the US doesn't do it, so we won't. What we need to do here is lead by example and show it can be done successfully and then hopefully others will follow us(and they will if we can find a way to get renewables cheaper than fossil fuels - a lot of this is a failure of capitalism which is great in many respects but weak on the urgency needed in this situation). Though, I do agree with you, a global agreement is needed eventually. But we shouldn't just give up because the USA and China aren't on board.

 

Christ you are so naiive. If you were around in the 80s you would have beleived in unilateral nuclear disarmament too, thinking the US and USSR would give up their weapons because the UK has.

 

[Sheaf Saint]

F**k me, I wondered how long it would take for the British Empire to get blamed for it, like everything else is blamed on it....

 

What I said was it COULD be argued that our colonial influence is PARTLY to blame. If the British Empire had never reached India and the country was left to its own natural rate of development, can you honestly say - hand on heart - that their industrial output and economic growth would be as high as it is now? No, thought not. But don't let that get in the way of yet another rant at someone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

 

 

 

IMO you, Minty and Andy have sucked up every piece of emotional blackmail-cum-brainwashing that has been fed to you.

 

And IMO, your opinion on this matter is worthless, due to your inability to provide any research-based evidence to support your argument and your propensity to attack and abuse anybody who holds a differing viewpoint.

 

While I don't claim to be an expert, I have done a limited amount of study in this subject and recently completed an OU course in environmental studies, and whether you agree or not the overwhelming consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is happening and that human activity is making, and will continue to make, a significant contribution to it. The lifestyle we lead currently is completely unsustainable moving forward. It has been calculated that if all 7 billion people on this planet lived the same lifestyle as the average European, we would need three and a half Earths to provide the necessary resources. The population is only going to get bigger over the coming decades, and all of these people are going to need food, clothing, housing, transport etc... We simply can't carry on like we are. Unless a concerted, global effort is made to reduce our impact on the environment and develop renewable sources of power, the world will descend into all-out chaos as communities/nations compete for the few remaining resources.

 

So we have two options really. We can take your approach of sticking our fingers in our ears going "LA-LA-LAAAA" and pretending there is no problem, or we can start investing now in ways to live a more sustainable lifestyle that will not only make life easier for future generations, it will make the world we inhabit a cleaner and better place to live. It doesn't have to mean damaging our economy either. Investing in renewable technologies will provide jobs and boost local economies (look at the example of Freiburg in Germany) and if the UK is at the forefront of the technological revolution, it can only be a good thing for our economy on the world stage. It would also reduce our need for importing fossil-fuels, leaving us less vulnerable to the impending price rises that will result from higher demand for fewer resources.

 

Your own blinkered opinion may lead to you believing that I and others who actually care about the planet we live on have been suckered by agenda-driven propaganda, but to my mind you and others like you are very much like creationists: unable or unwilling to review the evidence placed before you but totally convinced of your own authority on the matter anyway.

[Whitey Grandad]

I read through all that noble stuff about Freiburg and when you get to the bottom: 'Solar PV and other renewables still only provide 2% of the power that Freiburg needs'

[Minty]

I dont agree with you at all, and I dont agree with Mintys assertain that the issue of scale is flawed. IMO you, Minty and Andy have sucked up every piece of emotional blackmail-cum-brainwashing that has been fed to you.

 

Whereas, actually, I've done my own independent research and come to my own conclusions based on a wide range of information. Your completely incorrect assumptions and subsequent allegations don't do your argument any favours. I'll happily discuss articles or new information, and regularly do, but you've not really offered much to debate yet...

[alpine_saint]

Whereas, actually, I've done my own independent research and come to my own conclusions based on a wide range of information. Your completely incorrect assumptions and subsequent allegations don't do your argument any favours. I'll happily discuss articles or new information, and regularly do, but you've not really offered much to debate yet...

There always seems to be an understanding issue with the likes of you and Bexy. I am not saying that you guys are agenda-driven, but come on, "your own research" ? Reading a few articles from researchers desperate to avoid having to get a real job by keeping hold of their funding ? Scientific research is one of the most dishonest professions on the planet.

 

Or did I miss something and you or Bexy spent 6 months on the Antartic ice-pack doing measurements with the BAS, or with the Met office going over climate data, or cutting down trees and looking at trunk rings ?

 

Sorry, you guys have swallowed up the "overwhelming consensus" which is agenda driven.

 

My house has oil heating. I worked out that if I paid for significant home improvements in order to have a better insulated house and therefore consume less heating oil, I would never get my money back over my lifetime and probably a significant part of my children's lifetime too.

 

When people bang on about solar cells and wind farms saving energy, do they count the huge amount of energy required to produce them in the first place ?

 

The whole climate change issue is a load of b*ll*cks allowing bullies to exploit the scared and vulnerable. You want to be a foot-soldier for that racket, you go ahead.

[buctootim]

My house has oil heating. I worked out that if I paid for significant home improvements in order to have a better insulated house and therefore consume less heating oil, I would never get my money back over my lifetime and probably a significant part of my children's lifetime too.

 

In that case you either have an already well insulated house, or your calculations are wrong. Whats the U value of your walls and windows? Do you have any draughts through the windows or doors?

[alpine_saint]

In that case you either have an already well insulated house, or your calculations are wrong. Whats the U value of your walls and windows? Do you have any draughts through the windows or doors?

 

I simply worked out the cost of replacing front door, door to cellar, windows, thick roof insulation, more cellar insulation and solar panels against a VERY generous estimate of halving my heating oil usage.

 

19 years was the break-even point. Forget it.

[buctootim]

Regardless of your views on global warming most people could save money from insulating their house better. The measures with the best cost / benefit ratio are draught proofing doors and windows, insulating your loft to 240mm rockwool and cavity wall insulation. Things like replacing windows with higher specs are only worth doing if the windows need replacing anyway. I insulated my floor by putting 12mm of celotex under the laminate and it has made a huge difference to the feel of the house even if bills arent hugely affected.

 

This calculator is quite good. It uses 5p per KW/h as a default for the calculations. In practice heating with mains gas is around 3.5p, oil c6.5p, propane 8p and electricity 11p.

http://www.resurgence.org/education/heac.html

 

This calculator helps you see the impact of different levels of insulation

http://www.celotex.co.uk/Other-Resources/U-value-Calculator

Edited 20 June, 2012 by buctootim

[Verbal]

The whole climate change issue is a load of b*ll*cks allowing bullies to exploit the scared and vulnerable. You want to be a foot-soldier for that racket, you go ahead.

 

Can you please supply the peer-reviewed scientific references to back up this assertion?

[Minty]

There always seems to be an understanding issue with the likes of you and Bexy. I am not saying that you guys are agenda-driven, but come on, "your own research" ? Reading a few articles from researchers desperate to avoid having to get a real job by keeping hold of their funding ? Scientific research is one of the most dishonest professions on the planet.

 

Or did I miss something and you or Bexy spent 6 months on the Antartic ice-pack doing measurements with the BAS, or with the Met office going over climate data, or cutting down trees and looking at trunk rings ?

You, me, Bexy, and 98% of the population all start from the same point in this debate. We are not experts, we have little or no specific knowledge, and so we rely on external sources to form our opinions. You can do that different ways, and to different extents. You can read just the media reports, which will undoubtedly be tainted by the particular persuasions of that publication (which is why I always read different accounts of the same thing, and not just the Guardian, despite it being my paper of choice, because I am well aware of the potential for bias). You can read the reports themselves if you have enough knowledge to interpret them (few do), you can read one of the many books on the subject, by a host of scientists and other people, presenting different sides of the debate. You can watch videos and debates online, and so on and so on.

 

Now, your assertion that science is dishonest probably needs seperate discussion. If it is then we would have to change a lot of our thinking, after all, we trust science with a LOT in our lives. Personally, knowing quite a few people who work in the science arena, I am impressed by their desire to learn, both for themselves and for the strand of science they work in, and am pretty sure that they are not all dishonest. So, unless we want to unpick every scientific discovery since we started making them, I have to put some faith in what 'science' comes up with.

 

And of course, the important thing to remember here is that science is informing BOTH sides of the debate. Well, actually, science is not interested in choosing sides, it is only interested in discovering the truth, but that's not something the media and politicians are happy with... they need sides to support, which doesn't help. But if science is dishonest, then there is an equal case to say that those who provide science to disprove the AGW theory are just as dishonest as those they disagree with.

 

Sorry, you guys have swallowed up the "overwhelming consensus" which is agenda driven.

Alps, to make this dead simple, I am quite happy to accept that I may be wrong, and that the 'overwhelming consensus' might be wrong... all i ask if why you hold such a strong opinion as fact. I have always stated on this site, that I believe in the precautionary principle... the belief that if there is a chance we might be causing harm, we should do our utmost to investigate this and minimise any impact that is discovered, for the sake of future generations who will have to live with the consequences. I believe it is potentially reckless to do anything else. I don't drive round a blind bend at 60, assuming that there is nothing in my way...

 

My house has oil heating. I worked out that if I paid for significant home improvements in order to have a better insulated house and therefore consume less heating oil, I would never get my money back over my lifetime and probably a significant part of my children's lifetime too.

That is quite possibly correct, depending on the technologies used, the infrastructure of the house, your energy usage, etc, etc. But that's not the same for everyone, and it also doesn't mean we should stop looking into new technologies completely, and not try to improve them. Look at any early version of a technology, and compare it with something new. It is guaranteed to have cost a lot more and done a lot less.

 

When people bang on about solar cells and wind farms saving energy, do they count the huge amount of energy required to produce them in the first place ?

Yes, many do. There are plenty of studies into it and it is absolutely a valid question to be asking... we need to make things as cost effective as possible, that goes without saying.

 

The overriding theme here, be it the theory and science behind it, or the technology and adaptation to help us deal with it (if we believe that 'it' needs addressing), is that we continue to learn and improve. Putting up brick walls won't help us move forward, be it with the climate, medical research, exploration of the solar system... these things need curious minds who want to challenge what we currently know. We wouldn't have half the things we do now if it weren't for scientists working on these things in the past.

 

The whole climate change issue is a load of b*ll*cks allowing bullies to exploit the scared and vulnerable. You want to be a foot-soldier for that racket, you go ahead.

Well clearly you've made up your mind, and no one is going to change that. That's up to you and I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it, or how you've seemingly come to it.

[buctootim]

I simply worked out the cost of replacing front door, door to cellar, windows, thick roof insulation, more cellar insulation and solar panels against a VERY generous estimate of halving my heating oil usage.

 

19 years was the break-even point. Forget it.

 

Up to 30% of your heat is lost through draughts in an old house. They are usually cheap and easy to fix. Forget about replacing the windows (unless they single paned). Draught proof your cellar door with some quality stick on rubber seal (£5), insulate the loft for less than £100 (DIY). If the cellar isnt heated then dont try to insulate it, instead insulate the floor of the rooms above it (or the ceiling of the cellar if thats easier). You will notice the difference immediately and get payback within two years (sometimes within one winter if existing insulation is poor).

Edited 20 June, 2012 by buctootim

[alpine_saint]

Regardless of your views on global warming most people could save money from insulating their house better. The measures with the best cost / benefit ratio are draught proofing doors and windows, insulating your loft to 240mm rockwool and cavity wall insulation. Things like replacing windows with higher specs are only worth doing if the windows need replacing anyway. I insulated my floor by putting 12mm of celotex under the laminate and it has made a huge difference to the feel of the house even if bills arent hugely affected.

 

This calculator is quite good. It uses 5p per KW/h as a default for the calculations. In practice heating with mains gas is around 3.5p, oil c6.5p, propane 8p and electricity 11p.

http://www.resurgence.org/education/heac.html

 

When I bought my house 18months ago, I had an "energieausweiss" done as part of the purchase. Here in Austria it has been required for years, and is abit like the energy assessment needed for the house buyers pack in the UK (did that ever take off). I simply costed the recommendations up as in the reort, recommended by an objective professional.

 

I dont need to do it all again. Bear in mind house construction is different here and also weather conditions.

[buctootim]

I dont need to do it all again. Bear in mind house construction is different here and also weather conditions.

 

Yes, Austria is much colder than the UK during the winter - making the case for doing something stronger. Its odd that when given some objective options you dismiss them out of hand.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Always makes me laugh the way the Sandal wearers, BBC and other nut jobs go on about global warming and how we must reduce our "footprint". I could live up a tree, go to work on a Penny farthing and heat myself by covering up with straw, and it'll not make a blind bit of difference. Look at these prunes who "off set" their carbon ommissions, whatever that means. Until India, China, USA, Brazil ect get onboard a few middle class Country supper types being good lefties, are wasting their time.

 

Instead of polluting our beautiful landscape with wind farms, instead of brain washing our kids and our struggling population, the political elite in this Country should save their lectures for the worst offenders when they fly round the world to meet them (after planting a lovely tree to offset that jet flight).

[TopGun]

It's really incredibly simple.

 

* Fossil fuels pollute so it is better that we find viable alternatives - green argument

* Fossil fuels are finite so it is better that we find viable alternatives - economic and energy security argument

 

New nuke is over the horizon - they're all pulling out and it takes 10 years to build a nuke.

 

We are short of energy and we will have problems within a decade as older coal and nuke plants are decommisioned.

 

We have a fantastic wind resource. Better than nearly any other nation. Let's use it to fill some part of the upcoming energy gap. Or we can have blackouts...

Edited 20 June, 2012 by TopGun

[dune]

What the tree huggers fail to grasp is that global warming is fine, it's global cooling that would be disasterous.

[Saintandy666]

Christ you are so naiive. If you were around in the 80s you would have beleived in unilateral nuclear disarmament too, thinking the US and USSR would give up their weapons because the UK has.

 

 

What has nuclear disarmament got to do with anything? That's just a matter of opinion, nothing to do with science.

 

I can give you a science lesson if you like all about bond vibration frequencies and emission spectrum's if you like, but I don't really see the point as you'd probably deny that and by conjunction say that all modern science is wrong.

 

The Greenhouse Effect is correct. We know that for a fact. The Greenhouse Effect isn't global warming though, but we know that an enhanced Greenhouse Effect beyond the natural Greenhouse Effect will cause more warming(beyond what the natural effect does). We know that certain gases cause it, and we know we are pumping lots of those gases into the atmosphere and so the level of those gases in the atmosphere are much higher than they have been for a long time. It isn't hard.

Edited 20 June, 2012 by Saintandy666

[TopGun]

What the tree huggers fail to grasp is that global warming is fine, it's global cooling that would be disasterous.

 

No Dune, what the Mailygraph readers fail to realise is that, within 10 years, if no new energy infrastructure of whatever type is built and operating, they'll be reading their newspapers by electricity rations in the evening time.

 

We can build new gas power stations to sort that out in the short term but we will have no control over the imported fuel sources.

 

I can sense a fracking argument coming forth from you, but none of that is proven in resource terms and there would also be many other arguments also. More than 10 years worth.

[dune]

No Dune, what the Mailygraph readers fail to realise is that, within 10 years, if no new energy infrastructure of whatever type is built and operating, they'll be reading their newspapers by electricity rations in the evening time.

 

We can build new gas power stations to sort that out in the short term but we will have no control over the imported fuel sources.

 

I can sense a fracking argument coming forth from you, but none of that is proven in resource terms and there would also be many other arguments also. More than 10 years worth.

 

I realise that we are playing catch up following Labours dithering, but please don't bore us with any more global warming mumbo jumbo.

 

Lord Monkton is about the only politician that speaks sense on the subject. He is UKIP though so it's to be expected.

[dune]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

[TopGun]

I realise that we are playing catch up following Labours dithering, but please don't bore us with any more global warming mumbo jumbo.

 

Lord Monkton is about the only politician that speaks sense on the subject. He is UKIP though so it's to be expected.

 

If you bothered to read my post, you'd see I put no "global warming mumbo jumbo" into it.

 

[Saintandy666]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

 

Can you please find me the UN report that says that we could only have impacted global temperatures in the past twenty years? I do actually want to read it, it sounds interesting.

[dune]

Can you please find me the UN report that says that we could only have impacted global temperatures in the past twenty years? I do actually want to read it, it sounds interesting.

 

Find it yourself you lazy runt.

[dune]

If you bothered to read my post, you'd see I put no "global warming mumbo jumbo" into it.

 

 

But others have. This thread isn't just about what you think Top Gun.

[Whitey Grandad]

We have a fantastic wind resource. Better than nearly any other nation. Let's use it to fill some part of the upcoming energy gap. Or we can have blackouts...

We would have blackouts if we relied on wind.

[Saintandy666]

Find it yourself you lazy runt.

 

I already searched and it doesn't appear to exist.

[TopGun]

We would have blackouts if we relied on wind.

 

Absolutely. No arguments there Whitey. Wind is a good top up that can produce about 30% of the UK's electricity on average in the future.

 

Usual argument is that requires base load power stations sitting in reserve. Also absolutely. A gas-fired power station can go from low spinning reserve (to keep it warm) to full capacity in about an hour.

 

What's the issue with that?

[TopGun]

But others have. This thread isn't just about what you think Top Gun.

 

I can only reply to your comments aimed at me Dune.

[dune]

I already searched and it doesn't appear to exist.

 

Well i've found it.

[Saintandy666]

Well i've found it.

 

Link me up.

[dune]

Link me up.

 

Find it yourself like i had to. It took me about 20 seconds btw.

[Whitey Grandad]

Absolutely. No arguments there Whitey. Wind is a good top up that can produce about 30% of the UK's electricity on average in the future.

 

Usual argument is that requires base load power stations sitting in reserve. Also absolutely. A gas-fired power station can go from low spinning reserve (to keep it warm) to full capacity in about an hour.

 

What's the issue with that?

 

Because demand with no wind can last for many days, for example in winter with a high pressure system locked over us. Then we would have the cost of two supply systems. Wind is not free, forever, the turbines are not reliable long-term and need maintenance.

 

And they're so damned ugly.

[Saintandy666]

Find it yourself like i had to. It took me about 20 seconds btw.

 

The only UN reports I find state that it is beyond denial that humans are contributing to global warming and do not mention that we can only of contributed in the last 20 years. So please, link me up. I would like to read it. For someone who is trying to convince everyone of your view that humans don't contribute to warming, why are you withholding evidence from a reliable source?

Edited 20 June, 2012 by Saintandy666

[scotty]

When I bought my house 18months ago, I had an "energieausweiss" done as part of the purchase. Here in Austria it has been required for years.

Why is that then? Are the austrian government desperate to save their citizens money, and forego the additional taxes they would reap by not bothering? If climate change is the con-trick so many people claim, why is it that the people who stand to lose most from it are usually the same people trying to address the supposedly non-existent problem?

[dune]

The only UN reports I find state that it is beyond denial that humans are contributing to global warming and do not mention that we can only of contributed in the last 20 years. So please, link me up. I would like to read it. For someone who is trying to convince everyone of your view that humans don't contribute to warming, why are you with holding evidence from a reliable source?

 

The UN report i'm reading says exactly what Lord Monckton said. It's really really interesting. You need to try a bit harder and find it.

[Whitey Grandad]

An alternative view: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-wind-turbines-in-california-video/

 

 

[TopGun]

Because demand with no wind can last for many days, for example in winter with a high pressure system locked over us. Then we would have the cost of two supply systems. Wind is not free, forever, the turbines are not reliable long-term and need maintenance.

 

And they're so damned ugly.

 

As pointed out Whitey in my previous post, wind can never be base load.

 

But gas-fired power stations are cheap to build and run. The National Grid is getting ever smarter by connectivity. So wind and gas (even forgetting nuke) can be harmonised with ease.

 

IMO (as I work in the exact area), people need to stop reading the nonsense talked about inefficiency of wind in the Daily Mail etc and wake up to the energy security issues we face as a nation.

 

We need ever increasing energy so need a diverse portfolio of generation. Subsidies for new forms of low carbon energy such as wind are exactly right. Once that is sorted, subsidies should be paid to new gas-fired power stations that sit on stand by until needed.

 

I can argue this until the cows come home. And I know I'm right as nobody else here has the same knowledge or expertise.

[TopGun]

An alternative view: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-wind-turbines-in-california-video/

 

 

 

Whitey, you've found the most ugly shot you can of some older turbines in California

 

The shot below is of Scout Moor Wind Farm, above Rochdale, north of Manchester. It provides enough average energy throughout the year to power 1/3 of Rochdale.

 

Edited 21 June, 2012 by TopGun

[alpine_saint]

Yes, Austria is much colder than the UK during the winter - making the case for doing something stronger. Its odd that when given some objective options you dismiss them out of hand.

 

Yes, as I have already explained, I have been given indpendent recommendations by someone who knows the area I live and the construction of my house a damned sight better than you. No need to get in a hump about it.

[alpine_saint]

What has nuclear disarmament got to do with anything? That's just a matter of opinion, nothing to do with science.

 

I can give you a science lesson if you like all about bond vibration frequencies and emission spectrum's if you like, but I don't really see the point as you'd probably deny that and by conjunction say that all modern science is wrong.

 

The Greenhouse Effect is correct. We know that for a fact. The Greenhouse Effect isn't global warming though, but we know that an enhanced Greenhouse Effect beyond the natural Greenhouse Effect will cause more warming(beyond what the natural effect does). We know that certain gases cause it, and we know we are pumping lots of those gases into the atmosphere and so the level of those gases in the atmosphere are much higher than they have been for a long time. It isn't hard.

 

You simply dont get it.

 

If that super-volcano under Yellowstone goes (its overdue) not only will it pretty much make the US uninhabitable, but it will chuck out so much greenhouse gas it will make the Industrial revolution seem like a cow farting in the middle of a pasture. In the same way but to a much lesser scale, everyone in the UK could go back to living in mud huts or caves and spending their evenings over a single wireless to the light of a home-made tallow candle, and it wouldnt make the slightest...f**king.....bit....of....difference to global warming. But at least when your family are then dying of treatable diseases caused by poor hygene and care, you can say you made 0.000000001% of time difference about how the world heats up.

 

Anyway, there is enough doubt being cast about the science relating to warming/cooling and sea-level rises and what sort of feeback Mother Nature will produce that its complete hubris for scientists with an already dubious agenda to claim they understand what is going on.

 

You're all f**king mental. Humanity will wipe itself out at some point anyway.

[alpine_saint]

As pointed out Whitey in my previous post, wind can never be base load.

 

But gas-fired power stations are cheap to build and run. The National Grid is getting ever smarter by connectivity. So wind and gas (even forgetting nuke) can be harmonised with ease.

 

IMO (as I work in the exact area), people need to stop reading the nonsense talked about inefficiency of wind in the Daily Mail etc and wake up to the energy security issues we face as a nation.

 

We need ever increasing energy so need a diverse portfolio of generation. Subsidies for new forms of low carbon energy such as wind are exactly right. Once that is sorted, subsidies should be paid to new gas-fired power stations that sit on stand by until needed.

 

I can argue this until the cows come home. And I know I'm right as nobody else here has the same knowledge or expertise.

 

Well if you are advocating gas you clearly dont know what you are talking about, especially having mentioned "energy security". Wheres the gas going to come from ?

[buctootim]

Alpine, you really are such a ****. Three people go to the effort of trying to genuinely explain things to you and you cant engage in any reasonable way. Its a waste of my time reading your posts. I wish I hadn't taken you off ignore.

[Minty]

Alpine... Three people go to the effort of trying to genuinely explain things to you and you cant engage in any reasonable way.

 

Agreed. I'll not lower myself to his level. It's a shame that such a potentially interesting subject (like many on here) can't be discussed in an mature and respectful way.

 

I think the energy security issue is very interesting and probably worthy of a separate thread though.

[buctootim]

I think the energy security issue is very interesting and probably worthy of a separate thread though.

 

Very true. Its not just energy security either, its also about how do you guarantee continuity of supply of all kinds of natural resources which we depend on - everything from rare earths through copper to food staples such as wheat and rice .

Edited 21 June, 2012 by buctootim

[alpine_saint]

Alpine, you really are such a ****. Three people go to the effort of trying to genuinely explain things to you and you cant engage in any reasonable way. Its a waste of my time reading your posts. I wish I hadn't taken you off ignore.

 

Yeah ? You didnt show a whole lot of respect for the answer I gave, tbh. You just started going on about DIY like I am a f**king idiot that cant work things out for myself.

 

People in glass houses, mate.

[alpine_saint]

Agreed. I'll not lower myself to his level. It's a shame that such a potentially interesting subject (like many on here) can't be discussed in an mature and respectful way.

 

 

You what ? I refuse to accept the word of scientists with an agenda, espeically when their thought leader of the last 30 years changes his bloody mind, and offer a basic explanation of why, and you lot throw your toys out of your pram about it. Sorry that I refuse to be bullied and kow-tow to conform with global warming politics.

[alpine_saint]

You simply dont get it.

 

If that super-volcano under Yellowstone goes (its overdue) not only will it pretty much make the US uninhabitable, but it will chuck out so much greenhouse gas it will make the Industrial revolution seem like a cow farting in the middle of a pasture. In the same way but to a much lesser scale, everyone in the UK could go back to living in mud huts or caves and spending their evenings over a single wireless to the light of a home-made tallow candle, and it wouldnt make the slightest...f**king.....bit....of....difference to global warming. But at least when your family are then dying of treatable diseases caused by poor hygene and care, you can say you made 0.000000001% of time difference about how the world heats up.

 

Anyway, there is enough doubt being cast about the science relating to warming/cooling and sea-level rises and what sort of feeback Mother Nature will produce that its complete hubris for scientists with an already dubious agenda to claim they understand what is going on.

 

You're all f**king mental. Humanity will wipe itself out at some point anyway.

 

Nice to see someone tried to answer these points, from their "enlightened" perspective...

[Minty]

You what ? I refuse to accept the word of scientists with an agenda, espeically when their thought leader of the last 30 years changes his bloody mind, and offer a basic explanation of why, and you lot throw your toys out of your pram about it. Sorry that I refuse to be bullied and kow-tow to conform with global warming politics.

 

I get that you don't accept the word of scientists, even ignoring the ramifications for that statement when applied across all areas of science that we've relied on over the years. If you would kindly show me where I've thrown my toys out, I'll gladly take it back, but actually all I've done is try to put across my view, and also why I disagree with your view. No bullying, no kow-towing... quite how you think I've tried to do that, I've no idea.

 

Perhaps you need to learn to respond to specific points by specific people, rather than trying to lump us all together as 'f**king mental'. Would you take someones arguments seriously if that's all they did to you?

[Minty]

If that super-volcano under Yellowstone goes (its overdue) not only will it pretty much make the US uninhabitable, but it will chuck out so much greenhouse gas it will make the Industrial revolution seem like a cow farting in the middle of a pasture.

Some interesting information here about this: http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp

 

Specifically:

 

If a mega-colossal eruption were to occur today, it would probably not be able to push Earth into an ice age, according to a modeling study done by Jones et al. (2005). They found that an eruption like Toba would cool the Earth by about 17°F (9.4°C) after the first year (Figure 3), and the temperature would gradually recover to 3°F (1.8°C) below normal ten years after the eruption...

 

Not even a mega-colossal eruption of this magnitude would stop global warming, though. The level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would not be affected by the volcanic eruption, and warming would resume where it left off once the stratospheric dust settled out in a decade. With civilization crippled by the disaster, greenhouse gas emissions would be substantially reduced, though (small solace!) If we really want to say goodbye to civilization, a repeat of the only magnitude 9 eruption in recorded history should do the trick--the magnitude 9.2 La Garita, Colorado blast of 27.8 million years ago (Mason et al., 2004).

 

This would be a catastrophic event, no doubt about it. There are obviously different studies into what would happen if Yellowstone went up, and none of them are 'nice'! But with respect to this specific discussion, it seems the consensus is actually that it would not put off the effects of climate change in the longer term.

 

I actually thought the opposite would be true, and agreed with you previously, so this even surprised me.

 

In the same way but to a much lesser scale, everyone in the UK could go back to living in mud huts or caves and spending their evenings over a single wireless to the light of a home-made tallow candle, and it wouldnt make the slightest...f**king.....bit....of....difference to global warming. But at least when your family are then dying of treatable diseases caused by poor hygene and care, you can say you made 0.000000001% of time difference about how the world heats up.

Why do you choose to portray a lower-emission future in such a prehistoric way? Why deliberately try to make out that we need to go backwards in evolutionary terms, when actually there could be a host of solutions that use our technological advances to reduce the problem, whilst maintaining a good quality of life, and actually continue to advance our achievements?

 

Anyway, there is enough doubt being cast about the science relating to warming/cooling and sea-level rises and what sort of feeback Mother Nature will produce that its complete hubris for scientists with an already dubious agenda to claim they understand what is going on.

We're going back to previous points here. I'll happily discuss the 'doubts being cast' if you have some specific examples which we can discuss. While I am sure you will perceive it to be a website that 'has an agenda' I can thoroughly recommend Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com) for good quality of debate (from both 'sides').