Well I certainly wouldn't claim to have a handle on all the science, that's for sure... It is fairly clear where the majority of the scientific community lies though, that's all I'm saying. And I do think that when it comes to a matter like this that when in doubt, it is best to err on the side of caution!scotty wrote:That's it...............who says I'm wrong & you're right, I can just as easily the opposite.boudicca wrote:Hmmm Keef when it comes to global warming, I think it's more the case that those who are denying it are a fairly small minority...
I'm not convinced...............open minded, but unconvinced.
Importante
-
boudicca
- Sister Midnight
- Posts: 7427
- Joined: 15 Sep 2004, 16:15
- Location: embrace the margin
- Contact:
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
How?....Why?....Where?....boudicca wrote: It is fairly clear where the majority of the scientific community lies though
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
Without a tiny shadow of a doubt. Its well researched and well presented. We watched at the end of my A level Environmental Science course, and it was well worth it.scotty wrote:http://www.climatecrisis.net/
A father is in court to stop this film being shown in his kids school.
Should it be shown?
No, they weren't training us to to be eco-stormtroopers
Nationalise the f**king lot.
Did you see a Film debunking this Film?, surly for an unbiased view you should see the other side?Maisey wrote:Without a tiny shadow of a doubt. Its well researched and well presented. We watched at the end of my A level Environmental Science course, and it was well worth it.scotty wrote:http://www.climatecrisis.net/
A father is in court to stop this film being shown in his kids school.
Should it be shown?
No, they weren't training us to to be eco-stormtroopers
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
We spent a good part of 2 years looking at the different aspects. The only film thats been done in opposition of this one I didn't see. Many did, I heard the arguments, they were inaccurate at least, wildly wrong mostly.
Nationalise the f**king lot.
Based on what?, who?.Maisey wrote: I heard the arguments, they were inaccurate at least, wildly wrong mostly.
I'm not Trolling here, there just seems to be a lot of blind faith where this subject's concerned, lots of people saying the "it's because of people" side are absolutely right without any delay.
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
The argument in brief.
The "we're doomed" side bases most of its argument on core ice samples.
This means that "we" drill into Antarctic permafrost which has been frozen sinse the last ice age. The deeper the ice, the older the ice. When the ice froze, it trapped air inside. From this we can tell how much carbon dioxide there has been in the air, day by day, sinse the year dot.
We can then trace the natural rise and fall of CO2 for the last million years - we can see the rise that has occured sinse the industrial revolution has been unprecidented - nothing that steep has ever happened, and no change so fast.
This is where the "CO2 levels fall and rise naturally" argument collapses. It DOES do just that, but there is no doubt that in human industrialised history its been increasing on a scale never seen in nature - this is using thousands and thousands of years of data. Even if it did rise this high naturally, if natures pattern was being followed it would take a damn sight longer than 200 years.
We then look at the temperature records we have been keeping as a species for the last few hundred years. The increases and decreases on average yearly temperature follows the annual increases and decreases in CO2 almost EXACTLY. Its impossible to deny that one is directly related to the other.
This is why we are now certain that man made CO2 is causing global temerature change. And why people that say "it happens naturally" are being blind to the scale of what is going on, and are just downright wrong.
The "we're doomed" side bases most of its argument on core ice samples.
This means that "we" drill into Antarctic permafrost which has been frozen sinse the last ice age. The deeper the ice, the older the ice. When the ice froze, it trapped air inside. From this we can tell how much carbon dioxide there has been in the air, day by day, sinse the year dot.
We can then trace the natural rise and fall of CO2 for the last million years - we can see the rise that has occured sinse the industrial revolution has been unprecidented - nothing that steep has ever happened, and no change so fast.
This is where the "CO2 levels fall and rise naturally" argument collapses. It DOES do just that, but there is no doubt that in human industrialised history its been increasing on a scale never seen in nature - this is using thousands and thousands of years of data. Even if it did rise this high naturally, if natures pattern was being followed it would take a damn sight longer than 200 years.
We then look at the temperature records we have been keeping as a species for the last few hundred years. The increases and decreases on average yearly temperature follows the annual increases and decreases in CO2 almost EXACTLY. Its impossible to deny that one is directly related to the other.
This is why we are now certain that man made CO2 is causing global temerature change. And why people that say "it happens naturally" are being blind to the scale of what is going on, and are just downright wrong.
Nationalise the f**king lot.
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
I don't understand the objection to the argument.
CO2 has been bumping around between 5 and 10 (arbitry units) for millenia and then suddenly we discover the use of fossil fuels and it rockets up to bouncing between 50 and 100 and ever rising.
We then look at temperature levels and they rise and fall by the same amounts as the CO2 levels.
The argument is staggeringly simple and completely undeniable.
CO2 has been bumping around between 5 and 10 (arbitry units) for millenia and then suddenly we discover the use of fossil fuels and it rockets up to bouncing between 50 and 100 and ever rising.
We then look at temperature levels and they rise and fall by the same amounts as the CO2 levels.
The argument is staggeringly simple and completely undeniable.
Nationalise the f**king lot.
That is not true, like I said, where there's One that agrees there's One that doesn't, each as eminent as the other, each arguing, as you are, their case as convincingly as each other.Maisey wrote:
The argument is staggeringly simple and completely undeniable.
I'm not arguing that CO2 is produced at a great level I'm just not convinced in your argument, I'm still cynical and and suspicious at the level of destruction being predicted.
It, in my view, is not as Black & White as you make it out to be, like I said, I've heard it before.
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
The problem is that all the scientists in the world are on the same side.
So to say its an argument of two sides is pretty ridiculas in my opinion.
The ISPCC report is the basis of my first statement.
So to say its an argument of two sides is pretty ridiculas in my opinion.
The ISPCC report is the basis of my first statement.
Nationalise the f**king lot.
That is plainly a ridiculous statement, if it were true there would be no argument or decent.Maisey wrote:The problem is that all the scientists in the world are on the same side.
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
The thing is this. The scientific community is of one mind. The reason there is an argument at all is becasue some people stand to seriously loose out by going green. And for a lot of people its a lot of effort to deal with a problem that isn't affecting them immidiatly.
People who don't WANT to see the obvious very rarely will. Therefore, the argument rages on.
Example. Aviation makes money for the country. Its reported by a UN summit that aircraft significantly increase the amount of CO2 in th atmosphere. But, because it would cause all sorts of trouble to clamp down on aviation it has to be proved that it isn't really a major problem. And what they did (I watched tony blaires enviroment minister do this) he compared the atmospheric CO2 levels from planes to the much higher levels from power plants. He then said that, relitivly speaking, CO2 from planes wasn't a problem!
The argument isn't against global warming, its against the trouble it will cause trying to stop it.
People who don't WANT to see the obvious very rarely will. Therefore, the argument rages on.
Example. Aviation makes money for the country. Its reported by a UN summit that aircraft significantly increase the amount of CO2 in th atmosphere. But, because it would cause all sorts of trouble to clamp down on aviation it has to be proved that it isn't really a major problem. And what they did (I watched tony blaires enviroment minister do this) he compared the atmospheric CO2 levels from planes to the much higher levels from power plants. He then said that, relitivly speaking, CO2 from planes wasn't a problem!
The argument isn't against global warming, its against the trouble it will cause trying to stop it.
Nationalise the f**king lot.
I agree to a certain extent, but both sides stand to gain, I still find the degree of catastrophic prophecies unlikely, as I said before, Scientists do get things wrong, in the early 70's a group of respected Scientists said there will be an Ice Age by 2000!!!, where's the O Zone related deaths so vociferously predicted 20 or so years ago, where's the Biblical scale of HIV/Aids deaths, in the '80's these were the BIG things. I believe the World heats up........then cools down.......heats up............then cools down, we may be adding to it, by what degree is the argument, you believe a huge amount, I'm yet to be convinced.Maisey wrote:
The argument isn't against global warming, its against the trouble it will cause trying to stop it.
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
-
Maisey
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 20:19
- Location: Moving like a Parallelogram
We banned CFC's when a great big physical hole appeared in the sky.where's the O Zone related deaths so vociferously predicted 20 or so years ago,
Simple cause to a simple problem. Difference is, it was easy to fix quickly without hurting too many economies.
The thing going down here is called catastophy theory. If you target something and get to it early, you can reverse it. There is a point where something becomes irriverable, a point where we have caused so much damage that going 100% green won't do a thing to save us. It is a scientific FACT that this point exists, the only argument is where it is and when we'll hit it at our current way of living. That is the unsolved mystery of global warming.
It may be that the world can take a bit more pounding yet, but is reaching that point of catastrophy a risk that anyone should be willing to take?
Nationalise the f**king lot.
-
paint it black
- Black, black, black & even blacker
- Posts: 4964
- Joined: 11 Jul 2002, 01:00
how do you solve a problem like maria 
Last edited by paint it black on 01 Oct 2007, 11:16, edited 2 times in total.
-
smiscandlon
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: 05 Feb 2004, 23:52
I think we've passed the catastrophe point.paint it black wrote:how do you solve a problem like global dimming
анархия
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
Africa.scotty wrote: where's the Biblical scale of HIV/Aids deaths,
A good site for questions and answers about global warming is here
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
Planet Dave
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 6716
- Joined: 22 Apr 2003, 23:51
- Location: Where the streets fold round
Listen, the world's fckd, as predicted / calculated by whichever society the Mayans nicked all their stuff from, and several others. We're all part of the process, that's all.
2012 (or thereabouts). Fear not kiddies, you're all welcome on Planet Dave, which will be floating far away, but close enough to observe and go 'Oooooh' a lot as Earth kops for another one.
2012 (or thereabouts). Fear not kiddies, you're all welcome on Planet Dave, which will be floating far away, but close enough to observe and go 'Oooooh' a lot as Earth kops for another one.
'What a heavy load Einstein must have had. Morons everywhere.'
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
I thought this thread was selling viagra
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
-
paint it black
- Black, black, black & even blacker
- Posts: 4964
- Joined: 11 Jul 2002, 01:00
Last edited by paint it black on 01 Oct 2007, 11:14, edited 1 time in total.
-
boudicca
- Sister Midnight
- Posts: 7427
- Joined: 15 Sep 2004, 16:15
- Location: embrace the margin
- Contact:
Planet Dave wrote:Listen, the world's fckd, as predicted / calculated by whichever society the Mayans nicked all their stuff from, and several others. We're all part of the process, that's all.
2012 (or thereabouts). Fear not kiddies, you're all welcome on Planet Dave, which will be floating far away, but close enough to observe and go 'Oooooh' a lot as Earth kops for another one.
Oh good!There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
Global dimming and global warming go hand in hand:
-There is striking evidence that the consumption of energy produces a gas that will change the world we like. As we like it the way it is, the change will probably for the worse. Flies, roaches or frogs will probably mind less than us.
-Companies go telling s**t like "Oh yes, cars do produce malicious gases, but the latest do so much less than the one you drive!!", so people will scrap their old car and buy a new one (Made in a process that consumed enormous amounts of energy and produced tons of venomous waste.. Of course, their old car lives on at the orient or Africa!)
ANd as communication and games don't do, the computers have to grow to consumption of Kilowatts. That Super Mario shines shinier than he ever shone is all that was won. I never actually understood what for I would need a PC much in excess of 1GHz, anyway.
Next thing: Those shiny new Plasma TVs. They emit heat like a radiator. They comsume energy like an electric heater that got junked decades ago as it consumed too much. Does the program get any better by that? Is anything substantial won? NO? My point exactly!
These things sold by millions will heat up the earth even more. And they allready do.
The world of fiction will burn the real one.
Do people realise it? Nope. Too dim to, and get dimmer to the extent that they fail to decide between fiction and reality.
Global dimming increases global warming.
Homo Consumensis very probably will f*ck it up.
Oh: There's the matter of particles in the air that make the light get dimmed? Yupp, that one, too.
-There is striking evidence that the consumption of energy produces a gas that will change the world we like. As we like it the way it is, the change will probably for the worse. Flies, roaches or frogs will probably mind less than us.
-Companies go telling s**t like "Oh yes, cars do produce malicious gases, but the latest do so much less than the one you drive!!", so people will scrap their old car and buy a new one (Made in a process that consumed enormous amounts of energy and produced tons of venomous waste.. Of course, their old car lives on at the orient or Africa!)
ANd as communication and games don't do, the computers have to grow to consumption of Kilowatts. That Super Mario shines shinier than he ever shone is all that was won. I never actually understood what for I would need a PC much in excess of 1GHz, anyway.
Next thing: Those shiny new Plasma TVs. They emit heat like a radiator. They comsume energy like an electric heater that got junked decades ago as it consumed too much. Does the program get any better by that? Is anything substantial won? NO? My point exactly!
These things sold by millions will heat up the earth even more. And they allready do.
The world of fiction will burn the real one.
Do people realise it? Nope. Too dim to, and get dimmer to the extent that they fail to decide between fiction and reality.
Global dimming increases global warming.
Homo Consumensis very probably will f*ck it up.
Oh: There's the matter of particles in the air that make the light get dimmed? Yupp, that one, too.
"These are my principles! And if you don't like the just says so, I have others, too!"
~Rufus T. Firefly
~Rufus T. Firefly