Global warming... bolleaux or what?

[liquidculture]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Hey, my 'nappies' smell nicer than your mum's knickers.

Most directives I've looked at pass through law fairly freely. Too freely in some cases. They are worded very generally with catch-all clauses. In particular the CDM and EMC regs.

A directive is just that it directs - the subsequent laws are supposed to be more specific to the situation in question - I do say supposed

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I believe that we have found the limit of this mans 'free thinking'...

It extends only to rail against anyone who challenges his own constrained beliefs.

Oh, I see. So when I refuse to agree with you, I'm not a free thinker. Therefore by my reckoning, you are not a free-thinker either. What makes you so sure that all the global warming is natural? Much less evidence for that. History is full of examples of people creating alternate theories when things aren't working out well for them politically. Due to the nature of their rapid and convenient generation, I tend to dismiss such theories, as I would dismiss the lies of a captured theif.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

There are many sound-bite environmentalists around that rely on the sanctimonious sound-bite to deflect true debate... "Don't do it for yourself, do it for your children and your childrens children" is my favourite...

Dreadful people hide-bound to the wheel of conventional thinking as any 'Bowler Hatted Merchant banker' ever could be.

I've explained why I think man-made global warming exists several times. The best argument against this that you can come up with are that some other factors may be at work like solar radiance. But I pointed out that Mars hasn't heated up as much as Earth as a % and that scientists who've studied Mars and Earth, believe only 15% (30% maximum) of Earth's heating is due to solar radiance.

I've also pointed out that burning carbon fuels at 1000+ times the rate nature scrubbed them in the first place is not in step with any natural balance seen before and hoping for the Earth to counteract this easily is an optimistic assumption.

[liquidculture]

Originally Posted by Calendar_Girl

Oh! Sorry, thought I had to believe all scientists and not be judgemental?




I do wish you would make your minds up! Do I trust the scientists completely or just some? (Which was the point I was making all along!)

Suexx

You have to become educated to the extent that you understand what they are espousing then you can make your own mind up, however back to the point its those who implement the findings of scientists that bear watching.
And as I was once told by an old devon farmer 'I believe none of what I hears and half of what I sees, and all what I can smell'

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Oh, I see. So when I refuse to agree with you, I'm not a free thinker.

No, on the basis of what you have written.

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

Therefore by my reckoning, you are not a free-thinker either.

It is 'your reckoning' that is constantly found to be at fault.

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

What makes you so sure that all the global warming is natural?

History plus the fact that we are entirely a natural phenomena as well and what we do equally so.

[liquidculture]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

I've also pointed out that burning carbon fuels at 1000+ times the rate nature scrubbed them in the first place is not in step with any natural balance seen before and hoping for the Earth to counteract this easily is an optimistic assumption.

This is the scary bit, nature is always attempting to reach equilibrium and the more drastic the move away from equilibrium the more drastic the return.

I forget the name of the process but a system can be abused very severely and still maintain itself, so far we have been ok and the system remains but what can happen is that the system reaches a point where it can support the stresses no longer and goes through a catastrophic change and the ensuing equilibrium that follows may be nothing like the one before - in fact a new system, and one that may not have a place for the likes of us.
This process happens at a micro scale or a macro one, the 'big bang' may have been an example of a catastrophic change but we dont know what from.

Food for thought whether you think we have caused global warming or not, we are certainly increasing the stress levels on the system that supports us

[Calendar_Girl]

Originally Posted by liquidculture

You have to become educated to the extent that you understand what they are espousing then you can make your own mind up, however back to the point its those who implement the findings of scientists that bear watching.
And as I was once told by an old devon farmer 'I believe none of what I hears and half of what I sees, and all what I can smell'

Your assumptions toward my education have nothing to do with the fact of the thread. I am not against Scientists at all, but am aware they get as many things wrong as they do right. They are forever coming across 'new evidence' and change their minds. Tackling a huge issue like this with limited data that is available is bound to be open to interpretation by the individual. You are also completely ignoring solar flares, El Nino (which HAS proven to be devastating in history wiping out civilisations). etc, etc. Yes the planet is under stress and change, but has been since birth. If we did not have the stresses and the changes, we would not have the climate we do at all!

Scientists have yet to find conclusive proof of;
How the universe began
How life developed on Earth
What killed dinosaurs
and so on and so forth, however this does not mean that they don't espouse their 'theories' as fact.

Oh and the 'scientists' are now re-thinking some of the darwinian school of thought, also the big bang, and just watching the 'raptors in three films told of how quickly minds can be changed! Or did I just imagine the feathers?

Suexx

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by liquidculture

This is the scary bit, nature is always attempting to reach equilibrium and the more drastic the move away from equilibrium the more drastic the return.

I forget the name of the process but a system can be abused very severely and still maintain itself, so far we have been ok and the system remains but what can happen is that the system reaches a point where it can support the stresses no longer and goes through a catastrophic change and the ensuing equilibrium that follows may be nothing like the one before - in fact a new system, and one that may not have a place for the likes of us.
This process happens at a micro scale or a macro one, the 'big bang' may have been an example of a catastrophic change but we dont know what from.

Food for thought whether you think we have caused global warming or not, we are certainly increasing the stress levels on the system that supports us

I know what you mean from studying control responses. Any control system has a characteristic response. If it is capable of controlling the system changes, the system level responses will oscillate about the desired level with ever diminishing error. But if the systems steps out of the bounds of control, one of two things can happen:

1. The level accelerates away from the desired level. Possibly to a new undesired level, or possibly without cease.

2. The attained level oscillates about the desired level with increasing magnitude of peak error. Similar to a resonant effect like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The system is then unstable.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Calendar_Girl

I am not against Scientists at all, but am aware they get as many things wrong as they do right.

Untrue. If that was the case, mankind would have showed no net progress. The net progress, (i.e. the fact a Nismo Z-tune is superior to a Ford Model T) proves we get more right than wrong in our overall conclusions.

Originally Posted by Calendar_Girl

They are forever coming across 'new evidence' and change their minds. Tackling a huge issue like this with limited data that is available is bound to be open to interpretation by the individual. You are also completely ignoring solar flares, El Nino (which HAS proven to be devastating in history wiping out civilisations). etc, etc. Yes the planet is under stress and change, but has been since birth. If we did not have the stresses and the changes, we would not have the climate we do at all!

Scientists have yet to find conclusive proof of;
How the universe began
How life developed on Earth
What killed dinosaurs
and so on and so forth, however this does not mean that they don't espouse their 'theories' as fact.

Oh and the 'scientists' are now re-thinking some of the darwinian school of thought, also the big bang, and just watching the 'raptors in three films told of how quickly minds can be changed! Or did I just imagine the feathers?

Suexx

Science is a complicated subject. We do not always have the complete concrete proof we would like but we are left to make sensible conclusions about what evidence is available. The exchange particle (graviton) for the gravitational force has yet to be isolated but is reckoned that it is bigger in mass than many that have. This is perplexing but we still conclude that gravity exists.

[liquidculture]

Originally Posted by Calendar_Girl

Your assumptions toward my education have nothing to do with the fact of the thread. I am not against Scientists at all, but am aware they get as many things wrong as they do right. They are forever coming across 'new evidence' and change their minds. Tackling a huge issue like this with limited data that is available is bound to be open to interpretation by the individual. You are also completely ignoring solar flares, El Nino (which HAS proven to be devastating in history wiping out civilisations). etc, etc. Yes the planet is under stress and change, but has been since birth. If we did not have the stresses and the changes, we would not have the climate we do at all!

Scientists have yet to find conclusive proof of;
How the universe began
How life developed on Earth
What killed dinosaurs
and so on and so forth, however this does not mean that they don't espouse their 'theories' as fact.

Oh and the 'scientists' are now re-thinking some of the darwinian school of thought, also the big bang, and just watching the 'raptors in three films told of how quickly minds can be changed! Or did I just imagine the feathers?

Suexx

Wasnt assuming anything about your education, point being that if a scientist has published a paper on quantum physics I wouldnt be able to judge it as I dont know enough about quantum physics to comment - its a general point in response to what you said. Perhaps I should have said 'one'

My main point was also in response to your insistence that scientists are not to be trusted, again I say that it is those who implement scientists findings that have to be watched, generally scientists are not given the responsibility of implementing their findings or acting on them.

The other main point is that knowledge is a pursuit not an absolute, our knowledge develops and scientists are always finding new information, of course they do thats what they are there for, its all about the pursuit of knowledge. New theories develop out of old ones, new ideas grow from old ones, progress depends on that which went before, as someone said (roughly) I see so far because I stand upon the shoulders of those who came before. Anyone will argue their findings, how else can they be tested? and so they will insist that they are right but its up to others to prove otherwise or find new facts, thats progress/development its not about being wrong or right.
If I were to develop a theory of my own to explain something I will argue its case, if someone else comes along with an alternative I will argue against it as I dont want to be proved wrong any more than they do but that is just human nature and out of that argument comes a further truth (hopefully) that will take us both closer to understanding the absolute truth, that is how it works. You saying that scientists get as much wrong as they get right is just a pointless statement, do you know that anyway? saying it only gives you comfort to remain within your own limitations and to go on to point out some of what scientists have yet to find proof of will increase your comfort zone but means nothing really.

Lastly, so they are re-thinking Darwin, they have been since he started stating his ideas (and some of them werent his anyway), the big bang, and so on, will always be re-examined because as more is known we have the opportunity to test what went before and if it is found wanting then we have the opportunity to progress and develop our knowledge, I see that as a very positive thing and certainly not ammunition to denigrate science

[Calendar_Girl]

*Yawn*
What I see as pointless to be fair is your insistance on taking all this so personally! I don't hate scientists, but you keep making the point I have been making so what's your point? Your last post says exactly what I was saying all along. Data is incomplete and therefore is subject to interpretation, therefore is not conclusive proof. This then means that no one knows. So what is Joe Bloggs supposed to do and believe? I merely point this out that is so relevent to this particular subject. You have yet to prove to me, that man is causing global warming.

Suexx

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Calendar_Girl

*Yawn*
What I see as pointless to be fair is your insistance on taking all this so personally! I don't hate scientists, but you keep making the point I have been making so what's your point? Your last post says exactly what I was saying all along. Data is incomplete and therefore is subject to interpretation, therefore is not conclusive proof. This then means that no one knows. So what is Joe Bloggs supposed to do and believe? I merely point this out that is so relevent to this particular subject. You have yet to prove to me, that man is causing global warming.

Suexx

People have yet to PROVE the Pythagoras Theory for right-angle triangles but we still use it because there is a balance of evidence in its favour.

[liquidculture]

Originally Posted by Calendar_Girl

*Yawn*
What I see as pointless to be fair is your insistance on taking all this so personally! I don't hate scientists, but you keep making the point I have been making so what's your point? Your last post says exactly what I was saying all along. Data is incomplete and therefore is subject to interpretation, therefore is not conclusive proof. This then means that no one knows. So what is Joe Bloggs supposed to do and believe? I merely point this out that is so relevent to this particular subject. You have yet to prove to me, that man is causing global warming.

Suexx

Yawn? go to bed earlier if youre tired

Taking it personally? you are wrong there and will just have to take my word for it.

What I am trying to do is kind of passing you by but it doesnt really matter, but I am not trying to prove to you or anyone else that man is causing global warming, I have been defending the integrity of science and scientists.

What I am trying to get over is that you can trust the work of scientists within the constraints that I have already given. What evidence there may be for whatever is being proposed you will have to judge for yourself within those constraints and your own ability.

As for your conclusion that because the data is incomplete and open to interpretation it is not conclusive proof, I agree totally but to then say this means no-one knows is very wrong, it can no more mean that than mean that it does exist.
What it does mean is that the balance of probability will mean that something is likely and possibly give an indication of how likely. It is very rare to find any absolute conclusions in this area as there are so many variables but that doesnt mean that you have to discount it all as meaningless.

To give my own view, I believe that it doesnt matter if we caused 'global warming' or not, I am not even sure I accept the concept of global warming anyway, it is too limiting.
We are affecting the way our planet functions by our activities and in doing so we may cause it to change in a way that will disadvantage life as we know it and mammals in particular. I also believe that we can change the direction of that change by changing the way we pursue our activities but change is coming regardless.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

What I said is substantiated by doing a web search. The number of reports claiming that all global warming is natural, is actually thinner on the ground than the number of hits from groups of people claiming to have been tortured by MI5 with ray guns.

Please think about that statement in a little more depth, it is a gain meaningless

And where pray-tell does the 45% come from? New thinking can be an economy in itself. It doesn't have to be a 'green' anti-economy thing.

Try reading previous post

hat would be your tactic and the tactic of your balded friends. Save energy wastage, reduce CO2 emissions.

Why do I need a tactic if there isn't a problem as far as I am concerned.
I recycle waste because it makes common sense to do so
I save energy because it saves me money
I have no interest in Co2 emissions beyond how much Greedy Gorden pilfers from my wallet
I drive my Skyline as much as I can without an ounce of remorse or a single thought as to the amount of Optimax its greedy little 6 cylinders guzzle

What car emissions have been reduced in the last 30 years? Not CO2. That's not how a catalyst works.

I am talking about all emissions......try to research first!

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Sean

Please think about that statement in a little more depth, it is a gain meaningless

Not really. If there was as great a weight of evidence in your favour. There would be far more reports, even theoretical models, supporting your stance.

Let's break this down. Your argument can only be thinly balanced on just a few 'maybes'.

1. Maybe CO2 doesn't have a greenhouse effect. WRONG!
2. Maybe it does but having more of it in the air won't increase that effect. We are at a ceiling in the effect. HIGH UNLIKELY & VERY OPTIMISTIC
3. Maybe the CO2 just gets scrubbed at a few thousand times the rate it was scrubbed in the first place to create the fossil fuels. Maybe all the measurements are wrong. OPTIMISTIC AT BEST

Whereas my argument is fairly solidly based.

1. CO2 has a greenhouse effect. It has been proven, although the exact extent is unknown, it is known to contribute 20-30%.
2. Since CO2 has a greenhouse effect, it is highly likely that having more of it (as several measurements have shown), will increase this effect.
3. It is likely that the Earth will continue to scrub these gases at around the same rate it always has done. This does not match the rate of generation as measurements show.
4. The greenhouse effect has a positive feedback mechanism, including the release of CH4 from sea-beds and ice-caps along with excess water vapour due to the increasing surface area of water and rising temperature. CH4 is a greenhouse gas in its own right and can undergo chemical combination with oxygen radicals to produce H20 and CO2, more greenhouse gases. The effect is amplified.

Originally Posted by Sean

Try reading previous post

Don't need to, '45%' is utter BS dreamed up by scare mongers. Brown and most Chancellors can't even budget for 1 year correctly. They're hardly likely to be able to accurately predict the cost of a few decade long global scheme.

Originally Posted by Sean

Why do I need a tactic if there isn't a problem as far as I am concerned.
I recycle waste because it makes common sense to do so
I save energy because it saves me money
I have no interest in Co2 emissions beyond how much Greedy Gorden pilfers from my wallet
I drive my Skyline as much as I can without an ounce of remorse or a single thought as to the amount of Optimax its greedy little 6 cylinders guzzle

Well there isn't a problem as far as we're concerned either. Kyoto etc. is on the go and attempts are being made to cut emissions. So would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

Originally Posted by Sean

I am talking about all emissions......try to research first!

I happen to have done chemistry, so don't need to. The only way overall car emissions could have reduced 96% net is if fuel consumption reduced 96%, which it hasn't, otherwise average mpg would be 500mpg.

Catalysts actually change C & CO into CO2 as it's slightly less harmful. It also converts NOx to N2 and O2 and unburnt hydrocarbons to CO2 and H20. The CO2 emissions are still there. Maybe CO emissions are reduced 96%, but it is quite wrong to say that is the net result.

[Sean]

I happen to have done chemistry, so don't need to. The only way overall car emissions could have reduced 96% net is if fuel consumption reduced 96%, which it hasn't, otherwise average mpg would be 500mpg.

Catalysts actually change C & CO into CO2 as it's slightly less harmful. It also converts NOx to N2 and O2 and unburnt hydrocarbons to CO2 and H20. The CO2 emissions are still there. Maybe CO emissions are reduced 96%, but it is quite wrong to say that is the net result.

There is an exhibition at the national car musium comparing a Ford Cortina with a Mondeo. It states that the emissions of the mondeo are 96% less then the Cortina. Try writing to them if you disagree