Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 24, 2015, 11:42:59 AM
-
http://tinyurl.com/ht79pth
-
Doesn't work on my PC
ippy.
-
Get it to work somehow ippy - it's a good article.
-
Dear ippy,
http://m.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14164957.Despite_it_all__something_is_going_right_and_we_should_celebrate/?ref=fbshr
Try the above.
I like the bit about the school, not rocket science, simply helping the kids to exercise. :) :)
Gonnagle.
-
Except England doesn't get enough sun or wind throughout the year to make it viable for these energy sources. However, this could change if global warming continues a pace; so every cloud has a silver lining. ;D
-
Thanks Gonners, there's a lot going on here we have a lot of family coming tomorrow, however I have skim read through your post, I may print off later and read it later tonight sitting in comfort.
Just a quick one, a close friend of mine is a retired uni-lecturer in electronics he says that generally electricity is a moving source of energy and is difficult to capture in a bottle, so to speak, so even with my limited knowledge of the stuff I did think perhaps the whole of the world's governments should put every effort into finding the very best method capturing this electricity in some way for use at a later time/date, so that we can all share the knowledge.
How about those in the sun passing current on to those in the dark, switching around the globe as it rotates? I don't know, there would have to be a lot more co-operation globally for this idea, for that's all it is an idea of my own, it's probably impractical for all sorts of reasons some of them technical I'm sure, but there it's an idea.
ippy
-
Except England doesn't get enough sun or wind throughout the year to make it viable for these energy sources. However, this could change if global warming continues a pace; so every cloud has a silver lining. ;D
Except for the fact that modern solar generating systems don't require bright sunshine, only light. Over the last 3 1/2 years our solar panels on the our roof have generated 16MWh- worth of electricity. I know how to convert kWh to kW in terms of consumption - not so sure in terms of generation.
-
Except for the fact that modern solar generating systems don't require bright sunshine, only light. Over the last 3 1/2 years our solar panels on the our roof have generated 16MWh- worth of electricity. I know how to convert kWh to kW in terms of consumption - not so sure in terms of generation.
The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!
-
The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!
No; but as a well-known supermarket regularly tells us, every little bit helps.
-
No; but as a well-known supermarket regularly tells us, every little bit helps.
But what that means is that we still need the regular energy sources yet governments have been closing down viable and efficient gas fired plants just to be Green and trendy with the stupid world in-crowd. This leaves us vulnerable to power cuts and the like. Also, it costs more and creates more pollution to keep turning down or off these gas fired plants, which we would need to do to cater for the short fall from renewables, than to have them running at full steam ahead. So we might as well have these plants running as they were designed at full tilt, give or take, and just have the renewables as minor top ups. But no, those greeny nutters are going to play the insane game of trying to make renewables play a much bigger role which they can't possibly do because of some political rhetorical bullshit. >:(
-
Except for the fact that modern solar generating systems don't require bright sunshine, only light. Over the last 3 1/2 years our solar panels on the our roof have generated 16MWh- worth of electricity. I know how to convert kWh to kW in terms of consumption - not so sure in terms of generation.
Over 3 1/2 years, that's the equivalent of 500 watts continuously. Or enough to run a kettle for four hours a day.
-
Over 3 1/2 years, that's the equivalent of 500 watts continuously. Or enough to run a kettle for four hours a day.
Or about the same as 30 tankfuls of petrol
-
The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!
Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.
We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.
O.
-
The question isn't what intensity of light they can use it is whether it will be enough for our housing and industries all year round - answer, a big fat NO!!!
If every new-build had energy-generating capabilities built into them as a matter of course, and the Government were to re-establish a decent reward for the addition of solar panels to existing homes, our energy needs wouldn't be solved but we would be a long way towards the solving. The Government also needs to crack down on its own offices, as well as other office blocks, etc, that leave their lights burning all night even though the only people in them are the cleaners. Judicial use of PIRs, low-wattage 'protection' lights, etc, would really help.
-
Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.
We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.
O.
Not sure that nuclear is anything other than a massive step backwards, in terms of ecological terms. I understand that one can already buy batteries that one can charge from one's solar panels during the day and use to at least keep the lights and other low-wattage equipment 'burning' after dark. The sooner we have truly affordable fuel-cell technology, the better, though I'm not quite sure how they could be utilised in a domestic setting. Would they be suitable to power an electric cooker, for instance?
-
If every new-build had energy-generating capabilities built into them as a matter of course, and the Government were to re-establish a decent reward for the addition of solar panels to existing homes, our energy needs wouldn't be solved but we would be a long way towards the solving.
Not slashing the subsidies would have been a good first step.
-
Not slashing the subsidies would have been a good first step.
I'd agree, but having done that, they need to be re-established.
-
Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.
We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.
O.
Actually, nuclear is a poor complement to renewables. Ideally, on a windy or sunny day all your power would come from wind turbines or solar panels, but when there is a shortfall, you need power stations that you can turn on and off quickly - gas turbines are the best example of this. Nuclear stations have to be on all the time and, if that is the case, you might as well not bother with the wind and solar.
In reality, the best plan is a mix of nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels as back up to the renewables.
-
Not sure that nuclear is anything other than a massive step backwards, in terms of ecological terms. I understand that one can already buy batteries that one can charge from one's solar panels during the day and use to at least keep the lights and other low-wattage equipment 'burning' after dark.
You don't think batteries grow on trees do you? Batteries have their own serious ecological problems.
The sooner we have truly affordable fuel-cell technology, the better, though I'm not quite sure how they could be utilised in a domestic setting. Would they be suitable to power an electric cooker, for instance?
Well, you probably wouldn't power an electric cooker off them, you'd burn the hydrogen directly. Converting hydrogen to electricity and the electricity to heat is guaranteed to be less efficient than converting hydrogen to heat directly.
However as an alternative to a battery, fuel cells have good potential. I think that is the future.
-
Every little helps. We have plenty of wind, so wind-farms are viable, and we can always switch the bulk production over to nuclear. Politically and economically it frees us from the obligations to middle-Eastern regimes, and ecologically it's a massive step forward.
We need to be investing in battery and fuel-cell research - that's going to be the next big step.
O.
It isn't about if we have wind or not it is about whether we have the right intensity of wind to make the wind farms efficient, and we don't; or rarely don't in England at least. Only the upper part of Scotland is any good for this and perhaps parts of Wales.
Turning the other sources of energy up and down to cater for this is costly and inefficient, and nuclear plants take a long time to build etc. Yet we are pulling down viable gas fired plants that do a good enough job!!!
-
It isn't about if we have wind or not it is about whether we have the right intensity of wind to make the wind farms efficient, and we don't; or rarely don't in England at least. Only the upper part of Scotland is any good for this and perhaps parts of Wales.
Turning the other sources of energy up and down to cater for this is costly and inefficient, and nuclear plants take a long time to build etc. Yet we are pulling down viable gas fired plants that do a good enough job!!!
Relying on gas is insane unless you want to see the lights go out. The supply isn't reliable enough. That's without the environmental aspect.
-
If every new-build had energy-generating capabilities built into them as a matter of course, and the Government were to re-establish a decent reward for the addition of solar panels to existing homes, our energy needs wouldn't be solved but we would be a long way towards the solving. The Government also needs to crack down on its own offices, as well as other office blocks, etc, that leave their lights burning all night even though the only people in them are the cleaners. Judicial use of PIRs, low-wattage 'protection' lights, etc, would really help.
I'm not against common sense where it has been thoroughly thought through.
-
Not sure that nuclear is anything other than a massive step backwards, in terms of ecological terms.
Given the knock-on effects on the environment of damming for hydro, nuclear is the best ecological option for the bulk supply.
I understand that one can already buy batteries that one can charge from one's solar panels during the day and use to at least keep the lights and other low-wattage equipment 'burning' after dark.
It's getting there, but battery technology still suffers from two significant problems: size and charge time. Whilst we're making advances in both, slowly, we're not at the point where they're sufficient to replace the on-demand electricity supply that our current culture has been built around.
The sooner we have truly affordable fuel-cell technology, the better, though I'm not quite sure how they could be utilised in a domestic setting.
Fuel cells are the best option on the table to replace internal combustion engines - electric cars are impressive, but they still have significant limitations over petrol and diesel in terms of range, cost and 'refuelling' time.
O.
-
Actually, nuclear is a poor complement to renewables. Ideally, on a windy or sunny day all your power would come from wind turbines or solar panels, but when there is a shortfall, you need power stations that you can turn on and off quickly - gas turbines are the best example of this.
There is a constant, background supply needed by the grid, and nuclear is the best option for this in areas where there isn't a readily available hydro/geothermal option. Whilst tidal power is reliable, it's environmentally damaging. Solar, where it can be relied upon, is fantastic of course, but outside of the tropics there aren't many places where that's the case.
Nuclear's output is controllable - unlike the others it doesn't have an 'off' option, but if you're using it to supply the background supply you're never going to need an 'off' option.
Nuclear stations have to be on all the time and, if that is the case, you might as well not bother with the wind and solar.
To a degree, yes - wind is not reliable enough to be the prime supply, however, and solar is only reliable enough or sufficient in certain areas.
In reality, the best plan is a mix of nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels as back up to the renewables.
I'd question the need for fossil back-ups in the long-term - perhaps in the short term - but I'd agree that a mix of supply types is probably the best option.
O.
-
We rely far too much on imported gas for it to be anything other than a back-up at best in the long term. We need to focus on energy sources that we can be as self-sufficient in as is possible.
-
It isn't about if we have wind or not it is about whether we have the right intensity of wind to make the wind farms efficient, and we don't; or rarely don't in England at least. Only the upper part of Scotland is any good for this and perhaps parts of Wales.
You can tailor your turbines to suit the wind - the problem we have in the UK is the variability of the wind. That said, they're still a viable contributor to the grid, particularly the smaller, domestic units. Personally I don't have a problem with the larger ones, but I know that there's a strong movement against them on aesthetic grounds.
Turning the other sources of energy up and down to cater for this is costly and inefficient, and nuclear plants take a long time to build etc.
Whether or not it's costly to vary the output of other plants is largely dependent upon whether they were built to be variable supplies or consistent - most are built to be consistent, because we don't have a well-planned method for approving and commissioning suppliers.
Nuclear plants do take longer to build, yes, but they also have a much longer productive lifespan, are off-line significantly less and are immeasurably less polluting (which is the major issue, at the moment, in energy production).
Yet we are pulling down viable gas fired plants that do a good enough job!!!
The environmental costs of continuing to utilise fossil fuels, though, is considerable - if it weren't, we wouldn't be having a discussion at all, we'd continue with coal, gas and oil.
O.
-
Actually, nuclear is a poor complement to renewables. Ideally, on a windy or sunny day all your power would come from wind turbines or solar panels, but when there is a shortfall, you need power stations that you can turn on and off quickly - gas turbines are the best example of this. Nuclear stations have to be on all the time and, if that is the case, you might as well not bother with the wind and solar.
In reality, the best plan is a mix of nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels as back up to the renewables.
Turning gas fired plants up and down is costly and creates more green house gases thereby negating any gains from renewables. Better to just use the gas fired plants and have a minor array of renewables for old time sake and as something quaint ;D
Of course utilising solar energy is just common sense and researching efficient ways to store the electricity. It is also common sense to be as locally independent as possible using solar.
-
However as an alternative to a battery, fuel cells have good potential. I think that is the future.
What about fusion?
-
Relying on gas is insane unless you want to see the lights go out. The supply isn't reliable enough. That's without the environmental aspect.
Why?
-
The environmental costs of continuing to utilise fossil fuels, though, is considerable - if it weren't, we wouldn't be having a discussion at all, we'd continue with coal, gas and oil.
O.
That's a matter of opinion as to whether global warming has been caused predominately by man's activities.
-
That's a matter of opinion as to whether global warming has been caused predominately by man's activities.
Every statement is 'a matter of opinion'. Opinions, though, are like arseholes. In this instance, however, this is not merely 'a matter of opinion'; it's a matter of scientific record.
It's no more a matter of opinion than the existence of the Higgs Boson as an explanation for gravity or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution.
The overwhelming scientific consensus of the climatologists who make it their life's work to study climate is that human influences have significantly affected the Earth's climate, and will continue to do so unless we take action in the very near future.
O.
-
Every statement is 'a matter of opinion'. Opinions, though, are like arseholes. In this instance, however, this is not merely 'a matter of opinion'; it's a matter of scientific record.
It's no more a matter of opinion than the existence of the Higgs Boson as an explanation for gravity or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution.
The overwhelming scientific consensus of the climatologists who make it their life's work to study climate is that human influences have significantly affected the Earth's climate, and will continue to do so unless we take action in the very near future.
O.
The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. What they say is an opinion of scientific work paid for by them, and as such has its usual biases and political pressures to achieve certain results or aims. The issue isn't whether climate change is going on but whether it is a product or outcome of man's activities.
-
The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. What they say is an opinion of scientific work paid for by them, and as such has its usual biases and political pressures to achieve certain results or aims. The issue isn't whether climate change is going on but whether it is a product or outcome of man's activities.
JK, I know of a number of climate scientists who have done studies and surveys without as uch as a penny's funding from Government or the IPCC. The IPCC tends to take totally independent research projects, studies their results and comes to a conclusion based on those results.
-
That's a matter of opinion as to whether global warming has been caused predominately by man's activities.
In fact, JK, the 'matter of opinion' argument has largely been shown to be wrong, as an increasing number of events match predictions made as long ago as 25 and 30 years.
-
In fact, JK, the 'matter of opinion' argument has largely been shown to be wrong, as an increasing number of events match predictions made as long ago as 25 and 30 years.
What? Temperatures have levelled off, whereas the predictions said it was going to keep on going up.
-
The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. What they say is an opinion of scientific work paid for by them, and as such has its usual biases and political pressures to achieve certain results or aims. The issue isn't whether climate change is going on but whether it is a product or outcome of man's activities.
And if the IPCC were the only people making this claim you might have a point, but they aren't, are they? Admittedly, it took me nearly 8 seconds of googling to find a list (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) but I think it was worth the hard work...
O.
-
What? Temperatures have levelled off, whereas the predictions said it was going to keep on going up.
What have temperatures alone got to do with it. The term 'Global Warming' was a media-made concept to confuse the debate. The proper term (as seen in the title of the IPCC) is 'Climate Change'. Back in the early- to mid-90s, the sceintists were forecasting less severe but wetter winters in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the high-density precipitation events - such as we've seen in the past few years, and higher high tides.
-
And if the IPCC were the only people making this claim you might have a point, but they aren't, are they? Admittedly, it took me nearly 8 seconds of googling to find a list (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) but I think it was worth the hard work...
O.
Numbers proves nothing, many people are copy cats.
-
What have temperatures alone got to do with it. The term 'Global Warming' was a media-made concept to confuse the debate. The proper term (as seen in the title of the IPCC) is 'Climate Change'. Back in the early- to mid-90s, the sceintists were forecasting less severe but wetter winters in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the high-density precipitation events - such as we've seen in the past few years, and higher high tides.
The planet has been undergoing climate change for millions of years, what's your point?
But that does not prove that it is caused by man. And my last point still stands, implying their models are not good enough.
-
Turning gas fired plants up and down is costly
Incorrect. Gas turbines can be turned on and off fairly cheaply since they are essentially just like jet engines.
and creates more green house gases thereby negating any gains from renewables.
Incorrect. You would only turn the gas turbines on when the renewable sources are not generating enough power.
Of course utilising solar energy is just common sense and researching efficient ways to store the electricity. It is also common sense to be as locally independent as possible using solar.
Agreed.
I don't think there will ever be enough renewable sources in this country to serve all our needs, particularly if most of our road transport moves to electricity. We will need some nuclear stations.
-
Numbers proves nothing, many people are copy cats.
If numbers prove nothing, how do you intend to investigate whether the temperatures - a numerical representation of the heat energy at given points - are rising or declining, and then to investigate the possible causes and influences?
O.
-
The planet has been undergoing climate change for millions of years, what's your point?
But that does not prove that it is caused by man. And my last point still stands, implying their models are not good enough.
Whilst humanity has only kept weather records for 2 or 300 years at best, nature has been recording it for millennia. There are soil cores, ice cores, tree rings and other natural recording 'devices' which show modern climate scientists what the weather patterns have done in the past. Matching recent with past indicators show that the current changes are extra-ordinary, suggesting that there has been an additional factor in the changes. When one realises that the extra-ordinariness correlates with human use of fossil fuels on an 'industrial scale', strongly suggests that that additional factor is human.
-
If numbers prove nothing, how do you intend to investigate whether the temperatures - a numerical representation of the heat energy at given points - are rising or declining, and then to investigate the possible causes and influences?
O.
It was a reference to the number of people making the climate change due to mankind claim. Just because there are billions of gullible idiots doesn't make what they say right.
-
Whilst humanity has only kept weather records for 2 or 300 years at best, nature has been recording it for millennia. There are soil cores, ice cores, tree rings and other natural recording 'devices' which show modern climate scientists what the weather patterns have done in the past. Matching recent with past indicators show that the current changes are extra-ordinary, suggesting that there has been an additional factor in the changes. When one realises that the extra-ordinariness correlates with human use of fossil fuels on an 'industrial scale', strongly suggests that that additional factor is human.
That assumes we are reading the cores etc. correctly and that we have not missed any indicators that would change how things are interpreted.
And rapid and significant changes have occurred in the past, but I've only heard scientists mention this in the media and as such I have no links for these.
-
It was a reference to the number of people making the climate change due to mankind claim. Just because there are billions of gullible idiots doesn't make what they say right.
The evidence makes it right. The converse of your "point" is that just because somebody is a clueless, scientifically illiterate arsehead doesn't mean they're right either, and in a scientific matter (which climatology is) are vastly less likely to be so.
-
That assumes we are reading the cores etc. correctly and that we have not missed any indicators that would change how things are interpreted.
Which goes just as validly for any of the arguments that you are making, Jack.
And rapid and significant changes have occurred in the past, but I've only heard scientists mention this in the media and as such I have no links for these.
There's plenty of evidence for that - you don't need to rely on "only (heard) hearing scientists mention this in the media" - IPCC documentation make plenty of reference to it. The issue isn't the 'rapid and significant changes', but the context in which they occur.
-
The evidence makes it right. The converse of your "point" is that just because somebody is a clueless, scientifically illiterate arsehead doesn't mean they're right either, and in a scientific matter (which climatology is) are vastly less likely to be so.
But there is no good evidence that can provide a definitive conclusion on this.
As for your second point I was not implying the opposite. Neither case proves any point to be correct only good and solid evidence can point the way.
-
But there is no good evidence that can provide a definitive conclusion on this.
You do realise that we hear this shit from creationists about evolution every day, right?
-
Which goes just as validly for any of the arguments that you are making, Jack.
I'm not reading any cores or anything else, so no it doesn't.
There's plenty of evidence for that - you don't need to rely on "only (heard) hearing scientists mention this in the media" - IPCC documentation make plenty of reference to it. The issue isn't the 'rapid and significant changes', but the context in which they occur.
What the real issue is and the context is that the changes are 'cutting our throats' and making the world we have established for our selves more difficult. Some believe we can act like God and control this planet but we can't. We have no idea what our 'remedy' for all this will result in or the consequence that will follow it.
-
You do realise that we hear this shit from creationists about evolution every day, right?
But saying that doesn't make what I say untrue. Trying to model the world's climate on the relatively small amount of data we have on our effect on the global is by definition very difficult and to believe that we've got it is delusionary. This is what you are implying that scientists have got it pretty much spot on, with very little error, but we have no way of making such a judgement.
-
It was a reference to the number of people making the climate change due to mankind claim. Just because there are billions of gullible idiots doesn't make what they say right.
No, the data makes that apparent, and that's why all those climate scientists in the peer-reviewed articles in multiple organisations in multiple countries around the world agree that the climate change we are witnessing is, at least in part, due to human activity.
The professionals, collectively, agree that it's happening. They have the data to support that claim, which has been rigorously peer reviewed.
There is no practical doubt that it's happening, there's just political obfuscation from groups that don't want to have to be the people to make the unpalatable hard choices that accepting reality requires.
O.
-
There is no practical doubt that it's happening, there's just political obfuscation from groups that don't want to have to be the people to make the unpalatable hard choices that accepting reality requires.
Whilst the comment about political obfuscation is true, it isn't the only such obfuscation. There is scientific and environmental obfuscation as well. It is true to say that the scientific opposition to the climate change argument has lagely collapsed over the past 10 years, but prior to that, it was very strong - despite the evidence - and there are still some who insist, like JK, that is all just 'natural'. Even some environmentalists obfuscate in the other direction by making out that everything is due to human intervention.
-
Whilst the comment about political obfuscation is true, it isn't the only such obfuscation. There is scientific and environmental obfuscation as well. It is true to say that the scientific opposition to the climate change argument has lagely collapsed over the past 10 years, but prior to that, it was very strong - despite the evidence - and there are still some who insist, like JK, that is all just 'natural'.
That's not 'despite the evidence' - that collapse has come about because of the increasing body of evidence. Twenty or so years ago there was little long-term prediction at all, and then there were a few forward-thinking voices who looked at the trends and started to worry. They were castigated as fear-mongers, but they put the data together and put it out there and people started to look. Competing theories came about, and then more data came in, and more money was put into the possibility which generated further data, and as that data came in and was analysed so more and more people saw the facts of the situation and bought into it.
It's not like paradigm shifts such as the Theory of Relativity's impact on gravity, where we previously knew there was a gap, we just didn't know what it was.
Even some environmentalists obfuscate in the other direction by making out that everything is due to human intervention.
I don't doubt there may be one or two, but I can't think of any examples immediately, and I'm pretty sure that the mainstream scientific community would look at the claim and explain that the natural background fluctuations of climate are well-established and accounted for in the models.
O.
-
That's not 'despite the evidence' - that collapse has come about because of the increasing body of evidence.
O, I have to disagree to an extent, in that there were vocal naysayers appearing on TV until only a few years ago - and I recvall seeing one or two on BBC Breakfast at various times last year. 'Oddly' enough, several such people seem to be sponsored by the oil industry!
I remember posting a link to an article of glacier retreat on a forum I was a member of back in the mid-noughties that a friend had brought my attention to. Perhaps the most telling picture was one of the Gangapurna Glacier taken in October 2004. I had a picture of the same glacier I had taken in October 1999 that I was able to compare. In the space of 5 years the front wall of the glacier had retreated 50 or 60m - and round an almost right-angled bend in the 'river'bed. The weather records didn't support this kind of melt - but the discolouration of the glacier (from a pale grey to a slaty grey) gave an idea of the amount of polluted snow that had fallen over that 5 year period.
My fellow-forumites - some of them scientists - simply said that this colouration change was down to different photographic exposures, etc. - despite the colouration of other elements of the picture being identical.
-
No, the data makes that apparent, and that's why all those climate scientists in the peer-reviewed articles in multiple organisations in multiple countries around the world agree that the climate change we are witnessing is, at least in part, due to human activity.
Oh?!?! In part. So two questions. How much is due to man's activities and what is causing the other half of this global warming?
The professionals, collectively, agree that it's happening. They have the data to support that claim, which has been rigorously peer reviewed.
I never claimed it wasn't happening; that bit of the activity is clear enough.
-
I don't doubt there may be one or two, but I can't think of any examples immediately, and I'm pretty sure that the mainstream scientific community would look at the claim and explain that the natural background fluctuations of climate are well-established and accounted for in the models.
O.
Yeah? That doesn't sound too sure to me!
Are you saying they understand and know how this planet works and have plenty of data for the last 100 million years to make such a judgement?
-
O, I have to disagree to an extent, in that there were vocal naysayers appearing on TV until only a few years ago - and I recvall seeing one or two on BBC Breakfast at various times last year. 'Oddly' enough, several such people seem to be sponsored by the oil industry!
There are vocal naysayers appearing in the media to this day. Media representation, though, is not proportional to their numbers in the broader scientific community - the naysayers are massively over-represented in the public debate for a variety of reasons to do with the conflicting pressures on modern media outlets.
O.
-
Oh?!?! In part. So two questions. How much is due to man's activities and what is causing the other half of this global warming?
How much is down to human influence is meaningless, given the variation at any given point in the change due to natural climate variation. As to the natural components, there are the cyclic and random variations in solar output, the impact of weather in various regions, the interaction of components of the climate that react at vastly different rates to the solar impact (such as deep ocean temperatures and currents).
O.
-
Yeah? That doesn't sound too sure to me!
If I pretend that there's 100% certainty I'm lying. If I suggest 99% certainty or less, there's a gap for people to try to wedge an excuse into. Either way, deniers are going to keep on denying, so I maintain my integrity and don't pretend that it's absolutely proven, but it's consistently reported widely enough that there's no valid reason to deny the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, especially those areas of the scientific community who specifically work in this area.
Are you saying they understand and know how this planet works and have plenty of data for the last 100 million years to make such a judgement?
They understand and know how significant parts of the world work, and yes they have data from hundreds of millions of years - ranging from chemical traces in fossils and ancient rocks through ice-core samples and plant types in various regions through history right up to the more precise direct measurements of the past few centures.
O.
-
If I pretend that there's 100% certainty I'm lying. If I suggest 99% certainty or less, there's a gap for people to try to wedge an excuse into. Either way, deniers are going to keep on denying, so I maintain my integrity and don't pretend that it's absolutely proven, but it's consistently reported widely enough that there's no valid reason to deny the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, especially those areas of the scientific community who specifically work in this area.
They understand and know how significant parts of the world work, and yes they have data from hundreds of millions of years - ranging from chemical traces in fossils and ancient rocks through ice-core samples and plant types in various regions through history right up to the more precise direct measurements of the past few centuries.
O.
And if that fact is not convincing enough for the romantics, they must go with whatever illusion takes their fancy.
-
If I pretend that there's 100% certainty I'm lying. If I suggest 99% certainty or less, there's a gap for people to try to wedge an excuse into. Either way, deniers are going to keep on denying
Shamelessly pinched for the quote file and a possible future signature, if you've no objections ;)
-
How much is down to human influence is meaningless, given the variation at any given point in the change due to natural climate variation. As to the natural components, there are the cyclic and random variations in solar output, the impact of weather in various regions, the interaction of components of the climate that react at vastly different rates to the solar impact (such as deep ocean temperatures and currents).
O.
Roughly, give or take. Otherwise all these claims that man can reverse this global warming is sheer political rhetoric.
-
Roughly, give or take. Otherwise all these claims that man can reverse this global warming is sheer political rhetoric.
If you've been told that we can 'reverse' the global warming, you've been fed a lie. All we can do at this stage is slow the warming rate component that's due to human influence and wait to see what the change has done to the various feedback processes.
O.
-
Oh?!?! In part. So two questions. How much is due to man's activities and what is causing the other half of this global warming?
The very use of 'the other half' in the second part of that second sentence shows how little you understand.
-
If you've been told that we can 'reverse' the global warming, you've been fed a lie. All we can do at this stage is slow the warming rate component that's due to human influence and wait to see what the change has done to the various feedback processes.
O.
So we are going to make our selves bankrupt, in many ways, wasting trillions trying to just slow it down (god knows why) on ideas that have never been tested and shown to be viable and workable all rapped up in some stupid ideology of the Left. Well, that makes sense, NOT!
-
The very use of 'the other half' in the second part of that second sentence shows how little you understand.
It wasn't meant literally and you know it.
-
So we are going to make our selves bankrupt, in many ways, wasting trillions trying to just slow it down (god knows why) on ideas that have never been tested and shown to be viable and workable all rapped up in some stupid ideology of the Left. Well, that makes sense, NOT!
No, we're going to put ourselves at the forefront of some emerging and some proven technologies, whilst insuring ourselves against the economic power of middle-Eastern regimes, in order to give our children the best possible chance of inheriting a world they can actually flourish in rather than merely survive.
This is not a 'leftist ideology', unless you're of the opinion that reality has a left-wing bias - it's a scientific consensus. The ideological opposition comes from the economically-right wing who know it's happening but don't want to admit to not being willing to do anything about it, and so in conjunction with the vested interests of the oil, gas and coal producers they promote bullshit 'science' and sponsor media coverage to give a 'fair and balanced' impression that the issue is still somehow up for debate.
If the right-wing politicians were open and honest and said 'I don't think we can afford to do this, so I'm going to fuck over the next generation for my right to drive a Hummer' they know they'd struggle to be elected, but they can't actually bring themselves to be honest. They claim 'I'm not a scientist' and then try to pretend like they're qualified to say that the scientific institutions of the world have it wrong because BP's pet labcoat told them so.
O.
-
No, we're going to put ourselves at the forefront of some emerging and some proven technologies, whilst insuring ourselves against the economic power of middle-Eastern regimes, in order to give our children the best possible chance of inheriting a world they can actually flourish in rather than merely survive.
This is not a 'leftist ideology', unless you're of the opinion that reality has a left-wing bias - it's a scientific consensus. The ideological opposition comes from the economically-right wing who know it's happening but don't want to admit to not being willing to do anything about it, and so in conjunction with the vested interests of the oil, gas and coal producers they promote bullshit 'science' and sponsor media coverage to give a 'fair and balanced' impression that the issue is still somehow up for debate.
If the right-wing politicians were open and honest and said 'I don't think we can afford to do this, so I'm going to fuck over the next generation for my right to drive a Hummer' they know they'd struggle to be elected, but they can't actually bring themselves to be honest. They claim 'I'm not a scientist' and then try to pretend like they're qualified to say that the scientific institutions of the world have it wrong because BP's pet labcoat told them so.
O.
But we have closed down some very viable gas-fired plants and left us at risk of being short of energy and in the process made our energy prices higher than others so killing off our industry etc. All for what, for some poor models of our planets weather system and an ideology that is fuelling this. You go on about the scientists but it is not they who do the politics it is the Leftie lot and it is they who are doing us the harm by using climate change to get others to do as they want.
-
But we have closed down some very viable gas-fired plants and left us at risk of being short of energy and in the process made our energy prices higher than others so killing off our industry etc.
Labour prices and the cost of transporting raw materials (with the associated waste products) is what's put pay to our manufacturing industries. We have closed down a number of the older power plants, because they were the most polluting, even though some of them were more productive than plants that have remained. We haven't put ourselves in the line of a power shortage yet, though that is dependent on new systems being implemented on time - not a certainty in the modern era.
All for what, for some poor models of our planets weather system and an ideology that is fuelling this.
To minimise the damage that's already been done. The 'ideology' that's fuelling this is that our children deserve not to have to clean up any more of our mess than we've already made.
You go on about the scientists but it is not they who do the politics it is the Leftie lot and it is they who are doing us the harm by using climate change to get others to do as they want.
Bullshit. It's the scientists that are highlighting the issue. It is some politicians - not solely, but primarily on the left - who are prepared to make the hard choices to react to that, and it is some politicians - not solely, but primarily on the right - who are publicly playing the 'nothing has been proven' card and raking in their own money, not giving two shits who has to swim to school in twenty year's time.
O.