| 1cyprus
|
"It is a lovely day here today and I'm going to be stuck in labs for four hours of it! "
Before thats used as GW proof, i'm the other side of the Severn estuary and it's hoofing down:)
Reply #101. Feb 15 10, 5:54 AM
|
| sherry75
|
Hasn't got to Cheltenham yet... just drizzle... extreme drizzle I might add...
Reply #102. Feb 15 10, 6:11 AM
|
romeomikegolf 
|
Let's keep things civil. There have been one or two posts that border on personal. Stick to the issue. We don't want to see another intelligent topic deleted, do we?
Reply #103. Feb 15 10, 6:14 AM
|
| 1cyprus
|
Drizzle, thats that wet rain:)
Gone off north from here, you may miss it.
Reply #104. Feb 15 10, 6:17 AM
|
| lesley153
|
Belated response to Cym #83 - they survive because they've adapted - short and stocky, with extra fat on their eyelids - but they don't do that well.
" TORONTO (Reuters) - The Inuit in Canada's far north have lifespans 12 to 15 years shorter than the average Canadian's, government data showed on Wednesday, putting the aboriginal people on a par with developing countries such as Guatemala and Mongolia.
" At 64 to 67 years, Inuit life expectancy "appears to have stagnated" between 1991 and 2001, and falls well short of Canada's average of 79.5 years, which has steadily risen, Statistics Canada said. "
 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2362426520080123
(Their life expectancy was often said to be between 35 and 45 years, but I think that's about 150 years out of date, when it probably had a lot to do with their mixing with Russians for the first time, and being exposed to unfamiliar illnesses.)
Reply #105. Feb 15 10, 7:06 AM
|
bubbatom1
|
Okay someone enlighten me. How can we have global warming when in the northern hemisphere the weather seems to be the same, as always, lots of snow and freezing cold. Here in Australia, the weather seems to have become the way it used to be. Lots of rain in the summer. Don't think that's supposed to happen if there is global warming, is it? I'm sure there is someone out there who would have a reason why we should have a "fear of global warming", but, I really think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Iced coffee is really nice if you don't want to add to the problems.
Reply #106. Feb 15 10, 7:10 AM
|
satguru
|
I'll follow Bob's advice not to get dragged in, but just to answer
"What exactly is your gripe Sat: that someone is making money out of climate change, that some research scientists bent the rules (nothing new there in research communities), that we are questioning your post"
1) A scientific proposal has to be proven before acted upon
2) A defendant in court (humanity in this case, the court the IPCC) must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt before being convicted and punished (taxed).
3) Taxing energy use can't reduce it but just means money is spent less on other things. People can't afford to freeze however good some think it is for the planet.
4) Trading carbon and carbon credits has no relation to anything besides moving cash from the people to the well off with a bit to charity to make it look good
5) Every actual fear is based on projections, mainly so far ahead none of us will ever be here to see if true or not.
6) Meanwhile billions are being diverted from genuine causes, malaria relief, raw sewage being pumped into the sea which is actually happening with real measurable causes etc
7) Would you like your bank to bend the rules when calculating your statement?
I could go on but these are the main ones I can think of for now.
Reply #107. Feb 15 10, 12:44 PM
|
satguru
|
Channe, Jonno's already echoed my own answer to you first, but will add that it really isn't scientific or logical to bundle in everything connected with pollution and the environment with global warming. The two are separate issues and only connected as the whole environmental movement has been deviously hijacked (ie by offering money to do GW research for their individual causes, this was openly admitted by the RSPB as being the way charities gain funds now) and in return they perpetuate whatever 'facts' they are encouraged to.
Scapegoating is one of the ugliest methods of political propaganda which has been used by totalitarian states and parties from the beginning of civilisation. Take any ill and bring it back to the scapegoat. But it's not helping any cause and only following what they hope people will do. Demonising the dissenters is not science, politics or aything else. If you have a good case you don't need to resort to dirty tricks. I'm not referring to you personally but they have caught you as you gave the perfect example of the phrase I hear from time to time.
Does anyone genuinely believe when they take time to stop and think about it that anyone who doesn't accept the case for AGW is also pro-pollution? Tragic.
Reply #108. Feb 15 10, 12:55 PM
|
| poneke
|
I remember in school geography classes learning about the different climate types experienced across the globe: tropical, temperate, etc.
Can I just say (as it is summer down under) that when I go outside between the hours of 10am to 4pm I need to apply spf30 sunblock. I actually need to do this for spring and summer as we have no ozone layer, so now it's half the year we have to be wary. Having spent time in the Northern Hemisphere summer, I was amazed at how being out in the sun, you don't get that 'tingly feeling' common down under(NZ and Oz).
I'm hoping readers will recall that the cause of this hole is the use of CFCs by industrialised nations in just about everything from hairspray to fridges.But not everybody has to deal with the consequences of their pollution...just us down under, with our highest skin cancer rates to back that up.
So, to answer the question 'what are people scared of happening?'
That Govt.and Big Business will hijack global concern for the environment, re-brand it as Global Warming; just to create a taxation scheme. Invent a problem(global warming)and present the solution as a tax?!As satguru stated:
"Trading carbon and carbon credits has no relation to anything besides moving cash from the people to the well off with a bit to charity to make it look good"....That's what I'm afraid of.
"Does anyone genuinely believe when they take time to stop and think about it that anyone who doesn't accept the case for AGW is also pro-pollution?"
No, but decision-makers like to muddy the waters and play to the lowest common denominator.EG: "Heck! You thought pollution was a problem, wait till I show you how hot it was in Eketahuna last Tuesday!" Pollution has been and will continue to be seen as a 'natural' consequence of human endeavour and protesters will be labelled, marginalised and demonised.I'm afraid *that* has got to stop.
Reply #109. Feb 15 10, 10:09 PM
|
channe
|
Hmm. I don't like being patronised any more than the next person so I'll be farewelling this thread. I'll go and put on some more sunblock so that the UV rays pelting down through the hole in the ozone layer don't fry me any further.
At least the breeze is cool today.
Reply #110. Feb 15 10, 11:47 PM
|
| 1cyprus
|
This is a very emotive subject, with many conflicting opinions, i guess dependant on what people have read/experienced.
It isn't surprising though as it is a complex subject, with many paradox's involved, eg GW could cause an ice age etc.
An example for you regarding your comment about the Ozone holes Channe...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica
The Ozone layer is repairing since the ban on CFC's, but this could lead to a big rise in temperature in Antartica.Which do we fear most, UV rays or a big rise in sea levels?
Reply #111. Feb 16 10, 12:13 AM
|
| s-m-w
|
Reading through this thread it seems obvious to me that some seem happy and content that they are right and others are so obviously wrong, and as I have said elsewhere we are not going to be here when the real proof becomes inescapable.... So party on guys and ignore away!
Reply #112. Feb 16 10, 2:34 AM
|
romeomikegolf
|
Steve, you know very well that statistics can prove anything.There are arguments both for and against global warming. Oops, we now have to call it 'climate change'.I'm a sceptic by nature (no pun intended). In the history of our planet there have been at least two big freezes, there was also a period of extreme heat. Was man around to cause those? Okay, we maybe be accelerating the move to the next climate problem, but are we fully responsible, or is it really part of a natural cycle?
Reply #113. Feb 16 10, 4:56 AM
|
| sherry75
|
In the case of where there is doubt, would generally try to err on the side of caution and stick to my moral responsibility. Absolutely none of us are going to be here to reap the harvest of what we are sowing now, so I for one will carry on my merry way and do what I can and join Channe.
Reply #114. Feb 16 10, 5:29 AM
|
| lesley153
|
Channe, please reconsider - it would be a shame to lose a passionate and articulate contributor.
Reply #115. Feb 16 10, 8:05 AM
|
rayven80
|
Climate changes have been occuring since the beginning of the world. I do think that man has assisted but not to the detremental degree a lot of people believe.
Reply #116. Feb 16 10, 10:19 AM
|
satguru
|
Channe, I'm not intending to patronise anyone any more than you were trying to patronise me. And if anyone does patronise me I just offer facts, I couldn't care less what they think of me personally.
Steve, if the consequences are after we're all gone it's no different than worrying about life after death. They've caught you all both ways as you lose if you do nothing (so they say) and lose if you don't as you'll never know the result. Pig in a poke situation if there ever was one.
But the economic cost of combatting climate change (their words, not mine) is already well known. Gradually people are becoming poorer as they are taxed above and beyond before. Money has been diverted from genuine causes and continuing to do so. Then the energy generation is being destroyed, coal and gas power is being demonised and closed down (not in China though), meaning it costs increasingly more to pay for what is now effectively rationed. Money is being thrown at 'alternative energy' even though as yet there officially is none. Wind and solar power are about as effective as putting your bulb in a lemon. Yes, it will work, but not quite as well as on the mains. The payback period for any of these alternatives is so far ahead and the cost per unit so much higher than current means they shouldn't be let near the public.
But the worst of all, worse than cancer, aids and anything else we can't stop by choice is nuclear power. Besides relying on uranium, which is a fuel like any other and limited to about 30 years according to the experts, if one single plant goes down (hardly unexpected if becomes widespread) unlike cancer and aids there is no treatment. It is one of the worst and most drawn out deaths known to life, and inevitable if fallout occurs.
The cost of storing and then decommissioning (ie cleaning) the sites afterwards makes it as expensive as solar or any other of the fringe methods. It's not an up front cost so hidden by most proponents, but our old ones here will be untouchable for 30 years after they close. The land will effectively be removed from the map. It does work in the short term but the potential danger and guaranteed rear-end costs make it like throwing the money away after potentially poisoning the land and possibly the people where they are built.
Therefore there is no actual fear involved with the consequences of global warming fear, as we know them and to me at least are far worse than simply dealing with a swing in temperature over an unspecified period within the range there's been since the earth had water on it. We can never get radiation from climate, disease, and any other of the four horsemen Al Gore loves to repeat ad nauseam. It's just a very slow and imperceptible change in more or less of what we have already. How anyone can be hypnotised into believing climate change can be any more than this shows more about human psychology than climate science.
Reply #117. Feb 16 10, 12:22 PM
|
REDVIKING57
|
David,I have no wish to patronise you,or anyone else,either. And I would never dream of denying you your opinions. But what "you offer" are not facts,but your interpretation of available information. Or,put another way,your opinions. Your opinions of 'alternative energy sources' are about 10 years out of date,in my opinion. Particularly the comparative economics. Shouldn't they be on a seperate,independant thread? Like a 'third front',alongside this thread and 'Climate Cheats'?
Reading your post #117,I thought I'd stumbled into The Twilight Zone.
Reply #118. Feb 16 10, 1:00 PM
|
fontenilles
|
"Reading through this thread it seems obvious to me that some seem happy and content that they are right and others are so obviously wrong, and as I have said elsewhere we are not going to be here when the real proof becomes inescapable.... So party on guys and ignore away!"
I agree with you smw - Party and have fun while we can :)Pity about our grandchildren tho!
Robin
Reply #119. Feb 16 10, 1:06 PM
|
Cymruambyth
|
1Cyprus, a major concern here in Canada is the decreasing amount of snowfall. In the past ten years the amount of snow on the prairies has decreased drastically. This may not seem like a problem to urban people, but on the prairies, we need snow to protect the top soil so that we can continue to be the bread basket of the world (the same thing is happening in Ukraine, the bread basket of Europe).
I find it interesting that on this thread most of the information and opinions from both sides of the debate is coming from urban people who do not live as close to the natural world as those who grow our food!
One cannot dismiss the evidence of human intervention on the climate of this planet, either. In the one hundred years between 1900 and 2000 the global population increased 500%, from 1.6 billion to 6.2 billion. If you compare the world to a room, you know perfectly well that a room designed to hold 20 people comfortably would rapidly become very uncomfortable if it was occupied by 100 people! It would be too hot, too noisy, too cramped.
We have seriously despoiled the rain forests of the Amazon in the search for arable land on which to grow food, we have drained swamps and marshes to build suburbs in North America, not only destroying wildlife habitat but also affecting the water tables. We have polluted the seas and rivers with our waste and inefficiency. We have drastically increased the amount of carbon emissions as we have come to rely more and more fossil-fuelled energy plants and vehicles. We have depleted fragile soils. We have covered billions of acres of arable farmland with asphalt and concrete. We no longer rely on food grown and produced close to home but import much of our foodstuffs. If I wanted to, in December I could buy strawberries grown in California, thousands of miles away, transported here by trucks that require highways and fossil fuels.
The aboriginal peoples of Canada have a saying "We do not own the land; we hold it in trust for our grandchildren." Would that the rest of us would cotton on to that idea and stop laying waste to the world.
Reply #120. Feb 16 10, 1:31 PM
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: