Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:47 am  

rover49 wrote:

So, the written words of those who believe we caused global warming are the only ones to be believed, there are lots of scientists who believe the human influence is overstated, mainly by politicians who want to fleece us in green taxes and government funded scientists who would get sod all if they bucked the trend.

I think if you bother going and looking, near enough all the scientists who say it's nothing to do with us are working for, or funded by, the people who we're accusing of causing the damage.
I think the phrase is "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?".

I'm pretty sure that most of the early doubters have since crossed over to believing that it's our fault though - or that was the last thing I read on the subject.

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:53 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

2) Don't lie to people about the cost involved in CO2 reduction. If you want to achieve real reductions in emissions under currently available technology then tell the truth - you are staring at massive real increases in electricity, oil and gas costs.

Perhaps it's time to compare the cost of stopping global warming (which I don't believe to be possible simply by reducing emissions, and without a "positive" action as well/instead) with the cost of accepting and coping with global warming.

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:29 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

5) Don't put nuclear power off the agenda if carbon reduction is your objective. It is the only currently viable technology able to replace significant carbon emmitting baseload plant.

Nuclear power can be counted as a carbon reduction option ONLY if you consider plant emissions during the first twenty five years of its lifetime. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to consider the amount of carbon that goes into the enormously expensive processes of uranium mining, refinement, plant construction (using some of the most expensive and highly engineered materials on earth) & decommissioning (anywhere up to 100 years). Then there are the estimated 200,000 years throughout which high-level nuclear waste must be kept safe (not to mention the one billion year plus years for ultra-high level waste).

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:32 am  

cod'ead wrote: And then there's Delingpole I prefer George Carlin's view - the earth does not give a poop about global warming, in a few hundred thousand years it will shake off our transgressions. Life will begin anew and it won't include us. The earth only brought us forth to create plastic, which it thinks is cool Some good footage on that tube thingy.

cod'ead wrote: And then there's Delingpole I prefer George Carlin's view - the earth does not give a poop about global warming, in a few hundred thousand years it will shake off our transgressions. Life will begin anew and it won't include us. The earth only brought us forth to create plastic, which it thinks is cool Some good footage on that tube thingy.

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:40 am  

Richie wrote:

Perhaps it's time to compare the cost of stopping global warming (which I don't believe to be possible simply by reducing emissions, and without a "positive" action as well/instead) with the cost of accepting and coping with global warming.

I don't think you're quite getting this. Guys like David Wasdell, James Hansen etc. (who are nowhere near the most extreme end of the global warming argument) aren't just talking about a couple of degrees giving us all a nice Mediterranean climate in which we can make a bundle off growing oranges. They are talking about runaway global warming and catastrophic damage to the environment. It's like saying we should learn to cope with the comet that killed off the dinosaurs.

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:50 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I don't think you're quite getting this. Guys like David Wasdell, James Hansen etc. (who are nowhere near the most extreme end of the global warming argument) aren't just talking about a couple of degrees giving us all a nice Mediterranean climate in which we can make a bundle off growing oranges. They are talking about runaway global warming and catastrophic damage to the environment. It's like saying we should learn to cope with the comet that killed off the dinosaurs.

It needs to be looked at.

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:57 am  

rover49 wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

:FRUSRATED:

Do some reading, FFS.

So, the written words of those who believe we caused global warming are the only ones to be believed, there are lots of scientists who believe the human influence is overstated, mainly by politicians who want to fleece us in green taxes and government funded scientists who would get sod all if they bucked the trend.

It's actually a very tiny percentage of scientists who don't believe man's contribution to climate change is significant. Just about every national science academy in the world is on board - are you suggesting it's some sort of global conspiracy?

[Kosh]

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:07 pm  

rover49 wrote:

If the human race had never happened, the earth would still be going through its current phase of warming up, it did it before we were here and it will do it long after we are gone.

Wrong. It might well be going through a warming phase but not of the magnitude we are seeing now.

[Kosh]

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:09 pm  

rover49 wrote:

there are lots of scientists who believe the human influence is overstated

No there aren't. There are a relative handful and, oddly, a large number of them turn out to be funded by the carbon industries.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Possible temp rise of 3 degrees before 2050 : Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:31 pm  

Kosh wrote:

No there aren't. There are a relative handful and, oddly, a large number of them turn out to be funded by the carbon industries.

Aye. There's a plausible argument that people think there are as many because public broadcast news stories require 'balance', and the rest of the media is effectively for sale.