By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, hence my use of "thought to be" i.e. the current consensus, based on the scientific method which enables further research to disprove or progress the debate
Indeed. Problem being that in the main, scientists not working for the big institutions getting millions in research funding are having their work shunned and ignored because the results are not what the establishment want to see.
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
1
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 13:39 - Oct 10 with 1554 views
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 13:19 - Oct 10 by DorsetDale
I was thinking more in terms of the subject of this thread. When was the last time you saw any kind of factual debate in the mainstream, especially bbc? The last person to argue against global warming (now called climate change because there's been no warming for 20 years!) was David Bellamy - remember him? At the time he was the go to scientist on the bbc and cherished by many. His voice was quashed instead of debated and he left these shores for Australia.
Ok, you know what i meant - remove excess carbon that is thought to be a major contributor to global warming
[Post edited 10 Oct 2019 13:09]
And therein lie the problems " thought to be" and what constitutes "excess", If man contributes 3% pa to a level of 415m ppm, how much of that 3% is the developed world responsible for 1 maybe 2 ppm? Why isnt the stinky rebellion mob protesting in China or Africa, places that account for over 80% of the 3%? And what if we cut CO2 levels and then we find that plants start to die and cant survive or simply that harvests become smaller... followed by the loss of insects that depend on the plants, not to mention the starvation of billions? Who do you trust to make those decisions? Dont forget, once upon a time the "settled science" was that the Sun rotated around the Earth, indeed Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for repeating Copernicus' theory that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. And Al Gore told us Polar Bears would now be extinct...Oops.
And therein lie the problems " thought to be" and what constitutes "excess", If man contributes 3% pa to a level of 415m ppm, how much of that 3% is the developed world responsible for 1 maybe 2 ppm? Why isnt the stinky rebellion mob protesting in China or Africa, places that account for over 80% of the 3%? And what if we cut CO2 levels and then we find that plants start to die and cant survive or simply that harvests become smaller... followed by the loss of insects that depend on the plants, not to mention the starvation of billions? Who do you trust to make those decisions? Dont forget, once upon a time the "settled science" was that the Sun rotated around the Earth, indeed Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for repeating Copernicus' theory that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. And Al Gore told us Polar Bears would now be extinct...Oops.
All excellent points, but i assume your "don't forget" isn't specifically directed to me but to those who have forgotten
And therein lie the problems " thought to be" and what constitutes "excess", If man contributes 3% pa to a level of 415m ppm, how much of that 3% is the developed world responsible for 1 maybe 2 ppm? Why isnt the stinky rebellion mob protesting in China or Africa, places that account for over 80% of the 3%? And what if we cut CO2 levels and then we find that plants start to die and cant survive or simply that harvests become smaller... followed by the loss of insects that depend on the plants, not to mention the starvation of billions? Who do you trust to make those decisions? Dont forget, once upon a time the "settled science" was that the Sun rotated around the Earth, indeed Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for repeating Copernicus' theory that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. And Al Gore told us Polar Bears would now be extinct...Oops.
Even for a dyed in the wool climate change denier, I would hope that the idea of continuing to burn finite fossil fuels, needless single use packaging and wanton pollution and destruction of nature are bad ideas.
Exploring alternative fuel sources, recycling and not shitting on your own doorstep by deforestation, landfill, dumping crap into oceans should be common sense?... They're not exactly radical ideas.
I think ER are fighting a losing battle as the UK alone (or any similar sized developed economy) wouldn't make much of a dent on a global scale. Disrupting the average joe going about their work day doesn't exactly win a battle of hearts and minds.
I guess the idea is that if they force the UK/US/EU and other developed economies play by the "rules" then we'd make China/Russia/India do the same. I can't see that happening though. That said I don't understand why there's an argument that just because XYZ-istan doesn't do something neither should we.
Bury don't pay their players on time, neither should Dale. Bolton don't play all their games, neither should Dale.
And therein lie the problems " thought to be" and what constitutes "excess", If man contributes 3% pa to a level of 415m ppm, how much of that 3% is the developed world responsible for 1 maybe 2 ppm? Why isnt the stinky rebellion mob protesting in China or Africa, places that account for over 80% of the 3%? And what if we cut CO2 levels and then we find that plants start to die and cant survive or simply that harvests become smaller... followed by the loss of insects that depend on the plants, not to mention the starvation of billions? Who do you trust to make those decisions? Dont forget, once upon a time the "settled science" was that the Sun rotated around the Earth, indeed Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for repeating Copernicus' theory that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. And Al Gore told us Polar Bears would now be extinct...Oops.
There is no way that we're ever going to reduce CO2 to levels plants can't thrive. Also, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas - methane, generated by animals (belching and farting) is just as damaging. And the link you posted before about H2O being a "greenhouse gas" further supports global warming. Air is getting warmer as the planet gets warmer. It can carry more water because it is warmer. Wash, rinse, repeat. Expect more flooding, monsoons and drought in different areas. Try telling a plant that there's more CO2 around so it should be happy in those circumstances.
As for the assertion that more CO2 is good for plants:
"We do not yet know enough to make adequate projections of the global trends for plant life in a world with higher levels of carbon dioxide, or CO2. It is clear, however, that there can be both positive and negative responses. One of the first things taught in biology class is that animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2, while plants take in CO2 during the day and release oxygen. In a process called “photosynthesis,” plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugar and oxygen. The plants use the sugar for food–food that we use, too, when we eat plants or animals that have eaten plants – and they release the oxygen into the atmosphere. If it were not for plants, we would have no oxygen in our air! So, if we’re putting more CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, you might expect plants to grow better. But the story is not quite that simple. When biologists have grown crops like wheat, soybeans, and rice inside greenhouses with extra CO2 present, the plants have indeed grown more rapidly and more abundantly. For the past several years, scientists all over the world have also been doing a series of experiments called “Free-Air Concentration Enrichment,” or FACE. Instead of using greenhouses, they grow crops in open fields to give them the most natural environment possible and pump in extra CO2 from a network of pipes. The results of these experiments have shown that the crops do not thrive as well in this environment. Plants do need CO2, but they also need water, nitrogen, and other nutrients. Increase one of these without increasing the others and there’s a limit to how much the plants will benefit. Some do not grow much more at all. Others, like wheat, grow bigger but end up with less nitrogen. As a result, insects end up eating more to get the nitrogen they need. The nutritional value of food plants would be similarly reduced for other animals – including humans. Also, we could end up with vegetables that have too much carbon – perhaps producing spinach that would be very tough to chew!"
This isn't hearsay, supposition or projection, it's based on real data from studies.
Does objective truth even exist anymore within the climate change sphere? I honestly believe that all of the numbers are manipulated in some way, shape or form (and no, that's not to say I am a denier or otherwise). At this point, most of the research just feels like agenda driven, points scoring and I couldn't give a shiny shite anymore. Praying for the day that a meteor wipes us out like it did to Mr T. Rex and friends
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 14:45 - Oct 10 with 1427 views
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 13:19 - Oct 10 by DorsetDale
I was thinking more in terms of the subject of this thread. When was the last time you saw any kind of factual debate in the mainstream, especially bbc? The last person to argue against global warming (now called climate change because there's been no warming for 20 years!) was David Bellamy - remember him? At the time he was the go to scientist on the bbc and cherished by many. His voice was quashed instead of debated and he left these shores for Australia.
The global temperature’s been rising at an increasingly fast rate since the 60s...
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 14:50 - Oct 10 with 1407 views
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 14:36 - Oct 10 by JimmyRustler
Does objective truth even exist anymore within the climate change sphere? I honestly believe that all of the numbers are manipulated in some way, shape or form (and no, that's not to say I am a denier or otherwise). At this point, most of the research just feels like agenda driven, points scoring and I couldn't give a shiny shite anymore. Praying for the day that a meteor wipes us out like it did to Mr T. Rex and friends
But not before they'd stormed the charts in the early 70s
I'm not just referring to myself, but to anyone who is able to review sufficient evidence and/or opinions to make a considered judgement on individual matters of interest. It might even include yourself
I wouldn't dream of bunching together people with specific views though, and calling them "thick as fook"
DAlien, your views with regards to Brexit focus upon your belief that it’s institutions are overly bureaucratic, outdated and somehow hinder our economy. When asked to provide specific examples that inform this opinion, you never provide one. You speculate that we will benefit from Brexit in about 20 years or so. When asked what informs this speculation, you resort to hubris. You even once suggested that remainers were just self interested capitalists. This is not reviewing sufficient evidence and/or opinions and making a considered judgment. There’s nothing independent minded about this view whatsoever. You’re perfectly entitled to it but don’t try and give it some intellectual merit.
DAlien, your views with regards to Brexit focus upon your belief that it’s institutions are overly bureaucratic, outdated and somehow hinder our economy. When asked to provide specific examples that inform this opinion, you never provide one. You speculate that we will benefit from Brexit in about 20 years or so. When asked what informs this speculation, you resort to hubris. You even once suggested that remainers were just self interested capitalists. This is not reviewing sufficient evidence and/or opinions and making a considered judgment. There’s nothing independent minded about this view whatsoever. You’re perfectly entitled to it but don’t try and give it some intellectual merit.
[Post edited 10 Oct 2019 14:55]
I also told you my ultimate decision to vote Leave was based on a gut instinct, which even though tic you derided, without reviewing the evidence on the extensive neurochemical links between the brain and the gut; but i'll forgive you, since it's only been fully explored scientifically fairly recently
Jesus Christ this is a depressing paragraph, a real-life example of how a large proportion of society are no longer interested in facts, and will simply believe what makes them feel comfortable/ exonerate them of responsibility.
1 - Man-made climate change is absolutely real. You don’t have to be a climatologist to know this, you just have to listen to the overwhelming majority of expert opinion. Similarly if a series of doctors told you you had a disease, would you believe them? or because you didn’t like their diagnosis would you consult with a witch-doctor?
2- Nobody has “rolled out” Greta Thunberg as a spokesman. As a schoolgirl she started a global movement - a fairly impressive feat. The fact that middle-aged men want to comment on her social skills is absolutely laughable, she’s already achieved more in her life than most people ever will.
3 - ’They’ have “rolled out” a ”gang of scientists”, but some people, like yourself seems to have had enough of the experts. I’m not sure if you follow the news much (I.e not your Facebook feed, or crack-pot YouTube channels) but gangs of scientists have been releasing research papers on this for about 30 years.
[Post edited 10 Oct 2019 7:52]
1. It’s my understanding that some scientists say it hasn’t been brought about by us and the Earth heats up and cools down in cycles. Don’t know whether that’s true either as I said I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject.
2.being lecture to by a bizarre 16 year old scandi chick is weird. I’m not middle aged I’m ten years older then Greta.
3. I don’t know why you’re taking hindrance to the term “rolled out” or “gang of scientists” I merely said I’m not convinced. Basically because I don’t know enough about the subject.
Note the correlation between supporters of Trump, Brexit, and deniers of climate change?
A good take on this that I read argues that these issues all speak to the divide between liberal, facts-based, outward-looking individuals and conservative feelings-based inwards looking individuals.
e.g.
Climate change - Outward: "The scientific consensus is really worrying as it looks like we're on a really damaging path" Inward: "Scientists/news are always going on about the end of the world, nothing's ever happened to me. Could do with a bit of warming here right now!"
Brexit - Outward: "If we have No-Deal, it's probably going to be massively damaging to parts of the economy and harm the UK's long-term prospects" Inward: " My job's gonna be ok / I have a fat guaranteed pension, and the news is always full of lies anyway"
Why this is happening?
- demographic shift due to ageing population - rise in dissatisfaction of the way and speed society is changing (anti-neo liberalism) - rise in nationalism as memories of the devastation of WWII fades - Poorer scientific literacy and increasing distrust of experts.
And what I personally think are the most salient reasons... - Easier to live in self-reinforcing (social) media bubble bereft of scrutiny - Tools for societal manipulation getting cheaper, better understood and can be deployed from anywhere. - Disneyfication of politics - the lower common denominator story is easily understood and travels well. Think unsubstantiated clickbait and sensationalist headlines.
Yeah Except nobody here has denied climate change have they? I did make a corny joke about needing global warming to defrost my car though so you’ve got me there. We get it though a personage of a conservative bent is an ignorant inward looking cretin. If anything I think it’s bizzare how the issue of climate change has become another front on which the culture war is being fought
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 16:26 - Oct 10 with 1292 views
Yeah Except nobody here has denied climate change have they? I did make a corny joke about needing global warming to defrost my car though so you’ve got me there. We get it though a personage of a conservative bent is an ignorant inward looking cretin. If anything I think it’s bizzare how the issue of climate change has become another front on which the culture war is being fought
That post was largely borrowed from another article I read so It wasn't aimed at you.
I'm sorry if you're offended (though I don't know why) but I haven't resorted to calling anyone a cretin.
As for no denials on this thread I've spotted a few just on a quick glance.
49thseason “climate change is a hoax” 21:01 9/10/19
kiwidale “That would be me.” [in response to Shun’s “you aren’t convinced that climate change is real?”] 21:24 9/10/19
DorsetDale “…There’s been no warming since 1998…” “…greater concentration of CO2 the better it is for life - animals and plants - to thrive.” 13:24 10/10/19
1
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 17:02 - Oct 10 with 1243 views
FWIW I think the majority of the public, like the majority of scientists, believe in manmade climate change.
Most people want to do their bit to improve things but really what can the average person actually do that they aren't already without significantly worsening their quality of life in the short term?
The solutions aren't realistic or accessible unless you've got loads of money or time on your hands.
I relied on public transport for work for about 12months but I was late all the time so that didn't work in the real-world.
I could get an electric car. But then I'd have to spend a lot more money on it than my current car. I'd need to plan out my journeys and where I charge it and inconvenience myself vs my petrol car.
I could go an shop at the local zero-plastic eco friendly hippy grocery store. But then I'd pay about 3x the price for my food than I do in Aldi.
Most of us are hypocritical to some extent on this matter.
1
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 17:17 - Oct 10 with 1227 views
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 17:02 - Oct 10 by Ancoats_Blue
FWIW I think the majority of the public, like the majority of scientists, believe in manmade climate change.
Most people want to do their bit to improve things but really what can the average person actually do that they aren't already without significantly worsening their quality of life in the short term?
The solutions aren't realistic or accessible unless you've got loads of money or time on your hands.
I relied on public transport for work for about 12months but I was late all the time so that didn't work in the real-world.
I could get an electric car. But then I'd have to spend a lot more money on it than my current car. I'd need to plan out my journeys and where I charge it and inconvenience myself vs my petrol car.
I could go an shop at the local zero-plastic eco friendly hippy grocery store. But then I'd pay about 3x the price for my food than I do in Aldi.
Most of us are hypocritical to some extent on this matter.
You’re absolutely right, the deeds of you and me recycling and conserving power won’t make a bit of difference. That’s why people like Greta are lobbying world leaders. She’s only 16 and she’s already smart enough to realise the only way to make real change is to target countries’ leaders, make their inhabitants feel ashamed of them to the point where they might actually do something, such as put real protections in place for one of the most important areas on Earth - the Amazon rainforest.
Indeed. Problem being that in the main, scientists not working for the big institutions getting millions in research funding are having their work shunned and ignored because the results are not what the establishment want to see.
You don't think the likes of Exxon, BP and Shell wouldn't spend vast amounts to disprove human influenced climate change
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
