Support global warming!
This seems like something that must have been posted before but since it doesn't show up as GC and I got it from my father, a.k.a. mr. "haha, it looks like she is kissing a glass cock!!1" I'm going to assume it hasn't.
(
DaSchop gippie, Sun 11 Mar 2007, 22:28,
Reply)
christ
Yeah, what a massive load of arse.
(
morrybyte made a subtle namechange at, Sun 11 Mar 2007, 23:09,
Reply)
I dont have a spare hour
could you summarise for me?
Are they just saying that change in global climate is a natural thing, and that therefore it would be happening as is without our input?
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:02,
Reply)
something along those lines
"there is no clear evidence", and the top theories (including the fact that CO2 affects climate change) are wrong, that it's all lies, and that there is no scientific basis, all said by wierd people no one has ever heard of. Who claim to be the rightuous not-lying people. "We believe in Global warming but not that it is manmade".
HOW MUCH CLEARER DO YOU WANT IT with CO2 levels higher than ever and almost direct correlation to the rise and fall in temperatures with CO2 levels. Crazy storms, massively expanding deserts and the last years being the hottest in history are a clear sign that something is happening which is NOT in the normal temperature cycle. The reason we're not all roasting yet is because of dust particles ironically caused by pollution reflecting the sun rays, in part. But there has to be more and more smog for this to work, which is surely not the viable option!
(
morrybyte made a subtle namechange at, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:24,
Reply)
Yes, there is global warming.
But in order to make the evidence for it being caused by industrialisation more compelling, the Stern Report ignores certain climate aberrations from the past. We know there was a period of much colder weather in Europe in the middle ages, for example, and this was ignored in order to flatten out the pre-inductrial part of the temperature curve.
If glaringly obvious massaging of the stats is being done to make the figures fit the hypothesis, this is bad science. I'm not suggesting that industrialisation isn't responsible for global warming, but by cooking to book to "prove" that it is, the Stern Report is bad science, and it can fuck off.
(
no cake for the impuritay Patrick Stewart hasn't aged since, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:45,
Reply)
I think
that global climate change is a natural thing, and would indeed be happening even if there were no industry.
However, I think that we are having an influence by changing the chemistry in the atmosphere and on land. I fear our input may have damaged/weakened feedback mechanisms that keep climate in check, and now we may face "run-away" climate change.
I think it would be wise to limit the effect we have on atmospheric chemistry, and so I support reducing output of CO2 and other climate effecting chemicals.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:53,
Reply)
the stern report isn't the only piece of science on the subject though
I understand that the effect may have been exaggerated, but I definitely believe we are, at least in part, responsible for this - bad science comes with every big thing as people try to seek recognition in some way. The guys in the program are just desperate to get on TV or something, and there's people like that on both sides.
And frankly I'd rather be wrong and action has been taken to curb CO2 etc output, than be right and no one cares until it's too late.
As far as flattening the results go, I agree that that is a load of shit and just confuses people. There is still a general trend there, and it goes up sharply after WWII. It wasn't even necessary to flatten out the results there.
(
morrybyte made a subtle namechange at, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 11:41,
Reply)
Nope, we're all pretty much fucked.
The latest thinking is that, indeed, global warming is a several thousand year cycle from ice-age through intense heat and weather conditions back to ice-age.
The fact that it's getting hotter consistently doesn't make for global warming. During history, in England, the temperature was such that the Thames would freeze over. At other times England was covered in grape vines due to the heat (this is where Vineyard Avenues or Streets come from). I personally don't remember the correct dates, but they were around 1800 and 1600 respectively.
Then there is the fact that 80% of the CO2 in the increase every year is from plants. Plants have to respire, like us, and then they make O2 in photosynthesis. 30% of trees are now producing more CO2 than O2,for no reason we have discovered yet (to my knowledge). Phytoplankton produce upwards of 75% of all O2, yet there is no effort I've heard of that is screaming 'Save the plankton!'
AND (to end my little rant so I can go back lurking) if we did stop all production of CO2 today, in this very hour, would you think it would help?
This is a very apathetic way of looking at the problem, but seriously, this cycle - whether we started it or we sped it up, or if it's just happening - IS going on, and there is pretty much nothing that we can do to stop it or slow it down.
But no, there must be something we can do, right? Like in the movies? Or... or... like, superman, or something? ;)
(
Pointy Head poked another hole in my anorak on, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 12:56,
Reply)
Just because
levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases correlate with rising GMST (global mean surface temperature) it does not mean they have caused the temperature increase. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. Studies of ice age temperature variations have shown carbon dioxide levels increase AFTER warming rather than before. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is pretty damn small, just 0.04% of the Earths total atmosphere. The present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are estimated to be 375 p.p.m. (parts per million) – yet the Earth has been frozen with much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; during the Ordovician period the Earth was in an ice age with atmospheric CO2 estimated at 4,400 p.p.m! There is a far greater chance that our Sun, which is the size of 1,206,885 Earths is causing any climate change, rather than 0.04% of our atmosphere. The whole climate debate has become way too political. Get some perspective.
*goes back to lurking on the board*
(, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 12:17, Reply)
Oooh ace,
I missed this.
Ta for posting!
I will watch this tomorrow.
(
Major Turd for tonight only, Sun 11 Mar 2007, 23:22,
Reply)
yes theres evidence against it
but theres a whole lot more for it.
(
Arsonade is saving up for a new box of hummus, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 2:22,
Reply)
More evidence isn't necessarily better evidence.
I thought this was pretty thought provoking.
I'd also suggest the media feeding frenzy has been a huge hindrance, as usual.
(
Syncubus Yarr! Ye'll be walking Planck's Constant! [GMT-5], Mon 12 Mar 2007, 4:26,
Reply)
A friend of mine
is doing her PhD in media coverage of climate change.
She would agree with you.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:00,
Reply)
media-frenzy a hindrance, yes
but I think the evidence for human-caused climate change - even if it is only in part - is bigger and better. Even if our role isn't the big one in this, we might as well try to slow the process down by reducing our emissions.
/green blog
(
morrybyte made a subtle namechange at, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:37,
Reply)
At what economic scale
compared to the amount of good we could do with those funds in other projects?
Carbon Dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. (%0.5-ish) What tiny percentage of that percentage do you want to throw trillions of dollars at to reduce it by an even tinier fraction?
(
Syncubus Yarr! Ye'll be walking Planck's Constant! [GMT-5], Mon 12 Mar 2007, 16:42,
Reply)