0
   

The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.

 
 
fresco
 
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:08 pm
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

According to this programme there are some political ulterior motives and sensationalist media driving some very bad science.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,843 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:11 pm
fresco-

As I know you are a man of science perhaps you might be good enough to inform us of the total amount of energy the earth receives, nett, from the sun in one day and also the total of energy obtained from that consumption of fossil fuels which takes place in the same time and thus comes to add to the former quantity.

Thanking you in anticipation etc.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:36 pm
Re: The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.
fresco wrote:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

According to this programme there are some political ulterior motives and sensationalist media driving some very bad science.


I don't know about political motives, or sensational media, but judging from the long term ice core evidence, it seems clear that the recent warming trend started long before we came along, and it's happened many times before. And every single time it happened before, it reached a certain level, and then crashed back down again.

Judging from the short term evidence, it seems clear that our industrial activities are probably exacerbating the long term trend. But to what degree is unclear. Adding a bucket of water to Naigra Falls also increases it's flow, but in the scheme of things...

I'm all in favor of cleaning up the environment as much as possible without derailing economies. "Leave only footprints, and take only pictures" is probably the best target to shoot for while still allowing ourselves to walk through the park, so to speak.

But regardless of whether our contributions to greenhouse gas are a drop in the bucket, or a torrent the result is probably inevitible; a collapse back into another period of glaciation. Based on previous climate behavior, it seems clear that hotter it gets, the sooner something is triggered which causes a strong return to glaciation.

If we had never been here the temp would probably rise slowly for 1000 years and then drop sharply for the next 50000 years.

If we pollute like crazy then temps might get to the trigger point in 500 years intead of 1000. Who knows. But either way, it's gonna hit the top, and it's gonna crash. It's just my gut feel, but I doubt any amount of greenhouse gas we can add to the atmosphere is going to overcome whetever event triggers a return to glaciation.

I think we should stop polluting as much as possible for a whole bunch of reasons. But I think no matter what we do, we're gonna have to learn to control the climate on this planet, or endure glaciations. Because right now, the way the continents are configured, the planet seems prone to glaciation more than the relative warmth we're accustomed to.

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6058/carbondioxidekz6.jpg

I have another thread related to this. I wanted the other thread to avoid the political arguments and focus on the data, which it seems to be doing pretty well with currently. This thread teases the political strings a bit more.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 03:51 pm
The greenies have been on about this for almost three decades.

The boffins have figured out how to make a dollar out of it.

Whoopee farquin doo. What are they proposing we actually do about it?

Go nuclear? Yeah, right.

Retards. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 04:01 pm
Re: The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.
fresco wrote:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

According to this programme there are some political ulterior motives and sensationalist media driving some very bad science.


In the nearest future Channel 4 will broadcast the Oscar-winning film by Gore as well (they've bought the exclusive rights for tv-broadcast).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 04:45 pm
Re: The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.
Walter Hinteler wrote:
In the nearest future Channel 4 will broadcast the Oscar-winning film by Gore as well (they've bought the exclusive rights for tv-broadcast).


I've seen Gore's film. It's a very good documentary, and he presents himself well. He makes a strong case for the fact that we are altering greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere. And he shows how lots of bad things (bad for current human civilization) can happen due to warming. But he doesn't really acknowledge the fact that things were gonna get warm anyway. All we're doing is speeding up the process.

That may not sound so bad, after all, things were gonna get warm anyway, but the faster climate change occurs, the more difficult, and more expensive, it will be for humans to cope with it.

I think the question is not whether we are contributing to warming (we are) or whether warming was inevitible anyway (it is). The better quesion is whether it's worth it economically and environmentally to reduce polution now to buy ourselves more time to adapt to the inevitible changes. Buying time to delay dealing with something costly is not a new idea, but I think it's been covered up here by the debate over whether warming is inevitible or not. Warming is probably inevitible, but the timeline while it wams is probably not.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:16 pm
It's hard to decide whether leaving the engines running all night with a brick on the accelerator and turning the central heating up full blast is more socially responsible than living in a cave eating seaweed.

On the one hand the former may prevent glaciation down to Mexico City and on the other the latter might bring it on.

Politicians are designed to make these fine judgements, after consulting with their scientific advisers, and what's the point in having them,the politicians I mean, bearing in mind all their negative aspects, if we have to do it for ourselves?

On with the motley.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:37 pm
Spendius,

Its a long time since I did A-level Physics and Chemistry. Shocked

I seem to recall Stefans Law involved with the suns energy, and the "Green Sites" will have some figures for energy consumption.
No doubt some hands on scientist here can answer the question.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:41 pm
Rosborne,

The political agenda involves both catching the "green vote" and keeping the "developing world" out of the competition.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 06:54 pm
Which should test their juggling skills I should think.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 07:40 pm
I sold all my carbon credits to Al Gore. I live under a bridge, have no clothes, no car, no possessions whatsoever, never go father from my bridge than I can walk, and eat sewage.

Al looks like he's having a pretty good life.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 07:56 pm
I'm actually thinking whatever the reason for global warming that actions taken now to reduce carbon emissions or recapture emissions and store them will be of benefit both economically socially and environmentally. Carbon storage can and already does generate environmentally responsible revenue. Reducing the use of non renewable materials (increased availability of timber). Pressure on populations to reduce consumption and emissions can be of benefit, making non reneweables available for longer.

I see it as win win regardless of the correctness of the science.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 07:57 pm
You need to get off the island first.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 08:02 pm
fresco wrote:
Rosborne,

The political agenda involves both catching the "green vote" and keeping the "developing world" out of the competition.


If you say so.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:28 am
rosborne,

Those political claims were made in the programme. I concur with the first
but the second may only be an inference based on the "political logic" of self interest.

The link to the Channel 4 forum provides some interesting comment.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 07:55 am
Oh man..... that one's gonna cost me!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 08:59 am
One must try to remember that the programme is entertainment designed to bring viewers into the proper location to see the adverts between which it is sandwiched and to allow them to think they have gravitas whilst sat on their idle fat backsides farting on the spot.

As with all advanced programming the content is designed to flatter the viewers sense of self worth in as many facets as possible and enable him to go out into social discourse armed with all the apperturances of superiority and assurance.

He can even talk authoritatively about the "earth" as if it was a marble in his hand.

Unlike televised sporting events on which discerning viewers place wagers, and where they are humbled somewhat more often than they are reassured, the advanced programming offers a continuous rise in self-estimation which can remain profitable for ever and ever providing one avoids the company of those with a more jaundiced view of contemporary life.

This is easily achieved but A2K is not the best place because the whole wide world, which they say is round, is listening rather that just those in one's immediate circles.

As Yossarian didn't say but well might- "You are going to get screwed though."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2007 01:30 am
From "Letters" in today's The Observer (not online, copied/pasted)

http://i18.tinypic.com/2dils2g.jpg

Quote:
Robin McKie, your veteran science editor, was quite right to criticise the Channel 4 programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle (Comment, last week). This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement.

The physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood: water vapour in the atmosphere, and to a lesser extent naturally occurring carbon dioxide, warms the planet by about 30C. Humans are adding to the amount of carbon dioxide and, by the same physics, warming the planet further.

Other factors do affect our climate, such as variations in the sun's energy and volcanic eruptions and we do not dismiss them. But their net effect is small. The observed warming has been caused predominantly by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.

Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council
Brian Hoskins, University of Reading
Jo Haigh, Imperial College London
Myles Allen, University of Oxford
Peter Cox, University of Exeter
Colin Prentice QUEST Programme
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2007 06:38 am
I had to flush my low flow toilet three times... is that bad?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2007 08:23 am
cjhsa wrote:
I had to flush my low flow toilet three times... is that bad?


The effects of Global Flushing have not been determined yet. But Al Gore is working on a new film called An Inconvenient Flush.

Meanwhile congress is debating bills about **** (nothing new), and peopple are flushing as they see fit (also nothing new).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2022 at 11:16:01