As I said in my post - I'm not for or against in the Global Warming. For many years I've not trusted the media or politicians. We never hear what's true, we hear the agendas.
I've heard plenty about oil companies suppressing alternative fuel research, but again - how do we know we can trust those?
The only thing I can do is go on the evidence I can observe. If I spend a few days in London and blow my nose, the resultant "mess" is almost black. When I'm at home (not in a city) it's not black. That's something (admittedly unsavoury ) I can see, so I'll lean in favour of being greener where I can.
Hear hear. The trouble we have currently is that disagreeing with what is claimed about global warming is a great way to get burned at the stake.
It seems to me that a theory MUST be flaky if you aren't allowed to question it because that is what science is all about. You prove a theory by trying to prove it wrong, if it stands up then it may be right.
The following may be of interest, the campfire theory is the current thermonuclear view of stars.
"Meanwhile astronomers discovered that the Sun is an amazingly complex magnetic body — while campfires are not noted for their magnetism. So heroic attempts have been made to conjure up a "dynamo" inside the Sun to match its weird magnetic behaviour. Not surprisingly, all attempts have failed. It is simply assumed there must be a hidden dynamo because the magnetic fields are there and no one believes they could come from outside the Sun. The mysteriously generated magnetic fields are called upon to explain most of the puzzling observations about the Sun. It fits the astrophysicists' maxim, "when we don't understand something, we blame it on magnetism." They then show their ignorance of magnetism by describing electric discharge phenomena in terms of the 'snapping' and 'reconnection' of imaginary field lines. The father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, wrote concerning the mistreatment of magnetism by astrophysicists, "Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group." The view of the Sun as an isolated, self-sufficient, self-immolating, magnetic body is the chief peculiarity and drawback of the campfire Sun.
But the refutation of this theory blazes down on us in plain view. Nothing seen on or above the Sun conforms to the "campfire" model!
—the odd solar magnetic field, the remarkable photospheric granulation, dark sunspots, the filamentary sunspot penumbrae, the sunspot cycle, the variation of rotation rate across the surface and with depth, the blisteringly hot corona above a cool photosphere (like boiling the kettle on a cold campfire), the solar flares and coronal mass ejections, the acceleration of the solar wind.
Simply put, we do not understand the Sun. And if we do not understand the Sun we have no basis for understanding its influence on the Earth's climate."
hey, my personal view on global warming is that none of the stuff that is happening is our (humans) fault. In the past there has been much worse than this and the weather has been warmer and nothing big has happend to the sea level. Many people think it is carbon dioxide creating what we call the green house gas, but how can it if in the past there has been worse things happen with tempretures rising and nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
we r studying this in this school and it could aslo depend on sun spots and the were abouts of the earth so in my opinion it is just a natural cause of life!
Here's a CO2 cake-graph thingy I just came across (data is for Germany 2004).
blue: power plants
green: industry
yellow: cars
red: household
grey: other transportation
One thing I'm not entirely sure about is which group delivery trucks are in. They could be in either industry or other transportation.
To me it shows pretty clearly that shutting down nuclear power plants is an option that should never have even been considered. Or if you do think it's a good idea then at least STFU about cars and go live in the woods. Even if every single car in the whole country was a Prius what would it change? PKW from 12 to 9 %?
Similar it is to our country too, energy production is perhaps bit bigger share, but sure cars are very small part and even if we would stop driving completely it would not show any difference in global point of view.
Guess that US and russian industry should be first one to cut their emissions to really make a difference. But I have no graphs from rest of world, so there can be much important areas.
But put that graph into its proper context, all this man-made stuff accounts for less than 2% of the total global CO2 contribution, so any one section on its own is pretty negligible in the big scale of things isn't it? The whole man-made pie-chart accounts for only a tiny fraction of the earth's natural CO2 level. A half a degree rise in ambient temperature over a 5 year period is well within the normal fluctuation limits of the plant and far less than earlier trends in both heating and cooling that the earth has experienced way before we had politicians, environmental lobbyists, stretch Hummers or international air transport.
Do you have some exact data on this? Since when have CO2 levels been increasing? Which changes happened during this time that cause 50 times the amount of CO2 that man is adding to the atmosphere to be added by natural means?
I'd look at it more from the side that burning coal is bad rather than that nuclear power plants are good. But in a way they are good yes. Afterall, we all want to get our power from somwhere and the amount of us isn't getting any smaller either.
Do you think burning coal is a GOOD thing? You're probably going to answer that you like solar and wind power better but that's just a cop out. Solar and wind power can't deliver enough power with current technology. Full stop.
No, not good, but better than nuclear power (by far)... If I were to choose between producing CO2 or polluting everything with radioactivity for millions of years, I'd go for the greenhouse, thanks...
Yes, imagine how small share our traffic is, it is around 10% from that Finland's bar now scale that to proper context and it is so small that it surely has no meaning if we drive our cars or if not, but still we are pushed to direction to buy new car that produces less CO2, why? What is real reason behind this?
Hmmmm, it usually pays to ask the question - who is going to make money from it ?.
The following article may be of interest.
Global Warming On The Ropes
Hysteria of climate cult begins to look increasingly inane
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, March 19, 2007
The religion of man-made global warming has encountered a fierce backlash in recent weeks, partly as a result of Martin Durkin's excellent "Swindle" documentary, but also as a consequence of the sheer hysteria warming advocates are forced to attach their argument to when self-evident facts are in short supply.
A case in point was presidential candidate John Edward's screed last week, in which he said that global warming would make world war look like heaven. It being highly unlikely that Edwards fought in either of last century's world wars, he can only be fixing his premonition around an expected casualty figure of over 19 million human deaths as a result of a short term temperature increase.
The ironic truth, as highlighted in the "Swindle" documentary, is that Western enforced caps on carbon emissions, which are uniformly ignored by India and China, are preventing poverty stricken third world nations from achieving development by cutting off access to their huge natural resources. The measures employed to supposedly fight the negative impact of man-made global warming are in fact inflicting more death and disease on those already ravaged by famine and squalor.
Martin Durkin left a sufficient gap between his documentary and his next public statement to allow the frothing and maniacal vitriol to spew forth from the establishment left, aghast that their precious belief system had been challenged by sober evidence impenetrable by public relations stunts, rock concerts and photos of polar bears supposedly stranded on icebergs.
His response, carried by the Telegraph, noted with surprise not the volume of the attacks but their consistently feeble premise, including charges that Durkin had used an incorrect temperature graph when the program used the same one as the darlings of the climate cult, the IPCC.
"Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong," concludes Durkin.
Another would-be President and establishment kingpin of the man-made circus, Al Gore, today appears before the Energy and Commerce Committee on Capitol Hill to make his case for further control freak measures to be clamped on our behavior in the name of saving mother earth.
Gore will face some very interesting questions and his reaction will go a long way to judging the real agenda behind the climate crowd.
"How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?"
"Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)"
Gore is likely to try and evade the second question because any specific response will put him firmly in the same camp as the Dr. Pianka's of the world, who have openly advocated genocide to forcibly reduce world's population to a fraction of its current level.
The orthodoxy took another blow over the weekend when two of its own adherents, Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, warned their own choir to stop preaching doomsday scenarios about global warming, recognizing that the hysteria has eroded a lot of credibility the man-made camp had built.
This admonition came too late because the fallacy of man-made global warming is already running out of steam for two reasons. One - the hysteria will only get louder because man-made advocates have a dearth of facts to base their alarmism on and always have to resort to fearmongering. Two - as we progress further into the 21st century and the much vaunted eco-apocalypse never arrives, the alarmists will begin to look increasingly stupid and untrustworthy.
I totally agree that some bad bad s*** can happen in relation to nuclear power creation. It's just that any catastorphes I can imagine completely pale against the idea of what could happen if we mess with that layer of air that surrounds our whole planet and regulates the temparature of the very surface that every single human being lives on.
The existence of the atmosphere and it's thermodynamic properties is the fundamental difference between the earth and any other large piece of rock. If there's one thing wie shouldn't do it's make any changes to the mixture unless we know exactly what we're doing which clearly we don't.
What I don't get. Is all this hype about the global warming and greenhouse effect. Don't people know that the Earth is not a stable environment? It changes all the time. There have been much colder periods than now but there have been much warmer periods too.
Yes that is what i was trying to say aswell, it is just a natural thing that is happening so i dont think there is any need to worry! There has been records of Ice melting alot more than it has now but no effect has happend to the rise of the sea level!
1) Public are mis-led by scant and suspect scientific evidence that they are causing the death of the planet. Everyone is made to feel guilty.
2) Politicians sieze the opportunity to put up taxes to aid their own mis-management of public funds and justify it on environmental grounds.
3) Loads of people don't mind paying extra tax if it is for the 'good of the planet'
4) The automobile industry jumps on the green bandwagon and exploits the new consumer pressure to 'buy green' helping to improve their own profits.
Or am i just being cynical?
It's not the CO2 from cars that worries me, I'm pretty sure having heard both sides of the argument that man-made CO2 does nothing to regulate or alter the global average temperature.
It's the Carbon monoxide I'm worried about.
Forget this crazy global warming crap, concentrate on the real issues, that's the poisoning by pollutants, not the climate-change debacle, its a huge red herring!
I suspect that it is mostly just something that distracts public from something else that we are not wanted to bring up, automobile industry is just using sudden opportunity to make some money.
Toxics, poisons, or maybe not environmental issue at all, perhaps something to do with labour
You see, I don't believe we have that big an impact... If you think it through, you're "messing" with the athmosphere with every single breath you take... Environment, weather, nature, the whole earth works beyond the little capacity of our brains... It all belongs to a bigger picture we are lightyears away from understanding... We haven't even scraped the surface yet, but we're picking on the first thing we can find...
You know how this whole "greenhouse effect"-discussion sounds to me? Exactly like those discussions about "killer games"... In both topics, someone picked one thing and made it the scapegoat for every bad thing in the world, ignoring everything else in the equation...
Yes, it's a very complicated and dynamic system. But the way I look at it is that the effects you mention are all part of a pretty closed system. What we as humans have been doing recently though is add new matter into the mix from what you could call an external source (oil and coal from deep within the crust). This is really what I'm objecting to.
But I have to say I would gladly agree with your view that the amount of mass we're moving from underground into the air is too small to be significant. It's just that I don't have any means by which to form an opinion on this because, as has been said before in this thread, it seems that people from both sides of the fence are coming up with whatever data they need to prove their point, creating too much conflicting data for laymen to comprehend.
(Yes, it's an ethnic joke. At least it's funny and shows the massive difference between real Indian food and the stuff in Indian restraurants. The Chicken Tikka Masala was invented in Brum. Also most head chefs in Indian restaurants in the UK are from Bangladesh.)
For all of you who feel the Al Gore is the great defender of the universe here's a little buried story that shows him in a slightly different light.
Remember to find the truth just follow the money trail.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:25 a.m. EDTGore Made $500K from Toxic Mines
Former vice-president and global warming guru Al Gore Jr. received more than $500,000 in royalties from the owners of zinc mines, according to a report on Tennessean.com.
The mine owners held mineral leases on Gore's farm near Carthage, Tenn.
Before being shut down in 2003, the mines emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances.
Reportedly, on several occasions, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal.
Now the mines have a new owner and are scheduled to reopen later this year.
State environmental officials, however, say that overall, the mine has had a good environmental record.
Furthermore, the officials note there is no evidence of unusual health problems in the area.
I just read this headline on yahoo they gotta be joking. Yes cow emits a lot of methane but no way is it doing more damage to the environment than cars and human activity. Why do people always try to blame something else apart from themselves!
sorry for the bumb.. just got irritated reading that!
Sorry, but that is really a truth (for example in our country farming produces 2-3 times more greenhouse effect than cars), cars are not even near as bad as media is trying to make you believe, there are lot worse things, but it is not cool to point them out and car makers would be in trouble when people would stop buying new cars as their older cars are better for global enviroment, well not all, but in quite several cases getting new car is worse to enviroment than using old car, those who buy new car more recently than 4 years apart are stressing enviroment much more than some of us using old cars
Truth can be quite different from what general opinion is.
Factories, heating etc. is a LOT bigger thing than cars in our country, but cars are taxed because it is good for enviroment, right.
The point is, the cows have always been about, producing those gasses. Cars and such are a very recent addition, hence the suggestion that, while only a small portion of the total natural outputs, it might be enough to screw the balance.
But is there more or less cows by human activity and is their gases more or less harmful by human activity? Also if humans have increased emisson of cow's gases, then we must remember that there indeed has been cows long before cars
Also effect of deforestation and farming is one thing.
My point is that cars are really a small player in this game with minor if any impact, we should remember that cars are emitting gases when one drives, but for example cow is emitting 24/7.
Then what is global warming and if that is even real reason behind some weather things is again another story and that has about as much to do with Pluto's surface temperature as goverment's green taxes are meant to help enviroment
) I can see, so I'll lean in favour of being greener where I can.
Have you any idea of what you're talking about?
