Newcastle-Online

General => Chat => Topic started by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:15:03 PM

Title: Climate change
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:15:03 PM
Is it made up?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Alan Shearer 9 on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:16:32 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:17:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3455GI_uGs4
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: S.S.R. on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:17:48 PM
Depends what you mean by 'global warming'.

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:22:01 PM
Depends what you mean by 'global warming'.



Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Alan Shearer 9 on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:22:15 PM
Global warming is made up of greenhouse gasses, solar variations and soot. They mix together and get warm.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Foluwashola on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:23:14 PM
Biggest hoax since Jesus
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:23:24 PM
Global warming is made up of greenhouse gasses, solar variations and soot. They mix together and get warm.

Someone should market it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Dave on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:26:32 PM
Even if it's complete and utter bullshit I think the principles it has introduced are worthwhile.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:27:35 PM
Even if it's complete and utter bullshit I think the principles it has introduced are worthwhile.

Wouldn't disagree with that.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Alan Shearer 9 on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:28:41 PM
Even if it's complete and utter bullshit I think the principles it has introduced are worthwhile.

HAVE THESE PRINCIPLES BEEN ACcEPTED BY SOCIETY THOUGH DAVE? EH? HAVE THEY?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mr Logic on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:29:54 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:31:56 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: LucaAltieri on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:32:57 PM
FFS.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mr Logic on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:34:05 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?

No, it was much colder actually. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:34:21 PM
FFS.

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: S.S.R. on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:34:25 PM
Who gives a toss? Whatever the governments of the world decide to do or not do, we will no input other than being told what to do.

They'll make us dance through hoops and pay extra taxes as an excuse, and we can't do anything to stop it. Regardless who we vote for.

Let them get on with it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:34:57 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mr Logic on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:37:19 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: LucaAltieri on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:40:47 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Fenham Mag on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:46:35 PM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:47:39 PM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
coupled with cow farts
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:49:27 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:50:09 PM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
coupled with cow farts

Eat less beef.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:50:40 PM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.

Good point but there is no way of making money out of saving trees.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: firetotheworks on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:53:02 PM
I dont really know what to believe because it's counter argument after counter argument, and my knowledge on the science behind it only goes so far.

Irregardless, the steps that are looking to be taken assuming that it's all true can only be a good thing. It'll be exploited, that's what consumerism is all about, but if it's for good then I couldn't give a f*** who gets rich off it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Fenham Mag on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:53:22 PM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
coupled with cow farts

Dogs too, my little one just let out a f***ing stinker
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:57:01 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

Didn't realise the earth had only been going for 2000 years. I know a religion you can join.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:57:57 PM
I dont really know what to believe because it's counter argument after counter argument, and my knowledge on the science behind it only goes so far.

Irregardless, the steps that are looking to be taken assuming that it's all true can only be a good thing. It'll be exploited, that's what consumerism is all about, but if it's for good then I couldn't give a f*** who gets rich off it.

Isn't it just that they want to re-sell us everything we already have but with a little green sticker on it?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: LucaAltieri on Monday 14 December 2009, 10:59:56 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Quotes out of context, from one institute, from reports that don't alter in any way the VAST body of evidence for man-made climate change.

Years of research vs. pulling stuff from your arse and putting it on youtube. I know which I prefer to follow.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 11:02:08 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Quotes out of context, from one institute, from reports that don't alter in any way the VAST body of evidence for man-made climate change.

Years of research vs. pulling stuff from your arse and putting it on youtube. I know which I prefer to follow.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

What percentage atmospheric of Co2 is man made?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 14 December 2009, 11:08:45 PM
Copenhagen

Black bloke from africa apparenlty serious claims that apparently "Africa will be destroyed by climate change"...

China wants grants from America...Non starter as america wil want to spend to grow their economy and China aren't signed up to Kyoto anyway.

Fiasco.

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: firetotheworks on Monday 14 December 2009, 11:15:04 PM
I dont really know what to believe because it's counter argument after counter argument, and my knowledge on the science behind it only goes so far.

Irregardless, the steps that are looking to be taken assuming that it's all true can only be a good thing. It'll be exploited, that's what consumerism is all about, but if it's for good then I couldn't give a f*** who gets rich off it.

Isn't it just that they want to re-sell us everything we already have but with a little green sticker on it?

Dunno. Probably in a lot of cases.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: LucaAltieri on Monday 14 December 2009, 11:15:43 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Quotes out of context, from one institute, from reports that don't alter in any way the VAST body of evidence for man-made climate change.

Years of research vs. pulling stuff from your arse and putting it on youtube. I know which I prefer to follow.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

What percentage atmospheric of Co2 is man made?

What %age is acceptable?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 10:42:11 AM
well - ice cores show that the maximum CO2 in the last 5 interglacial periods peaked at 300 ppmv

right now they are somewhere around 1000 ppmv....................

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mowen on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 10:53:02 AM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
coupled with cow farts

Eat less beef.

Could we argue a moral case for wiping out a species for the good of the planet?

Pretty sure I read somewhere the biggest diff your average person could make in terms of carbon footprint would be to completely stop eating cow.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:01:33 AM
Global warming is real. The crux of the issue is, is it man made, and if man made how to address it.

1. I am simply not scientifically qualified enough to rigorously examine the validity of man-made global warming. I simply have to trust the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists (which agrees that global warming is man made). And even if it is not man made - all the cited causes of man made global warming (deforestation, fuel, livestock industries etc) are very polluting and very damaging to the environment. Even if global warming is absent - we need to stop deforestation etc. So, it is pratically harmless to believe in man made global warming.

2. The no. 1 main contributor to global warming is our livestock industries. Our livestock industries contribute to 51% of greenhouse gases. It is meaningless for you to switch off the light if you are going to continue eating meat. The most immediately helpful way to counter man made global warming is to go vegetarianism/veganism. UK/Europe scientists and minister had suggested to us to cut down our meat consumption to meet our carbon target. Unfortunately too many people are too selfish in their eating habits, and don't allow their diet cultures to be challenged. The scientist/minister were being culturally sensitive to the public by merely suggesting us to cut down our meat consumption.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:08:31 AM
Could we argue a moral case for wiping out a species for the good of the planet?

Pretty sure I read somewhere the biggest diff your average person could make in terms of carbon footprint would be to completely stop eating cow.

Seen your post only after I type mine ! You are completely right - stop eating cows will cut down your carbon footprint very significantly. A lot of grass/bean/cone were farmed to be inefficiently transformed into beef meat. Cows, like any other mammal orgnaism, release global warming farts. After cows are slaughtered, quite often their meats are redundantly packaged and transported across the globe.

Stop eating cow would not wipe cow out of existence, cows could and do live in the wild. Whereas if you eat beef, you are contributing to the murdering of a cow for your taste bud. And most likely the cow was kept in factory farm, where their living conditions were terrible.

The simple truth is it is not morally justifiable for us to eat meat, unless your survival depends on it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:13:34 AM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
coupled with cow farts

Eat less beef.

Could we argue a moral case for wiping out a species for the good of the planet?

Pretty sure I read somewhere the biggest diff your average person could make in terms of carbon footprint would be to completely stop eating cow.
or if the species were man ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mowen on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:34:33 AM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
coupled with cow farts

Eat less beef.

Could we argue a moral case for wiping out a species for the good of the planet?

Pretty sure I read somewhere the biggest diff your average person could make in terms of carbon footprint would be to completely stop eating cow.
or if the species were man ?

They're ahead of us in the line.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:36:00 AM
Deforestation is the biggest problem.
coupled with cow farts

Eat less beef.

Could we argue a moral case for wiping out a species for the good of the planet?

Pretty sure I read somewhere the biggest diff your average person could make in terms of carbon footprint would be to completely stop eating cow.
or if the species were man ?

They're ahead of us in the line.
not according to this bloke.....

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:IgHcO_qIIcwkfM:http://www.computingscotland.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/terminator1.JPG)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:42:43 AM
well - ice cores show that the maximum CO2 in the last 5 interglacial periods peaked at 300 ppmv

right now they are somewhere around 1000 ppmv....................



What percentage of atmospheric Co2 is man made?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: ProudToBeAGeordie on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 12:17:52 PM
I wish it would hurry up,  I'm bloddy freezing here :(
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 02:31:55 PM
Well we either sit around and do nothing, and if the climate warms as predicted we are f***ed. Or we change over to cleaner technologies so even if the climate doesn't change we aren't relying on a fuel source that will run out.

Things that should be done, are an EU wide law removing stand by switches from tvs etc, people should stop being lazy and get up and turn it on.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 02:49:42 PM
Well we either sit around and do nothing, and if the climate warms as predicted we are f***ed. Or we change over to cleaner technologies so even if the climate doesn't change we aren't relying on a fuel source that will run out.

Things that should be done, are an EU wide law removing stand by switches from tvs etc, people should stop being lazy and get up and turn it on.
on a side note i wonder just how many things people leave plugged in when out or in bed or whatever.


all we leave is the fridge freezer,phone x2 and combi boiler. if we are going out for a couple iof hours and not recording anything even the tv cable system power is off.



Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: cp40 on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 02:51:49 PM


well - ice cores show that the maximum CO2 in the last 5 interglacial periods peaked at 300 ppmv

right now they are somewhere around 1000 ppmv....................




i totally agree this is a f***ing joke
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mowen on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 02:54:31 PM
Well we either sit around and do nothing, and if the climate warms as predicted we are f***ed. Or we change over to cleaner technologies so even if the climate doesn't change we aren't relying on a fuel source that will run out.

Things that should be done, are an EU wide law removing stand by switches from tvs etc, people should stop being lazy and get up and turn it on.
on a side note i wonder just how many things people leave plugged in when out or in bed or whatever.


all we leave is the fridge freezer,phone x2 and combi boiler. if we are going out for a couple iof hours and not recording anything even the tv cable system power is off.

At the wall? Does this make a diff?

TV is never on standby, don't have a video or freeview box etc and the ps2 is unplugged to leave the light off, would it make any difference at all to have the tv unplugged?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 02:59:38 PM
Well we either sit around and do nothing, and if the climate warms as predicted we are f***ed. Or we change over to cleaner technologies so even if the climate doesn't change we aren't relying on a fuel source that will run out.

Things that should be done, are an EU wide law removing stand by switches from tvs etc, people should stop being lazy and get up and turn it on.
on a side note i wonder just how many things people leave plugged in when out or in bed or whatever.


all we leave is the fridge freezer,phone x2 and combi boiler. if we are going out for a couple iof hours and not recording anything even the tv cable system power is off.

At the wall? Does this make a diff?

TV is never on standby, don't have a video or freeview box etc and the ps2 is unplugged to leave the light off, would it make any difference at all to have the tv unplugged?
it dies make a diff for things like tv sat systems.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 03:04:58 PM
Ps3, if you turn the switch at the back of fit doesn't use any power, we used to turn the old sky box off, but the HD+ box is a right arse if you turn it off at the wall so we generally just leave that on standby by over night.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Northerngimp on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 03:05:42 PM
Its the those stupid foreigners again, we are all in this together.  Why do foreigners refuse to help.

God Damn.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: cp40 on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 03:07:48 PM
Hasnt global warming been proven to be a misleading conspiracy?

I choose to believe this so i dont have to give a s***.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mowen on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 03:16:23 PM
TV Sat systems? Never unplugged the telly at the wall, thought it didn't do anything.

Quite good with most little stuff like that though, phone charger never stays on, no spare lights on, barely use the heating (in a block of flats, every f***er else does so it's boiling anyway) even things like not taking plastic bags and re-using the same water bottle for months on end. Feels a bit futile sometimes but it's dead easy to do, the more people that put a bit of effort in the better I guess.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 03:45:37 PM
I fall asleep with the TV on an hours sleep.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 08:56:15 PM
China builds one new coal fired station a day. Don't think not switching your telly off will make much differance.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 08:57:26 PM
China builds one new coal fired station a day. Don't think not switching your telly off will make much differance.
one a day ?.........from start to finish ? thats some going you know.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: cp40 on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 08:58:06 PM
China builds one new coal fired station a day. Don't think not switching your telly off will make much differance.
one a day ?.........from start to finish ? thats some going you know.


theres loads of them you know.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 08:59:18 PM
Sorry, a month. ha ha...
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: LucaAltieri on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 09:02:26 PM
Hasnt global warming been proven to be a misleading conspiracy?

I choose to believe this so i dont have to give a s***.

You actually don't have to give a s***. You just need to elect officials that do so they can sort out stuff like this:

China builds one new coal fired station a day. Don't think not switching your telly off will make much differance.

Parky has finally managed to hit upon a kernel of truth among his slagheap of (already debunked) bullshit.

Trying to get people to choose to be "green" is a pointless endeavour for many reasons. It needs to be legislated with the toughest new rules applying to industry.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mr Logic on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 09:08:30 PM
Hasnt global warming been proven to be a misleading conspiracy?

I choose to believe this so i dont have to give a s***.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 09:10:51 PM
you know that deep in the forests of laos where man has yet to step , there will be a large thermostat that controls the temperature for the planet and a few years back some large laosian primate turned it up when he had a bit of a cold.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 09:28:01 PM
In 2007, China emitted 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon from fossil fuels, compared with 1.59 billion by the United States.

Russia was third, with 432 million tonnes, followed by India, with 430 million.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: optimistic nit on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 09:48:40 PM
no its not. interestingly though going by the earths (comparatively) recent climate cycle we should be on the brink of the next ice age.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: optimistic nit on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 09:50:33 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Quotes out of context, from one institute, from reports that don't alter in any way the VAST body of evidence for man-made climate change.

Years of research vs. pulling stuff from your arse and putting it on youtube. I know which I prefer to follow.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

What percentage atmospheric of Co2 is man made?

about 100 ppm (we're at 380 ppm compared to 280 ppm which is what it should be iirc.)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 10:50:47 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Quotes out of context, from one institute, from reports that don't alter in any way the VAST body of evidence for man-made climate change.

Years of research vs. pulling stuff from your arse and putting it on youtube. I know which I prefer to follow.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

What percentage atmospheric of Co2 is man made?

about 100 ppm (we're at 380 ppm compared to 280 ppm which is what it should be iirc.)

Our impact is a fraction of the Co2 coming off the sea and coming out of cows and rotting vegetation?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:05:18 PM


David Cameron sees the idea for a 'localist green revolution' as an answer to his fear that what he describes as the current top- down climate change agenda is 'in danger of starting to lose people'. Photograph: David Levene

David Cameron has pledged that a Conservative government would from "day one" kickstart £20bn of investment to make millions of homes more energy-efficient in a groundbreaking green partnership with Tesco and Marks & Spencer.

In a Guardian interview to coincide with the critical stage of the Copenhagen summit, the Tory leader reveals the plan to let householders share in the savings made on their power bills with the high street names who provide them with lagging and insulation.

He says he has already signed up a group of local councils and the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, for the scheme which would tackle more than 30% of UK carbon emissions by offering six million households the chance to get £6,500 worth of energy-efficiency measures.

Cameron sees the idea for a "localist green revolution" as an answer to his fear that what he describes as the current top- down climate change agenda is "in danger of starting to lose people".
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Tuesday 15 December 2009, 11:48:41 PM
Should make it law that all new houses have solar panels and wind turbines, and et rid of the stupid planning s*** you have to go through to put your own turbine up.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:04:29 AM
Should make it law that all new houses have solar panels and wind turbines, and et rid of the stupid planning s*** you have to go through to put your own turbine up.

This Labour Govt has passed more legislation than any Govt in history. You want more?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 02:06:14 AM
In 2007, China emitted 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon from fossil fuels, compared with 1.59 billion by the United States.

Russia was third, with 432 million tonnes, followed by India, with 430 million.

China's population is 4 times the US's. India's population is 8 times the Russia's.

This responsibility-shirking attitude of the first worlds are sickening.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 02:09:19 AM
Our impact is a fraction of the Co2 coming off the sea and coming out of cows and rotting vegetation?

It's like saying fossil fuel's impact is not part of our impact.

Cows' carbon footprints are part of human impact.

We do not need to eat cows to survive.

Going vegetarian is the best option any individual can immediately adopt to reduce carbon footprint.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 02:10:50 AM
It is very disheartening that some posters here choose to be so self-centered and selfish by trying to dodge his responsibility to reduce carbon footprint.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 02:13:54 AM
It is very disheartening that some posters here choose to be so self-centered and selfish by trying to dodge his responsibility to reduce carbon footprint.

Deal with it, it's the way of the world.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Interpolic on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 02:26:03 AM
It is very disheartening that some posters here choose to be so self-centered and selfish by trying to dodge his responsibility to reduce carbon footprint.

I go out with a vegetarian and do nothing to discourage it, therefore I'm 50% moral and pure.  Plus I've got hamsters.  I'm getting on towards about 65% moral and pure here all things considered Delima.  Even though I'm a meat-eater.  Sometimes I don't think you consider all the elements.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 03:26:37 AM
Deal with it, it's the way of the world.

I am fine with global-warming denialist, or religious nuts who think god will sort everything out.

What I have problem with are those who acknolwedge global warming, yet try to dodge responsibility or blame others for it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 03:35:54 AM
I go out with a vegetarian and do nothing to discourage it, therefore I'm 50% moral and pure.  Plus I've got hamsters.  I'm getting on towards about 65% moral and pure here all things considered Delima.  Even though I'm a meat-eater.  Sometimes I don't think you consider all the elements.

Feel free to take the p*ss out of me. I appreciate that I must appear a total nutter on here, and most likely I am being counter-productive in "promoting" my own cause due to the argumentative nature of mine.

On a more serious note I thank you for not discouraging vegetarianism. We all can do our parts to help this earth - every one needs to live and but we all can try to live a more sustainable and ethical life (be it vegetarianism, taking public transport, using green energy etc). Can we not just extend a little bit more compassion towards the environement, the animals and our fellow humans ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 10:40:08 AM
It is very disheartening that some posters here choose to be so self-centered and selfish by trying to dodge his responsibility to reduce carbon footprint.

I won't be happy till we concrete this planet the f*** over.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 10:41:09 AM
Deal with it, it's the way of the world.

I am fine with global-warming denialist, or religious nuts who think god will sort everything out.

What I have problem with are those who acknolwedge global warming, yet try to dodge responsibility or blame others for it.

How exactly did WE f*** it up. Take your anger out on big boy Capitalism...Oh wait...
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 10:42:28 AM
In 2007, China emitted 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon from fossil fuels, compared with 1.59 billion by the United States.

Russia was third, with 432 million tonnes, followed by India, with 430 million.

China's population is 4 times the US's. India's population is 8 times the Russia's.

This responsibility-shirking attitude of the first worlds are sickening.

Do you really think America can afford to change? Not even signed up to Kyoto are they?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:39:25 PM
How exactly did WE f*** it up. Take your anger out on big boy Capitalism...Oh wait...

I am not sure what your point is ?

Are you denying that climate change is man-made (How exactly did WE f*** it up. ) ?

Or are you saying we are powerless to revert this man-made climate change  (Take your anger out on big boy Capitalism...Oh wait...) ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:43:31 PM
How exactly did WE f*** it up. Take your anger out on big boy Capitalism...Oh wait...

I am not sure what your point is ?

Are you denying that climate change is man-made (How exactly did WE f*** it up. ) ?

Or are you saying we are powerless to revert this man-made climate change  (Take your anger out on big boy Capitalism...Oh wait...) ?

I'm saying if it is ocurring then the powers that be knew about it ages ago and did nothing and are now busy tranferring blame to the man in the street. Big companies f***ed it up...Take it up with them, tax them. It's not man made its industrial capitalism made as is America and now China. Let them pay for changes in the way we live. But aren't are they? Not even signed up to Kyoto....Charging £4 for a lightbulb isn't going to do jack s***.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:44:52 PM
BTW solar panels cause some of the most toxic pollutants known to man, to the extent there are parts of China that are no go areas for people.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:47:11 PM
Do you really think America can afford to change? Not even signed up to Kyoto are they?

Even if the US government do not sign up to the Kyoto - individuals can still make voluneteery, conscious choice of living a more environmentally-friendly life.

The single easiest and most effective step one can easily take is to cut down meat/animal product consumption, or adopt vegetarianism, or even better still, adopt veganism.

You don't need the government's permission, or Kyoto's treaty to adopt vegetarianism.

And the US didn't sign up for Kyoto, so what ? The US & UK governments waged wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't mean that as individuals US & UK citizens cannot object to these wars and pressure the government to retreat. (Just as example, not saying whether I am for or against these wars).

Why sound so defeatist ? Why surrender your fate to the government (domestic or foreign) ? If you want to be such a defeatist then why moan constantly about the labour goverment on here ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:55:51 PM
I'm saying if it is ocurring then the powers that be knew about it ages ago and did nothing and are now busy tranferring blame to the man in the street. Big companies f***ed it up...Take it up with them, tax them. It's not man made its industrial capitalism made as is America and now China. Let them pay for changes in the way we live. But aren't are they? Not even signed up to Kyoto....Charging £4 for a lightbulb isn't going to do jack s***.

If you identify industrial capitalism as the cause of man made climate change, how is industrial capitalism not man-made ?

Absent the demand where is the supply ??

America or China are not signing up to Kyoto because their governemnts are spineless responsbility-dodging gits like you. America saying China contributing more to global warming. China saying America polluted the world. You say if they are not shouldering responsbility why should you.

Too many Parkys running the governments. That's why.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:57:42 PM
BTW solar panels cause some of the most toxic pollutants known to man, to the extent there are parts of China that are no go areas for people.

I am not familiar with the process of solar panels manufacturing / fabrication. So I can't comment.

And anyway solar panel isn't the only path that leads to more sustainable living.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 01:29:14 PM
the thing is that coal, oil and gas will eventually run out in the next 100 years, so we will be forced to go to renewables

so may as well do it now, since most of our oil etc come's from iran, russia etc
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: ProudToBeAGeordie on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 01:30:43 PM
the thing is that coal, oil and gas will eventually run out in the next 100 years, so we will be forced to go to renewables

so may as well do it now, since most of our oil etc come's from iran, russia etc

I'll be dead in 100 years time.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 17 December 2009, 01:58:26 PM
BTW solar panels cause some of the most toxic pollutants known to man, to the extent there are parts of China that are no go areas for people.

I am not familiar with the process of solar panels manufacturing / fabrication. So I can't comment.

And anyway solar panel isn't the only path that leads to more sustainable living.

Sustainable living...? You joke surely?

Oil production peaked in the late 70's.

Oil reserves are now classifyied.

Perhaps if the global warming scam is some kind of behaviour mod, then it is worth it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Thursday 17 December 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Should make it law that all new houses have solar panels and wind turbines, and et rid of the stupid planning s*** you have to go through to put your own turbine up.

This Labour Govt has passed more legislation than any Govt in history. You want more?

Call me stupid but ist that the job of the govt ?

Humans are impacting the climate, how it will react and change is hard to predict, as some places may get colder due to changing air currents etc. People should go and read the last IPCC before they start commenting on what should be done.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 17 December 2009, 08:11:17 PM
Should make it law that all new houses have solar panels and wind turbines, and et rid of the stupid planning s*** you have to go through to put your own turbine up.

This Labour Govt has passed more legislation than any Govt in history. You want more?

Call me stupid but ist that the job of the govt ?

Humans are impacting the climate, how it will react and change is hard to predict, as some places may get colder due to changing air currents etc. People should go and read the last IPCC before they start commenting on what should be done.

The completely f***ed up money markets and the fast running out oil will do for us long before any climate change malarkey.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mr Logic on Thursday 17 December 2009, 09:02:10 PM


The completely f***ed up money markets and the fast running out oil will do for us long before any climate change malarkey.

All part of the plan though isn't it Parky, didn't the wealthy elite start discussing that very eventuality early in the 50's. As long as the people with money survive. Silly short-sighted f***ers if you ask me but what do I know, I was never invited to any meeting at the Bilderberg gatherings.

edit: Quite fascinating timeline of the Rothschilds here. http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: indi on Thursday 17 December 2009, 09:56:46 PM
I don't get why government and big-business are so against this, surely there's a s***-load of money to be made from "saving the planet" and who'd make all that money? Them, that's who.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 17 December 2009, 09:59:31 PM
I don't get why government and big-business are so against this, surely there's a s***-load of money to be made from "saving the planet" and who'd make all that money? Them, that's who.

They would have to make a loss to kick start it off and we all know that govs and business scoff at ideas like that.

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Friday 18 December 2009, 01:10:48 AM
Sustainable living...? You joke surely?

Oil production peaked in the late 70's.

Oil reserves are now classifyied.

Perhaps if the global warming scam is some kind of behaviour mod, then it is worth it.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I am not sure how the points you raise are in contradiction of mine.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Friday 18 December 2009, 07:43:22 AM
Sustainable living...? You joke surely?

Oil production peaked in the late 70's.

Oil reserves are now classifyied.

Perhaps if the global warming scam is some kind of behaviour mod, then it is worth it.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I am not sure how the points you raise are in contradiction of mine.

There won't be any sustainable living.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Friday 18 December 2009, 02:53:38 PM
There won't be any sustainable living.

Why ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 18 December 2009, 02:58:02 PM
Someone needs to tell China to build more smoke stacks, am bloody freezing here.

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Friday 18 December 2009, 03:10:24 PM
If you have fitted a household wind turbine on your roof - you could have enjoyed guiltfree heating now.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: optimistic nit on Friday 18 December 2009, 03:35:10 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Quotes out of context, from one institute, from reports that don't alter in any way the VAST body of evidence for man-made climate change.

Years of research vs. pulling stuff from your arse and putting it on youtube. I know which I prefer to follow.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

What percentage atmospheric of Co2 is man made?

about 100 ppm (we're at 380 ppm compared to 280 ppm which is what it should be iirc.)

Our impact is a fraction of the Co2 coming off the sea and coming out of cows and rotting vegetation?

the oceans don't give off co2, they take it in. our impact on co2 would be a lot worse without it.

its all about balance, while natural processes impact co2 as well the co2 that has been locked underground for millions of years is being re-introduced into the atmosphere. that could be very bad for us if climate experts predictions turn out to be correct, while nature gives off lots and lots of co2 it also has various mechanisms (essentially forests and oceans and maybe more i dont know but those are the big 2) that sequestre it. thats why deforestation is another big problem along with co2 production.

cows also give of methane not co2, which is a far more important greenhouse gas (the world would be saved if we were all veggie etc...)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: jdckelly on Friday 18 December 2009, 03:38:14 PM
after coming in from christmas shopping and being completely frozen the whole time all I will say is bring on global warming
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Friday 18 December 2009, 05:26:30 PM
There won't be any sustainable living.

Why ?

Because we're running out of oil/ oil price peaks. Impact on less obvious things like fertilizer, most of it made from oil derivitives.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: optimistic nit on Friday 18 December 2009, 06:53:07 PM
wouldn't that be a reason to change to sustainable living though? wont happen like, but still :razz:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Saturday 19 December 2009, 12:18:49 AM
the now show (radio 4) done a very good summation on the copehagen talks in the style of dr seuss. very funny. available through the radio 4 site. here...http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgt7 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgt7)

it's about 10mins in.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: LucaAltieri on Saturday 19 December 2009, 12:21:52 AM
If Parky had the facts to match his enthusiasm he'd be unstoppable.

As it is he's just zealously wrong.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: madras on Saturday 19 December 2009, 12:23:39 AM
If Parky had the facts to match his enthusiasm he'd be unstoppable.
like if you had the penis to match your bollocks...........................however i agree re parky.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: indi on Saturday 19 December 2009, 01:33:25 AM
There won't be any sustainable living.

Why ?

Because we're running out of oil/ oil price peaks. Impact on less obvious things like fertilizer, most of it made from oil derivitives.


Plastic. :nods:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 19 December 2009, 11:26:49 AM
There won't be any sustainable living.

Why ?

Because we're running out of oil/ oil price peaks. Impact on less obvious things like fertilizer, most of it made from oil derivitives.


Plastic. :nods:

Not just thet cars run on it, each tyre takes 7 gallons of oil in the making process. Nearly everything we make or do has an impact on oil usage. And easily usable and viable sources are running out...That is why the Saudi's have made their largest reserve data classified now. That is why even the saudi's are looking at coastal oil.....
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Saturday 19 December 2009, 02:31:08 PM
There won't be any sustainable living.

Why ?

Because we're running out of oil/ oil price peaks. Impact on less obvious things like fertilizer, most of it made from oil derivitives.


Plastic. :nods:

Not just thet cars run on it, each tyre takes 7 gallons of oil in the making process. Nearly everything we make or do has an impact on oil usage. And easily usable and viable sources are running out...That is why the Saudi's have made their largest reserve data classified now. That is why even the saudi's are looking at coastal oil.....

That's why we need to start acting, and not just sit there crying like a baby doing nothing and finger point at others ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Dave on Saturday 19 December 2009, 02:35:39 PM


Oh...Sorry it's called climate change now, cause it's actually not really getting any hotter at all.

Tell that to the Polar Bears. Climate change is irrefutable, not necessarily something new though - just new to us.

That's right cause it's been much hotter before hasn't it?



No, it was much colder actually. :lol:

Go away and do some research.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

f*** off, that's from a university. They're part of conspiracy, idiot. If you want the truth you need to listen to Alex Jones and David Icke.


Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Quotes out of context, from one institute, from reports that don't alter in any way the VAST body of evidence for man-made climate change.

Years of research vs. pulling stuff from your arse and putting it on youtube. I know which I prefer to follow.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

What percentage atmospheric of Co2 is man made?

about 100 ppm (we're at 380 ppm compared to 280 ppm which is what it should be iirc.)

Our impact is a fraction of the Co2 coming off the sea and coming out of cows and rotting vegetation?

the oceans don't give off co2, they take it in. our impact on co2 would be a lot worse without it.

its all about balance, while natural processes impact co2 as well the co2 that has been locked underground for millions of years is being re-introduced into the atmosphere. that could be very bad for us if climate experts predictions turn out to be correct, while nature gives off lots and lots of co2 it also has various mechanisms (essentially forests and oceans and maybe more i dont know but those are the big 2) that sequestre it. thats why deforestation is another big problem along with co2 production.

cows also give of methane not co2, which is a far more important greenhouse gas (the world would be saved if we were all veggie etc...)

Surely if we didn't breed them for food and clothing, there would far fewer cows etc on the planet?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Saturday 19 December 2009, 02:55:12 PM
Cars are far more of a problem than f***ing cows.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Dave on Saturday 19 December 2009, 03:00:52 PM
Cars are far more of a problem than f***ing cows.

Just because Delima's in this thread, man. No need.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Saturday 19 December 2009, 03:11:38 PM
Cars are far more of a problem than f***ing cows.

Define "problem" ? This thread is about global warming. If the problem is global warming, then you are wrong, cows are far worse than cars.

Cars are a necessity in our modern lives now. They are inevitable, unless we have an extremely comprehensive public transport coverage. In this sense cars are a necessary sin - undesirable, but inevitable - since we cannot dictate the public transport sytem by our own. Whereas anyone can easily avoid animal products in their food.

We all should do our bits to help save the world. Vote for the party that's friendliest to the environment. Cut down unnecessary consumeristic consumption. Avoid meat. Opt for more sustainable alternative.

Everyone's situation is different - some can afford to do more some can only do little. My life is far, far, far from sustainable / sinless, there are so many people out there who are doing better than me. Doesn't mean that I should just give up, doesn't mean that I should look at my neighbour who is doing much worse than me and conclude that I shouldn't do my bits.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 19 December 2009, 06:38:27 PM
Cars are far more of a problem than f***ing cows.

Define "problem" ? This thread is about global warming. If the problem is global warming, then you are wrong, cows are far worse than cars.

Cars are a necessity in our modern lives now. They are inevitable, unless we have an extremely comprehensive public transport coverage. In this sense cars are a necessary sin - undesirable, but inevitable - since we cannot dictate the public transport sytem by our own. Whereas anyone can easily avoid animal products in their food.

We all should do our bits to help save the world. Vote for the party that's friendliest to the environment. Cut down unnecessary consumeristic consumption. Avoid meat. Opt for more sustainable alternative.

Everyone's situation is different - some can afford to do more some can only do little. My life is far, far, far from sustainable / sinless, there are so many people out there who are doing better than me. Doesn't mean that I should just give up, doesn't mean that I should look at my neighbour who is doing much worse than me and conclude that I shouldn't do my bits.

Nobody will give up their cars. London could be flooded by the thames and people will still be jangling the key to their 4x4's in the pub.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Sunday 20 December 2009, 01:56:55 AM
I know that methane has a bigger climatic forcing power than CO2, and yes cows like to fart alot. However you can make electric cars that dont give out CO2 (obviosuly power generation issues, but nuclear, carbon capture etc help/solve that), avoiding meat to reduce possible climatic changes is a bit silly, someone should invent a dvice that captures the methane from the cows really.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Sunday 20 December 2009, 05:00:16 AM
Nobody will give up their cars. London could be flooded by the thames and people will still be jangling the key to their 4x4's in the pub.

I understand that. That's why we need to find out cleaner/more sustainable alternatives.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Sunday 20 December 2009, 05:09:39 AM
I know that methane has a bigger climatic forcing power than CO2, and yes cows like to fart alot. However you can make electric cars that dont give out CO2 (obviosuly power generation issues, but nuclear, carbon capture etc help/solve that), avoiding meat to reduce possible climatic changes is a bit silly, someone should invent a dvice that captures the methane from the cows really.

If you make all cars electric but continue to eat meat, you are not helping the cause meaningfully. The biggest and most significant pollutor remains.

It is not at all silly for us to avoid meat. Cars are much more a necessity than meat in our modern life. There are uncountable vegetarians/vegans who live a very modern life. It is not silly doing our bits to tackle global warming. There is simply no reason for human to eat animals anymore in general (discounting extreme examples).

Livestock industry is such a polluting industry. It consumes so much land and water. It is the chief cause of global warming. Deforestation, the chief cause of carbon release, is significantly demanded by livestock industry who need soyabean / corn supply. Why do animals have to die for your taste buds ? Have you seen a factory farm ? Does anyone's taste bud justify the murdering of others lifes ? Does anyone's taste bud justify animals being mutilated, castrated, raped, enslaved, prisoned etc ?

All because of someone's taste buds ?

Can I ask you to watch these documentaries ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLQmYNsgKy0&feature=PlayList&p=9FD18926170ED901&index=0
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Chrissy Bee on Sunday 20 December 2009, 10:21:25 AM
I'd rather be dead than have to live on fruit, vegetables and pulses for all eternity. A great big medium-rare rib-eye steak is one of the best pleasures in life, I'd give up my car before meat.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Sunday 20 December 2009, 11:12:05 AM
I'd rather be dead than have to live on fruit, vegetables and pulses for all eternity. A great big medium-rare rib-eye steak is one of the best pleasures in life, I'd give up my car before meat.

I agree. You can't beat meat. :nods:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Pip on Sunday 20 December 2009, 11:12:09 AM
So, no legally-binding treaty. America still insists on reducing its emissions from 2005 levels whereas the rest of the world settled, ages ago, on reducing it based on 1990 levels. It's not surprising that the Americans have chosen a higher threshold. We also don't have any medium term targets stated in the text (no 2050 emissions reduction target) and also no long term targets (no 80 year target). The Chinese also insisted on countries verifying its own emissions reduction with no independent verification allowed. And then you have the temperature limit not even set at a 2C increase; it merely says it 'ought' not to increase by more than 2C.

Wow, Copenhagen turned out to be f***ing useful, didn't it?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Thespence on Sunday 20 December 2009, 11:13:36 AM
Global Warming is so 90's.
It is all about climate change now.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Sunday 20 December 2009, 12:34:50 PM
I'd rather be dead than have to live on fruit, vegetables and pulses for all eternity. A great big medium-rare rib-eye steak is one of the best pleasures in life, I'd give up my car before meat.

I agree. You can't beat meat. :nods:

Yeah, no wonder you ask me to deal with the fact that there will always be so many self-centered and selfish people dodging their responsibility. You are one of them selfish idiots.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Neil on Sunday 20 December 2009, 12:36:12 PM
How is eating meat selfish?

Open your eyes and step into the real world, kthxbai.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Sunday 20 December 2009, 12:55:43 PM
How is eating meat selfish?

Open your eyes and step into the real world, kthxbai.

1. Livestock industry is the biggest culprit of global warming.
2. Livestock industry is one of the worst industries in terms of ecological destruction.
3. You are subjecting animals to disgusting living condition, subjecting them to livelong torture.
4. You are murdering them for your food.
5. Quite often meat consumption is detrimental to your health. And when you get diabetes, heart attack, high blood pressure, cancer etc - the country have to pay for you.

All because of your taste bud?

If this is not selfishness, what is ?
3. You are killing other sentient being for your tastebud.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Sunday 20 December 2009, 01:34:11 PM
How is eating meat selfish?

Open your eyes and step into the real world, kthxbai.

1. Livestock industry is the biggest culprit of global warming.
2. Livestock industry is one of the worst industries in terms of ecological destruction.
3. You are subjecting animals to disgusting living condition, subjecting them to livelong torture.
4. You are murdering them for your food.
5. Quite often meat consumption is detrimental to your health. And when you get diabetes, heart attack, high blood pressure, cancer etc - the country have to pay for you.

All because of your taste bud?

If this is not selfishness, what is ?
3. You are killing other sentient being for your tastebud.

Oh f***, you're absolutely right. I'd never thought of it that way before but now you've explained it, it's like a light going on in my head.

But wait a minute, what about the vegetables? What about their feelings?!!! Does anybody ever stop to think of their unbearable pain and suffering in the agricultural process?

Oh Christ NO!!!! :jesuswept:

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE VEGETABLES? !!!

:frantic:













Cretin.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Sunday 20 December 2009, 01:51:38 PM
Nice try GM

If you can find a sentient vegetable - let me know - so that I can avoid it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 20 December 2009, 01:57:34 PM
Nice try GM

If you can find a sentient vegetable - let me know - so that I can avoid it.

Err..GM? :cheesy:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Sunday 20 December 2009, 02:30:09 PM
Who cares, meat tastes good. I'm not going to be around when the world f***s up cos of my actions.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Sunday 20 December 2009, 02:40:55 PM
Nice try GM

If you can find a sentient vegetable - let me know - so that I can avoid it.

Err..GM? :cheesy:

I'm not sentient.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Sunday 20 December 2009, 04:59:25 PM
Who cares, meat tastes good. I'm not going to be around when the world f***s up cos of my actions.

Cheers. Do you plan to have offspring by any chance ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Fugazi on Sunday 20 December 2009, 05:04:40 PM
I love meat aswell, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...meat

(http://weblogs.cltv.com/entertainment/tv/metromix/grilled_steak.jpg)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Pip on Sunday 20 December 2009, 05:14:24 PM
Who cares, meat tastes good. I'm not going to be around when the world f***s up cos of my actions.

God damn, you're avatar kills my train of thought whenever I see it, even when it's only a mere glance.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Chrissy Bee on Sunday 20 December 2009, 05:17:03 PM
Talking of selfish, I'd love a few Scallops with said steak.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Sunday 20 December 2009, 05:42:26 PM
No one likes to be patronised. I wouldn't be able to convert any of you. I can only show you facts and reality, and plea that you show a wee bit of compassion, be it towards fellow human, animals, or our globe.

Can I have a tiny request - that you will watch this entire documentary ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN9YgmUSeKQ

Just a little bit of compassion, please ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Fugazi on Sunday 20 December 2009, 05:43:10 PM
No one likes to be patronised. I wouldn't be able to convert any of you. I can only show you facts and reality, and plea that you show a wee bit of compassion, be it towards fellow human, animals, or our globe.

Can I have a tiny request - that you will watch this entire documentary ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN9YgmUSeKQ

Just a little bit of compassion, please ?

No deal.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 20 December 2009, 08:56:51 PM
I like your persistence Delimit, but you must understand, most of these are brainwashed into loving meat.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Sunday 20 December 2009, 08:57:48 PM
Who cares, meat tastes good. I'm not going to be around when the world f***s up cos of my actions.

Cheers. Do you plan to have offspring by any chance ?

You stay away from them, you hear me?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Sunday 20 December 2009, 09:01:32 PM
Who cares, meat tastes good. I'm not going to be around when the world f***s up cos of my actions.

Cheers. Do you plan to have offspring by any chance ?

You stay away from them, you hear me?

:lol: And stay away from his pets too.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Sunday 20 December 2009, 09:23:10 PM
Dilema, I agree with you to an extent. Surely as opposed to full conversion it would be better to hope for a middle ground. Organic/free range? What are your views on that? I'm certainly not vegetarian but I like to think I do the right thing by buying these types of meat.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Monday 21 December 2009, 12:52:44 AM
I like your persistence Delimit, but you must understand, most of these are brainwashed into loving meat.

Believe it or not, I was the biggest eater among my social group before I was a vegetarian. And when I turned vegetarian my friends couldn't believe it, they thought I was going to starve.

Personally I don't think people are being brainwashed into loving meats. I think they are just naive - ignorant of the common practice in the livestock industry, unaware of the pollution livestock industry causes, and oblivion about the health risk associated with meat eating.

We are all brought up eating meats. Meat eating is our culture. Nobody likes his culture being challenged. Being defensive about it is the natural reaction - and completely comprehensible.

I don't like being preached / pratonised to, I don't like having views (such as political, religion etc) being shafted down my throat. I resent vegans imposing their morality on me. I can only imagine that when I talk to meat eaters these are exactly how they feel about me, even though I try hard not to sound condescending.

(vegans = people who adopt a wholly plant-based lifestyle; vegetarians = people who adopt a plant-based diet, and may or may not consume diary & milk; ie vegans = "stricter" vegetarians)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Monday 21 December 2009, 12:54:26 AM
You stay away from them, you hear me?

Wouldn't you like to leave a good legacy to them ? Should your offspring suffer due to your selfishness ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Monday 21 December 2009, 01:11:07 AM
Dilema, I agree with you to an extent. Surely as opposed to full conversion it would be better to hope for a middle ground. Organic/free range? What are your views on that? I'm certainly not vegetarian but I like to think I do the right thing by buying these types of meat.

Thanks Taylor. Appreciated.

Personally and honestly, organic/freerange is not enough. We have evolved to be able to survive very well (in fact much better) without meat - animals shouldn't need to sacrifice their lifes for my tastbud. I do not like the thought that animals are bred solely for our own discretion. It is slavery, except that it is slavery towards other species.

Organic means that the animals are not fed "chemically". Pigs can still be prisoned in tiny cages, never allowed to move freely, yet be classified as organic.

Freerange means that the animals enjoy more freedom, but they can still be raised "chemically".

Animals can be organic but not free range, free range but not organic, or free range and organic.

Organic meat means nothing other than it perhaps is safer to eat. Animal welfare is not improved a bit.

As in any other industry, breeders will try their best to bend/optimise the rules. I have read that freerange chicken for example, could mean that the thousands chickens are allowed to walk freely in their shared compound - which is still an essentially very cramped compound. Animals may be allowed to romp around but they will still be castrated, mutilated, slaughtered.

Ideally everyone should be vegan (someone who lives a lifestyle without animal products) - it is best for the environment & animal. But it is very hard to be vegan. Our society is not friendly towards veganism and it does take some commitment.

I would personally prefer you to give up meat altogether. If you decide to continue to eat meat, then yes going organic / free range is better than sticking to factory farm.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 21 December 2009, 08:44:08 AM
I like your persistence Delimit, but you must understand, most of these are brainwashed into loving meat.

Believe it or not, I was the biggest eater among my social group before I was a vegetarian. And when I turned vegetarian my friends couldn't believe it, they thought I was going to starve.

Personally I don't think people are being brainwashed into loving meats. I think they are just naive - ignorant of the common practice in the livestock industry, unaware of the pollution livestock industry causes, and oblivion about the health risk associated with meat eating.

We are all brought up eating meats. Meat eating is our culture. Nobody likes his culture being challenged. Being defensive about it is the natural reaction - and completely comprehensible.

I don't like being preached / pratonised to, I don't like having views (such as political, religion etc) being shafted down my throat. I resent vegans imposing their morality on me. I can only imagine that when I talk to meat eaters these are exactly how they feel about me, even though I try hard not to sound condescending.

(vegans = people who adopt a wholly plant-based lifestyle; vegetarians = people who adopt a plant-based diet, and may or may not consume diary & milk; ie vegans = "stricter" vegetarians)

I only eat free range eggs, milk and bio cheese. I'm a strange one as I can go 2/3 weeks without meat.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Monday 21 December 2009, 11:01:00 AM
I only eat free range eggs, milk and bio cheese. I'm a strange one as I can go 2/3 weeks without meat.

Excellent - you are so much better than the vast majority. Try giving up eggs & milk as well if possible - as all hatched useless male chick are still being ground alive to make tesco frozen chicken nugget and Asda chicken mince pie, and please imagine the cows having their F-cup breast incessantly molested and their nipples twisted and squeezed to produce your milk. Milk cows are selectively breeded to have disproportionately large breast - it is not a pleasant practise at all.

But thanks a lot for doing your partial bits for this earth.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Monday 21 December 2009, 11:03:25 AM
The cheap chickens from Sainsburys are the best, fantastic value and if you cook them right they can form the basis for a cheap Sunday dinner.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Monday 21 December 2009, 05:06:43 PM
Dilema, I agree with you to an extent. Surely as opposed to full conversion it would be better to hope for a middle ground. Organic/free range? What are your views on that? I'm certainly not vegetarian but I like to think I do the right thing by buying these types of meat.

Thanks Taylor. Appreciated.

Personally and honestly, organic/freerange is not enough. We have evolved to be able to survive very well (in fact much better) without meat - animals shouldn't need to sacrifice their lifes for my tastbud. I do not like the thought that animals are bred solely for our own discretion. It is slavery, except that it is slavery towards other species.

Organic means that the animals are not fed "chemically". Pigs can still be prisoned in tiny cages, never allowed to move freely, yet be classified as organic.

Freerange means that the animals enjoy more freedom, but they can still be raised "chemically".

Animals can be organic but not free range, free range but not organic, or free range and organic.

Organic meat means nothing other than it perhaps is safer to eat. Animal welfare is not improved a bit.

As in any other industry, breeders will try their best to bend/optimise the rules. I have read that freerange chicken for example, could mean that the thousands chickens are allowed to walk freely in their shared compound - which is still an essentially very cramped compound. Animals may be allowed to romp around but they will still be castrated, mutilated, slaughtered.

Ideally everyone should be vegan (someone who lives a lifestyle without animal products) - it is best for the environment & animal. But it is very hard to be vegan. Our society is not friendly towards veganism and it does take some commitment.

I would personally prefer you to give up meat altogether. If you decide to continue to eat meat, then yes going organic / free range is better than sticking to factory farm.

Interesting. Wasn't aware of the loopholes. Regardless I love meat and couldn't imagine giving it up.

What is your view on the whole food chain argument then? I imagine you think its rubbish but surely it's valid to an extent?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Monday 21 December 2009, 05:49:33 PM
Interesting. Wasn't aware of the loopholes. Regardless I love meat and couldn't imagine giving it up.

What is your view on the whole food chain argument then? I imagine you think its rubbish but surely it's valid to an extent?

Humans are omnivore - it is a fact. We have evolved to be able to eat and digest animals. However this doesn't mean that we have to practise our ability to eat meat.

I am capable of murder, rape, sexual abuse, bestiality etc but I don't practise them. Meat eaters are fully capable of eating insects, dogs, cats etc but again they don't practise their capabilities. Whether it is out of moral, culture, convenience or personal subjective preference, we are all capable of making conscious choices, and we are capable of living a perfectly healthy life without murder, rape, sexual abuse, bestiality, insect crunching, dogs stew and cat roast. And we are fully capable of living a perfectly healthy life without meat.

Abstaining from meat simply brings a lot, a lot of benefits - whether it is personal or environmental. Most importantly, abstaining from meat is moral, and I try to live a life morally.

People keep saying they can't give up meat because they like meat too much - I would argue that perhaps they are not familiar with vegetarian food. Taste is a very subjective issue anyway, more often than not taste is not the factor that makes you eat something. But convenience and familiarity/tradition. Have you tried dog stew ? It tastes excellent. But too many wouldn't even touch it with a bean pole. I had always liked brussel sprouts even during my meat eating days. I don't like the taste of alcohol - yet I drink them with pleasure.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Chrissy Bee on Monday 21 December 2009, 05:53:25 PM
I'd eat dog tbh. Have tried insects in the past too but they weren't so nice.

I've heard cat tastes awful though, so I don't mind compromising and abstaining from that in future. We've all got to do our bit.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:00:31 PM
If I give up meat and smoking and cut down on the drink...What is there left ffs!!??
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:04:50 PM
yup... in my place is getting hotter atm. along with weird change of climate....
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:06:24 PM
yup... in my place is getting hotter atm. along with weird change of climate....

I love wierd climate.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:11:13 PM
If I give up meat and smoking and cut down on the drink...What is there left ffs!!??

Why do you need to cut down drinks ? And why do you need to cut down smoking ?

Moderate drinking doesn't harm your body much. While smoking does - it is your own personal choice and it affects you only (assuming you pay for your own life insurance and not leeching the NHS)

Drinking and smoking are far less environmentally damaging than meat eating. Meat eating affects everyone and subject animals to deliberate harm and murder.

It is impossible to live a guilty free life - but we are capable of cutting out the major sins.

And you can still have sex after you give up on meat, smoking and drinks.

Have you tried consensual bestiality ? Have you tried consensual swinging ? I recommend this to you www.feverparties.com
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Chrissy Bee on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:12:34 PM
Animals are for cooking not f***ing.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:19:43 PM
yup... in my place is getting hotter atm. along with weird change of climate....

I love wierd climate.

opposite to the farmer then... when they can't plan their planting season.
i think people will pay more attention to global warming effect... when the world really short of food...
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:24:08 PM
Animals are for cooking not f***ing.

I prefer to have consensual sex with animals where both parties enjoy, rather than subjecting them to lifelong enslavement, impriosonement, genital and non-genital mutilations, other physical assaults & tortures, and then murdering them and eating their carcass, eating their hands, legs, chest, buttocks, internal organs etc for my the sake of my tastebud.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:27:51 PM
yup... in my place is getting hotter atm. along with weird change of climate....

I love wierd climate.

opposite to the farmer then... when they can't plan their planting season.
i think people will pay more attention to global warming effect... when the world really short of food...

Running short of food already and when the oil becomes too expensive for fertilizer intesive farming will be out the window as well.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Monday 21 December 2009, 06:28:43 PM
Animals are for cooking not f***ing.

I prefer to have consensual sex with animals where both parties enjoy, rather than subjecting them to lifelong enslavement, impriosonement, genital and non-genital mutilations, other physical assaults & tortures, and then murdering them and eating their carcass, eating their hands, legs, chest, buttocks, internal organs etc for my the sake of my tastebud.

Meat isn't actually that tasty without various sauces etc..
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Monday 21 December 2009, 07:07:26 PM
Animals are for cooking not f***ing.

I prefer to have consensual sex with animals where both parties enjoy, rather than subjecting them to lifelong enslavement, impriosonement, genital and non-genital mutilations, other physical assaults & tortures, and then murdering them and eating their carcass, eating their hands, legs, chest, buttocks, internal organs etc for my the sake of my tastebud.

 :dowie:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Monday 21 December 2009, 07:42:14 PM
Animals are for cooking not f***ing.

I prefer to have consensual sex with animals where both parties enjoy, rather than subjecting them to lifelong enslavement, impriosonement, genital and non-genital mutilations, other physical assaults & tortures, and then murdering them and eating their carcass, eating their hands, legs, chest, buttocks, internal organs etc for my the sake of my tastebud.

 :dowie:

 :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie:

 :mackems: how you know they where enjoying it? *imagine delima talking to goat* :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Fugazi on Monday 21 December 2009, 07:54:40 PM
Animals are for cooking not f***ing.

I prefer to have consensual sex with animals where both parties enjoy, rather than subjecting them to lifelong enslavement, impriosonement, genital and non-genital mutilations, other physical assaults & tortures, and then murdering them and eating their carcass, eating their hands, legs, chest, buttocks, internal organs etc for my the sake of my tastebud.

 :fwap:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 03:02:25 AM
I prefer to have consensual sex with animals where both parties enjoy, rather than subjecting them to lifelong enslavement, impriosonement, genital and non-genital mutilations, other physical assaults & tortures, and then murdering them and eating their carcass, eating their hands, legs, chest, buttocks, internal organs etc for my the sake of my tastebud.

 :dowie:

Why are you startled :razz:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 03:10:55 AM
:dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie: :dowie:

 :mackems: how you know they where enjoying it? *imagine delima talking to goat* :rolleyes:

You tell me these dogs are not enjoying it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfeg4m1h8Cg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-qRnMVI9gA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZDpJ06skzE&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv5j9DIfrm8&feature=fvw

You know, if you are narrow, feeble minded - laughing at others won't change your situation.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 08:56:27 AM
i like to see you rape an ant..... delima  :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 09:25:52 AM
This could go gold.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 10:06:53 AM
i like to see you rape an ant..... delima  :lol:

Do you have some abusive issue, Juniatmoko ?

Why would you wish anyone to conduct rape ? Why would you want to see a rape scene ?

I sincerely hope that you are merely being autisitc in your sexuality - and none else.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 01:26:10 PM
i like to see you rape an ant..... delima  :lol:

Do you have some abusive issue, Juniatmoko ?

Why would you wish anyone to conduct rape ? Why would you want to see a rape scene ?

I sincerely hope that you are merely being autisitc in your sexuality - and none else.

not anyone... just you :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 08:41:28 PM
This whole argument has gone slightly insane.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 08:47:44 PM
This whole argument has gone slightly insane.

not just slightly... This is PURE MADNESS!
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 08:48:56 PM
Someone lock that sick f*** away already.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 09:46:13 PM
This whole argument has gone slightly insane.

As any thread involving Delima, or any thread started by Delima. Stop entertaining the sick f*** already, hopefully he'll go away by himself if he doesn't get attention.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Southerner on Tuesday 22 December 2009, 10:15:20 PM
I love watching him toy with you lot, i'm sure that's consentual ;)  :snod:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 05:31:35 AM
not anyone... just you :lol:

Sad, isn't. You find raping an amusing issue to you.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 05:35:25 AM
This whole argument has gone slightly insane.

Nothing insane, at all. I back my arguments up, I susbstantiate my points rationally.

Maybe my views are not part of the cultural norm - but culture, traditions means fu.ck all to me. All I am interested are logics, morality, and reasons.

Slavery, polygamy, rape, murder, religion etc were standard parts of our cultures, and still are.  Doesn't mean that I can't abstain from these practices.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 05:36:54 AM
not just slightly... This is PURE MADNESS!

Pure madness, indeed. You sick sadistic b****** amuse yourself with rape joke.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 05:42:32 AM
As any thread involving Delima, or any thread started by Delima. Stop entertaining the sick f*** already, hopefully he'll go away by himself if he doesn't get attention.

Oh, coming from you Kaizero who PM'ed me to say he was afraid to be banned, and confessed to me he would try his best not to appear in any thread involving me again.

All you can say is I am sicked. Prove it ? Describe it ? Debate with me ?

No, plenty of threads, plenty of opportunities. All you can come up with are personal character assasinations.

COWARD. Come on, show us your bollocks, show us your knob. Spread your testosterone, spray your cum.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 05:43:32 AM
I love watching him toy with you lot, i'm sure that's consentual ;)  :snod:

It is fun toying with brainless posters.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Dave on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 08:40:57 AM
As any thread involving Delima, or any thread started by Delima. Stop entertaining the sick f*** already, hopefully he'll go away by himself if he doesn't get attention.

Oh, coming from you Kaizero who PM'ed me to say he was afraid to be banned, and confessed to me he would try his best not to appear in any thread involving me again.

All you can say is I am sicked. Prove it ? Describe it ? Debate with me ?

No, plenty of threads, plenty of opportunities. All you can come up with are personal character assasinations.

COWARD. Come on, show us your bollocks, show us your knob. Spread your testosterone, spray your cum.

:fwap:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 10:52:48 AM
not just slightly... This is PURE MADNESS!

Pure madness, indeed. You sick sadistic b****** amuse yourself with rape joke.

Delima... it would be better if you put your logic's... in different kind of perspectives...
I love your persistence... But in the end it just show how flawed your logic...
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 10:55:20 AM
As any thread involving Delima, or any thread started by Delima. Stop entertaining the sick f*** already, hopefully he'll go away by himself if he doesn't get attention.

Oh, coming from you Kaizero who PM'ed me to say he was afraid to be banned, and confessed to me he would try his best not to appear in any thread involving me again.

All you can say is I am sicked. Prove it ? Describe it ? Debate with me ?

No, plenty of threads, plenty of opportunities. All you can come up with are personal character assasinations.

COWARD. Come on, show us your bollocks, show us your knob. Spread your testosterone, spray your cum.

:fwap:

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 10:55:54 AM
I smell a sex fight coming!
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mr Logic on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 11:10:40 AM
Year: 2033

The planet bakes, largely desolate, a few small groups survive in geodesic domes designed to be efficient air-conditioners. The few scientists that remain reach a startling conclusion, whilst carbon dioxide and methane contributed to the climate change the most significant contributor was testosterone.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 11:52:37 AM
Delima... it would be better if you put your logic's... in different kind of perspectives...
I love your persistence... But in the end it just show how flawed your logic...

Is calling my logic flawed the best you could do ? Are you incapable of attacking my logic ? Not surprising at all.

My persistence means f*** all to the validity of my reasonings. Billions of people pray daily to their gods and deitys - such mass repitition and hallucination proves fu.ck all about the logics of religions and the existence of god.

If anyone the one being persistent is you - persisitent in not being able to tackle my logics and reasonings.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: icemanblue on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 11:55:18 AM
Noone cares, man. They just like winding you up because you're a freak.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 11:58:10 AM
I smell a sex fight coming!

I extended my invitation to Kaizero and thefishman to touch me due to the sexual frustrations they displayed previously - they have yet to respond positively.

Plenty of posters try to sex-fight with me in my sexual abuse and bestiality threads - but none succeeded in defeating me.

I am still waiting.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 12:01:42 PM
Noone cares, man. They just like winding you up because you're a freak.

Not sure though.

Whenever anyone tries to wind me up, I have always maintained the ability to respond and rebut with proper reasonings.

However whenever I post with proper logics - everyone has their knickers in a twist and throw me all kinds  of insults and ad hominem comments.

?

And I would rather be a well-thought freak than a brainwashed, run of the mill simpleton.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: toonlass on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 12:28:27 PM
It's still f***ing freezing here man.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 12:28:55 PM
Delima... it would be better if you put your logic's... in different kind of perspectives...
I love your persistence... But in the end it just show how flawed your logic...

Is calling my logic flawed the best you could do ? Are you incapable of attacking my logic ? Not surprising at all.

My persistence means f*** all to the validity of my reasonings. Billions of people pray daily to their gods and deitys - such mass repitition and hallucination proves fu.ck all about the logics of religions and the existence of god.

If anyone the one being persistent is you - persisitent in not being able to tackle my logics and reasonings.

spouting OOT crap... in thread title called "Global Warming". Where is your logic in there?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Southerner on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 01:21:30 PM
Delima... it would be better if you put your logic's... in different kind of perspectives...
I love your persistence... But in the end it just show how flawed your logic...

Is calling my logic flawed the best you could do ? Are you incapable of attacking my logic ? Not surprising at all.

My persistence means f*** all to the validity of my reasonings. Billions of people pray daily to their gods and deitys - such mass repitition and hallucination proves fu.ck all about the logics of religions and the existence of god.

If anyone the one being persistent is you - persisitent in not being able to tackle my logics and reasonings.

spouting OOT crap... in thread title called "Global Warming". Where is your logic in there?

Where is your logic here? He's going to take this and spank you with it, don't attempt to flame him and then continue to berate him for his 'OOT' replies. You're going to be responsible when you go crying to an Admin after he lifts a picture of your dog off the internet and does awful things to it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 01:46:31 PM
Delima is one crazy ass fool. One of these days I hope he steps in front of a bus driven by a poodle.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 01:50:00 PM
Delima is one crazy ass fool. One of these days I hope he steps in front of a bus driven by a poodle.

A poodle who he probably raped...

A poodle driven made with rage because Delima buggered him so senseless, he lost any semblance of canine self-respect...
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 02:31:34 PM
spouting OOT crap... in thread title called "Global Warming". Where is your logic in there?

My logic ?

Proper discussion of the causes of global warming lead to discovery of vegetarianism as the most effective means to alleviate global warming
Extensive discussion of vegetarianism lead to point of consensual bestiality.

How about you ? Your first post to me is about imagining me talking to a goat
Your second post to me is about me raping an ant

And crap, what crap ? "Crap" which is so crap that you are unable to picks holes in and find fault with ?

You need a mirror, and a good slap by yourself.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 03:44:33 PM
Giving up meat won't stop global warming. Nothing will.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 03:52:21 PM
Giving up meat won't stop global warming. Nothing will.

Yup, this is true. But only because global warming is a figment of some weird scientists' collective imagination.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:04:06 PM
Giving up meat won't stop global warming. Nothing will.

No one is aiming to stop global warming.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:04:59 PM
Yup, this is true. But only because global warming is a figment of some weird scientists' collective imagination.

Proof ?

Even climate-change sceptics agree that global warming is real. The crux of the issue is - is it man made ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:13:28 PM
Yup, this is true. But only because global warming is a figment of some weird scientists' collective imagination.

Proof ?

Even climate-change sceptics agree that global warming is real. The crux of the issue is - is it man made ?

I may or may not have been being entirely serious there. I may or may not have been being a bit sarcastic. I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern that though; that would require a degree of wit which is beyond your meagre possession.

Fact is there's more than enough reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people out there who do not share the same conviction about global warming. Anyway, more importantly, have you ever shagged or would you ever shag a lion? Or a grizzly bear? Or is it just the more defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits that get you feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department? Hold that thought though, I really couldn't give a f***.

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:28:42 PM
I may or may not have been being entirely serious there. I may or may not have been being a bit sarcastic. I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern that though; that would require a degree of wit which is beyond your meagre possession.

Fact is there's more than enough reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people out there who do not share the same conviction about global warming. Anyway, more importantly, have you ever shagged or would you ever shag a lion? Or a grizzly bear? Or is it just the more defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits that get you feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department? Hold that thought though, I really couldn't give a f***.

Oh no, GM's standard overused, pathetic "may or may not be" "where is your wit" comeback - time waster, idle life loser. And yes, I don't have any wit that corresponds to deciphering your cryptic meaningless message, and I don't wish to.

Fact is, no one scientifically qualified has disproved global warming, so your point is moot. And only a stupid person will think that it simply requires intelligence and good education to prove or disprove global warming.

I have never shagged a lion - although in the future  I may.
I have never shagged a grizzly bear - although in the future I may.
Defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits don't get me feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department.

Yeah, you couldn't give a f***. But you felt so compelled to ask me. Like a little boy running up to a pretty girl he fancies and shout "I do not fancy you". Don't be ashamed GM, it is healthy to be interested in the sexuality of animals.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:31:42 PM
I may or may not have been being entirely serious there. I may or may not have been being a bit sarcastic. I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern that though; that would require a degree of wit which is beyond your meagre possession.

Fact is there's more than enough reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people out there who do not share the same conviction about global warming. Anyway, more importantly, have you ever shagged or would you ever shag a lion? Or a grizzly bear? Or is it just the more defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits that get you feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department? Hold that thought though, I really couldn't give a f***.

Oh no, GM's standard overused, pathetic "may or may not be" "where is your wit" comeback - time waster, idle life loser. And yes, I don't have any wit that corresponds to deciphering your cryptic meaningless message, and I don't wish to.

Fact is, no one scientifically qualified has disproved global warming, so your point is moot. And only a stupid person will think that it simply requires intelligence and good education to prove or disprove global warming.

I have never shagged a lion - although in the future  I may.
I have never shagged a grizzly bear - although in the future I may.
Defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits don't get me feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department.

Yeah, you couldn't give a f***. But you felt so compelled to ask me. Like a little boy running up to a pretty girl he fancies and shout "I do not fancy you". Don't be ashamed GM, it is healthy to be interested in the sexuality of animals.

Damn it. You've got me banged to rights...

I'll get the lubricant, you just bring the :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:  - alright? :fwap:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: toonlass on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:32:33 PM
I may or may not have been being entirely serious there. I may or may not have been being a bit sarcastic. I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern that though; that would require a degree of wit which is beyond your meagre possession.

Fact is there's more than enough reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people out there who do not share the same conviction about global warming. Anyway, more importantly, have you ever shagged or would you ever shag a lion? Or a grizzly bear? Or is it just the more defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits that get you feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department? Hold that thought though, I really couldn't give a f***.

Oh no, GM's standard overused, pathetic "may or may not be" "where is your wit" comeback - time waster, idle life loser. And yes, I don't have any wit that corresponds to deciphering your cryptic meaningless message, and I don't wish to.

Fact is, no one scientifically qualified has disproved global warming, so your point is moot. And only a stupid person will think that it simply requires intelligence and good education to prove or disprove global warming.

I have never shagged a lion - although in the future  I may.
I have never shagged a grizzly bear - although in the future I may.
Defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits don't get me feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department.


Yeah, you couldn't give a f***. But you felt so compelled to ask me. Like a little boy running up to a pretty girl he fancies and shout "I do not fancy you". Don't be ashamed GM, it is healthy to be interested in the sexuality of animals.

Can I just check whether this means you are only turned on by the thought of shagging animals that would rip you to shreds?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:35:01 PM
Damn it. You've got me banged to rights...

I'll get the lubricant, you just bring the :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:  - alright? :fwap:

Alright GM. Can you post a picture of yourself please ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:35:59 PM
Can I just check whether this means you are only turned on by the thought of shagging animals that would rip you to shreds?

No
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:39:26 PM
Damn it. You've got me banged to rights...

I'll get the lubricant, you just bring the :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:  - alright? :fwap:

Alright GM. Can you post a picture of yourself please ?

(http://images.google.co.uk/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://tarhearted.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ee0f61288340120a576e9f1970c-800wi&usg=AFQjCNHT0e8Zf3EzlVLqc6tIL2tVaT7pJg)

Hear me roar. Make me purr. :smitten:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:53:36 PM
   ∩___∩
   | ノ    ヽ/⌒)
  /⌒) (゚)  (゚) | .|     ▂ ▪ ▂▄▅▆▇■▀▀〓◣▬ ▪ ■ … .
 / /   ( _●_) ミ/  .▂▅■▀ ▪ ■ ▂¨ ∵▃ ▪ ・
(  ヽ  |∪| /   ◢▇█▀ ¨▂▄▅▆▇██■■〓◥◣▄
 \    ヽノ /  ■ ▂▅██▅▆▇██■〓▀▀ ◥◣ ∴ ▪ .
  /      / ▅▇███████▀ ▪ ∴ ….▅ ■  ◥◣
 |   _つ◥▅▆▇████████▆▃▂  ▪ ■▂▄▃▄▂
 |  /ω\ \ ■  ¨ ▀▀▀■▀▀▀ ▪ ■ ∴‥
 | /     )  )
 ∪     (  \
        \_)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 04:54:27 PM
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: toonlass on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 06:13:17 PM
   ∩___∩
   | ノ    ヽ/⌒)
  /⌒) (゚)  (゚) | .|     ▂ ▪ ▂▄▅▆▇■▀▀〓◣▬ ▪ ■ … .
 / /   ( _●_) ミ/  .▂▅■▀ ▪ ■ ▂¨ ∵▃ ▪ ・
(  ヽ  |∪| /   ◢▇█▀ ¨▂▄▅▆▇██■■〓◥◣▄
 \    ヽノ /  ■ ▂▅██▅▆▇██■〓▀▀ ◥◣ ∴ ▪ .
  /      / ▅▇███████▀ ▪ ∴ ….▅ ■  ◥◣
 |   _つ◥▅▆▇████████▆▃▂  ▪ ■▂▄▃▄▂
 |  /ω\ \ ■  ¨ ▀▀▀■▀▀▀ ▪ ■ ∴‥
 | /     )  )
 ∪     (  \
        \_)


Does that picture contribute to global warming or just Delima's temperature?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 06:38:39 PM
I think those who find delights in rape or sexual abuse jokes will be exicted by this.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 06:43:28 PM
I think those who find delights in rape or sexual abuse jokes will be exicted by this.

I take no delight in this at all. I just feel very sorry for you. You poor, sad, deluded fuckwit. Life must be very hard for you.

Much like your cock when an animal walks past you and gives you a flirtatious, smouldering look.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 06:46:51 PM
I think those who find delights in rape or sexual abuse jokes will be exicted by this.

I think you're the only one on here that does tbf.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 07:02:38 PM
spouting OOT crap... in thread title called "Global Warming". Where is your logic in there?

My logic ?

Proper discussion of the causes of global warming lead to discovery of vegetarianism as the most effective means to alleviate global warming
Extensive discussion of vegetarianism lead to point of consensual bestiality.

How about you ? Your first post to me is about imagining me talking to a goat
Your second post to me is about me raping an ant

And crap, what crap ? "Crap" which is so crap that you are unable to picks holes in and find fault with ?

You need a mirror, and a good slap by yourself.


is that the way your logic thinking or is that the way your imagination made everything?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 09:25:38 PM
Giving up meat won't stop global warming. Nothing will.

Yup, this is true. But only because global warming is a figment of some weird scientists' collective imagination.

....and grant cycle.

For me it is a dumbed down way of breaking it to the populus that we're running out of oil without the I'm buying up all the water in Tesco's panic.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 09:26:25 PM
Yup, this is true. But only because global warming is a figment of some weird scientists' collective imagination.

Proof ?

Even climate-change sceptics agree that global warming is real. The crux of the issue is - is it man made ?

Pandora strikes back my friend and about f***ing time.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 23 December 2009, 09:28:02 PM
I may or may not have been being entirely serious there. I may or may not have been being a bit sarcastic. I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern that though; that would require a degree of wit which is beyond your meagre possession.

Fact is there's more than enough reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people out there who do not share the same conviction about global warming. Anyway, more importantly, have you ever shagged or would you ever shag a lion? Or a grizzly bear? Or is it just the more defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits that get you feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department? Hold that thought though, I really couldn't give a f***.

Oh no, GM's standard overused, pathetic "may or may not be" "where is your wit" comeback - time waster, idle life loser. And yes, I don't have any wit that corresponds to deciphering your cryptic meaningless message, and I don't wish to.

Fact is, no one scientifically qualified has disproved global warming, so your point is moot. And only a stupid person will think that it simply requires intelligence and good education to prove or disprove global warming.

I have never shagged a lion - although in the future  I may.
I have never shagged a grizzly bear - although in the future I may.
Defenceless creatures such as toy dogs like Pekingese or Chihuahua or rabbits don't get me feeling happy-go-lucky in the libido department.


Yeah, you couldn't give a f***. But you felt so compelled to ask me. Like a little boy running up to a pretty girl he fancies and shout "I do not fancy you". Don't be ashamed GM, it is healthy to be interested in the sexuality of animals.

Can I just check whether this means you are only turned on by the thought of shagging animals that would rip you to shreds?

Women basically.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Thursday 24 December 2009, 09:24:54 AM
I take no delight in this at all. I just feel very sorry for you. You poor, sad, deluded fuckwit. Life must be very hard for you.

Much like your cock when an animal walks past you and gives you a flirtatious, smouldering look.

Yeah right, calling other rapists, making rape-related jokes and innuendos.

OK I get it, you make these statements, but you may or may not take delight of them. It requires wit from me to decipher them. Right ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Thursday 24 December 2009, 09:32:22 AM
I think you're the only one on here that does tbf.

Oh no, says Kaizero who wants to chops off people's genitals and feed them.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Thursday 24 December 2009, 09:33:26 AM
is that the way your logic thinking or is that they way your imagination made everything?

Unable to construct a rebuttal, so shifting the ground ?

Expected.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Thursday 24 December 2009, 09:34:47 AM
Pandora strikes back my friend and about f***ing time.

You are right - I just hope that those global-warming denial or those selfish t***s suffer the most.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:17:26 AM
I think you're the only one on here that does tbf.

Oh no, says Kaizero who wants to chops off people's genitals and feed them.

You're the one who say I want to do that. Says it all about you.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:35:31 AM
Howay man for f***s sake, it's Christmas Eve. It's time to be festive to our fellow man, so for gods sake ignore the freak and lets have a good time.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:36:49 AM
All threads Delima post in should get automatically locked since it only ruins them anyways.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:38:26 AM
All threads Delima post in should get automatically locked since he only ruins them anyways.

Worst than NE5 IMO. Become blatantly boring as f***.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:40:45 AM
All threads Delima post in should get automatically locked since he only ruins them anyways.

Worst than NE5 IMO. Become blatantly boring as f***.

NE5 could at least lead an argument in an adult fashion, and debate what he wanted to debate at leat having some substance to what he said.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:42:04 AM
All threads Delima post in should get automatically locked since he only ruins them anyways.

Worst than NE5 IMO. Become blatantly boring as f***.

NE5 could at least lead an argument in an adult fashion, and debate what he wanted to debate at leat having some substance to what he said.

Ditto....
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:42:39 AM
It's just that time of year, hes feeling lonely, all the good dogs are wrapped up warm in the house in front of their fires and not out wandering the streets.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:46:20 AM
It's a shame for him, all alone hiding from any proper discussion shouting "ad hominem! ad hominem! stop talking to me, I dont want to discuss anything, ad hominem! STOP!" wuthout even knowing what it means, as its all he can bring to a "discussion" himself, but noones done it to him.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:50:42 AM
It's just that time of year, hes feeling lonely, all the good dogs are wrapped up warm in the house in front of their fires and not out wandering the streets.

Maybe people could post some nice pictures of saucy-looking animals in seductive poses that would cheer the poor chap up a bit at this time of year. (But do make sure you've got their consent first, of course ;) )
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: MKSC on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:55:32 AM
It's just that time of year, hes feeling lonely, all the good dogs are wrapped up warm in the house in front of their fires and not out wandering the streets.

Maybe people could post some nice pictures of saucy-looking animals in seductive poses that would cheer the poor chap up a bit at this time of year. (But do make sure you've got their consent first, of course ;) )

I just asked my two labradors but they said they heard from Rover down the street that he was passing round a very nasty case of genital warts, so they didn't want to excite him and pose for some pictures. Sorry.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:55:40 AM
It's just that time of year, hes feeling lonely, all the good dogs are wrapped up warm in the house in front of their fires and not out wandering the streets.

Maybe people could post some nice pictures of saucy-looking animals in seductive poses that would cheer the poor chap up a bit at this time of year. (But do make sure you've got their consent first, of course ;) )

Got their consent first... by open letter agreement... business to business. Add also newest autograph plus interviewing video also. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:57:56 AM
The man talks to animals ffs, he isn't Eddie Murphy. To actually spend his time asking animals if they'll let him stick his chipalata in their peehole is quite worrying, the mans gone.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Thursday 24 December 2009, 10:59:14 AM
I can picture Delima talking to a dog going "Can I have your consent to shag you? Silence and woofing means yes." "woofyesyeasdelimadoiywoofwoof" in two different voices.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Thursday 24 December 2009, 11:02:30 AM
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4057/1223177815685.jpg)

The protector of animals everywhere.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Thursday 24 December 2009, 11:10:42 AM
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4057/1223177815685.jpg)

The protector of animals everywhere.

 :lol: :lol:

You f***ing idiot, Ste. :doh:

Delima will just find that kinky and exciting.  :cheesy:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Thursday 24 December 2009, 11:12:23 AM
I wish Delima was The Joker, then he'd be dead now.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Stephen927 on Thursday 24 December 2009, 11:16:19 AM
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4057/1223177815685.jpg)

The protector of animals everywhere.

 :lol: :lol:

You f***ing idiot, Ste. :doh:

Delima will just find that kinky and exciting.  :cheesy:

Ahh, but thats the beauty of it, it makes him feel horny then chomps at his ankles.

You actually thought I was capable of such an amateur mistake? Me? Stephen627?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: TaylorJ_01 on Thursday 24 December 2009, 11:39:34 AM

is that the way your logic thinking or is that they way your imagination made everything?

Don't know about you guys but this is the greatest line I have ever heard. It f***s my mind up every time I read it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: juniatmoko on Thursday 24 December 2009, 12:27:05 PM

is that the way your logic thinking or is that they way your imagination made everything?

Don't know about you guys but this is the greatest line I have ever heard. It f***s my mind up every time I read it.

sorry miss type "the" with "they".... didn't check last time
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Saturday 26 December 2009, 10:10:32 AM
You're the one who say I want to do that. Says it all about you.

Oh no who said this

"People doing either of those things should all have their genitals chopped off and fed to them though"

Pathetic, can't even shoulder responsibility of words you had uttered.

Pathetic little being.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Saturday 26 December 2009, 10:12:11 AM
It's a shame for him, all alone hiding from any proper discussion shouting "ad hominem! ad hominem! stop talking to me, I dont want to discuss anything, ad hominem! STOP!" wuthout even knowing what it means, as its all he can bring to a "discussion" himself, but noones done it to him.

LOL, said the one who can't even explain what ad hominem is, and had to search the internet and edit "some examples (which are not even neccessarily correct") in, and then accuse others for responding to his pre-edit post.

For f*** sake.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Saturday 26 December 2009, 10:12:48 AM
The man talks to animals ffs, he isn't Eddie Murphy. To actually spend his time asking animals if they'll let him stick his chipalata in their peehole is quite worrying, the mans gone.

Prove it ?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Delima on Saturday 26 December 2009, 10:14:00 AM
I wish Delima was The Joker, then he'd be dead now.

Wow, wishing another forumer of death.

I sincerely suggest that you seek professional help on the health of your mental soundness.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Saturday 26 December 2009, 12:13:41 PM
It's a shame for him, all alone hiding from any proper discussion shouting "ad hominem! ad hominem! stop talking to me, I dont want to discuss anything, ad hominem! STOP!" wuthout even knowing what it means, as its all he can bring to a "discussion" himself, but noones done it to him.

LOL, said the one who can't even explain what ad hominem is, and had to search the internet and edit "some examples (which are not even neccessarily correct") in, and then accuse others for responding to his pre-edit post.

For f*** sake.

The sad part is that you're the one who searched the Internet for "Yahoo Answers", or whatever it was where anyone can say anything they like about anything. I actually linked to a site where it had the standard definition of the term, and actual examples of how it is to be used.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Saturday 26 December 2009, 12:14:16 PM
You're the one who say I want to do that. Says it all about you.

Oh no who said this

"People doing either of those things should all have their genitals chopped off and fed to them though"

Pathetic, can't even shoulder responsibility of words you had uttered.

Pathetic little being.

Your inability to comprehend anything is most amusing.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Kaizero on Saturday 26 December 2009, 12:14:31 PM
I wish Delima was The Joker, then he'd be dead now.

Wow, wishing another forumer of death.

I sincerely suggest that you seek professional help on the health of your mental soundness.

See my above post. Well amusing.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:25:50 PM
Quote
Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans

A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.

In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."

Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers.

Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.

Their latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

The team argues that the good correspondence between the new temperature record and historical data on CO2 emissions suggests human activity is "the most straightforward explanation" for the warming.

The paper reiterates the finding that the land surface temperature has risen 0.9C just in the last 50 years.

In a piece authored for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

When establishing the project, Prof Muller had been concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data.

He gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including such luminaries as Saul Perlmutter, winner of this year's Nobel Physics Prize for research showing the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, billionaire US industrialists who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.

On a different page
However, one collaborator on the previous tranche of Berkeley Earth project papers, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, declined to be included as an author on the latest one.

Commenting on the paper, Prof Curry said: "Their latest paper on the 250-year record concludes that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions. Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion."

She also told the New York Times: "I was invited to be a co-author on the new paper. I declined. I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I don't think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming."

The Berkeley Earth project studies have not yet been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, but the team has submitted them to the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth Science System Center at Penn State University, said that there was "a certain ironic satisfaction" in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers "demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations".

Prof Muller, meanwhile, describes his own change in standpoint as "a total turnaround".

He explained: "These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming."

The University of California physics professor added: "I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes.

"Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done."

Sceptical blogger Anthony Watts criticised elements of the team's findings, releasing details of his own analysis which claims to show "spurious doubling" in US temperature trends over recent decades.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Fenham Mag on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:27:07 PM
(http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/this+is+the+quot+you+don+t+say+quot+face+_d3d47eea8a14bd3a870bef4ef7e56686.jpg)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:32:51 PM
I imagine that's the last time the Koch Brothers will ask him to do a report on global warming for them.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:33:30 PM
Nothing won't happen or ever will happen to tackle Global Warming because quite frankly most politicians and people still have their heads buried in the sand regarding this.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Fenham Mag on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:35:57 PM
Nothing won't happen or ever will happen to tackle Global Warming because quite frankly most politicians and people still have their heads buried in the sand regarding this.

What's the Kyoto Protocol then?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:39:26 PM
Nothing won't happen or ever will happen to tackle Global Warming because quite frankly most politicians and people still have their heads buried in the sand regarding this.

What's the Kyoto Protocol then?

Something designed for 20 years ago and doesn't fit within the urgent needs to save the planet from the effects of Global warming.

The fact that the biggest contributor to green house gases is the US who withdrew from it makes it almost meaningless.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:40:36 PM
Nothing won't happen or ever will happen to tackle Global Warming because quite frankly most politicians and people still have their heads buried in the sand regarding this.

Seriously, man?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: wormy on Tuesday 31 July 2012, 01:43:55 PM
Nothing won't happen or ever will happen to tackle Global Warming because quite frankly most politicians and people still have their heads buried in the sand regarding this.

Seriously, man?

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Thursday 23 August 2012, 01:19:11 PM
Quote
Science advisor warns climate target 'out the window'

One of the Government's most senior scientific advisors has said that efforts to stop a sharp rise in global temperatures were now unrealistic.

Professor Sir Robert Watson said that the hope of restricting the average temperature rise to 2C was "out the window".

He said that the rise could be as high as 5C - with dire conseqences.

Professor Watson added the Chancellor, George Osborne, should back efforts to cut the UK's CO2 emissions.

He said: "I have to look back (on the outcome of sucessive climate change summits) Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban and say that I can't be overly optimistic.

"To be quite candid the idea of a 2C target is largely out of the window".

Professor Watson is among the most respected scientists in the world on climate change policy.

He is currently Chief Scientist at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs and a former Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He also used to work for the World Bank and was a senior advisor to former Vice President Al Gore at the White House.

Professor Watson, who is due to step down from his role at Defra next month, suggested that the Chancellor, George Osborne reconsider his opposition to tough measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr Osborne has said that the UK's ambitious targets for CO2 should be relaxed so as not to drive businesses to countries which have set themselves much lower targets.

"I would say to George Osborne: 'work with the public sector. Work with the public on behavior change. Let's demonstrate to the rest of the world that we can make significant progress here'."

Professor Watson argues that the UK and with Germany should continue to take the lead in driving efforts to reach an effective international treaty.

Hurt Poorest

"If we carry on the way we are there is a 50-50 chance that we will get to a 3 degree rise," he said.

"I wouldn't rule out a 5 degree world and that would be quite serious for the people of the world especially the poorest. We need more political will than we currently have".

The IPCC 2007 assessment summarised the probable impact of various temperature rise sceanrios.

It shows that the impact on human health, the availability of food and water, the loss of coastlines becomes progressively worse as the average temperature of the planet rises.

The 2C target was agreed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in 2010.

The majority of countries though prefer a lower target of 1.5C.

A number of analyses have also concluded that the 2C would be missed. The most recent was by the International Energy Agency earlier this year.

Professor Watson added that deep cuts in CO2 emissions are possible using innovative technologies without harming economic recovery.

"This doesn't take a revolution in energy technology an evolution would get us there.

"So the question 'is is there the political will and everyone (ends up) looking at each other".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: cp40 on Thursday 23 August 2012, 01:36:19 PM
Nothing won't happen or ever will happen to tackle Global Warming because quite frankly most politicians and people still have their heads buried in the sand regarding this.


does this mean it will or it willn't?
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on Thursday 23 August 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Classic neesy.

Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 23 August 2012, 04:37:36 PM
Quote
Science advisor warns climate target 'out the window'

One of the Government's most senior scientific advisors has said that efforts to stop a sharp rise in global temperatures were now unrealistic.

Professor Sir Robert Watson said that the hope of restricting the average temperature rise to 2C was "out the window".

He said that the rise could be as high as 5C - with dire conseqences.

Professor Watson added the Chancellor, George Osborne, should back efforts to cut the UK's CO2 emissions.

He said: "I have to look back (on the outcome of sucessive climate change summits) Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban and say that I can't be overly optimistic.

"To be quite candid the idea of a 2C target is largely out of the window".

Professor Watson is among the most respected scientists in the world on climate change policy.

He is currently Chief Scientist at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs and a former Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He also used to work for the World Bank and was a senior advisor to former Vice President Al Gore at the White House.

Professor Watson, who is due to step down from his role at Defra next month, suggested that the Chancellor, George Osborne reconsider his opposition to tough measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr Osborne has said that the UK's ambitious targets for CO2 should be relaxed so as not to drive businesses to countries which have set themselves much lower targets.

"I would say to George Osborne: 'work with the public sector. Work with the public on behavior change. Let's demonstrate to the rest of the world that we can make significant progress here'."

Professor Watson argues that the UK and with Germany should continue to take the lead in driving efforts to reach an effective international treaty.

Hurt Poorest

"If we carry on the way we are there is a 50-50 chance that we will get to a 3 degree rise," he said.

"I wouldn't rule out a 5 degree world and that would be quite serious for the people of the world especially the poorest. We need more political will than we currently have".

The IPCC 2007 assessment summarised the probable impact of various temperature rise sceanrios.

It shows that the impact on human health, the availability of food and water, the loss of coastlines becomes progressively worse as the average temperature of the planet rises.

The 2C target was agreed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in 2010.

The majority of countries though prefer a lower target of 1.5C.

A number of analyses have also concluded that the 2C would be missed. The most recent was by the International Energy Agency earlier this year.

Professor Watson added that deep cuts in CO2 emissions are possible using innovative technologies without harming economic recovery.

"This doesn't take a revolution in energy technology an evolution would get us there.

"So the question 'is is there the political will and everyone (ends up) looking at each other".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194)

Climate traget. :yao:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: neesy111 on Friday 24 August 2012, 01:02:40 AM
Really does my head in the way in which some people are burying the whole climate change argument.

It's clear to see what is happening and it's pretty inevitable the consequences could be disastrous for quite a large population for the world, but as always greed is getting in the way.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: cfcmagpies on Friday 24 August 2012, 01:46:19 AM
Really does my head in the way in which some people are burying the whole climate change argument.

It's clear to see what is happening and it's pretty inevitable the consequences could be disastrous for quite a large population for the world, but as always greed is getting in the way.

It's f***ing insanity is what it is.

She'll be right, mate.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 24 August 2012, 02:39:30 AM
I talk to people about the need for electric cars, easier access to small scale renewables for peoples homes (mainly small wind turbines) and the need for nuclear power. They think I'm a loon and that everything is ok. Its insanity and nothing will ever get done as no country is willing to take the steps needed to clean up the planet and stop messing up the climate. The daft thing is if we do these things it will be a better place to live as there wont be s*** loads of exhaust fumes everywhere.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Friday 24 August 2012, 07:56:39 AM
I want everything to be just nice!!! :lol:

It don't work like that. ;)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: neesy111 on Friday 24 August 2012, 11:52:27 AM
I talk to people about the need for electric cars, easier access to small scale renewables for peoples homes (mainly small wind turbines) and the need for nuclear power. They think I'm a loon and that everything is ok. Its insanity and nothing will ever get done as no country is willing to take the steps needed to clean up the planet and stop messing up the climate. The daft thing is if we do these things it will be a better place to live as there wont be s*** loads of exhaust fumes everywhere.

I'm a little similar myself, though Electric cars will never take off in their current form.  Hydrogen fuel cells has to be the way forward, but we need to massively ramp up renewables as well.

Germany is the only country that seems to be taking it seriously enough and they'll reap the benefits from having a massive industry selling renewables to other countries in the coming years.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Hudson on Friday 24 August 2012, 11:57:13 AM
I talk to people about the need for electric cars, easier access to small scale renewables for peoples homes (mainly small wind turbines) and the need for nuclear power. They think I'm a loon and that everything is ok. Its insanity and nothing will ever get done as no country is willing to take the steps needed to clean up the planet and stop messing up the climate. The daft thing is if we do these things it will be a better place to live as there wont be s*** loads of exhaust fumes everywhere.

I'm a little similar myself, though Electric cars will never take off in their current form.  Hydrogen fuel cells has to be the way forward, but we need to massively ramp up renewables as well.

Germany is the only country that seems to be taking it seriously enough and they'll reap the benefits from having a massive industry selling renewables to other countries in the coming years.

BASF AG are the world leaders in this already, we do s*** loads off r+d

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=basf+renewable+energy&oq=BASF+Renew&gs_l=hp.1.2.0j0i30l3.936.1154.1.3900.2.2.0.0.0.0.156.296.0j2.2.0...0.0...1c.rG_B1ovz17c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cce1281555dc81b2&biw=1170&bih=752 (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=basf+renewable+energy&oq=BASF+Renew&gs_l=hp.1.2.0j0i30l3.936.1154.1.3900.2.2.0.0.0.0.156.296.0j2.2.0...0.0...1c.rG_B1ovz17c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cce1281555dc81b2&biw=1170&bih=752)
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: cfcmagpies on Friday 24 August 2012, 12:06:20 PM
I talk to people about the need for electric cars, easier access to small scale renewables for peoples homes (mainly small wind turbines) and the need for nuclear power. They think I'm a loon and that everything is ok. Its insanity and nothing will ever get done as no country is willing to take the steps needed to clean up the planet and stop messing up the climate. The daft thing is if we do these things it will be a better place to live as there wont be s*** loads of exhaust fumes everywhere.

I'm a little similar myself, though Electric cars will never take off in their current form.  Hydrogen fuel cells has to be the way forward, but we need to massively ramp up renewables as well.

Germany is the only country that seems to be taking it seriously enough and they'll reap the benefits from having a massive industry selling renewables to other countries in the coming years.

Germany has to buy their power from the nuclear plants in France... solar won't work in Europe, and I have massive doubts about its scalability on a global scale.

Not convinced that hydrogen is the answer for transport, either.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 24 August 2012, 01:01:34 PM
Electric is the future for transport, the issues lie in the battery technology though there have been some developments in that. Whats the point of Hydrogen cars when all it means is you're using electricity to split water to then reform it to make electricity, plus shell etc will just sell it at a stupidly high price. Electricity is generated then it goes in your car far less energy waste converting things.

I read something a while ago about placing electro-magnets under the road so it charges peoples cars as they drive over them, there are stations that swap out batteries so you can get a fully charged on in a few minutes. For most people electric is fine as they only do around 50/60 miles aday max, for other transport such as buses and HGV's its still a bit far on on the range front but hopefully the batteries keep getting better and the charging technology improves. The infrastructure for electric needs to be built and in the mean while cars like the Ampera that have a small petrol engine to generate power will help move people over. Also Europe has to go via the wind and nuclear route. But people are morons and do stupid things, like the Germans shutting their nuclear plans for fear of a meltdown like in japan, forgetting the fukushima plant went mental as hit was hit by an earth quake and then a 10m high wall of water how many of them do you get in Germany....
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 24 August 2012, 01:30:05 PM
I don't think charging points are really the way forward, takes too long.  People won't have a two hour break on their journey while it charges up.  What they need is swappable batteries.  Rock up, put your credit card in, put your spent battery in an empty charger port, take a full one and get goign again.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 24 August 2012, 04:09:37 PM
There are newer charging points, that charge 50% in 20/30 mins. The battery swap machine also exists though it relies on having standardised batteries! Having a mix of both will work so you charge at home/work swap battery on motorway etc
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: neesy111 on Friday 24 August 2012, 04:10:39 PM
There are newer charging points, that charge 50% in 20/30 mins. The battery swap machine also exists though it relies on having standardised batteries! Having a mix of both will work so you charge at home/work swap battery on motorway etc

Those fast charging points wreck the battery though, a new battery for electric car can cost up to 10k.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 24 August 2012, 04:22:08 PM
Renault do a scheme where you rent the battery then when it wears out they replace it.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: neesy111 on Friday 24 August 2012, 04:25:13 PM
Renault do a scheme where you rent the battery then when it wears out they replace it.

Fair enough, electric cars are fine for short journeys but soon as you do anything 40 miles + then you're buggered.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Friday 24 August 2012, 04:51:19 PM
They're hoding back cars that run on water cause in all reality they don't give a f*** about gloabal warming. Instead they want to sell lightbulbs that cost a tenner. :lol:

Germany is all windmilled up...But thez are 250,000 a pop and the motor wears out after 2/3 years.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: indi on Friday 24 August 2012, 06:30:05 PM
Batteries are seriously bad for the environment.

The environmental impact of a Prius is way worse than a small engined petrol car, something like a BlueMotion Polo kicks an electric car well into touch and driving an old car into the ground is even better than that.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 24 August 2012, 06:31:15 PM
Renault do a scheme where you rent the battery then when it wears out they replace it.

Fair enough, electric cars are fine for short journeys but soon as you do anything 40 miles + then you're buggered.

Most I've looked at have a range of about 120 miles so 100 miles realistically. For most people thats fine for day to day stuff, especially if you can charge it at work/shops etc.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: BlueStar on Thursday 15 October 2015, 08:41:52 AM
So Exxon knew climate change was real and caused by man-made emissions, used this information to plan where to drill in the future based on where the ice would melt, while publicly denying the very science it was using internally.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming

Quote
- By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.

- By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.

- And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”

But of course Exxon did dispute that fact. Not inside the company, where they used their knowledge to buy oil leases in the areas they knew would melt, but outside, where they used their political and financial might to make sure no one took climate change seriously.

They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Thursday 15 October 2015, 03:27:10 PM
I mean that really is f***ing appalling.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Northerngimp on Thursday 15 October 2015, 03:48:20 PM
Profits are useless if you don't have a fcking planet to live on  :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: YankeeToon on Thursday 15 October 2015, 04:22:58 PM
Profits are useless if you don't have a fcking planet to live on  :lol: :lol:

They'll be dead by the time the s*** really hits the fan, and they've got massive fortunes right now. Behaving like good capitalists and never letting long-term implications stand in the way of short-term profit.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: colinmk on Thursday 15 October 2015, 05:11:12 PM
This is why we should never, ever trust these people. Climate change, s****. Just green supporting hippies.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Mr Logic on Saturday 24 October 2015, 12:57:52 PM
So Exxon knew climate change was real and caused by man-made emissions, used this information to plan where to drill in the future based on where the ice would melt, while publicly denying the very science it was using internally.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming

Quote
- By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.

- By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.

- And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”

But of course Exxon did dispute that fact. Not inside the company, where they used their knowledge to buy oil leases in the areas they knew would melt, but outside, where they used their political and financial might to make sure no one took climate change seriously.

They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.

Even in The Los Angeles Times.

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Disco on Saturday 12 December 2015, 10:04:09 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35084374

A deal to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C has been agreed at the climate change summit in Paris after two weeks of negotiations.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Varadi on Sunday 13 December 2015, 10:31:13 AM
Quote
COP21: James Hansen, the father of climate change awareness, says Paris agreement is a 'fraud'

The professor and environmental activist said denounced the draft deal agreed on Saturday saying 'there is no action, just promises'

A leading climate scientist has denounced the Paris climate change agreement as a “fraud” - saying there is "no action, just promises”.

Professor James Hansen - credited as being the “father of climate change awareness” - told the Guardian the talks that culminated in a deal on Saturday were just “worthless words”.

Speaking as the final draft of the deal was published on Saturday afternoon, he said: “It’s just b******t for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.

“As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

The agreement - which still has to be ratified by the 196 countries who took part in the talks - laid out a pledge to limit the average rise in global temperatures to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels.

This is higher than the 1.5C rise campaigned for by a coalition of at risk Pacific Island countries - most notably the Marshall Islands in Micronesia - who say they need the lower limit in order to “stay alive”.

The agreement outlines an aim of reducing temperatures to a 1.5C - but does not commit to it.

Professor Hansen said the decision is meaningless without a commitment to tax greenhouse emissions - which he believes is the only way to reduce emissions fast enough.

He said: “The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable. It will become questionable whether global governance will break down.

“You’re talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China. We just can’t let that happen. Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline.”

It comes as President Barack Obama hailed the agreement as "the best chance we have to save the one planet we have".

Speaking hours after the deal was signed he said it was a "turning point" in history and a defining moment for his administration.

He said: "We've shown that the world has both the will and the ability to take on this challenge".

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop21-father-of-climate-change-awareness-james-hansen-denounces-paris-agreement-as-a-fraud-a6771171.html
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: firetotheworks on Sunday 13 December 2015, 10:46:35 AM
That climate deal isn't binding like.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 13 December 2015, 01:16:48 PM
It's a war against consciousness.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: colinmk on Sunday 13 December 2015, 09:05:26 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-deal-governments-fossil-fuels

Quote
By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.

Inside the narrow frame within which the talks have taken place, the draft agreement at the UN climate talks in Paris is a great success. The relief and self-congratulation with which the final text was greeted, acknowledges the failure at Copenhagen six years ago, where the negotiations ran wildly over time before collapsing. The Paris agreement is still awaiting formal adoption, but its aspirational limit of 1.5C of global warming, after the rejection of this demand for so many years, can be seen within this frame as a resounding victory. In this respect and others, the final text is stronger than most people anticipated.

Outside the frame it looks like something else. I doubt any of the negotiators believe that there will be no more than 1.5C of global warming as a result of these talks. As the preamble to the agreement acknowledges, even 2C, in view of the weak promises governments brought to Paris, is wildly ambitious. Though negotiated by some nations in good faith, the real outcomes are likely to commit us to levels of climate breakdown that will be dangerous to all and lethal to some. Our governments talk of not burdening future generations with debt. But they have just agreed to burden our successors with a far more dangerous legacy: the carbon dioxide produced by the continued burning of fossil fuels, and the long-running impacts this will exert on the global climate.

With 2C of warming, large parts of the world’s surface will become less habitable. The people of these regions are likely to face wilder extremes: worse droughts in some places, worse floods in others, greater storms and, potentially, grave impacts on food supply. Islands and coastal districts in many parts of the world are in danger of disappearing beneath the waves.

A combination of acidifying seas, coral death and Arctic melting means that entire marine food chains could collapse. On land, rainforests may retreat, rivers fail and deserts spread. Mass extinction is likely to be the hallmark of our era. This is what success, as defined by the cheering delegates, will look like.

And failure, even on their terms? Well that is plausible too. While earlier drafts specified dates and percentages, the final text aims only to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible”. Which could mean anything and nothing.

In fairness, the failure does not belong to the Paris talks, but to the whole process. A maximum of 1.5C, now an aspirational and unlikely target, was eminently achievable when the first UN climate change conference took place in Berlin in 1995. Two decades of procrastination, caused by lobbying – overt, covert and often downright sinister – by the fossil fuel lobby, coupled with the reluctance of governments to explain to their electorates that short-term thinking has long-term costs, ensure that the window of opportunity is now three-quarters shut. The talks in Paris are the best there have ever been. And that is a terrible indictment.


Progressive as the outcome is by comparison to all that has gone before, it leaves us with an almost comically lopsided agreement. While negotiations on almost all other global hazards seek to address both ends of the problem, the UN climate process has focused entirely on the consumption of fossil fuels, while ignoring their production.

In Paris the delegates have solemnly agreed to cut demand, but at home they seek to maximise supply. The UK government has even imposed a legal obligation upon itself, under the Infrastructure Act 2015, to “maximise economic recovery” of the UK’s oil and gas. Extracting fossil fuels is a hard fact. But the Paris agreement is full of soft facts: promises that can slip or unravel. Until governments undertake to keep fossil fuels in the ground, they will continue to undermine the agreement they have just made.

With Barack Obama in the White House and a dirigiste government overseeing the negotiations in Paris, this is as good as it is ever likely to get. No likely successor to the US president will show the same commitment. In countries like the UK, grand promises abroad are undermined by squalid retrenchments at home. Whatever happens now, we will not be viewed kindly by succeeding generations.

So yes, let the delegates congratulate themselves on a better agreement than might have been expected. And let them temper it with an apology to all those it will betray.
Title: Re: Global Warming.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 6 January 2016, 03:53:50 PM
This is now the Globalists prime tool so regardless of short term setbacks it will all be coming onto the books as we go. What's the difference between an agreement and a treaty? :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 27 February 2016, 09:12:19 PM
(http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/11896034_1045109095501030_4991489562653432165_n.jpg?itok=aT7I2KcG)

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/one-image-captures-shocking-potential-future-polar-bears
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: Parky on Monday 29 February 2016, 01:26:44 PM
It's an old bear. Arctic ice is cyclical. 25 years of fear mongering and catastrophic predictions haven't happened. The funniest one to date is that global warming created ISIS.  :laugh:

Few years back at peak scaremongering they said that the Himalayan glacier will melt by 2035 they've changed that now to 2335.  :lol:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

The easiest way of reducing Co2 is cut plastics out of the food chain and commercial production. Buy things in glass bottles and containers. This would be cost to industry so it isn't talked about much. ;)

A pet dog produced more Co2 than a 4x4 during its lifetime, again this would be unpopular as a discussion so its pretty much ignored.

http://timeforchange.org/plastic-bags-and-plastic-bottles-CO2-emissions
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 11 March 2016, 07:23:11 AM
https://youtu.be/OjD0e1d6GgQ
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Friday 11 March 2016, 07:56:22 AM
It's an old bear. Arctic ice is cyclical. 25 years of fear mongering and catastrophic predictions haven't happened. The funniest one to date is that global warming created ISIS.  :laugh:

Few years back at peak scaremongering they said that the Himalayan glacier will melt by 2035 they've changed that now to 2335.  :lol:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

The easiest way of reducing Co2 is cut plastics out of the food chain and commercial production. Buy things in glass bottles and containers. This would be cost to industry so it isn't talked about much. ;)

A pet dog produced more Co2 than a 4x4 during its lifetime, again this would be unpopular as a discussion so its pretty much ignored.

http://timeforchange.org/plastic-bags-and-plastic-bottles-CO2-emissions

Arctic sea is declining.  The graph you're showing there is of the annual cycle of sea ice. Of course it's a cycle, it's colder in the winter and warmer in the summer. The point is that the interannual extent is declining.

Scientists were never thought that Himalayan glaciers would go by 2035, that's ridiculous. That was one misprint in the IPCC - not in the physical science basis portion- of 2335. It was a terrible mistake by the IPCC but had nothing to do with the physical science basis of the report, and absolutely was not glaciologist or climatologists changing their predictions from 2035 to 2335. It was a mis-citation based on a non-scientific report (the WWF) in the impacts section.

Global warming is very clearly happening. And please don't misrepresent graphs from the likes of the NSIDC.

Here's an interannual sea ice graph for you for the latest full month

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/03/Figure3_0301.png
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 11 March 2016, 08:10:08 AM
I do love a well informed post.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 11 March 2016, 08:40:53 AM
Just realised thread title itself is also given the short shrift in the above video at 12:50, as well as some of the more general (well, very general) arguments within it  :)
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Saturday 12 March 2016, 11:27:57 PM

February was the most unusually warm month on record (beating this january). Dat Arctic amplification.
(If it's not clear, and sorry if patronizing, 'anomaly' in this context means 'difference from the average', in this case the average is taken as the average of 1950-1980 february temps)

And for the whole winter

Shared by Rafa Benitez at NASA Goddard: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin

(ENSO can account for above average temps, but not this)
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: Mr Logic on Thursday 18 August 2016, 06:04:27 PM
Related to my post here - http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,72955.msg6096155.html#msg6096155 - from the RAS..

The Express release a sensationalist article with no direct quotes, just 'Experts believe'

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/699681/FREAK-climate-changes-spark-min-ice-age-Britain-2017

Quote
FREAK climate change events could cause a mini ice age in Britain in 2017* - a shock new prediction suggests.
By Zoie O'Brien
PUBLISHED: 16:00, Sat, Aug 13, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:06, Sat, Aug 13, 2016

*The RSA article claimed the peak solar minimum would be in the 2030's



A “triple whammy” of unlikely weather surprises could cause temperatures to plummet from next year.

Experts believe the UK could be in for a big freeze within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger "substantial cooling”.

Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come.

Dramatic climate changes and "hasty policies" to handle them could mean "rolling blackouts" in the UK over the next few years.

These "worse case scenario" climate would hit the elderly hardest, leaving "some pensioners alone in the dark" on a freezing nights resigned to a "lonely death".

Scientists recently warned the sun's activity is at its lowest for 100 years and some have even drawn parallels with the period when the last mini ice age hit.


Severe cold would be brought about for the most part by a big decrease in solar activity as the earth is warmed by "sunspots" and solar flares.

This drop in sunspot activity leads to a so-called Maunder Minimum, which is believed to be responsible for the cripplingly cold winters Europe experienced three centuries ago.

London's river Thames froze over during Britain’s last Maunder minimum period in the 1600s.

Drawing on 400 years of sunspot observations, experts believe we are heading for a similar temperature "minimum".

However, Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a "grand solar minimum" is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change.  (garbage)

Irregular and complex climatic changes affecting the equatorial Pacific region, known as El Niño, could also play a major part.

As the next 15 years or so unfold it may prove to be less and less sensationalist journalsim and more prescient in nature.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 14 September 2016, 04:20:59 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-jump-419da72c9215

(http://i.imgur.com/BTzwcpZ.jpg)

:frantic:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 14 September 2016, 04:24:23 PM
All that brexit hot air
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change).
Post by: colinmk on Wednesday 14 September 2016, 04:38:43 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-jump-419da72c9215

(http://i.imgur.com/BTzwcpZ.jpg)

:frantic:

It's mental, the past few years have been going through the roof and still hardly anyone cares. All the fish are swimming away towards the poles to cooler seas. :lol:
As this carries on the effect on migration is going to be off the scale, no early retirement for Farage.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: colinmk on Monday 17 October 2016, 10:16:14 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/oct/17/climate-change-could-drive-122m-more-people-into-extreme-poverty-by-2030-un-united-nations-report?CMP=twt_gu

May as well merge this thread with the 'migrant' thread in a few years. A fair chunk of the world is going to be on the move because of a bunch of greedy c***s hoarding all the resources and letting the earth burn. But we all must continue to remember, it's the Green Party who are the most dangerous of all.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Monday 17 October 2016, 11:59:21 PM
S'alreet man, it's all just a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:26:57 AM
S'alreet man, it's all just a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.

I don't believe it is a hoax but I think certain elements are using it to further their own agenda.

It seems only natural that the climate would change, as a result of all the interactions that take place on earth. And only a fool would argue that human's have no part in any of those interactions.

I believe global warming is just mother natures solution to a growing problem throughout the world, Drought.

Old mother nature believed she had given enough water in order that the entire planet would thrive and bring forth plentiful life, but she hadn't factored in the drinks market.

How much of the earths global water supply is currently stored in a bottle, a barrel or a can? Not to mention plumbing systems.

All of this water is being held up on it's naturally intended journey, which is cyclical.

So old mother nature she does what she does, and takes care of it. By thawing some of the surplus water that she had the foresight to store in deep freeze.

Of course that explanation wouldn't suit the global economy, so maybe we could find an explanation that we could use to push through something that would be good.

Isn't one of the biggest issues of the day energy consumption? Isn't it becoming more and more expensive to extract fuel?  Well if we could just get every citizen of the globe to mine it for us wouldn't that be just great?

Remember when cutting down trees was the problem and we moved to plastic shopping bags? Well they never stopped cutting down trees did they? No just cut them dwn for a different reason. And now plastic shopping bags are the problem.

My solution would be to let it warm up, melt some ice caps and install plumbing all across Africa and asia.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:32:38 AM
Imagine the power you would have at your fingertips, if the entire planet was covered in solar panels. I reckon you could maybe create a big bang with that kind of energy.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:42:58 AM
Not even close :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 06:33:23 AM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 06:40:17 AM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

:thup:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: colinmk on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 09:18:43 AM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

This has bugger all to do with today's almost entirely human induced change.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:01:30 AM
Imagine the power you would have at your fingertips, if the entire planet was covered in solar panels. I reckon you could maybe create a big bang with that kind of energy.

Not remotely close.

If we could capture the energy the sun burns in a second in matter, it would power the human race for millions of years.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:04:29 AM
Fact is, if we didn't have corrupt politicians or greedy fossil fuel organisations running the agenda, we would be far further down the path into reducing emissions and onto much better green technology.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 12:15:37 PM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 02:39:19 PM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.

"She" doesn't have thoughts because the planet isn't a sentient being, it's a big rock twirling through space.  This is a fantastic demonstration of the ridiculous post-facts society we now live in.  Hundreds of climatologists, experts in their field,  carry out decades of research, run hundreds of experiments, live in Antarctica for months on end observing what's going on and come to conclusions through the proper application of scientific method, publishing them in peer reviewed articles.  Then someone on the internet decides those conclusions "don't feel right" because of some logic they've invented based in the infantile personification of the planet as the pink haired granny off Superted, and we have to say both opinions are just as valid.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 02:59:41 PM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.

"She" doesn't have thoughts because the planet isn't a sentient being, it's a big rock twirling through space.  This is a fantastic demonstration of the ridiculous post-facts society we now live in.  Hundreds of climatologists, experts in their field,  carry out decades of research, run hundreds of experiments, live in Antarctica for months on end observing what's going on and come to conclusions through the proper application of scientific method, publishing them in peer reviewed articles.  Then someone on the internet decides those conclusions "don't feel right" because of some logic they've invented based in the infantile personification of the planet as the pink haired granny off Superted, and we have to say both opinions are just as valid.

I never claimed that the earth is a sentient being, I simply anthropomorphized it for the sake of discussion.

Are you saying that the daily bottling of billions of gallons of water has no effect on our climate? If you can point me to a peer-reviewed analysis in accordance with the scientific method then I will be happy to concede the point.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:10:13 PM
Oh and just to correct you on your other false assumptions.

I'm not someone on the internet. I exist in real space.
I haven't decided anything, I am merely offering a suggestion that I haven't seen suggested before.
I haven't invented any logic. Logic is what logic is. Surely if paying 5p for a carrier bag has a bearing on the climate it isn't  illogical to consider how we manage the earths water supply might  also have a bearing.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:10:51 PM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.

"She" doesn't have thoughts because the planet isn't a sentient being, it's a big rock twirling through space.  This is a fantastic demonstration of the ridiculous post-facts society we now live in.  Hundreds of climatologists, experts in their field,  carry out decades of research, run hundreds of experiments, live in Antarctica for months on end observing what's going on and come to conclusions through the proper application of scientific method, publishing them in peer reviewed articles.  Then someone on the internet decides those conclusions "don't feel right" because of some logic they've invented based in the infantile personification of the planet as the pink haired granny off Superted, and we have to say both opinions are just as valid.

I never claimed that the earth is a sentient being, I simply anthropomorphized it for the sake of discussion.

Are you saying that the daily bottling of billions of gallons of water has no effect on our climate? If you can point me to a peer-reviewed analysis in accordance with the scientific method then I will be happy to concede the point.

I'm sure it does have an effect, from the changes in the environment in the areas the water is removed from, to the emissions produced by the vehicles transporting the bottles, to the chemicals added to the areas where the bottles are disposed of.  What doesn't naturally or logically follow on from this is a mysterious and unexplainable mechanism whereby the planet flicks a switch and turns on the heating to melt some ice and replace the water we took out.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:14:53 PM
This discussion :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Post on an internet forum to say he's not someone on the internet :lol:

Some meta s*** right there.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:32:13 PM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.

"She" doesn't have thoughts because the planet isn't a sentient being, it's a big rock twirling through space.  This is a fantastic demonstration of the ridiculous post-facts society we now live in.  Hundreds of climatologists, experts in their field,  carry out decades of research, run hundreds of experiments, live in Antarctica for months on end observing what's going on and come to conclusions through the proper application of scientific method, publishing them in peer reviewed articles.  Then someone on the internet decides those conclusions "don't feel right" because of some logic they've invented based in the infantile personification of the planet as the pink haired granny off Superted, and we have to say both opinions are just as valid.

I never claimed that the earth is a sentient being, I simply anthropomorphized it for the sake of discussion.

Are you saying that the daily bottling of billions of gallons of water has no effect on our climate? If you can point me to a peer-reviewed analysis in accordance with the scientific method then I will be happy to concede the point.

I'm sure it does have an effect, from the changes in the environment in the areas the water is removed from, to the emissions produced by the vehicles transporting the bottles, to the chemicals added to the areas where the bottles are disposed of.  What doesn't naturally or logically follow on from this is a mysterious and unexplainable mechanism whereby the planet flicks a switch and turns on the heating to melt some ice and replace the water we took out.

So the earth, who has been around for millions, maybe billions of years, couldn't possibly have a better understanding of it's own climate, than humans who have been around for a few thousand and are still arguing about whether climate change even exists.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:43:01 PM
It doesn't have any understanding.  It's made of rock and metal.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:50:37 PM
It doesn't have any understanding.  It's made of rock and metal.

Dont' forget the funk and the jazz.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:50:49 PM
It doesn't have any understanding.  It's made of rock and metal.

Kiss.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:54:35 PM
It doesn't have any understanding.  It's made of rock and metal.

Kiss.

Thanks hun x
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It doesn't have any understanding.  It's made of rock and metal.

Kiss.

Thanks hun x

 :iamatwat:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: louistoon on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:00:37 PM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.

"She" doesn't have thoughts because the planet isn't a sentient being, it's a big rock twirling through space.  This is a fantastic demonstration of the ridiculous post-facts society we now live in.  Hundreds of climatologists, experts in their field,  carry out decades of research, run hundreds of experiments, live in Antarctica for months on end observing what's going on and come to conclusions through the proper application of scientific method, publishing them in peer reviewed articles.  Then someone on the internet decides those conclusions "don't feel right" because of some logic they've invented based in the infantile personification of the planet as the pink haired granny off Superted, and we have to say both opinions are just as valid.

I never claimed that the earth is a sentient being, I simply anthropomorphized it for the sake of discussion.

Are you saying that the daily bottling of billions of gallons of water has no effect on our climate? If you can point me to a peer-reviewed analysis in accordance with the scientific method then I will be happy to concede the point.

I'm sure it does have an effect, from the changes in the environment in the areas the water is removed from, to the emissions produced by the vehicles transporting the bottles, to the chemicals added to the areas where the bottles are disposed of.  What doesn't naturally or logically follow on from this is a mysterious and unexplainable mechanism whereby the planet flicks a switch and turns on the heating to melt some ice and replace the water we took out.

So the earth, who has been around for millions, maybe billions of years, couldn't possibly have a better understanding of it's own climate, than humans who have been around for a few thousand and are still arguing about whether climate change even exists.

 :fool:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:00:44 PM
Maybe it has a level of understanding that is beyond your level of understanding.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:04:40 PM
Which man invented photo-synthesis?

Which man designed osmosis?

Who was that man that programmed the earth to orbit the sun so that we might have the energy to grow?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:05:11 PM
Which man invented photo-synthesis?

Which man designed osmosis?

Who was that man that programmed the earth to orbit the sun so that we might have the energy to grow?

Shaft!
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:07:09 PM
Which man invented photo-synthesis?

Which man designed osmosis?

Who was that man that programmed the earth to orbit the sun so that we might have the energy to grow?

Shaft!

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:07:33 PM
 :lol: :lol:

If its all a simulation then we have nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Beren on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:21:06 PM
Which man invented photo-synthesis?

Which man designed osmosis?

Who was that man that programmed the earth to orbit the sun so that we might have the energy to grow?

Shaft!

:lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Wullie on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:24:59 PM
Which man invented photo-synthesis?

Which man designed osmosis?

Who was that man that programmed the earth to orbit the sun so that we might have the energy to grow?

Shaft!

:lol: Brilliant.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 04:43:15 PM
Which man invented photo-synthesis?

Which man designed osmosis?

Who was that man that programmed the earth to orbit the sun so that we might have the energy to grow?

Shaft!

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 05:00:44 PM
The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.

"She" doesn't have thoughts because the planet isn't a sentient being, it's a big rock twirling through space.  This is a fantastic demonstration of the ridiculous post-facts society we now live in.  Hundreds of climatologists, experts in their field,  carry out decades of research, run hundreds of experiments, live in Antarctica for months on end observing what's going on and come to conclusions through the proper application of scientific method, publishing them in peer reviewed articles.  Then someone on the internet decides those conclusions "don't feel right" because of some logic they've invented based in the infantile personification of the planet as the pink haired granny off Superted, and we have to say both opinions are just as valid.

I never claimed that the earth is a sentient being, I simply anthropomorphized it for the sake of discussion.

Are you saying that the daily bottling of billions of gallons of water has no effect on our climate? If you can point me to a peer-reviewed analysis in accordance with the scientific method then I will be happy to concede the point.

I'm sure it does have an effect, from the changes in the environment in the areas the water is removed from, to the emissions produced by the vehicles transporting the bottles, to the chemicals added to the areas where the bottles are disposed of.  What doesn't naturally or logically follow on from this is a mysterious and unexplainable mechanism whereby the planet flicks a switch and turns on the heating to melt some ice and replace the water we took out.

Have you heard of mycelium?

Recent studies show the presence of Mycorrhiza in the soil impacts on the distribution of minerals and nutrients throughout the soil, as and where they are needed. They haven't found the switch yet.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: NEEJ on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 05:10:54 PM
Which man invented photo-synthesis?

Which man designed osmosis?

Who was that man that programmed the earth to orbit the sun so that we might have the energy to grow?

Shaft!
:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 05:34:10 PM
:lol: :lol:

If its all a simulation then we have nothing to worry about.

If I'm someone on the internet then it clearly is a simulation.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 05:36:01 PM
13 pages on climate change.

57 pages on wrestling.

I should have guessed I was in the wrong place.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 05:38:49 PM
Unlucky
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 06:16:53 PM
S'alreet man, it's all just a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.

I don't believe it is a hoax but I think certain elements are using it to further their own agenda.

It seems only natural that the climate would change, as a result of all the interactions that take place on earth. And only a fool would argue that human's have no part in any of those interactions.

I believe global warming is just mother natures solution to a growing problem throughout the world, Drought.

Old mother nature believed she had given enough water in order that the entire planet would thrive and bring forth plentiful life, but she hadn't factored in the drinks market.

How much of the earths global water supply is currently stored in a bottle, a barrel or a can? Not to mention plumbing systems.

All of this water is being held up on it's naturally intended journey, which is cyclical.

So old mother nature she does what she does, and takes care of it. By thawing some of the surplus water that she had the foresight to store in deep freeze.


Of course that explanation wouldn't suit the global economy, so maybe we could find an explanation that we could use to push through something that would be good.

Isn't one of the biggest issues of the day energy consumption? Isn't it becoming more and more expensive to extract fuel?  Well if we could just get every citizen of the globe to mine it for us wouldn't that be just great?

Remember when cutting down trees was the problem and we moved to plastic shopping bags? Well they never stopped cutting down trees did they? No just cut them dwn for a different reason. And now plastic shopping bags are the problem.

My solution would be to let it warm up, melt some ice caps and install plumbing all across Africa and asia.



The earth or "mother nature" has no interest in keeping us alive or restoring a natural balance of things. It's bound by the laws of physics and nothing else.

Our climate IS the natural balance of things, and it's not just OUR climate. I never claimed she was interested in keeping YOU alive. I'm quite sure she would wipe out humans without a 2nd thought.

"She" doesn't have thoughts because the planet isn't a sentient being, it's a big rock twirling through space.  This is a fantastic demonstration of the ridiculous post-facts society we now live in.  Hundreds of climatologists, experts in their field,  carry out decades of research, run hundreds of experiments, live in Antarctica for months on end observing what's going on and come to conclusions through the proper application of scientific method, publishing them in peer reviewed articles.  Then someone on the internet decides those conclusions "don't feel right" because of some logic they've invented based in the infantile personification of the planet as the pink haired granny off Superted, and we have to say both opinions are just as valid.

I never claimed that the earth is a sentient being, I simply anthropomorphized it for the sake of discussion.

Are you saying that the daily bottling of billions of gallons of water has no effect on our climate? If you can point me to a peer-reviewed analysis in accordance with the scientific method then I will be happy to concede the point.

Can you point me to a peer reviewed analysis that shows that "Mother Nature" decided to raise the temperature and melt some polar ice because we bottled too much water?

FYI there are roughly 1,284,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water in the sea.  Bottled water is harmful to the environment (plastics, transport, etc), but the amount of water we're removing from the environment doesn't even touch the sides.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 08:04:22 PM
What the f*** am I reading in here man
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: SEMTEX on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 08:09:10 PM
the mind of stan? tan?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 08:38:02 PM
What the f*** am I reading in here man

The post of a man who knows his day job has just ended...
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 08:46:40 PM


FYI there are roughly 1,284,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water in the sea.  Bottled water is harmful to the environment (plastics, transport, etc), but the amount of water we're removing from the environment doesn't even touch the sides.

Then it probably won't touch the sides when the ice caps melt.

The thing is we are not removing it from the environment. we are simply altering it's effect on the environment.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 08:55:35 PM


FYI there are roughly 1,284,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water in the sea.  Bottled water is harmful to the environment (plastics, transport, etc), but the amount of water we're removing from the environment doesn't even touch the sides.

Then it probably won't touch the sides when the ice caps melt.

The thing is we are not removing it from the environment. we are simply altering it's effect on the environment.



Are you saying that the melting of the polar ice sheets will have an insignificant effect? The Greenland Ice Sheet alone contains about 7m worth of sea-level rise, and the Antarctic Ice Sheet 54m. Even 1m would have a huge effect.


This shows the 'coastal flood frequency multiplier' for just 50cm of sea-level rise.  For example, a multiplier of 100, means that a flood currently deemed a ‘once in a thousand year flood’ (i.e. a pure f***ing massive flood) would be expected to occur every ~ten years. That means apart from areas that would just be underwater, areas on the coast will be at much greater risk to 'rare' floods events like those from Hurricane Sandy and Katrina. This is completely aside from any relationship between increased frequency or strength of storms, this is just from the higher sea-level. If you're saying the melting of the poles 'won't touch the sides', you've no idea of the scale of water frozen there - theres 61m of SLR!

(https://mcmurdolakeproject.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ipccmulti.png)

(Source for this figure is IPCC 5th assessment report)
 
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 09:06:03 PM
That's fair enough. Still only a problem if you live on the coast though.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 09:08:00 PM
That's fair enough. Still only a problem if you live on the coast though.

Actually it's not. That doesn't show anything other than a picture of the earth with some multi-coloured dots. I have to take your word for it that it means what you say. :)
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 09:14:33 PM
That's fair enough. Still only a problem if you live on the coast though.

Actually it's not. That doesn't show anything other than a picture of the earth with some multi-coloured dots. I have to take your word for it that it means what you say. :)

1) Here is the source, if you'd like to delve into it more https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

2) I don't know the state off the top of my head, but a very significant % of the world's population live near the coast. Add to that, rising sea-level means an encroaching coastline.

3) This is just one of many effects of climate change.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 09:56:13 PM
The earth has a surface area of 510 million km2 of which 391 is water. That is 391,000,000,000,000 m2, I think.

1 cubic metre equals 1000 litres so it would take 391,000,000,000 litres to raise the sea level 1m, or drop it.

Given that there are 50 billion daily servings globally, of soft drinks alone, not bottled water, beer, wine, spiits, or any other water based product, I can only assume that my figures are wrong. because even I find that unbelievable.


I was in the middle of working out how much water would need to be stored in the ice-caps to cause a rise of 61m, but was reminded of that figure which I came across the other day. Didn't mention the average size of serving but if it is a half pint, say then 32 days would be enough to drop the sea level 1 metre?

I must have got that wrong.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 09:58:17 PM
Could we feasibly bottle enough water to counter the ice sheets melting? ???
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:04:43 PM
Could we feasibly bottle enough water to counter the ice sheets melting? ???

Or install plumbing across asia and Africa.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:12:49 PM
Could we feasibly bottle enough water to counter the ice sheets melting? ???

Could the sea level feasibly rise enough that it leaves the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Froggy on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:13:15 PM
13 pages on climate change.

57 pages on wrestling.

I should have guessed I was in the wrong place.

1057*
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: NEEJ on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:13:39 PM
Could we feasibly bottle enough water to counter the ice sheets melting? ???
:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:18:10 PM
Could we feasibly bottle enough water to counter the ice sheets melting? ???

Could the sea level feasibly rise enough that it leaves the atmosphere?

How high would you have to build before you were travelling at the speed of light?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 18 October 2016, 10:33:38 PM
Could we feasibly bottle enough water to counter the ice sheets melting? ???

Could the sea level feasibly rise enough that it leaves the atmosphere?

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: SEMTEX on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:10:02 AM
13 pages on climate change.

57 pages on wrestling.

I should have guessed I was in the wrong place.

1057*

:lol:

I'll think about reducing my carbon emissions the second that Climate Change has the longest running weekly episodic television show in history.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:17:13 AM
The earth has a surface area of 510 million km2 of which 391 is water. That is 391,000,000,000,000 m2, I think.

1 cubic metre equals 1000 litres so it would take 391,000,000,000 litres to raise the sea level 1m, or drop it.

Given that there are 50 billion daily servings globally, of soft drinks alone, not bottled water, beer, wine, spiits, or any other water based product, I can only assume that my figures are wrong. because even I find that unbelievable.


I was in the middle of working out how much water would need to be stored in the ice-caps to cause a rise of 61m, but was reminded of that figure which I came across the other day. Didn't mention the average size of serving but if it is a half pint, say then 32 days would be enough to drop the sea level 1 metre?

I must have got that wrong.

You do know Inferior Acuna is a leading research scientist in glaciers?  He knows 1000000x more than you so just shut the f*** up.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:29:25 AM
The earth has a surface area of 510 million km2 of which 391 is water. That is 391,000,000,000,000 m2, I think.

1 cubic metre equals 1000 litres so it would take 391,000,000,000 litres to raise the sea level 1m, or drop it.

Given that there are 50 billion daily servings globally, of soft drinks alone, not bottled water, beer, wine, spiits, or any other water based product, I can only assume that my figures are wrong. because even I find that unbelievable.


I was in the middle of working out how much water would need to be stored in the ice-caps to cause a rise of 61m, but was reminded of that figure which I came across the other day. Didn't mention the average size of serving but if it is a half pint, say then 32 days would be enough to drop the sea level 1 metre?

I must have got that wrong.

You do know Inferior Acuna is a leading research scientist in glaciers?  He knows 1000000x more than you so just shut the f*** up.

f*** you. Who the f*** do you think you are exactly? If he is an expert on glaciers then he would seem to be the exact person to be asking these questions of. Muppet.

I suggest you stop taking other people so seriously. Anybody with a f***ing ounce of sense in there body would have looked at my initial suggested solution and realized that I haven't dedicated my life to this idea, and would take it with the subtly suggested heavy dose of salt.

Now you've gone and made me swear.

And for the record Acuna I totally respect your knowledge of glaciers and appreciate your sharing, I just wanted to work it out in my own head, and remembered that figure. I wasn't being arsey about it I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

Like I say it is most likely I'm way off the mark.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: B-more Mag on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:43:54 AM
Wew. Some hardcore prontonising.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: newsted on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:47:56 AM
:lol: Was holding myself back. No! Leave it newsted, he's not worth it!
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 02:40:34 AM
Could we feasibly bottle enough water to counter the ice sheets melting? ???

Could the sea level feasibly rise enough that it leaves the atmosphere?

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 02:41:44 AM
neesy :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 07:46:57 AM
Anybody with a f***ing ounce of sense in there body would have looked at my initial suggested solution and realized that I haven't dedicated my life to this idea

It did occur to me.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 08:20:41 AM
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 10:43:40 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 10:49:16 AM
That's fair enough. Still only a problem if you live on the coast though.



For those interested in the subject of the flooding, this is a decent tool for visualising what happens when sea levels rise: http://www.floodmap.net/

A mere few meters of sea level rise puts my country in deep s***, yet most people seem completely oblivious to what's on the horizon.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:40:11 PM
Build a wall!  Keep them it all out!

All joking aside, some serious investment in flood defenses would be good. 
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:42:57 PM
Build a wall!  Keep them it all out!

All joking aside, some serious investment in flood defenses would be good. 

Where does the money come from though?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:51:35 PM
Build a wall!  Keep them it all out!

All joking aside, some serious investment in flood defenses would be good. 

Where does the money come from though?

Us the tax payers.

We'll be ok, we'll have a house even closer to the sea!
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:56:09 PM
We should just ask the non violent ETIs to take us some place cooler that we can f*** up. Get on to tom delonge
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 12:57:41 PM
Build a wall!  Keep them it all out!

All joking aside, some serious investment in flood defenses would be good. 

Where does the money come from though?

If we've got the money to bail out banks, start wars, cut taxes for corporations and rich folk then we've got the money to invest in protection from the dangerous elements of our future.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:31:24 PM
We don't have money for those things thats the problem. Debt debt debt.

Give tax break incentives for corporations with effective green strategies, or manfacturers with sustainable policies. Can't afford widespread subsidies.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:42:49 PM
Come on man.  If it was seen as a vital, urgent issue, they would find the ways to fund it.  Whether it be, like you say, with tax breaks or whether it's through subsidies.  One and the same, let's be honest.  The problem is not the funding, but the attitude to climate change.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:47:12 PM
Yeah it's a problem, not denying it.  I just don't think price hikes are the answer. Being Green (or rather sustainable; not just environmentally but socially) is a profitable path for a business to go down regardless of ethics anyway so the problem is perhaps less insurmountable as it seems.

Problem with taxes rather than breaks is that only the larger companies can compete. Killing SMEs.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:52:12 PM
What have tax breaks got to do with flood defence?  Isn't that something the public sector should be taking care of?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:53:24 PM
Not much. I misread it  :lol: in a lecture
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:54:59 PM
Build a wall!  Keep them it all out!

All joking aside, some serious investment in flood defenses would be good. 

That's more or less what we have done following the 1953 North Sea flood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953) in the form of our Delta works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works). As a result my fellow countrymen are world renowned in the area of water management and flood control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands), but I still don't think we're doing enough. A 2008 study  (http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies)showed that to strengthen our defenses for an expected 65-130cm sea level rise by the year 2100 would cost 1 billion Euro/year, which is an astronomical figure but "only" 0.5% of our GDP. It does raise the question however how less well to do countries are expected to deal with these problems.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:55:16 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 01:57:06 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem. 

We had this problem with CFCs and some unlikely figures came to the rescue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2JzOlRff08
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: colinmk on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 02:02:34 PM
Build a wall!  Keep them it all out!

All joking aside, some serious investment in flood defenses would be good. 

That's more or less what we have done following the 1953 North Sea flood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953) in the form of our Delta works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works). As a result my fellow countrymen are world renowned in the area of water management and flood control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands), but I still don't think we're doing enough. A 2008 study  (http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies)showed that to strengthen our defenses for an expected 65-130cm sea level rise by the year 2100 would cost 1 billion Euro/year, which is an astronomical figure and raises the question how less well to do countries are expected to deal with these problems.

Yep they can't and also the increasing temperatures meaning crops failing etc. Like Troll says, most of the world is still in denial or can't be arsed with what must be the biggest challenge facing humanity today.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 02:03:59 PM
Give everyone stilts.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 02:05:56 PM
The biggest problem of all is that we may have already reached tipping point and even if in the next few years massive, global public projects are started it may already be too late in terms of stopping climate change.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 02:10:27 PM
Build a wall!  Keep them it all out!

All joking aside, some serious investment in flood defenses would be good. 

That's more or less what we have done following the 1953 North Sea flood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953) in the form of our Delta works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works). As a result my fellow countrymen are world renowned in the area of water management and flood control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands), but I still don't think we're doing enough. A 2008 study  (http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies)showed that to strengthen our defenses for an expected 65-130cm sea level rise by the year 2100 would cost 1 billion Euro/year, which is an astronomical figure but "only" 0.5% of our GDP. It does raise the question however how less well to do countries are expected to deal with these problems.

Ah, didn't know all of that.  I knew you guys were at the forefront of the industry like, but not the rest.  It seems we have these events happen, claim they're rare even when they begin to happen frequently and still do nothing.  Probably take some sort of tragic disaster before we pull our fingers out.  I'm by no means an authority on this sort of stuff though, I could be making too many assumptions, but I certainly know the funding has been slashed (by half, I believe?) since 2010.  2010 being the year we were supposed to have elected out greenest ever PM.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 02:43:09 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:09:02 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:10:12 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

We can if it stops Kevin Costner sailing round the world looking for land.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:14:33 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

We can if it stops Kevin Costner sailing round the world looking for land.

To be fair, that is a pretty good bargaining chip we hold up our sleeves. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:18:42 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

We can if it stops Kevin Costner sailing round the world looking for land.

To be fair, that is a pretty good bargaining chip we hold up our sleeves. :lol:

Kevin Costner with gills must be stopped , id rather our planet become dry as a bone.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:19:40 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:22:23 PM
If you look at all the low lying countries anyway they're mostly s*** so f*** 'em. Fewer minnows clogging up WC Qualifying will also be a boon to us with an abundance of altitude.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:24:41 PM
The Smokers have an oil tanker tho and need Kevin Costner's oil.  When I think about that movie, its just Mad Max on the sea.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:26:22 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

:thup:

We've reaped the rewards of industrialisation etc.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:32:35 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

:thup:

We've reaped the rewards of industrialisation etc.

The world can't afford India, Africa to go through mass industrialisation. Their populations are exploding and just because we did something does not mean they should so they absolutely should be discouraged from going down the same path we did. What should happen is that these countries should be put on a green path from the very beginning, only possible through a booming Western-EastAsian technological vanguard. China is held up as a huge bad example principally because of this mindset too, "we should let China go through with this it's only fair because we did", it's too late for China to start from green now but with a burgeoning middle class I'm sure their high volume manufacturing model will slow slightly, perhaps those countries that will fill gap should be encouraged to be sustainable from the offset, hopefully through our innovations it will be economically sustainable to do so.

No use saying that China shouldn't bear huge responsibility either, global warming doesn't care one jot if the West "should" be held responsible; c02 is c02 and China produces a metric fuckton of it. Good thing is like you said they're moving that way. Opening ourselves up to collaboration with the Chinese will only help things too.


tl;dr
Spoiler
[close]
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:36:40 PM
Can't disagree with that.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:39:57 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

:thup:

We've reaped the rewards of industrialisation etc.

The world can't afford India, Africa to go through mass industrialisation. Their populations are exploding and just because we did something does not mean they should so they absolutely should be discouraged from going down the same path we did. What should happen is that these countries should be put on a green path from the very beginning, only possible through a booming Western-EastAsian technological vanguard. China is held up as a huge bad example principally because of this mindset too, "we should let China go through with this it's only fair because we did", it's too late for China to start from green now but with a burgeoning middle class I'm sure their high volume manufacturing model will slow slightly, perhaps those countries that will fill gap should be encouraged to be sustainable from the offset, hopefully through our innovations it will be economically sustainable to do so.

No use saying that China shouldn't bear huge responsibility either, global warming doesn't care one jot if the West "should" be held responsible; c02 is c02 and China produces a metric fuckton of it. Good thing is like you said they're moving that way. Opening ourselves up to collaboration with the Chinese will only help things too.

The issue is the cheapest form of energy is from Coal, Oil and Gas still and price is a massive factor and always will be.  The west will need to start subsidizing Africa etc to go to Green tech, Africa really should be suited for large scale Solar Polar plants.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:43:34 PM
What I meant to say is we, as in the Western world, should be the ones driving this change by a) setting an example and b) investing in the transition financially and in terms of sharing our knowledge. If we can't do that we have absolutely no reason to complain when climate change comes back to bite us in the ass. We've opened Pandora's box in a way (without knowing it admittedly), so it's all good and well saying we need to discourage developing nations from going down the same path, but we have absolutely no moral position to accomplish this from, even less so if we continue down the path of relying on fossil fuels ourselves.

Edit: this article  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/paris-climate-talks-developed-countries-must-do-more-than-reduce-emissions)articulates "my" point much better than I ever could. Especially this passage:

Quote
If developed countries do not make significant and absolute reductions in their emissions there will be a progressively smaller carbon space available to accommodate the development needs of developing countries. There is a difference between the emissions of developing countries which are “survival” emissions and those of developed countries which are in the nature of “lifestyle” emissions. They do not belong to the same category and cannot be treated on a par.

To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.” Far from accepting their historical responsibility developed countries are instead trying to shift the burden on to the shoulders of developing countries.

This they have been doing by keeping attention focused on current emissions while ignoring the source of the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. A sustainable and effective climate change regime cannot be built on the basis of such inequity.
(...)
As the main victims of climate change– the impacts of which they are already suffering – they have a much bigger stake in dealing with this challenge. They are, in fact, doing much more than most developed countries, to adopt energy frugal methods of growth, conserving energy, promoting renewable power and limiting waste within the limits of their own resources.

They could do much more if they had access to finance, technology and capacity building from developed countries, a commitment which is incorporated in the UN.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Lush Vlad on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:47:11 PM
The Smokers have an oil tanker tho and need Kevin Costner's oil.  When I think about that movie, its just Mad Max on the sea.

Probably one for the guilty pleasures thread.  But I enjoyed that movie as a young'un  :blush:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:50:44 PM
The Smokers have an oil tanker tho and need Kevin Costner's oil.  When I think about that movie, its just Mad Max on the sea.

Probably one for the guilty pleasures thread.  But I enjoyed that movie as a young'un  :blush:
Its so bad  :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Lush Vlad on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:52:06 PM
The Smokers have an oil tanker tho and need Kevin Costner's oil.  When I think about that movie, its just Mad Max on the sea.

Probably one for the guilty pleasures thread.  But I enjoyed that movie as a young'un  :blush:
Its so bad  :lol:

I know, I know.  Still liked it :lol:   

Costner is awful and I was rooting for the kid to get offed, due to how annoying she was.  But I just liked it for some reason and Dennis Hopper is always class. 
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Northerngimp on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:54:15 PM
It needs a prequel to fix it.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:56:20 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

:thup:

We've reaped the rewards of industrialisation etc.

The world can't afford India, Africa to go through mass industrialisation. Their populations are exploding and just because we did something does not mean they should so they absolutely should be discouraged from going down the same path we did. What should happen is that these countries should be put on a green path from the very beginning, only possible through a booming Western-EastAsian technological vanguard. China is held up as a huge bad example principally because of this mindset too, "we should let China go through with this it's only fair because we did", it's too late for China to start from green now but with a burgeoning middle class I'm sure their high volume manufacturing model will slow slightly, perhaps those countries that will fill gap should be encouraged to be sustainable from the offset, hopefully through our innovations it will be economically sustainable to do so.

No use saying that China shouldn't bear huge responsibility either, global warming doesn't care one jot if the West "should" be held responsible; c02 is c02 and China produces a metric fuckton of it. Good thing is like you said they're moving that way. Opening ourselves up to collaboration with the Chinese will only help things too.

The issue is the cheapest form of energy is from Coal, Oil and Gas still and price is a massive factor and always will be.  The west will need to start subsidizing Africa etc to go to Green tech, Africa really should be suited for large scale Solar Polar plants.



Energy is a difficult one, a top down approach of simply replacing all fossil fuel energy sources with renewable ones is, ironically enough, not sustainable in my view. High costs and you're essentially booting the problem down the line - the booming populations will still need energy and simply changing the supply will not be enough. Couple that with the fact that renewables are still massively high cost compared to fossil fuels then there are 2 conclusions in my mind. 1 we need to look at ways to make fossil fuels greener; clean coal, carbon capture and storage, etc etc. 2, change the demand. Adopting sustainable organisational, manufacturing, and transportation policies whilst these sectors are still nascent (relative to modern/Western ones) will mean that, unlike China, these places wont have to sit and think of how to shift away in the future. That kind of reorganisation would be subsidy intensive, much more so than implementing the technology within businesses from the off.

Not just businesses but homes too, there's a university in Qatar (I think) that has no air con - doesn't need it because of the structural design. Natural cooling towers, low carbon +local materials (no concrete), water capture/purification/storage/heating; possibilites are endless.

I think changing energy source is one of the final pieces of the puzzle tbh, at least until we see huge breakthroughs that mean renewables can offer a reliant baseload supply - affordably.



Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 03:56:50 PM
Should have been amazing!  f***ing Costner.  Such a terrible c***.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:01:01 PM
What I meant to say is we, as in the Western world, should be the ones driving this change by a) setting an example and b) investing in the transition financially and in terms of sharing our knowledge. If we can't do that we have absolutely no reason to complain when climate change comes back to bite us in the ass. We've opened Pandora's box in a way (without knowing it admittedly), so it's all good and well saying we need to discourage developing nations from going down the same path, but we have absolutely no moral position to accomplish this from, even less so if we continue down the path of relying on fossil fuels ourselves.

Edit: this article  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/paris-climate-talks-developed-countries-must-do-more-than-reduce-emissions)articulates "my" point much better than I ever could. Especially this passage:

Quote
If developed countries do not make significant and absolute reductions in their emissions there will be a progressively smaller carbon space available to accommodate the development needs of developing countries. There is a difference between the emissions of developing countries which are “survival” emissions and those of developed countries which are in the nature of “lifestyle” emissions. They do not belong to the same category and cannot be treated on a par.

To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.” Far from accepting their historical responsibility developed countries are instead trying to shift the burden on to the shoulders of developing countries.

This they have been doing by keeping attention focused on current emissions while ignoring the source of the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. A sustainable and effective climate change regime cannot be built on the basis of such inequity.
(...)
As the main victims of climate change– the impacts of which they are already suffering – they have a much bigger stake in dealing with this challenge. They are, in fact, doing much more than most developed countries, to adopt energy frugal methods of growth, conserving energy, promoting renewable power and limiting waste within the limits of their own resources.

They could do much more if they had access to finance, technology and capacity building from developed countries, a commitment which is incorporated in the UN.

The crux of this argument doesn't seem to be too far detached from the idea of white guilt.

Quote
To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.”

Not the argument. We got here first and can see where we went wrong (or right, at the time - we wouldn't be here had we not taken that path) therefore we should help these countries to take a different path.

The idea that we should just let them get on with it by discretising energy use into lifestyle and survival is nonsense. We can change and adapt both the supply and demand of our "survival" energy needs which is something of utmost importance for countries whose populations are either a massive or b going to be massive in the future.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:08:26 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

:thup:

We've reaped the rewards of industrialisation etc.

The world can't afford India, Africa to go through mass industrialisation. Their populations are exploding and just because we did something does not mean they should so they absolutely should be discouraged from going down the same path we did. What should happen is that these countries should be put on a green path from the very beginning, only possible through a booming Western-EastAsian technological vanguard. China is held up as a huge bad example principally because of this mindset too, "we should let China go through with this it's only fair because we did", it's too late for China to start from green now but with a burgeoning middle class I'm sure their high volume manufacturing model will slow slightly, perhaps those countries that will fill gap should be encouraged to be sustainable from the offset, hopefully through our innovations it will be economically sustainable to do so.

No use saying that China shouldn't bear huge responsibility either, global warming doesn't care one jot if the West "should" be held responsible; c02 is c02 and China produces a metric fuckton of it. Good thing is like you said they're moving that way. Opening ourselves up to collaboration with the Chinese will only help things too.

The issue is the cheapest form of energy is from Coal, Oil and Gas still and price is a massive factor and always will be.  The west will need to start subsidizing Africa etc to go to Green tech, Africa really should be suited for large scale Solar Polar plants.



Energy is a difficult one, a top down approach of simply replacing all fossil fuel energy sources with renewable ones is, ironically enough, not sustainable in my view. High costs and you're essentially booting the problem down the line - the booming populations will still need energy and simply changing the supply will not be enough. Couple that with the fact that renewables are still massively high cost compared to fossil fuels then there are 2 conclusions in my mind. 1 we need to look at ways to make fossil fuels greener; clean coal, carbon capture and storage, etc etc. 2, change the demand. Adopting sustainable organisational, manufacturing, and transportation policies whilst these sectors are still nascent (relative to modern/Western ones) will mean that, unlike China, these places wont have to sit and think of how to shift away in the future. That kind of reorganisation would be subsidy intensive, much more so than implementing the technology within businesses from the off.

Not just businesses but homes too, there's a university in Qatar (I think) that has no air con - doesn't need it because of the structural design. Natural cooling towers, low carbon +local materials (no concrete), water capture/purification/storage/heating; possibilites are endless.

I think changing energy source is one of the final pieces of the puzzle tbh, at least until we see huge breakthroughs that mean renewables can offer a reliant baseload supply - affordably.





:thup:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:12:53 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

:thup:

We've reaped the rewards of industrialisation etc.

The world can't afford India, Africa to go through mass industrialisation. Their populations are exploding and just because we did something does not mean they should so they absolutely should be discouraged from going down the same path we did. What should happen is that these countries should be put on a green path from the very beginning, only possible through a booming Western-EastAsian technological vanguard. China is held up as a huge bad example principally because of this mindset too, "we should let China go through with this it's only fair because we did", it's too late for China to start from green now but with a burgeoning middle class I'm sure their high volume manufacturing model will slow slightly, perhaps those countries that will fill gap should be encouraged to be sustainable from the offset, hopefully through our innovations it will be economically sustainable to do so.

No use saying that China shouldn't bear huge responsibility either, global warming doesn't care one jot if the West "should" be held responsible; c02 is c02 and China produces a metric fuckton of it. Good thing is like you said they're moving that way. Opening ourselves up to collaboration with the Chinese will only help things too.

The issue is the cheapest form of energy is from Coal, Oil and Gas still and price is a massive factor and always will be.  The west will need to start subsidizing Africa etc to go to Green tech, Africa really should be suited for large scale Solar Polar plants.



Energy is a difficult one, a top down approach of simply replacing all fossil fuel energy sources with renewable ones is, ironically enough, not sustainable in my view. High costs and you're essentially booting the problem down the line - the booming populations will still need energy and simply changing the supply will not be enough. Couple that with the fact that renewables are still massively high cost compared to fossil fuels then there are 2 conclusions in my mind. 1 we need to look at ways to make fossil fuels greener; clean coal, carbon capture and storage, etc etc. 2, change the demand. Adopting sustainable organisational, manufacturing, and transportation policies whilst these sectors are still nascent (relative to modern/Western ones) will mean that, unlike China, these places wont have to sit and think of how to shift away in the future. That kind of reorganisation would be subsidy intensive, much more so than implementing the technology within businesses from the off.

Not just businesses but homes too, there's a university in Qatar (I think) that has no air con - doesn't need it because of the structural design. Natural cooling towers, low carbon +local materials (no concrete), water capture/purification/storage/heating; possibilites are endless.

I think changing energy source is one of the final pieces of the puzzle tbh, at least until we see huge breakthroughs that mean renewables can offer a reliant baseload supply - affordably.

Some very good points, but the bolded part becomes less valid with every passing day, and some sources  (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels)claim that the cost of "renewable" energy is now at a level where it can challenge fossil fuel. In any case, it's a political choice how much energy from fossils really costs. At the moment it's costs only consist of the production costs, not (or insignificantly) the huge social costs of global warming. If that part of the costs was incorporated, for example by putting a larger VAT rate on it, it could swing the scales. The problem is the fossil fuel industry will fight tooth and nail to keep this from happening, which is why strong and steadfast political leadership is needed.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:19:13 PM
What I meant to say is we, as in the Western world, should be the ones driving this change by a) setting an example and b) investing in the transition financially and in terms of sharing our knowledge. If we can't do that we have absolutely no reason to complain when climate change comes back to bite us in the ass. We've opened Pandora's box in a way (without knowing it admittedly), so it's all good and well saying we need to discourage developing nations from going down the same path, but we have absolutely no moral position to accomplish this from, even less so if we continue down the path of relying on fossil fuels ourselves.

Edit: this article  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/paris-climate-talks-developed-countries-must-do-more-than-reduce-emissions)articulates "my" point much better than I ever could. Especially this passage:

Quote
If developed countries do not make significant and absolute reductions in their emissions there will be a progressively smaller carbon space available to accommodate the development needs of developing countries. There is a difference between the emissions of developing countries which are “survival” emissions and those of developed countries which are in the nature of “lifestyle” emissions. They do not belong to the same category and cannot be treated on a par.

To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.” Far from accepting their historical responsibility developed countries are instead trying to shift the burden on to the shoulders of developing countries.

This they have been doing by keeping attention focused on current emissions while ignoring the source of the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. A sustainable and effective climate change regime cannot be built on the basis of such inequity.
(...)
As the main victims of climate change– the impacts of which they are already suffering – they have a much bigger stake in dealing with this challenge. They are, in fact, doing much more than most developed countries, to adopt energy frugal methods of growth, conserving energy, promoting renewable power and limiting waste within the limits of their own resources.

They could do much more if they had access to finance, technology and capacity building from developed countries, a commitment which is incorporated in the UN.

The crux of this argument doesn't seem to be too far detached from the idea of white guilt.

Quote
To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.”

Not the argument. We got here first and can see where we went wrong (or right, at the time - we wouldn't be here had we not taken that path) therefore we should help these countries to take a different path.

The idea that we should just let them get on with it by discretising energy use into lifestyle and survival is nonsense. We can change and adapt both the supply and demand of our "survival" energy needs which is something of utmost importance for countries whose populations are either a massive or b going to be massive in the future.

You seem to be completely missing the point. Nobody is arguing that we should "just let developing countries get on with it". The likes of China are currently doing more to transform their energy utilisation towards renewable energy than we (the US and EU broadly) are. We need to stop looking at developing countries as the problem or the solution while we continue the behaviour that got us here in the first place. That's nothing to do with white guilt either; it's in our own interest as much as anything.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:20:11 PM
It's not just the pure kwh cost that matters though. It's the reliability and storage. There is as of yet (I'm anticipating a battery boom in the coming years) no efficient way of storing large amounts of energy, combine this with the fact that renewables are by and large unreliable. What I mean by this is the supply is non constant or not predictable - is it sunny? is it windy? will it be tomorrow? Some days renewable energy production outstrips usage - all that energy is wasted since it is not stored. With fossil fuels you just burn what you need when you need it. It's like a push system vs a pull system with no space for inventory.

Factor in those costs and it will still be a while before the true costs for baseload supply are affordable. Sure for smaller, non-grid, applications renewable energy will be a similar cost. What will save this is an explosion in the battery industry not necessarily the renewable sector. Tesla have been doing a lot of work in it

https://www.tesla.com/POWERWALL
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: colinmk on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:21:17 PM
What I meant to say is we, as in the Western world, should be the ones driving this change by a) setting an example and b) investing in the transition financially and in terms of sharing our knowledge. If we can't do that we have absolutely no reason to complain when climate change comes back to bite us in the ass. We've opened Pandora's box in a way (without knowing it admittedly), so it's all good and well saying we need to discourage developing nations from going down the same path, but we have absolutely no moral position to accomplish this from, even less so if we continue down the path of relying on fossil fuels ourselves.

Edit: this article  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/paris-climate-talks-developed-countries-must-do-more-than-reduce-emissions)articulates "my" point much better than I ever could. Especially this passage:

Quote
If developed countries do not make significant and absolute reductions in their emissions there will be a progressively smaller carbon space available to accommodate the development needs of developing countries. There is a difference between the emissions of developing countries which are “survival” emissions and those of developed countries which are in the nature of “lifestyle” emissions. They do not belong to the same category and cannot be treated on a par.

To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.” Far from accepting their historical responsibility developed countries are instead trying to shift the burden on to the shoulders of developing countries.

This they have been doing by keeping attention focused on current emissions while ignoring the source of the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. A sustainable and effective climate change regime cannot be built on the basis of such inequity.
(...)
As the main victims of climate change– the impacts of which they are already suffering – they have a much bigger stake in dealing with this challenge. They are, in fact, doing much more than most developed countries, to adopt energy frugal methods of growth, conserving energy, promoting renewable power and limiting waste within the limits of their own resources.

They could do much more if they had access to finance, technology and capacity building from developed countries, a commitment which is incorporated in the UN.

Totally agree. Would add the crux of the problem lies within the failing global economic system and the exploitation of many of these countries to support it.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:21:51 PM
What I meant to say is we, as in the Western world, should be the ones driving this change by a) setting an example and b) investing in the transition financially and in terms of sharing our knowledge. If we can't do that we have absolutely no reason to complain when climate change comes back to bite us in the ass. We've opened Pandora's box in a way (without knowing it admittedly), so it's all good and well saying we need to discourage developing nations from going down the same path, but we have absolutely no moral position to accomplish this from, even less so if we continue down the path of relying on fossil fuels ourselves.

Edit: this article  (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/paris-climate-talks-developed-countries-must-do-more-than-reduce-emissions)articulates "my" point much better than I ever could. Especially this passage:

Quote
If developed countries do not make significant and absolute reductions in their emissions there will be a progressively smaller carbon space available to accommodate the development needs of developing countries. There is a difference between the emissions of developing countries which are “survival” emissions and those of developed countries which are in the nature of “lifestyle” emissions. They do not belong to the same category and cannot be treated on a par.

To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.” Far from accepting their historical responsibility developed countries are instead trying to shift the burden on to the shoulders of developing countries.

This they have been doing by keeping attention focused on current emissions while ignoring the source of the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. A sustainable and effective climate change regime cannot be built on the basis of such inequity.
(...)
As the main victims of climate change– the impacts of which they are already suffering – they have a much bigger stake in dealing with this challenge. They are, in fact, doing much more than most developed countries, to adopt energy frugal methods of growth, conserving energy, promoting renewable power and limiting waste within the limits of their own resources.

They could do much more if they had access to finance, technology and capacity building from developed countries, a commitment which is incorporated in the UN.

The crux of this argument doesn't seem to be too far detached from the idea of white guilt.

Quote
To blur this distinction is to accept the argument that because “we got here first, so we get to keep what we have, while those who come later must stay where they are for the sake of the saving the planet from the threat of climate change.”

Not the argument. We got here first and can see where we went wrong (or right, at the time - we wouldn't be here had we not taken that path) therefore we should help these countries to take a different path.

The idea that we should just let them get on with it by discretising energy use into lifestyle and survival is nonsense. We can change and adapt both the supply and demand of our "survival" energy needs which is something of utmost importance for countries whose populations are either a massive or b going to be massive in the future.

You seem to be completely missing the point. Nobody is arguing that we should "just let developing countries get on with it". The likes of China are currently doing more to transform their energy utilisation towards renewable energy than we (the US and EU broadly) are. We need to stop looking at developing countries as the problem or the solution while we continue the behaviour that got us here in the first place. That's nothing to do with white guilt either; it's in our own interest as much as anything.

We can acknowledge that developing countries pose a huge threat to the climate whilst also looking to better ourselves. I really haven't met anyone who thinks we should continue as we are whilst developing nations should remain stagnant. If that is who the argument is aimed at then apologies.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 19 October 2016, 04:27:36 PM
It's not just the pure kwh cost that matters though. It's the reliability and storage. There is as of yet (I'm anticipating a battery boom in the coming years) no efficient way of storing large amounts of energy, combine this with the fact that renewables are by and large unreliable. What I mean by this is the supply is non constant or not predictable - is it sunny? is it windy? will it be tomorrow? Some days renewable energy production outstrips usage - all that energy is wasted since it is not stored. With fossil fuels you just burn what you need when you need it. It's like a push system vs a pull system with no space for inventory.

Factor in those costs and it will still be a while before the true costs for baseload supply are affordable. Sure for smaller, non-grid, applications renewable energy will be a similar cost. What will save this is an explosion in the battery industry not necessarily the renewable sector. Tesla have been doing a lot of work in it

https://www.tesla.com/POWERWALL

:thup:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Monday 24 October 2016, 02:31:04 PM
Unlucky

Nah just a glutton for punishment. I recognize the ironic certainty attached to discussing Orwellian philosophy on a forum dedicated to sport.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Jackie Broon on Monday 24 October 2016, 03:35:12 PM
As far as climate change in general goes, the biggest challenge is convincing the rest of the world that it's a problem.  Even if we cut out our emissions completely, it doesn't help that half the US is in denial and China is like a massive Middlesbrough.
China is investing massively in green tech and closing 100's of coal power stations.

In any case, the Western world "owes" it to the rest of the world to be the frontrunner here. We cannot deny developing countries their shot at progress or the energy resources required to make it happen especially as we've robbed many of them from their natural resources to further our own interests in the first place.

:thup:

We've reaped the rewards of industrialisation etc.

The world can't afford India, Africa to go through mass industrialisation. Their populations are exploding and just because we did something does not mean they should so they absolutely should be discouraged from going down the same path we did. What should happen is that these countries should be put on a green path from the very beginning, only possible through a booming Western-EastAsian technological vanguard. China is held up as a huge bad example principally because of this mindset too, "we should let China go through with this it's only fair because we did", it's too late for China to start from green now but with a burgeoning middle class I'm sure their high volume manufacturing model will slow slightly, perhaps those countries that will fill gap should be encouraged to be sustainable from the offset, hopefully through our innovations it will be economically sustainable to do so.

No use saying that China shouldn't bear huge responsibility either, global warming doesn't care one jot if the West "should" be held responsible; c02 is c02 and China produces a metric fuckton of it. Good thing is like you said they're moving that way. Opening ourselves up to collaboration with the Chinese will only help things too.

The issue is the cheapest form of energy is from Coal, Oil and Gas still and price is a massive factor and always will be.  The west will need to start subsidizing Africa etc to go to Green tech, Africa really should be suited for large scale Solar Polar plants.



That just isn't the case, onshore wind is cheaper than all of those and becoming cheaper as technology improves.

Our wind energy industry has been all but shut down to new production because rich, influential people in the countryside don't want to see them out of their windows. Nothing to do with economics.



Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Monday 24 October 2016, 07:59:53 PM
Really dumb question but why don't we just add to the Polar Ice Caps with man made ice?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Monday 24 October 2016, 08:44:47 PM
Really dumb question but why don't we just add to the Polar Ice Caps with man made ice?

:lol:  How do you propose we do that?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Monday 24 October 2016, 09:02:05 PM
Set up a big ice factory in the Arctic Circle.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Monday 24 October 2016, 09:12:18 PM
Get the taps on, make some ice and post them to the poles. 
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 25 October 2016, 01:20:58 AM
It seems Murdoch has had some kind of epiphany since purchasing National Geographic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3plf1VGlccM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dxAgt9XXPU

Or maybe he is using the globally respected reputation of NG to push forward his own agenda.

I don't know. Murdoch has never given me any reason to mistrust him.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Tuesday 25 October 2016, 03:07:56 AM
:lol:  I think your trolling has become too obvious now.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 25 October 2016, 03:20:20 AM
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely concerned about Murdoch leading the charge to save the planet. I think that is quite a reasonable position to take.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 25 October 2016, 01:24:33 PM
The depth of a man can be measured by his reflections. The same can not be said of a puddle.

What can be said about the puddle is that every molecule has likely, at some point, visited every inch of this planet.

Interesting.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Tuesday 25 October 2016, 01:32:12 PM
The depth of your posts cannot be measured because they're just empty, meaningless waffle.

Interesting.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 25 October 2016, 01:50:52 PM
The depth of your posts cannot be measured because they're just empty, meaningless waffle.

Interesting.

Maybe that is the difference between yourself and I.

I don't seek measurements from my peers.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Shay's Given Tim Flowers on Tuesday 25 October 2016, 01:54:25 PM
Probably a good thing  :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 1 November 2016, 12:22:45 PM
As the only species to understand evolution, it is remarkable that we should evolve into a species that "can't afford" to prevent it's own self destruction.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 1 November 2016, 08:44:52 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-unveils-zero-emissions-train-only-emits-steam-lower-saxony-hydrogen-powered-a7391581.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: thomas on Tuesday 1 November 2016, 08:45:47 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/no-one-saw-tesla-s-solar-roof-coming
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 1 November 2016, 08:47:49 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/no-one-saw-tesla-s-solar-roof-coming

Saw that, it's a good concept.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: henke on Tuesday 1 November 2016, 09:14:54 PM
In response to the wind farm discussion, it isn't cheap at all. It only appears to be because it's massively subsidised by the government in a bid to meet the targets they've committed to. The worst part is that by the time the first deadline comes round in 2020 half of the wind farms will be rusting wrecks, cause the technology is garbage and has a lifespan of about ten minutes.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Jackie Broon on Tuesday 1 November 2016, 11:34:30 PM
In response to the wind farm discussion, it isn't cheap at all. It only appears to be because it's massively subsidised by the government in a bid to meet the targets they've committed to. The worst part is that by the time the first deadline comes round in 2020 half of the wind farms will be rusting wrecks, cause the technology is garbage and has a lifespan of about ten minutes.

You're wrong mate, onshore wind is among the cheapest forms of energy taking into account cost of building, operation and lifespan (which is typically 25 years) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Subsidies (feed-in tariffs) have nothing to do with those calculations.

Subsidies made wind energy very profitable and were very successful in kick-starting the wind energy industry, which was just getting to the point where it could sustain itself without new subsidies when the plug was pulled on it by bringing in planning guidance that makes it near impossible to get permission any new turbines.

On-shore wind is the only cheap and deliverable on a large scale renewable energy technology we have available at the moment. We are miles away from our legally binding renewable energy targets in the UK. When ministers say were on target to meet them, they're misleading people by only talking about the proportion we predicted for wind energy to deliver, overall we're a long way behind and desperately need to be building more wind farms to make up that gap.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 12:29:31 AM
In response to the wind farm discussion, it isn't cheap at all. It only appears to be because it's massively subsidised by the government in a bid to meet the targets they've committed to. The worst part is that by the time the first deadline comes round in 2020 half of the wind farms will be rusting wrecks, cause the technology is garbage and has a lifespan of about ten minutes.

You're wrong mate, onshore wind is among the cheapest forms of energy taking into account cost of building, operation and lifespan (which is typically 25 years) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Subsidies (feed-in tariffs) have nothing to do with those calculations.

Subsidies made wind energy very profitable and were very successful in kick-starting the wind energy industry, which was just getting to the point where it could sustain itself without new subsidies when the plug was pulled on it by bringing in planning guidance that makes it near impossible to get permission any new turbines.

On-shore wind is the only cheap and deliverable on a large scale renewable energy technology we have available at the moment. We are miles away from our legally binding renewable energy targets in the UK. When ministers say were on target to meet them, they're misleading people by only talking about the proportion we predicted for wind energy to deliver, overall we're a long way behind and desperately need to be building more wind farms to make up that gap.

Feed in tariffs are not the only subsidy, also if you check the paper taxes were included in the levelised costing for non-renewable sources.

Onshore wind is very nearly a mature technology and is woefully unreliable. I haven't checked the latest load factors for the UK but I would be amazed if they held above 30% ("deliverable on a large scale"). Gas and nuclear you'd be looking at up to 60-65%***. Not particularly socially sustainable either, call them nimby all you like, it still causes problems.

Off-shore is fairly immature as a technology and has much more potential for energy supply. Still v. expensive but lots of room for growth. Some of the blades they're using off shore are massive like you wouldn't believe, downside is a lot of mass is being added to the structure. A lot of work is being done on material and manufacturing methods to allow for continued growth of blade size whilst reducing stress on gearbox and nacelle.

Another renewable source which has more potential than both off and on shore wind is tidal, not sure why we don't hear more people going on about it. Not as trendy as wind I guess. UK has massive opportunities for this, many of the best sites in the world are around the British Isles. We should be capitalising on this hugely, not only can we use it for green energy, but if we become world leaders in the technology it will benefit our manufacturing economy too.


*** in the UK, no reason why these figures can't one day be up at 90, especially nuclear.


Think of it this way, even if wind power is down to £20/MW it doesn't really help matters when it's running at 20% capacity. You're still going to have to build a nuclear/coal/gas turbine plant to provide for the rest of the time. Doesn't make sense to replace base grid supply with something so unreliable. Better to invest in nuclear power for long term unless you're particularly fond of blackouts.

f*** it we should just give our entire renewable budget to lockheed martin so skunkworks can finally bash out fusion reactors
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 03:48:28 AM
Tesla do utility scale battery installations aswell which can be used to smooth out the peaks and troughs of intermittent wind power.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Jackie Broon on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 07:29:23 AM
I'm not in any way saying that on-shore wind is without issues, and obviously it's not capable of replacing non-renewable.

But, the daily mail etc. driven narrative that it is vastly expensive is just wrong. As is the government's decision to kill off any chance of any new on-shore wind when there are no real alternatives being delivered any time soon.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 09:13:05 AM
Tesla do utility scale battery installations aswell which can be used to smooth out the peaks and troughs of intermittent wind power.

To a grid supply level? They're putting a lot of investment into battery technology and I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread that a boom in the battery industry is coming and will help tech like wind but it's still a while away for anything nearing base load.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 09:26:32 AM
Tesla do utility scale battery installations aswell which can be used to smooth out the peaks and troughs of intermittent wind power.

To a grid supply level? They're putting a lot of investment into battery technology and I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread that a boom in the battery industry is coming and will help tech like wind but it's still a while away for anything nearing base load.

Yep.  They're already doing it.   They reckon they can do 10MWh+.  There's already a 1MW test site announced in Ireland and a few more grid scale systems underway in the US.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-gets-1st-utility-scale-213700997.html

The batteries get charged at peak generating hours and discharge as needed when the renewable take a dip.  Night time obviously for solar but for wind it's just a backup to smooth out the troughs and ensure they can fulfill what's needed even when the wind drops a bit.

Edit to add: I'd rather we just built a fuckton of nuclear plants though.  Thorium based reactors are clean and efficient with no possibility of a meltdown and even the traditionally fuelled reactors are safer and less polluting than anything other than solar, wind or tidal.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 09:52:01 AM
Tesla do utility scale battery installations aswell which can be used to smooth out the peaks and troughs of intermittent wind power.

To a grid supply level? They're putting a lot of investment into battery technology and I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread that a boom in the battery industry is coming and will help tech like wind but it's still a while away for anything nearing base load.

Yep.  They're already doing it.   They reckon they can do 10MWh+.  There's already a 1MW test site announced in Ireland and a few more grid scale systems underway in the US.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-gets-1st-utility-scale-213700997.html

The batteries get charged at peak generating hours and discharge as needed when the renewable take a dip.  Night time obviously for solar but for wind it's just a backup to smooth out the troughs and ensure they can fulfill what's needed even when the wind drops a bit.

Edit to add: I'd rather we just built a fuckton of nuclear plants though.  Thorium based reactors are clean and efficient with no possibility of a meltdown and even the traditionally fuelled reactors are safer and less polluting than anything other than solar, wind or tidal.

:thup:

Would be interesting to see results, I don't doubt they're working on such things.

Nuclear really is the way to go. If I had my way we'd be working on greening and cleaning up current technologies (coal fired, shale, combined gas) until we get to a point where we can transition to full nuclear. Believe that is the best compromise on cost, c02, and reliability. What they can do with "clean coal" now is incredible and furthering these techs will help countries already way down the line with coal fired plants (looking at you China) who would be loath to do a full switch to something new (and rightfully so).

As a side note, China. Largest spender on wind power and it produces an almost negligible % of their total energy. It's coal all the way down. Developing ways to improve coal would be more effective at a net co2 level than trying a full conversion to wind.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 10:16:39 AM
Most Nuclear power projects worldwide go billions over budget.  No chance that hinkley point will be on budget.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Wednesday 2 November 2016, 10:25:38 AM
Most Nuclear power projects worldwide go billions over budget.  No chance that hinkley point will be on budget.

True, France are having a lot of problems. Not hugely optimistic for Hinkley either.

But that shouldn't detract from the technological potential; bureaucracy and poor practice contribute a lot to the delays and set backs. Over the next 20 years or so start up costs for thorium should drop significantly and a further 10-20 should hopefully see large scale fusion reactors - at this point we're set.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 08:43:31 AM
S'alreet man, it's all just a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.

One in the eye for the hippies today.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 08:45:22 AM
I'm assuming having someone running the most powerful country in the world who claimed that windfarms were a disaster to Scotland like Lockerbie isn't going to be a great proponent or innovator of renewable energy.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: colinmk on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 08:53:13 AM
I'm assuming having someone running the most powerful country in the world who claimed that windfarms were a disaster to Scotland like Lockerbie isn't going to be a great proponent or innovator of renewable energy.

The job is f***ed. The global fight against it rested on the Chinese and Americans agreeing to work together. f***ed.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 08:59:38 AM
I'm assuming having someone running the most powerful country in the world who claimed that windfarms were a disaster to Scotland like Lockerbie isn't going to be a great proponent or innovator of renewable energy.

The job is f***ed. The global fight against it rested on the Chinese and Americans agreeing to work together. f***ed.

Sadly I 100% agree. We can't afford these years of deflection and obstruction. Fermi's Paradox.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 09:30:52 AM
It was already verging on being too late to reverse goobal warming imo, but this just about confirms it. We're set back decades.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Inferior Acuña on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 10:23:42 AM
John Kerry is coming here to Antarctica this weekend and I submitted a question for him (that probably won't be put forward but...)  - it was about how the next Secretary of State could do better to make the US a leader in tackling climate change. Well, that was pointless :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: firetotheworks on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 10:24:04 AM
Save us, Tesla.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 10:29:34 AM
As long as I can get asparagus from Peru in October, who gives a f***.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 10:36:15 AM
John Kerry is coming here to Antarctica this weekend and I submitted a question for him (that probably won't be put forward but...)  - it was about how the next Secretary of State could do better to make the US a leader in tackling climate change. Well, that was pointless :lol:

Unlucky. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 10:40:29 AM
As long as I can get asparagus from Peru in October, who gives a f***.

Get enough of them and you can make a raft.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 11:17:16 AM
As long as I can get asparagus from Peru in October, who gives a f***.

Get enough of them and you can make a raft.

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Wednesday 9 November 2016, 11:27:57 AM
As long as I can get asparagus from Peru in October, who gives a f***.

Get enough of them and you can make a raft.

I only eat Asparagus when my crop is ready.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Thursday 10 November 2016, 05:09:48 AM
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Ogden on Thursday 10 November 2016, 05:27:57 AM
As long as I can get asparagus from Peru in October, who gives a f***.

The Incas support your right.  Uh oh, is that racist?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Decky on Thursday 10 November 2016, 05:50:50 AM
Hopefully Obama can quickly run something through that blocks any u-turn on the US' commitment to the Paris Agreement. The American people need to make their voices heard on this one. Hopefully whatever the f*** the US government does doesn't stop the rest of the world from following through on the PA and the US doesnt do too much damage in 4 years so they can get back on board.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Decky on Thursday 10 November 2016, 06:00:37 AM

:anguish:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: kingkerouac on Friday 11 November 2016, 09:24:34 AM

:anguish:

Well he's convinced me with that detailed argument.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 11 November 2016, 09:38:44 AM

:anguish:

Well he's convinced me with that detailed argument.

It's OK, he now denies he said it.  That he said that.  In that tweet.  That's still there.  On his twitter account.  Written by him.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Friday 11 November 2016, 09:53:07 AM

:anguish:

Well he's convinced me with that detailed argument.

It's OK, he now denies he said it.  That he said that.  In that tweet.  That's still there.  On his twitter account.  Written by him.

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Saturday 12 November 2016, 07:36:53 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/climate-change-donald-trump-emergency-campaign-global-warming-is-real-a7412361.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/climate-change-donald-trump-emergency-campaign-global-warming-is-real-a7412361.html
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: summerof69 on Monday 14 November 2016, 01:40:30 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/half-electricity-low-carbon-first-time-report-drax-climate-change-environment-a7414936.html
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Monday 14 November 2016, 02:32:28 PM
2016 going to be warmest on record.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Ian W on Monday 14 November 2016, 02:39:40 PM
No worries, from about 2018 it's going to get f***ing hot.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: 54 on Thursday 8 December 2016, 05:32:50 PM
https://blog.google/topics/environment/100-percent-renewable-energy/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: firetotheworks on Thursday 8 December 2016, 05:36:45 PM
Hopefully, when renewable energy beats fossil fuels in terms of capitalism the nay-sayers for ulterior motives will fall in line for that very same ulterior motive, money.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Saturday 10 December 2016, 03:29:12 PM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/trump-transition-asks-energy-dept-which-employees-work-on-climate-change
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Friday 23 December 2016, 04:03:22 PM
https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/23/uk-half-electricity-low-carbon-sources/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 27 December 2016, 04:41:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M&
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 31 December 2016, 04:42:33 PM
This looks promising.

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/647915052875132943
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Sunday 1 January 2017, 02:59:24 PM
Obviously inspired by watching westworld, but.

It would seem that environmental uncertainty has grown, in parallel with human progress. And therefore we should maybe stop thinking of progress as a straight line with an arrowhead at one end.

We should think of progress as a journey through a maze. We have clearly reached the edge and to continue forward in the same direction will lead only to the abyss.

Maybe there was a time in history, when we were on the right path, but we took a wrong turn. Can we return to that junction in time. Maybe we need to retrace our steps.

Another analogy that might work is searching webcam dollybirds.

You start off with what looks just perfect, but she's not showing. No problem, there are 3 recommended who look allright, click on one of them. Agh she hasn't got her make-up on, so you try another. And so on.

Now if you've any experience, you know fine well that what you are looking for isn't out there, but you keep clicking until eventually the only three options are absolute horrors.

You have two options, you can click on one of the monsters in the hope that they might trigger some dark hidden desires that satisfy your needs, or you can click to go back to a time when the alternatives are much more palatable and won't have you quite so worried about your browsing history.



Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Sunday 1 January 2017, 04:57:00 PM
wat
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Sunday 1 January 2017, 05:12:07 PM
wat

Went as far as a "Cool." post, then didn't want to be that guy.  Cheers mucker. :thup:

Stan, you're definitely a Parky.  Which is not an insult.  Well, not when I say it.  Parky, where goes you? :rose:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Mr Logic on Sunday 1 January 2017, 05:48:53 PM
wat

Went as far as a "Cool." post, then didn't want to be that guy.  Cheers mucker. :thup:

Stan, you're definitely a Parky.  Which is not an insult.  Well, not when I say it.  Parky, where goes you? :rose:

Coward. :lol:

I had no problem with it, elements of truth wrapped in an enigma or somesuch.  Hearing you on Parky, was just wondering the other day if he was ok. When someone disappears from a forum you never know what might have happened, or did he just move on.

PS. Carbon tax is a scam like. ;)
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Friday 13 January 2017, 04:23:49 PM
Based on these figures, how long can we continue growing the bottled water market before it touches the sides?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/387255/global-bottled-water-consumption/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 16 March 2017, 01:32:29 AM
Quote
When it comes to facing the reality of climate change, the Republican Party, now led by the Trump Administration, has been slipping ever farther from its roots as a champion of American science.

Last week brought further evidence of this disconnect — but it also held out a glimmer of hope that the party's turn away from the U.S. effort in science is not universal.

It was Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt who put climate change back on the front page when, during a CNBC interview, he was asked he about the scientific consensus that CO2 is the driver for global warming. He said:

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."

As a scientist, it's very hard for me to understand how Pruitt could make this kind of statement. Does he really believe his own words? Pruitt only needs to read the reports from his own agency to see exactly where the science, and the scientist, stand.

The only place there is "tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact" of CO2 is among politicians politicizing the science. For the American scientists who actually work in the field, disagreement over the basics of climate change ended around the time Guns and Roses released Sweet Child of Mine (the late 80s). So Pruitt's contention that "we don't know that yet" has nothing to do with the reality the rest of us live in. The uproar following Pruitt's statement was fierce (see this particularly cogent climate science tutorial offered by that hot bed of radical politics The Weather Channel.)

One of the less-noticed criticisms of Pruitt's flight of fancy came from a fellow Republican, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, and that represents a small bright-side of what's going on these days. As Curbelo put it:

"The EPA is tasked with the very responsibility of helping to lower the impact of carbon emissions, and for Mr. Pruitt to assert otherwise without scientific evidence is reckless and unacceptable."

Curbelo represents a district in South Florida. The "boots on the ground" reality of rising sea levels for his constituents helps explain why Curbelo is one of the founders of the Congressional Climate Solutions Caucus. Formed last year by Curbelo and fellow Floridian Democrat Ted Deutch, the Caucus's mission is to "serve as an organization to educate members on economically viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation's economy, security, infrastructure, agriculture, water supply and public safety."

Like Noah's Ark, the Caucus adds members two at a time with one member coming from the Republican party and one from the Democratic party. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) are the newest entries, bringing total membership to 28. If those numbers continue to grow, the Caucus may come to hold enough votes to force action on climate change. As Danny Richter, the science director for Citizens' Climate Lobby told Energy and Environment Daily: "If you get 40 Republicans, then you have about the same size as the Freedom Caucus, and I consider that to be a blocking minority within the majority."

A group of elder Republican statesmen have taken their own stand for the integrity of American science and the reality of its hard won results. Led by former Secretary of State James Baker, they've approached the White House with a revenue-neutral carbon tax and dividend plan.

Their work and the appearance of the Climate Solutions Caucus represents a ray of hope. The clock is ticking for us when it comes to the shifting "Earth systems" of atmosphere, oceans, etc. The planet is changing — and it's changing because of our project of civilizations' remarkable success. But climate change will stress that project in ways not likely to be pretty. That's the reality we face — and we need all hands on deck to figure out smart, economically viable ways to navigate the rising waters ahead.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/14/520022064/a-spark-of-hope-for-climate-change-reality
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 21 March 2017, 09:44:59 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/21/record-breaking-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory

Ouch.

My favourite comment on the article:

Bah, nonsense, - I don't understand these things, so I don't think they're happening..

My television. I understand that. My beer and my dinner and my job. These are things I understand, so I'll vote for whoever talks about those. People who do otherwise confuse me and make me feel stupid, so I'll hate them and tell them they're arrogant. Who are they to make me feel stupid. Bloody lefties.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Unbelievable! on Thursday 1 June 2017, 08:04:47 PM
Trump press conference where he is expected to announce US Paris treaty withdrawal starting now. Pivotal moment in the history of climate change sadly.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 1 June 2017, 08:14:46 PM
This is solely about Trump sticking his finger in Obama's eye. He's such a small, pathetic man.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 1 June 2017, 08:38:17 PM
Well at least his Floridian s*** palace is destined to sink beneath the waves.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 1 June 2017, 08:42:28 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Thursday 1 June 2017, 08:47:11 PM
Well at least his Floridian s*** palace is destined to sink beneath the waves.

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Thursday 1 June 2017, 08:48:12 PM
See California have already said they will work on meeting the required targets and reductions with the help of China.

How embarrassing is that man.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 1 June 2017, 08:55:11 PM
See California have already said they will work on meeting the required targets and reductions with the help of China.

How embarrassing is that man.

The more progressive states are going to blaze their own trail and leave the conservative backwater states behind. At this point it's the only chance we have. I'm starting to feel the same way about healthcare.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Thursday 1 June 2017, 09:07:06 PM
See California have already said they will work on meeting the required targets and reductions with the help of China.

How embarrassing is that man.

The more progressive states are going to blaze their own trail and leave the conservative backwater states behind. At this point it's the only chance we have. I'm starting to feel the same way about healthcare.

The most ridiculous thing is, economically and from a business point of view it makes sense.  No one wants to use coal or oil for electricity generation now and renewable energy supports many high paid jobs.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Thursday 1 June 2017, 09:24:01 PM
"I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris."

It's not called the Paris Climate Agreement because they're worried about the climate in f***ing Paris you unbelievable melt.

EDIT: Oh look, here's the person that represents Pittsburgh.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Thursday 1 June 2017, 09:48:35 PM
See California have already said they will work on meeting the required targets and reductions with the help of China.

How embarrassing is that man.

The more progressive states are going to blaze their own trail and leave the conservative backwater states behind. At this point it's the only chance we have. I'm starting to feel the same way about healthcare.

The most ridiculous thing is, economically and from a business point of view it makes sense.  No one wants to use coal or oil for electricity generation now and renewable energy supports many high paid jobs.

Then nothing has changed. It was never legally binding and businesses will continue to make sound business decisions
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Thursday 1 June 2017, 10:12:47 PM
It's cute you still love him.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Toondave on Thursday 1 June 2017, 10:19:20 PM
It's cute you still love him.

I prefer "endearing" but I'll take it
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: 54 on Friday 23 June 2017, 11:18:45 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/22/norway-issues-1bn-threat-brazil-rising-amazon-destruction

Norway has issued a blunt threat to Brazil that if rising deforestation in the Amazon rainforest is not reversed, its billion-dollar financial assistance will fall to zero. The leaders of the two nations meet in Oslo on Friday.

The oil-rich Scandinavian nation has provided $1.1bn to Brazil’s Amazon fund since 2008, tied to reductions in the rate of deforestation in the world’s greatest rainforest. The destruction of forests by timber and farming industries is a major contributor to the carbon emissions that drive climate change and Norway views protecting the Amazon as vital for the whole world.

The rate of deforestation in the Amazon fell steadily from 2008 to 2014, an “impressive achievement” which had a “very positive impact” on Brazil and the world, according to Vidar Helgesen, Norway’s environment minister.

But in a forthright letter to Brazil’s environment minister, José Sarney Filho, seen by the Guardian, Helgesen said: “In 2015 and 2016 deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon saw a worrying upward trend.” He warned that this had already reduced Norway’s contributions and added: “Even a fairly modest further increase would take this number to zero.”


Wild Amazon faces destruction as Brazil’s farmers and loggers target national park
 Read more
Helgesen said he had serious concern that controversial moves in Brazil to remove protection from large areas of the Amazon and weaken the environmental licensing required for agriculture would worsen deforestation. Furthermore, he said, budgets for the environment ministry and other departments that protect the Amazon had been drastically cut. Brazil’s president, Michel Temer, is seen as close to the powerful agricultural lobby, which is pressing for cuts in Amazon protection.

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon jumped by 29% to 8,000 sq km in 2016, although it remains well below the 19,000 sq km seen in 2005. Norwegian officials say that under the rules Brazil itself set for the Amazon fund, a rise to 8,500 sq km would mean no payments from Norway.

Filho, the son of the top landowner in Maranhão state, has replied to Helgesen. “I have made every effort to maintain the course of sustainability with determination and political will,” he wrote.

Filho told Helgesen that the latest preliminary data suggested the increase in deforestation rate may have levelled off. “[It] indicates that we may have stagnated the upward curve of deforestation. We hope that the new data will soon point to a downward trend.”

Temer is set to face protests in Oslo on Friday from rainforest and indigenous rights campaigners, including Sônia Guajajara, a leader from Brazil’s indigenous movement APIB. She said: “Temer violates his obligations and undermines people’s constitutional rights. His attacks on indigenous peoples and the environment are of a magnitude we have not seen before.”

The Amazon fund currently supports dozens of projects which fight deforestation, work on land regulation and the environmental management of indigenous lands.

Norway itself was criticised by environmental groups on Thursday, after offering oil companies a record number of exploration blocks – 93 – within the Arctic circle. Terje Søviknes, minister of petroleum and energy, said: “New exploration acreage promotes long-term activity, value creation and profitable employment in the petroleum industry across the country.”
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 11 July 2017, 11:12:04 AM
Well this is quite the sobering read

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Twinport53 on Tuesday 11 July 2017, 12:22:24 PM
Well this is quite the sobering read

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Makes you feel tiny and helpless reading that like :lol:

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 11 July 2017, 02:56:53 PM
Well this is quite the sobering read

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

 :kinnear:

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Thursday 21 September 2017, 04:46:28 PM
Well ya bugger.

https://www.thecanary.co/global/2017/09/21/coca-cola-disaster-go-hand-hand-communities-sucked-dry-make-drinks/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Thursday 19 October 2017, 09:49:42 AM
Not specifically related to climate change but s*** like this just adds to the overall impression that we're pretty much f***ed

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers

It's definitely true about the car windscreen thing, see far fewer dead bugs on there these days.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: 54 on Monday 30 October 2017, 10:09:18 AM
CO2 in the earth's atmosphere jumped to a record high in 2016.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: The Little Waster on Thursday 2 November 2017, 07:09:59 AM
https://youtu.be/ESuJnZbyYiE

As prophesized in Timeslip
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: leffe186 on Thursday 2 November 2017, 02:33:16 PM
Not specifically related to climate change but s*** like this just adds to the overall impression that we're pretty much f***ed

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers

It's definitely true about the car windscreen thing, see far fewer dead bugs on there these days.

Well that's bloody terrifying.

I'm off to watch the Real Madrid match again.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 2 January 2018, 11:19:08 AM
Another record breaker:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 2 January 2018, 11:30:12 AM
Another record breaker:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming

So has the globe warmed up due to global warming, or has global warming increased due to the globe getting warmer?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 2 January 2018, 09:56:55 PM
has global warming increased due to the globe getting warmer?

I'd like to speak to the teacher who told me there are no stupid questions please.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Tuesday 6 February 2018, 03:24:15 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/day-zero-cape-town-drought-no-water-run-out-reservoir-supply-12-per-cent-16-april-south-africa-a8195011.html

First city to run out of water. :frantic:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 6 February 2018, 08:49:02 PM
My friends who just got married have booked their honeymoon there before checking the news. :doh:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 10:21:01 AM
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-earths-water-stored-glaciers?qt-news_science_products=7#qt-news_science_products

Close up of graphs
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/distribution-water-and-above-earth

Quote
In the first bar, notice how only 2.5% of Earth's water is freshwater - the amount needed for life to survive.   

Surely more water would mean more life and more life needs more water?

The middle bar shows the breakdown of freshwater. Almost all of it is locked up in ice and in the ground. Only a little more than 1.2% of all freshwater is surface water, which serves most of life's needs.

MOST of life's needs? Isn't the fact that it isn't serving ALL of life's needs, one of the issues?

The right bar shows the breakdown of surface freshwater. Most of this water is locked up in ice, and another 20.9% is found in lakes. Rivers make up 0.49% of surface freshwater. Although rivers account for only a small amount of freshwater, this is where humans get a large portion of their water from.

Are these figures from 1993? any more recent reports?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 10:30:37 AM
What are we looking at, Stan?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 10:31:42 AM
Quote
About three-quarters of Earth's freshwater is stored in glaciers. Therefore, glacier ice is the second largest reservoir of water on Earth and the largest reservoir of freshwater on Earth!
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 10:41:47 AM
What are we looking at, Stan?

Not sure. I'm stil convinced that the commodification of freshwater is a major contributing factor to climate change.

 I could spend the next 3 hours trying to find up to date figures or I can come on here post what I find first time, and wait for somebody to correct me.




Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 11:07:22 AM
:aww:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 02:47:09 PM
Quote
About three-quarters of Earth's freshwater is stored in glaciers. Therefore, glacier ice is the second largest reservoir of water on Earth and the largest reservoir of freshwater on Earth!

??
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 02:47:57 PM
Quote
About three-quarters of Earth's freshwater is stored in glaciers. Therefore, glacier ice is the second largest reservoir of water on Earth and the largest reservoir of freshwater on Earth!

??

That's the quote from your link. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 02:49:40 PM
Quote
About three-quarters of Earth's freshwater is stored in glaciers. Therefore, glacier ice is the second largest reservoir of water on Earth and the largest reservoir of freshwater on Earth!

??

That's the quote from your link. :lol:

I know that. Why did you think it was so special it deserved highlighting?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 3 July 2018, 04:50:04 PM
Quote
About three-quarters of Earth's freshwater is stored in glaciers. Therefore, glacier ice is the second largest reservoir of water on Earth and the largest reservoir of freshwater on Earth!

This means that only 25% of the earth's total supply of freshwater is (was in 1993) available for everything that depends on it to survive. The fact that we use so much of it to make bud is f***ing criminal.

And on the subject of bud (and coke and mcdonalds) why are so many natural resources being wasted on advertising the already most popular brands in the world? I couldn't care how much of other people's money they spend, but do we really need to burn finite fuels in order to remind us that they are still here?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Wednesday 4 July 2018, 11:39:37 AM
Quote
About three-quarters of Earth's freshwater is stored in glaciers. Therefore, glacier ice is the second largest reservoir of water on Earth and the largest reservoir of freshwater on Earth!

??

That's the quote from your link. :lol:

Is it a guessing game, Nees? Should I take a guess? See, when I read that quote it made me question whether or not it was a wise website to link to. For a moment (just about the time it takes to cut and paste with the look of a right smug c***) I thought it ridiculed the legitimacy of the site. "3/4s? second biggest? Eh? Eh?

So I re-read it.

Did you do the same, did you?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Wednesday 4 July 2018, 12:16:11 PM
Neesy and Stan.  This is gonna make loads of sense.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 5 July 2018, 12:38:35 AM
has global warming increased due to the globe getting warmer?

I'd like to speak to the teacher who told me there are no stupid questions please.

As I used to tell my students, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people asking them. Nobody can justify blaming a question for them being a dipshit.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Monday 8 October 2018, 02:51:37 AM
UN just released a report basically saying we’re completely f***ed.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Thursday 11 October 2018, 11:58:14 PM
We are so incredibly f***ed.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonArmy1892 on Friday 12 October 2018, 02:18:23 AM
Global warming is baloney.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Friday 12 October 2018, 08:49:17 AM
We are so incredibly f***ed.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html

The number of posts in this thread compared to the politics threads kind of sums this up for me - climate change is too big yet still too far in the future for people to be able to expend energy thinking too much about it.

What is abundantly clear to me is that the planet is utterly f***ed and no one in any position to do anything about it is going to do anything about it.

Just glad I don't have kids -  think the next couple of generations are going to f***ing hate us.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Friday 12 October 2018, 08:51:50 AM
We are so incredibly f***ed.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html

The number of posts in this thread compared to the politics threads kind of sums this up for me - climate change is too big yet still too far in the future for people to be able to expend energy thinking too much about it.

What is abundantly clear to me is that the planet is utterly f***ed and no one in any position to do anything about it is going to do anything about it.

Just glad I don't have kids -  think the next couple of generations are going to f***ing hate us.

This is it like. It’s going to get way worse before it gets better.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Thursday 18 October 2018, 02:36:59 AM
It's OK guys.

Quote
President Donald Trump told the Associated Press that he has a "natural instinct for science" that informs his understanding of climate change and allows him to see through the political bias that he accused some scientists of holding.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/17/trump-instinct-climate-change-910004
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Thursday 18 October 2018, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Dolan Tromp
"Everything I want and everything I have is clean. Clean is very important — water, air," he said. "I want absolutely crystal clear water and I want the cleanest air on the planet and our air now is cleaner than it’s ever been. Very important to me."

:lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 19 October 2018, 11:29:35 AM
He must have some form of mental illness no one can be that stupid.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Wednesday 24 October 2018, 10:18:04 AM
This Brazilian bloke looks like he's going to do everything he can to hurry things along on the climate change front:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/24/planet-populists-brazil-jair-bolsonaro-environment

Been reading up a bit on climatic tipping points - we could be a lot closer to catastrophic changes than most people realise.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Jackie Broon on Wednesday 24 October 2018, 12:59:48 PM
It's OK guys.

Quote
President Donald Trump told the Associated Press that he has a "natural instinct for science" that informs his understanding of climate change and allows him to see through the political bias that he accused some scientists of holding.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/17/trump-instinct-climate-change-910004

He is the Dunning-Kruger effect incarnate.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 08:56:57 AM
Going to be a lot more of this kind of thing:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/migrant-caravan-causes-climate-change-central-america
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonArmy1892 on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 09:17:27 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 09:42:10 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

Didn't realize Alex Jones was on the forum.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonArmy1892 on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 10:00:39 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

Didn't realize Alex Jones was on the forum.

You believe MSM?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Papavasiliou on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 10:09:50 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

The MSM told me today that Germany exists. Probably bullshit.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 10:11:36 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

 :lol:

f*** me
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: TheHoob on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 10:14:20 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 10:16:10 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

Didn't realize Alex Jones was on the forum.

You believe MSM?

Yes I do, I've done quite a lot of travelling around the world and I've seen the effects of climate change.

You're bloody weird.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 10:55:12 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

The MSM told me today that Germany exists. Probably bullshit.


You joke, but...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15/australia-doesnt-exist-and-other-bizarre-geographic-conspiracies-that-wont-go-away
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Papavasiliou on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 11:13:48 AM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

The MSM told me today that Germany exists. Probably bullshit.


You joke, but...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2018/apr/15/australia-doesnt-exist-and-other-bizarre-geographic-conspiracies-that-wont-go-away

Well if that's in the Guardian... does that mean Australia really does exist?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: cfcmagpies on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 01:55:40 PM
We are so incredibly f***ed.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html

The number of posts in this thread compared to the politics threads kind of sums this up for me - climate change is too big yet still too far in the future for people to be able to expend energy thinking too much about it.

What is abundantly clear to me is that the planet is utterly f***ed and no one in any position to do anything about it is going to do anything about it.

Just glad I don't have kids -  think the next couple of generations are going to f***ing hate us.

This is it like. It’s going to get way worse before it gets better.

Hello.

There are times where this s*** makes me feel like a character from Neville Shute’s “On the Beach”. Just a real inability to grasp exactly how shithouse it could get, how soon.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 02:17:38 PM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.

Didn't realize Alex Jones was on the forum.

You believe MSM?

MSN 4 lyf.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 04:30:24 PM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.



In a long and storied history of stupid posts on the forum, this will safely go down as a Lebron James or Michael Jordan argument with one or two others.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 10:58:24 PM
I assumed he was joking :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 11:17:22 PM
Probably, but I wanted to bring the NBA into the discussion.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 30 October 2018, 11:57:49 PM
Probably, but I wanted to bring the NBA into the discussion.

Ah, baseball.  I thought they were actors or something.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonArmy1892 on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 01:44:38 PM
If the mainstream media say global warming is a thing, safe to say the opposite is probabaly true, that goes for everything.



In a long and storied history of stupid posts on the forum, this will safely go down as a Lebron James or Michael Jordan argument with one or two others.

Oh well.

You do know they lie to you?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Jimburst on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 01:59:27 PM
:lol: You do know they also post information on scientific consensus? Stuff like the existence of exoplanets or medical discoveries? Or is all that a lie as well?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: firetotheworks on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 02:01:08 PM
Is that the sort of thinking that lead some knackers to believe that the earth is flat? :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: newsted on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 02:04:10 PM
:lol: It's flat and balanced on the back of turtles balanced on elephants. I read it somewhere, so it must be true.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonArmy1892 on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 03:15:14 PM
They mix truth with lies, so it's hard to know what to believe really.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 03:17:35 PM
They mix truth with lies, so it's hard to know what to believe really.

How about the overwhelming number of published scientific studies that are freely available online?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 03:21:18 PM
They mix truth with lies, so it's hard to know what to believe really.

Which even if true would put them streets ahead of the alternative media which just mix lies with more lies and adverts for vitamin supplements.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: newsted on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 03:22:29 PM
They mix truth with lies, so it's hard to know what to believe really.

How about the overwhelming number of published scientific studies that are freely available online?

:huff: Nobody wants experts.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 03:41:17 PM
They mix truth with lies, so it's hard to know what to believe really.

Which even if true would put them streets ahead of the alternative media which just mix lies with more lies and adverts for vitamin supplements.

Saw a bloke wearing an Info Wars t-shirt in Eldon Sq last week. Horrific.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ManDoon on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 03:44:46 PM
best to believe the scientific consensus, I reckon.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Jimburst on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 04:21:45 PM
They mix truth with lies, so it's hard to know what to believe really.

Just believe the scientists, don't believe the politicians.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 04:27:47 PM
They mix truth with lies, so it's hard to know what to believe really.

Try for one believing the robustness of the scientific process, and peer review. To think there is some massive mafia cabal of scientists making this s*** that is disruptive to the industrialized economy up just for funding is just absurd, especially since the follow-the-money
arguments invariably leads in the other direction. Big Oil has an absolutely massive stake in the continuation of this economy. Consider that Big Tobacco used gaslighting tactics for years to foster doubt within the public about the dangers of cigarettes. Big Oil has adopted the exact same methods down to a tee, and f***ing us over in the process just for their bottom line.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 04:58:02 PM
tbh all you need to do to confirm climate change these days is pay attention to global events - it's not a theoretical situation any more, it's happening, and it's accelerating.

If the MSM are due any criticism it's for not hammering home the seriousness of this issue on a constant basis.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 04:59:53 PM
But it's cold in Minnesota. Proof of the hoax.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: leffe186 on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 05:15:24 PM
But it's cold in Minnesota. Proof of the hoax.

I will never forget that absolute prick who brought a snowball into the Senate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/jim-inhofes-snowball-has-disproven-climate-change-once-and-for-all/?utm_term=.b7c7b4ca8d13
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ManDoon on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 05:28:14 PM
tbh all you need to do to confirm climate change these days is pay attention to global events - it's not a theoretical situation any more, it's happening, and it's accelerating.

If the MSM are due any criticism it's for not hammering home the seriousness of this issue on a constant basis.

that and entertaining moron climate change deniers
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Wednesday 31 October 2018, 05:45:40 PM
tbh all you need to do to confirm climate change these days is pay attention to global events - it's not a theoretical situation any more, it's happening, and it's accelerating.

If the MSM are due any criticism it's for not hammering home the seriousness of this issue on a constant basis.

that and entertaining moron climate change deniers

:thup: :thup:

Balance~!
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonArmy1892 on Thursday 1 November 2018, 10:21:54 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Thursday 1 November 2018, 10:40:45 AM
:lol: "There's a global conspiracy where we are being lied to by scientists about the effect of a warming earth! They stand to gain nothing and I'm batshit crazy and kinda in need of help for suggesting a world wide conspiracy against ordinary people that just want to use fossil fuels and watch The Grand Tour, but that's what I believe is happening. CONSPIRACY! GET OUT MY HEAD!"
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Thursday 1 November 2018, 10:45:56 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Right, so one line from a 20 year old email from a university completely nullifies all scientific evidence. Wrap it up lads, Esso and Shell get to drill after all.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 1 November 2018, 10:48:12 AM
:lol: 

It's game, set and match, BlueStar, didn't you know.

Love the idea that making the planet cleaner is somehow worthy of conspiratorial endeavours to get there, but digging into the ground, extracting fossil fuels, clearly making the planet dirty (even if you don't agree we're damaging the planet in the process somehow) and polluting it to f*** is somehow full of moralistic and honest intent.

I'd put money on the fossil fuel industry being the puppet masters for many of these climate deniers.  In fact, that might be glaringly obvious to all already. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Nattfare on Thursday 1 November 2018, 10:51:20 AM
:lol: It's flat and balanced on the back of turtles balanced on elephants. I read it somewhere, so it must be true.

Is the turtle male or female though? It's very important to know should the turtle find another turtle to mate with... as with a female it could have disastrous results.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonArmy1892 on Thursday 1 November 2018, 10:51:28 AM
Just offering balance.

People getting very defensive, weird.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlueStar on Thursday 1 November 2018, 11:00:42 AM
It's the kind of "balance" where This Morning sat an astronomer next to that guy who says the moon landing was faked because you can't land on the moon because it's a hologram (https://bit.ly/2P0g9YG), as if they were two equal sides of the debate with equally valid positions.

Here's some conspiracies and leaked emails for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Quote
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-shell-oil-global-warming-5-degree-paris-climate-agreement-fossil-fuels-temperature-rise-a8022511.html

Quote
BP and Shell planning for catastrophic 5°C global warming despite publicly backing Paris climate agreement

Oil giants Shell and BP are planning for global temperatures to rise as much as 5°C by the middle of the century. The level is more than double the upper limit committed to by most countries in the world under the Paris Climate Agreement, which both companies publicly support.

A timeline of Exxon's funding of climate change denial, while it privately acknowledged and planned for the effects of human climate change on its future operations.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Thursday 1 November 2018, 11:01:06 AM
The world is covered from head to toe with giant, electronic screens, advertising carbonated sugar and water. When that changes, I'll start to worry.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 1 November 2018, 11:02:43 AM
It's the kind of "balance" where This Morning sat an astronomer next to that guy who says the moon landing was faked because you can't land on the moon because it's a hologram, as if they were two equal sides of the debate with equally valid positions.

Here's some conspiracies and leaked emails for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Quote
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-shell-oil-global-warming-5-degree-paris-climate-agreement-fossil-fuels-temperature-rise-a8022511.html

Quote
BP and Shell planning for catastrophic 5°C global warming despite publicly backing Paris climate agreement

Oil giants Shell and BP are planning for global temperatures to rise as much as 5°C by the middle of the century. The level is more than double the upper limit committed to by most countries in the world under the Paris Climate Agreement, which both companies publicly support.

A timeline of Exxon's funding of climate change denial, while it privately acknowledged and planned for the effects of human climate change on its future operations.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/

:thup:

Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: leffe186 on Thursday 1 November 2018, 11:05:30 AM
The world is covered from head to toe with giant, electronic screens, advertising carbonated sugar and water. When that changes, I'll start to worry.

At which point it will be far too late, which is what people are getting worked up about.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Thursday 1 November 2018, 11:36:58 AM
Can't believe i'm entertaining this nonsense but here goes.

Quote
There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context.
The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt  to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".

Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

    "A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."

Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

    "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

If you'd like to check things for yourself all of the data are publicly available free of charge for download.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Troll on Thursday 1 November 2018, 03:23:15 PM
The best way to discredit scientists would be to follow their methods (which are published in detail) and see if you get the same results.  Why hasn't anyone done this?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Thursday 1 November 2018, 04:00:53 PM
The world is covered from head to toe with giant, electronic screens, advertising carbonated sugar and water. When that changes, I'll start to worry.

At which point it will be far too late, which is what people are getting worked up about.

If those are our priorities then it's already too late. My decision to not watch the apprentice isn't going to save us.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Thursday 1 November 2018, 04:16:50 PM
Just offering balance.

People getting very defensive, weird.

It's not balance if you are misrepresenting the science based on one email that you can't interpret properly. I think you should go back and read a few history of science books to get a better understanding of how science works.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: leffe186 on Thursday 1 November 2018, 04:35:58 PM
Just offering balance.

People getting very defensive, weird.

Just offering balance.

People getting very defensive, weird.

No, I think they were primarily getting exasperated with going over the same old ground with somebody who is either unwilling or unable to examine things critically, and with a truly open mind.

Of course, after that last line, I think people will just get really angry that they've had some divvy waste their time.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ManDoon on Friday 2 November 2018, 12:18:17 PM
not related, but this s*** has to stop

https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/9ti5ay/bbc_breakfast_right_now_seem_to_be_giving_a_solid/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: robm on Friday 2 November 2018, 12:43:50 PM
not related, but this s*** has to stop

https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/9ti5ay/bbc_breakfast_right_now_seem_to_be_giving_a_solid/
Watched that this morning. Couldn't believe the lack of balance in it and the coverage they were giving.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Friday 2 November 2018, 02:16:36 PM
I don't think the crowd is too sure about shutting down airport space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hog6-sjmpCw&fbclid=IwAR3dvSHzZ0OyXBHn8MYjifC8HdC2UtuguRixX6N51XrgxLuqelQ4FrDmfOk
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 3 November 2018, 09:52:33 PM
The world is covered from head to toe with giant, electronic screens, advertising carbonated sugar and water. When that changes, I'll start to worry.

At which point it will be far too late, which is what people are getting worked up about.

Thing is I've done all I can, and plenty more that I didn't think I could. I really can't do too much more. Therefore from a personal point of view I'm pig sick of the public being blamed whilst big business just carries on.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Saturday 3 November 2018, 10:10:07 PM
not related, but this s*** has to stop

https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/9ti5ay/bbc_breakfast_right_now_seem_to_be_giving_a_solid/
Watched that this morning. Couldn't believe the lack of balance in it and the coverage they were giving.

That's the BBC nowadays sadly.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:00:56 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46960842

(Thing above has just happened to a lesser degree on Newsnight. ‘Do scientists and experts (the ultimately enemy) need to work with non-believers.’ Etc.)
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: LoveItIfWeBeatU on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:07:13 PM
It's the way of the media these days with their "What do you think? Let us know" crap after some stories.

We've listened to the scientists, doctors, experts in the field with years of experience and qualifications but we want to know what uninformed members of the public think.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:17:13 PM
I remember This Week did something on it, and they got Corbyn's brother in as he's a denier and it was farcical.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:34:25 PM
Is that true, neesy?  :lol:

Not saying I think you're lying, I just can't believe that. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:38:20 PM
Perfect ruse for Patriot Neil that.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:39:24 PM
Is that true, neesy?  :lol:

Not saying I think you're lying, I just can't believe that. :lol:

He's a denier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vueubf98vD8
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BlufPurdi on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:46:55 PM
That's got to be some sort of elaborate setup. :lol:

They actually got his brother.  And he f***ing went on. :lol:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Tuesday 22 January 2019, 11:50:00 PM
That's got to be some sort of elaborate setup. :lol:

They actually got his brother.  And he f***ing went on. :lol:

It was f***ing ridiculous.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: ToonTastic on Monday 4 March 2019, 11:02:13 AM
Apparently the mammoth is how we'll combat global warming. Show on channel 4 last night about bringing back a hybrid mammoth to stop rotting vegetation from releasing methane. Was kinda interesting in a are they taking the p*ss sort of way.
A news article last year about it:
https://www.livescience.com/62569-mammoth-elephant-hybrid-help-climate.html
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Monday 4 March 2019, 11:12:17 AM
Apparently the mammoth is how we'll combat global warming. Show on channel 4 last night about bringing back a hybrid mammoth to stop rotting vegetation from releasing methane. Was kinda interesting in a are they taking the p*ss sort of way.
A news article last year about it:
https://www.livescience.com/62569-mammoth-elephant-hybrid-help-climate.html

Probaby just bringing it back because of the ban on hunting elephants for ivory. It'll take a good few years until they can process a ban on hunting an extinct creature. In the meantime, job's a good 'un.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Monday 4 March 2019, 11:23:53 AM
Apparently adding seaweed to cows food could take care of a lot of methane. Stops them farting somehow.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Monday 4 March 2019, 11:28:36 AM
Apparently adding seaweed to cows food could take care of a lot of methane. Stops them farting somehow.

I've absolutely no reason to doubt that seaweed is the most ntural thing to feed a cow. That's probably why nature grows it in the f***ing sea.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: DJ_NUFC on Monday 4 March 2019, 10:57:15 PM
Apparently adding seaweed to cows food could take care of a lot of methane. Stops them farting somehow.

I've absolutely no reason to doubt that seaweed is the most ntural thing to feed a cow. That's probably why nature grows it in the f***ing sea.


:lol: I don't think nature has a plan. Evolution does not work this way. If some sort of a cow superfood grew on the bottom of the ocean and was in abundance, we can't discard it because nature didn't intend it to be eaten by cows. Heck, we evolved and adapted precisely to get to food and resources unavailable readily to us.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: BottledDog on Wednesday 6 March 2019, 01:20:20 PM
The Climate Change Paper So Depressing It's Sending People to Therapy

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Wednesday 6 March 2019, 01:25:17 PM
The Climate Change Paper So Depressing It's Sending People to Therapy

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy

Every cloud, and all that. The therapy industry has been in need of a boost.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Mike on Tuesday 12 March 2019, 01:10:09 PM
Was listening to the author of The Unihabitable Earth on Chris Hayes' podcast.

So we're pretty goddamn good and f***ed then, yeah?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: TBG on Tuesday 12 March 2019, 01:15:25 PM
The Climate Change Paper So Depressing It's Sending People to Therapy

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy

Hope they walked.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 12 March 2019, 02:45:30 PM
Was listening to the author of The Unihabitable Earth on Chris Hayes' podcast.

So we're pretty goddamn good and f***ed then, yeah?

I've just finished reading The Uninhabitable Earth and oh yes, we're absolutely f***ed.

The best case scenarios we currently talk about are for warming levels already pretty much baked in to the system, even if we stopped all emissions today.

All that remains to be seen is how badly f***ed we are, and how quickly, and some of the potential tipping points we could hit very soon could make it a lot quicker than most people would imagine. When I read about stuff like this I'm genuinely glad I don't have kids, the youngsters of today are going to have to deal with some terrible scenarios. 
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Mike on Tuesday 12 March 2019, 03:41:31 PM
Was listening to the author of The Unihabitable Earth on Chris Hayes' podcast.

So we're pretty goddamn good and f***ed then, yeah?

I've just finished reading The Uninhabitable Earth and oh yes, we're absolutely f***ed.

The best case scenarios we currently talk about are for warming levels already pretty much baked in to the system, even if we stopped all emissions today.

All that remains to be seen is how badly f***ed we are, and how quickly, and some of the potential tipping points we could hit very soon could make it a lot quicker than most people would imagine. When I read about stuff like this I'm genuinely glad I don't have kids, the youngsters of today are going to have to deal with some terrible scenarios. 

:lol: Just Audible'd that. Expect it to be a barrel of laughs.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Varadi on Tuesday 12 March 2019, 06:48:29 PM
Just don't listen before bed time :lol:

Be interested to hear what you make of it - think I'm getting a bit like some of the people in that Vice article, feel like just upping sticks and moving to a remote Scottish island.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Mike on Tuesday 12 March 2019, 11:23:57 PM
He loves the word quotidian.

So far it's good. Needed a proper narrator, imo.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Skeletor on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 12:23:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkk0WGAgL1A

This woman is actually a lawyer. She sounds mentally ill.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 12:35:28 PM
I treasure my human right to commute to work. It's the one right I will die defending. f*** off.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 06:21:23 PM
Attacking their mental health? Surely not.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/22/the-cult-of-greta-thunberg/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: TheHoob on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 06:32:38 PM
Aye some of the s*** i've seen posted about her is grim like. Toby Young excelling himself at the moment, the rancid shitbag that he is.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Ian W on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 08:06:56 PM
Seems like we’ve gone from thinking we’ll sort this out later to being resigned that it’s too late, all in a couple of years.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: GeordieDazzler on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 09:31:50 PM
Seems like we’ve gone from thinking we’ll sort this out later to being resigned that it’s too late, all in a couple of years.

Sounds like Brexit
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Wullie on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 10:10:02 PM
Aye some of the s*** i've seen posted about her is grim like. Toby Young excelling himself at the moment, the rancid shitbag that he is.

To be fair I was with her until I found out the real truth: that her mother sang on Eurovision. Now I'm off to burn some plastic bags in the garden.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: firetotheworks on Wednesday 24 April 2019, 10:15:06 PM
Seems like we’ve gone from thinking we’ll sort this out later to being resigned that it’s too late, all in a couple of years.

Literally the exact plot of Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow South Park episode from 14 years ago.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: mrmojorisin75 on Monday 29 April 2019, 07:41:29 AM
massive fan of that young thunberg's coupon when dealing with adults, has a permanent "sick of your s***" look on her face

we should draft her in for brexit
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: thomas on Friday 14 June 2019, 03:25:31 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/QUWqEF0.jpg)


(https://images.emojiterra.com/google/android-pie/512px/1f914.png) (https://images.emojiterra.com/google/android-pie/512px/1f914.png) (https://images.emojiterra.com/google/android-pie/512px/1f914.png) (https://images.emojiterra.com/google/android-pie/512px/1f914.png) (https://images.emojiterra.com/google/android-pie/512px/1f914.png) (https://images.emojiterra.com/google/android-pie/512px/1f914.png)
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Friday 14 June 2019, 01:10:22 PM
Fake news it's only 13 degrees here today and it was 30 last year.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Tomato Deuce on Friday 14 June 2019, 04:16:29 PM
Produce enough geothermal energy to power the entire country + neutralize the threat of a cataclysmic supervolcanic eruption:

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/science/2018/08/news-yellowstone-supervolcano-geothermal-energy-debate-iceland-hawaii
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Greg on Saturday 20 July 2019, 12:33:53 PM
There must be a place for climate change discussion that's not the politics thread like

Yes. Here.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:02:17 PM
A good initiative from New York:

Quote
Yesterday, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that's been described as the state's Green New Deal. Unlike the one that's been floated in Congress, this one isn't a grab-bag collection of social and energy programs. Instead, there's a strong focus on energy, with assurances that changes will be made in a way that benefits underprivileged communities.

The bill was passed by both houses of the New York legislature last month, but Cuomo held off on signing it so he could pair it with an announcement that suggests the new plan's goals are realistic. The state has now signed contracts for two wind farms that will have a combined capacity of 1.7 GW. If they open as planned in under five years, they will turn New York into the US's leading producer of offshore wind power.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/new-york-passes-its-green-new-deal-announces-massive-offshore-wind-push/

The expertise and hardware for the project is being provided by a Norwegian and a Danish company which is illustrative of how the US (and the UK?) are falling behind a bit on the renewable energy technology front.

With any luck this could inspire the other states to take a similar path and promote investment in the blossoming renewable economy.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:08:14 PM
The UK are up there,s Scotland which is basically powering itself most of the time via wind.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:12:50 PM
The UK are up there,s Scotland which is basically powering itself most of the time via wind.

Is there much investment in renewables over there?  Plans to develop the industry?

I'm not really up on the state of UK tech tbh, most of the stuff I go over is about China or the US.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Greg on Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:25:41 PM
A good initiative from New York:

Quote
Yesterday, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that's been described as the state's Green New Deal. Unlike the one that's been floated in Congress, this one isn't a grab-bag collection of social and energy programs. Instead, there's a strong focus on energy, with assurances that changes will be made in a way that benefits underprivileged communities.

The bill was passed by both houses of the New York legislature last month, but Cuomo held off on signing it so he could pair it with an announcement that suggests the new plan's goals are realistic. The state has now signed contracts for two wind farms that will have a combined capacity of 1.7 GW. If they open as planned in under five years, they will turn New York into the US's leading producer of offshore wind power.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/new-york-passes-its-green-new-deal-announces-massive-offshore-wind-push/

The expertise and hardware for the project is being provided by a Norwegian and a Danish company which is illustrative of how the US (and the UK?) are falling behind a bit on the renewable energy technology front.

With any luck this could inspire the other states to take a similar path and promote investment in the blossoming renewable economy.

The UK is the world leader in the offshore wind market, there is no doubt and without the UK the global offshore wind market would not be where it is now. The world looks to the UK as the leader here. There will continue to be a pipeline of future projects going forward in the UK. Govt is committed to 30GW by 2030 and the Climate Change Committee recently recommended a number of potential scenarios to the UK govt including a target of 75GW offshore wind by 2050. There is currently a leasing round ongoing for Extensions to existing offshore wind farms and the 4th major leasing round of offshore wind in the UK will launch after the summer this year.

Those companies you refer to are big players in the UK market (one is the market leader and the UK is their main business area). It's taken time for the supply chain to catch up and the recent Offshore Wind Sector Deal will help this, but we've seen improvements with the Siemens Gamesa on the Humber and MHI Vestas on the Isle of Wight.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Greg on Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:26:10 PM
The UK are up there,s Scotland which is basically powering itself most of the time via wind.

Is there much investment in renewables over there?  Plans to develop the industry?

I'm not really up on the state of UK tech tbh, most of the stuff I go over is about China or the US.

See above. The world leader in offshore wind.

Onshore wind is dead due to government policy.

More innovation is needed on the wave and tidal side and also moving forward floating wind technology.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:28:55 PM
Cheers, Greg :thup:
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:45:25 PM
We could do with a Gus Gorman, looing after the fractions. We should be capturing energy as we use it. Solar panel lamp bases. Use the heat that comes out of the back of the fridge freezer, to power the stand-by light on the TV. We waste so many tiny little pieces of energy, every second. And that's before we get onto the [wholly necessary, due to lifestyle] labour saving devices. Just chop the carrots yourself man, you waste more personal energy getting the processor out of the cupboard.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: neesy111 on Saturday 20 July 2019, 06:46:26 PM
We could do with a Gus Gorman, looing after the fractions. We should be capturing energy as we use it. Solar panel lamp bases. Use the heat that comes out of the back of the fridge freezer, to power the stand-by light on the TV. We waste so many tiny little pieces of energy, every second. And that's before we get onto the [wholly necessary, due to lifestyle] labour saving devices. Just chop the carrots yourself man, you waste more personal energy getting the processor out of the cupboard.

That will be done eventually, we need smart meters, capture storage etc for smart/dynamic power grid.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Friday 26 July 2019, 01:02:36 AM
A good article on research into past changes in the climate.  The researchers findings put to bed the nonsense about climate change being ‘natural variations’.

Quote
Some people who reject climate science seem to think climate scientists have never heard that the climate has changed in the past—as if scientists weren’t the ones who discovered those events in the first place. In reality, researchers are intensely interested in past climates because there is a lot to learn from them. You can see how sensitive Earth’s climate is to changes, for example, or how variable things can be even when the long-term average temperature is steady.

(“Climate has changed without humans before, so humans can’t be changing it now” is not a logically valid argument, FYI. It's the equivalent to arguing that we can't cause forest fires, since they occurred before we were around.)

Quote
The results showed that only one period was a truly global event—the modern warming caused by human activities. More than 98% of the globe experienced the warmest temperatures of the last 2,000 years during the 20th century. The Little Ice Age comes closest, but there were clearly significant regional forces at work. The Eastern Equatorial Pacific saw the coldest temperatures in the 1400s, while much of Western Europe and the United States were coldest in the 1600s. Everywhere else around the planet, it was the early 1800s that were coolest.

Using climate model simulations, the researchers find that the regional patterns in all these events—except the human-caused warming trend—are consistent with natural variability. (A separate study published at the same time, by the way, demonstrates that climate models seem to simulate the same magnitude of natural variability that the paleoclimate records show happens in the real world.)

It could be that these are simply variations caused by things like oscillating ocean currents, or it could be that these are regional responses to outside factors like solar activity or volcanic eruptions. But there were no outside factors strong enough to cause planet-wide change—which also helps explain why it has been hard to settle on start and end dates for these periods.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/the-only-global-climate-event-of-last-2000-years-was-ours/
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Friday 26 July 2019, 09:35:46 AM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.



Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 26 July 2019, 08:19:08 PM
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Friday 26 July 2019, 09:08:10 PM
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Adam^ on Friday 26 July 2019, 09:16:26 PM
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?


Far too many people. You see it at all levels of society people casting doubt on the science so they dont have to change how they currently live.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 26 July 2019, 09:18:01 PM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Friday 26 July 2019, 09:18:34 PM
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?


pretty much the whole Republican party and their shady donors.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Friday 26 July 2019, 09:50:05 PM
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?


Far too many people. You see it at all levels of society people casting doubt on the science so they dont have to change how they currently live.

Ah, thought you were making assumptions about my lifestyle. Yeah, I agree there are people like that. But I don't know how many. It's like how many seymours support Newcastle. Nobody knows, but if we amplify a few voices enough, it will seem like a significant number.

I don't think people refusing to change is the problem. That's just politics to determine who pays for the inevitable. I mean solar power is inevitable so why are we dragging our heels? Money? Tax those who value their lifestyle more than their life, and I mean beyond the pale. If Elton John doesn't want to fly with people, then charge him the f***ing earth. And save it in the meantime.

Admittedly, I know nothing about the capabilities of solar energy, but I'm sure if we could eliminate 7billion users from the fossil fuel market I'm sure it would go a long way. But hang on then we are denying the energy companies 7 billion customers, and the economy won't manage that. We need a strong economy to save the earth.

I do everything I can do, and I take the problem very seriously, maybe those who are in a position should match my efforts.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Friday 26 July 2019, 11:08:43 PM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.


Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 27 July 2019, 12:06:17 AM
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Anyway, It's not an issue of science being wrong. Science would never learn anything if it was never allowed to be wrong. It's an issue of human ego. And that's not to say the ego is a bad thing. Again science would have learned very little without the drive of the human ego.


Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Saturday 27 July 2019, 01:04:35 AM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 27 July 2019, 01:18:39 AM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Saturday 27 July 2019, 07:38:34 AM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?


Your fundamental misunderstanding that you appeared to demonstrate of how Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, and how General Relativity works in the beginning leads me to believe that you should probably dust off the old physics text if you want ot explore further into the machinations of gravity. Otherwise you are just creating word salads.

The 97% are generally funded by organizations such as the NSF. It's usually pretty transparent where they get their funding from. By that reasoning, you could possibly go down the path of saying that my sister is part of a cabal of corrupt scientists who have made up, or have exaggerated the problem that cosmic radiation wreaks on instrumentation. They made this up clearly to fund their specious research. You could use this same reasoning about evolutionary biologists, biochemists, other astrophysicists, etc. Being skeptical about 1 paper here and there is of course healthy, but without anything to indicate so, being skeptical about a consensus from peer-reviewed research because you are not aware of where the generally transparent funding comes from is a bit rich. My sister got her funding from the NSF. I am sure you could figure out. Start by looking at specific papers. Any reputable journal usually requires the researcher to submit where they got their funding, and it is listed in the paper. And on that note, reputable journals are absolutely ruthless about what they publish. s*** can slip through the cracks, but it doesn't often happen, and certainly not a level where nearly a whole body of scientific research is doctored. If that was the case, then at some point in the future that journal would have a destroyed reputation.

It's in essence proposing that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are taking us all for a ride while living the high life, which is some bold claim, and at least deserves evidence. Now if in the future it turns out that the models weren't that great or were incomplete, then fair enough. But that is wildly different than assuming a conspiracy of scientists. Sadly, many of the models look like they were too conservative at the moment.

This is essentially the argument that climate deniers use, even though that the vast sums of money being thrown about by Big Oil to gaslight the population. On the other side, the flaws in the reasoning and methodology of nearly all of the remaining 3% of studies are generally so glaring that it makes me wonder if they are aimed specifically at friendly politicians for a few bullet points. Because it is pretty damn embarrassing if some of them swear by their methodology when they know pretty much any asshole with a reasonable climate science background will immediately poke holes in their models.

And I would like to remind you that there is a vast difference between informed skepticism, and ignorant skepticism, or just outright denial. Instead of expressing skepticism about source of funding, go and look some papers up form reputable journals.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Saturday 27 July 2019, 07:53:19 AM
It's just more disingenuous bullshit. Pretty sure we all know where NASA's funding comes from along with any other number of respectable scientific institutions.

Trolling for a response as usual.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:14:30 AM
It's just more disingenuous bullshit. Pretty sure we all know where NASA's funding comes from along with any other number of respectable scientific institutions.

Trolling for a response as usual.


If that isn't a disengenuous response  I don't know what is. It certainly isn't representative of the scientific method.



Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:19:17 AM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?


Your fundamental misunderstanding that you appeared to demonstrate of how Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, and how General Relativity works in the beginning leads me to believe that you should probably dust off the old physics text if you want ot explore further into the machinations of gravity. Otherwise you are just creating word salads.

The 97% are generally funded by organizations such as the NSF. It's usually pretty transparent where they get their funding from. By that reasoning, you could possibly go down the path of saying that my sister is part of a cabal of corrupt scientists who have made up, or have exaggerated the problem that cosmic radiation wreaks on instrumentation. They made this up clearly to fund their specious research. You could use this same reasoning about evolutionary biologists, biochemists, other astrophysicists, etc. Being skeptical about 1 paper here and there is of course healthy, but without anything to indicate so, being skeptical about a consensus from peer-reviewed research because you are not aware of where the generally transparent funding comes from is a bit rich. My sister got her funding from the NSF. I am sure you could figure out. Start by looking at specific papers. Any reputable journal usually requires the researcher to submit where they got their funding, and it is listed in the paper. And on that note, reputable journals are absolutely ruthless about what they publish. s*** can slip through the cracks, but it doesn't often happen, and certainly not a level where nearly a whole body of scientific research is doctored. If that was the case, then at some point in the future that journal would have a destroyed reputation.

It's in essence proposing that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are taking us all for a ride while living the high life, which is some bold claim, and at least deserves evidence. Now if in the future it turns out that the models weren't that great or were incomplete, then fair enough. But that is wildly different than assuming a conspiracy of scientists. Sadly, many of the models look like they were too conservative at the moment.

This is essentially the argument that climate deniers use, even though that the vast sums of money being thrown about by Big Oil to gaslight the population. On the other side, the flaws in the reasoning and methodology of nearly all of the remaining 3% of studies are generally so glaring that it makes me wonder if they are aimed specifically at friendly politicians for a few bullet points. Because it is pretty damn embarrassing if some of them swear by their methodology when they know pretty much any asshole with a reasonable climate science background will immediately poke holes in their models.

And I would like to remind you that there is a vast difference between informed skepticism, and ignorant skepticism, or just outright denial. Instead of expressing skepticism about source of funding, go and look some papers up form reputable journals.

Just giving you the opportunit to demonstrate that your rigorous scepticism is applied universally. You've wasted that opportunity to siply re-iterate you superior knowledge. Well done.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: Disco on Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:20:04 AM
Sigh.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: gbandit on Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:46:35 AM
silentstan has a nice ring to it
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: thomas on Saturday 27 July 2019, 11:04:07 AM
Sigh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFHIlwCSq0
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 27 July 2019, 11:16:38 AM
f*** this. I'm away to make my own video that demonstrates levitation, by suspending a brick on a string.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: loki679 on Saturday 27 July 2019, 12:27:42 PM
Hey Stan, if you're really interested in learning I found this great site that can help:

www.google.com
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 27 July 2019, 04:06:06 PM
f*** this. I'm away to make my own video that demonstrates levitation, by suspending a brick on a string.

I'm genuinely tempted, just for s***s and giggles. I reckon if I entitle it "Flat-earther DESTROYS theory of gravity" I'll get my answer in the first 5 comments, but that's just the brucie bonus. I'd be rich within a month.


Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Saturday 27 July 2019, 04:32:19 PM
Hey Stan, if you're really interested in learning I found this great site that can help:

www.google.com

I've already tried that. But my lack of a basic understanding of scientific language stifled my efforts. All I could think of was "Believe in the sheet", and that just provided page after page after page after page of stuff about the Turin shroud. There was one article about a 27 year old man that had peed the bed, and the stain resembled Frank Zappa, which was interesting. But didn't help.
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: QuakesMag on Saturday 27 July 2019, 06:28:38 PM
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?


Your fundamental misunderstanding that you appeared to demonstrate of how Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, and how General Relativity works in the beginning leads me to believe that you should probably dust off the old physics text if you want ot explore further into the machinations of gravity. Otherwise you are just creating word salads.

The 97% are generally funded by organizations such as the NSF. It's usually pretty transparent where they get their funding from. By that reasoning, you could possibly go down the path of saying that my sister is part of a cabal of corrupt scientists who have made up, or have exaggerated the problem that cosmic radiation wreaks on instrumentation. They made this up clearly to fund their specious research. You could use this same reasoning about evolutionary biologists, biochemists, other astrophysicists, etc. Being skeptical about 1 paper here and there is of course healthy, but without anything to indicate so, being skeptical about a consensus from peer-reviewed research because you are not aware of where the generally transparent funding comes from is a bit rich. My sister got her funding from the NSF. I am sure you could figure out. Start by looking at specific papers. Any reputable journal usually requires the researcher to submit where they got their funding, and it is listed in the paper. And on that note, reputable journals are absolutely ruthless about what they publish. s*** can slip through the cracks, but it doesn't often happen, and certainly not a level where nearly a whole body of scientific research is doctored. If that was the case, then at some point in the future that journal would have a destroyed reputation.

It's in essence proposing that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are taking us all for a ride while living the high life, which is some bold claim, and at least deserves evidence. Now if in the future it turns out that the models weren't that great or were incomplete, then fair enough. But that is wildly different than assuming a conspiracy of scientists. Sadly, many of the models look like they were too conservative at the moment.

This is essentially the argument that climate deniers use, even though that the vast sums of money being thrown about by Big Oil to gaslight the population. On the other side, the flaws in the reasoning and methodology of nearly all of the remaining 3% of studies are generally so glaring that it makes me wonder if they are aimed specifically at friendly politicians for a few bullet points. Because it is pretty damn embarrassing if some of them swear by their methodology when they know pretty much any asshole with a reasonable climate science background will immediately poke holes in their models.

And I would like to remind you that there is a vast difference between informed skepticism, and ignorant skepticism, or just outright denial. Instead of expressing skepticism about source of funding, go and look some papers up form reputable journals.

Just giving you the opportunit to demonstrate that your rigorous scepticism is applied universally. You've wasted that opportunity to siply re-iterate you superior knowledge. Well done.


My aim is to apply my skepticism with knowledge and reason, and accepting that models change, and theories are fluid. This also applies to climate science. But only one side is clearly applying the rigorous scientific method to their models. The other side has been generally shown to do no such thing.

I taught science for many years, and have no problem explaining things to people who just don't have the knowledge. The issue comes when people think they know something but clearly don't, and use terms like skepticism without really understanding what they mean. In order to be reasonably skeptical, it helps to have a bit of knowledge on the subject first. It also helps to be able to critically think within that context. If just you're trolling, then fair enough. Otherwise, it may help you to go to Khan Academy's site. They have some fantastic courses in science and mathematics, among other things.

Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Monday 29 July 2019, 12:51:52 AM
Just watched this. Probably been seen before, but I enjoyed it. I don't share his belief that cutting your lifestyle to 1/6 is impossible. I'm pretty sure I've cut mine to 1/100th (exaggeration) since 10 years ago. This is two years old so it's difficult to form an argument based on them. Is the target getting closer or further away? Have living standards risen in the last two years? Were they rising at the time of the video? Aargh, too many questions.

What we do know is that there has been a widespread campaign, encouraging people to do the things necessary, we also know shitloads of people who have made a massive effort to comply. Taking into consideration that 1/6 is the global average, I probably haven't done my fair share (even if 1/100th is even remotely close to the truth), anyway, it puts me in a position of comparing those who might have a standard of living 1/100 of my own, with those who have a SoL x100 my own. I don't think it is fair to expect those with the lower SoL to contribute to the overall target.

So in conclusion, we need those with the highest standard of living to make a bigger contribution to the effort. And that is the problem. When the global economy depends on people's desire to improve their SoL what do you do?

That's the conundrum, and it's an issue that shouldn't be political, at all.


Whoops

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsA3PK8bQd8
Title: Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
Post by: sadnesstan on Monday 29 July 2019, 03:12:52 PM
It's my birthday in 2 days, gonna get a massive cake for the party, and eat 9/10 of it in full view of the other guests. Then I'll tell hem that there isn't enough cake for everybody else, if they want to save the cake they'll have to stop eating it. Then I'll take the rest of the cake upstairs to bed with me and finish it off. Who gives a f***, they'll all be gone in the morning.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: neesy111 on Monday 29 July 2019, 04:38:39 PM
:weirdo:
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: loki679 on Tuesday 30 July 2019, 05:15:15 AM
On July 29th we passed the point where we've used more natural resources this year than the earth can regenerate in one year.  Interesting concept.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: sadnesstan on Tuesday 30 July 2019, 04:05:04 PM
Guess I won't be sending a bendy bus to Jupiter.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: loki679 on Wednesday 31 July 2019, 09:59:46 AM
China predicted to hit peak emissions 5-9 years earlier than targeted.   Good news for the effort against climate change and due in no small part to the focus and determination to develop and implement renewable technologies.

中国加油!
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: loki679 on Friday 2 August 2019, 07:26:16 AM
:scared:


Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Troll on Wednesday 14 August 2019, 08:31:08 PM

The planet is f***ed when people like this are getting elected.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Wednesday 14 August 2019, 08:37:08 PM
:lol: Lunacy.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Disco on Thursday 15 August 2019, 01:06:11 AM
One thing I’ve never quite got my head around, why do nationalists and right wingers the world abound despise (certain aspects of) science so much? Plenty of money to be made so it’s not that, is it the being told what to do or is it the dream of seeing those they despise suffer as a result of being critical? Or is it something else?
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: gbandit on Thursday 15 August 2019, 06:01:00 AM
Think they just want to tell everyone else the ‘truth’ and hold onto all the power. Hard to do when facts back up different viewpoints. Science tends to point the finger at being a c*** in most domains as well so they probably feel victimised too
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Shelvey's Hair on Thursday 15 August 2019, 09:10:53 AM
'Punch in the gut' as scientists find micro plastic in Arctic ice

LONDON (Reuters) - Tiny pieces of plastic have been found in ice cores drilled in the Arctic by a U.S.-led team of scientists, underscoring the threat the growing form of pollution poses to marine life in even the remotest waters on the planet.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-environment-arctic-plastic/punch-in-the-gut-as-scientists-find-micro-plastic-in-arctic-ice-idUKKCN1V41V2
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Disco on Wednesday 25 September 2019, 03:35:41 PM
Quote
Climate change is devastating our seas and frozen regions as never before, a major new United Nations report warns.

According to a UN panel of scientists, waters are rising, the ice is melting, and species are moving habitat due to human activities.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49817804
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: madras on Wednesday 25 September 2019, 03:48:15 PM
One thing I’ve never quite got my head around, why do nationalists and right wingers the world abound despise (certain aspects of) science so much? Plenty of money to be made so it’s not that, is it the being told what to do or is it the dream of seeing those they despise suffer as a result of being critical? Or is it something else?
Because they all involve shutting out facts and reason.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Darth Crooks on Friday 27 September 2019, 07:21:43 AM
Might also involve friends and themselves who have vested interests from lobbyists. These people are not all daft.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Friday 27 September 2019, 07:33:54 PM
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: triggs on Friday 27 September 2019, 11:41:20 PM
A very on brand Dinho post
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Troll on Saturday 28 September 2019, 12:01:16 AM
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

Cool story.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: NEEJ on Saturday 28 September 2019, 12:09:02 AM
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.
Such a tosser.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: neesy111 on Saturday 28 September 2019, 12:56:45 AM
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

Well I always thought you were a c***.  Thanks for clarifying.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Saturday 28 September 2019, 11:25:41 PM
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

You okay? Not being sarcy.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: neesy111 on Sunday 29 September 2019, 12:03:20 AM
I was going to post this in the Not Worthy of a Thread thread, but upon looking for it, I noticed this thread.

What I wanted to say was..... I no longer give a damn about the earth and will not be 'going out of my way' to be greener.

You okay? Not being sarcy.

He's the same miserable tosser that doesn't like Ben arfa.

Not to be trusted with air.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Greg on Sunday 29 September 2019, 12:25:52 AM
Not to be trusted with air - blimey you are on a roll tonight Nees.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Sunday 29 September 2019, 12:35:57 AM
:lol: Isnt he.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Disco on Sunday 29 September 2019, 01:15:46 AM
Weird how the two most vocal posters who hate the planet also have a massive problem with women.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: madras on Sunday 29 September 2019, 01:25:17 AM
Weird how the two most vocal posters who hate the planet also have a massive problem with women.
Who's the other  ?
I'm not round here as much as I was.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:18:40 AM
Weird how the two most vocal posters who hate the planet also have a massive problem with women.

Eh? And where's this from, then? :lol: @Disco

And btw, I don't hate the planet, I just think it's a fruitless exercise doing all of those green practices.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: sadnesstan on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:22:21 AM
Weird how the two most vocal posters who hate the planet also have a massive problem with women.

Eh? And where's this from, then? :lol:

And btw, I don't hate the planet, I just think it's a fruitless exercise doing all of those green practices.

It's not though. If we all ate 1 burger less each year, Elton John can fly his private jet 100 times. That's a world tour. The joy spread from that alone is enough to offset the pain of extinction. At least they died having seen Elton John live.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 12:56:43 PM
Weird how the two most vocal posters who hate the planet also have a massive problem with women.

Eh? And where's this from, then? :lol: @Disco

And btw, I don't hate the planet, I just think it's a fruitless exercise doing all of those green practices.

Sounds more like you are justifying not wanting to make a few sacrifices for the benefit of future generations. That makes you a coward on top of neesy’s descriptions.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 01:40:21 PM
What’s the point when it’s clear that life is not meant to go on forever? Why should I care about ‘extending’ it for few more hundred/thousands of years? Why should I care about such thing when a basic human right such as shelter is out of reach of so many? Mother Nature doesn’t owe us anything but nor do we - it’s not a conscious force! Our existence ‘just happened’ and you’re expecting me to go out of my way to preserve it? For people that don’t exist? Maybe the earth taking a beating is the thing we need to concentrate more of our efforts on to not f***ing overpopulate the world?! What if I don’t have a ‘love affair’ with life, you are expecting people to obey your expectations for the sake of your sperm? Do you know how it feels to not enjoy your existence? For some people it’s not even existence, it’s a struggle. But obviously the very thing that’s beating up the earth, has to be saved, right ? That a lot more important, right?

‘Saving’ the earth for the next generations, that will eventually see the end anyway, is the equivalent of the elites making a living out of your pension and in the process telling you what you need to do for them to benefit from it.
 
Why should I be a slave to what the ‘elites’ dictate to us? Why should I be salve to social ‘norms’? Why should I not question the ‘taken for granted knowledge’, as if one interpretation is the whole and one truth?




Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: neesy111 on Sunday 29 September 2019, 01:50:13 PM
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 01:55:06 PM
Just because your on the side of the ‘correct’ thing to do, it doesn’t mean that your more unselfish than the others. Give up the things that you are really into, then we’ll see how unselfish or caring of nature you really are.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: newsted on Sunday 29 September 2019, 02:27:04 PM
jesuschrist. u ok hun?
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 07:15:34 PM
Yes the earth will be devoured by the sun when it goes red giant in 4 billion years. But just because that's its inevitable end is no justification for being such a callous douche. It's not even about saving humans. It's also about trying to help slow down a mass extinction that is largely by the hands of civilization. One person won't change the world, but it's pretty much the only viable starting point.

Expressing empathy and compassion for life other than my own - and not being a total nihilistic, selfish cock - seems like a decent thing to do, Tyler Durden. It may not matter at all, but even the symbolic act of raging at the dying light is imo much more dignified that laying down, and not only accepting, but contributing to a possible train wreck of a fate for future generations of most life out of pure self-absorption...like a little bitch.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 07:43:58 PM
As I said, your way of looking at it is no better than an other approach - unless you're able to prove it? Accept that people see life differently than you. But I think that would be a very, very difficult thing for you to do, based on your embarrassing, needless name calling. I wonder if you do that sort of thing in front of people's faces? If not, are you sure you're trying your best to be green and that there are no things that you could give up, rather than simply claim yourself to be a 'friend' of the earth, but in reality your contribution might not be as good as you think?

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 08:06:31 PM
:) I've interviewed people in al Qaeda, so yes, I would have no problem calling you that in your face. And saying you are acting like a little bitch is implicitly different than saying you are one. We are all little bitches at times. But beside that, you sound like a kid right out of college.

I could contribute a whole lot more than I am, but I am trying, like taking very short showers, and not supporting products that are decimating my local area. However, I am slowly getting to the point where I am consuming as little as I can. Not happy where I am at, especially with the air travel tbh. However, I am at least putting in a conscious effort, rather than simply justifying my own selfish unwillingness to sacrifice small things. And I have improved quite a bit in the last few years. In that, I do think it's better, because it is at least acknowledging that other life (beside my own) has a right to exist. there are differences in how people see things, but if they are grossly damaging to the biosphere as we know it, then I do not have to accept their bullshit. It borders on sociopathic.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: neesy111 on Sunday 29 September 2019, 08:19:39 PM
:) I've interviewed people in al Qaeda, so yes, I would have no problem calling you that in your face. And saying you are acting like a little bitch is implicitly different than saying you are one. We are all little bitches at times. But beside that, you sound like a kid right out of college.

I could contribute a whole lot more than I am, but I am trying, like taking very short showers, and not supporting products that are decimating my local area. However, I am slowly getting to the point where I am consuming as little as I can. Not happy where I am at, especially with the air travel tbh. However, I am at least putting in a conscious effort, rather than simply justifying my own selfish unwillingness to sacrifice small things. And I have improved quite a bit in the last few years. In that, I do think it's better, because it is at least acknowledging that other life (beside my own) has a right to exist. there are differences in how people see things, but if they are grossly damaging to the biosphere as we know it, then I do not have to accept their bullshit. It borders on sociopathic.

:thup:

My issue is air travel as well.  But I walk to work, recycle everything possible and not materialistic.  Reduced my meat intake in recent years.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 08:28:02 PM
:) I've interviewed people in al Qaeda, so yes, I would have no problem calling you that in your face. And saying you are acting like a little bitch is implicitly different than saying you are one. We are all little bitches at times. But beside that, you sound like a kid right out of college.

I could contribute a whole lot more than I am, but I am trying, like taking very short showers, and not supporting products that are decimating my local area. However, I am slowly getting to the point where I am consuming as little as I can. Not happy where I am at, especially with the air travel tbh. However, I am at least putting in a conscious effort, rather than simply justifying my own selfish unwillingness to sacrifice small things. And I have improved quite a bit in the last few years. In that, I do think it's better, because it is at least acknowledging that other life (beside my own) has a right to exist. there are differences in how people see things, but if they are grossly damaging to the biosphere as we know it, then I do not have to accept their bullshit. It borders on sociopathic.



So when will you reduce or quit air traveling? Nearer to retirement age? Yeah, you'd only fool yourself if you tab your back for it.

BTW, you interviewed people in Al-Qaeda? I suppose it depends on the context! They don't look that hard to me, without their weapons. (I know, because I used to go to a mosque!)

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 08:48:26 PM
:) I've interviewed people in al Qaeda, so yes, I would have no problem calling you that in your face. And saying you are acting like a little bitch is implicitly different than saying you are one. We are all little bitches at times. But beside that, you sound like a kid right out of college.

I could contribute a whole lot more than I am, but I am trying, like taking very short showers, and not supporting products that are decimating my local area. However, I am slowly getting to the point where I am consuming as little as I can. Not happy where I am at, especially with the air travel tbh. However, I am at least putting in a conscious effort, rather than simply justifying my own selfish unwillingness to sacrifice small things. And I have improved quite a bit in the last few years. In that, I do think it's better, because it is at least acknowledging that other life (beside my own) has a right to exist. there are differences in how people see things, but if they are grossly damaging to the biosphere as we know it, then I do not have to accept their bullshit. It borders on sociopathic.



So when will you reduce or quit air traveling? Nearer to retirement age? Yeah, you'd only fool yourself if you tab your back for it.

BTW, you interviewed people in Al-Qaeda? I suppose it depends on the context! They don't look that hard to me, without their weapons. (I know, because I used to go to a mosque!)



The point being that I am going to be afraid of some little nihilist, but not be afraid of people who would cut my head off to make a political point?

And what kind of idiotic comment is that? Just because you went to a mosque...because every mosque is full of al Qaeda?

I suppose I will reduce air travel even more when I am to the point that I don't have to go to places like Niger to tell their stories.

I'd happily tell you that you are acting like a nihilistic sociopath to your face.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 08:51:33 PM
:) I've interviewed people in al Qaeda, so yes, I would have no problem calling you that in your face. And saying you are acting like a little bitch is implicitly different than saying you are one. We are all little bitches at times. But beside that, you sound like a kid right out of college.

I could contribute a whole lot more than I am, but I am trying, like taking very short showers, and not supporting products that are decimating my local area. However, I am slowly getting to the point where I am consuming as little as I can. Not happy where I am at, especially with the air travel tbh. However, I am at least putting in a conscious effort, rather than simply justifying my own selfish unwillingness to sacrifice small things. And I have improved quite a bit in the last few years. In that, I do think it's better, because it is at least acknowledging that other life (beside my own) has a right to exist. there are differences in how people see things, but if they are grossly damaging to the biosphere as we know it, then I do not have to accept their bullshit. It borders on sociopathic.

:thup:

My issue is air travel as well.  But I walk to work, recycle everything possible and not materialistic.  Reduced my meat intake in recent years.

Good for you, man. I quit meat a few years ago for a number of reasons. In California, amid the water crisis, cattle ranchers still had a free reign to waste water and act like total c***s. So that was enough for me, not to mention the assembly line cruelty practiced here.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:03:27 PM
:) I've interviewed people in al Qaeda, so yes, I would have no problem calling you that in your face. And saying you are acting like a little bitch is implicitly different than saying you are one. We are all little bitches at times. But beside that, you sound like a kid right out of college.

I could contribute a whole lot more than I am, but I am trying, like taking very short showers, and not supporting products that are decimating my local area. However, I am slowly getting to the point where I am consuming as little as I can. Not happy where I am at, especially with the air travel tbh. However, I am at least putting in a conscious effort, rather than simply justifying my own selfish unwillingness to sacrifice small things. And I have improved quite a bit in the last few years. In that, I do think it's better, because it is at least acknowledging that other life (beside my own) has a right to exist. there are differences in how people see things, but if they are grossly damaging to the biosphere as we know it, then I do not have to accept their bullshit. It borders on sociopathic.



So when will you reduce or quit air traveling? Nearer to retirement age? Yeah, you'd only fool yourself if you tab your back for it.

BTW, you interviewed people in Al-Qaeda? I suppose it depends on the context! They don't look that hard to me, without their weapons. (I know, because I used to go to a mosque!)



The point being that I am going to be afraid of some little nihilist, but not be afraid of people who would cut my head off to make a political point?

And what kind of idiotic comment is that? Just because you went to a mosque...because every mosque is full of al Qaeda?

I suppose I will reduce air travel even more when I am to the point that I don't have to go to places like Niger to tell their stories.

I'd happily tell you that you are acting like a nihilistic sociopath to your face.

Well done, tough guy. And I'm certainly not little (that's disco) or any of the other adjectives that you're childishly throwing about.

Not one person was smart enough to even ask me what I meant by saying 'not going out of my way to be greener', such was their intent and eagerness to jump on me and and embarrassingly start calling me names.

f***ing embarrassingly snowflakey. 
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:13:15 PM
What is your point. then? The onus is on you to explain your position, not on us to glean it. And given your past posts, it's no wonder that people would assume you meant exactly what you said without having to dissect your manifesto.

Snowflakey :) You tried to act the hard man by implying something about saying it to your face.

You're certainly acting little in an emotional context. As for me, calling names and saying that you are acting a certain way are two different things. I don't know if you are such things in real life, but you are imo acting in such a way. So calling you a nihilistic sociopath is quite different from saying that you are acting like one. One suggests inherent nature, while the other points to behavior. I am not going into your inherent self, because I don't know you.

Look in the mirror before you accuse others of embarrassing behavior, because you are certainly not doing yourself any justice right now.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:33:28 PM
If you say so, oh wise one.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:46:54 PM
:) you come in with a troll-like comment and then complain when people lambaste you for it, instead of us kindly asking you to clarify. And we are embarrassing in your mind.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:48:12 PM
:) you come in with a troll-like comment and then complain when people lambaste you for it, instead of us kindly asking you to clarify. And we are embarrassing in your mind.

Clearly I was attacked well before anyone did! :lol:
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:53:53 PM
Woe is you. I wonder why you were attacked. You could have caused yourself less bother if you did try to explain yourself, instead of just being provocative. Any reasonable person would accept that such would be the response.
Sounds more like a definition of snowflakey than anything else I have read.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Kaizero on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:57:47 PM
Knowing Quakes in real life he'd 100% say everything he's saying right now directly in your face, the question would be if you could then eloquently respond to him or if your brain would shortchange and you'd resort to fisticuffs.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 09:58:09 PM
Woe is you. I wonder why you were attacked. You could have caused yourself less bother if you did try to explain yourself, instead of just being provocative. Any reasonable person would accept that such would be the response.
Sounds more like a definition of snowflakey than anything else I have read.

Because it's easier on the internet to be a 'hard' 'man'.

And no, I didn't need to explain myself to avoid getting attacked. Asking someone before attacking definitely comes before it. But don't like your cognitive dissonance worry you about this one - you're still a good person. 
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:00:47 PM
Knowing Quakes in real life he'd 100% say everything he's saying right now directly in your face, the question would be if you could then eloquently respond to him or if your brain would shortchange and you'd resort to fisticuffs.

Oh look, another one turns up. :lol:

Go and waste your money on over priced footwear - that sums up your priorities in life.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: newsted on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:06:12 PM
jesuschrist. u ok hun?

:lol: Obviously not.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:08:00 PM
Once again you said something provocative and what appeared to be meant to rile people up in a thread about climate change, appearing to show contempt for people who want to be greener. And again, any reasonable person would accept that such reactions would occur from your initial comment, without getting butthurt about it. If you can’t see that, then it is on your head, not ours.

As for cognitive dissonance, I am not convinced that you know what the term actually means, given your use of it here.

On a related note, I find it a bit bizarre that so many provocateurs get so upset and indignant about the reactions that they elicit from their comments.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:10:49 PM
“OMG why is everyone attacking me? f***ing snowflakes.”
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: newsted on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:11:34 PM
Once again you said something provocative and what appeared to be meant to rile people up in a thread about climate change, appearing to show contempt for people who want to be greener. And again, any reasonable person would accept that such reactions would occur from your initial comment, without getting butthurt about it. If you can’t see that, then it is on your head, not ours.

As for cognitive dissonance, I am not convinced that you know what the term actually means, given your use of it here.

In a related note, I find it a bit bizarre that so many provocateurs get so upset and indignant about the reactions that they elicit from their comments.

Let it go, man. Not worth it.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: QuakesMag on Sunday 29 September 2019, 10:12:25 PM
Once again you said something provocative and what appeared to be meant to rile people up in a thread about climate change, appearing to show contempt for people who want to be greener. And again, any reasonable person would accept that such reactions would occur from your initial comment, without getting butthurt about it. If you can’t see that, then it is on your head, not ours.

As for cognitive dissonance, I am not convinced that you know what the term actually means, given your use of it here.

In a related note, I find it a bit bizarre that so many provocateurs get so upset and indignant about the reactions that they elicit from their comments.

Let it go, man. Not worth it.

Of course you’re right.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Kaizero on Monday 30 September 2019, 01:06:36 AM
Knowing Quakes in real life he'd 100% say everything he's saying right now directly in your face, the question would be if you could then eloquently respond to him or if your brain would shortchange and you'd resort to fisticuffs.

Oh look, another one turns up. :lol:

Go and waste your money on over priced footwear - that sums up your priorities in life.

I like how you can summarize a complete strangers priorities in life from them spending some money on shoes a while back. Immaculate insight. You must be so smart and special, looking at your opinions and how they go against all common sense without any willingness or capacity to argue your view other than choosing to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Everybody else are in the wrong, obviously.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Jimburst on Monday 30 September 2019, 10:43:32 AM
A very on brand Dinho post

:lol:
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Conjo on Monday 30 September 2019, 10:59:15 AM
Dinho is your stereotypical malnourished, skinny, pale brit. My money is on QuakesMag.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Jimburst on Monday 30 September 2019, 11:01:10 AM
:lol: I'm fairly sure he goes to the gym and is asian.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Conjo on Monday 30 September 2019, 11:03:57 AM
Was worth a shot :lol:
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Kimbo on Monday 30 September 2019, 05:46:26 PM
Dinho is your stereotypical malnourished, skinny, pale brit. My money is on QuakesMag.

I think you’ll find we’re chunky nation.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Dinho lad on Tuesday 1 October 2019, 09:58:25 PM
:lol: I'm fairly sure he goes to the gym and is asian.

:lol:
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Super Duper Branko Strupar on Tuesday 1 October 2019, 11:53:06 PM
:lol: I'm fairly sure he goes to the gym and is asian.

:lol:
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Paully on Wednesday 16 October 2019, 01:53:10 PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7578667/Piers-Morgan-berates-Mr-Broccoli-head-vegan-Animal-Rebellion-activist-Good-Morning-Britain.html

FFS!

“At one point, the exchange was interrupted by 'Mr Broccoli' saying he had to take a phone call - pulling out a banana from his pocket and answering it like a phone.”
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: LoveItIfWeBeatU on Tuesday 5 November 2019, 04:50:24 PM
Quote
A global group of around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency.

The study, based on 40 years of data on a range of measures, says governments are failing to address the crisis.

Without deep and lasting changes, the world is facing "untold human suffering" the study says.

The researchers say they have a moral obligation to warn of the scale of the threat.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Disco on Wednesday 20 November 2019, 02:02:42 PM
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: bovineblue on Thursday 21 November 2019, 10:05:48 PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7578667/Piers-Morgan-berates-Mr-Broccoli-head-vegan-Animal-Rebellion-activist-Good-Morning-Britain.html

FFS!

“At one point, the exchange was interrupted by 'Mr Broccoli' saying he had to take a phone call - pulling out a banana from his pocket and answering it like a phone.”

It's like they went out of their way to find the biggest idiot just to show how crazy those vegans are.
Title: Re: Climate change
Post by: Varadi on Thursday 5 December 2019, 05:20:47 PM
Been reading a bit about the fires in Australia, looks really f***ed up and the summer is only just beginning

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/04/living-through-endless-weeks-of-dirty-air-it-does-your-head-in-and-your-lungs

Serious changes seem to be happening much more quickly now, could it be we're already in a feedback loop?