Do you think Global Warming is BS?

kwestfan08 wrote: »

Total BS in my opinion. Every decade scientists seem to come up with something "terrible" thats going to kill us all just to get the research dollars rolling in. My case in point, the hole in the o-zone layer was big news in the 90's, you dont seem to hear too much news of it now.

As has been stated elsewhere this was and still is a problem. However due to action being taken the Ozone hole should disappear sometime around 2050. Sometimes scientists get the blame for predicting stuff that doesn't happen and then get mocked when it doesn't. But what people forget is that if scientists hadn't highlighted the drastic effects of nuclear holocaust or even on the other end of the scale Y2K then perhaps these events would have came to fruition. Just because a warning is sent out that if something doesn't change that such and such will happen it doesn't mean it will, as humans we have the ability to change our behaviours to prevent these things happening.

stevec wrote: »

or :mad:

not sure what you mean.

Cow farts produce more "planet killing" emmissions than our road traffic does.

On the other hand, the ozone hole hasn't been in the media lately because, thanks to the likes or Ryanscare, "planet killing" aricraft emit enough ozone to keep it under control.

Ahh the media a bunch of sensationalists out to sell papers. They have little understanding of science and often mangle the meaning of reports and scientific studies. Unfortunately this is where most people hear of these studies. A rough breakdown of greenhouse gases tells us that 40% comes from transport, 40% comes from power generation and 20% from other sources.
Approx 5% overall comes from airplanes which is a small chunk of the transport side. However they are an easier target because you only need to convince ~50 companies worldwide to change fuel rather than the 3 billion people who drive in cars every day.
The methane from livestock is also hideously overrated again a small part of the 'other' budget but they are the biggest emitters of methane which is one of the more nasty gases.

Cow farts do not emit more greenhouse gases than traffic. There is an outside chance this may be true in Ireland but worldwide it's a joke.

planetX wrote: »

Climate has always changed, the Sahara area was lush and tropical in Roman times. The drought in parts of Africa owe far more to overgrazing and deforestation than to CO2 in the atmosphere. How about the mini ice-age in Britain in the 1500s, the Thames would freeze solid, they held ice-fairs!
The question is whether change is being influenced by human activity. Maybe - personally I think the whole carbon credit thing is a huge moneymaking scam, ditto biofuels. I know some people involved in research in this area, and I've seen firsthand how they can direct and skew their conclusions in order to get 'interesting' results - a negative result isn't great for publishing papers. And the funding for anything with reference to global warming is great!

Yep climate changes over the years and yep we are probably in the middle of one now and yep it's effects are overblown by a media which doesn't understand the term extremely unlikely - the most extremely unlikely one is also the one which is sexist.
But is still happening and our output as humans is speeding it up.
A lot of money is being made on this that are jokes and bio-fuels aren't worth the hassle. If we want to make serious inroads into global warming/greenhouse gas emission switch our power generation. 20% renewable, 80% nuclear and boom we have a 40% cut worldwide in 20 years. But thats not going to happen so we're going to have to put up with this bullsh1t about carbon footprint for a good few years.

obl wrote: »

It's got something to do with sun spots, no?

NO. Untrue no correlation has ever been found either now or in the past. One guy had this idea and he was very loud about it. So people listened and then some guys went away checked it out and came out about 2 months ago saying it's pretty much bunkum. On average we're getting the same amount of solar energy we ever did.

“How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization.” Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News”

Global warming is not BS, though the reasons behind it that we are given are farce. These are just new 'opportunities' for new types of taxes to fund the ever hungry government appetite for power.

Forget the draconian measures and just give us alternative fuel cars! I mean look at the Tesla!

0 - 62mph in 4 seconds... 3 hours for a full charge... 250mpg equiv full charge does 250 miles (details are 99% accuarte from memory)

Why oh why dont we all drive such cars? They are brining out a family car with the same principle in mind...

http://static.flickr.com/116/254377531_e929458cd7.jpg

Scientists have found that all weather patterns before humans have been directly related to the amount of flares in the sun at the time. The only exception is when the meteor supposedly hit the earth raising eunough dust to kill all the plants for that season, which eventually killed all the dinosaurs.

Personaly, I don't think humans have created enough dust to have the same effect as a meteor, but I do think it enough to effect weather patterns.

It doesn't really matter if you think it's BS, or real - the point is, the world is changing. I kind of like the way it is right now, and even if it was a natural change, I think we can effect that and keep it the way we are used to.

If the ice really does melt, how much of Ireland's costal cities will be under water? How about the rest of the world's costal cities? How many species of animals will become extinct from losing their habitat (or sharing it with others)? How will that effect the food chain of other species? Even for us - what food won't grow in the warm weather (corn, wheat, root veggies, fruit like apples, cherries, peaches, etc)? How much room is left in the far northern hemisphere to grow all that food?

I think humans will adapt well, but will it be more expensive to curb our CO2 habit, or to pay for the aftermath (by losing all costal property, for example) so we can still live comfortably up-hill?

kevmy wrote: »

Well it unlikely that much of our cities will be lost. For example if present trends continue for 50 years we will lose at the most 20-30% of Ireland to the water. This is pretty unlikely. We will probably cop on to some extent and usually the worst doesn't come to pass. The trouble is in other areas of the world.

Land loss overall will drive people into other parts of the creating huge migration and less arable land. Resulting in food shortages and polluted water. This means you'll prob be alright if your middle class in the west. But your fcuked if your poor in China and Africa

Well, you are right about China and Africa, but they are already doing that anyway. I mean really? The Three Rivers Dam that Bejing is building is putting 3 million people out of their homes. Their choices are to live in government housing with no electricity or running water, or to go buy something else. Africa is just screwed because the desert areas are getting bigger and bigger anyway, and the whole warming thing isn't going to help that.

However, based on your first arguement, 20-30% of the cities will be lost... Is that not a big deal? Losing Dublin alone is a quarter of the country's population. Moving that many people is not easy, and it's not cheap. Everyone will be forced to literally abandon their land and purchase property on higher ground.

Look at what happened in New Orleans. IMHO I think that the people are to blame - building and buying homes 8 feet under sea level...next to the sea, but all the same - a lot of people are spending a lot of money to rebuild their houses (on stilts) because they don't have enough money to just buy more land further uphill (without selling their old land, which no one in their right mind would buy). Insurance companies in Louisianna either didn't pay for the damage or went bankrupt, so we can't depend on that either.

All I'm saying is - whether it's our fault or not, it's probably cheaper to pay to keep the planet the way it is, rather than paying for the aftermath.