Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think Global Warming is BS?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    smiler26
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭smiler26


    For me, global warming = cheaper gas bills, cos I dont have to leave the heating on for so long.... happier summers if the weather is nicer.... and hence, generally happier people.

    My narrow-minded opinion:D


  • Options
    #33
    Wertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,909 ✭✭✭✭Wertz


    cooperguy wrote: »
    Haha you just proved yourself wrong with that example you gave!! The Ozone layer was a HUGE problem. The reason it isnt anymore is because that problem was solved. CFCs caused ozone layer destruction. So research was put into alternative chemicals to use in the applications CFCs were used in. CFCs are no longer used anymore and therefore the Ozone layer is repairing itself. Problem solved!

    The only flaw to that argument is that at the time of the ozone debacle we were told that CFCs would continue to effect ozone levels at the poles for up to half a century after we stopped using them.
    AFAIR (I'll go and look for a link) something else has happened WRT rising levels in the ozone layer...it could well be what someone referred to above about HC emmisions from high flying passenger jets...

    kwestfan08 makes a good point, if unintentionally....scientists scream to the rest of us chicken lickens that the sky is falling in, every decade it's something different, going back to nuclear winters from WWIII, a new ice age predicted in the 70's, ozone depletion and these days of course global warming/heating and resultant climatic change...it all smacks of crying wolf and Joe Public only sees the hysteria and sees prices going up, so thinks it's all a scam to make money....and you can't really blame him, when you look at the kerfuffle surrounding "green" goods and energy sources, carbon credits and footprints.

    At the end of it all it doesn't matter if you believe it's ahppening or not, or if you believe it's human influenced or not...the telltale signs are already there and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating...if we're around to see it...


  • Options
    #34
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Wertz wrote: »
    what someone referred to above about HC emmisions from high flying passenger jets...

    Thanks weurtez, it's true, h2O emmitited by aircraft at high altitude ends up as ozone.


  • Options
    #35
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, I don't think it's bs. We didn't even get a spring this year. Winter still hasn't ended. It's freezing every day, and I've already seen 3 really heavy hail storms in the past 3 or 4 weeks.

    We are definately contributing to it. It's fact.
    We had summer for 3 weeks a month ago or so. As for the freezing every day, etc, the Romans called Ireland "the island of winter". We only got a few days of warmth until recently, and now it's going back to the usual always-sh|te-weather as we once had. This island always had a poor supply of sunshine, so it'll be interesting to see how we are effected by global warming.

    IMO, it's mostly BS. The cycle is happening regardless, but we're not doing it any favours pumping gallons of smog into it.


  • Options
    #36
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,715 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    Steyr wrote: »
    Well do you think we caused it or its the Earths natural cycle, think about it, the Ice Age disappeared many moons ago and back then we didnt have the pollution that we have today.:pac:

    Pacman's a scientist?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    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!

    Sahara was lush and tropical 10000 years ago. Since Moses's time, Egypt was always a desert!
    I did state climate change is a cyclic phenomenon and it generally takes place over 1000's of years.
    But due to all the CO2 emissions after the industrial revolution that started in the late 19th, early 20th centuary, the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere has risen significantly putting the whole climate cycle out of balance. The cycle is taking place at a much faster rate now and it is not giving nature the time to adapt to the changes.

    Global warming is not just due to more cars. It is a result of a cascade of events.

    1. The human population has risen significantly and now the ratio of the human:plant life has increased in the human side. Causing more O2 to be consumed and more CO2 to be released than ever before. And to add to that, lately the massive amounts of deforestation that has taken place has reduced the ratio more towards the plants side. Putting nature out of balance.

    2. Oil was the Carbon store of the earth. It has taken millions of years for all the animal and plants to sediment in the earth and turn into oil. Now after the industrial revolution when oil started being consumed in enormous quantities, the carbon store in the earth started being released into the atmosphere. We've burnt and released almost all of the oil in the planet in just a century. Oil that took millions of years to form and the Carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere over the millions of years was all put back into the atmosphere over just a 100 years. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising and that is a fact. So is the fact that CO2 is a green house gas. The reason Venus is hotter than Mercury is cuz of the amount of CO2 in its atmosphere. CO2 traps the sun's heat and raises the temperature of the planet. The reason it is so significant now is cuz we've never burned fossil fuels in this much amount ever before so now its really affecting the environment.

    3. Methane is a much more powerful green house gas than CO2. It traps 4 times more heat than CO2. The increase in the amount of cattle over the years has caused a significant increase in methane too. Then methane is also stored in the glaciers as a natural store for them. Due to global warming, these glaciers are melting and causing more methane to be released into the atmosphere increasing the GH gasses more and causing more global warming. A perfect example of this is in siberia where you can acually see all the methane bubbles under the frozen ice on the vast frozen bog land.

    All of this is taking place too far for nature to adapt to the changes. The frequency of freak weather has increased due to this causing more seasonal imbalances. Cold waves and heat waves during times you wouldn't normally expect them. Global Warming doesn't just cause the days to get hotter, it causes climatic imbalances with the general average temperature of the earth rising.

    All of this can be slowed down by all the stuff you hear on the TV about carbon footprint and all.
    Its not a fad. Its true and it is happening. We need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use and move to more renewable resources and plant more trees to decrease the amount of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. WE have caused this climatic imbalance and we can still change it and bring it back to normal. But for that all of ye skeptics need to start believing that Global Warming is really happening and though it doesn't put any direct effect on our lives, it is causing changes to the world. We here have many means to cope with with the changes that are happening right now, neither is it really effecting us much (as just warmer summers and no more snow). But it is making life much more tougher to people in the 3rd world countries as water is getting more scarce in those places.


  • Options
    #38
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,663 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Science wants a word with you, all of you.
    And it's not a friendly word either.

    +1

    My gast is constantly flabbered at the disbelief in it.


  • Options
    #39
    Dont be at yourself
    Registered Users Posts: 10,571 ✭✭✭✭Dont be at yourself


    Global warming may be happening, but all these solutions being tossed around wont make a difference. People hugging trees, using wind-power, switching to energy efficient lightbulbs, driving Prius and recycling their own fecal matter wont save the world - some guy in a white coat in a laboratory will.


  • Options
    #40
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, I don't think it's bs. We didn't even get a spring this year. Winter still hasn't ended. It's freezing every day, and I've already seen 3 really heavy hail storms in the past 3 or 4 weeks.

    We are definately contributing to it. It's fact.

    :rolleyes:

    so because the weather is crap that means its our fault?


  • Options
    #41
    monkeyfudge
    Registered Users Posts: 23,216 ✭✭✭✭monkeyfudge


    galwayrush wrote: »
    BS, bull/cow fart, insect fart, it's a cycle.

    You do realise there wouldn't be quite so many cattle out there if it was for human interaction, yes?

    How anyone could possibly think trying to be less dependent on fossil fuels is a bad thing is beyond stupidity... Oil won't be around much longer... we'd be better off spending our resources on finding alternatives than waging wars to capture the dwindling resources...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    M.T. Cranium
    Registered Users Posts: 14,343 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Ask me again in 2020, because the jury is still somewhat out on this, despite many stories in the news about scientists say this, blah blah, there is probably still quite a bit of uncertainty. First of all, is the globe really warming or is it just some regional climate shifts in recent years. Some parts are definitely warming, others haven't seen that much change.

    Secondly, it is far from certain that such warming as may have happened is really from human causes. It could be a natural cycle that would be quite capable of reversing (some wonder if it just did last year).

    Third big problem, many believe that solar cycles on the longer time scale are important, and we are overdue for a "quieter regime" than our Sun has been in for the past century. If this relative minimum does show up, there could be a natural cooling tendency that might outweigh a smaller human=related warming tendency.

    So, all things considered, I believe it is wise to push for cleaner technology and alternate fuel sources (cheaper ones, hopefully), but it is also wise to be open to any number of possible outcomes, including a cooling trend at some future point, a steady-state climate like the present, or warming that we can't control, that would raise sea levels whether we have programs in place to reduce greenhouse gases or not. Any of these outcomes are possible.

    I would say "b.s." might be too strong a term, but if you asked, is global warming proven beyond doubt, I would say no, and its causes may not be as much of our fault as some are saying. So we should be cautious about what to do, and what to expect, because it would be just our luck (speaking about the human race in general) for an ice age to set in just when the atmosphere is restored to its pristine glory. At least we'll see the ice coming. :)


  • Options
    #43
    Caoimhín
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭Caoimhín


    af_thefragile wrote: »


    All of this can be slowed down by all the stuff you hear on the TV about carbon footprint and all.
    WE have caused this climatic imbalance and we can still change it and bring it back to normal. But for that all of ye skeptics need to start believing that Global Warming is really happening and though it doesn't put any direct effect on our lives, it is causing changes to the world. .

    Mmm..
    Im reminded of a preacher of old telling people that they have sinned and need to repent. The only redemption is through the word of Duncan Steward.


  • Options
    #44
    tolosenc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


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


  • Options
    #45
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    Global warming or not I can't see any reason not to try and live 'cleaner' lives.

    Oil will probably run out for the most part in our lifetimes, now is a good time to start looking into new technologies and ways of living.

    Humans up to now have never had it so good and it's taken us just 100 years or so to REALLY change the face of this planet, a planet that is finite and can only absorb so much.

    We're moving into scary times imo if not in our lifetime then for our kids or their kids.


  • Options
    #46
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    monkeyfudge wrote: »
    How anyone could possibly think trying to be less dependent on fossil fuels is a bad thing is beyond stupidity... Oil won't be around much longer... we'd be better off spending our resources on finding alternatives than waging wars to capture the dwindling resources...

    Good Point, I always wondered how many good non fossil fuel dependant ideas have been shelved by the monetary power of the vested intrerests in the Oil Industry.


  • Options
    #47
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    NekkidBibleMan wrote: »
    Global warming may be happening, but all these solutions being tossed around wont make a difference. People hugging trees, using wind-power, switching to energy efficient lightbulbs, driving Prius and recycling their own fecal matter wont save the world - some guy in a white coat in a laboratory will.

    How can some dude in a white coat solve global warming??
    What we need to do here is bring back the flora:fauna ratio back in balance and reduce the CO2 emissions to stop the levels of CO2 from rising further in the atmosphere and create ways to bring down the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere back to what it normally was and should be.
    Switching to cleaner and renewable energy sources, planting more trees, stopping the amazon deforestation, saving the rain forests and reducing individuals carbon footprints is the key to bring back this balance. And we are a part of the balance so we need to act to save it too.

    It is us who are cutting down all the trees in the amazon and us who love to drive big cars and use loads of electricity, gas, oil to live our luxurious lives. We are the reason why global warming is happening and if we don't change the way we are living right now, we're not gonna help the situation.
    The governments need to take big incentives to move to cleaner fuels to power the cities too. But rather than that its trying to push people to reduce their Carbon footprint. People don't really pay a big role in global warming. Cars now days are pretty clean though living in better insulated homes will reduce the amount of gas/oil consumption for heating too. The government needs to move to renewable energy sources or else countries will be in big trouble seeing the cost of crude oil rocketing up every year, this is going to hit economies really bad very soon. Afterall how much are you willing to pay for a liter of petrol. I've seen the cost go up 30c/liter in just 3 years. In another 5-10 years don't be surprised to pay €2 or even more for the liter of petrol and the gas bill at your home doubling. We need to switch to alternate renewable fuels just for this one reason alone too!


  • Options
    #48
    Caoimhín
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭Caoimhín


    monkeyfudge wrote: »
    You do realise there wouldn't be quite so many cattle out there if it was for human interaction, yes?

    How anyone could possibly think trying to be less dependent on fossil fuels is a bad thing is beyond stupidity... Oil won't be around much longer... we'd be better off spending our resources on finding alternatives than waging wars to capture the dwindling resources...

    It IS stupid to be so dependant on fossil fuels. That is not in question.
    Nor is keeping the natural environment free from pollution or promotion of sustainable land uses and lifestyles.
    The climate does indeed appear to be changing but the question is if mankind has caused it and if so, it remains to be seen if we can do anything to reverse it.


  • Options
    #49
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Wertz wrote: »
    The only flaw to that argument is that at the time of the ozone debacle we were told that CFCs would continue to effect ozone levels at the poles for up to half a century after we stopped using them.

    The flaw in the argument was suggesting that the problem is gone.

    Here's a report from NASA in 2006 showing that if current trends continue, the ozone layer will recover to 1980 levels by the middle of the century....more or less exactly in line with what we were told when the argument for banning CFCs was made. Note - the ozone layer wasn't healthy in 1980...but the slow-down in its degradation, and the ensuing recovery are bang-on what was predicted.

    Just because it doesn't make the news any more doesn't mean that the ozone layer is healthy again.

    If anything, this is an excellent example of why people should listen to scientists on scientific issues, and not what the media are saying about the science. Science didn't predict the end of the world due to the ozone layer, no more than they predict the end of the world through global warming. Rather, they predicted increased problems as a result.

    In the case of the ozone layer, their recommendations were listened to (for whatever reason you choose to believe) and the ensuing result matched what the scientists predicted would come from their recommendations.

    Had we not banned CFCs, its reasonable to believe that the scientific models of what would have happened would also have been accurate. The world still wouldn't end, but we'd have the problems the scientists were predicting.

    To argue that the problem wasn't real because we took the preventative action we were told to and because it has had and is having the predicted mitigating effects is daft. Its like saying that because I wore a seatbelt like I was told to and it saved my life in a crash, it somehow proves that seatbelts are useless or crashes aren't dangerous.


  • Options
    #50
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    M.T. Cranium wrote:
    Ask me again in 2020, because the jury is still somewhat out on this,
    The way normal juries work is by a majority. The Scientific jury came back a long ago time ago and when you consider the amount of money/gants/promotions available to those who would toe the political/industrial line that there is no global warming the amount of scientiests / meterologists a recanting is very low. Also the way science works is that if ANYONE come up with reproducable evidence that a theory is wrong then the theory is wrong, and will have to be modified or ditched.

    In politics/war/industry you can keep your theories after they have been shown to fail continuously.

    You can argue about whether global warming is 100% caused by man or whether it's a natural cycle intensified by iterference, what you can't say is that humans have had no effect. One estimate I've seen in new scientist is that CO2 levels are now high enough to offset an ice age for the next 250,000 years or so.

    Another argument is whether we should spend money reversing the trend or helping those in the third world to live with it. But if technologies to reduce carbon emission aren't introduced to the emerging economies then the problem will accelerate, with possible knock on effects if the amazon rain forest changes into scrub land (it's happing on the east side) / permafrost melting releases greenhouse gases / ocean warming releases methane hydrates.


  • Options
    #51
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    stevec wrote: »
    How do you explain the fact that average global temperatures have dropped over the last two years?

    I'd explain it by pointing out that Global Warming science doesn't predict that every year will be warmer than the previous one.

    I'd also point out that these figures still result in a climbing 5-year average, and that both years are amongst the top 10 on record.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Willstev wrote: »
    In some ways I see as more money to be made.

    Of course its more money to be made. And you know what...if there was no Global Warming, there'd also be more money to be made.

    One can look at almost any given situation and figure out how to be opportunistic about it, or how to turn a profit out of it.

    Dublin used to have a smog problem in the mid-to-late 80s. Now it doesn't. You know what...someone made money out of fixing that problem. Does this mean that the smog was artificially created? That it wasn't there?

    If you have an accident playing soccer and break your leg, someone will make money fixing that. Does this mean that the medical industry made your leg break?

    You car breaks down...someone will make money out of fixing it. Now, sure, we've all heard of the mechanics who fix things that aren't broken, or who ensure that something will always break...but even if you could get rid of all of those, things would still break, and would still need fixing, and someone would still make money out of it.

    Being suspicious because someone is making money out of something is, frankly, looking at the problem the wrong way. Rather, you should be suspicious (or very, very worried) if someone wasn't making money out of it.

    While I'll be the first to agree that not all of the money-making aspects are part of the solution they claim to be, I think that there is so much money making is more of a sign that there really, really is a problem then that its all a hoax.


  • Options
    #53
    Dont be at yourself
    Registered Users Posts: 10,571 ✭✭✭✭Dont be at yourself


    How can some dude in a white coat solve global warming??

    Because, at the end of the day, he'll have to. To stem the tide of the problem would require a monumental global effort on both a government and personal level. With developing countries like China, India, as well as Eastern Europe and South America, the demand for resources is going to increase. People aren't going to give up their lifestyles. Sure, there'll be the minority that will live 'carbon neutral', but nowhere near the scale needed.

    As such, it will be up to scientists to discover/develop a viable, cost-effective, clean, renewable form of energy. It will be technologies like Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Fusion power that will save the planet, not everyone turning down the air-conditioner two degrees.


  • Options
    #54
    Xavi6
    Registered Users Posts: 40,861 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    square_igloo wrote: »
    No, I don't think it's BS. There's too much evidence to the contrary.
    If Ireland gets flooded, apparently Cork will be the first place gone because the city is built at sea level (or so I was told....if that's wrong someone correct me!) If so, I'm screwed!:eek: I can't swim :(

    If that's the case then I for one welcome our new warm overlord :D


  • Options
    #55
    useful_contacts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭useful_contacts


    I USED TO THINK IT WAS A MYTH BUT TOO MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN HAPPENING FOR ME TO THINK ITS NOT

    Example- A year and a half ago there was a news cast about daffidols growing in New York in JANUARY, coupled with all these floods, the fact is boilng one day and snowing the next, and so far its snowed 3 times here THIS YEAR when normally we would only see snow every 2-3 years

    Its pretty scary!


  • Options
    #56
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    NekkidBibleMan wrote: »
    Because, at the end of the day, he'll have to. To stem the tide of the problem would require a monumental global effort on both a government and personal level. With developing countries like China, India, as well as Eastern Europe and South America, the demand for resources is going to increase. People aren't going to give up their lifestyles. Sure, there'll be the minority that will live 'carbon neutral', but nowhere near the scale needed.

    As such, it will be up to scientists to discover/develop a viable, cost-effective, clean, renewable form of energy. It will be technologies like Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Fusion power that will save the planet, not everyone turning down the air-conditioner two degrees.

    Behaviour modification may be the harder part of the equation for solving climate change, and other environmental problems, but it has to happen. Once a carbon tax is introduced, and people will be forced to actually pay for the damage they are causing, they won't be so quick to hop on a plane for the weekend as ticket prices will be astronomical. Similarly when energy prices go up, driving is going to become considerably more expensive.

    That's the stick end of it. On the carrot side, decent alternatives must be provided. For example decent public transport and development of the rail network. I wouldn't leave saving global warming to asking people to unplug their phone charger. The system has to change.

    But seriously - we need to get away from the idea that a technological silver bullet will come and sweep away all our problems and we will be able to continue in our horribly materialistic and artificial lifestyles. Eg - say hydrogen cars become a viable reality tomorrow. We will still have congestion, parking issues, people spending 4, 5 hours a day in their car commuting each day resulting in stress, less leisure time and the prevalence of a highly anti-social form of transport. Whereas public transport goes much further in addressing all of these issues.

    Slightly OP but people have gotten really soft these days. I have to grit my teeth when people whinge that they don't like the taste of their tap water so they buy stuff flown in from France to soothe their delicate taste buds. This, when some people in other countries have to walk for miles to reach a clean water source. This attitude just disgusts me.


  • Options
    #57
    Irish Gardener
    Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Irish Gardener


    useful_contacts wrote: »
    I USED TO THINK IT WAS A MYTH BUT TOO MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN HAPPENING FOR ME TO THINK ITS NOT

    Example- A year and a half ago there was a news cast about daffidols growing in New York in JANUARY,
    Its pretty scary!

    How close to the surface the bulbs were planted and whether they were pre-chilled will have a lot to say in the early blooming time of Daffodils.
    As much as people would say it was spring arriving early, maybe it was in fact that winter arrived earlier to provide the period of chilling that the bulbs required.

    Maybe a parks dept employee neglected his duties and forgot to remove a mound of snow from a particular area, extending chilling, which resulted in early bulbs.
    Certain Narcissus do not even require a chilling period, such as Narcissus tazetta, requiring only about five weeks from sowing to bloom.

    Links on the subject.... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-8531.html
    and http://www.virtualseeds.com/ChillingTimetable.html


  • Options
    #58
    Caoimhín
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭Caoimhín


    Irish Gardener wrote: »

    Maybe a parks dept employee neglected his duties and forgot to remove a mound of snow from a particular area, extending chilling, which resulted in early bulbs.
    Certain Narcissus do not even require a chilling period, such as Narcissus tazetta, requiring only about five weeks from sowing to bloom.


    Now irish gardener, are you sure you aren't a part of the military/industrial complex conspiracy to give disinformation about global warming?;)


  • Options
    #59
    biggus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 510 ✭✭✭biggus


    Global warming may OR may not be man-made. However it might be a good mechanism for our western political system to Wean the developed world away from an Over dependence on OIL.
    Peak oil is happening(it won't run out but will get scarcer and dearer).
    Instead of pannicking the masses into realising this Peak oil scenario, Global warming(whether true or not) is a suitable distraction for polititions to get the masses to buy into change of energy use. This is a much better way to avoid tumultous econonomic disaster,otherwise pannic would spread, over suddenly realising that oil(at some near future point) has become precious.
    Obscure scientific detractors against the warming scenario were latched onto by big oil companies, and obscure reports were catapulted to prominence by oil money and marketing departments. This countered the sound arguments put forward by un sponsored scientists.
    This seems to have now become less of an issue now these same oil companies realise, that the easy oil is tapped and gone.

    Change is much easier to accept when it occurs over a longer period....

    Personally, for my motoring I can see myself filling the tank of my next generation Prius every 3 or 6 months(no matter what the cost) with wind topping up the bigger battery overnight for short runs. My home will be better insulated and draught proofed ,any sun captured for heat, My electricity will come from wind and wave, with potential energy Stored in turlough hill type Hydro stations for peaks and troughs.

    If these type of changes have a double whammy effect of extending the onset of peak oil, and reducing Global warming, is'nt that fantastic !


  • Options
    #60
    Kev_ps3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    biggus wrote: »
    Global warming may OR may not be man-made. However it might be a good mechanism for our western political system to Wean the developed world away from an Over dependence on OIL.
    Peak oil is happening(it won't run out but will get scarcer and dearer).
    Instead of pannicking the masses into realising this Peak oil scenario, Global warming(whether true or not) is a suitable distraction for polititions to get the masses to buy into change of energy use. This is a much better way to avoid tumultous econonomic disaster,otherwise pannic would spread, over suddenly realising that oil(at some near future point) has become precious.
    Obscure scientific detractors against the warming scenario were latched onto by big oil companies, and obscure reports were catapulted to prominence by oil money and marketing departments. This countered the sound arguments put forward by un sponsored scientists.
    This seems to have now become less of an issue now these same oil companies realise, that the easy oil is tapped and gone.

    Change is much easier to accept when it occurs over a longer period....

    Personally, for my motoring I can see myself filling the tank of my next generation Prius every 3 or 6 months(no matter what the cost) with wind topping up the bigger battery overnight for short runs. My home will be better insulated and draught proofed ,any sun captured for heat, My electricity will come from wind and wave, with potential energy Stored in turlough hill type Hydro stations for peaks and troughs.

    If these type of changes have a double whammy effect of extending the onset of peak oil, and reducing Global warming, is'nt that fantastic !

    Spot on. GW is really about oil. For the past century the west has used 90% of the worlds oil, this is going to change in this century with the likes of China and India growing and that small fact they alone have 1/3 of the worlds populaton. This is going to drive oil prices sky-high and unless we want to be paying through the nose for it then we need to switch to bio-fuels or something else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Well...global warming isn't really about oil. Peak oil, or the reduced supplies of oil will lead to an energy crisis, particularly here in Ireland were somthing arond 98% of our energy comes from abroad - the highest in the EU. That is some serious exposure to any volatility in the energy markets. And it's also a disgrace considering we have the best potential in the EU for wind & wave power (according to the EU comissioner on Energy). The cost of items is going to increase considerably, as we have seen with food - although this in part is due to an increasingly large portion of crops being diverted for biofuel production.

    Global warming is about the changes that are going to happen in our climate as a result of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In Ireland it is expected that we will see drier summers and wetter winters. More storm surges, more coastal erosion and a serious shortage of water. Dublin is nearing a water shortage and the only options are bringing it up from the Shannon or building a de-salination plant.

    Global warming is about these sort of issues and the more money we have to spend on purchasing increasingly expensive imported energy, the less money we have for investing in these problems. So oil & global warming are linked, but not the same.


Advertisement