If the Climate Talks fails will you give a hoot?

DigiGal · 18-12-2009 05:50PM

Its all the retarded selfish opinions like the ones in this thread that caused the problem in the first place

syklops · 18-12-2009 05:54PM

DigiGal wrote: »

Its all the retarded selfish opinions like the ones in this thread that caused the problem in the first place

What?

mikom · 18-12-2009 05:56PM

DigiGal wrote: »

Its all the retarded selfish opinions like the ones in this thread that caused the problem in the first place

You make my pee-pee maker t-t-tingle

monkeypants · 18-12-2009 06:01PM

mikom wrote: »

You make my pee-pee maker t-t-tingle

Mike 1972 · 18-12-2009 06:14PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its not quite as simple as that. CO2 concentration is one of a multitude of factors that affect climate. Climate models are very complicated beasts with unbelieveable amounts of variables of which small perturbations can have dramatic effects. For example albido of earth and insolation are both major drivers of climate.
Climate change has always been happening and will continue to happen with or without human influence. .

Nobody has ever disputed any of that

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The question is how much, not if human activity is driving the change.

Exactly and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists would agree the answer is "a hell of a lot"

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

35 years ago (some) scientists were predicting global cooling, which incidentally would be far more destructive than global warming.

500 years ago some scientists were predicting that producing Gold from Lead by chemical means was a feasable technology.

syklops · 18-12-2009 06:22PM

Exactly and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists would agree the answer is "a hell of a lot"

Is it the majority though?

hooradiation · 18-12-2009 06:28PM

syklops wrote: »

Is it the majority though?

Yes.

I actually really am thankful that this thread exists. It's a handy shortlist of people who's opinions i now consider to be be totally worthless.

People will believe absolutely anything for the flimsiest of reasons EXCEPT for the rigorous and peer reviewed science. The arrogance is fucking astounding.

utick · 18-12-2009 06:33PM

with a little luck hopefully the climate talks will succesfully fail.
how can anyone take these guys seriously preaching to us about carbon emmissions when thousands of limos had to be ordered into copenhagan to take care of these hypocrytes, if they dont even believe their own bs why should i believe it

terenc · 18-12-2009 06:39PM

VinnyTGM wrote: »

Government's love making up crap about human's destroying the enviroment. It give's them a valid reason to tax the **** out of us.

Yep and this government is going to tax us a lot more using the green issue and then when the next election comes along the greens are going down the tube. Fianne Fail must be overjoyed to have the greens in government with them.This government has done immense damage to the creditability of the greens.
SUCKERS

syklops · 18-12-2009 06:39PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Yes.

I actually really am thankful that this thread exists. It's a handy shortlist of people who's opinions i now consider to be be totally worthless.

People will believe absolutely anything for the flimsiest of reasons EXCEPT for the rigorous and peer reviewed science. The arrogance is fucking astounding.

Arrogance?

I asked a simple question in the name of debate.

This is the second time I have been at the end of hostility on this thread and its getting annoying.

Bob_Harris · 18-12-2009 06:41PM

I am actively hoping for a failure.

When will we get the news of an outcome?

hooradiation · 18-12-2009 06:45PM

syklops wrote: »

Arrogance?

yes. I can't think of another word that best describes the actions a McExpert, armed with some youtube videos and a scant skimming of wikipedia who thinks they can contradict the hard evidence that has been collected over the many years.

I don't know if you count as one of these, but there are enough of them on this thread already.

They wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and poured acid in their eyes.

utick · 18-12-2009 06:48PM

hooradiation wrote: »

They wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and poured acid in their eyes.

sounds like you are talking about al gore

Wertz · 18-12-2009 06:52PM

utick wrote: »

with a little luck hopefully the climate talks will succesfully fail.
how can anyone take these guys seriously preaching to us about carbon emmissions when thousands of limos had to be ordered into copenhagan to take care of these hypocrytes, if they dont even believe their own bs why should i believe it

I agree with this viewpoint; far more good would have been served to the planet (in terms of CO2 output) had these thousands of important people and the rent-a-mob climate protestors all stayed the f*ck at home and had a big video conferencing session or a private web forum to discuss the issues.

It's not that they don't believe the "BS", they see themselves the way all of the rest of us do; small drops in a large ocean WRT to our combined affect on the world around us.
Governments and political organisations using climate change to determine new streams of revenue as deterrents to carbon output can only be seen in a cynical light, no matter how much you believe or don't believe the "BS". Where does any of these new taxes get spent (including our own new carbon tax)?
If all this money was being salted away to use for coastal protection schemes, resettlement of at-risk populations, realistic development of alternative energy and resource strategy then great; it's something we should all be paying...but I think what most people perceive is that it's just another way to feather political nests and line the pockets of green businesses.

BTW someone mentioned ozone depletion in relation to climate change/global warming. Try to be relevant, k thnx. The two problems are mutually exclusive and if anything the continuing success of anti-CFC policy should serve as a reminder that we do have a tangible effect on certain planetary systems and that we can have a positive influence....however as I stated in my other post, as reagrds carboin dioxide influenced warming we're already past the point of no return (despite what your local thermometer might say) and all the cuts in emmissions being sought are mere stable doors being bolted long after the glue is almost set.

syklops · 18-12-2009 06:54PM

hooradiation wrote: »

yes. I can't think of another word that best describes the actions a McExpert, armed with some youtube videos and a scant skimming of wikipedia who thinks they can contradict the hard evidence that has been collected over the many years.

I don't know if you count as one of these, but there are enough of them on this thread already.

They wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and poured acid in their eyes.

I would not call myself a McExpert as you put it. I have read data from both sides of the climate change debate and would be the first to admit I do not know everything, I just like to ask questions. Surely that is the very basis of the scientific method and peer review. Admitting you dont have all the answers.

Now I am sorry if my questions offend you in some way, but I really do not think I come across as arrogant.

As for whose opinion you now think is worthless well thats your own business.

hooradiation · 18-12-2009 06:55PM

utick wrote: »

sounds like you are talking about al gore

Wow, good thing Al Gore isn't an actual scientist, otherwise you might have said something salient.

A swing and a miss. Typical.

utick · 18-12-2009 07:04PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Wow, good thing Al Gore isn't an actual scientist, otherwise you might have said something salient.

A swing and a miss. Typical.

uuh, thats exactly my point, he preaches like he knows everything about the science of global warming when hes not even a scientist.

so not 'a swing and a miss' as you say

Mike 1972 · 18-12-2009 07:04PM

Wertz wrote: »

BTW someone mentioned ozone depletion in relation to climate change/global warming. Try to be relevant, k thnx. The two problems are mutually exclusive

Not completly

CFC's (and HCFC's) are pretty potent greenhouse gasses.

Wertz · 18-12-2009 07:12PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Not completly

CFC's (and HCFC's) are pretty potent greenhouse gasses.

Yes, but the tonnage output pales in significance alongside the better known ones. Anyway the point was that ozone depletion has little relevance to rising temperatures and that the initial ban on CFCs was primarily down to ozone damage not the greenhouse effect...to bring up the CFC ban as "evidence" of past conspiratorial political agendas regarding environmental issues is a cheap, and not very accurate, shot, IMO.

Bob_Harris · 18-12-2009 07:12PM

Albert Einstein wrote:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

There are plenty of statistics, trends and data which go against the theory of man made climate change.

Turtwig · 18-12-2009 07:47PM

[/QUOTE]

Its not quite as simple as that. CO2 concentration is one of a multitude of factors that affect climate. Climate models are very complicated beasts with unbelieveable amounts of variables of which small perturbations can have dramatic effects. For example albido of earth and insolation are both major drivers of climate.

Started off good.
Albedo btw,
Insolation isn't really believed to be the primary driver at the moment.

Climate change has always been happening and will continue to happen with or without human influence.

Yep that's true.

The question is how much, not if human activity is driving the change.

Not really, scientists need to undertstand why the climate is changing and whether or not we are influencing it.

35 years ago scientists were predicting global cooling, which incidentally would be far more destructive than global warming.

Aww your comment seemed so reasonable until now.
This "myth" is complete and utter bollix. 35 Years ago, there was more uncertainty than there was in the 90s but the overall trend was that the majority researchers were predicting global warming.

ScissorPaperRock · 18-12-2009 07:55PM

It's hard to believe some of the regressive opinions still held by people. It's horrendously selfish to hope that something like these discussions would fail, and plain ignorant to deny such a body of evidence.

People argue that climate has always changed, and while the records show this, the warming that we are going to experience is likely to be without precedent in the last 10,000 years.

If this does go unchecked, the consequences will be dire. Water scarcity, lack of arable land, health issues?, loss of biodiversity and tremendous loss of human life. I could only wish that under such circumstances that those that will lose most will be those that live a life of ignorance.

Turtwig · 18-12-2009 07:55PM

Bob_Harris wrote: »

There are plenty of statistics, trends and data which go against the theory of man made climate change.

Why the emphasis on the word theory?

The problem is dude that all alternative models have far too much statistics,trends and data that go against them. AGW is the best fit, and guess what? Its position has been fortifying year on year. Skepticism is good, but your kind of blatant deniership and refusual to admit what the scientists who are skeptical do and that is that "AGW is the best model that bits all current data at the moment".
It might not be right but every other model that has been proposed has fallen flat on it's face. If you have evidence for an alternative hypothesis that completely overthrows AGW, stop wasting time posting on an internet forum write a peer reviewed paper and get it published in a respected journal.

Turtwig · 18-12-2009 08:01PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

500 years ago some scientists were predicting that producing Gold from Lead by chemical means was a feasable technology.

Did you know that some thought it was possible from urination?:)

Bob_Harris · 18-12-2009 08:06PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Why the emphasis on the word theory?

Because that is all it is. A theory.

julien05 · 18-12-2009 08:11PM

seriously, even a monkey can understand that cars and factories with a certain gas coming from them damages the earth's atmosphere. this is not rocket science people. gorever and out.

Turtwig · 18-12-2009 08:15PM

Wertz wrote: »

BTW someone mentioned ozone depletion in relation to climate change/global warming. Try to be relevant, k thnx. The two problems are mutually exclusive and if anything the continuing success of anti-CFC policy should serve as a reminder that we do have a tangible effect on certain planetary systems and that we can have a positive influence....however as I stated in my other post, as reagrds carboin dioxide influenced warming we're already past the point of no return (despite what your local thermometer might say) and all the cuts in emmissions being sought are mere stable doors being bolted long after the glue is almost set.

The point of the cuts in emissions is the hope of curtailing a 2ºC rise. Unfortunately it is even possible that we may be gone passed that!

CFC is far from mutually exclusive.
In brief the factors that influence the climate are: the sun, the earths orbit, particulates and aerosols. CFCs come into the latter and they many CFCs are themselves greenhouse gases, though they just don't absorb or emit near as much radiation as C02 does. They aren't negligible though.

Bob_Harris · 18-12-2009 08:15PM

julien05 wrote: »

this is not rocket science people.

No, it's not rocket science. Rocket science is understood and has been achieved. Rocket engineers find rocket science easy.

The climate and atmosphere, however, is so vast and complex no computer model comes close to accurately simulating it and scientists can merely "give their best guess" as to the effects and causes of it.

jumpguy · 18-12-2009 08:15PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm more worried about the level of deforestation than greenhouses gasses. I think its a bigger issue.

But to think we can continue to pump increasing levels of emmissions into the atmosphere without any effect is stupid.

I'm sure they thought CFC's did no harm when first invented and used.

Completely agree, one of the things I hate most about climate change is not it's effects, but it's completely distracted the world from far more immediate environmental threats. Deforestation is one of them, and infact, if we stopped deforestation, it'd do alot more than cutting emissions. Trees absorb CO2 from the air. We reduce trees, we reduce the amount being reabsorbed.

ScissorPaperRock · 18-12-2009 08:17PM

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Because that is all it is. A theory.

But there are also facts. There are 380 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to the pre-industrial level of 285 parts per million.

CO2 prevents radiation from the earth to escape back to the atmosphere. What happens when the radiation (read - heat) doesn't escape? You've got it, the earth warms.

Fact.

If the Climate Talks fails will you give a hoot?

Comments