1227 replies to this topic

[gruntguru]

F1 is about to enter the "Environmentally Conscious" arena. As a backdrop (and because many threads go OT to this subject) I thought it would be useful to check the alignment of our "expert" community here on the Tech forum.

My personal view:
- I should accept what the experts say - especially when they are almost unanimous.
- Even if they are wrong, it won't hurt to reduce fossil fuel dependency because there are other serious issues of resource depletion and environmental degradation.

[carlt]

.

My personal view:
- I should accept what the experts say - especially when they are almost unanimous.
- Even if they are wrong, it won't hurt to reduce fossil fuel dependency because there are other serious issues of resource depletion and environmental degradation.

horrible political situations due to fossil fuel dependence as well - the fall out from which has been highlighted recently

There is some pretty overwhelming evidence for recent increase in warming
some of the pictures of glaciers taken over the previous 30 yrs are very convincing

[Greg Locock]

Very bad wording in that poll, allows the worry warts to argue in favour of precautionary measures.

Here's my poll

Is the Earth coming out of an Ice Age?

On average will humans benefit from living in an Ice Age or something warmer?

OK, how warm?

Are changes in weather over 10 year intervals an adequate measure of Climate?

Has the climate always changed?

If CO2 is causing global warming why isn't the relevant part of the atmosphere warming up?

Why is the 3% of the total global carbon cycle that is due to burning fossil fuels treated differently to the 97% that is natural or recycled?

Why is there only one area of science where consensus is held to be the correct method for determining truth? In science we use the scientific method, not voting. Otherwise it isn't science.

Do you really, truly believe that tiny changes in the 0.6% contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to the total greenhouse effect is the best place to affect the greenhouse?

Do you really truly believe that if an American or an Australian improves their fuel consumption by a significant amount, that someone in China or India won't take advanatage of the lower fuel price and burn it anyway?

Having said that I'm all in favour of tighter fuel economy requirements. More jobs for me.

[Kelpiecross]

F1 is about to enter the "Environmentally Conscious" arena. As a backdrop (and because many threads go OT to this subject) I thought it would be useful to check the alignment of our "expert" community here on the Tech forum.

My personal view:
- I should accept what the experts say - especially when they are almost unanimous.
- Even if they are wrong, it won't hurt to reduce fossil fuel dependency because there are other serious issues of resource depletion and environmental degradation.

Grunty - I think your poll really should include a "Don't know" option.

I am well and truly in the "Don't know" camp and I think this is the sensible and only position. Your statements about experts being unaminous etc. I think you will find that the "experts" are biased by their political leanings. Generally, left-wing leaning experts believe in global warming, right-wingers don't.
Using the word "believe" is I think significant. At present whether you "believe" in global warming is more a matter of faith than anything else. It is a similar situation with religion. Possibly half the world's population thinks that a God does exist - probably quite a few million of these are prepared to blow themselves up to prove it.
But what is the truth - God may exist or he may not - nobody really knows - I certainly don't. How can several billion people be wrong about God? Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. It is the same situation with global warming - it may be happening or it may not be - I don't think anybody can say for sure.

One thing can be said for sure - politicians of all varieties are using global warming/climate change to further their own positions.

I think you should add another category to your poll - "Will a carbon tax (in Oz) have even the vaguest hint of an effect on global CO2? The answer has to be - of course it won't.
There are so many glaring inconsistencies in the goverment's stance it is laughable. The want a carbon tax which will have no effect on CO2 and yet Oz exports about 200 million tons of coal per year. If they were fair dinkum they would stop the exports or tax them somehow. ( Before somebody jumps in here, I am not advocating this. In fact Oz, its own fossil fuels burning, its coal exports and its entire population could disappear off the face of the earth and it would not effect the world's CO2 one tiny iota. And Julia knows this).

Another inconsistency - Oz is perfectly placed to change over to nuclear power - why don't we? Probably because of attitudes dating back to the cold war when Labor and the left were actively trying to promote the USSR's nuclear ambitions.

On your point about being more careful because fossil fuels are running out - yes - clearly we should be more careful with fuel usage.

[primer]

My personal view:
- I should accept what the experts say - especially when they are almost unanimous.

I did not vote in your poll, the options are rather simplistic.

The only thing I accept is this: climate and climatic trends are changing, this is observable to even the dullest person. It's not just temperatures either, rainfall, the amount of rainfall etc are also changing. Precisely what is causing this change -and how much of this change is due to human activities- remains undetermined.

Every human activity will cause some amount of enviornmental damage. This should not be our excuse for not improving efficiency. And we should learn to address the issue in a holistic rather than in an atomistic manner: for example, instead of merely looking at carbon generated by personal transportation we should look at how different ways of urbanizing and settling population can have different energy requirements. Improvements in vehicle efficiency cannot overcome attributes like distance travelled. Travelling twenty miles to work every day will always be expensive -in terms of energy consumed- whether done is a Prius or an F-150.

Nor should we limit our concern to only air pollution or carbon emissions. Pollution of underground fresh water bodies (and also their rapid depletion) is the elephant in the room no one wants to address.

Unfortunately this whole global warming thing has become a political theater. Motorsports should not be used to promote political agendas. How many people worry about the total environmental impact of soccer, or golf? Or going to the cinema (Nobel prize for the pirate bay?). I bet the annual damage caused by these activities is far worse than any racing series.

We motorsports fans are unfortunate in that our passion consumes some fossil fuel directly, and this allows people to divert the agenda to suit their personal purpose. 'Green motorsports' is an exercise in self-deception. It allows people to live under the illusion that they are 'doing something' to improve things while in reality they are doing f... all. If you want real solutions and not a charade, the first step is to stop the self-deception and let motorsport remain dirty.

[Wuzak]

I think you should add another category to your poll - "Will a carbon tax (in Oz) have even the vaguest hint of an effect on global CO2? The answer has to be - of course it won't.
There are so many glaring inconsistencies in the goverment's stance it is laughable. The want a carbon tax which will have no effect on CO2 and yet Oz exports about 200 million tons of coal per year. If they were fair dinkum they would stop the exports or tax them somehow. ( Before somebody jumps in here, I am not advocating this. In fact Oz, its own fossil fuels burning, its coal exports and its entire population could disappear off the face of the earth and it would not effect the world's CO2 one tiny iota. And Julia knows this).

Another inconsistency - Oz is perfectly placed to change over to nuclear power - why don't we? Probably because of attitudes dating back to the cold war when Labor and the left were actively trying to promote the USSR's nuclear ambitions.

Carbon trading schemes have been in use in other countries for several years, but the debate here seems to revolve around the idea that we would be going out on a limb, and that such a scheme, or tax, would blow out household budgets. Of ocurse if it does cause problems in the household budgets then maybe it will influence the way people use energy in this country - remember that we have one of the highest CO2 emissions per capita.

The nuclear debate is troublesome - in that it is about more than the generating plant. There are many other issues involved with that sort of power, such as dealing with fuel waste. The spectre of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl will always cast some doubt on the technology.

I did see a report last year that suggested that Australia could have our electricty generated completely by renewable enrgy resources - solar, wind, wave, geothermal - in 10 years if the desire/determination was there. But it would require a lot of investment, which, IIRC, works out to be about $3-$4 per person per day. There is also the issue of what happens to the miners, and all the coal mining infrastructure.

Tasmania has long had power generated predominately by hydrolectric schemes. We have a fossil fuel generator as well, which has recently been converted to a combined cycle gas/steam turbine burning naturall gas. We are also connected to the national grid, since the Bass Link was built. The idea behind the Bass Link was to help supply Victoria with power for peak demand, but with less than normal rainfall for many years the dams were low and thus we ended up bringing in power. And recently our governmnet completed a deal to use power from a Queensland company (coal fired power stations no doubt).

(Tasmania's residential power is supplied by the Hydro Electric Commision - the generator, Transend - the distributor - and Aurora - the retailer - all of which are government owned. The entities were split during the late 1990s as a requirement to move them to privatisation by the Howard federal government. Prices are uncompetitive by mainland standards, probably because we now have 3 sets of admin where there used to be one, and the fact that coal is insanely cheap.)

Anyway, if the greenhouse effect has been overblown, it can't hurt to reduce the emissions being pumped out in and around our cities and towns.


PS: I heard a statistic that the world's current energy requirements could be fulfilled by an area of solar cells, with the current efficiencies, the size of Victoria. I personally can't think of a better use for Victoria.....

PPS: It is hard to believe in Global Warming on days like this.

Edited by Wuzak, 10 March 2011 - 04:31.

[gruntguru]

Very bad wording in that poll, allows the worry warts to argue in favour of precautionary measures.

I do prefer to be even handed.

Here's my poll

Maximum of 3 questions per poll on this BB unfortunately.

On average will humans benefit from living in an Ice Age or something warmer?

I think "something warmer" is where we are now. On the other hand will carbon emissions reduction drive the earth back into an Ice Age?

OK, how warm?

I think the experts agree on how warm is too warm - and that's not very far from where we are now.

Are changes in weather over 10 year intervals an adequate measure of Climate?

Perhaps not. Let's use a better measure. Suggestions?

Why is the 3% of the total global carbon cycle that is due to burning fossil fuels treated differently to the 97% that is natural or recycled?

I guess because it is one of the sources under human control. There are others eg deforestation.

Why is there only one area of science where consensus is held to be the correct method for determining truth?

I don't know of any such area - unless you mean creation science? Absolute truth is not a prerequisite for sensible precautions.

Do you really, truly believe that tiny changes in the 0.6% contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to the total greenhouse effect is the best place to affect the greenhouse?

There are better minds than yours and mine focused almost entirely on that question.

Do you really truly believe that if an American or an Australian improves their fuel consumption by a significant amount, that someone in China or India won't take advanatage of the lower fuel price and burn it anyway?

I doubt that is the question, but since you asked it. I don't really care - we still benefit economically from the efficiency gain and - its probably their turn anyway. I really truly believe that someone will burn the last drop of viable crude regardless of what we do. I faintly believe that runaway oil prices will drive innovation and conservation to achieve sensible solutions before resorting to dirty alternatives like shale oil and coal-to-oil.

[gruntguru]

Grunty - I think your poll really should include a "Don't know" option.I am well and truly in the "Don't know" camp and I think this is the sensible and only position. Your statements about experts being unaminous etc. I think you will find that the "experts" are biased by their political leanings. Generally, left-wing leaning experts believe in global warming, right-wingers don't.

From Wikipedia but it is referenced.

"The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,^[1][2] where there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[3][4] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions."

• Boykoff, M.; Boykoff, J. (2004). "Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press1" (Full free text). Global Environmental Change Part A 14 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001. http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf. edit
• ^ ^{a b} Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (first ed.). Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-596-91610-4.

[guyORS]

F1 is about to enter the "Environmentally Conscious" arena. As a backdrop (and because many threads go OT to this subject) I thought it would be useful to check the alignment of our "expert" community here on the Tech forum.

My personal view:
- I should accept what the experts say - especially when they are almost unanimous.
- Even if they are wrong, it won't hurt to reduce fossil fuel dependency because there are other serious issues of resource depletion and environmental degradation.

an interesting poll because it proves that approximately 20 to 30% of the forum members don't have a clue what the words "science", "verifiability" and "scientific integrity" mean.

this confirms my suspicion of how members' ratings come to be: the racingsavvy forum members rarely rate others, but the clueless always downrate any member whom they don't understand; which is why it is quite often a sign of respect to have a low rating <g> (75% of the members will understand)

[Kelpiecross]

an interesting poll because it proves that approximately 20 to 30% of the forum members don't have a clue what the words "science", "verifiability" and "scientific integrity" mean.

this confirms my suspicion of how members' ratings come to be: the racingsavvy forum members rarely rate others, but the clueless always downrate any member whom they don't understand; which is why it is quite often a sign of respect to have a low rating <g> (75% of the members will understand)

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[guyORS]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

right on

[guyORS]

Grunty - I think your poll really should include a "Don't know" option.

agree

I am well and truly in the "Don't know" camp and I think this is the sensible and only position.

If you don't know, it means you don't know; if you don't know you cannot say that it is the only position because if you don't know it means you don't know about the right or wrong position. Simply put, "don't know" means "not having a clue". How can being clueless be the only position?

Whereas I now have a clue what the rest of your post is based on BECAUSE you provide a clue about the way your logic works and I therefore already, if vaguely, know what's coming. Nothing personal, logic is a bitch.

Your statements about experts being unaminous etc. I think you will find that the "experts" are biased by their political leanings. Generally, left-wing leaning experts believe in global warming, right-wingers don't.

Experts are to an overwhelming proportion unanimous; not even worth getting back to that. The rest of your statement is completely meaningless and not based on a single shred of evidence.

(by overwhelming I mean practically all; search "climate change scientific evidence")

Using the word "believe" is I think significant. At present whether you "believe" in global warming is more a matter of faith than anything else.

Which way does the sun evolve around earth?

It is a similar situation with religion. Possibly half the world's population thinks that a God does exist - probably quite a few million of these are prepared to blow themselves up to prove it. But what is the truth - God may exist or he may not - nobody really knows - I certainly don't. How can several billion people be wrong about God? Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. It is the same situation with global warming - it may be happening or it may not be - I don't think anybody can say for sure.

Einstein was lucky you didn't review his papers.

One thing can be said for sure - politicians of all varieties are using global warming/climate change to further their own positions.

Since when are politiciens elected by intelligence?

Another inconsistency - Oz is perfectly placed to change over to nuclear power - why don't we?

??? you overstepped a fine limit here <g>

[Kelpiecross]

right on

I am afraid it is a common tactic in forums in general for some people to write in an obscure and cryptic manner. The intention of this type of writing is to imply that if you cannot understand what is being said you (the reader) are a dimwit and the writer is a person of vast intellect. The truth is of course just the opposite - the cryptic writer is clearly a dimwit.

Can anybody translate what guyORS is on about?

[Greg Locock]

There are better minds than yours and mine focused almost entirely on that question.

Speak for yourself!

[Kelpiecross]

Speak for yourself!

I have to agree. I noticed this statement from the Grunt as well - if you are a person of reasonable intelligence and education there is no reason at all to assume that somebody has a "better mind". In fact it is a sign of a slight lack of self-confidence to assume that somebody else has a "better mind". The Grunt has no reason to assume someone else has a "better mind" than he.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 10 March 2011 - 11:28.

[Terry Walker]

There's a lot of confusion around on the subject because it is inevitably politicised. The science itself isn't.

Issue: Greenhouse effect: is there one?
Answer: Yes
Status: bullet proof
Comment: park your car in the sun, wind up the windows, and you can test the theory for yourself. It's why large tracts of countryside in southern Spain, UK, etc, are covered with huge commercial greenhouses.

Issue: Carbon dioxide a "greenhouse gas"?
Answer: Yes
Status: bullet proof.
Comment: Dead easy to test experimentally - hell, even the Mythbusters did it. No question at all, more carbon dioxide, all other things equal, the wamer it gets.

Issue: Methane a greenhouse gas?
Answer: Yes
Status: bullet proof.

Question: Is atmospheric carbon dioxide rising?
Answer: Yes.
Status: bullet proof.
Comment: Every test to check this has proved it's happening.

Question: Does the rise coincide with the industrial revoluiton and the rapidly rising use of fossil fuels?
Answer: Yes
Status: Bullet proof
Comment: Every check has shown this.

Question: Has burning fossil fuels etc by humans caused an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Answer: Yes.
Status: Bullet proof.

Question: Has it caused ALL the increase in carbon dioxide?
Answer: Probably not ALL, but a great deal of it.
Status: Disagreement on precise extent, which does not weaken the fact above.
Comment: Disagreement about detail doesn't invalidate thesis. In the old days, scientists used to have knock-down drag-out arguments in conferences and meetings. Now its in emails and on Wikileaks.

Question: Is this man-made carbon dioxide causing or likely to cause climate change?
Answer: Yes.
Status: Agreed. Debate is on (a) to what extent and (b) how soon and © what weather symptoms we can expect in the meantime.
Comment: This is the part of the issue causing controvery at the moment as those in the field try to work out ways of answering (a) (b) and © with some accuracy. Lots of luck, guys.

Question: Is it good idea to keep dumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, knowing it could and probably will eventually cause colossal damage to the planet our descendants will inherit?
Answer: I think no; why tempt fate? Don't prod that forty foot white pointer shark to see if it's still awake, man.
Comment: This is where the issue gets seriously political. People who makes lots of money out of doing things which produce carbon dioxide naturally want to keep doing it. So they deny. Tobacco companies still deny the connection between their product and lung and throat cancer. One of the major ploys is to fog the issue and raise doubts, which is what is happening with the climate change debate too. And will continue to happen. Think asbestos; think lead;

Question: What can we ordinary blokes do?
Answer: F@cked if I know, mate.
Comment: If change is really, really long term, then I'll be dead before it happens. If it comes on quick, the last decades of my life could be pretty lively. Yours, too.

[Tony Matthews]

Quote:- People who makes lots of money out of doing things which produce carbon dioxide naturally want to keep doing it.

Unfortunately, people who make lots of money out of doing things which supposedly reduce carbon dioxide have the same agenda.

[gruntguru]

Question: Is this man-made carbon dioxide causing or likely to cause climate change?
Answer: Yes.
Status: Agreed. Debate is on (a) to what extent and (b) how soon and © what weather symptoms we can expect in the meantime.

I think the crux of the debate is more along the lines - "is reducing man-made CO2 likely to make enough difference?"
For now, my view is - let's reduce it anyway - it is feasible to do it in a way that benefits all - regardless of any effect on GW.

Edited by gruntguru, 10 March 2011 - 23:08.

[gruntguru]

Speak for yourself!

Only my opinion.

[guyORS]

I am afraid it is a common tactic in forums in general for some people to write in an obscure and cryptic manner. The intention of this type of writing is to imply that if you cannot understand what is being said you (the reader) are a dimwit and the writer is a person of vast intellect. The truth is of course just the opposite - the cryptic writer is clearly a dimwit.

Can anybody translate what guyORS is on about?

I said something to the effect that people who still believe despite all scientific evidence that climate change is a matter of personal interpretation don't know what science or logic is. That is neither obscure not cryptic. Your reply proved the point I was making, so I said, right on. 75% of the forum members understood.

And if you keep pretending in grammatically correct English hat climate change is a matter of religion then you prove that it is perfectly possible to write proper English, yet not understand scientific evidence.

You top it off by your comment on Australia's nuclear potential. You should go to, or, erm, have you already been to Tchernobyl? The latest SCIENTIFIC evidence has shown that, amongst others, the animals in the area have a common characteristic, that their brains have shrunk by an average of 5 to 10% and that genetic malformations have increased significantly. Brain deformation in turn has led to reduced cerebral activity etc.

Seems you don't like to research these things on the net and god forbid I rate your cognitive ability so I searched for a basic text:

nuked brains

Clear enough?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you or anyone believing what you believe is not capable of logic, I am simply saying that you should look up the available scientific information BEFORE you post, because there is enough EVIDENCE to counter what you BELIEVE. So I agree with that part of your post where you indicate that one should not rely on belief, but I am wondering why you then fall into your own trap of considering your own beliefs good enough to refuse scientific fact? It would be illogical to refuse the information on the grounds of personal belief. Which puzzles me, you have the logic, how can you overlook the evidence?

And if you really want to have fun, look up "global dimming". Most underrated climate effect of all, keeps everybody's mind busy for days.

---

BTW, the ultimate mind****: global dimming was conclusively proved by September 11. <g>

[unclematt]

I have to agree. I noticed this statement from the Grunt as well - if you are a person of reasonable intelligence and education there is no reason at all to assume that somebody has a "better mind". In fact it is a sign of a slight lack of self-confidence to assume that somebody else has a "better mind". The Grunt has no reason to assume someone else has a "better mind" than he.

Its called humility, and I am glad gruntguru doesn't assume he is the smartest brain out there.

A BIG problem we have in our country right now is people thinking they are "just as smart as anyone else", not based on reality or their actual IQ mind you, but because they have an agenda to promote. They mistakenly think that if they parrot people who promote their agenda of choice, that magically they become as intelligent as anyone they want to compare themselves to. By the same token they decide that anyone who disagrees with their agenda must simply be not as smart as them.

We need less of that, not more.

Edited by unclematt, 10 March 2011 - 14:09.

[unclematt]

Quote:- People who makes lots of money out of doing things which produce carbon dioxide naturally want to keep doing it.

Unfortunately, people who make lots of money out of doing things which supposedly reduce carbon dioxide have the same agenda.

Can you please list for us here how people who want to reduce carbon dioxide emmissions are "cashing in"? Not under some situation that might happen in the future, but as things exist in reality now?

[mariner]

I would be the "probably warming" and "possibly caused by man" camps.

The instant response to that is to say, well that's enough to warrant action to cut man made CO2 BUT three things always trouble me about the "lets cut man made CO2" camp

1) there seems to be a great attraction for politicians to try to slow down CO2 output but virtually no action to pepare for it's consequences if we can't stop the rise. Tha is like not trying to have an inoculation for something like Bird Flu and relying entirely on slowing down transmission. Similarly if global warming is likley to raise sea levels by 2050 then the real estate value of offices in London or New York's Finance district is zero and new inland cities must be built now.

2) My limited understanding of the global weather/oceanic system is that the weather sytems are almost entirely seperate for the northern and southern hemispheres and the only oceanic movement across the Equator is a very slow cycle in the Pacific. Since the vast bulk of man made CO2 output has happened/is happening in the Northern hemisphere it would suggest that today's CO2 rise should be largely in the North if man made. However I have never seen any such comments in the press so is northern CO2 worse than southern CO2? If not I would question the man made model.

3) As mentioned above the subject of Global dimming seems to get zero press despite the apparent reduction over north america following 9/11. This seems very odd.

[Tony Matthews]

Can you please list for us here how people who want to reduce carbon dioxide emmissions are "cashing in"? Not under some situation that might happen in the future, but as things exist in reality now?

I would point you to the manufacturers and installers of windfarms, for a start, and the massive subsidies they receive.

[unclematt]

I would point you to the manufacturers and installers of windfarms, for a start, and the massive subsidies they receive.

Those are a PITANCE compared to the subsidies we give oil and coal:



Costs to taxpayers over a 5 years period for oil/coal subsidies: $521.73
Costs to taxpayers over a 5 year period for solar and wind subsidies: $7.24

And republicans just voted to continue this unanimously, even though they claim to be on a mission of "cost cutting"...

When I hear people objecting to THIS as much as they object to subsidies for solar/wind. I might think they have a valid point somehow.

[cheapracer]

Can anyone answer why they can't grow grapes anymore in central England and why they grow less than 20% of the amount they did in Northern Germany (ie; similar Latitude) up until around the 17th Century?

Don't worry I'll answer it for you, because it's colder now 300 years later than it was then.

Thats colder as in not as hot as then as in it's colder now than it was then and provable but don't let facts get in the way of a good story to get funding.

Anyone noticed that they found (amongst others) a baby Mammoth in perma frost in Russia a few years ago about 10,000 years old? Well it's obvious to any idiot (well maybe not) that it died and then was frozen over and covered - well DUH that means it was warmer back then, theres was not such a depth of ice and it got colder and the ice got thicker.

Again, lets not let simple facts and evidence get in the way of a good story that will bring in millions of bucks to researchers and Greenpeace.

So all you people voting yes, give us heathens some facts ....... and keep it realistic, even I believe a plane passing through a cloud will have some immediate local effect but not global warming in the panick'ist sense.

[cheapracer]

Issue: Methane a greenhouse gas?
Answer: Yes
Status: bullet proof.

Cows are in no way bullet proof, take it from me and I ain't going to stop eating steaks and drinking milk anytime in the near future.

[Tony Matthews]

Those are a PITANCE compared to the subsidies we give oil and coal:

That's probably because they work.

[unclematt]

Again, lets not let simple facts and evidence get in the way of a good story that will bring in millions of bucks to researchers and Greenpeace.

Again, can you please list for us specifically who is bringing in "millions of bucks" over the global warming issue? Scientists are paid to do research, not promote agendas, but you would hold their earned salaries against them somehow? Because the science doesn't support a political agenda? Would that still be the case if they were backing up your position with science?

And how is greenpeace raking it in over this issue, and how much exactly? Please be specific and post links to verifiable information. You know, some "simple facts"...

[munks]

I did not vote in your poll, the options are rather simplistic.

Polls always are, because they're usually about something that's complex and controversial.

[werks prototype]

I would point you to the manufacturers and installers of windfarms, for a start, and the massive subsidies they receive.

You are right there, Tony.

It is at times as if these shores and fields have suddenly imported a new crop.

It is like the Tripods mixed with the day of the Triffids in some places.

[unclematt]

That's probably because they work.

I pointed out that the oil and coal industry receives FAR MORE in subsidies than solar/wind, and your response is that is because "they work". Last time I checked solar and wind "work" very well, so no idea what you are referring to there.

And I would suggest that the only thing oil and coal subsidies "work" at is keeping alternative forms of energy out of the marketplace.

[werks prototype]

Those are a PITANCE compared to the subsidies we give oil and coal:

That is probably because we only get a PITANCE back.

[unclematt]

That is probably because we only get a PITANCE back.

No idea what that means. Care to elaborate, or expound on your post

[guyORS]

I would be the "probably warming" and "possibly caused by man" camps.

cool

1) there seems to be a great attraction for politicians to try to slow down CO2 output but virtually no action to pepare for it's consequences if we can't stop the rise.

agree; only reason I can see is electoral campaign hypocrisy: it's politically desirable to say that one wants to slow down CO2 but they believe it's going to hurt their electoral chances if they say what they would have to do to stop it

2) My limited understanding of the global weather/oceanic system is that the weather sytems are almost entirely seperate for the northern and southern hemispheres and the only oceanic movement across the Equator is a very slow cycle in the Pacific. Since the vast bulk of man made CO2 output has happened/is happening in the Northern hemisphere it would suggest that today's CO2 rise should be largely in the North if man made. However I have never seen any such comments in the press so is northern CO2 worse than southern CO2? If not I would question the man made model.

It's a bit tricky because of landmass distribution, reflecting terrain and high altitude winds; for example is Sahel drying up because of Northern hemisphere pollution. The best example of global distribution into unsuspected areas is IMO the Great Pacific rubbish dump. For a simpler visualization of currents messing up the planet, check "Rubber Duck".

3) Global dimming seems to get zero press despite the apparent reduction over north america following 9/11. This seems very odd.

I _believe_ this is due to the wicked logic involved because global dimming is a pollution that weakens the effect of pollution. <g> It's the master of all vicious logic. Devastatingly funny.

[guyORS]

Can anyone answer why they can't grow grapes anymore in central England and why they grow less than 20% of the amount they did in Northern Germany (ie; similar Latitude) up until around the 17th Century?

Don't worry I'll answer it for you, because it's colder now 300 years later than it was then.

Thats colder as in not as hot as then as in it's colder now than it was then and provable but don't let facts get in the way of a good story to get funding.

Anyone noticed that they found (amongst others) a baby Mammoth in perma frost in Russia a few years ago about 10,000 years old? Well it's obvious to any idiot (well maybe not) that it died and then was frozen over and covered - well DUH that means it was warmer back then, theres was not such a depth of ice and it got colder and the ice got thicker.

Again, lets not let simple facts and evidence get in the way of a good story that will bring in millions of bucks to researchers and Greenpeace.

So all you people voting yes, give us heathens some facts ....... and keep it realistic, even I believe a plane passing through a cloud will have some immediate local effect but not global warming in the panick'ist sense.

Overall, the difference between manmade climate change and natural change is in the speed it happens (primary level, first lesson, first minute).

Is that something like a Chinese flag I see floating over your nick? I'm sure that if you googled "china pollution" you'd get all the replies you never wanted especially if the latest Central Committe's resolution on the urgency of tackling the problem on a national level would show amongst the results.

Must be frustrating to be somewhere 60 millions teenage girls short. <g>

[werks prototype]

No idea what that means. Care to elaborate, or expound on your post

GWe

[munks]

A few notes:

1) I answered "yes/partly/partly" even though I'm really 'don't know' on the last one.

2) Greg's questions are very good.

3) Fuel efficiency is good for several other solid reasons.

4) I'm not that interested in questioning people's motives. Calling global warming a 'hoax' or similar reveals your stupidity - you're implying that 98% of climate scientists are intentionally lying in a grand conspiracy. Do scientists want research money? Sure, but that's not unique to climate scientists and we don't call every other field a hoax.

5) The reason this is still highly debatable is that it is next to impossible to develop an accurate predictive climate model. Think vehicle modeling with 1000x the number of variables and 1/1000th the number of measurements available.

[carlt]

If we compare the subject to carrying a loaded pistol in ones pocket -
The first thing to do is check the safety.

Surely the sensible thing to do is to put the safety catch on to start with -

Then why not think about removing some Bullets -

Who knows , one day we might even consider not shooting each other at all -

[cheapracer]

Overall, the difference between manmade climate change and natural change is in the speed it happens (primary level, first lesson, first minute).

I asked for proof not poetry.

Is that something like a Chinese flag I see floating over your nick? I'm sure that if you googled "china pollution" you'd get all the replies you never wanted especially if the latest Central Committe's resolution on the urgency of tackling the problem on a national level would show amongst the results.

Must be frustrating to be somewhere 60 millions teenage girls short. <g>

Don't make comments on a country you very clearly know nothing about other than, and you said it yourself, educated by selective Googling combined with some editorials from The Sun or The National Enquirer no doubt.

[cheapracer]

If we compare the subject to carrying a loaded pistol in ones pocket -
The first thing to do is check the safety.

Surely the sensible thing to do is to put the safety catch on to start with -

Then why not think about removing some Bullets -

Who knows , one day we might even consider not shooting each other at all -

Get off your keyboards and computers, made from oil and plastics and using electricity you effing hypocrites. Look around your room at all the luxuries you rape the earth to have besides being a car forum promoting the most evil of all FFS.

Did I say hypocrite, oh yes I did

[Slartibartfast]

agree

If you don't know, it means you don't know; if you don't know you cannot say that it is the only position because if you don't know it means you don't know about the right or wrong position. Simply put, "don't know" means "not having a clue". How can being clueless be the only position?

Whereas I now have a clue what the rest of your post is based on BECAUSE you provide a clue about the way your logic works and I therefore already, if vaguely, know what's coming. Nothing personal, logic is a bitch.

Unfortunately your logic is flawed. As you have based your line of reasoning on equating "don't know" with "clueless", which is a false premise, logic dictates that your conclusion is flawed.
To demonstrate:
If you only "have a clue about the way your logic works" then you are not certain. If you are not certain then you don't know. If you "don't know" then you are "clueless". If you are "clueless" then how can you "have a clue"?

Which way does the sun evolve around earth?

I don't know! I'm afraid I am clueless on this one. Perhaps one orbits the other?

Einstein was lucky you didn't review his papers.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Einstein

[Tony Matthews]

Last time I checked solar and wind "work" very well, so no idea what you are referring to there.

Well, it's a cold, windless night here, I'm so relieved that I went to the expense - and it was expensive, despite the subsidies - of installing the wind turbine and the solar panels. If I switch off all the lights and put on another pullover there should be just enough juice to run the compu

[carlt]

Well, it's a cold, windless night here, I'm so relieved that I went to the expense - and it was expensive, despite the subsidies - of installing the wind turbine and the solar panels. If I switch off all the lights and put on another pullover there should be just enough juice to run the compu

silly old fool - should have installed a heat pump

[munks]

Well, it's a cold, windless night here, I'm so relieved that I went to the expense - and it was expensive, despite the subsidies - of installing the wind turbine and the solar panels. If I switch off all the lights and put on another pullover there should be just enough juice to run the compu

LOL!

[carlt]

Get off your keyboards and computers, made from oil and plastics and using electricity you effing hypocrites. Look around your room at all the luxuries you rape the earth to have besides being a car forum promoting the most evil of all FFS.

Did I say hypocrite, oh yes I did

who mentioned not needing oil/fossil fuels -

Trouble is we've become addicts ,
more , more ,more -
as with any drug abuse were going to be either completely ****ed up or going to have to go through some serious cold turkey ,
but consumed in moderation its great fun !!

I think there was a study done that showed that Golf contributed more to global warming than motorsport
The F-ing Ramblers drive all over the country to get to their scenic locations to go for a nice walk
Where's the hypocrisy ,
thats always the numpty argument against any discussion on this , or related subjects - 'Oh we'll all be back in the stone age'

China and India wouln't do anything , why should we .... thats the kind of logic/argument kids use in the school playground -

time to grow up

[Greg Locock]

The anthropogenic global warming religion rests on a rather shaky set of holy books, called general circulation models. These are complex models that at least in principle take measured properties of gases, and the known laws of physics, and attempt to model what happens when the atmosphere is heated, etc.

So far so good.

If you add more heat energy, or reduce the amount of heat that is radiated away from the model, it gets hotter.

Great. That agrees with physics and common sense.

But, the models are large, but not large enough. In order to get their behaviour to match the temperature record various fudge factors are introduced, to improve the match. As you have undoubtedly heard, global weather is a chaotic system, these fudge factors are partly there to average the chaos out.

That is acceptable. If the models are being used to predict stuff within the range of available data, they should provide useful interpolation.

The models are then run into the future. This is extrapolation. Statistics 101 tells you what to do with extrapolation. Chaos theory tells you that small errors in assumptions can lead to enormous errors in outcomes.

I notice that no one has explained why the anthropogenic 3% of the carbon cycle is magically treated differently to the other 97%, or indeed why changing the 0.6% of greenhouse effect that is due to that anthropogenic carbon is the best way of turning the thermostat up/down/whatever.

Having said that I am in favour of reducing fossil oil/ natural gas usage where practical. In particular using it as feedstock for industrial ethanol, and hydrogen, production is ridiculous. That just goes to show you how cheap it is. Human beings waste cheap stuff, that's just what we do. Lots of human beings have religions. That seems to be another error in programming.

AGW is faith based. 'They' say their computer models are useful. 'They' know better than we. We should enhance the life style of the high priests so that 'they' can lead us into the future. Personally I preferred it when UEA climatologists were spotty faced nerds (hi Richard) rather than the high priests of the new religion.

[Lee Nicolle]

Personal opinion, having read the articles watched the doccos and heard the debate.

Is man made pollution harming the enviroment. Almost certainly. Is it what the Al Gores and Co saying. Defenitly not, anybody who believes a grendstanding ex VICE President really need to take a cold shower. About 10% truth and 90% hype. And a lot of that has been found totally the truth from experts, who are not politicians!!!
BUT putting all that gunk into the atmosphere is bad. BUT cutting all those trees down is a far bigger problem, taking the natural balances away. AND there is so many natural causes of CO2 which almost certainly exceed man made. Animals and human waste[natural] Volcanoes , they stop planes flying. Burning said cleared forests and that happens naturally eg bushfires.And lots more.

Yes cars should be clean, but going hybrid etc to be green. Please!! They are an enviromental disaster, yet alone a potential large accident. Steam would be far better, BUT until you have an accident.
As for hybrid race cars DDrrrr dumb as. Lets have something simple. An engine that burns fuel. F1 could use methanol or E85 and retain its simplicity and make the bofins happy with regular refueling again. And methanol in particular is a far safer fuel.And far cleaner. As for the rest normally aspirated, limit RPM 12000? , [which will save lots of fuel] ban most driver aids including flappy paddle gear shifts and the sport will be better to watch and far more about the driver.

Industry should be cleaner no doubt, but here in Oz our Green puppet PM is going to tax our industry out of the country. And we will then buy our goods from developing countries, China, India, SE Asia who pay very little heed to the cleaner technology. So we will in effect cause more pollution not less and turn our country into a third world!! And making us a target for said current third world countries to invade for our land mass. [They are coming by boat at the moment regularly!!] SO the approach has to be international and at the least any country that does not comply ends up with a 30% tarriff against them, and condemnation from the world.
Nuclear is possibly an alternative for power generation but the waste and security problems will always be there. Defenitly cleaner than burning coal. Once again our government will tax industy but sell coal overseas. If burning coal is so bad do not sell it!!

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 10 March 2011 - 22:03.

[guyORS]

(cheapracer @ Mar 10 2011, 19:34)
I asked for proof not poetry.

You got all the links to proofs needed and all you got is this cheap comment? Read my posts in this thread and follow the links. Those links will lead you to all the basic proofs you need. Of course that will not be good enough for you but at least I post links backing up my claims whereas you simply refuse human-made climate change without offering even one single link to back up your nonsense.

To get back to your initial post: fact is, what distinguishes manmade climate change from natural climate change is the speed at which it happens. It's scientifically so established that even Baidu should link it.

Don't make comments on a country you very clearly know nothing about other than, and you said it yourself, educated by selective Googling combined with some editorials from The Sun or The National Enquirer no doubt.

I used google links because it is easier than posting hundreds of pages on the forum. To conclude from that that I am educated by selective googling is so low it would get you disqualified in any ring.

But since you seem to believe that if YOU don't know something it means that it does not exist, I'll try to bring you up to speed:

First of all, you don't know what I know or don't, but your comments show how you try to deal with opinions you don't like and facts you don't understand so I must conclude that democracy and equal rigths don't seem your forte; so be it but stop throwing mud from your corner, you don't have the arm for it.

If you refer to my comment on the shortage of teenagers your age in China: Baidu will certainly not tell you all there is to know about this problem for a good reason but it is a fully documented fact that China and India have an extreme shortage of teenage girls in the present generation, India because of its antiquated preference for boys, the very reason why prenatal gender tests are forbidden there (look it up yourself), and China as a result of its one-child policy; in the case of China the discrepancy is estimated at approx 40 to 60 mio girls on a generation of 250 mio teenagers; do the math and buy a book on polyandry. Baidu (or google as baidooing will probably not return anything decent) "chinese shortage of women" and I'm sure you will find what you don't know. But maybe you're not interested in girls, you're more the technical type? Then check this forum for the Pirelli calendar and download the pictures from the _first_ link you see. I said the FIRST link.

Or are you referring to my comment on the Central Committee's recent directive on national pollution? Trust Baidu for once because even the latest "China briefing", a government-licensed publication which you might be familiar with... I forgot your aversion to check facts yourself so I quote:

"China’s Control Measures on Heavy Metal Pollution to Boost High-tech Enterprises
Posted on March 9, 2011 by China Briefing

Mar. 9 – Although happy to see its rapid economic growth, China is growing increasingly concerned over the heavy pollution it is generating at the same time. A recently released document that calls for stronger quality control in the exploitation and smelting of heavy metals is a sign that China is paying more attention to encouraging an environmentally-friendly economic development model.

China’s State Council recently passed the “Twelfth Five-year Plan to Combat Heavy Metal Pollution” requiring that pollution from heavy metal emissions in critical areas be reduced by 15 percent, compared to 2007, by the year 2015. For all other areas, the pollution levels from heavy metal emissions should not exceed the levels reached in 2007"

And even people inside China know what such carefully worded government-approved statements really mean.

---

Naw, just kidding, of course you're right, I'm an idiot, I made it all up. I always make up the stuff I quote, I even make up the links, the research papers, the wiki entries, simply to impress someone with your intellectual format. And do you know why I am so good at making this up? Because two years ago I did a bleepin paper on the subject of China's two main problems in the next thirty years and guess what I thought these two problems are?

But excuse me for asking, seen that I am the unwashed, uneducated, babbling continental idiot you take me for, what is the National Enquirer that you seem to be so familiar with? I didn't bother to google it as I'm sure that since you know it it must be an elitarian publication way above skunks like me.

---

Last, and I will quote K'ung Tzu, one of China's first teambosses, although I gladly admit having used google for the original: "不乱与实验研究，如果你不知道你说的是什么"

[Tony Matthews]

If you refer to my comment on the shortage of teenagers your age in China: Baidu will certainly not tell you all there is to know about this problem for a good reason but it is a fully documented fact that China and India have an extreme shortage of teenage girls in the present generation, India because of its antiquated preference for boys, the very reason why prenatal gender tests are forbidden there (look it up yourself), and China as a result of its one-child policy; in the case of China the discrepancy is estimated at approx 40 to 60 mio girls on a generation of 250 mio teenagers; do the math and buy a book on polyandry. Baidu (or google as baidooing will probably not return anything decent) "chinese shortage of women" and I'm sure you will find what you don't know. But maybe you're not interested in girls, you're more the technical type? Then check this forum for the Pirelli calendar and download the pictures from the _first_ link you see. I said the FIRST link.

Blimey - what's that all about? I notice, as usual, that there is a deal of pent-up bile on the side of the evangelists, whereas those who feel that there is a chance that every doom-laden pronouncement may not - may not - be absolutely right, seem generally more sanguine.