Climate Change & Global Warming

[KOYAANISQATSI]

What happens if someone at the control panel catches swine flu, drops dead and lands on a big red button, blows the whole place up and triggers even more global warming?

 

It's an imminent, potential, certain disaster for sure.

[katvira]

What's new on the global warming front to convince to us that humans are the problems? Cause more and more scientists and other people are rejecting the theory that man made global warming is going to cause catostrophic events. Plus this was the coldest year of the decade so far and it and Al Gore's propaganda is falling flat on it's face.

_____________________

market samurai ~ marketsamurai ~ marketsamurai.com

[Spinner72]

Don't say that, you'll only upset the suckers..

 

Just like all the other other political devices before it, man made global warming has largely served its purpose so will slowly fade away except for the usual few obsessives who will never see the difference between natural climate change and the fantasy created over the past few years.

 

The question is, whats next in the process of global enslavement via stupidity/ignorance?

 

Financial disaaster? Swine Flu?

[captain kirk]

Yes I can see that my statement about maintaining a blinkered anti-nuclear stance was misleading. Just for the record I was anti-nuclear power and weapons in the seventies, (late-I'm not that old) the eighties, the nineties, the 2000 and naughties and quite possibly the tenties as well.

My point is not so much about the argument against nuclear itself, although obviously I could bleat on about that until the three-eyed cows come home if that was required, but about the necessity of questioning all so-called 'facts' that come our way, particularly from major energy providers like E.ON and BP etc and governmental bodies that are powerless against them. (Or wikipedia) It's about power and wealth and getting it all sewn up quick before the renewables can get a foot hold.

The split in environmentalists over nuclear is very interesting. Rather than revealing that people were wrong to discredit it decades ago, it shows their genuine alarm in the face of climate change. As years go by and the government happily misses carbon emission targets by miles the sweat is running and environmentalists are reduced to saying ok then nuclear- it's the "lesser evil". Anything rather than nothing.

I understand this entirely and have had moments of despair when I almost agreed. But it is not the right way to go. It won't fix it, not even temporarily, it will just hand over more power to the wrong people, the ones who've got us into this state in the first place.

The change needed is much deeper.This cannot be fixed with nuclear selotape.We have to change our entire way of doing things. That's all.

[JAStewart]

The problem with global warming in people's mind is that if this summer will be the "hottest on record" people will automatically go "OMG Global warming", but the reality is that Global warming hasn't been raising the temperature by 5, 10, 15 degrees, but by 0.2 degrees.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbHKOM4c6H8

[ArabiaTerra]

The split in environmentalists over nuclear is very interesting. Rather than revealing that people were wrong to discredit it decades ago, it shows their genuine alarm in the face of climate change. As years go by and the government happily misses carbon emission targets by miles the sweat is running and environmentalists are reduced to saying ok then nuclear- it's the "lesser evil". Anything rather than nothing.

I disagree, it does reveal that people were wrong to discredit it decades ago, understandable, but wrong. And now that it turns out that we need it, it is gratifying to see that the more sensible 'Greens' are able to admit their mistake. Nuclear power was never as dangerous as it was made out to be but thanks to the radical greens it was caught up in the paranoia surrounding nuclear weapons and the cold war and so it never fulfilled it's potential as a source of clean energy.

I understand this entirely and have had moments of despair when I almost agreed. But it is not the right way to go. It won't fix it, not even temporarily, it will just hand over more power to the wrong people, the ones who've got us into this state in the first place.

The change needed is much deeper.This cannot be fixed with nuclear selotape.We have to change our entire way of doing things. That's all.

I agree, if you had been saying this 20 years ago. The problem is that, thanks to the prevarication of governments and the lobbying of the fossil fuel industry, we've wasted the 20 years we should have used to change things. Now we don't have time. Now we have to 'sellotape' up the problem before it kills us using the technology we have. We don't have time to wait for fusion to work, or for wave, sloar and tidal technology to mature. It's too late.

 

It's like we've all been living for the last 20 years in a house we knew was a fire risk. We've wasted 20 years arguing about whether or not to rebuild the house and now it's on fire. We can't, now, start rebuilding the house, first we have to put out the fire.

[sheepshagger]

Nuclear power was never as dangerous as it was made out to be but thanks to the radical greens it was caught up in the paranoia surrounding nuclear weapons and the cold war

 

And now there is no cold war for them to worry about those same radical greens are harping on about global warming and you my young friend are just one of many fools caught up in the hysteria.

[ArabiaTerra]

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

 

By the way, I just came across this site. Should be right up your alley. Enjoy.

[justlookin]

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

 

Good come back.

[Ghostrider]

I disagree, it does reveal that people were wrong to discredit it decades ago, understandable, but wrong. And now that it turns out that we need it, it is gratifying to see that the more sensible 'Greens' are able to admit their mistake. Nuclear power was never as dangerous as it was made out to be but thanks to the radical greens it was caught up in the paranoia surrounding nuclear weapons and the cold war and so it never fulfilled it's potential as a source of clean energy

 

Good luck trying to convert the good folks of Chernobyl in to believing that boldened bit.

 

As for the rest, methinks you've been reading the version of history written by those who've always been in the pro-nuclear camp.

 

Back in the day when nuclear power went out of fashion there were so few "enviornmentalists" and greenies 90+% of the population had never heard of them, their opinions and antics were know to very few, and impressed even fewer. No doubt some of the more senior figures within the current "green" camp were among the young and stupid radicals of the movement back in the day, and in their own minds no doubt they think them made a difference, plus it helps bolster up their rep and cred among the younger and more impressionable followers of today. Nuclear power was a dirty word when the greenies were considered nothing more than a bunch of cranks and figures of fun.

 

Much if not all of the reason nuclear power fell from grace is that it was every bit as dangerous as history suggests, not because it needed to be, but simply because the numpties working with did not know enough about about it, or understand it well enough to use it safely. The damn stuff was forever doing things that the nuclear experts of the day "didn't forsee", it was forever turning up in places the nuclear experts of the day had said it shoudn't, it was getting out of control and away from them every so often. The nuclear industry went in to power production because they understood enough to know that they could, they only learned the finer points and drawbacks of their fuel of choice and power production method as they went along from random events and their own mistakes. By some large stroke of good luck no major disasters took place unless Chernobyl, as it was no thank you to the nuclear industy's "experts", too many times despite everything being done the "right" way, according to the "expert" knowledge of the day, situations arose that were emergency damage limitation, which thankfully had enough luck on their side to avert anything major.

 

Despite living through the period when the popularity of nuclear as a source of power plummeted from being tolerated with ill grace to being a dirty word no-one felt comfortable using, my personal feelings on it are quite neutral. The industry has gained up to 30+ years knowledge and experience of their fuel and power production process since the Heath Robinson days that destroyed them, they should be able to run a much safer nuclear power industry today, or at least know that they can't and not try. I would have no problem with developing nuclear power today, if the experts of today can prove that the Fawlty Towers-esque cock-ups they were renowned for the last time they had the job are well and truly behind them. It to me would be a preferable avenue to explore first, rather than some of the steam powered pie in the sky and/or fanciful alternatives being bandied around on some threads elsewhere on this site.

[north]

Let's face, you might as well just end it all today - the end is nigh!

 

'Stop eating lamb and drinking beer if you want to save the planet'

 

Eating less lamb and drinking fewer pints of beer will help save the planet, according to a Government adviser.

 

By Chris Irvine

Last Updated: 2:33PM BST 24 May 2009

 

Diners are being encouraged to eat more pork and chicken instead, as they produce fewer carbon emissions.

 

A Government-sponsored study into greenhouse gases has found that producing 2.2lbs of lamb was the equivalent of releasing 37lbs of carbon dioxide.

 

 

Related Articles - Paranoia Special

 

Fish oils reduce greenhouse emissions from 'flatulent cows'

Climate change 'leading the world into catastrophe'

Ben Fogle: Country Diary

Melting permafrost could trigger 'unstoppable' climate change

Gadgets ?killing the planet?, warns energy watchdog

Power plants could store carbon dioxide under North SeaOther foods such as tomatoes only produce 20lbs of CO2 while potatoes release about 1lb of CO2 for each 2.2lbs of food.

 

Lamb produces so much carbon dioxide because sheep belch so much methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Cows are also damaging, releasing the equivalent of 35lbs of CO2 per 2.2lbs. Previous studies have shown that a herd of 200 cows can produce annual emissions of methane - roughly equivalent to driving a family car more than 100,000 miles on more than four gallons of petrol.

 

The study also found that alcoholic drinks contribute significantly to emissions, with the growing and processing of hops and malt into beer and whisky producing 1.5 per cent of Britain's greenhouse gases.

 

"Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions," said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.

 

Mr Kennedy, who says he has stopped eating doner kebabs because they contain lamb, added: "We are not saying that everyone should become vegetarian or give up drinking but moving towards less carbon intensive foods will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve health."

 

The climate committee is analysing emissions from farming and is set to suggest measures to reduce them.

 

The Carbon Trust, a government-funded firm, is working with food and drink companies to calculate the "carbon footprints" of products.

 

Britain is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050.

 

More than a third of all methane emissions in the country is produced by farm animals. By volume, methane is 20 times more powerful at trapping solar energy than carbon dioxide.

[captain kirk]

I agree that it is too late to sit around debating over what to do now the house is on fire around us. Certainly no point in arguing over whether its actually on fire or it's just a trick of the light. We know it is and we know fossil fuels are doing the damage and you're right AT and co that is enough information about the situation to drag in anything that might help put it out right now.

So I will get over myself and accept that the nuclear option could be the way to bring an end to fossil fuel dependence. It's not clean and it's not cheap but as the primary objective is to get ourselves off fossil fuels it makes sense in theory.

But scientists say we have to have made drastic reductions in carbon emissions by 2015 and gov's own targets are 26% reduction by 2020 but new-build reactors not due to come on stream before 2020 so how will they help now? Not as a stop gap. We need something else but all the money and kudos will go into nuclear. Finland seems to be having trouble with its EPR, now late and over budget and technological problems occurring. What evidence do we have in reality that the nuclear industry is getting its act together on issues of technological improvements, efficiency and transparency?

And there is still the waste issue. Geological depository? Where? How much? Who pays? Communities are supposed to step up and offer their own back yards as possible sites for waste burial in exchange for swimming pools and cake but only two have so far and one of them is Cumbria. Might as well. It's already the site of the "most hazardous industrial building in Europe" according to sellafield's own deputy manager. So we overlook all that and the quoted £73 bn needed to clear it up because that was last time and it will be different this time. But what factual evidence is there for that claim?

Plutonium- that ugly story. Even a fast breeder reactor produces plutonium. Do we let some countries have a nuclear programme while others are prohibited? Who decides? It's worked so well so far. Welcome to the club North Korea.

I get it. I am not some rampant old green wanting to relive my glory days round the campfires of Greenham Common. A new shiny improved nuclear industry might come up with the goods, sometime in the next few decades and all the massive problems that go with it might still be worth curbing fossil fuels. But its not the dead cert that people would like it to be. No more than renewables are. Zero Carbon Britain report maintains that just that- zero carbon emissions- is possible with renewables and sustainable living, excluding nuclear, within 20 years. But is the gov likely to plough millions into that? Certainly not when it has the apparently legitimate option of nuclear to play around with and giant players like E.ON are moving seamlessly from filthy coal power stations to wobbly nuclear.

I laugh heartily at the idea that environmental protesters ever had any influence over the fortunes of the nuclear industry. But a point is being missed in all the ridicule. There are many people around today in the "environmental", call it what you want, movement who believe that global inequality lies at the root of this crisis and until we confront that there is little hope of making the right decisions.

[justlookin]

I cant believe you are still classing the supposed "facts" the IPCC are spouting off as reliable. Its called the Global Warming THEORY!!! For a reason. Not proven. Yet the media neglect the theory part and push it on all you who rely on the BBC for your news( which unfortunately tends to be the majority - they really are none partisan [honest]).

The percentages of Human related CO2 contributions are so small they can't possibly affect sausage all. Not compared to the random natural releases.

Al Gore is whoring all this propaganda for his own personal gains. Why is it the scientists that have realised the IPCC data is flawed and spoken out, have had their funding dropped. Carbon taxes! Not one bit of odds.

[Ghostrider]

I cant believe you are still classing the supposed "facts" the IPCC are spouting off as reliable. Its called the Global Warming THEORY!!! For a reason. Not proven. Yet the media neglect the theory part and push it on all you who rely on the BBC for your news( which unfortunately tends to be the majority - they really are none partisan [honest]).

 

I guess miracles do happen, I never envisioned I'd agree with you on anything, but for once I do.

 

The man made bit of Global Warming, if such a bit does exist, is as yet theoretical science, but the theoretical aspect is being wholly ignored. In exactly the same way as the now infamous "Saddam has WMD's" actually started out as "on the balance of probability Saddam has WMD's". In both cases, stupidly politicians and people in positions that are listened to started using the abbreviated catchphrases, and both incorrect titles have become entrenched.

 

The contempt in which those politicians and other "experts" who stood behind the banner of "Saddam has WMD's" instead of the accurate "on the balance of probability Saddam has WMD's" are now held is well known, those who now stand behind the "Global Warming" banner instead of the accurate "Global Warming Theory" banner risk a similar fate. If they go that way I shall shed no more tears over them as I have for those discredited by standing behind the inaccurate "Saddam has WMD's" banner, but I find it quite scarey that so much is being risked and invested in "combating" an unproven theory, which may yet be proven inaccurate and false.

 

By all means err on the side of caution "in case" there is merit on the theory, but remain open minded and actively searching for other possible causes until there is some actual proof on the table.

 

Yes, I know someone is going to come along with the old mantra that we're already dangerously near the point of no return and must proceed "with all haste and maximum effort" in case the theory is correct. Well, that's all fine and well, if it is, but what if it isn't, what if while maximum haste and effort is being exerted in the current direction, the real reason is standing behind you waiting to be found, if you would just turn round and assess what is there. And by the time the current theory of choice is finally proven a fake, and you do look elsewhere, its going to be too late to do anything about the real reason, that window of opportunity closed behind you a while ago while you were digging for fool's gold.

[ArabiaTerra]

Yes, I know someone is going to come along with the old mantra that we're already dangerously near the point of no return and must proceed "with all haste and maximum effort" in case the theory is correct.

Consider it said.