I cant believe I just read what I read...

[Opt1]

Tonnes eh? Wow. Never there before? Thats a new one. Perhaps you should ask your scientists to educate you.

Wake up son.

Sorry, when in history have their been millions of people burning as much as possible, cutting down the one thing that helps regulate it and not giving a toss?

I am awake, but you're obviously missing my point.

*Gives up*

*Moves to where pez lives*

 

[pez]

No there isn't.

Notice the cyclical nature of CO2 levels prior to 1800 (industrial revolution era) and then the break in the 400 millenia tradition.

/shrug you're probably just trying to be obtuse for the sake of it but incase you genuinely are this ignorant, check it out, you may have your perceptions changed.

 

[Tom]

Sorry, when in history have their been millions of people burning as much as possible, cutting down the one thing that helps regulate it and not giving a toss?

I am awake, but you're obviously missing my point.

*Gives up*

*Moves to where pez lives*

Whats wrong with burning things? Forests burn all the time, it encourages regrowth and diversity and also improves the quality of the soil, and its ability to retain nutrients.

What 'one thing' exactly are people cutting down that helps to regulate co2?

 

[Tom]

Notice the cyclical nature of CO2 levels prior to 1800 (industrial revolution era) and then the break in the 400 millenia tradition.

/shrug you're probably just trying to be obtuse for the sake of it but incase you genuinely are this ignorant, check it out, you may have your perceptions changed.

Nice graph. Maybe you should note the 800 year lag between temperature changes that precede co2 changes.

400,000 years is nothing. Heres a pretty graph for you:

Now looking at that graph of the world's history, what would you say the average temperature should be - and what should in theory be happening to global temperature right now, especially following an ice age?

 

[Opt1]

What 'one thing' exactly are people cutting down that helps to regulate co2?

Trees.

And sure, forests burn all the time.

However, the millions of gallons of oil, the tonnes of coal and gas however have served to lock up all the CO2 that existed in the atmosphere over the past few hundred millions (or few billions) of years.. and this allowed life as we know it to exist.
So, seeing as we're burning it all at once (50 years left for oil, 200 for coal, somewhere around there for gas or thereabouts iirc), that ain't such a good thing.

And, tbh, that graph's a bit naff, considering the scale along the bottom deals in 100s of millions of years - it does nothing to highlight the nature of the changes of the last 150 or the last 30000.

Seriously, watch An Inconvenient Truth and you'll see the evidence that can be found in Nature, etc. if you bother to read it.

Tbh, I'm baffled at how little some people here can give a s**t about other people in the world in places like Africa, or what we're doing to this planet, just because the timeframe's a little bigger than we're used to.

It's all very well saying there's nothing we can do and that it's beyond us.. but people used to say that about flying and electricity. Hell, I bet people used to say that about coal powerstations.. and now you're saying it about renewable energy sources and global warming..

 

[Tom]

What, trees are the 'one thing' that help regulate co2?

Are they?

How exactly does oil buried in the ground allow life as we know it to exist?

Why is burning it not a good thing? It enables us to have all the nice things we enjoy (like the computer you're sat at right now, shows you care about the environment doesn't it), to live longer healthier lives. It will also enable our descendents to have even better things and more advanced technologies. Unless you'd like to go back 500 years and eat turnips?

The graph isn't naff at all. Its quite clear. What your statement demonstrates is your inability to think in terms of anything other than a human lifespan.

And really, an Incovenient Truth is about as unscientific as you can get. Does it still prattle on about the Mann hockey stick? Or the ice caps melting (the ones that aren't a long term feature in the planet's history)? An Inconvenient Truth, fucking lol. Next you'll be telling me to watch The Day After Tomorrow.

 

[pez]

Nice graph. Maybe you should note the 800 year lag between temperature changes that precede co2 changes.

400,000 years is nothing. Heres a pretty graph for you:

Now looking at that graph of the world's history, what would you say the average temperature should be - and what should in theory be happening to global temperature right now, especially following an ice age?

400, 000 years is nothing? You're being ridiculous, just because the earth has exisited for billions of years dosen't stop 400, 000 years being an incredibly significant period of time, all the more significant imo than the periods on your graph from millions of years ago simple because other factors are more likely to be similar. CO2 isn't the only factor affecting climate change.

You disputed my statement that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last 400, 000 years. The data, such as it is, that your graph is based off is from rocks, the oldest data of that kind from the antarctic ice core is 650,000 years old. You are simply wrong.

What i was pointing out is that human influence on the environment, specifically CO2 emissions is indisputable. Do you accept that the increase since the industrial revolution is human caused or do you think its coincidence.

I have time for people that argue that the environment can handle more abuse that we are giving it without significant impact, i disagree but atleast they have looked in to it and are not simply covering their eyes and ears and yelling 'ITS ALL NATURAL, WE ARE HAVING NO EFFECT!'

 

[Opt1]

What, trees are the 'one thing' that help regulate co2?
How exactly does oil buried in the ground allow life as we know it to exist?

... Mmmk.

1) No, but they're a pretty damn important component and have been for hundreds of millions of years

2) Oil buried in the ground locks up CO2. This means the CO2 is not in our atmosphere. This means our atmosphere does not cause the earth's climate to be inhospitable to life (as we know it).

Burning it is not a good thing if it fucks over half the planet. Burning it is not a good thing if, with some investment and research, there are alternatives that don't fuck over half the planet.

Just because people want greener alternatives, which do exist and could become viable (coal, oil and gas previously weren't until research was done) ,doesn't mean the world has to take a step back 500 years - that viewpoint is just utterly naive.

And if its such twaddle, why does every major scientific body acknowledge that global warming is a serious problem and one that needs something to be done?

No offence, but I'm going to go with what they think over you.

 

[Opt1]

The graph isn't naff at all. Its quite clear. What your statement demonstrates is your inability to think in terms of anything other than a human lifespan.

No, the opposite.

It demonstrates that I'm aware of the periods where there was no human life as the Earth wasn't able to support it - something we've got to be careful to avoid.

Your argument clearly demonstrates you're unable to imagine such a situation arising as you seem to think that if we ignore the problem and carry on polluting, strip mining, deforesting and burning, "we'll be fine and things will carry on as normal".

 

[Ch3tan]

Or because we hadn't actually evolved yet opti.

 

[Trem]

Quite simply put - there is fuck all we can do to change it. China are not going to stop making their money neither are India. Did I hear somewhere that if the UK stop their polluting for a year China and India would make it up in 3 days, something like that anyway.

This is what the world wanted and now some people moan about it, may as well sit back and see what happens, I do truly believe the earth has cycles like said earlier in this thread.

I tell you what, we should just listen to and trust all the politicians and governments and the scientists paid by them, would that make you happier?

 

[Tom]

400, 000 years is nothing? You're being ridiculous, just because the earth has exisited for billions of years dosen't stop 400, 000 years being an incredibly significant period of time, all the more significant imo than the periods on your graph from millions of years ago simple because other factors are more likely to be similar. CO2 isn't the only factor affecting climate change.

You disputed my statement that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the last 400, 000 years. The data, such as it is, that your graph is based off is from rocks, the oldest data of that kind from the antarctic ice core is 650,000 years old. You are simply wrong.

What i was pointing out is that human influence on the environment, specifically CO2 emissions is indisputable. Do you accept that the increase since the industrial revolution is human caused or do you think its coincidence.

I have time for people that argue that the environment can handle more abuse that we are giving it without significant impact, i disagree but atleast they have looked in to it and are not simply covering their eyes and ears and yelling 'ITS ALL NATURAL, WE ARE HAVING NO EFFECT!'

Your statement that co2 affects global climate change is what I dispute. The graph I posted clearly suggests that no such relationship exists. Since temperature changes precede co2 changes by about 800 years, something that hasn't really been explained satisfactorily by anyone.

Yes, I was wrong to say that you were wrong about the ice core records. I apologise for that.

Yes humans are responsible for recent elevations in co2 levels. But nobody has yet proven that co2 levels are responsible for warming. All predictions are based on computer models. Models that require forcing to produce these predictions. Models that use ground based temperature sensors, some of which are placed at roadsides and in urban areas. Despite ground temperatures not really being a factor in atmospheric temperatures, where most of the warming occurs.

As far as I'm concerned the current climate change agenda is nothing but the rantings of anti-capitalists and socialists who have been deprived of a voice since the downfall of soviet communism, and socialism in this country. They're all hypocritical wankers. And I don't aim that at anyone here.

 

[Tom]

... Mmmk.

1) No, but they're a pretty damn important component and have been for hundreds of millions of years

No they're not. Trees don't really do much about co2. There aren't that many of them. There are however many organisms on this planet that do regulate co2, such as plants and algae. Trees are just big wooden things that people get irate about.

2) Oil buried in the ground locks up CO2. This means the CO2 is not in our atmosphere. This means our atmosphere does not cause the earth's climate to be inhospitable to life (as we know it).

Look again at the graph above. Look at current global co2 levels. Look at what they were in the Jurassic period.

Burning it is not a good thing if it fucks over half the planet. Burning it is not a good thing if, with some investment and research, there are alternatives that don't fuck over half the planet.

But it won't fuck over half the planet. In fact, the countries which exploit oil appear to be doing very well, with good life expectancy, low infant mortality, nice green clean spaces, nice clean rivers, and good levels of technological research. The very research you want.

Just because people want greener alternatives, which do exist and could become viable (coal, oil and gas previously weren't until research was done) ,doesn't mean the world has to take a step back 500 years - that viewpoint is just utterly naive.

Try telling that to the Heathrow protesters, who fail to understand that building a 3rd runway reduces congestion and actually saves energy.

And if its such twaddle, why does every major scientific body acknowledge that global warming is a serious problem and one that needs something to be done?

No offence, but I'm going to go with what they think over you.

Of course global warming is a serious problem. Of course something needs to be done. What doesn't need to happen is introducing measures which cripple economies and leave us worse off, for no appreciable change.

 

[Tom]

No, the opposite.

It demonstrates that I'm aware of the periods where there was no human life as the Earth wasn't able to support it - something we've got to be careful to avoid.

Your argument clearly demonstrates you're unable to imagine such a situation arising as you seem to think that if we ignore the problem and carry on polluting, strip mining, deforesting and burning, "we'll be fine and things will carry on as normal".

Bollocks. There was no human life because homo-erectus and related species hadn't evolved. Not because there were high levels of co2 in the atmosphere.

Oh, my argument doesn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that I've read an awful lot more about this than you'd care to think, and I've had the temerity to arrive at my own conclusions about all this. You've just watched a rather shit film by a fat failed politician (who lives in a very big mansion and flies all around the world promoting his man-bear-pig faith). I think you're rather ignorant tbh.

 

[Chilly]

All predictions are based on computer models. Models that require forcing to produce these predictions. Models that use ground based temperature sensors, some of which are placed at roadsides and in urban areas. Despite ground temperatures not really being a factor in atmospheric temperatures, where most of the warming occurs.

Tom, the guys writing these models tend to have more degrees than most entire households combined, do you really think they can't do a simple urban correction for measured temperatures? Just because you cant understand how to go from a ground reading to a generalised atmospheric reading does not mean it cannot be done. The fact is that these models are indeed wrong, but they improve every day and bring down the errors.

I dont know about the rest of you, but I for one am entirely happy to trust 100% Nature magazine. It's not a propaganda machine, its not government funded (in any politically meaningful way) and it's written by people a lot more clever than any of us. They say it's our fault, and there are things we can do.

 

[Chilly]

But it won't fuck over half the planet. In fact, the countries which exploit oil appear to be doing very well, with good life expectancy, low infant mortality, nice green clean spaces, nice clean rivers, and good levels of technological research. The very research you want.

You seen a ship-breaking beach in India or China recently? You seen a landfill site recently? You seen tankers of pollution being taken to 3rd world countries to be dumped recently? The only reason us rich bastards have a nice clean environment is because we either ship it overseas and let some other poor ***** get cancer from all the shit in it, or we bury it and pretend its a sensible solution.

 

[JingleBells]

Attached is conclusive scientific proof, and with the number of pirates apparently rising, CO2 is bound to decrease.

 

[Chilly]

MY geography teacher had a good graph similar to yours, illustrating the link between ice cream sales and number of cases of sunburn. ZOMG ICE CREAM CAUSES SUNBURN!

 

[Opt1]

But it won't fuck over half the planet. In fact, the countries which exploit oil appear to be doing very well, with good life expectancy, low infant mortality, nice green clean spaces, nice clean rivers...

Ehhhm, Lol.. Chilly said enough, I cba to add more.

Of course global warming is a serious problem. Of course something needs to be done. What doesn't need to happen is introducing measures which cripple economies and leave us worse off, for no appreciable change.

On this I agree completely, fair point.

And ffs lol, I've not simply watched "a shit film". Fair play to looking into things and coming up with your own conclusions - this is what I've also done - but personally I'm inclined to trust what I've read in Nature and elsewhere and I trust the opinions of the scientific bodies asked to look into the problem. Pretty much the only ones being critical of the problem are the ones funded by oil companies. Funny that.

And aye you're right on the plants and algae point - I knew that (honest lol), but beer was obviously interfering with brain.

 

[Opt1]

MY geography teacher had a good graph similar to yours, illustrating the link between ice cream sales and number of cases of sunburn. ZOMG ICE CREAM CAUSES SUNBURN!

The number of toothbrushes per square km directly correlates with the murder rate..

*hides*

 

[Chilly]

heh

 

[Tom]

You seen a ship-breaking beach in India or China recently? You seen a landfill site recently? You seen tankers of pollution being taken to 3rd world countries to be dumped recently? The only reason us rich bastards have a nice clean environment is because we either ship it overseas and let some other poor ***** get cancer from all the shit in it, or we bury it and pretend its a sensible solution.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Funny how local government recycling schemes seem to feed these problems. Remember that when your local council fines you for putting an envelope in the wrong bin.

 

[nath]

Attached is conclusive scientific proof, and with the number of pirates apparently rising, CO2 is bound to decrease.

A fellow Pastafarian I see! All hail His Noodly Appendage!

 

[Scouse]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Rich 'can pay poor to cut carbon'

Let's spend all day moaning about global warming and telling everyone to turn their TV's off, and then just forget about it...

Paying poor countries to use less fossil fuels so WE can live an absurdly luxurious lifestyle at the expense of their economy (sound familiar? Empire-thinking) is just fucking wrong.

I'm getting sicker and sicker of government attitude to the environment: its all half assed measures that do nothing. Germany actually said that by increasing their emissions, they will be decreasing their emissions.....yeah nice one.

Carbon trading is a scam, its a waste of time and a diversion to make us think we are helping. What we SHOULD be doing is pouring 5% of our GDP into fusion research and just get it fucking done. None of this fucking about with tiny £50Bn budgets and squabbling over where the tokamak goes.

Grrr!

Being a few days late I've not bothered reading this thread. I've read a million of them and they're all the same.

The only thing I've got to say (and I won't be back to read the response) is that any fucker who disagreed with the first post is a fucking idiot.



I thank you

 

[dysfunction]

Sorry, when in history have their been millions of people burning as much as possible, cutting down the one thing that helps regulate it and not giving a toss?

Yes trees do pay an important part of regulating CO2. However the sea absorbs quite a lot more than trees do. We would be better off growing sea plants to help produce Oxygen and absorb CO2 rather than worry about trees. I don't see many forests in the UK being cut down and not replaced.

You would need to get South America to sort that one out. And good luck with that by the way. Many people in the world like to eat beef. And South America like to supply the world with beef. And a good way to do this is to make a nice big piece of land avail by cutting down forests which do not bring them any income.

My point being is that the UK can do whatever it likes but the fact remains that places like China, South America, India, and Africa are going to carry on doing exactly as they please no matter what the UK says or does.

Oh and oil reserves will last much longer than the next 50 years. that 50 year thing is just bollocks. The so called "dried up" oil fields still have loads of oil in them. Its just easier for them to find new oil fields to extract the oil....and cheaper.

"An inconvenient Truth" is full of shit as well. It's so easy to make a film like that with slanted truths and so called facts. Its another Michael Moore type of film which can be disputed.

Climate change is worrying. Should we be concerned? Yes. Can we do anything about it? No. Perhaps we will become extinct. Who knows. I doubt it though. There are too many people on this planet for all of to be supported anyway. There will come a time when the balance is so skew there will be billions of us dying off. Its natures way of keeping a balance.

Its the story of the Rabbits and the Foxes...highs and lows of population growth. Its looks like we are about to have a low...

 

[Opt1]

My point in the above quote wasn't that we must desperately stop doing everything, just that in the last 100 years we HAVE been doing those things - and for us to expect there to be no knock on effects to the planet is plain silly.

..and so we have to do something. We just have to work out what it is. Unfortunately, governments are a bit shit at this as they go for what's 'trendy' and what'll score them votes, not lose them.

And aye, I've conceded my brain was on leave with the trees thang.. but the ocean's aren't safe just because no one's taking an axe to them.. Accelerating Loss of Ocean Species Threatens Human Well-Being

Also, if global warming were to occur, it's predicted that there'd be a massive loss of plant species across the world.. which ain't good, and I'm sure there'd be a considerable lag before the remaining species able to survive would replace that loss.


But meh.. I hope those of you that disagree are right, because if so we're all laughing. If you're not then we're pretty screwed.

 

[Chilly]

My point in the above quote wasn't that we must desperately stop doing everything, just that in the last 100 years we HAVE been doing those things - and for us to expect there to be no knock on effects to the planet is plain silly.

..and so we have to do something. We just have to work out what it is. Unfortunately, governments are a bit shit at this as they go for what's 'trendy' and what'll score them votes, not lose them.

And aye, I've conceded my brain was on leave with the trees thang.. but the ocean's aren't safe just because no one's taking an axe to them.. Accelerating Loss of Ocean Species Threatens Human Well-Being

Also, if global warming were to occur, it's predicted that there'd be a massive loss of plant species across the world.. which ain't good, and I'm sure there'd be a considerable lag before the remaining species able to survive would replace that loss.


But meh.. I hope those of you that disagree are right, because if so we're all laughing. If you're not then we're pretty screwed.

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but assuming that actions we take having an impact on the climate is very difficult to prove. The Earth is a very, very large and very, very complex dynamic equilibrium system with everything tending toward some goal. It would be ignorant to assume that it could not easily self-correct any problems we do cause without good evidence. I think that evidence does exist, though, so the argument should shift from "if" to "what do we do".

At the end of the day, our planet doesnt give a shit - we are only hurting ourselves, not the environment (it will recover easily).

 

[Opt1]

Aye.

I really do hope everyone is wrong on global warming and man isn't contributing and its all down to celestial/orbit phenomena - I'd like to be wrong.. but currently that's the way climate experts think things are going.. hopefully it will change.

Tbh, either way, I don't think we can afford to think its Ok to do what the hell we like to the planet, esp. with so many developing nations getting up to speed. The West is rich enough right now, we can cope with cutting back and we can cope with encouraging/helping other, less able countries to do the same.

I don't get why countries don't help one another out more tbh.. unfortunately most just want to make a profit and an economical gain off the other's backs and dare not contemplate sacrificing some economic increase to help others out =S

But aye, maybe I do need to "wake up" and stop being so much of a carebear.. but I always liked the carebears.

 

[throdgrain]

Its not just what we should be doing. We are a tiny country, as one of the politicians said, we could turn off Great Britain completely, pull the plug, and China would have absorbed the shortfall in a couple of days.

As usual people in our country think we are the most important in the world, when really our actions dont matter at all. Yes, recycle, it helps our country by saving on great big piles of rubbish everywhere, but no lets not allow the government to add extra taxes to things on a "save the world" bullshit agenda thats really just an excuse to get more money off us and give more power to faceless twats in grey who really dont deserve it.

This government sends billions that they've borrowed (!!!!) to various African states. Why? To reinforce its own self-importance, thats why. If the money didn't get diverted to feed cloth and arm various warlords armys (unlikely I know), even if it didnt, what would the result of raising the lifestyle of millions of people in Africa? They would get enough money to understand how stuff works, some education, a passport. Then they would just come HERE! Its a fucking lose-lose situation chaps, and no mistake .

 

[DaGaffer]

Its not just what we should be doing. We are a tiny country, as one of the politicians said, we could turn off Great Britain completely, pull the plug, and China would have absorbed the shortfall in a couple of days.

As usual people in our country think we are the most important in the world, when really our actions dont matter at all. Yes, recycle, it helps our country by saving on great big piles of rubbish everywhere, but no lets not allow the government to add extra taxes to things on a "save the world" bullshit agenda thats really just an excuse to get more money off us and give more power to faceless twats in grey who really dont deserve it.

This government sends billions that they've borrowed (!!!!) to various African states. Why? To reinforce its own self-importance, thats why. If the money didn't get diverted to feed cloth and arm various warlords armys (unlikely I know), even if it didnt, what would the result of raising the lifestyle of millions of people in Africa? They would get enough money to understand how stuff works, some education, a passport. Then they would just come HERE! Its a fucking lose-lose situation chaps, and no mistake .

I think you might want to think that one through a bit Throd. If the economic life of Africans was improved, in Africa, it would reduce the chances of them wanting to come here, not raise them. Believe it or not, most Africans and Asians coming to this grey, wet, overcrowded shitehole don't actually want to come, but this is the best way to feed their families back home. If they could do that there, they wouldn't need to do it here. The problem is simply that the phrase "honest politician" is an oxymoron in most countries, but especially so in Africa, so despite all his big gestures, Gordon Brown (and I do think he's genuine in his desire to fight poverty, unlike Blair) is wasting his time throwing our money at Africa, because as you say, it won't improve the life of the locals one bit, bit will provide quite a few armour-plated Mercedes' and offshore bank accounts for the African elites. Ironically, he only think that can save Africa is globalisation, because corporations will build political greed into their P&Ls but will still actually pay workers directly, something aid doesn't do.