Too Hot

[TdC]

But fiery banter is how great arguments occur, and i applaud your passion and the defence you put towards what you believe. At least you have the resolve to continue saying what you believe.

well said imo

 

[rynnor]

Just to clarify since not many people know this, nearly all science is still a theory. Nasa spends hundreds of millions sending probes to far flung reaches of the solar system using "theory". The Science is "relativly" new like an LCD monitor is new technology compared to the invention of the wheel. But like all science you repeat your experiments again and again, when the the results from the various studies all looking at the same thing are all saying the same thing they could be wrong due to a fundemental flaw but they can also be right on. Also what they say seems to make sense, humans are changing the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. We are increasing its greehouse gases. Green house gases = more retained heat. seems simple to me? lots of variables yes. But the simple idea is very easy to understand (if you ever got past your GCSE's)

The difference between guesses about future climate based on wild theories and the theories used by Nasa is that the latter are proveable in a lab and can be used to make predictions that are true.

There are no experiments that can be run on the climate - you can only isolate tiny parts of it and by that isolation render any results dubious at best or irrelevant at worst.

Climate science is a mish-mash of different disciplines all trying to guess what will happen in a black box called the climate - its not really their fault they just lack sufficient data - to make reasonable predictions you'd need at least a thousand years of decent data - all we have is a few decades of decent data and patchy unreliable data before that.

And thats assuming the climate stays basically the same for the thousand years - if its on some 10 thousand year cycle then your buggered really.

I like your simple idea but simple ideas are useless in complex systems.

I fail to see how in a world where for all our advanced computers and Meterological modelling experience that we cannot accurately forecast the weather in a weeks time but how we can suddenly predict the climate in 50 years plus? Answer - we cant...

 

[rynnor]

Except that you can't prove a scientific theory only disprove it. All you can do is carry out scientific experiments to either provide supporting evidence for the theory or to disprove it. So by your standards Tom the Climate change theory can never be proven just like the theory of gravity can never be proven. All that can be done is to amass evidence supporting either of them.

You are comparing two different types of thing here - Gravity is a force - it can be measured and observed through experimentation.

The 'climate' is a bucket term for a large variety of different mechanisms and complex chemical inter-relationships - it cannot be experimentally verified - the best comparison for the climate would be something like economics.

If you'd measured the increase in mobile phone sales in the early 00's you could probably predict they would cover 3/4 of the earths surface by the middle of the century but it wouldnt be sensible.

 

[Trem]

Toms a good lad and so is Furr.

Needless to say they are both bummers

 

[Ch3tan]

No no Tom, you misunderstand. I'm not on either side of the debate, I am just pointing out what an arrogant cock you sound by mentioning (at every oppurtunity) how much fuel you've burnt today.

 

[rynnor]

I believe in what is observed. I am not religious i do not believe is divine rule. Prediction based on a set of rules following observations is what i believe. And in this case the amount of data that indicates we are chaging things outweighs the data showing otherwise.

I think you are being too modest.

Global warning began as with most faiths with a few outspoken prophets of doom trying to scare the masses into supporting them - their grandiose threats amounted to a pretty classical version of do as we say or youll go to hell.

People who believe in global warming accept it as a matter of faith ignoring arguements or evidence that go against their new orthodoxy.

Perhaps you should apply for a tax break?

 

[Tom]

No no Tom, you misunderstand. I'm not on either side of the debate, I am just pointing out what an arrogant cock you sound by mentioning (at every oppurtunity) how much fuel you've burnt today.

Well just for you I think I'll burn some more then.

But I think you should realise that I know a bit about cars, and that my car is in much better condition than most cars of that age. Also, my car won't be heading to the scrap yard any time soon. In fact I intend to get 300,000 miles out of it (its a Merc E-class diesel currently at 170,000). The next TVR I buy will mean I own 2 cars with a combined engine capacity of more than 7 litres, which will no doubt piss the greenies right off.

Oh, and my exhaust broke this week. I'm having it replaced with a second hand unit from a car being broken. Most people would just go and buy a new one. I should also tell you that I'm repairing the old one (at £350 for one section its not worth throwing it away), and that I'll very likely rip the catalyser out of it.

One more thing, my car currently has half a tank of vegetable oil in it. Asda's finest. So screw you Gordon Brown, you won't be getting any fuel duty from me while this weather lasts!

 

[Mofo8]

Well just for you I think I'll burn some more then.

Even if you aren't sold on the idea of humans adding to climate change (cause only a fuckwit would deny climate change itself hasn't happened regularly throughout the planet's history), aren't you in favour of conserving resources like oil? I hope I don't have to point out that the supplies are dwindling somewhat. Or are you just a selfish tory cnut?

 

[Tom]

Case closed tbfh.

 

[Wij]

Too hot to type but I'm with Rynnor for once

 

[Louster]

No, that's still not the case. The prevailing opinion is that some of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Opinions vary wildly over just how much, depending on who's axe is being ground at the time.

I took that quote from here, although it pops up all over the place (referencing here).

Frankly, I have this feeling that a lot of opinion expressed on here is "gut", and to be honest I'm extremely doubtful that anyone is even remotely qualified in the relevant fields or otherwise able to back up their views. I know I'm not, but given the virtual consensus of scientific opinion, it seems quite plausible to me. In any case, figuring out the reasons for existing phenomena based on observation is a lot more of a science than predicting the future.

One last wikipedia link. I think this sentence rather sums up my point.

While there is little debate among climate scientists, there is an ongoing debate about global warming theories in the popular media

 

[DaGaffer]

I took that quote from here, although it pops up all over the place (referencing here).

Frankly, I have this feeling that a lot of opinion expressed on here is "gut", and to be honest I'm extremely doubtful that anyone is even remotely qualified in the relevant fields or otherwise able to back up their views. I know I'm not, but given the virtual consensus of scientific opinion, it seems quite plausible to me. In any case, figuring out the reasons for existing phenomena based on observation is a lot more of a science than predicting the future.

One last wikipedia link. I think this sentence rather sums up my point.

See what I mean about axes being ground? Go and read some of the precis in that Wiki and you can see the author(s) of the Wiki is guilty of editorialising to suit their interpretation of the facts. Some of the comments say 'most', some say 'we still can't be certain', some say, 'warming has been increasing for 200 years' . And if you delve into the various journals the picture changes again; there is no consensus on how long warming has been going on for, how much the planet has actually warmed, how much it is likely to warm or how much of the contribution is man-made. Sure, they all say its happening, and they all say there's a man-made element, but that hardly matters when no-one can agree on specific measures. Now how are you supposed to form a policy to react to this when you don't really know any of the variables? And as I said in the rest of the post, does it matter? If the proposed 'solution' is a global energy constraint for ever, I ain't buying.

 

[dysfunction]

Even if you aren't sold on the idea of humans adding to climate change (cause only a fuckwit would deny climate change itself hasn't happened regularly throughout the planet's history), aren't you in favour of conserving resources like oil? I hope I don't have to point out that the supplies are dwindling somewhat. Or are you just a selfish tory cnut?

No why should we conserve oil? Use it all up I say. Then we can get some other fuel thats better, cheaper, freely available and isnt a limited resource.

If the big energy companies had worked hard decades ago to make other renewable resources as wide spread and "cheap" as oil we would all be a lot better off.

twat

 

[dysfunction]

Ive not read this whole thread as there is too much but I'm not convinced that humans are entirely to blame for so called Global Warming.

I believe there are cycles that the Earth Naturaley goes through especially with the continents drifting etc etc. What I mean is it goes through Ice ages and "Hot Ages" and I think we are entering a Hot Age which will be followed by another Ice Age.

Our polluting of the Atmosphere may have an effect on this warming process but I think it would happen anyway.

There was a documentary a while ago where they had been monitoring a glacier. This glacier has been shrinking for the past 200 to 300 years. I think it shrank about 1/3 in the first 100 years. You cant tell me we were polluting the Earth so much back then that it would cause this...

 

[nath]

No why should we conserve oil? Use it all up I say. Then we can get some other fuel thats better, cheaper, freely available and isnt a limited resource.

It's not fuel that's the issue so much as products that come from oil. Medical supplies and other such important things.

 

[Insane]

My brain... it swells in the heat....

(its not me btw, in case anyone thinks otherwise )

 

[dysfunction]

It's not fuel that's the issue so much as products that come from oil. Medical supplies and other such important things.

It doesnt matter what its used for. The companies that rely on oil should have, by now, found alternatives for their products....there is more than one way to skin a cat as they say

 

[nath]

I don't think you realise just how much stuff comes from it - I'd tell you but I forgot and can't find the site that had all this interesting info.

:\

 

[Insane]

there is more than one way to skin a cat as they say

So pulling it backwards through a mangle isnt the best idea???

crap, that might explain why so many people dont like to eat pussy...


*badum-tish*

 

[dysfunction]

I don't think you realise just how much stuff comes from it - I'd tell you but I forgot and can't find the site that had all this interesting info.

:\

I do realise. I saw a list somewhere myself but thats not the point. These companies know oil is limited and yet make no effort to use something different because it costs to much.

Its like car manufacturers. How long does it take them to develop an engine that doesnt use petrol or diesel ffs??
Its only recently in this country that you can start buying alternative fuel cars from a mainstream dealer....

So pulling it backwards through a mangle isnt the best idea???

No....you need to boil it alive first and the rest you can work out on your own.

 

[nath]

Well then why would they willingly move over earlier than necessary if it costs too much?

 

[dysfunction]

Well then why would they willingly move over earlier than necessary if it costs too much?

To make it cheaper...it only cost too much cos they have to do initil development but once you get economies of scale the costs reduce.

But its easier just to stick with oil cos we have ages yet ebfore it runs out. We'll worry about it then is their attitude.

 

[Trem]

I am quite sure there is quite a few different methods other than oil but the oil companies like to bury that stuff under the rug.

Can you see a fat texan bloke being bothered about the enviroment etc?

 

[Athan]

And as I said in the rest of the post, does it matter? If the proposed 'solution' is a global energy constraint for ever, I ain't buying.

The problem is that the alternative to doing that voluntarily may well be it being forced on us when the only energy means left are low-yield....

-Ath

 

[Mofo8]

No why should we conserve oil? Use it all up I say. Then we can get some other fuel thats better, cheaper, freely available and isnt a limited resource.

If the big energy companies had worked hard decades ago to make other renewable resources as wide spread and "cheap" as oil we would all be a lot better off.

twat

Erm... if you take a look around you you'll be hard pushed to list things that aren't either made from oil (like most plastics) or use oil as energy in their manufacture. Computers, CDs, DVDs, cars themselves, pesticides, fertilisers, etc., etc. What are we going to use to replace all that plastic? Wood? Paper? (oh... sorry, that's wood again), some kind of alien technology from Roswell?

You reckon we should just use the oil up and THEN try and find alternatives? Mmmhhhh.... that'll suck. We should use what's remaining more efficiently and force oil companies to put more of their massive profits into researching and developing alternatives.

I'd love to see someone like Tom in his eighties driving along in a wooden car driven by electricty at blistering speeds of up to 10mph or something

 

[DaGaffer]

The problem is that the alternative to doing that voluntarily may well be it being forced on us when the only energy means left are low-yield....

-Ath

That's why I said in an earlier post that efforts need to be concentrated on energy independence and efficient energy storage. Concentrating on CO2 reduction for its own sake is a mistake, especially when put in the hands of politicians, who with the best of intentions can make bad decisions based on bad advice.

To use a very relevant example; when the first clean air laws for cars were introduced, the legislators insisted on catalytic convertors as the only legal solution (this happened in the US initially and the EU followed suit). The car manufacturers disagreed with this but given their previous sins (look at the history of General Motors and lead additives for an example), they were ignored. The result is all cars use catalytic convertors, despite the fact they need an extremely scarce natural resource (platinum) to work. Honda and others have demonstrated alternate lean burn solutions that give the same or better CO2 and NOx reductions as catalytic convertors but they wouldn't be able to sell such vehicles. See? Good intentions, bad advice.

 

[dysfunction]

Erm... if you take a look around you you'll be hard pushed to list things that aren't either made from oil (like most plastics) or use oil as energy in their manufacture. Computers, CDs, DVDs, cars themselves, pesticides, fertilisers, etc., etc. What are we going to use to replace all that plastic? Wood? Paper? (oh... sorry, that's wood again), some kind of alien technology from Roswell?

You reckon we should just use the oil up and THEN try and find alternatives? Mmmhhhh.... that'll suck. We should use what's remaining more efficiently and force oil companies to put more of their massive profits into researching and developing alternatives.

I'd love to see someone like Tom in his eighties driving along in a wooden car driven by electricty at blistering speeds of up to 10mph or something

No not at all. They should have developed alternatives years ago. I'm certain they could use other things instead of oil. They just choose not to. I think we should use the oil up quicker to force the companies to make use of alternatives quicker. thats the way forward...

 

[rynnor]

Even if you aren't sold on the idea of humans adding to climate change (cause only a fuckwit would deny climate change itself hasn't happened regularly throughout the planet's history), aren't you in favour of conserving resources like oil? I hope I don't have to point out that the supplies are dwindling somewhat. Or are you just a selfish tory cnut?

Actually, you should be persecuting people who fly rather than car drivers - a short haul flight one way produces as much CO2 as three months small car driving and isnt even taxed - plus Toms super green and dilutes his fuel with Sunflower oil...

 

[rynnor]

It's not fuel that's the issue so much as products that come from oil. Medical supplies and other such important things.

There will always be viable oil around for small volume usage - it just wont be viable as a mass fuel.

 

[rynnor]

No not at all. They should have developed alternatives years ago. I'm certain they could use other things instead of oil. They just choose not to. I think we should use the oil up quicker to force the companies to make use of alternatives quicker. thats the way forward...

It will happen in its own time - despite the interest at the moment theres no great rush as yet in terms of oil stock shortages - most likely any progress will be because nations want to lessen their dependence on the middle east rather than impending lack of oil.