| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 143941 | 2017-05-19 05:02:00 | An Aussie Tells it.... | B.M. (505) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1435523 | 2017-05-24 04:05:00 | Well, to know that you don't know is perfectly OK and a good place to start. But why do you then conclude that nobody else knows, either? If the proposition that the world is turning to a dessert bothers you, would find it easier to accept that it's turning to custard? Custard certainly goes with dessert, I fully agree there.......................:clap |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1435524 | 2017-05-24 04:44:00 | I thought he was referring to a baked Alaska Terry. | Richard (739) | ||
| 1435525 | 2017-05-24 05:13:00 | And what happens when you try and fix something that isn't broken? Disaster, almost invariably. Co2 alone is the issue here. You will find most of those that disbelieve there is a Co2 issue are actually environmentalists in other ways. I know I have long argued that Councils should pay you to take rubbish to the dump or Transfer Station not use these facilities as a money grab. Last time I checked our council charges $15 for a small trailer when they should be encouraging the people to bring their rubbish to where it can be dealt with professionally. Overly simplistic. Attempting to prevent a potential disaster is more like requiring you to wear a seatbelt than it is trying to fix bones you haven't broken yet. It's about seeing the effect we are having and trying not to make it worse, prevention not repair. I totally agree with the transfer station comments but there is no relevance to it. There is a lot of misinformation on every side of this argument, and it's likely all of us including you have fallen for some of it at some point. But there are a few of things that are well established 1. C02 is a greenhouse gas and does affect global temperatures 2. We as Humans do cause some C02 emissions 3. We have also cleared forests, reducing the natural recycling of C02 Where all the pointless arguments happen are to what extent we are effecting the climate and whether we can do anything about it. The only thing certain is if we do nothing we won't achieve anything. If we try to do something we may still achieve nothing, but it's better to try than not to in my opinion. Incidentally you read a lot more into the name change from global warming to climate change than is actually there. At no point has anyone changed the argument to say it's not still warming, the name change is rather inconsequential whatever the reason behind it, it does not represent any sudden change in argument. I believe it was an attempt to be less confusing for those people who can't separate weather from climate and global averages from local temperatures and weather patterns. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1435526 | 2017-05-24 06:14:00 | Overly simplistic. Attempting to prevent a potential disaster is more like requiring you to wear a seatbelt than it is trying to fix bones you haven't broken yet. It's about seeing the effect we are having and trying not to make it worse, prevention not repair. I totally agree with the transfer station comments but there is no relevance to it. There is a lot of misinformation on every side of this argument, and it's likely all of us including you have fallen for some of it at some point. But there are a few of things that are well established 1. C02 is a greenhouse gas and does affect global temperatures 2. We as Humans do cause some C02 emissions 3. We have also cleared forests, reducing the natural recycling of C02 Where all the pointless arguments happen are to what extent we are effecting the climate and whether we can do anything about it. The only thing certain is if we do nothing we won't achieve anything. If we try to do something we may still achieve nothing, but it's better to try than not to in my opinion. Incidentally you read a lot more into the name change from global warming to climate change than is actually there. At no point has anyone changed the argument to say it's not still warming, the name change is rather inconsequential whatever the reason behind it, it does not represent any sudden change in argument. I believe it was an attempt to be less confusing for those people who can't separate weather from climate and global averages from local temperatures and weather patterns. Overly simplistic. Attempting to prevent a potential disaster is more like requiring you to wear a seatbelt than it is trying to fix bones you haven't broken yet. It's about seeing the effect we are having and trying not to make it worse, prevention not repair. Sorry, but in the case of seatbelts we had a problem, it was well documented and explained and seatbelts were introduced to help with a situation. Air Bags came along later to further assist. Neither were installed in cars on the off chance someone may have an accident. 1. C02 is a greenhouse gas and does affect global temperatures. Are you sure global temperatures are not effecting CO2 levels? There are plenty of Scientists will tell you it’s the global temperatures that effect CO2 levels. ;) 2. We as Humans do cause some C02 emissions. Yes and always have done. It wasn’t that long ago every building was coal fired by inefficient burners and if you ever travelled in a steam train you’d know what pollution was. 3. We have also cleared forests, reducing the natural recycling of C02 Yes and we have also planted and replanted plenty. The only thing certain is if we do nothing we won't achieve anything. There is nothing to be done so nothing positive will be achieved by doing something. Incidentally you read a lot more into the name change from global warming to climate change than is actually there. At no point has anyone changed the argument to say it's not still warming, the name change is rather inconsequential whatever the reason behind it, it does not represent any sudden change in argument. I believe it was an attempt to be less confusing for those people who can't separate weather from climate and global averages from local temperatures and weather patterns. The revelations of “Climategate” killed “Global Warming” in its tracks so the “Spin Doctors” said “Give the Dog another name” and “Climate Change” will stop any argument because you can’t argue climate doesn’t change. Why would you go to so much trouble? MONEY, there’s now Billions of dollars riding on this and the truth is not an option. |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1435527 | 2017-05-24 06:41:00 | You know, I've told myself repeatedly not to engage B.M. in these discussions, and here I am doing it again. I'm aware it's pointless, not sure why I bother. No analogy is perfect, all I meant with the seatbelts is it's about prevention not cure. That point is there to see if you don't choose to ignore it and go off on a deliberate tangent. There are 7.5 billion people in the world, no matter what coal fired burners or steam engines did back when the population was much smaller, we are absolutely emitting more C02 than we have ever done, and have cleared more forests than we have planted. Take a look around rural NZ, farmland everywhere that was once an ancient forest from coast to coast. Signs of the Human effect on the environment are everywhere for anyone with eyes to see. If you choose to not believe it I can't dissuade you, and just because some evidence has been fudged on one side doesn't automatically make some politician with an engineering and coal industry background a more reliable source than environmental scientists. Fudging is going on on both sides of the argument, you just like to point out half of it and ignore the rest. We don't have the whole picture, or an accurate measure of the extent of the issue. That doesn't make it ok to simply ignore the possibility and carry on as if that's the right choice. The only valid argument you have ever made to me is pointing out that predictions haven't proved accurate and figures have been manipulated and misrepresented. Meanwhile you choose to ignore the established science in favour of personally held opinions because once someone has once lied to you apparently that means nobody that has a similar view can ever be trusted again and the whole Idea must be discounted as BS forever. The argument about C02 being caused by temperature has already been addressed in a previous post quite well, if you even read that I'm sure you discounted it immediately without anything more than your own opinion to base that on. These are facts not opinions; C02 is a greenhouse gas Humans do emit C02 and are emitting more now than ever before Humans have Cleared far more vegatation than they have replaced Here's some more science for you to ignore or post someones amateur opinion about: www.newscientist.com skepticalscience.com Heres a summary of some of it in case you missed it, natural processes that produce C02 are part of a cycle that also absorbs and recycles it. Human emissions are one way and we do nothing to recycle it. Some of it is absorbed naturally (about 40%), the rest is accumulating. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1435528 | 2017-05-24 08:10:00 | Let us all meet up here in about 50 or 100 years we may have enough evidence that everyone can agree is valid then. There is no way that there is going to be any agreement now. | CliveM (6007) | ||
| 1435529 | 2017-05-24 09:12:00 | You know, I've told myself repeatedly not to engage B.M. in these discussions, and here I am doing it again. I'm aware it's pointless, not sure why I bother. No analogy is perfect, all I meant with the seatbelts is it's about prevention not cure. That point is there to see if you don't choose to ignore it and go off on a deliberate tangent. There are 7.5 billion people in the world, no matter what coal fired burners or steam engines did back when the population was much smaller, we are absolutely emitting more C02 than we have ever done, and have cleared more forests than we have planted. Take a look around rural NZ, farmland everywhere that was once an ancient forest from coast to coast. Signs of the Human effect on the environment are everywhere for anyone with eyes to see. If you choose to not believe it I can't dissuade you, and just because some evidence has been fudged on one side doesn't automatically make some politician with an engineering and coal industry background a more reliable source than environmental scientists. Fudging is going on on both sides of the argument, you just like to point out half of it and ignore the rest. We don't have the whole picture, or an accurate measure of the extent of the issue. That doesn't make it ok to simply ignore the possibility and carry on as if that's the right choice. The only valid argument you have ever made to me is pointing out that predictions haven't proved accurate and figures have been manipulated and misrepresented. Meanwhile you choose to ignore the established science in favour of personally held opinions because once someone has once lied to you apparently that means nobody that has a similar view can ever be trusted again and the whole Idea must be discounted as BS forever. The argument about C02 being caused by temperature has already been addressed in a previous post quite well, if you even read that I'm sure you discounted it immediately without anything more than your own opinion to base that on. These are facts not opinions; C02 is a greenhouse gas Humans do emit C02 and are emitting more now than ever before Humans have Cleared far more vegatation than they have replaced Here's some more science for you to ignore or post someones amateur opinion about: www.newscientist.com skepticalscience.com Heres a summary of some of it in case you missed it, natural processes that produce C02 are part of a cycle that also absorbs and recycles it. Human emissions are one way and we do nothing to recycle it. Some of it is absorbed naturally (about 40%), the rest is accumulating. You know, I've told myself repeatedly not to engage B.M. in these discussions, and here I am doing it again. I'm aware it's pointless, not sure why I bother. Can’t help you there sorry. Maybe a Mental Health issue? No analogy is perfect, all I meant with the seatbelts is it's about prevention not cure. That point is there to see if you don't choose to ignore it and go off on a deliberate tangent Seatbelts is about “after” the fact not “before” the fact as already explained. There are 7.5 billion people in the world, no matter what coal fired burners or steam engines did back when the population was much smaller, we are absolutely emitting more C02 than we have ever done, and have cleared more forests than we have planted. Show me proof. Explain your rationale to me. Take a look around rural NZ, farmland everywhere that was once an ancient forest from coast to coast. Signs of the Human effect on the environment are everywhere for anyone with eyes to see. Yes our forefathers cleared a lot of land and turned it into farms and no effects CO2 wise were ever recorded. If you choose to not believe it I can't dissuade you, and just because some evidence has been fudged on one side doesn't automatically make some politician with an engineering and coal industry background a more reliable source than environmental scientists. Look at this from a “Court of Law” perspective. You’re a Juror, and one claimant has been known to tell lies and fudge figures, probably for personal gain. They also refuse to table any of their evidence to support their claim. The other tells it straight up and presents a case. Who are you going to find in favour of? Fudging is going on on both sides of the argument. Well we all know about Climategate, so tell us about the other side. We don't have the whole picture, or an accurate measure of the extent of the issue. Well given that, how can you be so sure you’re right? Are we all chasing Fairies down the bottom of the garden whilst being ripped off? That doesn't make it ok to simply ignore the possibility and carry on as if that's the right choice. So now you think we should pay Tax on possibilities! The only valid argument you have ever made to me is pointing out that predictions haven't proved accurate and figures have been manipulated and misrepresented. Well thank you dugi, I rest my case. These are facts not opinions; C02 is a greenhouse gas No kidding, was it once something else? Humans do emit C02 and are emitting more now than ever before. They have been for a very long time but how much more and who measured it? Humans have Cleared far more vegatation than they have replaced. I’ve seen the aftermath of some massive Bush Fires in Australia and can’t believe how fast the bush recovers. I guess the after-growth thrives on CO2 also. Here's some more science for you to ignore or post someones amateur opinion about: Excellent Reference. 8071 Heres a summary of some of it in case you missed it, natural processes that produce C02 are part of a cycle that also absorbs and recycles it. Human emissions are one way and we do nothing to recycle it. Some of it is absorbed naturally (about 40%), the rest is accumulating. So I am expected to believe that we are compounding CO2 at 60% and the CO2 level remains at 0.04%? Do you work in Treasury? :) |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1435530 | 2017-05-24 12:24:00 | Arguing with B.M. about climate change is a bit like being addicted to P; it doesn't do you any good, but it seems irresistable. Let's clear up this name business. 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change' are actually two different things linked by a cause and effect relation. Global Warming refers to the increase in the temperature of the atmosphere and earth's surface due to the absorption of outgoing radiation by 'greenhouse gases' such as CO2, methane & nitrous oxide. Climate change is a consequence of global warming, arising from the increased thermal energy in the atmosphere; sea-level rise is another consquence, due to the melting of glacial and polar ice. Since the principal greenhouse gas is CO2, global warming is also accompanied by ocean acidification, with nasty consequences for sea life. You can have climate change without global warming, but on our planet you can't have global warming without climate change. B.M. says "The revelations of “Climategate” killed “Global Warming” in its tracks so the “Spin Doctors” said “Give the Dog another name” and “Climate Change” will stop any argument because you can’t argue climate doesn’t change." This is total nonsense, and I am sure he knows it is nonsense. At least, I hope he knows it is nonsense... |
Jayess64 (8703) | ||
| 1435531 | 2017-05-24 12:31:00 | Mental Health issues? on both sides most likely. I'm a sucker for a good argument and often find myself arguing cases I don't feel strongly about with people who clearly are not going to be convinced. I've been accused of being contrary more than once. I'm not going to continue after this post B.M. The evidence has already been presented and you ignore it. You post videos of half truths from unqualified people and call that telling it straight up (and not fudging) and presenting a case while choosing to ignore the vast majority of scientists and their evidence. I already linked evidence, and others have before me. You accept none of it, but anyone with a soapbox who agrees with you is happily accepted as unquestionable and honest. Try applying some of that prodigious skepticism to your own sources for a change. I notice you only poked fun of one of my links, the other one too hard for you? More likely you didn't read any of it. I'm very certain you often know what I'm trying to say and enjoy deliberately poking holes not in the point being made but in some other imagined meaning or interpretation. Seatbelts are about preventing injuries, Reducing C02 level is about preventing harm to the climate - the parallel is simple and obvious, but you choose instead to focus on the pedantics of the reasoning behind seatbelts. Your apparent failure at simple maths perhaps helps to explain why you fail at comprehending the arguments. 60% of the C02 we emit is accumulating, 40% is being re absorbed. The total amount is still relatively small and it takes time to have an impact. You can fill a bucket with a trickle of water, even if 40% of it evaporates while you do it. Similarly you can increase atmospheric C02 levels over time by emitting tiny amounts even if 40% of it is reabsorbed naturally. And finally I'd like to try to express my actual stance on all this. I don't know if climate change is significantly effected by Humans or whether it's possible for us to do anything about it. I have never claimed otherwise (regardless of these arguments). What I do believe (yes believe) is that it's impossible for us to not to be affecting the climate at all and irresponsible of us not to try to do something about it. I don't agree with carbon tax as anything other than an inept political/economic attempt to fix something they poorly understand with the only tools they know how to use. I advocate it more because although tax is a terrible way to do this, like the politicians I don't have another solution to offer that anyone will accept. If someone came up with a better plan I'd get behind it. "Ignore it and assume everything will be ok" is not a plan I agree with. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1435532 | 2017-05-25 11:32:00 | Could this solution solve our planet and still have the "hot air" ? newatlas.com | Laggard (17509) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||