• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

The thing that bugs me about climate change is the fact of you have the yanks and there gas guzzling 4x4's and the chinese and there many polluting factories but if i turn off my t.v at the wall the ice caps will stop melting. We live in stupid stupid times.

One thing i'll never have is an electric car. Maybe a hybrid when im 50 and norwich is under water as predicted by the science scare mongers. I'm not gonna be high and mighty with having a car thats good for the earth. No I want a Jag. A green one to be more precise :icon_lol:
 
So Long Architect said:
I saw a programme a while back where Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize-winning geneticist, discussed climate change with those in both camps and looked at the evidence. I imagine he has a passing familiarity with the scientific method and had the humility to note that he was a geneticist not a climatologist so he couldn't claim to fully understand the science behind it all.

His question to one particular well-known blogger was this:

Imagine you have a particularly nasty cancer. The vast majority of cancer specialists around the world agreed on both the diagnosis and the most appropriate treatment, but there were a few dissenting voices, some of them cancer specialists, some people who come from other spheres but had a different idea on what should be done. Some people even suggested you should do nothing about it.

What would you do? Have the treatment as recommended by the specialists, or follow one of the alternative paths?

And let's be clear - man made climate change *is*accepted by the vast majority of climatologists. Are there doubts and questions? Of course. Are they sufficient to warrant us ignoring the diagnosed problem? I'd say not.
Click to expand...

It was James Dellingpole:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0
 
The Guard Dog said:
The thing that bugs me about climate change is the fact of you have the yanks and there gas guzzling 4x4's and the chinese and there many polluting factories but if i turn off my t.v at the wall the ice caps will stop melting. We live in stupid stupid times.

One thing i'll never have is an electric car. Maybe a hybrid when im 50 and norwich is under water as predicted by the science scare mongers. I'm not gonna be high and mighty with having a car thats good for the earth. No I want a Jag. A green one to be more precise :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

You're right, in that we need India, China and the US to do more, as they're the biggest polluters. But how can we expect them to do something if we're doing nothing, even if any effort on our part would be laregly symbolic?
 
Visage said:
You're right, in that we need India, China and the US to do more, as they're the biggest polluters. But how can we expect them to do something if we're doing nothing, even if any effort on our part would be laregly symbolic?
Click to expand...

Agreed but they wont change and we know they won't.
 
Visage said:
Perhaps, but dont we owe it to future generations to try?
Click to expand...

Future generations are owed this but did the previous generations care about this generation... Not really...
 
china has shit loads more renewable energy than we do. I think our production is around 10% of total capacity. China is way above this due to some of their massive hydro projects. they may have some heavy polutting industry but any idea they, or the US, hasn't embraced renewable energy to some degree sounds a tired myth to me.
 
nimrod said:
china has shit loads more renewable energy than we do. I think our production is around 10% of total capacity. China is way above this due to some of their massive hydro projects. they may have some heavy polutting industry but any idea they, or the US, hasn't embraced renewable energy to some degree sounds a tired myth to me.
Click to expand...

A tired myth would be the loch ness monster... Still I think they need to get there act together. America do use solar power and hydro generators with dams etc etc but still are big polluters.
 
The Guard Dog said:
A tired myth would be the loch ness monster... Still I think they need to get there act together. America do use solar power and hydro generators with dams etc etc but still are big polluters.
Click to expand...

and they don't seem to be doing enough to reduce their energy demand, which could be a better direction for discussion. According to that lovely wiki site, their renewable energy production was 14.3% of electricity production for first half 2011, so again, way ahead of us.
 
Visage said:
So we should continue to base our economy on a dwindling resource that will soon run out, but be subject to ever more dramatic increases in price until it does?

Yeah - that will be great for the economy.
Click to expand...

We are sat on vast sources of conventional fuels that simply need to be extracted by known and developing technologies. Shale gas can and should be a significant part of the mix in this country for market and independence reasons. These resourses should be developed while other technologies such as nuclear are updated and new technologies that really work are found. Good ideas are generally self funding in the long term.
Wind power remains pointless and destructive.
There are many compeling reasons to be energy efficient often because thermal management is an issue, portable devices require maximum useful life and active cooling inducing unwanted side effects.
I'll answer the other posts on here once I have validated a couple of points.
One thing I will say is that Dellingpole a least provides a decent challenge to the main stream media view, rather eloquenty in my view.
 
Last edited:
Visage said:
You're right, in that we need India, China and the US to do more, as they're the biggest polluters. But how can we expect them to do something if we're doing nothing, even if any effort on our part would be laregly symbolic?
Click to expand...

1) Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life and is beneficial in higher concentrations to plant life. Concentrations are less than 400ppm, orders of magnitude less than water vapour.
2) Dangerous pollution, in the west, has largely been eradicated.

I call that a good example, not to mention our rather better human rights record than China.
 
Last edited:
Yes, funnily enough I have. Nice of you to insinuate that I'm uneducated because I don't agree with your views. Appreciated.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
1) Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life and is beneficial in higher concentrations to plant life.
Click to expand...

Except we're not talking about pollution. We're talking about its affect as a greenhouse gas. Take Venus, for example. Its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2, and, despite only receiving 25% of the solar energy that Mercury receives (which has no atmsphere), actually has a hotter surface temperature, due to the greenhouse effect of CO2.
 
Visage said:
Except we're not talking about pollution. We're talking about its affect as a greenhouse gas. Take Venus, for example. Its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2, and, despite only receiving 25% of the solar energy that Mercury receives (which has no atmsphere), actually has a hotter surface temperature, due to the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Click to expand...

Vis, I think you need to check out the atmospheric composition of Venus (90+% carbon dioxide) vs Earth. It is incredibly dense to boot, leading to high surface temperatures. If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius. You guys always ignore galactical, sun, ocean and earth core processes, for what reason I don't know, when they have to dominate. Mercury has no atmosphere and therefore does not have a mechanism for redistributing heat. Like the Moon it will be very hot on one side and fucking freezing on the other. School boy physics.
I'm here to be challenged but please weigh in some verifiable physics.
 
Last edited:
NandoWolf said:
Yes, funnily enough I have. Nice of you to insinuate that I'm uneducated because I don't agree with your views. Appreciated.
Click to expand...

With all due respect please answer my posts with something rational rather than a smilie that suggests that you are wedded to a belief that 'you think' cannot be rationally challenged. I welcome challenge, that is the big deal in this subject matter.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Vis, I think you need to check out the atmospheric composition of Venus (90+% carbon dioxide) vs Earth. It is incredibly dense to boot, leading to high surface temperatures. If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius. You guys always ignore galactical, sun, ocean and earth core processes for what reason I don't know when they have to dominate. Mercury has no atmosphere and therefore does not have a mechanism for redistributing heat. Like the Moon it will be very hot on one side and fucking freezing on the other. School boy physics.
I'm here to be challenged but please weigh in some verifiable physics.
Click to expand...

Where is your verifiable physics when you say 'If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius.'

Your argument hinges on that, yet its nothing more than an unfounded assertion. Where has your oft mentioned devotion to empirical results gone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top