Reply to: David Bellamy on Global Warming

[Swamp Thing]

Isn't it all really down to the cows farting methane?
Perhaps if NL contrived another BSE scare and conducted a large cull, it could then claim the UK had also 'done its bit' to reduce global warming (probably about 0.0000001%, but hey, it's a headline).

[Numptycorner]

It seems to me the stakeholder positions are:

A/ Those who seek to manipulate the debate for their own agenda

B/ Those who do not have an agenda but realise there may be a problem

C/ Those who have a personal resistance to any change and look for justification

Those in A either:

1/ See it as an opportunity to raise revenue
2/ See it s an opportunity to promote green policies
3/ Seek to confuse and confound the debate in order to protect the status quo/vested intrests


Those in B:

are willing to remain open minded and try to untangle it from those in camp A

Those in C
Couldn't really care less, but A/3 makes them feel better.

[Cowboy Bob]

The point is if we are contributing to, would we be happy with the consequences I'm not talking the death ans destruction portrayed in the media, but still major effects on the way we live, the prevailing attitude here is fook the consequences, I'm alright jack. Let London sink under the sea, I'll be long dead.

Absolutely. I'm all for green living and reducing pollution. Just because we are not the underlying cause of the problem doesn't mean we should be happy to help the problem occur at a faster rate.

[Numptycorner]

Perhaps we do, however the media seems to protray it as 100% the fault of man, which is quite wrong.

But then, I've hardly ever read a decently researched media piece on science yet - though some are better than others. If you've ever cringed when reading a technology piece in the paper, you know what I'm talking about...

The point is if we are contributing to, would we be happy with the consequences I'm not talking the death ans destruction portrayed in the media, but still major effects on the way we live, the prevailing attitude here is fook the consequences, I'm alright jack. Let London sink under the sea, I'll be long dead.

[sasguru]

Perhaps we do, however the media seems to protray it as 100% the fault of man, which is quite wrong.

But then, I've hardly ever read a decently researched media piece on science yet - though some are better than others. If you've ever cringed when reading a technology piece in the paper, you know what I'm talking about...

Well the general level of scientific illiteracy in this country is huge and journalists who normally studied English or Meejah Studies don't have a clue.
Come to think of it, many people on this forum, who I assume studied a scientific subject, are not much better.

[Cowboy Bob]

Ah excellent. Now we agree.

Perhaps we do, however the media seems to protray it as 100% the fault of man, which is quite wrong.

But then, I've hardly ever read a decently researched media piece on science yet - though some are better than others. If you've ever cringed when reading a technology piece in the paper, you know what I'm talking about...

[sasguru]

Keyword is "most", which is entirely consistent with what I said, especially over such a short period of time. And I am actually a qualified scientist in this area.

Ah excellent. Now we agree.

[Cowboy Bob]

Wrong again. From the report:

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the
remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [anthropogenic] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

Keyword is "most", which is entirely consistent with what I said, especially over such a short period of time. And I am actually a qualified scientist in this area.

[sasguru]

I watched a BBC science docudrama a year or two back about a manned space-ship touring the planets.

When they got to Venus, which was 450 degrees C and air pressure 100 times what it was on Earth, they said that this will happen to Earth if men continue to use fossil fuel at their current rate.

That's an example of "scientists".

Ah. that's why I prefer to listen to scientists.

[DimPrawn]

Okay, I'll do my bit. I'm getting rid on my 6 litre twin turbo V12 and get a basic 5 litre V8 supercharged at trade in time.

Okay?

[sasguru]

By how much?

If all carbon use stopped today, what effect would it have?

I suspect close to diddly.

Wrong again. From the report:

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the
remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [anthropogenic] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

PS This is getting tedious. It's like arguing with Christians. Criticise the science or shut the feck up. I'm not interested in people's "revealed by voices in my head" opinion.

[Numptycorner]

By how much?

If all carbon use stopped today, what effect would it have?

I suspect close to diddly.

You hope you mean.

Maybe the earth is flat, yes I've decide it's flat! All people who disagree are tree hugging commies, come on someone agree with me then we can declare it as fact. Yes the earth being round is Nu Lie spin!

[DimPrawn]

By how much?

If all carbon use stopped today, what effect would it have?

I suspect close to diddly.

[Cowboy Bob]

Ah well your statements are inconsistent then ....

No they aren't. I'll put it more simply. Global Warming is a natural phenomena that would be happening anyway. The human effects are accelerating this natural process. Better?

[Cowboy Bob]

That might have something to do with the river being narrowed to make it flow faster (that's where the embankment comes from).

Nope, simply because it doesn't freeze upstream anymore either. Neither does any other river in the country freeze 1 foot thick (which is what would be the minimum required to have stalls and hundreds of people out on the ice) like they used to a couple of hundred years ago.