By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Indeed. Problem being that in the main, scientists not working for the big institutions getting millions in research funding are having their work shunned and ignored because the results are not what the establishment want to see.
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
1
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 13:39 - Oct 10 with 1786 views
And therein lie the problems " thought to be" and what constitutes "excess", If man contributes 3% pa to a level of 415m ppm, how much of that 3% is the developed world responsible for 1 maybe 2 ppm? Why isnt the stinky rebellion mob protesting in China or Africa, places that account for over 80% of the 3%? And what if we cut CO2 levels and then we find that plants start to die and cant survive or simply that harvests become smaller... followed by the loss of insects that depend on the plants, not to mention the starvation of billions? Who do you trust to make those decisions? Dont forget, once upon a time the "settled science" was that the Sun rotated around the Earth, indeed Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for repeating Copernicus' theory that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. And Al Gore told us Polar Bears would now be extinct...Oops.
Even for a dyed in the wool climate change denier, I would hope that the idea of continuing to burn finite fossil fuels, needless single use packaging and wanton pollution and destruction of nature are bad ideas.
Exploring alternative fuel sources, recycling and not shitting on your own doorstep by deforestation, landfill, dumping crap into oceans should be common sense?... They're not exactly radical ideas.
I think ER are fighting a losing battle as the UK alone (or any similar sized developed economy) wouldn't make much of a dent on a global scale. Disrupting the average joe going about their work day doesn't exactly win a battle of hearts and minds.
I guess the idea is that if they force the UK/US/EU and other developed economies play by the "rules" then we'd make China/Russia/India do the same. I can't see that happening though. That said I don't understand why there's an argument that just because XYZ-istan doesn't do something neither should we.
Bury don't pay their players on time, neither should Dale. Bolton don't play all their games, neither should Dale.
There is no way that we're ever going to reduce CO2 to levels plants can't thrive. Also, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas - methane, generated by animals (belching and farting) is just as damaging. And the link you posted before about H2O being a "greenhouse gas" further supports global warming. Air is getting warmer as the planet gets warmer. It can carry more water because it is warmer. Wash, rinse, repeat. Expect more flooding, monsoons and drought in different areas. Try telling a plant that there's more CO2 around so it should be happy in those circumstances.
As for the assertion that more CO2 is good for plants:
"We do not yet know enough to make adequate projections of the global trends for plant life in a world with higher levels of carbon dioxide, or CO2. It is clear, however, that there can be both positive and negative responses. One of the first things taught in biology class is that animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2, while plants take in CO2 during the day and release oxygen. In a process called “photosynthesis,” plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugar and oxygen. The plants use the sugar for food–food that we use, too, when we eat plants or animals that have eaten plants – and they release the oxygen into the atmosphere. If it were not for plants, we would have no oxygen in our air! So, if we’re putting more CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, you might expect plants to grow better. But the story is not quite that simple. When biologists have grown crops like wheat, soybeans, and rice inside greenhouses with extra CO2 present, the plants have indeed grown more rapidly and more abundantly. For the past several years, scientists all over the world have also been doing a series of experiments called “Free-Air Concentration Enrichment,” or FACE. Instead of using greenhouses, they grow crops in open fields to give them the most natural environment possible and pump in extra CO2 from a network of pipes. The results of these experiments have shown that the crops do not thrive as well in this environment. Plants do need CO2, but they also need water, nitrogen, and other nutrients. Increase one of these without increasing the others and there’s a limit to how much the plants will benefit. Some do not grow much more at all. Others, like wheat, grow bigger but end up with less nitrogen. As a result, insects end up eating more to get the nitrogen they need. The nutritional value of food plants would be similarly reduced for other animals – including humans. Also, we could end up with vegetables that have too much carbon – perhaps producing spinach that would be very tough to chew!"
This isn't hearsay, supposition or projection, it's based on real data from studies.
Does objective truth even exist anymore within the climate change sphere? I honestly believe that all of the numbers are manipulated in some way, shape or form (and no, that's not to say I am a denier or otherwise). At this point, most of the research just feels like agenda driven, points scoring and I couldn't give a shiny shite anymore. Praying for the day that a meteor wipes us out like it did to Mr T. Rex and friends
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 14:45 - Oct 10 with 1659 views
DAlien, your views with regards to Brexit focus upon your belief that it’s institutions are overly bureaucratic, outdated and somehow hinder our economy. When asked to provide specific examples that inform this opinion, you never provide one. You speculate that we will benefit from Brexit in about 20 years or so. When asked what informs this speculation, you resort to hubris. You even once suggested that remainers were just self interested capitalists. This is not reviewing sufficient evidence and/or opinions and making a considered judgment. There’s nothing independent minded about this view whatsoever. You’re perfectly entitled to it but don’t try and give it some intellectual merit.
I also told you my ultimate decision to vote Leave was based on a gut instinct, which even though tic you derided, without reviewing the evidence on the extensive neurochemical links between the brain and the gut; but i'll forgive you, since it's only been fully explored scientifically fairly recently
1. It’s my understanding that some scientists say it hasn’t been brought about by us and the Earth heats up and cools down in cycles. Don’t know whether that’s true either as I said I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject.
2.being lecture to by a bizarre 16 year old scandi chick is weird. I’m not middle aged I’m ten years older then Greta.
3. I don’t know why you’re taking hindrance to the term “rolled out” or “gang of scientists” I merely said I’m not convinced. Basically because I don’t know enough about the subject.
Yeah Except nobody here has denied climate change have they? I did make a corny joke about needing global warming to defrost my car though so you’ve got me there. We get it though a personage of a conservative bent is an ignorant inward looking cretin. If anything I think it’s bizzare how the issue of climate change has become another front on which the culture war is being fought
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 16:26 - Oct 10 with 1524 views
That post was largely borrowed from another article I read so It wasn't aimed at you.
I'm sorry if you're offended (though I don't know why) but I haven't resorted to calling anyone a cretin.
As for no denials on this thread I've spotted a few just on a quick glance.
49thseason “climate change is a hoax” 21:01 9/10/19
kiwidale “That would be me.” [in response to Shun’s “you aren’t convinced that climate change is real?”] 21:24 9/10/19
DorsetDale “…There’s been no warming since 1998…” “…greater concentration of CO2 the better it is for life - animals and plants - to thrive.” 13:24 10/10/19
1
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 17:02 - Oct 10 with 1475 views
FWIW I think the majority of the public, like the majority of scientists, believe in manmade climate change.
Most people want to do their bit to improve things but really what can the average person actually do that they aren't already without significantly worsening their quality of life in the short term?
The solutions aren't realistic or accessible unless you've got loads of money or time on your hands.
I relied on public transport for work for about 12months but I was late all the time so that didn't work in the real-world.
I could get an electric car. But then I'd have to spend a lot more money on it than my current car. I'd need to plan out my journeys and where I charge it and inconvenience myself vs my petrol car.
I could go an shop at the local zero-plastic eco friendly hippy grocery store. But then I'd pay about 3x the price for my food than I do in Aldi.
Most of us are hypocritical to some extent on this matter.
1
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 17:17 - Oct 10 with 1459 views
You’re absolutely right, the deeds of you and me recycling and conserving power won’t make a bit of difference. That’s why people like Greta are lobbying world leaders. She’s only 16 and she’s already smart enough to realise the only way to make real change is to target countries’ leaders, make their inhabitants feel ashamed of them to the point where they might actually do something, such as put real protections in place for one of the most important areas on Earth - the Amazon rainforest.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
