Humanity Itself

[honez 79]

It seems that the cynics have just gone 1-0 up.......

I wouldn't say 1-0, I'd say the cynics have clawed one back, but they're still 11,273 behind coming up to half time.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

It seems that the cynics have just gone 1-0 up.......

I wouldn't say 1-0, I'd say the cynics have clawed one back, but they're still 11,273 behind coming up to half time.

Thats very wrong but very true, sir.

[Body Snatcher 44 107]

It seems that the cynics have just gone 1-0 up.......

I wouldn't say 1-0, I'd say the cynics have clawed one back, but they're still 11,273 behind coming up to half time.

Thats very wrong but very true, sir.

 

No denying the giant iceberg headed straight for us (article) - I for one always try to look on the bright side of such problems...If the iceberg and other like it continually contribute to rising sea-levels, I won't have to drive as far to the beach in order to go surfing.

[Godot 149]

I've just been trawling through this excellent thread. I've been doing a bit of reading around this stuff lately and I've concluded without a shadow of a doubt in my own my mind that we (humans) are indeed stuffed. The question is when. I'm writing something at the moment suggesting that in trying to make things better we make things worse.

 

I've been reading a really good book on mass extinctions, the Medea Hypothesis by Peter Ward. He believes that we have it in us to get ourselves out of the mess that we have created. But after looking at some of the ideas that have been bandied about, like this one, I'm not so sure. I could envisage a scenario where attempts to bio-engineer our way out of global warming, such as iron fertilisation of the sea, will backfire and bugger up the balance of gases in the atmosphere.

 

Ward thinks Lovelock's Gaia idea is bollocks and proposes that living systems are inherently suicidal. In other words life itself prepares the world for its own death. I wonder if we could adapt, as he suggests that some animals might have done in the past, to a world with much higher levels of hydrogen sulphide. Long term, he says, that too little CO2 in the atmosphere (less than 150 parts per million) will likely be the death of us. At present CO2 levels are 380 parts per million and rising with 1,000 ppm seen as the crucial figure, since when that happens all the polar ice will have gone. A Washington scientist, David Battisti, believes that level could be reached in 95 years. So Octi's babe may live to see it.

 

Perhaps we should learn to adapt as the nautilus has done in previous mass extinctions. It would be ironic if the answer to prolonged life in a species was to be found in a squid with a shell.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

Do you know what really pisses me off? The sheer, unadulterated arrogance of the Scientific community who have sold certain sections of the Political movement the absolute horseshit argument that we can change the Earths climate.

Planet Earth, over 4 billion years old ( some have said its much older) has seen Climate change so utterly catastrophic it would make the Haiti Earthquake seem like a bit of a kerfuffle.

We are not even close to being the longest surviving species on this Planet and we probably arent even the most intelligent to have existed YET we have all the answers.

A multi trillion pound Worldwide industry in "Green" services and technology has sprouted up over the last 10 years and, despite plenty of evidence countering the belief that the Human race is the sole archeitect of its doom, we continue to be royally fucked up the arse with punitive taxation and legislation on the pretext that we can "Save the planet".

A classic piece of shite is the idea that we will all be driving hydrogen/Electric cars in years to come.

Why?

Isnt the green ethos about saving energy per se? Why have roads festooned with cars that require electricity to run, which still has a cost to the environment however its generated, when you could have Electric buses, carrying up to 50 odd passengers per vehicle thus eliminating the need for 20 odd cars to be manufactured and run.

Is that not a "greener" solution?

Of course, its got fuck all to do with being green but everything to do with the high levels of tax revenue extracted from the sitting ducks who own cars and the fact that without a motor industry all those millions of workers in car plants world wide would have to be retrained in how to make ecologically sustainable waistcoats out of Potato peel..........or summat.

If we are doomed, and I think we will be at some point in the future, it will be soley down to overpopulation.

One billion Chinese probably breathe out at least 3 billion litres of, diluted, carbon dioxide every couple of seconds.

Surely that is fucking up the Planet more than sporradically placed factories, cars, aircraft and the like.

I really dont understand why, IF, there is so much emphasis on Global warming being man made, no Government has had the gonads to legislate as to how many children people can have ( it may stop those parasitic baby machines in the process...)so that the stabilizing, if not the slow and gradual reduction of the worlds population will do more to "Save the Planet" than any other hair brained scheme doled out to the populace.

Rant over.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

I've been reading a really good book on mass extinctions, the Medea Hypothesis by Peter Ward. He believes that we have it in us to get ourselves out of the mess that we have created.

 

That's a fine choice of book, Godot. I read it last summer when I was searching for and failing to find answers about our possible fate. I remember the last chapter - What Must Be Done - very well, but I still came away from reading it feeling that Peter Ward is just wrong and that we don't have it in us at all to resolve the difficulties we have created. He seemed to have compete faith in mankind's ability to ultimately become collectively more constructive than destructive and I fear he was fundamentally mistaken on that particular point. I've decided I'm more of a Gaia man overall.

 

Do you know what really pisses me off? The sheer, unadulterated arrogance of the Scientific community who have sold certain sections of the Political movement the absolute horseshit argument that we can change the Earths climate.

Planet Earth, over 4 billion years old ( some have said its much older) has seen Climate change so utterly catastrophic it would make the Haiti Earthquake seem like a bit of a kerfuffle.

We are not even close to being the longest surviving species on this Planet and we probably arent even the most intelligent to have existed YET we have all the answers.

A multi trillion pound Worldwide industry in "Green" services and technology has sprouted up over the last 10 years and, despite plenty of evidence countering the belief that the Human race is the sole archeitect of its doom, we continue to be royally fucked up the arse with punitive taxation and legislation on the pretext that we can "Save the planet".

A classic piece of shite is the idea that we will all be driving hydrogen/Electric cars in years to come.

Why?

Isnt the green ethos about saving energy per se? Why have roads festooned with cars that require electricity to run, which still has a cost to the environment however its generated, when you could have Electric buses, carrying up to 50 odd passengers per vehicle thus eliminating the need for 20 odd cars to be manufactured and run.

Is that not a "greener" solution?

Of course, its got fuck all to do with being green but everything to do with the high levels of tax revenue extracted from the sitting ducks who own cars and the fact that without a motor industry all those millions of workers in car plants world wide would have to be retrained in how to make ecologically sustainable waistcoats out of Potato peel..........or summat.

If we are doomed, and I think we will be at some point in the future, it will be soley down to overpopulation.

One billion Chinese probably breathe out at least 3 billion litres of, diluted, carbon dioxide every couple of seconds.

Surely that is fucking up the Planet more than sporradically placed factories, cars, aircraft and the like.

I really dont understand why, IF, there is so much emphasis on Global warming being man made, no Government has had the gonads to legislate as to how many children people can have ( it may stop those parasitic baby machines in the process...)so that the stabilizing, if not the slow and gradual reduction of the worlds population will do more to "Save the Planet" than any other hair brained scheme doled out to the populace.

Rant over.

 

Top rant LFN , hope you're feeling better now.

 

You are wrong about global warming and the scientific community is right. They are not arrogant, they are trying, in vain, to save us. We are in very serious trouble and I am convinced that the planet in, say, fifty years will be a far, far worse place to live in than it is today and even then people (if there are any left) will refuse to take responsibility for the predicament in which we find ourselves. Something terrible is going to happen to us all and it is going to happen sooner rather than later.

 

I'm off out to watch "The Road" one more time...

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I'm off out to watch "The Road" one more time...

Bravo, Sir!

 

If The Road has taught me one thing, it's that you can never have enough bullets.

 

If another hippy whines to me, about global warming, I'm gonna leave the engine running on the V8.

[honez 79]

I'm off out to watch "The Road" one more time...

Bravo, Sir!

 

If The Road has taught me one thing, it's that you can never have enough bullets.

 

If another hippy whines to me, about global warming, I'm gonna leave the engine running on the V8.

Which proves a lot of the points made previously.

There really is no hope for pea-brained humanity.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

I've been reading a really good book on mass extinctions, the Medea Hypothesis by Peter Ward. He believes that we have it in us to get ourselves out of the mess that we have created.

 

That's a fine choice of book, Godot. I read it last summer when I was searching for and failing to find answers about our possible fate. I remember the last chapter - What Must Be Done - very well, but I still came away from reading it feeling that Peter Ward is just wrong and that we don't have it in us at all to resolve the difficulties we have created. He seemed to have compete faith in mankind's ability to ultimately become collectively more constructive than destructive and I fear he was fundamentally mistaken on that particular point. I've decided I'm more of a Gaia man overall.

 

Do you know what really pisses me off? The sheer, unadulterated arrogance of the Scientific community who have sold certain sections of the Political movement the absolute horseshit argument that we can change the Earths climate.

Planet Earth, over 4 billion years old ( some have said its much older) has seen Climate change so utterly catastrophic it would make the Haiti Earthquake seem like a bit of a kerfuffle.

We are not even close to being the longest surviving species on this Planet and we probably arent even the most intelligent to have existed YET we have all the answers.

A multi trillion pound Worldwide industry in "Green" services and technology has sprouted up over the last 10 years and, despite plenty of evidence countering the belief that the Human race is the sole archeitect of its doom, we continue to be royally fucked up the arse with punitive taxation and legislation on the pretext that we can "Save the planet".

A classic piece of shite is the idea that we will all be driving hydrogen/Electric cars in years to come.

Why?

Isnt the green ethos about saving energy per se? Why have roads festooned with cars that require electricity to run, which still has a cost to the environment however its generated, when you could have Electric buses, carrying up to 50 odd passengers per vehicle thus eliminating the need for 20 odd cars to be manufactured and run.

Is that not a "greener" solution?

Of course, its got fuck all to do with being green but everything to do with the high levels of tax revenue extracted from the sitting ducks who own cars and the fact that without a motor industry all those millions of workers in car plants world wide would have to be retrained in how to make ecologically sustainable waistcoats out of Potato peel..........or summat.

If we are doomed, and I think we will be at some point in the future, it will be soley down to overpopulation.

One billion Chinese probably breathe out at least 3 billion litres of, diluted, carbon dioxide every couple of seconds.

Surely that is fucking up the Planet more than sporradically placed factories, cars, aircraft and the like.

I really dont understand why, IF, there is so much emphasis on Global warming being man made, no Government has had the gonads to legislate as to how many children people can have ( it may stop those parasitic baby machines in the process...)so that the stabilizing, if not the slow and gradual reduction of the worlds population will do more to "Save the Planet" than any other hair brained scheme doled out to the populace.

Rant over.

 

Top rant LFN , hope you're feeling better now.

 

You are wrong about global warming and the scientific community is right. They are not arrogant, they are trying, in vain, to save us. We are in very serious trouble and I am convinced that the planet in, say, fifty years will be a far, far worse place to live in than it is today and even then people (if there are any left) will refuse to take responsibility for the predicament in which we find ourselves. Something terrible is going to happen to us all and it is going to happen sooner rather than later.

 

I'm off out to watch "The Road" one more time...

DDT, remember that scene in The Poseidon Adventure? Its the one where the ship has been overturned and Gene Hackman is desperately trying to round up the passengers, imploring them that they should follow him up to the hull of the ship to await rescue. Through all this, he tries to get the Ships Purser to join in and round people up, purely on the basis that said purser is the only "Authority" left alive on the ship. Unfortunately, dear Mr Purser tell Hackman to f**k off and tells the passengers not to listen to him and instead stay where they are till help arrives.

Now, us sitting at home watching the film are way ahead of whats going on, we know that Hackman is right but why arent the people listening to him?

Well Hackman is merely a maverick Priest and the Ships Purser is the one wearing the uniform, knows the ship inside out and is the only person on there that can command some degree of authority.

The fact that he is an arrogant arsehole and totally wrong is neither here nor there!

DDT, Im not using that parable to belittle your belief and views on the subject, its pretty much understood that your concerns do have some validity.

The problem I have is your blinding faith in science. Off the top of my head, as I type this im thinking Thalidomide, created in a lab by scientists, not researched enough, not tested enough and 50 years later its still blighting lives.

Science has done wonders for our world, wonders for our lives but it isnt the be all and end all, its not the last word and they dont know everything.

Granted, if there was a consensus across the WHOLE Scientific community that Global warming was man made, slow downable, if not reversable and that we all had to eat lentils and live sea grass houses, then I would take that view to heart.

The problem is it IS NOT agreed across the Scientific community.

It took a few seconds to find this why hasnt anybody else?

Why hasnt anybody asked the pertinent questions as to why Scientists deliberately manipulated climate change data?

Questions, questions, DDT.

The biggest question is why should I trust the Scientists who say its all true and not the Scientists that have said that it isnt?

As far as im aware, the ones that argue against havent manipulated anything but those, that do argue for, have.

Common sense and trust would have you running a million miles from the liars, yet people still trust them like those saps trusted the Ships purser.

Mind you Gordon Brown, no less, fully endorses this whole charabanc of bollocks.....which says it all really.

Each to their own, I suppose but I tell you something, when I drop a V8 gass guzzling engine into my 31 year old car later this year, i wont feel at all guilty as I will be just recyclying, reusing and saving Dawn French the Whale.......

I say make hay while the sun shines coz a meteor the size of Arkansas will probably hit us sooner than we'd like and wipe us all out in one go anyway.

Sod Globule Wanking, thats what I say.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Which proves a lot of the points made previously.

There really is no hope for pea-brained humanity.

Indeed there isn't. Stock up on your calibre of choice for when the inevitable happens. WTSHTF the world will be divided into hunter and hunted. Dialogue will be obsolete, violence will reign once more.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

[rants snipped for brevity -- MH]

Science has done wonders for our world, wonders for our lives but it isnt the be all and end all, its not the last word and they dont know everything.

Granted, if there was a consensus across the WHOLE Scientific community that Global warming was man made, slow downable, if not reversable and that we all had to eat lentils and live sea grass houses, then I would take that view to heart.

 

The problem is it IS NOT agreed across the Scientific community.

The scientific community is a quarrellous lot. This is part of the job description, not some unfortunate accident. And it's a Good Thing too, as in: the moment all scientist agree, science is dead. Just because scientists disagree, science advances.

 

If you want simple answers to your questions, go to a priest rather than a scientist, for the scientist will answer both yes and no.

 

Why hasnt anybody asked the pertinent questions as to why Scientists deliberately manipulated climate change data?

Questions, questions, DDT.

Strangely enough there's an answer to that one. Those scientists are humans, with all weaknesses that come with being human: they make mistakes, they want fame and fortune or they simply can't be arsed to do their job properly.

 

Science is just a method of looking critically at the evidence and using that evidence, rather than received wisdom, as a basis for theory. Evidence may be scarce and ambiguous and is always open to more than one interpretation. As a result, the findings of science are always wrong, only less so than the findings of other sources of knowledge. The history of science shows that not a single scientific theory has stood the test of time. There's always some pesky little observation that ruins an elegant theory. That theory is then replaced by a more intricate one, still wrong, but better at explaining the observations.

 

Meanwhile in Portland, Maine...

 

We'll live, I guess. As I understand it, mammalian species exist for an average of a million years before going extinct. To the best knowledge we have existed for a few hundreds of thousands of years, so we have quite some time left. Of course we'll ruin quite a bit of our environment in the 21st century and hundreds of millions, possibly billions, will die as a result, but that's nowhere near extinction of the human race.

 

The big tragedy will be the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of other species that will go extinct due to our inability to restrict our numbers.

 

As I understand it, our most pressing problems with the environment will solve themselves within the next few decades. Fossil fuels run out within the next 50 years and will become too expensive to use well before that. We will restrict our energy use PDQ, not because we like to, but because we can't afford not to.

 

As a now dead Dutch news commentator W.L. Brugsma once said: there's only one environmental problem: people. There are far too many already. This will change this century. I hope by voluntary measures, but I fear that the four classic agents of destruction, Death, War, Famine and Pestilence must do the dirty work. After that there'll still be people, only fewer by one or two orders of magnitude.

 

regards,

Hein

[Monoclinic 39]

A lot of wank posts snipped. In the words of Alan Hansen, unbelievable.

 

I'm not a climate change scientist but I am on the CO2 bandwagon and I am convinced that for your children's sake you shouldn't take that kind of attitude. We could all ultimately be responsible for the sufferings of our grand children. Is it not better to at least try to prevent something that may well be out of our control than to sit back and do nothing at all.

 

These are not equally likely outcomes, nor do they cover every eventuality but I'm trying a different approach to achieve understanding instead of harping on about science which seems to go down like a lead balloon around these parts. (I must have been blind, I used to hold the impression that this site was full of wisdom. Now it's just full of bollocks. Perhaps it always was, but its oxidised finish only reveals itself after the ennui sets in.)

 

SITUATION A - Climate change is real, we are all going to suffer

SITUATION B - Climate change is real, we will all survive

SITUATION C - Climate change is not real, we will all survive

 

Situation A is occuring, we do nothing - we suffer

Situation A is occuring, we react but it is not enough - we suffer

Situation A is occuring, we react and it is enough - we survive

 

Situation B is occuring, we do nothing - we survive

Situation B is occuring, we react but it is not enough - we survive and we are a little poorer (money can't buy etc...)

Situation B is occuring, we react and it is enough - we survive and we are a lot poorer (money can't buy etc...)

 

Situation C is occuring, we do nothing - we all survive

Situation C is occuring, we react but it is not enough - we survive and we are a little poorer (money can't buy etc...)

Situation C is occuring, we react and it is enough - we survive and we are a lot poorer (money can't buy etc...)

 

I am not happy to take the 1/9 chance (oversimplified, I know) that it is occuring and that we could suffer, yet chose to ignore it. Are you?

 

Imagine your child had an illness that in one ninth of cases results in death but you do not know if your child is in that ninth. The doctor proposes to do an operation which could potentially save them yet this operation causes much pain and suffering, however there is no risk of death. Do you run the risk that your child is not in the 1/9th or do you go ahead "just in case".

 

 

As for the UEA scandal, there are mavericks in all walks of life, science should be no exception. Some people are motivated by greed, glory, glamour, whatever. Just because a former polytechnic has fudged a lot of data does not make climate change a load of "billy bollocks". This is similar to those who claimed to have cloned a human in Asia but hadn't. The technology is available to us and undoubtedly human cloning will happen one day. Just because they lied doesn't make it impossible.

 

I believe we need to think in a more humanitarian fashion. Just because climate change is not really affecting you right now, your actions might be affecting someone else on the planet. Anthropological effects to the environment are world-wide, we need to think of those living in coastal areas, in Africa, in Norfolk. It's not their fault that where they live might be hardest hit.

 

IMHO you should think yourself lucky that science and engineering has progressed enough to develop V8 engines and to exploit the finite reserves of crude oil that arose from photosynthetic excesses all those eras ago.

 

There's a lot more where that came from but I think you've heard enough for now. Scientists, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[BrunoBrimley 86]

=The big tragedy will be the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of other species that well go extinct due to our inability to restrict our numbers.

 

regards,

Hein

Of course as some things go extinct, science and chemical compounds merging with other elements along with the effects of polution and nuclear waste in the sky, water and ground, are creating new plants and animals all the time, so all is not as grim as oone might first be thinking.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Climate change is absolutely real. It's this man made global warming doom-mongering that is under suspicion. The fact that man can change the entire climate of the planet. There is a huge green industry that provides a cure. One that makes billions in profits from scaring the shit out of pea brained humanity. When you look at the money to be made it pays to be green.

 

The Green movement has good intentions but is corrupted by human agenda. Like Christianity, Islam, and Tesco. WTSHTF it will pay to invest in other businesses too. Like Kalashnikov and the Amish community. When the end comes we'll all be Amish but some of us will have guns.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

A lot of wank posts snipped. In the words of Alan Hansen, unbelievable.

 

A lot of sanctimonious, pious posts snipped, yeah we all know what you do for a living, blah, blah, blah...

There's a lot more where that came from but I think you've heard enough for now. Scientists, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

As somebody as intelligent as you obviously are, why cant you read?

I have never stated that Global warming was or was not a reality.

I have merely stated that there is a whole plethora of scientific opinion out there that believes that we, the human race is either not or only partially responsible for the changes that are taking place.

Why does your opinion carry more weight than those that have a different opinion to yourselves? Why are the Scientists who have ventured an opposing view so obviously wrong?

Yeah, it is right that we all try and do something, even if it ends up in vain.

How about rebuilding our sea defences? Building a network of canals around flood vunerable towns?

Despite all the doom and gloom fuck all has been done, nothing practical except for indroducing energy efficient light bulbs that are shit.

But enough of my unbelievable shite. Who the fuck do you think you are to assume the site is full of bollocks ?

You may not like my opinions but at least have the fucking respect to take them on board and, if you can be arsed to respond, do it with reason and not with distain.

DDT may well have a completeley opposite view to mine but at least I respect what he has to say.

You? Well I had the highest of respect for you, now, clearly, I find that I lack the acumen, if not education, to put points across that are at complete odds with a brilliant mind like yours.

Im clearly not worthy, am I.

[CarolAnn 926]

Despite all the doom and gloom fuck all has been done, nothing practical except for indroducing energy efficient light bulbs that are shit.

 

Actually, I changed out all the light bulbs in my house with those squiggly ones and my electric bill dropped. Really. It was pretty cool.

 

Of course, I'm happy when my electric bill is under $250.00, so what the hell do I know?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Actually, I changed out all the light bulbs in my house with those squiggly ones and my electric bill dropped. Really. It was pretty cool.

 

Of course, I'm happy when my electric bill is under $250.00, so what the hell do I know?

It's nice to see a drop in electric prices but when I found out that squiggly light bulbs contain mercury, and can't be thrown away with regular rubbish, I had a rethink about what I need to light my home. After reading the various doom monger literature, on mercury spills, I found the safest option is candles. My electric bill has dropped even more, however, I'm now at a substantial risk of a house fire. The 60381st highest contributor to alleged man made global warming.

[CarolAnn 926]

Actually, I changed out all the light bulbs in my house with those squiggly ones and my electric bill dropped. Really. It was pretty cool.

 

Of course, I'm happy when my electric bill is under $250.00, so what the hell do I know?

It's nice to see a drop in electric prices but when I found out that squiggly light bulbs contain mercury, and can't be thrown away with regular rubbish, I had a rethink about what I need to light my home. After reading the various doom monger literature, on mercury spills, I found the safest option is candles. My electric bill has dropped even more, however, I'm now at a substantial risk of a house fire. The 60381st highest contributor to alleged man made global warming.

 

I figure that what I need to do is find some sort of luminescent moss and coat the cocker spaniels in it.

[Monoclinic 39]

Do you know what really pisses me off? The sheer, unadulterated arrogance of the Scientific community who have sold certain sections of the Political movement the absolute horseshit argument that we can change the Earths climate.

Planet Earth, over 4 billion years old ( some have said its much older) has seen Climate change so utterly catastrophic it would make the Haiti Earthquake seem like a bit of a kerfuffle.

 

I believe we can. We know enough about the evolution of our planet to know that it has evolved from a reducing atmosphere to one that is oxygen rich and able to support aerobic life. Perhaps biomimetics is the answer, can we try to repeat history? Increase photosynthesis and not only do we reduce CO2 but we can harvest solar energy and obtain biofuels or try to exploit the secondary effect, the splitting of water (hydrogen storage is one of the major problems of switching to hydrogen fuel cells). Can we recreate nature's blueprint artifically or do we have to dedicate more surface area to plants and algae, reversing man's trend to deforest great swathes of countryside. I find it's pretty arrogant of us to criticise the likes of Brazil and Indonesia for doing something the Europeans did long ago.

 

A multi trillion pound Worldwide industry in "Green" services and technology has sprouted up over the last 10 years and, despite plenty of evidence countering the belief that the Human race is the sole archeitect of its doom, we continue to be royally fucked up the arse with punitive taxation and legislation on the pretext that we can "Save the planet".

 

This is something to address by way of statistics, which neither of us can do with Google alone. I do not know how many scientists are for and how many are against, perhaps you are more aware of this. I would hazard a bet that although there may be plenty of evidence to counter the belief as you state, there could be an equal or perhaps a more substantially larger body of evidence that anthropological effects have altered the balance more than in previous climate change episodes.

 

A classic piece of shite is the idea that we will all be driving hydrogen/Electric cars in years to come.

Why?

Isnt the green ethos about saving energy per se? Why have roads festooned with cars that require electricity to run, which still has a cost to the environment however its generated, when you could have Electric buses, carrying up to 50 odd passengers per vehicle thus eliminating the need for 20 odd cars to be manufactured and run.

Is that not a "greener" solution?

 

A hydrogen fuel cell based car produces just water as a byproduct (incidently this is also a greenhouse gas), no CO2, Nox, SOx or particulate matter but as we are all well aware it needs optimising. We need a stop gap as our reserves are finite. Biofuels (from algae as opposed to controversial crops) could well be that stop gap. As the fuels are combusted CO2 is released which can be reassimulated by living biomass to produce more biofuel. All the while buying more time for a better way to harvest solar energy to be developed. Electricity generated by wind, tides, solar panels etc. have minimal effect on the environment, and not everyone likes travelling on public transport. I cannot remember who it was but there is one DL member who made a massive rant about public transport (apart from Windsor). We have become accustomed to our own private door to door service, so if we are happy to pay the price for this I don't see how a government could remove this liberty from us.

 

If we are doomed, and I think we will be at some point in the future, it will be soley down to overpopulation.

One billion Chinese probably breathe out at least 3 billion litres of, diluted, carbon dioxide every couple of seconds.

Surely that is fucking up the Planet more than sporradically placed factories, cars, aircraft and the like.

I really dont understand why, IF, there is so much emphasis on Global warming being man made, no Government has had the gonads to legislate as to how many children people can have ( it may stop those parasitic baby machines in the process...)so that the stabilizing, if not the slow and gradual reduction of the worlds population will do more to "Save the Planet" than any other hair brained scheme doled out to the populace.

 

Ironically China did.

 

 

As somebody as intelligent as you obviously are, why cant you read?

I have never stated that Global warming was or was not a reality.

I have merely stated that there is a whole plethora of scientific opinion out there that believes that we, the human race is either not or only partially responsible for the changes that are taking place.

Why does your opinion carry more weight than those that have a different opinion to yourselves? Why are the Scientists who have ventured an opposing view so obviously wrong?

 

I think this is more a case of human condition, as in we believe what we want to and it is difficult to change someone's beliefs without concrete evidence. You'd be hard pressed to convert an athiest to a religion even though God(s) may exist. You want to believe that GW isn't a problem hence most of your posts in this thread bring up the fact some people say it isn't a problem and that you are swayed to their camp. I believe that it is a problem and thus have the instinct to fall on the otherside of the divide. Neither of us have concrete evidence. We publish papers about the knowledge we have acquired and yes people can be proved wrong. It's exactly as Hein said, we have to keep updating the model. Things can be proved wrong not right but in the mean time a debate has to have more than one side for progress. You have to keep asking why.

 

Yeah, it is right that we all try and do something, even if it ends up in vain.

How about rebuilding our sea defences? Building a network of canals around flood vunerable towns?

Despite all the doom and gloom fuck all has been done, nothing practical except for indroducing energy efficient light bulbs that are shit.

 

The sea defences would have to be pretty high if the predictions are to believed. As for domestic energy efficiency, there are far more things that have been introduced, better boilers, cavity insulation, hybrid cars, recycling (certain uk councils aren't as hot on that as some European counterparts I believe), campaigns to turn your heating down a few degrees, double glazing etc.

 

But enough of my unbelievable shite. Who the fuck do you think you are to assume the site is full of bollocks ?

You may not like my opinions but at least have the fucking respect to take them on board and, if you can be arsed to respond, do it with reason and not with distain.

 

I thought I had used the conditional tense as much as possible in my post, ladened with words like I believe and IMHO. It was intended as a viewpoint piece. If it didn't come across that way then I am sorry for that but not for its content. I stand by my feeling however that science often gets derided, I also stand by my feeling that I think this site has lost a bit of "je ne sais quoi" and a bit of humour. That's my problem. It is after all a site to report celebrity deaths, something which isn't really in my list of interests. I guess at the moment it is doing exactly what it says on the tin and not a lot else.

[Rotten Ali 600]

Been meaning to do my own sums on a few of these climate change ideas. (Still working on it)

I'll start with the rise of sea levels - there is only so much ice - lets say (looking at only three areas) all of it melts at the South Pole and on Greenland (most of the ice at the North Pole is floating and won't raise the sea level by much)

 

{The ice shelves which used to extend roughly 3,900 square miles (10,000 km²) over the Weddell Sea had completely disappeared by 2002.

Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet that is, on average, at least 1.6 kilometres thick. Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres. This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries.}(Wiki)

 

Height of South pole = 2,835m

Depth of Ice at South Pole = about 2,700m

 

Thickness of ice across the South polar cap = Average of about 1,600m (could be as high as 2,160m)

Average Altitude 2,000 > 3,000 m.

Area of South Polar ice cap = 13,586,380 km2

Volume of ice = 21,738,208 km3 ( maybe even 30.1 million km3)

 

The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by the weight of the ice sheet. Thus, if the ice melted, much of central Greenland would be under water.

Since the 1950s, scientists have postulated that the ice sheet covering the country may actually conceal three separate island land masses that have been bridged by glaciers over the last geologic cooling period.

(If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt away completely, the world's sea level would rise by more than 7 m (23 ft) and Greenland would most likely become an archipelago.)

 

Highest point in Greenland 3,694m.

Lowest point in theoretic mid basin -300m.

 

Thickness of ice on Greenland = Average of about 1,500m (but could be as much as 2,000m)

Area of Greenland = 2,175,600 km2 (Pear's Cylopaedia ed. year 2000)

Area of Greenland = 2,166,086 km2 (Wikipaedia)

Area of Greenland under receding ice cap = 1,833,720 km2 (Pear's Cylopaedia ed. year 2000)

Area of Greenland under receding ice cap = 1,755,637 km2 (Wikipaedia)

 

Volume of ice = (1,500 x 1.7m km2) = 2,633,455 km3

 

The polar ice pack is thinning, and in many years there will be seasonal hole in the ozone layer. Reduction of the area of Arctic sea ice reduces the planet's average albedo, possibly resulting in global warming in a positive feedback mechanism Research shows that the Arctic may become ice free for the first time in human history between 2013 and 2040.

 

Thickness of Sea Ice about the North pole = Average about 1.5m

Area of Northern Sea Ice = 14,056,000 km2

Volume of ice = 21,084 km3

 

Total volume of ice (these 3 areas) = 24,392,747 km3

 

Total sea area = 7 tenths of the surface of the earth (70.8%) 361,132,000 km2

(Average depth = 3.2 km)

 

ice being 92% as dense as water.

 

Rise in sea level = 62.141 metres.

 

even worse, if all figures are on the high side then in the next few hundred years it could be 83.5m

[Monoclinic 39]

Been meaning to do my own sums on a few of these climate change ideas. (Still working on it)

I'll start with the rise of sea levels - there is only so much ice - lets say (looking at only three areas) all of it melts at the South Pole and on Greenland (most of the ice at the North Pole is floating and won't raise the sea level by much)

 

{The ice shelves which used to extend roughly 3,900 square miles (10,000 km²) over the Weddell Sea had completely disappeared by 2002.

Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet that is, on average, at least 1.6 kilometres thick. Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres. This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries.}(Wiki)

 

Height of South pole = 2,835m

Depth of Ice at South Pole = about 2,700m

 

Thickness of ice across the South polar cap = Average of about 1,600m (could be as high as 2,160m)

Average Altitude 2,000 > 3,000 m.

Area of South Polar ice cap = 13,586,380 km2

Volume of ice = 21,738,208 km3 ( maybe even 30.1 million km3)

 

The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by the weight of the ice sheet. Thus, if the ice melted, much of central Greenland would be under water.

Since the 1950s, scientists have postulated that the ice sheet covering the country may actually conceal three separate island land masses that have been bridged by glaciers over the last geologic cooling period.

(If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt away completely, the world's sea level would rise by more than 7 m (23 ft) and Greenland would most likely become an archipelago.)

 

Highest point in Greenland 3,694m.

Lowest point in theoretic mid basin -300m.

 

Thickness of ice on Greenland = Average of about 1,500m (but could be as much as 2,000m)

Area of Greenland = 2,175,600 km2 (Pear's Cylopaedia ed. year 2000)

Area of Greenland = 2,166,086 km2 (Wikipaedia)

Area of Greenland under receding ice cap = 1,833,720 km2 (Pear's Cylopaedia ed. year 2000)

Area of Greenland under receding ice cap = 1,755,637 km2 (Wikipaedia)

 

Volume of ice = (1,500 x 1.7m km2) = 2,633,455 km3

 

The polar ice pack is thinning, and in many years there will be seasonal hole in the ozone layer. Reduction of the area of Arctic sea ice reduces the planet's average albedo, possibly resulting in global warming in a positive feedback mechanism Research shows that the Arctic may become ice free for the first time in human history between 2013 and 2040.

 

Thickness of Sea Ice about the North pole = Average about 1.5m

Area of Northern Sea Ice = 14,056,000 km2

Volume of ice = 21,084 km3

 

Total volume of ice (these 3 areas) = 24,392,747 km3

 

Total sea area = 7 tenths of the surface of the earth (70.8%) 361,132,000 km2

(Average depth = 3.2 km)

 

ice being 92% as dense as water.

 

Rise in sea level = 62.141 metres.

 

even worse, if all figures are on the high side then in the next few hundred years it could be 83.5m

 

LOL, bar the significant figures, although this rationale could be an overestimate as the icebergs etc that are 2/3 under water contribute to the current sea levels by the water they displace. Can I assign you some further work? Factor in glacial run off from mountainous regions and also the thermal expansion of water from rising temperatures and perhaps submit to Nature to see what happens!

 

Anyway, your calculations make me want to add another potential problem. Although you didn't show the final bit of your workings you suggest that the additional fresh water contribution will be around 2.11% (which you then used to calculate the new depth considering the density of ice). That would change the nutrients and salts available in sea water on which algae and plankton depend. I wonder if Le Chatalier's principle can overcome this?

[Rotten Ali 600]

Mono - guess this is much of the problem - I'm an engineer - I sort of understand systems fairly well - but that's too deep into theory for me. (By the way found Le Chatalie was spelt Le Chatelie) Never that good at chemistry - but I watched the Al Gore film and got well exercised by the pools of melt water boring down into the ice sheet and removing the frictional effect of it staying land bound.

Cork out of the bottle and all that.

Really don't see that it takes much to set the process going. At a constant 10m slippage a year, the 800km "trip" of the South Pole Ice Station towards the sea would take 80,000 years. I think it's speed would be exponential towards the end until it's very wet.

[Rotten Ali 600]

Oh - not only that! - why don't we in the UK have a water de-salinisation plant to supply all these new homes in the south east? Silly question to ask what you do with all the salt you end up with! Do we not need it on the roads in the hard winters to come every other year from now on?

Better still, no new homes, roads and rail tracks should be built below a level 65m above current sea level.

[Banshees Scream 110]

All I can say is that the evolution of mankind cannot be set into motion without cooperation, it can only come to life with force.

Without cooperation, force is essential. The human perception is that force itself deprives freedom.

If there were an incentive, some kind of bribe that could motivate humanity to cooperate that would be a step forward.

Unfortunately, I agree with Mr.G. We are our worst enemy. Can we rise above expectations? Hm, I don't know about that.

Assuming that we are in deep shit, which is probably .. very .. a little exaggerated,

I'll say that we need something revolutionary to take place in order for us to be different.

What exactly? I don't know, you tell me.

For a moment - close your eyes and picture planet earth in your mind.

View intelligent life on planet earth as a project.

Tell yourself about the most intelligent species of that planet.

Know they are brainwashed, know they cannot control themselves nor their desires.

Understand they are insensitive to life around them.

Understand they have no regard for themselves.

Understand some of them are incapable of going to the next level.

Understand how many years it will take to change them.

Open your eyes and know that it's beyond you.

[honez 79]

All I can say is that the evolution of mankind cannot be set into motion without cooperation, it can only come to life with force.

The evolution of everything that breeds sexually, including mankind, has been going on since year dot. All it takes is time and external influences.