Mr_Red Posted 22 October, 2011 Share Posted 22 October, 2011 Whilst it is obvious that we are contributing to climate change, and the effects are potentially disastrous - I think we, as a country, should be more concerned with adapting to change rather than futile attempts of trying to stop it. The rate at which China is developing along with other emerging economies means that whatever we do in the UK is completely pointless. Accept that it's going to happen, try to predict the effects and adapt. It's important to develop new sources of energy, green or not, because oil and gas is running out. It makes sense to be more efficient for the same reason but there is little point in going round planting trees or using a bag for life when China is using 9million barrels of oil a day and burning 3 billion tons of coal a year. Not a big fan of the 'Chinese, Americans, Australians' etc. being worse than us so why should we care argument (post above is not the only one to have mentioned it). It is irrelevant in my mind. Yes, they will continue to churn out CO2 and all the other nasties and yes they will profit financially by doing so. Back in the day the industrial revolution was set off here, we started it so why shouldn't we start the next major movement? Green technologies and as in the quote above, adaptive approaches. If we develop the way forward we could benefit financially by selling these new techniques on - not the most important thing, but a possible benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 22 October, 2011 Share Posted 22 October, 2011 I know the cost of this stuff is hard, but we need to invest now or there will be catastrophe later. We need to stop thinking about the short term. The only way to do this really is massive government investment. There was an interesting report a few years ago that with 2% of world GDP spent on tackling this, we could sort out once and for all. And quite frankly, compared to how much we spend on some things in this country/world, it's not much considering what state we all could be in if this pans out as expected. Just for reference, in the UK this figure would be $45bn. Worldwide, it would be about $1.25tn. Seems like a lot of investment, but if we don't do this, the cost will be much much higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 22 October, 2011 Share Posted 22 October, 2011 It is undoubtedly a major cost issue for new homes but the net balance is more than likely to result in savings in the long term, especially with energy prices continuing to rise. Of course, it's hard to factor that in at the beginning, but it is worth it overall. Savings on bills will certainly be made, but there will be increased maintenance costs for the technology that will be used. But of course market factors will determine whether the costs are actually added to the sale price, or whether the poor old builder will have to take a bath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 23 October, 2011 Share Posted 23 October, 2011 (edited) And I read that just as solar panels are taking off in the residential sector, the government is cutting the feed-in tarifs next march so that it will become a lot less attractive. The government has admitted that errors have been made with solar development and is seeking to readdress it over the coming months. They set a level of subsidies called FITs (Feed In Tariffs) that would allow small scale solar generators such as householders and small businesses to pay up front to fit panels to roofs, generate electricity for their own use and sell surplus back into the Grid with the additional subsidy payment paid on generation. In theory a householder could pay for the panels by extending a mortgage and have that paid back within about 10 years after which their own electricity would be free effectively and they could make some money by selling the surplus from that point as profit. The current solar panels available should last for about 60 years although better generating ones are being developed all the time. The bit that wasn't thought through was that the high end supply capacity was set too high, so landowners such as farmers and Guy Ritchie spotted the opportunity to try to swathe their fields with solar panels and make more money than conventional agricultural use from the uniform FIT subsidy tariffs. So a new reform is being considered at the moment that is intended to strike a better balance. Edited 23 October, 2011 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 24 October, 2011 Share Posted 24 October, 2011 I like Lord Moncktons approach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 October, 2011 Share Posted 24 October, 2011 Mankind was put on the planet to ultimately destroy it. We're simply doing what nature (or God) intended. Fact. IMHO of course. There's plenty of other planets, universes and species out there so no need to fret about the small inconsequential species they call the human race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 October, 2011 Share Posted 24 October, 2011 As some will know, I work in the energy infrastructure industry and I have frankly given up trying to persuade sceptics about climate change. However, what is important to most people is energy security and energy bills. The simple facts are that if we continue to rely on fossil fuels that we have to import increasingly then we are all in trouble. That is why it is important that we develop renewables such as onshore and offshore wind that is now commercially viable, as well as continuing to develop technology that will bring less intermittent resources such as wave and tidal to economic scale. We have the opportunity to be world leaders and create a huge export industry with job skills. I know the usual comments will be raised so I'll head them off: * New nuke is possible but has three drawbacks - 1) Huge cost of construction (£ billions), 2) Still no way of disposing of nuke waste effectively, 3) A new nuke will take 10 years to build after the planning arguments so first one would be 2025. That said, I am in favour of new nuke as part of a needed mixed portfolio of energy generation. * Wind power does not need like-for-like capacity back up from fossil fuels if organised correctly. The answer is to develop more wind and other renewables than is required and link it to a smarter and better grid distribution network. Then gas and coal become a smaller baseload and an effective back up ready to go when required. And export the renewable energy surplus to other less blessed countries when we have a surfeit of power. * We have about one third of our current generating capacity due to go offline between 2015 and 2020 made up of older coal-fired power stations and nukes. Those need to be replaced fast. Governments have failed to act responsibly in this area because all scared off by local objectors to new plants or wind farms. * Green subsidies as continually raised in the press. The subsidies (known as ROCs) are paid to generators when they produce electricity. There are no subsidies to build new power sources, that is all market risk. The subsidies are a product of the privatised electricity industry and a necessary incentive to get developers building new generating apparatus. Those new plants will ultimately make us less dependent on imported fossil fuels and allow us to remain masters of our own destiny meaning in the long term lower energy bills than otherwise. In previous times nuke and north sea gas received development subsidies and, like them, renewable subsidies will be reduced once the train gets motoring. You can argue climate change until the cows come home but what will really focus attention is power cuts, failing industry, cold homes and no TV/playstations. We need a mixed portfolio of energy generation that covers all the bases made up of renewables where possible supported by nuke in the longer term with gas and coal as the convenient fallbacks. Said my piece! And a good piece it was too. However, it was sod-all to do with climate change, global warming and their causes. People will do something about energy consumption when it starts hitting them in the back pocket and affecting their standard of living. Climate change is only a secondary consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 24 October, 2011 Share Posted 24 October, 2011 We need solar panels on every roof, and more importantly tidal power stations all over the UK... it's about time we started exploiting the fact we are a massive Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 24 October, 2011 Share Posted 24 October, 2011 People will do something about energy consumption when it starts hitting them in the back pocket and affecting their standard of living. Climate change is only a secondary consideration. I agree, most people will only do something when it starts affecting them directly. Reactive, rather than proactive. Human's are good at that, it's the default setting. It's the same with food security... we can act now and help make our food systems more sustainable, but until more people look at the bigger picture, then nothing is likely to change until it becomes a serious problem. And by serious I mean leading to more civil unrest and even wars, IMO. That'll be fun then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 October, 2011 Share Posted 24 October, 2011 Mankind was put on the planet to ultimately destroy it. We're simply doing what nature (or God) intended. Fact. IMHO of course. There's plenty of other planets, universes and species out there so no need to fret about the small inconsequential species they call the human race. And youve got kids??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 25 October, 2011 Share Posted 25 October, 2011 Interesting piece at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/britain-nuclear-restarts-idUSL5E7LO12V20111024 It states that three nuke reactors were restarted at the weekend after outages, one of which was unplanned. By getting the reactors back online, wholesale energy prices fell immediately. It demonstrates the need to have a diverse (and preferably low carbon) energy generation portfolio and why if we don't invest now, energy prices will continue to go up as we rely on foreign fossil fuel imports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 30 October, 2011 Share Posted 30 October, 2011 Well "Duh! indeed..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 30 October, 2011 Share Posted 30 October, 2011 We need solar panels on every roof, and more importantly tidal power stations all over the UK... it's about time we started exploiting the fact we are a massive Island. No more solar panels after tomorrow, apparently. There are reports that the government will halve the value of FITs for systems installed after December 8th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 30 October, 2011 Share Posted 30 October, 2011 It's inevitable as the cost of solar panels has fallen by 70% in three years and will fall further. FITs were not designed for cash windfalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 October, 2011 Share Posted 30 October, 2011 No more solar panels after tomorrow, apparently. There are reports that the government will halve the value of FITs for systems installed after December 8th. With the drop in the cost of the components its likely that a halving will still see a return rate of about 8 or 9% p.a. so still a fairly good investment (though you effectively lose your investment money by the end of 25 years so the effective rate will be less than this). One assumes that those installing will also have to take a cut in their profit margin to get more business which will also bring down prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 31 October, 2011 Share Posted 31 October, 2011 there are massive profits for companies fitting solar panels, the new double glazing con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 31 October, 2011 Share Posted 31 October, 2011 there are massive profits for companies fitting solar panels, the new double glazing con. I wouldn't call it a con, there are substantial benefits to the homeowner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 31 October, 2011 Share Posted 31 October, 2011 (edited) Well "Duh!" indeed..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html And as usual, the journalists overplay things and try to turn a valid scientific debate into some kind of point scoring exercise: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540 This is what annoys me most about this whole issue - at every turn someone is waiting to see 'This proves x' or 'This proves y' when Science generally just wants to carry on looking into it with an open mind. Newspapers (on both sides of the scale) interpret it all in ways that back their beliefs, and the people who read those papers do the same. It's the way the research is reported, even by the scientists themselves, that is interpreted and misinterpreted, often because of the use of only one or two words that prompt a reaction. That said, even some scientists seem to be more interested in disagreement than ongoing research so there's probably no hope of us ever learning anything with an open mind. Edited 31 October, 2011 by Minty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 31 October, 2011 Share Posted 31 October, 2011 It's getting to the stage where you don't know who to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 31 October, 2011 Share Posted 31 October, 2011 (edited) It's getting to the stage where you don't know who to believe. Agreed, although anyone quoting non-scientific rhetoric rehashed like bad chinese whispers in the Mail, Telegraph or Express isn't worth listening to, for sure. At a tangent, Cameron was also a bit naughty today claiming that the govt is kick-starting two new energy infrastructure projects. Both power plant proposals are entirely financed by the private sector and were working their way through the torturously slow planning system in any case. The 1,000 construction jobs were always there, all the govt did was rubberstamp the two planning applications after months of stagnation in both cases. Not a bean of govt money involved at all. And it is also the case that the larger gas-fired 1,500MW proposal at Thorpe Marsh near Doncaster will never be built by the company that put the planning application in, as it specialises in gaining consent on sites it buys and then selling for good profit to a big player like Eon or Centrica to actually build and operate - which will mean it takes longer still! Edited 31 October, 2011 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 13 November, 2011 Share Posted 13 November, 2011 Check out this amazing video of Earth from space: The lights from the cities show just how omnipresent we are on this planet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 November, 2011 Share Posted 13 November, 2011 It's getting to the stage where you don't know who to believe. Only for those who have lost 'faith' (!) in scientific method. Of course, it's possible to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence, just as it is possible for creationists to say they don't 'believe' in evolution. There is essentially no difference. Evolution, climate change, stem-cell research, etc., are all part of a 'conspiracy', or are a 'hoax'. What lies at the heart of this is a denial of scientific knowledge - so much so that in the US, for example, to support science is to risk a colossal electoral liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 November, 2011 Share Posted 14 November, 2011 Only for those who have lost 'faith' (!) in scientific method. Of course, it's possible to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence, just as it is possible for creationists to say they don't 'believe' in evolution. There is essentially no difference. Evolution, climate change, stem-cell research, etc., are all part of a 'conspiracy', or are a 'hoax'. What lies at the heart of this is a denial of scientific knowledge - so much so that in the US, for example, to support science is to risk a colossal electoral liability. 'Science' was a concept invented by God in order to give humans the perception that they understood their surroundings. In other words, God created a 'false reality' so that people like us could debate the existence, or otherwise, of global warming until the end of time on a football forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 November, 2011 Share Posted 14 November, 2011 "Never forget where you've come here from, Never pretend that it's all real, Someday soon this will all be someone else's dream". Barlow, G 1995 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 14 November, 2011 Share Posted 14 November, 2011 (edited) 'Science' was a concept invented by God in order to give humans the perception that they understood their surroundings. In other words, God created a 'false reality' so that people like us could debate the existence, or otherwise, of global warming until the end of time on a football forum. Which God? After all there appears to be so many and variations to choose from. Edited 14 November, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 November, 2011 Share Posted 14 November, 2011 Which God? After all there appears to be so many and variations to choose from. Ah, that's another crafty thing the actual God did....she made man believe there was more than one version of herself so that it could be politely discussed until the end of time on football forums around the planet. (not that the planet is real - that's a figment of our imagination too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 14 November, 2011 Share Posted 14 November, 2011 Ah, that's another crafty thing the actual God did....she made man believe there was more than one version of herself so that it could be politely discussed until the end of time on football forums around the planet. (not that the planet is real - that's a figment of our imagination too) I would believe you but as you are a figment of my imagination I have decided not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 November, 2011 Share Posted 14 November, 2011 I would believe you but as you are a figment of my imagination I have decided not to. Exactly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 14 November, 2011 Share Posted 14 November, 2011 Fascinating documentary on Mark Kennedy just finished on 4. Millions of pounds spent infiltrating environmental campaign groups, not one successful prosecution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html :lol: :lol: Your point? The Greenhouse Effect is fact. Therefore, Global Warming caused by man made Greenhouse gases is fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Your point? The Greenhouse Effect is fact. Therefore, Global Warming caused by man made Greenhouse gases is fact. Nobody, not even I, will dispute that. It's the contribution from man-made gases that is in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Your point? The Greenhouse Effect is fact. Therefore, Global Warming caused by man made Greenhouse gases is fact. That the Godfather of Global Warming hysteria now admits he's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 That the Godfather of Global Warming hysteria now admits he's wrong. You've called it right Alpine. Lovelock has been the "Godfather of Global Warming hysteria" for years - and for years you would have struggled to find any climate scientists that agreed with him. Im glad hes recanted because he provided ammunition for rags like the Daily Mail to claim climate change wasnt real. It was and it still is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 That the Godfather of Global Warming hysteria now admits he's wrong. No, he admits he may have over extrapolated how quickly the effects might be felt, the bit at the bottom of the article shows that the basic premise still holds true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 That the Godfather of Global Warming hysteria now admits he's wrong. He has always been a radical, he's quite philosophical as well and you won't find many scientists who agreed with him. And he hasn't said he is wrong, merely that his statements of how quickly it will occur were wrong. We should welcome that scientists are willing to adjust their views when they see evidence to the contrary. However, as I said, most scientists ever took his stance. The consensus was different and this article is part of an agenda to try and hush down the seriousness of the situation we could find ourselves in within my lifetime. Now, if you have evidence to prove the greenhouse effect is wrong, please write your scientific paper and submit it to a journal for peer review before collecting your Nobel prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 And here we are again. Scientist admits, in good faith, that his previous predictions were 'over-extrapolated' and that gets interpreted by some as being 'The whole thing is rubbish'. Erm, no. Gotta love this line inparticular: The admission comes as a devastating blow to proponents of climate change who regard Lovelock as a powerful figurehead. As I've said time and again, the science surrounding these things is not exact. It will never tell us exactly when something will or will not happen. But the basic premise still holds true and the only thing that has been amended is the prediction of how quickly we might see particular impacts. Frankly, thinking this is something to be laughed at, and used as a point-scoring exercise, is pretty sad IMO. This is still a very serious issue that we have so much to learn about and as always, for the sake of my kids and their kids, I hope science continues to look into it and learn as much as they can, both in terms of prevention and adaptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Maybe from Alpine's perspective he sees Global Warming as a good thing - he lives in the hills ( I presume from his moniker ), when they inherit the family dwelling his grandkids could be living on a beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 And here we are again. Scientist admits, in good faith, that his previous predictions were 'over-extrapolated' and that gets interpreted by some as being 'The whole thing is rubbish'. Erm, no. Gotta love this line inparticular: As I've said time and again, the science surrounding these things is not exact. It will never tell us exactly when something will or will not happen. But the basic premise still holds true and the only thing that has been amended is the prediction of how quickly we might see particular impacts. Frankly, thinking this is something to be laughed at, and used as a point-scoring exercise, is pretty sad IMO. This is still a very serious issue that we have so much to learn about and as always, for the sake of my kids and their kids, I hope science continues to look into it and learn as much as they can, both in terms of prevention and adaptation. A good point Minty, but we are still no nearer knowing how much effect all this is going to have and even whether or not it is beneficial. We are 'overdue' an ice age, or so some scientists have been saying for as long as I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 And here we are again. Scientist admits, in good faith, that his previous predictions were 'over-extrapolated' and that gets interpreted by some as being 'The whole thing is rubbish'. Erm, no. Gotta love this line inparticular: As I've said time and again, the science surrounding these things is not exact. It will never tell us exactly when something will or will not happen. But the basic premise still holds true and the only thing that has been amended is the prediction of how quickly we might see particular impacts. Frankly, thinking this is something to be laughed at, and used as a point-scoring exercise, is pretty sad IMO. This is still a very serious issue that we have so much to learn about and as always, for the sake of my kids and their kids, I hope science continues to look into it and learn as much as they can, both in terms of prevention and adaptation. Contradiction Alert !!!!! Sorry, your second statement is the correct one, therefore I marvel at the willingness of the individual to be taken in hook, line and sinker by Global Warming Hysteria. I understand govenrmental willingness to accept it of course, it provides taxation opportunities. One volcanic eruption (which have happened regularly throughout Earths history) is capable of chucking more sh*t into the atmosphere than years of man-made pollution, yet you lot persist in lapping up the guilt-trip cr*p. Mother Nature will regulate any gross abuses of the planet; if it gets warmer, the Arctic ice will melt, killing the Gulf Stream and actually throw the warming process into reverse. Dramatically. According to reports, this May will be coldest in 100 years. Last summer was sh*t. We have NEW snow on the mountains here with no sign of it melting. why dont you all give it a rest ? Seems like Lovelock is willing to chill out a bit. How's Mr Celebrate-The-Death-Of-Sceptics Hockey Stick at East Anglia Uni doing ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 We are 'overdue' an ice age, or so some scientists have been saying for as long as I can remember. We are. A lot of climate scientists think that if it werent for the GHGs we are pumping out then we would be experiencing declining temperatures. The trouble is we arent yet sophisticated enough to determine the 'goldilocks' amount of anthropogenic carbon - not too much, not too little; not too hot, not too cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 if it gets warmer, the Arctic ice will melt, killing the Gulf Stream and actually throw the warming process into reverse. Many take the view that the reverse is true - the loss of the ice will reduce the albedo effect, and therefore less of the sun's ray's would be reflected away from the earth's surface. Also, as the permafrost thaws and the Arctic Sea warms, stored methane could be released, adding to the greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. So much may be currently unproven, but do you know for certain that the evidence supporting your position is infallible ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Many take the view that the reverse is true - the loss of the ice will reduce the albedo effect, and therefore less of the sun's ray's would be reflected away from the earth's surface. Also, as the permafrost thaws and the Arctic Sea warms, stored methane could be released, adding to the greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Indeed. The whole thing is just one big positive feedback process. And if anybody is still under any illuison that the Arctic ice isn't melting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 We are. A lot of climate scientists think that if it werent for the GHGs we are pumping out then we would be experiencing declining temperatures. The trouble is we arent yet sophisticated enough to determine the 'goldilocks' amount of anthropogenic carbon - not too much, not too little; not too hot, not too cold. And the time lags are counted in centuries rather than decades. Add to that the efffects of la Niña/El Niño, the 50-year Atlantic Hurricane cycle and all the other climatic oscillations and it's a right mess to unravel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Indeed. The whole thing is just one big positive feedback process. And if anybody is still under any illuison that the Arctic ice isn't melting... If that were true the earth would have gone to some extreme and stuck there sometime in the last 4 billion years. There have been several extended periods when we have been an icy lump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Many take the view that the reverse is true - the loss of the ice will reduce the albedo effect, and therefore less of the sun's ray's would be reflected away from the earth's surface. Also, as the permafrost thaws and the Arctic Sea warms, stored methane could be released, adding to the greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. So much may be currently unproven, but do you know for certain that the evidence supporting your position is infallible ? Nope, and neither do the doomsayers, and one particularly loud-mouthed doomsayer is now observed to be backtracking.... If that were true the earth would have gone to some extreme and stuck there sometime in the last 4 billion years. There have been several extended periods when we have been an icy lump. Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 (edited) If that were true the earth would have gone to some extreme and stuck there sometime in the last 4 billion years. There have been several extended periods when we have been an icy lump. ... Edited 24 April, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Obviously there are other factors in the Earth's temperature, but without the Greenhouse Effect, the earth would be uninhabitable with an average temperature well below zero, so we mess with it at our peril. It is a delicate system in equilibrium and like all equilibriums, it can only be pushed so far before it breaks. I don't know why everyone attempts to say science is wrong on this when they quite happily use everything else science has given them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 I don't know why everyone attempts to say science is wrong on this ....... Because, generally, it's the "I'm all right Jack" syndrome - why should I be concerned about projections of disaster 60 years hence, when I'll no longer be around. This is often coupled with "Humans are adaptable, we'll adjust to the new environment". Out of curiosity, has anybody any links to a breakdown by age group on what proportion of the population accept MMGW as a reality ? Without any substantiation, I suspect that the under 30's are more likely to think it is a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 April, 2012 Share Posted 24 April, 2012 Out of curiosity, has anybody any links to a breakdown by age group on what proportion of the population accept MMGW as a reality ? Without any substantiation, I suspect that the under 30's are more likely to think it is a reality. Cant think of any links to specific age related research offhand - but yes in general younger people tend to absorb information from now whereas older people tend to adhere to beliefs formed when they were young (even if the situation has changed). Here is some general attitudinal stuff, mainly US Im afraid. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/CC_American_Mind.pdf http://www.pewglobal.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now