Off Topic The Environment

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Leo

Leo

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2011
11,570
1,441
113
Selsey
A large international conference on climate change is due to start.

COP21
The 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)will take place in Paris from November 30 to December 11, 2015, bringing together world leaders to hammer out an agreement aimed at stabilizing the climate and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. In the run-up to Paris, business and investor leaders across Ceres’ networks and beyond are demonstrating unprecedented support for robust action on climate. More than 360 companies have stood up in support of the U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Six major U.S. banks, leading food and beverage company CEOs and over 400 global investors representing some $24 trillion in assets are all calling for a strong global climate deal. Delve into the elements that showcase Ceres' leadership as momentum continues to build on the road to - and through - Paris.

I am slightly confused. I thought that there was almost universal agreement that climate change is an active and threatening part of today's world. Some debate appears to exist around whether it is part of a natural cycle or is caused by us.

Thoughts?
 
The answer to the last is probably both ie. we are part of a natural global warming which occurs around every 1,000 years - if that were not so many of the Vikings journeys would have been impossible. There are thought to be old Viking settlements currently still under ice - however, we are adding to this with our own emissions and so the actual rate of warming is much higher than at other periods of history. The main culprits are Co2 (caused primarily by industrial production, power stations and traffic(both private and freight) and household useage), then Methane which is about 10 times more aggressive caused by Oil refining, agriculture and rubbish disposal, and lastly Nitrous Oxide which is almost solely a problem of Agriculture. Solutions which talk only about clean production of electricity, windmills etc. and electric cars etc. are missing the point - they offer a type of techno fix solution which tells us that we can continue to consume, produce, talk about growth, as before but with different technology. We need to both scale down, redistribute, and work more with the idea of self sufficiency - in the end every individual is responsible for their own carbon footprint and has a duty to both calculate, and reduce this. I cannot take environmentalists seriously who have solar panels on their rooves, but then fly to environmentalist conferences in Bali (or anywhere else for that matter) - in fact I don't really like the fact that our team flies to some away matches.
Even for those people who do not believe in man made global warming, and there are some, it is not hard to work out that if all nations used resources at the same rate as the West then we would need the resources of 4 and a half planets to keep pace with that. The biggest mistake is the unbelievably arrogant belief that the World belongs to us - which it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
I have seen it argued that CO2 has not been demonstrated to be the evil doer that is always proclaimed and that is also has beneficial effects - but I am not sure where I read this or if I have just got that totally wrong
 
Here's one from ex Greenpeace director http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/28/a-co-founder-of-greenpeace-tells-the-truth-on-co2/ Lets just look at the evidence, during the jurassic period and at many other times where was the carbon that was used for growth of the forests that decomposed to form coal and the growth blocks for organisms that formed oil and gas and carbonate rocks? I'll leave that open so you can all think about it but a hint is that it was a gas that existed in the atmosphere and not from outer space. The CO2 myth being fed to the sheep of the world that fall for the lie hook line and sinker is being peddled for the same reason all political myths are formed, greed and global influence. There is a massive interest in the west denying developing countries the cheap energy to grow their living standards whilst also a need to control the uncontrollable (Russia, Middle East and Venezuela). These areas have potential to be major thorns in the side of the West (they are already) and in western politics a good way to marginalize and remove their influence is to bring down fossil fuels. I'd like somebody who believes the green lie to come back here and quote a) the optimum atmospheric CO2 level to support the maximum amount of life on the planet, 2) A history of the amount of "locked up CO2" (carbonate rocks, fossil fuels) with the balance of these between renewable ie. the fossil fuels which are in the carbon cycle and the locked up carbonates from the likes of cocoliths etc, there are currently massive blooms which are feeding on oceanic CO2 which is locking it away in their little skeletons to be buried and lost to the cycle forever. The assertion that Shell BP Exxon etc. sponsor reports and then influence the output of those reports is totally false. I have close ties with all these companies and there is a complete buyin to telling the absolute truth as any lies are always found out and cause far more commercial damage than any test results could. These corporations rely on the planet to continue to prosper if they are to prosper and continue feeding the pension funds. Nitrous oxide is not a problem of agriculture, its a problem of diesel emissions, those emissions that will be thrown into the atmosphere as backup generation is made necessary by the wind and solar farce in the UK!!!! Methane is not mainly from refining, methane is one of the sale products of refining which is then used in the chemical and power generation industries as well as most of our central heating. Methane is also significantly a product of farming (dairy and meat). We each have a responsibility to ensure we recycle as much as possible and live cleanly but in no way will I reduce my carbon footprint as I believe we need more CO2 in the atmosphere to be at optimum level not less. This whole climate change thing as a result of human activity is a complete nonsense when taken as a part of nature. Our bigger problem is allowing or making people live longer, survive epidemics etc. but looks like nature will get that under control soon as well with the reduction in antibiotic effectiveness probably going to be totally gone within the next century.
 
Interesting video by Patrick Moore (not THE Patrick Moore)
I do not buy the argument that the west "promotes" the evil C)2 theory to thwart, Venezuela,Russia and the Middle East.
I also accept that it would be counter productive for Shell etc to lie about reports as they would be "found out" but I do expect they will sponsor those who wish to disprove a theory they dislike.
I do not accept they would not lie as the want the planet to prosper as we are talking about events going on for decades - beyond the period those executives care about as oil men or whatever.

OK -my take so far is that although I see claims that no serious scientist disputes global warming, in fact many scientists do just that so the description of them not being serious is subjective. The argument does appear to involve the cause of global warming though more than the fact of it.

Seems to me that global warming has taken place over the period since the industrial revolution and at an ever increasing pace. (there was a "pause" it seems around 2002 - 2009). Do we all agree that warming is taking place and it affects both sea and land?
 
Not enough reliable data for me to be able to reach a conclusion. I'd say this warming is still only noise but probable we are in a warming cycle that will only improve our planet. Regarding scientific consensus there is definitely not, that oft quoted 97% was of a tiny proportion of polled pro warming theory scientists so should have been 100%!!!!
 
Cologne is very honest on here and I think reflects a large number of the environmentally so called concerned. What they are really looking for is some anti capitalist ammunition. My worst headache at the moment is Greenpeace who support enviromentally insane and useless wind as a major contributor/solution and support that CO2 emitter biomass just to prove the point that even for them CO2 carbon is not really the issue, far more good could be done simply on focusing on reforestation....
 
You do not need to be a scientist to know that Co2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it - like the use of a blanket it prevents the sun's energy from being reradiated back into space. Humans are adding to this and thus the blanket is getting thicker - way beyond what could be expected by nature alone. You cannot dispute the warming itself - or are the receding glaciers, melting ice, increased storm activity, flooding etc. all figments of my imagination. Can you dispute that between 2002 and 2010 over 77 million pounds were donated anonymously to groups wanting to deny climate change ? Can you deny that the theme of climate change denial is also most closely associated with the fossil fuels lobby and conservative think tanks in the USA (coincidentally the biggest polluter of all). Can you deny that, even without climate change, we are using up the resources of this planet in a way which is unsustainable, unnecessary, and driven mostly by greed ? I'm sorry but for me Global warming denial is akin to holocaust denial (in fact worse because it's current and not historical). Can we please get past this stage and start talking more about what we can do about this problem ? About the changes needed in agriculture, tourism, transport, energy etc. Whether you are a Tory, Socialist, Moslem, Atheist, Hindu etc. it doesn't matter - we have a duty to pass the World onto the next generation in a fit state - and even if man made global warming had not been proved a hundred times over, even if there were some doubt, we would still be obliged to act as if it could be the case - because there is not much time left.
 
No I am afraid that for me the first stage has to come first. There is no point debating what you are going to do about a problem if no problem exists. Unlike Aberdeen I am convinced by the global temperature charts that the earth has warmed over the last 100 years or so. Let's not go into all these conspiracy theories that both sides put out - it gets nowhere.

OK so I accept global warming is taking place. Your point about a blanket Cologne is one I have seen refuted like this. The atmospheric CO2 absorbs reflected heat at certain wavelengths - but there is a maximum it can absorb so any CO2 beyond that is not a contributing factor. Is that true or not?

There is also an argument that higher levels of CO2 promote plant growth and so contributes beneficial effects to plants lowering the levels of CO2 as they use it to grow, One statement indicated that the higher levels of CO2 contribute an extra 15% to plant growth.

Another argument is that CO2 levels are low by geological standards - on e era of high growth saw them at 10 times current levels.

Also there is an argument that even if we accept that the Earth has warmed by 0.7 degrees in the last 125 years this could be part of the ongoing natural cycle.

So is the case for man made global warming proven?
 
aberdeenhornet said:
Cologne is very honest on here and I think reflects a large number of the environmentally so called concerned. What they are really looking for is some anti capitalist ammunition. My worst headache at the moment is Greenpeace who support enviromentally insane and useless wind as a major contributor/solution and support that CO2 emitter biomass just to prove the point that even for them CO2 carbon is not really the issue, far more good could be done simply on focusing on reforestation....
Click to expand...
Leonardo said:
No I am afraid that for me the first stage has to come first. There is no point debating what you are going to do about a problem if no problem exists. Unlike Aberdeen I am convinced by the global temperature charts that the earth has warmed over the last 100 years or so. Let's not go into all these conspiracy theories that both sides put out - it gets nowhere.

OK so I accept global warming is taking place. Your point about a blanket Cologne is one I have seen refuted like this. The atmospheric CO2 absorbs reflected heat at certain wavelengths - but there is a maximum it can absorb so any CO2 beyond that is not a contributing factor. Is that true or not?

There is also an argument that higher levels of CO2 promote plant growth and so contributes beneficial effects to plants lowering the levels of CO2 as they use it to grow, One statement indicated that the higher levels of CO2 contribute an extra 15% to plant growth.

Another argument is that CO2 levels are low by geological standards - on e era of high growth saw them at 10 times current levels.

Also there is an argument that even if we accept that the Earth has warmed by 0.7 degrees in the last 125 years this could be part of the ongoing natural cycle.

So is the case for man made global warming proven?
Click to expand...
The World has told us already that a problem exists Leo or do you deny the signs of it - temperatures both of land and sea have risen at un unprecedented rate over just the last 20 years. Regarding Co2 the atmosphere contained 280 parts per million in 1800 - which is probably the natural level, this year it is over 400 for the first time in a million years. Most of that increase is due to human activity - put this together with the melting poles, the retreating glaciers etc. etc. and what conclusions can you come to. As a doctor when I have a patient before me with a lung disease then I would want him to help his improvement in some way by giving up or reducing his smoking - I would not wait for the documentary evidence that smoking had 'caused' his disease. There is not enough time for step 1.....step 2.....and so on.
 
colognehornet said:
The World has told us already that a problem exists Leo or do you deny the signs of it - temperatures both of land and sea have risen at un unprecedented rate over just the last 20 years. Regarding Co2 the atmosphere contained 280 parts per million in 1800 - which is probably the natural level, this year it is over 400 for the first time in a million years. Most of that increase is due to human activity - put this together with the melting poles, the retreating glaciers etc. etc. and what conclusions can you come to. As a doctor when I have a patient before me with a lung disease then I would want him to help his improvement in some way by giving up or reducing his smoking - I would not wait for the documentary evidence that smoking had 'caused' his disease. There is not enough time for step 1.....step 2.....and so on.
Click to expand...
I deny nothing - I am questioning as it seems to me those that are arguing from both extremes are trying to bounce the argument their way. Did I not post that I accepted global warming is taking place above? Who is this World that told us?
I also accept that mankind appears to have added 50% to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But it could be coincidental -causation needs to be established
Your analogy is fine - but what if he had been exposed to asbestos or something else that had affected his lungs - maybe his smoking has nothing to do with his disease - it may make sense to stop smoking for now but would you not advise the doctor to conduct other tests to see if he had missed a more important factor. That is simplistic anyway - the global ecosystem is very complex and you need to be sure of what the facts are before you suggest radical action. Your patient may not agree to having his lungs removed until he had further tests.
Who says there is not enough time for step 1,2 etc - only those who advocate precipitous actions on a global scale.
Anyway in this debate I don't think it will last beyond thelife of the planet so let's keep investigating and provide facts and not assume causation unless proven
 
Leonardo said:
I deny nothing - I am questioning as it seems to me those that are arguing from both extremes are trying to bounce the argument their way. Did I not post that I accepted global warming is taking place above? Who is this World that told us?
I also accept that mankind appears to have added 50% to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But it could be coincidental -causation needs to be established
Your analogy is fine - but what if he had been exposed to asbestos or something else that had affected his lungs - maybe his smoking has nothing to do with his disease - it may make sense to stop smoking for now but would you not advise the doctor to conduct other tests to see if he had missed a more important factor. That is simplistic anyway - the global ecosystem is very complex and you need to be sure of what the facts are before you suggest radical action. Your patient may not agree to having his lungs removed until he had further tests.
Who says there is not enough time for step 1,2 etc - only those who advocate precipitous actions on a global scale.
Anyway in this debate I don't think it will last beyond thelife of the planet so let's keep investigating and provide facts and not assume causation unless proven
Click to expand...
But Leo.....the thread is called 'the environment' and not global warming. There is also a whole branch of environmentalism which has nothing to do with global warming as such. The rate of animals and insects which are becoming extinct, or have been placed on the red list as 'endangered' is also cause for concern. Did you ever look back and think, why were there more eg. Bumble Bees around when you were a child ? I ask this, and also the same about many of the hedgerow plants which have also disapeared, never to be replaced. They are as much victims of our greed (and our consumption patterns) as the climate is - should we not be changing our practices even without global warming ? All of the measures which I would advocate: An agriculture which moves back towards 'mixed' farming and perma culture (and does not generate thousands of children who believe that chicken wings fall from the sky). A revolution in 'public' transport. Future towns built with pedestrians and cyclists in mind rather than car drivers. Less air travel. More self sufficiency in those things which can be produced closer to home. More energy saving. A zero waste policy. All of these are of general benefit to the environment (and to our living standards) even without global warming.
 
Last edited:
Agreed on the general Cologne - I wanted the thread to last beyond the immediate Paris but thought for now I would like to understand a bit more about that. You and Aberdeen are relative experts on the subject - but I am not.
I am closer to your position than you might think. Alvin Toffler and Gordon Rattray Taylor were early influences on me - I was also a member of Greenpeace. However as I have grown older and become more disillusioned about just about everything then I take nothing for granted any more. I like to try to see a cause justify itself. It is not good enough to say - oh dear everything is terrible we have to stop doing what we are doing. I do not trust the ardent green protestors one bit more than the oil magnates.
One thing I do know and that is that the human population is way too high. Reduce it to a billion over night - without catastrophe - and the whole picture changes.
 
colognehornet said:
You do not need to be a scientist to know that Co2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it - like the use of a blanket it prevents the sun's energy from being reradiated back into space. Humans are adding to this and thus the blanket is getting thicker - way beyond what could be expected by nature alone. You cannot dispute the warming itself - or are the receding glaciers, melting ice, increased storm activity, flooding etc. all figments of my imagination. Can you dispute that between 2002 and 2010 over 77 million pounds were donated anonymously to groups wanting to deny climate change ? Can you deny that the theme of climate change denial is also most closely associated with the fossil fuels lobby and conservative think tanks in the USA (coincidentally the biggest polluter of all). Can you deny that, even without climate change, we are using up the resources of this planet in a way which is unsustainable, unnecessary, and driven mostly by greed ? I'm sorry but for me Global warming denial is akin to holocaust denial (in fact worse because it's current and not historical). Can we please get past this stage and start talking more about what we can do about this problem ? About the changes needed in agriculture, tourism, transport, energy etc. Whether you are a Tory, Socialist, Moslem, Atheist, Hindu etc. it doesn't matter - we have a duty to pass the World onto the next generation in a fit state - and even if man made global warming had not been proved a hundred times over, even if there were some doubt, we would still be obliged to act as if it could be the case - because there is not much time left.
Click to expand...
No we can't!!! It is not a universally accepted fact and that blanket works both ways, more heat is radiated inwards than outwards OK there are differing opinions on the science of radiation and re radiation but its not a given and frankly you can't just roll over other opinions on climate change with blanket statements accepting that man is at all significant in this he isn't!!. It's very offensive to compare climate change denial which is a scientific unproven, a historical piece of noise etc when thre holocaust is there with direct evidence and cannot be disproven, climate change can and is disproven in numerous studies. I agree we must do more to counter the declinng energy from the sun but how I am not sure. We are such a pimple in the ecosystem I think we should get on with living and stop worrying. Not much time left for what? Frankly the planet has billions of years left and will adapt, mankid will become less populous not because of the climate but because of declining efficacy of medicine and his own nature which will always lead to war and we're due a big one. Frankly climate change is way down on my list of important factors and seriously I'm more worried about Watfords performance in the transfer window. As for ice there are again studies proving increased sea ice, fudging of data by NASA to support climate change etc. all the common sense and evidence points to it being a con.
 
colognehornet said:
But Leo.....the thread is called 'the environment' and not global warming. There is also a whole branch of environmentalism which has nothing to do with global warming as such. The rate of animals and insects which are becoming extinct, or have been placed on the red list as 'endangered' is also cause for concern. Did you ever look back and think, why were there more eg. Bumble Bees around when you were a child ? I ask this, and also the same about many of the hedgerow plants which have also disapeared, never to be replaced. They are as much victims of our greed (and our consumption patterns) as the climate is - should we not be changing our practices even without global warming ?
Click to expand...
aberdeenhornet said:
No we can't!!! It is not a universally accepted fact and that blanket works both ways, more heat is radiated inwards than outwards OK there are differing opinions on the science of radiation and re radiation but its not a given and frankly you can't just roll over other opinions on climate change with blanket statements accepting that man is at all significant in this he isn't!!. It's very offensive to compare climate change denial which is a scientific unproven, a historical piece of noise etc when thre holocaust is there with direct evidence and cannot be disproven, climate change can and is disproven in numerous studies. I agree we must do more to counter the declinng energy from the sun but how I am not sure. We are such a pimple in the ecosystem I think we should get on with living and stop worrying. Not much time left for what? Frankly the planet has billions of years left and will adapt, mankid will become less populous not because of the climate but because of declining efficacy of medicine and his own nature which will always lead to war and we're due a big one. Frankly climate change is way down on my list of important factors and seriously I'm more worried about Watfords performance in the transfer window. As for ice there are again studies proving increased sea ice, fudging of data by NASA to support climate change etc. all the common sense and evidence points to it being a con.
Click to expand...
Aberdeen...I don't need science on my side, or studies, although most of them are in support of my argument. I just need my senses and my nose - recently we were at a demo. at Garzweiler 2 which is the largest hole in Europe ie. 88 square Km. used for Lignite open caste mining - like a lunar landscape and the power stations fired by this are visible from my house which is 80km away. I don't need studies or universities to tell me that this can come to no good - whether global warming, or the dying out of species which have as much right here as we do, we have no right to be treating the World in this way.
 
Agree with you Aberdeen re "denial" point. Comparing the two is really really offensive. Those who deny the holocaust are evil or stupid but those that debate the environment and do not accept all that scientists say without questions are gullible. Scientists have proved themselves wrong on too many counts to think we should accept their current "THEORIES" - note not fact but theories on causation without question
 
The worst thing we do to the world is to have more children - how many greens understand that?
 
Leonardo said:
The worst thing we do to the world is to have more children - how many greens understand that?
Click to expand...
I am Green and I understand that Leo. The best thing you can do for the environment is not to have children, but this standpoint does not win any votes. Also this is not knowledge which can be acted upon. One problem though with this is that the worst polluters of all per head are the Americans, but they do not have a population problem, having a population density which is less than nearly all European countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back