|
Hammer and Pickle
8:28 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
OK - if the politicians want to make the right decisions as far as the common good is concerned, they have to base them on the science.
But I'm only being bizarre again - ignore my ramblings.
|
Coffee
8:16 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
True, Mike. Economics is the mother of all political inventions.
|
Mike Oxsaw
8:12 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
"The politicians have to make political decisions on the impact of fossil fuel energy production on climate based on the science,..."
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
The politicians SHOULD make political decisions on the impact of fossil fuel energy production on climate based on the science, but you'll find in many, if not all cases, personal and/or commercial interests take precedent.
If you believe any different then you're living on a different planet to the rest of us. Go save that one instead.
|
Coffee
7:45 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Where have I suggested whim or fancy?
H&P, your posts on this thread are becoming ever more bizarre.
|
Hammer and Pickle
7:42 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
The politicians have to make political decisions on the impact of fossil fuel energy production on climate based on the science, not whim or fancy as being suggested by Coffee.
However, science will never be able to provide full and conclusive proof that this form of energy production is causing the rises in global temperatures being recorded since the industrial revolution together with all the other negative effects being reported.
But anyone who has ever kept a garden or an aquarium will know what happens when a factor like CO2 is increased rapidly compared to all others, negative changes will take place - that's logic and common sense.
|
Mike Oxsaw
7:14 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Coffee 6:43 Tue Dec 15
I'd tend to agree with most, if not all, of that.
Your point: "But we cannot ignore the demands of the real world." is one of many foci in your musings and is probably the key contributor to Infidel's ramblings, but only cursory further investigations should make it clear that this is a political issue.
It was politicians who mad the absurd decision to legally (not scientifically) impose those cuts.
Those same politicians then try to say it was "Science that made them do it," when it was clearly not the case at all (In fact I seem to recall a time, not so long ago, when no politician would go anywhere near anything "green" for fear of being labelled a lentil-knitter).
That all seemed tom change when it was realised there was (personal) money to be made in a, literally, whisked-out-of-thin-air, carbon market.
Look at who made/is making money in this "new" market and you may get an indication as to what drove the politicians down the path they followed - but it certainly was NOT "science".
|
Texas Iron
6:57 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Can't wait to see what these Negative Pollution Technologies will be...???
They must be joking...???
http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-were-going-have-start-sucking-pollution-out-air-save-climate
|
Texas Iron
6:53 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Interestingly...In order to meet the objectives agreed in Paris...
Experts say there would need to be a negative amount of Pollution...to succeed,...
FMOB...
|
Coffee
6:43 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Lily
"I still wonder whether man is a bit part player, or the star of the show."
That is the key question at the very core of this whole debate.
The simple answer is that we do not know.
While human activity is certainly one player, the field is vast with very many factors probably having far greater influence, both individually and in combination.
Does that mean that we should ignore the human impact? Absolutely not. Just see what pollution is doing to China's cities, for example. See its role in driving the greenhouse effect. There are strong and pressing cases to be made for reducing carbon emissions.
But we cannot ignore the demands of the real world. This is the case that Infidel is making. It simply is not possible to wish away a significant part of what drives economic growth: carbon-based fuels. So solutions and adaptations to climate change challenges must take this into account.
Science does not fully understand how the many climate determinants work or the full extent of their interactions and influences. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.
Contrary to what AfM and other canard purveyors suggest, the science of climate change is neither clear nor complete. Even the Worldwide Fund for Nature, an organisation that many depend on for reliable information and which receives sizeable funding from the UN and governments around the world, is in on the act when it claims that "the ongoing unlimited burning of fossil fuels is THE cause of climate change" (their words, my caps).
Such a claim borders on quackery. An innocent typo? Perhaps, but more likely the product of the growing eco-condria and self-righteous politics that promotes the belief in fossil fuels as THE cause of climate change.
|
Lily Hammer
2:43 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
AfM
Thanks for the links. I'll try them tomorrow after some kip, but as you say we are still in the last ice age to a small degree, suggesting we are indeed coming out of the final geographic moments, it does fuel the argument that man is not neccessarily the main culprit in the current (ongoing?) climate change. Before reading the links, I still wonder whether man is a bit part player, or the star of the show.
|
AfM
1:35 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
A slightly misleading question, Lily.
The Pleistocene Epoch is considered to have ended around 11,000 years ago. In some senses we are still in it but obviously, at its peak huge parts of the Earth were covered in glaciers.
This is a pretty good article on that period of time
http://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html
The next question you seem to be asking is How do we know that man's activities are causing the changing climate. The answer to that is fairly straightforward but requires a bit of understanding.
First of all, you need to understand that the world's climate does change naturally BUT and it's a huge BUT those natural changes do not explain the rises we are seeing.
This page gives you a pretty good view of the science in a reasonably understandable way.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.Vm9YrRqLRyo
Hope that helps. Obviously happy to answer any other questions, as always.
|
stomper
1:32 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
And the Ice fairs on the frozen Thames
|
stomper
1:31 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
It led to poor harvests, Population movement, war, religious fundamentalism, more war, atheism, and the reexamination of the meaning of life
|
stomper
1:27 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
We had a mini ice age in the 17th century.
|
Lily Hammer
1:22 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Questions I'm not sure about is...How long did the last ice age (or glacial period, whatever it's called) last? When did it end?
I seem to remember talk of it ending 10,000 years ago, but didn't it last for ages and ages? Is it not possible that we are still coming out of it? the last dregs of it, so to speak?
Anyone clever who can help and say 100% certainly that we are not still experiencing the very last cramps of the last ice age.
10,000 years is next to nothing, geographically speaking.
|
stomper
12:53 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Seems to me that this thread is a circuitous argument between two people with the occasional stranger wandering through
|
AfM
12:32 Tue Dec 15
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Infidel,
Read the paper about the badgers. It's the one the government used. You'll see they lied about it and you bought the lie.
Again, the quote from the scientists:
"First, while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better."
And yet the government ignored that chasing votes in the countryside.
You, infidel either can't read, are incredibly thick or deliberately lying.
|
Hammer and Pickle
9:48 Mon Dec 14
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
I don't think anyone's been called a preposterous mountebank on here before.
|
Infidel
9:32 Mon Dec 14
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
AfM
You are such a child.
The same government that endorses the science of climate change also endorses the science of TB transmission by badgers.
Where the former is concerned your view is that anyone who questions the science is evil, stupid or a paid lobbyist for vested interests. You froth at the mouth whenever they ask questions and would happily have them all shot.
Where the latter is concerned you think it's a mark of intelligence to discover alternative points of view that challenge the government's position. You do this because you like badgers.
So you're now in the invidious position of having to find a definition of scientific opinion that divides the climate change variety (not challengeable) from the badger TB variety (challengeable), and you have to do this from a position where you yourself have no scientific training whatsoever.
There is no such definition,which is why you are such a preposterous mountebank.
|
AfM
8:49 Mon Dec 14
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
Amusingly, this is the trial that the government used to back their badger cull.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081107201922/http:/defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/culling/index.htm
And here is the final report
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081107201922/http://defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/pdf/final_report.pdf
That includes the following words directly to the secretary of state
" First, while badgers are clearly a source of
cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can
make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under
consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. Second, weaknesses in
cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence
and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely
to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of
disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of
cattle-based control measures alone."
Infidel then believes the tripe the government put out and pretends I googled a random study.
Most amusing to see, then, that the actual study the government used says EXACTLY what I said and the opposite of what Infidel said.
So, in fact, he denies the science on badgers culls and the climate. No great surprise but darn funny.
|
Infidel
6:43 Mon Dec 14
Re: Fingers crossed this absurd "Climate Summit" ends in failure
|
AfM
You don't understand the science of TB infection through badgers but that didn't stop you disagreeing with the government scientists.
You frantically Googled to see if you could find a counter argument and then danced on the head of a pin trying to argue that that was somehow different from climate sceptics doing the same thing.
You tied yourself up in knots and made a fool of yourself yet you are still on here pretending to be well informed.
|
|
|
|
