It's Not Global Warming...

[Jake]

Talking of the stone and bronze ages was a metaphor meaning if we did meet with another ice age we would have no choice but to go back to basics.

 

But you said that the stone age was part of some cycle?

 

I said we would end up going back there if we ever entered another ice age.... which is on the cards well after we have left the earth

 

I am still not convinced about global warming being a human creation as there is no proven scientific fact today to prove so conclusively.

 

Actually, there is. In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. If you read up on the IPCC

and the challenges it faces, you can see how important such a conclusion is. If you Doctor said you needed treatment or there'd be a 90% chance you'd die, you'd take the treatment. What else do you need to prove human infuence?

 

so show the conclusive proof then.... there simply is none.... if my Doctor told me there was a 90% chance I would die then I would have 10% left to tell people around me how much I love them.... Doctors have also known to be wrong in the past.

 

 

There are assumed facts but no credible evidence.

 

That's incorrect. There's plenty of good peer reviewed evidence that points to man made influence on global warming.

 

We all know global warming is happening without a doubt but where is the proof in that information it is a direct result of human carbon emissions.... do you have any idea at all what natural gasses the earth gives out into the atmosphere? even planet earth needs to fart every now and then.... should we tell it noooooo that is not a nice thing to do? This is an amazing planet and has survived for millions of years under all kinds of stresses and strains and always bounced back.... you need to understand that it is undergoing a natural evolutionary change and nothing more.... we need to plan for our future living conditions and less on lining the pockets of individuals selling you the "green dream."

 

 

We have it within our hands now to create clean power.... France has set up the first nuclear fission plant that generates electricity with near zero emissions and only half the waste of a "fusion" plant....

 

Now you're really showing your cluelessness. What is a fusion plant? Can you point me to some examples of fusion plants in use today? Nuclear fission plants are definately part of a solution, but the fuels for them are not infinate either and the handling of waste continues to be a propblem. Power generation isn't the only purpose for oil either, so nuclear power doesnt solve all those problems.

 

So I messed my grammar up and in my work that is unforgivable.... I don't think we should be here to score points though.... you may remember this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm I hope you don't think I am being picky here but I have highlighted your own spelling mistakes in your last paragraph.... it happens to the best of us but is not an indicator of knowledge or strength.

 

it is within our realm to create power by splitting the hydrogen atom, if the oil companies did not keep buying up the licenses and copyrights to new and up coming inventions we may actually see us drift away from using oil but we are yet to reach "peak oil" when all the major oil suppliers will make a killing out of their product.

 

That's simply tin hat wearing conspiracy nonsense. Got any proof?

 

How about I could tell you but I would have to kill you?

 

All this hype is based around money and certain people are making a lot of it.... I find it tiresome these days when people approach me for a green design to a product that is most environmentally unfriendly.... call me a skeptic but this whole issue is simply making some very rich indeed.

 

Again, got any examples or proof?

 

Myself for one but I won't reveal my Company records to you.... do you have any proof to the contrary?

 

Vinnie.... the Chinese are building a power station every day.... That's what we know, we simply choose to ignore the suffering going on there as in deaths as they become the biggest polluter on earth. Maybe we should share our technology with the rest of the world instead of simply making them do what they have to in order to survive.

 

Got any examples or proof?

 

My friend.... it is happening and so much is being covered up.... you must remember Tienanmen Square..... I am a bad guy as I sell them robotic equipment but I will not get involved in how they use it.... you can truly have a go at me now. Will that solve the issue though?

[Jake]

Not all Asians are Muslim you may care to know.

 

And not all muslims are fanatical or are in the UK 'because they like it and the benefits it brings'.

 

I was just pointing out your pigeonholing whilst you bleat about pigeonholing. Carry on.

 

Why else would anyone be in a place they are not comfortable with? especially if it is a completely different culture..... you know attitudes like this make me so angry.... I have been to Iraq three times this year alone.... I have seen Tanzania and Sumatra and many other Countries that have a great distrust of the west.... It doesn't mean I dislike any of these people though.... I like to build bridges.

 

Anyone who comes to this Country crosses many borders to do so..... so don't tell me that individuals do not go out of their way to arrive here.... I suggest you start a new thread on this and I will happily debate my experiences with you.

[VinnieK]

Vinnie.... the Chinese are building a power station every day....

 

No they're not, at least not according to the Times, the BBC, or any other source I can find on the internet for that matter. The figures vary from one a week to about two, which is still a lot, but considerably less than one a day.

 

we simply choose to ignore the suffering going on there as in deaths as they become the biggest polluter on earth. Maybe we should share our technology with the rest of the world instead of simply making them do what they have to in order to survive.

 

That was kind of the point of my comment on technology, that it should be shared (or at least the basic principles of clean, efficient plant) once it's developed.

[Jake]

Vinnie.... the Chinese are building a power station every day....

 

No they're not, at least not according to the Times, the BBC, or any other source I can find on the internet for that matter. The figures vary from one a week to about two, which is still a lot, but considerably less than one a day.

 

we simply choose to ignore the suffering going on there as in deaths as they become the biggest polluter on earth. Maybe we should share our technology with the rest of the world instead of simply making them do what they have to in order to survive.

 

That was kind of the point of my comment on technology, that it should be shared (or at least the basic principles of clean, efficient plant) once it's developed.

 

That is so refreshing Vinnie..... I cannot honestly quote my sources for information and I do hope I am wrong but China will make a mess of the place unless alongside giving them trade, we also help them with production.... this has been my argument all along. We ask for cheaply produced goods but we will end up paying a far greater price in the end and this has nothing to do with global warming but how people live their lives....

 

You know, the G8 Countries have never come to an agreement over global warming, it has always been false promises for attention to a particular use or wastage of energy and simply because there is no proof to form the basis of an agreement..... the Kyoto agreement will never come into effect as too many people will fade from employment if it ever went ahead.... You know Vinnie, I would give away everything I know if I thought I could dent this concern.

 

We all owe each other here on this planet..... the atmosphere is not the problem...... the people on this planet are, I reckon if you took all the money off the oil barons and divided it up equally amongst them all..... there wouldn't be enough to go around.

[Slim]

so show the conclusive proof then.... there simply is none.... if my Doctor told me there was a 90% chance I would die then I would have 10% left to tell people around me how much I love them.... Doctors have also known to be wrong in the past.

 

Much of this has been covered in previous threads Jake. 90% certainty in a large scale peer reviewed paper that's in many peoples interests to be wrong is pretty good going in terms of scientific evidence. If you're seriously telling me a doctor tells you he's 90% sure you need treatment and you wouldn't take it, then I'm done talking to you.

 

We all know global warming is happening without a doubt but where is the proof in that information it is a direct result of human carbon emissions.... do you have any idea at all what natural gasses the earth gives out into the atmosphere? even planet earth needs to fart every now and then.... should we tell it noooooo that is not a nice thing to do? This is an amazing planet and has survived for millions of years under all kinds of stresses and strains and always bounced back.... you need to understand that it is undergoing a natural evolutionary change and nothing more.... we need to plan for our future living conditions and less on lining the pockets of individuals selling you the "green dream."

 

This planet doesn't evolve Jake, take a look at what that means. It does change, yes, and there are natural cycles. The IPCC have reported that the additional warming, the so called 'tipping point' is human caused on top of a natural warming cycle. They also say that if action is taken we can prevent the worst of the damage. The majority of science now supports this view. What makes you better qualified to disagree with professionals who have devoted their lives to these studies?

 

Jesus, even the oil companies now accept human's are causing climate change.

 

 

So I messed my grammar up and in my work that is unforgivable.... I don't think we should be here to score points though.... you may remember this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm I hope you don't think I am being picky here but I have highlighted your own spelling mistakes in your last paragraph.... it happens to the best of us but is not an indicator of knowledge or strength.

 

I'm not picking on your spelling, I'm picking on your obvious ignorance. There are no fusion reactors, what you've linked to there is a science project, the reactor doesn't exist yet, and many people think it'll either never exist or will be just as problematic as fission reactors if they do manage to harness the reaction. Nuclear reactors in use today are all fission reactors. Your statement makes no sense with that in mind.

 

How about I could tell you but I would have to kill you?

 

That's a 'no' to the proof question then.

 

Myself for one but I won't reveal my Company records to you.... do you have any proof to the contrary?

 

That's a 'no' again to the proof question then. Have I got proof that the environmental issue isn't simply created for financial gain? Sure, how about the money that the UN is throwing into researching and the resulting conclusions, who's gaining financially there?

 

 

My friend.... it is happening and so much is being covered up.... you must remember Tienanmen Square..... I am a bad guy as I sell them robotic equipment but I will not get involved in how they use it.... you can truly have a go at me now. Will that solve the issue though?

 

 

I haven't a clue what you're on about. What has a protest vs the chinese government got to do with how many coal plants they're building?

[Albert Tatlock]

And who will pay for the care of the elderly Mr Hitler when our economics depend on a large working population.

Er...why should population control be seen as negative? Your economic logic of looking after the elderly advocates nothing but exponential human population growth - because as people live longer and longer we will never 'catch up' in the economic argument. Population control is the elephant in the room that people seem unwilling to discuss.

 

Clicky

 

Clicky

 

Letters: (Indepependent)

Population control

Why green groups are afraid to talk about population control

Published: 02 July 2007

 

...I have tried to elicit a view from Friends of the Earth regarding population control, and their lack of response mirrors those that I also failed to receive from Greenpeace and the Green Party.

 

I suggest that this is because they are aware that the "right to choose" to have as many children as we want in this country - even though each child born in a western country has an eco-impact many times that of the equivalent in the developing world - is seen as sacrosanct by most of the middle-class, vaguely green families that are their core constituency. While urging us all to take "radical action" to save the planet, these organisations do not have the courage to even discuss the most radical of all, because they know that their supporters will run a mile.

 

JOHN RICHES

 

BRIGHTON

[Jake]

so show the conclusive proof then.... there simply is none.... if my Doctor told me there was a 90% chance I would die then I would have 10% left to tell people around me how much I love them.... Doctors have also known to be wrong in the past.

 

Much of this has been covered in previous threads Jake. 90% certainty in a large scale peer reviewed paper that's in many peoples interests to be wrong is pretty good going in terms of scientific evidence. If you're seriously telling me a doctor tells you he's 90% sure you need treatment and you wouldn't take it, then I'm done talking to you.

 

I would take the Doctors advice.... I said that. I would simply use the other 10% of my time making people close to me I loved knowing they were by me..... I think that was pretty straightforward? Doctors as I have said have been known to be wrong in the past and if I had any other time from then on it would be a bonus.... you asked a question and I answered you.

 

We all know global warming is happening without a doubt but where is the proof in that information it is a direct result of human carbon emissions.... do you have any idea at all what natural gasses the earth gives out into the atmosphere? even planet earth needs to fart every now and then.... should we tell it noooooo that is not a nice thing to do? This is an amazing planet and has survived for millions of years under all kinds of stresses and strains and always bounced back.... you need to understand that it is undergoing a natural evolutionary change and nothing more.... we need to plan for our future living conditions and less on lining the pockets of individuals selling you the "green dream."

 

This planet doesn't evolve Jake, take a look at what that means. It does change, yes, and there are natural cycles. The IPCC have reported that the additional warming, the so called 'tipping point' is human caused on top of a natural warming cycle. They also say that if action is taken we can prevent the worst of the damage. The majority of science now supports this view. What makes you better qualified to disagree with professionals who have devoted their lives to these studies?

 

Jesus, even the oil companies now accept human's are causing climate change.

 

I guess you believe everything you read..... the IPCC are no more professional than I am as an individual or you for that matter..... just because an organization is Independent it doesn't make them qualified or knowledgeable about what they do.... half of these people hold no professional qualification anyway.... feel free to explore this fact. What makes me laugh is that you don't believe this planet evolves.

 

 

So I messed my grammar up and in my work that is unforgivable.... I don't think we should be here to score points though.... you may remember this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm I hope you don't think I am being picky here but I have highlighted your own spelling mistakes in your last paragraph.... it happens to the best of us but is not an indicator of knowledge or strength.

 

I'm not picking on your spelling, I'm picking on your obvious ignorance. There are no fusion reactors, what you've linked to there is a science project, the reactor doesn't exist yet, and many people think it'll either never exist or will be just as problematic as fission reactors if they do manage to harness the reaction. Nuclear reactors in use today are all fission reactors. Your statement makes no sense with that in mind.

 

So I do know a little more than you then..... the French have done it my friend, be assured of that..... we are on the same path here and Blair announced some time ago we would build more nuclear plants..... we will see if they are of the old technology or the new.... you see there are too many tree huggers trying to make us hunt with spears again to even wrap their simple heads around the fact we can be "green" but being so costs...... in the same way animal experimentation activists bomb people houses for inventing new drugs yet feed their children the end product when they are ill.

 

How about I could tell you but I would have to kill you?

 

That's a 'no' to the proof question then.

 

I was joking

 

Myself for one but I won't reveal my Company records to you.... do you have any proof to the contrary?

 

That's a 'no' again to the proof question then. Have I got proof that the environmental issue isn't simply created for financial gain? Sure, how about the money that the UN is throwing into researching and the resulting conclusions, who's gaining financially there?

 

Anyone like me and mostly the oil barons who need to subsidise their research..... I hope you wake up to my answer.

 

 

My friend.... it is happening and so much is being covered up.... you must remember Tienanmen Square..... I am a bad guy as I sell them robotic equipment but I will not get involved in how they use it.... you can truly have a go at me now. Will that solve the issue though?

 

 

 

 

I haven't a clue what you're on about. What has a protest vs the chinese government got to do with how many coal plants they're building?

 

My point is that the Chinese Government are not known for being so honest by anyone and all this closed bracket stuff is quite tiring..... can't you just write a simple reply that I don't have to dissect like you do?

[VinnieK]

Er...why should population control be seen as negative?

 

Because it's a fascistic solution to a problem that, on the global level, exists only in the minds of hysterics and misanthropes?

[Slim]

I would take the Doctors advice.... I said that. I would simply use the other 10% of my time making people close to me I loved knowing they were by me..... I think that was pretty straightforward? Doctors as I have said have been known to be wrong in the past and if I had any other time from then on it would be a bonus.... you asked a question and I answered you.

 

Exactly, you'd take the doctors advice. You're still skeptical, that's fine, but you take the advice just in case. Global warming is no different, those qualified have said with 90% certainty that the human race is causing extra warming, so we need to take their advice as evidence.

 

I guess you believe everything you read..... the IPCC are no more professional than I am as an individual or you for that matter..... just because an organization is Independent it doesn't make them qualified or knowledgeable about what they do.... half of these people hold no professional qualification anyway.... feel free to explore this fact. What makes me laugh is that you don't believe this planet evolves.

 

No, I very much don't believe everything I read, as you may have noticed I'm the most argumentative and cynical get around here, well perhaps Ans beats me by a nose... The environmental issue has been scoffed at for years, it's by far easier to follow the skeptics if you believe everything you read.

 

The IPCC is peer reviewed. If you don't understand that process, go away and read up. It's the basis of accepting all other scientific discoveries, but it seems people only take their word for it if they personally agree with the findings. Why people suddenly are qualified to dispute these findings is beyond me.

 

The planet doesn't evolve. It doesn't die and get reborn. There are not different generations of the earth. It changes, it doesn't evolve. It's a planet, not a living thing. It doesn't need to fart either for that matter.

 

So I do know a little more than you then..... the French have done it my friend, be assured of that.....

[/quot]

 

No Jake, the haven't. There is no working fusion reactor in the world. There's never been a fusion reaction yet that didn't take more power than it produced. Fusion reactors are currently not possible. The reactor you linked to, ITER. You know what ITER stands for? International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. You know what experimental means?

 

we are on the same path here and Blair announced some time ago we would build more nuclear plants..... we will see if they are of the old technology or the new.... you see there are too many tree huggers trying to make us hunt with spears again to even wrap their simple heads around the fact we can be "green" but being so costs...... in the same way animal experimentation activists bomb people houses for inventing new drugs yet feed their children the end product when they are ill.

 

There is no 'old' technology. There is only fission reactors Jake. You don't have any clue do you?

 

Anyone like me and mostly the oil barons who need to subsidise their research..... I hope you wake up to my answer.

 

Sigh.

 

My point is that the Chinese Government are not known for being so honest by anyone and all this closed bracket stuff is quite tiring..... can't you just write a simple reply that I don't have to dissect like you do?

 

If the chinese are so secretive, how can you say with any surety that they're building one power plant a day?

[The Bastard]

Global warming is no different, those qualified have said with 90% certainty that the human race is causing extra warming, so we need to take their advice as evidence.

 

Not quite. One of the few valid points highlighted in C4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary was the amount of investment that's been put behind studies that agree with the CO2-driven hypothesis (interestingly despite CO2 being given off by the oceans as they warm), and how any old research can get to be funded these days as long as it has an association, however tenuous, with global warming. You should treat any of this "evidence" with the same skepticism as any other research, even though lately it's become fashionable to accept it as gospel truth. It's still a hypothesis.

[VinnieK]

So I do know a little more than you then..... the French have done it my friend, be assured of that..... we are on the same path here and Blair announced some time ago we would build more nuclear plants..... we will see if they are of the old technology or the new....

 

You're not very clear as to what the French have done, so apologies if I'm wrong but are you really claiming that the French have developed fusion reactors?

 

If you're referring to ITER you've gotten very confused about this issue.

 

There is a theoretical reactor being built in France, but it is an international project that is hosted in France. Also the reactor represents only a stage in what is a very experimental procedure at the moment - the goal at this early stage is to produce a certain amount of power for a certain (relatively short but significant) amount of time, to develop new technologies based on the data and performance of the experiment for use in the next generation of experimental reactor (a fair way off yet).

 

Most importantly (in the context of what you've written) is that building work hasn't even started yet. It was only last year that a formal agreement was reached to build the damn thing! Current predictions, which are by no means certain, are that a true fusion power plant will be developed in about forty years or so at the earliest, and it'll probably take a couple of more decades for the technology to be adopted.

 

I can only assume it is to the ITER that you refer, since otherwise I can't even begin to imagine where you've got the idea that there are operational fusion reactors capable of forming the basis for power generation.

[Slim]

Not quite. One of the few valid points highlighted in C4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary was the amount of investment that's been put behind studies that agree with the CO2-driven hypothesis (interestingly despite CO2 being given off by the oceans as they warm), and how any old research can get to be funded these days as long as it has an association, however tenuous, with global warming. You should treat any of this "evidence" with the same skepticism as any other research, even though lately it's become fashionable to accept it as gospel truth. It's still a hypothesis.

 

Do you understand the process of peer review?

[Albert Tatlock]

There is a theoretical reactor being built in France, but it is an international project that is hosted in France. Also the reactor represents only a stage in what is a very experimental procedure at the moment - the goal at this early stage is to produce a certain amount of power for a certain (relatively short but significant) amount of time, to develop new technologies based on the data and performance of the experiment for use in the next generation of experimental reactor (a fair way off yet).

They been working on this for years (at least since the 70s). I attended a couple of lectures regarding this in the late 80s and they have still not got very far today. They can't maintain the magnetic fields to contain the plasma - the reaction breaks down and destroys the reactor surfaces. This is a fundamental problem, which I believe can solved on the small scale but is fundamentally different on large scale reactors such as the proposed ITER. I note they have already given themselves 30 years before committing to supplying any electricity to the national grid (including 10 years to build ITER).

 

Given the number of other problems, the number of scientists that have/are working on it - I'd say it will be 50-100 years (at least) before the first commercial fusion reactor is commissioned and applying (even a small amount of) electricity to the grid, and only then on the assumption that some brainiac will come up with a large scale solution within the next 20 years - which I doubt. Given the 'political urgency' now attached to climate change, I think the ITER is based more on political hope than judgement. I hope I'm wrong, but based on past JET performance and current technology I fear I am right.

[Jake]

I would take the Doctors advice.... I said that. I would simply use the other 10% of my time making people close to me I loved knowing they were by me..... I think that was pretty straightforward? Doctors as I have said have been known to be wrong in the past and if I had any other time from then on it would be a bonus.... you asked a question and I answered you.

 

Exactly, you'd take the doctors advice. You're still skeptical, that's fine, but you take the advice just in case. Global warming is no different, those qualified have said with 90% certainty that the human race is causing extra warming, so we need to take their advice as evidence.

 

I guess you believe everything you read..... the IPCC are no more professional than I am as an individual or you for that matter..... just because an organization is Independent it doesn't make them qualified or knowledgeable about what they do.... half of these people hold no professional qualification anyway.... feel free to explore this fact. What makes me laugh is that you don't believe this planet evolves.

 

No, I very much don't believe everything I read, as you may have noticed I'm the most argumentative and cynical get around here, well perhaps Ans beats me by a nose... The environmental issue has been scoffed at for years, it's by far easier to follow the skeptics if you believe everything you read.

 

The IPCC is peer reviewed. If you don't understand that process, go away and read up. It's the basis of accepting all other scientific discoveries, but it seems people only take their word for it if they personally agree with the findings. Why people suddenly are qualified to dispute these findings is beyond me.

 

The planet doesn't evolve. It doesn't die and get reborn. There are not different generations of the earth. It changes, it doesn't evolve. It's a planet, not a living thing. It doesn't need to fart either for that matter.

 

So I do know a little more than you then..... the French have done it my friend, be assured of that.....

[/quot]

 

No Jake, the haven't. There is no working fusion reactor in the world. There's never been a fusion reaction yet that didn't take more power than it produced. Fusion reactors are currently not possible. The reactor you linked to, ITER. You know what ITER stands for? International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. You know what experimental means?

 

we are on the same path here and Blair announced some time ago we would build more nuclear plants..... we will see if they are of the old technology or the new.... you see there are too many tree huggers trying to make us hunt with spears again to even wrap their simple heads around the fact we can be "green" but being so costs...... in the same way animal experimentation activists bomb people houses for inventing new drugs yet feed their children the end product when they are ill.

 

There is no 'old' technology. There is only fission reactors Jake. You don't have any clue do you?

 

Anyone like me and mostly the oil barons who need to subsidise their research..... I hope you wake up to my answer.

 

Sigh.

 

My point is that the Chinese Government are not known for being so honest by anyone and all this closed bracket stuff is quite tiring..... can't you just write a simple reply that I don't have to dissect like you do?

 

If the chinese are so secretive, how can you say with any surety that they're building one power plant a day?

 

Wow! you really search my head...... seeing as you have no proof to the contrary of professional work I have been involved in..... in the past or now I guess makes me a total liar then..... who am I except another poster who has asked you to produce some credible evidence that can put my words to shame...... explain the difference between fusion and fission to me then and how molecules react to each other under both conditions?

 

Once we have a common understanding over this can we move on..... you are telling me you are the expert by the way..... I will take my guide from you and tell you how wrong you are.... you must have at least a degree in this to know what you are talking about.

 

I really don't care if you believe me about China and India or not...... they will become apparent soon but neither will be responsible for a change in the global climate like the Americans aren't either..... the Americans seem to be responsible for all the earthly wrongs lately but the only ones prepared to lose their own in the face of keeping a world police force..... crap on America all you want..... I would pull my Country out of the EU and ally myself 100% to America any day..... Simply because I trust the Americans more than I trust Europe.

 

Some people in the world realize that global warming cannot be avoided.

 

If anyone wants to look me up then feel free to do so.... I can send a business link via PM..... I am so looking forward to seeing yours Slim.

 

.

[Chinahand]

Jake, I really would recommend you try reading a few of the posts on this site: realclimate.

 

You are begining to make a fool of yourself.

 

Do you really need fusion and fission explaining - fusion: combining two (or more) lighter atomic nuculei to make one heavier nucleus. If the lighter ones have atomic weights below that of iron this liberates energy - vast quantities of it!

 

Fission:splitting one heavy nucleus into two (or more) lighter nuculei. If the original nucleus has an atomic weight above that of iron it liberates energy - vast quantities of it.

 

The sun works via fusion, as does the H-bomb - only experimental reactors exist - they haven't been able to produce sustained reactions.

 

Nuclear power works via fission. Its expensive and has significant, but manageable legacy issues.

 

It looks like the legacy issues with Fusion would be less, but not zero, but as Albert says there are still very large practical problems to overcome.

 

Edited!