Al Gore’s Inconvenient Judgment

[Lurkah]

Righty so people are apparently deluding themselves that they can do anything to help and that all of this isn't something to be worried about anyway. I'm not sure who's deluding who here exactly. If you can't be bothered to be educated about the issue what is the point in just claiming, with no basis, that people are deluding themselves? I

 

This is arguably the third challenge that has faced the world that required some sort of global effort in order to resolve. Firstly the nuclear threat, although by 'world' we're really only talking about climbing back from the brink of MAD with the two superpowers of the age. Secondly CFC gasses, which were acknowledged as having a threat to the ozone layer and hence were phased out on a global basis for inferior more expensive alternatives. Thirdly, we now have global warming.

 

Only this time it's not something that two countries can decide. It's also not something that we can legislate for and impose industrial restrictions alone to combat in the case of CFCs. This time it actually requires that the substantial bulk of the human race understand the issue and prepare to modify their behavior in order to curb the amount of energy being used and greenhouse gasses emitted as a result. Or at least in the case of less ... globally responsible people, shall we call them? ... at least be prepared for changes around them they wont be happy with, even if they refuse to change a thing.

 

So far success is fairly minimal because there's a huge momentum behind the way things are done. Industrialisation, the concept of growth of business and of course consumerism which is still peaking. However the governments of the world are aware of the issue, and there's a momentum building to alter virtually everything about what we do in order to meet this threat. It's a frightening undertaking but of course you'd have us believe that this is all being done because we just have a human need to worry about something.

 

Despite the incalculable efforts being undertaken by the scientific community, by politicians faced with trying to get through legislation that will be telling being what they cannot do any more, and despite the masses of western people who are intelligent and curious enough to educate themselves and begin to alter their lifestyles (a shade more than changing a light bulb), we still come down to this sort of thing.

 

People like you. We'll forget about global warming apparently. Well, you might.

 

This is another age where human kind has faced a new challenge. And another one people will look back on and they'll talk about people like you. People who ultimately couldn't really be arsed to understand what was at stake when it was oh so much easier just to make random statements out of thin air along the lines of "oh it'll all be fine, just you wait and see". The world feels safer already.

[Lurkah]

Probably the most sensible thing I have heard about global warming yet.

 

You really are spectacularly stupid.

[Albert Tatlock]

Probably the most sensible thing I have heard about global warming yet.

 

You really are spectacularly stupid.

Can you scientifically prove that?

[Cambon]

This is another age where human kind has faced a new challenge. And another one people will look back on and they'll talk about people like you. People who ultimately couldn't really be arsed to understand what was at stake when it was oh so much easier just to make random statements out of thin air along the lines of "oh it'll all be fine, just you wait and see". The world feels safer already.

 

So tell us, exactly what have you done?

[Lurkah]

Okay then, I shall.

 

1. My wife and I work from home, we no longer commute.

2. We grow most of our own vegetables - at least in the season. We have our own chickens. We buy local produce where possible. We avoid packaging where possible, we use our own bags at super markets etc.

3. Virtually everything in the house, despite my electronics vocation, is low energy or has been chosen for that. Even to the point of me measuring current drain on the mains and individual appliances to detect the worst offenders. Some of the equipment is on master switches due to high standby currents.

4. I chose my car based on what was the lowest CO2/most fuel efficient car which I could reasonably buy. A diesel Mazda 3.

5. We're fanatical recyclers. Composting, paper and glass recycling, etc etc. Recycling has a good baring on products we buy, see point 1.

6. I'm erecting two wind turbines in the new year at either end of the house. We live right on the coast.

7. I'm expanding our green house capability dramatically to allow me to swap some produce for things which we don't produce.

8. I spend a good deal of time trying educate people about what they can do regarding climate change, or the facts of climate change in particular.

9. I significant affect the choice of components for an electronics manufacturer towards lower-power solutions and the subsequent education of our clients on why the outlay is worth the cost.

 

I haven't made any of the above up. Slim has knowledge of all of that and I'm sure he'll back me up.

 

So basically you picked the wrong guy to hit with the implied accusation that I'm an arm chair activist

 

I'm not saying anyone has to do everything like what we do in this house and I realise it makes me sound like a green nut. I actually do a lot of the above because I think it's just right to do that for other reasons other than climate change. Yes, I'm evangelical about doing similar sorts of things and the critical importance of trying to influence business and industry to play their part since one policy change can have a massive impact.

 

At the end of the day, what we do here is pretty negligable in the grand scheme of things. But the idea is that everyone makes some effort at improving their practices. Not just the green nutters. If we in the West don't make the effort, when we can afford it and the lifestyle changes are absolutely trivial really, then we have no right to preach at the developing world. That's the bottom line.

[Lonan3]

Okay then, I shall.

 

1. My wife and I work from home, we no longer commute.

2. We grow most of our own vegetables - at least in the season. We have our own chickens. We buy local produce where possible. We avoid packaging where possible, we use our own bags at super markets etc.

3. Virtually everything in the house, despite my electronics vocation, is low energy or has been chosen for that. Even to the point of me measuring current drain on the mains and individual appliances to detect the worst offenders. Some of the equipment is on master switches due to high standby currents.

4. I chose my car based on what was the lowest CO2/most fuel efficient car which I could reasonably buy. A diesel Mazda 3.

5. We're fanatical recyclers. Composting, paper and glass recycling, etc etc. Recycling has a good baring on products we buy, see point 1.

6. I'm erecting two wind turbines in the new year at either end of the house. We live right on the coast.

7. I'm expanding our green house capability dramatically to allow me to swap some produce for things which we don't produce.

8. I spend a good deal of time trying educate people about what they can do regarding climate change, or the facts of climate change in particular.

9. I significant affect the choice of components for an electronics manufacturer towards lower-power solutions and the subsequent education of our clients on why the outlay is worth the cost.

 

I haven't made any of the above up. Slim has knowledge of all of that and I'm sure he'll back me up.

 

So basically you picked the wrong guy to hit with the implied accusation that I'm an arm chair activist

 

I'm not saying anyone has to do everything like what we do in this house and I realise it makes me sound like a green nut. I actually do a lot of the above because I think it's just right to do that for other reasons other than climate change. Yes, I'm evangelical about doing similar sorts of things and the critical importance of trying to influence business and industry to play their part since one policy change can have a massive impact.

 

At the end of the day, what we do here is pretty negligable in the grand scheme of things. But the idea is that everyone makes some effort at improving their practices. Not just the green nutters. If we in the West don't make the effort, when we can afford it and the lifestyle changes are absolutely trivial really, then we have no right to preach at the developing world. That's the bottom line.

 

If you ever throw a party... please can I be excused?

[ai_Droid]

The only rot here comes from people like you who believe everything you are told.

The way global warming has been protrayed over the last few years has changed from "it is happening and mankind is not helping it", basically to "it is totally mankinds fault". It is not. Even if everyone on earth were to stop producing carbon emmissions and we could undo all we have done, the earth would still heat up. We cannot change that.

 

I don't believe everything I'm told. I'm bloody cynical, and it takes a lot to change my opinion on something. I don't listen to the bloke down the pubs opinion on climate change. I don't listen to Jeremy Clarksons view on climate change, or any other journalists. What I listen to is the peer reviewed scientific community. You trust science everywhere else in your life, why do you think you can be selective about it now?

 

If your doctor told you that he was more 90% certain that you would die if you didn't take action would you listen to him? If 200 doctors then examined you, and reviewed his diagnosis and also agreed that they were 90+ percent certain you'd die if you didn't take immediate action, would you take that action?

 

What if that action would not only save your life, but also improve it? Would you ignore it?

 

You suggest man made climate change is some sort of media portrayal. It isn't. This isn't a fucking PR campaign. This is science, and it's a view that's not been easy to make anyone accept, as this and other threads on here show only too clearly. If science can convince politicians this is a real threat, politicians who are at the recieving end of heavy pressure from massive industries such as manufacturing, travel and petrochemicals to dismiss these claims, why can't they convince you idiots, who seem to think you know better?

 

And what exactly has any politician got to gain from accepting man made climate change? They've got everything to gain from denying it for sure.

 

In your link to the The Times there are blatant lies. For example, they say that alcohol content is higher. That is wrong. The alcohol content of spirits is lower than it has ever been. For example, Gordons Export gin used to be 47.3%, it is now 37.5%. 20 years ago you could readily buy things like Polish Spirit and other similar drinks with extremely high levels of alcohol, but those have been pretty much taxed off the market. Beer and wine are pretty much the same as they ever were. The only difference has been the introduction of tart fuels like WKD. Even the size of a pint is smaller as we no longer have lined glasses. This is not propaganda and it is not rot, it is simple fact.

 

Where does that article say alcohol content in drinks is higher? Did you really say a pint is smaller?

[Cambon]

Probably the most sensible thing I have heard about global warming yet.

 

You really are spectacularly stupid.

 

Really, said by the person who stated that music on CD has no dynamic range (no dynamic range equals no sound), that recordings don't get near the 96db limit of redbook CD (even though an acoustic guitar, by no means the loudest of instruments, hits peak SPLs in the 110db region when closely or internally miked, and that an ambient room noise level is a negative figure (it can only be negative once a recording level is set. recording level can only be set based on an ambient room noise level which is always a positive figure above 0db).

 

Your "lectures" in New South Wales (or where ever they were) must have been a real hoot!

[ans]

Oh dear god, what have you done.

[Bulgin.Grotbags]

i no that green gases r bad 4 the enfyromunt but i hav litle choise becuz i life wiv mum

[Lurkah]

Really, said by the person who stated that music on CD has no dynamic range (no dynamic range equals no sound), that recordings don't get near the 96db limit of redbook CD (even though an acoustic guitar, by no means the loudest of instruments, hits peak SPLs in the 110db region when closely or internally miked, and that an ambient room noise level is a negative figure (it can only be negative once a recording level is set. recording level can only be set based on an ambient room noise level which is always a positive figure above 0db).

 

Haha! You just get better!

 

Again you've basically just trotted out a load of pseudoscientic bullshit coupled with a healthy dose of misrepresentation (CDs with no dynamic range? Lol). You seem to be armed with bits and bobs of knowledge and I can only assume that this has done you well in pub discussions where you've made yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.

 

Without addressing every point to this complete load of clap trap, you've decided an accoustic guitar bangs out 110dB SPL, right. Where 85dB is pretty much the established point whereupon hearing is damaged and 110dB being just shy of the point of physical pain. Oh but let's put the mic really close! You don't even appear to understand the fundamental difference between dB when used as a start-0 scale for sound pressure level and as a negative mean point in relation to a maximum recording volume in the electronic domain. You don't, in short, appear to understand much of anything at all.

 

But really, it would take only a mildly sentient being to read the actual thread you're amusing holding up as your coup de grace as being a pretty prime example of you being emphatically owned, ignoring large tracts of simple explanation on why you're talking bullshit and finishing off with a comedy shifting of goalposts at the end.

 

Who do you think you're kidding matey boy? Now you come here, spouting random statements nay-saying climate change all on the basis - well of no basis at all - and you expect people to think you're boxing clever here too?

 

Christ pal, you *really* need to up your game.

[ai_Droid]

Is it human nature to need something to worry about? We in the west live in affluent and (mostly) peaceful times yet we have to worry about something over which we have zero control. It makes me laugh how people worry and delude themselves about changing their lightbulbs "to save the planet", as if it will really make an iota of difference.

 

No, but it does seem to be human nature to selectively ignore things that may inconvenience them.

 

Changing your lightbulbs, a great example. Not only is this a way you can improve your standard of living, the new bulbs will save you money and are changed less frequently, but they are also more energy efficient so reduce emissions. If I do it, it makes fuck all difference. If you do it, it makes fuck all difference. If the whole developed world does it, you wipe out a shitload of carbon from the atmosphere. Austrailia has estimated 800,000 tonnes a year if they ban old bulbs. You think that doesn't make any difference? Even if you don't believe in man made climate change, do you think 800,000 tonnes of carbon in the air is desirable?

 

Wait for the next cold war with Russia to start and we'll forget all about global warming when we switch to worrying about nuclear war again.

 

Nuclear war is still a very real threat to the world, and one that's going to get more serious with global warming, because of nuclear proliferation and population migration.

 

It's very easy for you to sit back and deny this, it's not seriously affecting you yet. It's, as always, the poor that suffer first. Why not ask the people of Darfur if they believe in global warming?

[Albert Tatlock]

Okay then, I shall.

1... ...9.

Wow that's 'good' - I bet your wife's called Barbara. Though I would question a couple of things there:

 

1. My wife and I work from home, we no longer commute. (surely not very efficient really - have you calculated this? i.e. doesn't it require additional heating/energy when compared to working in a communal office a couple of miles away?)

3. Virtually everything in the house, despite my electronics vocation, is low energy or has been chosen for that. Even to the point of me measuring current drain on the mains and individual appliances to detect the worst offenders. Some of the equipment is on master switches due to high standby currents. (that's a bit too fanatical for me - you shouldn't have to do that - just read the back of the appliance when you buy it and do a simple wattage/current calculation - unless you're obessed chasing milliwatts)

 

How many children do you have? If you have more than two - then pah! you missed the real opportunity to do your bit to 'save the planet'.

[ai_Droid]

Can you scientifically prove that?

 

No, science cannot prove anything. What we do have is overwealming evidence that he is stupid.

[Bulgin.Grotbags]

doesn't it require additional heating/energy when compared to working in a communal office a couple of miles away?

 

I would suspect not, but there are a vast number of variables you have to take into play which can only be ascertained through some proper research and measurement.

 

I work in an enormous office - one whole 'block' in central London. The rule of thumb here is roughly 6 square metres per person, not including communal areas like toilets, the in-house cafe, the in-house pub, meeting rooms, the Grand Central-esque main reception, the secondary reception, storage areas, and so forth - all of which are lit and heated, and many of which are thoroughfares meaning that heat is constantly being lost as doors are opened and so on.

 

On top of which you then have the machinery involved in keeping folk going - everything from air conditioning through to monitors, coffee machines and so on.

 

I very much doubt it is anywhere near as efficient as a Lurks' home in terms of carbon footprint and therefore environmental impact.