Roger Smelly Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 What causes heat on the earth ? Maybe they need to study the sun more. See below the composition of air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Bastard, it isn't the elephant in the room at all. Look at the figures below, co2 per head of capita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita Then look at population growth rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate The countries with the growing populations produce fek all co2. The developed west with the massive co2 output have populations that are actually in decline. Shifting the blame to a greenie with kids might make you feel better, but it's not really relevant to the global problem. Maybe they need to study the sun more. Brilliant, I wonder why all the people studying climate didn't think of that? See below the composition of your cranial cavity: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 One minute it's 'Global Warming', then that was debunked and now it's 'Climate Change' until another more suitable strapline is thought of by this section of the science industry. Science is a quasi-religion and as such has billions of pounds, millions of jobs and plenty of egos associated with it, so the conveyor belt of en vogue topics will continue to change and roll on regardless. They won't be happy until they have finally taxed the air we breathe so until that time I'll gladly ignore every one of those self important knobs and carry on regardless, doing my bit by recycling, growing my own food and looking after my own little sphere of influence on this planet.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 One minute it's 'Global Warming', then that was debunked and now it's 'Climate Change' until another more suitable strapline is thought of by this section of the science industry. Incorrect. The first recorded use of the term in a scientific report was in 1971 where it was used in the title along with 'Climate Change': "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" by Wallace S. Broecker" Science is a quasi-religion and as such has billions of pounds, millions of jobs and plenty of egos associated with it, so the conveyor belt of en vogue topics will continue to change and roll on regardless. They won't be happy until they have finally taxed the air we breathe so until that time I'll gladly ignore every one of those self important knobs and carry on regardless, doing my bit by recycling, growing my own food and looking after my own little sphere of influence on this planet.. Doing your bit of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Bastard, it isn't the elephant in the room at all. Look at the figures below, co2 per head of capita: http://en.wikipedia....ions_per_capita Then look at population growth rates: http://en.wikipedia....ion_growth_rate The countries with the growing populations produce fek all co2. The developed west with the massive co2 output have populations that are actually in decline. Shifting the blame to a greenie with kids might make you feel better, but it's not really relevant to the global problem. Interesting perspective. but if you look closely at the link on population growth rate that you provided, it looks like you've done a bit of a Freddie Starr. The developed west is growing, not "in decline" - the USA, UK and most of Europe has a positive growth rate. Interestingly the IOM is one of the few places with a negative, I'm encouraged to see that maybe all the "boat in the morning" jibes are actually working. You've also assumed current CO2 emissions will remain static as population grows, which isn't true either - India for example has a population of 1.2 billion and a high growth rate of 1.46%, and is undergoing a phase of rapid industrialisation - it even has a space programme now. Emissions from India will certainly not be "fek all" by the middle of the century, when global population hits somewhere in the vicinity of 10 billion, but how much consideration will be given to climate change ? I'm certainly not "shifting the blame to a greenie with kids" but I think there's an irony there when someone who's contributing to global population increase is lecturing people on climate change without seeing any apparent association between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'm certainly not "shifting the blame to a greenie with kids" but I think there's an irony there when someone who's contributing to global population increase is lecturing people on climate change without seeing any apparent association between the two. You obviously can't argue that climate change is man made without accepting that more men will make things worse. I still wouldn't call it the elephant in the room, it's not a problem that's ignored. The figures above show two things in my interpretation, that people can live on far lower emissions, and that wealth/development reduces population growth. Combine those two principles through development and efficiency and you've got a better solution than telling people they can only have one kid. Interesting that you place the blame on people with kids rather than people who are refusing to die young.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 One minute it's 'Global Warming', then that was debunked and now it's 'Climate Change' until another more suitable strapline is thought of by this section of the science industry. Incorrect. The first recorded use of the term in a scientific report was in 1971 where it was used in the title along with 'Climate Change': "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" by Wallace S. Broecker" Science is a quasi-religion and as such has billions of pounds, millions of jobs and plenty of egos associated with it, so the conveyor belt of en vogue topics will continue to change and roll on regardless. They won't be happy until they have finally taxed the air we breathe so until that time I'll gladly ignore every one of those self important knobs and carry on regardless, doing my bit by recycling, growing my own food and looking after my own little sphere of influence on this planet.. Doing your bit of what? Can you read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 It doesn't matter what you call it. It's happening and it has a direct correlation with industrialisation. Emerging economies will go through a period of industrialisation just as 'the West' has. Yes we must adapt but we must not sit back and fail to address the root problem. The world has warmed on average 0.8 degrees and we are seeing extreme weather - it feels like it's on a daily basis. If the temperature warms to 2-3 degrees it may result in starvation across the globe which may trigger war as people fight for agricultural land. It will almost certainly trigger starvation as food prices rise and the poor cannot afford to eat. So we shouldn't really be arguing about the semantics - we need to limit the damage we are doing to the world by changing the way we live and work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 This is an interested destruction of arguments that sea levels aren't rising as a result of Polar Ice melting and thermal expansion of the oceans. There are huge complications, but Prof Mitrovica has spent his life trying to understand them and create both data and models which can explain what is happening to the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 British Scientists turn air into petrol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.