A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,787
1,407
118
TheRealCJ said:
Right, right, sorry, I did mean opposition.

Of course, given the way things are blowing, they'll be majority come next election.
The opposition are there to oppose the government. Hence the name.

If the government wants to cut greenhouse emissions, it's the opposition's job to say that there's no science behind it, it's a stupid thing dreamt up by hippies.

If the government doesn't want to do anything, it's the opposition's job to demand the government takes action (providing the issue is big enough for anyone to care).

In any case, the problem with climate change is that there's nobody you can point to and blame.

Various places pump out various gases, which may lead to various increases in various things. Whatever the outcomes may be, there won't be a clear cause and effect to follow. Secondly, there's nobody to enforce such measures. No nation is going to find it easy to put measures in place that others can happily ignore.
 

googleboy

Lost in Space
Jul 27, 2009
87
0
0
I find that my skepticism comes from a historical analysis of the 'environmental' lobby in my own country. This seems to be just another in a long line of 'the sky is falling' political campaigns. All of that said, I am open to the idea that we have screwed everything up. There is simply too much conflicting and compounding disagreement, information, fraud etc to put this issue to bed at this point in time.

Now with that said, I would like to have air to breathe and water to drink when I am 80! So, it may surprise you to learn that I am all for reasonable measures to restrict air and water pollution. I find that I am far more concerned about the rising acidity in the ocean and arctic ocean warming due to 'reverse-flow' Canadian dams.

Anywho, my 2 cents worth.
 

T8B95

New member
Jul 8, 2010
444
0
0
The Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years (don't get me started Creationists, in short, you're wrong). There has been life on this Earth for 3.7 billion years. Humans have been around for at most one million years. We've had advanced industry for a paltry 250 years. That is such a small percentage that my calculator won't give me a proper number when I ask for it.

In all that time, we have been going through constant warming and cooling periods. Before the last Ice Age, there were no ice caps in the world. We now have two major ice caps.

Are you really that arrogant? Are you conceited enough that when a small change happens in the world's temperature, you think that the only possible explanation is that you caused it?

Basically, that sums up my opinion on the subject. Good day to you.
 

ChocoFace

New member
Nov 19, 2008
1,409
0
0
We should be more worried about the ozone layer, i'd say. That is truly our fault and noone else's. Also it's kind of important for our survival.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
TestECull said:
TheRealCJ said:
I honestly think it's a shame that Americans have yet to adopt diesel as a more mainstream fuel.
The reason for that is pretty simple.


As with 99% of Americans, every diesel engine I've ever experienced firsthand, whether it be at a set of lights, or riding on a bus powered by one, or having things delivered, they're all smelly, clattery beasts with no power, even less powerband and lots upon lots of soot. This is mainly because the only things we ever get them in are large trucks, buses and the sort. The few times Detroit has attempted a diesel car...well...it didn't go well at all. GM tried to convert their popular gasoline V8 to a diesel one....and failed miserably. They also, round the same time, converted one of their V6s, with similar results. A clattery, unreliable, smelly, weak-kneed mess of a boat anchor with no rev range.


Now, unlike my fellow compatriots, I am aware that clean, quiet, smooth running, powerful diesels do exist. They sound no different, give more torque, better mileage, and last several times longer than a comparable gasoline engine.

Yet, the misconception Americans have based on the first-hand experiences means diesel cars just do not sell here. VW actually has their Jetta TDI on the market right now, and AFAIK have been for years, but I can guarantee you for every TDI they shift ten gasoline cars are sold. I believe Volvo and Merc will also sell Americans a diesel if they order one but the dealers don't normally stock such vehicles. But most of the companies here don't offer it because nobody seems to be able to conquer the misconception.


Oddly enough, that same smelly, low-revving beast becomes a selling point if you pop it in a 3/4 or 1-ton pickup, up the displacement about three times, throw on an enormous turbo and advertise >500 FT LBs. Americans seem to be able to ignore most of that if there's so much torque it will literally snap the damn truck in half...hell I'll probably end up converting my Ford to diesel once gasoline runs out.
You should check out the current engine Toyota (yes, they're actually well-like here) put in their Landcruisers: V8 Turbo Diesel. 430Nm of Torque at 1200 RPM.
 

Stephanos132

New member
Sep 7, 2009
287
0
0
TheRealCJ said:
Okay, so first of all: I think global warming is absolutely happening. But I also respect those who have a strong opinion contrary to mine (Well, those who aren't arses about it anyway).

But my question is thus: You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now.

I've got people here in Australia, prominent people, people in Government, saying things along the lines of "Global Warming has not been proven as fact, so just keep right on doing exactly what you're doing now, because it's not causing immediate and noticeable damage."

That seems unnecessarily reckless to me. After all, doesn't the old idiom read "A stitch in time saves nine"?
Depends on the measures taken.

If it's a suggestion to recycle and try to reduce your uptake of resources and stuff on a more personal level, then by all means, go right ahead, a lot of people can benefit from reusing old stuff.

If you mean pay new taxes based on the questionable science, attempting to force infrastructure down green routes which are neither economically or physically viable (solar panels and wind turbines are pretty useless all by themselves, the UK taxpayer is propping up the green industry too), oppose (often violently) any deviation from the green ideal (for the power issue, greens oppose nuclear power in the UK, as well as other non-CO2 emitting sources for various reasons), denying other people their freedom to do with their existence as they want, dogmatically insist people who don't follow the creed are evil/stupid/wrong (yes, this does happen) and continuing to push a junk science that next to nobody believes is true (damaging the reputation of science in the process) and continue to have hypocritical wankers like Bono push the agenda, then sorry, but I must oppose it.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
Again, because they are convinced that it isn't happening. If it isn't happening, as they think it's not, then there's no need to take ANY pre-emptive measures because they honestly think that it will NEVER happen, or at least, not in the conceivable future.

Now, I am not a climatologist or a meteorologist. However, I AM a biologist who works next to a building full of physicists, chemists and, yes, climatologists. I speak to these people, and the OVERWHELMING consensus among these folks is that it is actually occurring, although they are hesitant to say exactly what the effects will be.

Sceptics of Climate Change have their arguments, and I've heard them. And virtually every single one of them has been shot down, definitively. The Sceptics just keep on using the same arguments, again and again and again and again and again. It doesn't matter that their arguments have been proven wrong (I.e They keep claiming that Temperature rises are due to extraordinary solar activity, when in fact, the sun has been at its most dormant for decades) or make no sense (sometimes they say there IS no temperature rise, and then they proceed to then blame said temperature rise, which they previously said didn't exist, on the sun, which, again, has been proven FALSE). They're like the creationists in that respect - it doesn't matter how many times you shoot down their arguments, they cling to them. It doesn't matter how many hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of experts you get to prove they are wrong, they will always find someone with a degree (often in a field unrelated to the matter at hand) to say that it isn't happening. Creationists LOVE to do this: They get an engineer to say Evolution is wrong - they don't get a molecular biologist, or a geneticist, they just get anyone with "Dr." attached to their name to speak out against evolution, even when said professional knows barely anything about evolution. Climate deniers do exactly the same thing: they get mathematicians, geologists and physicists, who barely have ANY connection to climate research to speak out against it.

Climate deniers simply don't want to believe it is happening. Also, and this is the Greeny-people's fault, they are sceptical because many of the claims of the Greeny-folks have been proven wrong (i.e, especially the claim that we'd all die of starvation in the 60's) in the past.

You know what, Climate Deniers? Why don't you go to this site:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Why don't you ACTUALLY READ what the Scientists say, instead of just swallowing whole whatever the Climate Deniers say? Hm? Why don't you go do that?

There are a few smart people who say Global Warming isn't happening. There are a lot more smart people who say it is. Granted, occasionally, the lone voice is right. Most often? It's not.

Personally, I don't think there's a damn thing we can do about it. Well, actually, there's a lot we could do to stop global warming, but there's nothing politically or economically viable that we can do. So, we're screwed. The public are ignorant and are all too willing to swallow the arguments of the Skeptics, which amount to "DO NOTHING, PROCEED AS NORMAL", which is what people like to hear. So nothing will be done, politically, about Global Warming. The politicians are powerless in the face of the people crying out for not a single sacrifice to be made.

Once again, science will have to step up, as it always has to - saving the people from themselves, once again. Science has done so much for people, yet people always find a way to spit in its face - mostly because they don't trust us "Book-learny folks, what with their glasses and fancy words! Think they're done darn to good for us! What're they know! I dun need to know all I need on the farm! Them egg-heads don't know jack all! Think they's better thans me! I'll show em! I'm purposefully not gonna listen to em! That'll show those poindexters whose boss! ME"

So, once again, science will have to come up with a way to save civilization. And predictably, we'll never get thanked, never get the pay we deserve, never get the recognition, because the "learny-folks" scare those who are ignorant. Oh, they could educate themselves. The common man isn't stupid - after all, most scientists come from the common population. But the average common man is simply unwilling to educate himself. It isn't intelligence that differentiates the public from the scientists - it's the will to learn.
 

Stephanos132

New member
Sep 7, 2009
287
0
0
TheRealCJ said:
Okay, so first of all: I think global warming is absolutely happening. But I also respect those who have a strong opinion contrary to mine (Well, those who aren't arses about it anyway).

But my question is thus: You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now.

I've got people here in Australia, prominent people, people in Government, saying things along the lines of "Global Warming has not been proven as fact, so just keep right on doing exactly what you're doing now, because it's not causing immediate and noticeable damage."

That seems unnecessarily reckless to me. After all, doesn't the old idiom read "A stitch in time saves nine"?
Depends on the measures taken.

If it's a suggestion to recycle and try to reduce your uptake of resources and stuff on a more personal level, then by all means, go right ahead, a lot of people can benefit from reusing old stuff.

If you mean pay new taxes based on the questionable science, attempting to force infrastructure down green routes which are neither economically or physically viable (solar panels and wind turbines are pretty useless all by themselves, the UK taxpayer is propping up the green industry too), oppose (often violently) any deviation from the green ideal (for the power issue, greens oppose nuclear power in the UK, as well as other non-CO2 emitting sources for various reasons), denying other people their freedom to do with their existence as they want, dogmatically insist people who don't follow the creed are evil/stupid/wrong (yes, this does happen) and continuing to push a junk science that next to nobody believes is true (damaging the reputation of science in the process) and continue to have hypocritical wankers like Bono push the agenda, then sorry, but I must oppose it.
 

Nico4

New member
Dec 24, 2008
125
0
0
Here's what we all can agree on. The environment is being affected by all that lovely CO2. What we disagree about, is how. A lot of people say that it's leading to Global Warming, and while the ice do melt, the tempartures getting hotter and hotter is... well, bull. It actually get's colder.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Stammer said:
TheRealCJ said:
But my question is thus: You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now.

I've got people here in Australia, prominent people, people in Government, saying things along the lines of "Global Warming has not been proven as fact, so just keep right on doing exactly what you're doing now, because it's not causing immediate and noticeable damage."

That seems unnecessarily reckless to me. After all, doesn't the old idiom read "A stitch in time saves nine"?
My thoughts on the matter are that anything that human beings contribute towards global warming is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Every volcano that erupts spews more greenhouse gases than the human race has thrown skyward since history. And so many other fluctuations have a much larger effect than anything humans can do. When Betelgeuse's supernova hits earth (within 100 years), we'll essentially have two suns for two weeks, increasing the earth's temperature by more than what the earth has seen for probably tens of thousands of years.

Though I do still think that it's important to be conscious of our planet's well-being. Even if human beings have only a small impact, anything counts so I DO think that having some kind of care doesn't hurt. I don't drive a hybrid but I also don't start my car and let it idle for half an hour before I get into it.
THANK YOU.

Finally someone gets what I'm saying here.
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
0
TestECull said:
In short it's greenpeace hippie bullshit and I want my god damn horsepower back!I will run an exhaust catalyst on gasoline engines, but this is because the catalyst filters out genuinely harmful shit. Like raw, unburned fuel. Or Carbon Monoxide. Even helps with NOx emissions. On top of that they make high-flow models that don't sap but maybe half a HP. But that's as far as it goes.
It filters out the vast majority of genuinely harmful shit. Like raw, unburned fuel. Or Carbon Monoxide. Even helps with NOx emissions.

The earth has been warming up and cooling down since we exsisted.

If you really want to cut greenhouse gasses kill millions of termites, they produce tonnes of methane, which is 3 times more potent to the Ozone player than CO2.

Trees create more CO2 than they use and alge produces (something like) 80% of the oxygen of the earth.

Just throwing that out there.