Renton 21621 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. Absolutely agree with that. Regardless of climate change we will run out of fossil fuels and face an unimaginable energy crisis. Oh, and the bees are all dying too so we will starve to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. What do you think these new sources will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. Absolutely agree with that. Regardless of climate change we will run out of fossil fuels and face an unimaginable energy crisis. Oh, and the bees are all dying too so we will starve to death. When will we run out of fossil fuels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 178 Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. What do you think these new sources will be? not a new source i guess but the green party is advocating Nuclear as a short term solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21621 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. Absolutely agree with that. Regardless of climate change we will run out of fossil fuels and face an unimaginable energy crisis. Oh, and the bees are all dying too so we will starve to death. When will we run out of fossil fuels? I don't know exactly when but clearly it is a finite resource. Oil will be first to go, a lot of the existing fields are nearly gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. What do you think these new sources will be? not a new source i guess but the green party is advocating Nuclear as a short term solution Are they? I find that difficult to believe although I think they've been wrong in the past to complete dismiss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4379 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 When will we run out of fossil fuels? I remember when North Sea Oil started coming ashore (76ish?) and it being proclaimed that worldwide oil would run out in about 2020. Obviously that doesn't take into account reserves discovered since or even in the future but I think replacing the need is a better idea than scrambling around hunting down the last few barrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21621 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. What do you think these new sources will be? not a new source i guess but the green party is advocating Nuclear as a short term solution Are you sure? I thought they were fundamentally against nuclear power, and that's one reason I would never vote for them. That and they are smelly tree hugging hippies of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 So called green alternatives...ha ha Made from the Earth's most abundant substance -- sand -- polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduce impurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4379 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I still think Fission is a mugs game - the waste storage really scares me as does the "we'll think of a way to get rid of it sometime later" attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. What do you think these new sources will be? not a new source i guess but the green party is advocating Nuclear as a short term solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 When will we run out of fossil fuels? I remember when North Sea Oil started coming ashore (76ish?) and it being proclaimed that worldwide oil would run out in about 2020. Obviously that doesn't take into account reserves discovered since or even in the future but I think replacing the need is a better idea than scrambling around hunting down the last few barrels. I've often tried to pin down a rough estimate of when oil will go, but it seems impossible. They say the new fields in Eastern Europe/Russia are huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) Canny funny how some of the people sceptical about the scientists' claims aren't exactly afraid of just making stuff up btw. Edited November 23, 2009 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Wasnt it all the deed fishies from the sea that killed off the dinasoars? What dinosaurs?? Exactly! Another myth made up by paleontologists in the nineteenth century to get grants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. I dont think anyone disputes that. The argument is that climate change is a normal cycle of earth, more driven by natural occurrences than mankind and certainly not the end of the world. It's to do with the volcano god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldstott 0 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. What do you think these new sources will be? not a new source i guess but the green party is advocating Nuclear as a short term solution Nuclear, wind, tidal, wave, solar, anaerobic digestion, fuel from waste, hydrogen, household microgeneration. I think there is a shit storm around the corner, if we all rushed out tomorrow to buy an electric car there wouldn't be enough generation capacity to meet the demand. If we all bought a hydrogen car tomorrow there wouldn't be enough generation capacity to make the hydrogen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) The scientists who have been challenging almost every aspect of the official theory on global warming have ranged from world-ranking physicists such as Professor Richard Lindzen, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Professors Will Happer and Freeman Dyson of Princeton University, to 700 scientists of many disciplines. This is the only part of the article i can see where they reference any scientist (at no point do they reference any studies or provide evidence). If they do and i missed it while scanning through please quote it (it's a long piece of shit). Anyway.... According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC. Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from ExxonMobil. Happer is currently chair of the George C. Marshall Institute , an organization that has been funded by Exxon (as mentioned above). Happer is an atomic physicist. So he understands a lot about how atoms interact with light, and that, he claims, makes him an expert on climate change. However, of the hundreds of things that go into understanding the effect of greenhouse gases on the earth's climate, the interaction of infrared radiation with carbon dioxide is one area where we don't need much expertise. That stuff is all well understood. Finally Freeman Dyson is quoted as saying "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." On the 700 scientists of many disciplines bit, see the petition from the discussion in the other thread. People like Ginger Spice were included. Edited November 23, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 178 Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. What do you think these new sources will be? not a new source i guess but the green party is advocating Nuclear as a short term solution Are you sure? I thought they were fundamentally against nuclear power, and that's one reason I would never vote for them. That and they are smelly tree hugging hippies of course. there was a big hoo hah in the green party (last year?) when they changed their policy towards nuclear. in the short term, its seen as the lesser of 2 evils i would guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldstott 0 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Article is drivel. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that manmade climate change is happening. Whilst I trust most scientists, I have a natural mistrust of American scientists because of the power of the oil lobby. Shamefully it looks like America is still not going to agree to binding targets, which will inevitably mean India and China won't either (why should they).. Whilst i think the climate change argument is overwhelingly convincing, the need to replace fossil fuels with new sources of power is just as powerful an argument. I dont think anyone disputes that. The argument is that climate change is a normal cycle of earth, more driven by natural occurrences than mankind and certainly not the end of the world. FMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21621 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us. What type of argument is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 178 Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us. thats right, it was those god damn pesky dinosaurs (if you believe such creatures actually existed) farting all the time!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us. What type of argument is that? I wasn't alive once. So if someone shoots me now, they shouldn't be blamed for killing me. This makes the twinkie defence look cast iron. Someone inform Perry Mason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us. What type of argument is that? Heating and cooling of the planet is a natural cycle, something imo we have very little effect on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The earth has been much hotter in the past and it had nothing to do with us. What type of argument is that? I wasn't alive once. So if someone shoots me now, they shouldn't be blamed for killing me. This makes the twinkie defence look cast iron. Someone inform Perry Mason. You've lost me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now