50 Days To Save The World

[jethro]

I gave mine, together with a fairly comprehensive explanation of why. If they come to get me and I disappear from these boards, please rescue me.....

Just had a quick peek at the results so far.

Count me in: 5400

Count me out: 6297

At the moment, the nays have it.

[laserguy]

Just had a quick peek at the results so far.

Count me in: 5400

Count me out: 6297

At the moment, the nays have it.

I wonder if 'they' were expecting that?? As if it'd make a difference anyway...

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I have given my 'nay' with reasons.

[jethro]

Now the site's crashed.

[laserguy]

Now the site's crashed.

Well,it'd be very hard to steer without wheels! Sorry,sorry.....

[Methuselah]

IMO, the recent advertising-campaign cannot be helping the AGW side at all:

There are many subjects on which I've changed my mind, over the years - AGW being one of them...But, advertising campaigns like that can only (and IMO quite rightly!) increase sceptical concerns? I don't like being treated like some kind of idiot; so, why should climate-change sceptics?

Politicians!!! :lol:

[SP1986]

I was hoping to save the world by next week.. nevermind eh?

[Gray-Wolf]

I've also found a lot of 'Bart man' "I didn't do it" kinda folk out there too Pete.

We , the folk alive today and consuming in the first world "Didn't do it" without the help of another couple of generations who had no idea that what they were doing could have anything but positive consequences in the 'Brave new world'.

To baulk at the accusations that seemed levelled at us is surely natural? (unless you are a damaged individual who revels in blame and self pity that is)? To pull away and distance ourselves from the 'blame' is also what folk do (esp. kiddies who think they can get away with it I find.....not many G.Washington's out there methinks)

If we push the " You did it and are responsible for your children's woes" then we loose do we not?

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

This is a new low for Gordon Brown.

Many of the predictions he made for the UK are flawed even if warming were to continue.

I agree the more politicians meddle in this matter the less credible the scientists seem

I found most of the things he said to be more or less correct, for once i think were on the same level here mr prime-minister :lol:

We could FIX global warming instead... i mean seriously how hard can it be for all the scientists to come together and build something that convert C02 or whatever into oxygen or nitrogen.

Plants convert C02 into oxygen, therefore we should stop getting rid of plants andplant more or build machines to do the job more efficiently.

Were not going to be able to solve the root cause because people will never all come together and just stop using fuel.

As far as im concerned so far there hasnt even been the slightest attempt to resolve the problem.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I've also found a lot of 'Bart man' "I didn't do it" kinda folk out there too Pete.

We , the folk alive today and consuming in the first world "Didn't do it" without the help of another couple of generations who had no idea that what they were doing could have anything but positive consequences in the 'Brave new world'.

To baulk at the accusations that seemed levelled at us is surely natural? (unless you are a damaged individual who revels in blame and self pity that is)? To pull away and distance ourselves from the 'blame' is also what folk do (esp. kiddies who think they can get away with it I find.....not many G.Washington's out there methinks)

If we push the " You did it and are responsible for your children's woes" then we loose do we not?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with baulking at accusations about 'wrecking the planet'. It is about questioning assumptions made about the science that suggests most of climate variability is laid at our door. If there was anything really convincing to rubber stamp this to the extent you believe the state of things to be, then I would have no qualms whatsoever about agreeing with it, or you (ie changing my mind and no longer being sceptical). So 'distancing' from the issue has no shred of relevance either. I do genuinely wish you could start to grasp that . It might also explain why you are oblivious to what CB has been trying to say.

You might believe you are inexorably right about the extent of our meddlings, and accept all scientific assumptions lock, stock and barrel (especially those solutions which are most extreme) but that doesn't mean that the rest of us are as confident about it - or perhaps more pertinently are wrong necessarily not to be confident either.

[Gray-Wolf]

You might believe you are inexorably right about the extent of our meddling, and accept all scientific assumptions lock, stock and barrel (especially those solutions which are most extreme) but that doesn't mean that the rest of us are as confident about it - or perhaps more pertinently are wrong necessarily not to be confident either.

No me dear , I believe I'm right to be embracing the evidence that when surpluses of greenhouse gasses arise (by earths inner workings) we find a greenhouse planet and when the planet 'soaks up CO2 ( by it's own volition), we find the results to be an 'ice world.

I also believe we see confirmation of this in the 'mini versions of this 'temp /greenhouse gas' relationship through our current 'glacial period where excess heat enables the carbon cycle itself to 'plump up' greenhouse gas levels and then reduce them as that 'heat source ' retracts.

Sorry for any misunderstanding but I would have though ( by now) my position was clear.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

My point was that it is not just about your own position GW

[Admiral_Bobski]

I gave mine, together with a fairly comprehensive explanation of why. If they come to get me and I disappear from these boards, please rescue me.....

Just had a quick peek at the results so far.

Count me in: 5400

Count me out: 6297

At the moment, the nays have it.

Anyone know how they're collecting the results? I just filled in my bit and here are the results on screen:

Count me in: 6

Count me out: 55

Are they collecting votes in batches, or have they wiped the slate clean and started again?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

My point was that it is not just about your own position GW

?

If we don't define our positions how are we to address the areas that we each feel need 'addressing'?

[jethro]

Anyone know how they're collecting the results? I just filled in my bit and here are the results on screen:

Count me in: 6

Count me out: 55

Are they collecting votes in batches, or have they wiped the slate clean and started again?

CB

I don't know but was wondering the same thing. You are supposed to get a confirmation e-mail after registering your vote - I haven't, have you?

Perhaps when the site crashed they lost all the votes? I'm voting again to test if it will let me, presumably if their system has stored the earlier votes, I won't be able to do it again.

Must say, I'm liking those ratios.....

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm fast approaching the conclusion that we are quite a mirror to what will occur in our 'meeting' of 41 days hence.

I am at a loss to understand how rational folk ,who seem willing to accept the role of GHG's in providing our planet with a 'blanket of warmth' to enable water to exist (in the fluid state) and thus life, who seem to accept the ice core records of the past 200,000yrs showing a causal relationship with GHG's and temp (via the carbon cycle and precession ,attitude,distance of the planet from the sun) and are happy to witness them 'running their merry dance' through our glacial period cannot accept that when the GHG's are elevated (or depleted) in levels above and beyond the 'natural variance' of the carbon cycle it will have impact? ( even though the geological records show that the relationship, thus far accepted, holds true when it is the GHG's that are at variance and not the energy balance).

Does it follow that any scepticism, at our dumping Shiite loads of GHG's into the atmosphere over the past 350yrs, will fail if this basic relationship is accepted?

I feel kinda feel like 'Noah in the sun' (turned out nice again ) and , unless I'm shown that GHG's do not inflate temps when in excess, or reduces temps when depleted, I will wait, in sure knowledge, of the oncoming 'flood' (or, in our case, increasing global temps leading to the flood, drought , famine, war, displacement and general unpleasantness all over).

Edited October 27, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

GW, what you seem unable to grasp is that folk are not saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, nor is anyone saying GHG's do not have an impact upon temperatures. It is and it does, no one refutes that. However, for your scenario to be correct, you have to make some really quite large assumptions.

1) Our CO2 emissions have caused the warming in recent years.

2) CO2 has over-ridden all other natural climate variables and is now in the driving seat.

3) There are no negative feedbacks to counter the warming.

I haven't seen any science to support that stance; speculation, assumption, model forecasts, correlation=causation abounds but actual science to support doomsday scenarios is thin on the ground.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW, what you seem unable to grasp is that folk are not saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, nor is anyone saying GHG's do not have an impact upon temperatures. It is and it does, no one refutes that. However, for your scenario to be correct, you have to make some really quite large assumptions.

1) Our CO2 emissions have caused the warming in recent years.

2) CO2 has over-ridden all other natural climate variables and is now in the driving seat.

3) There are no negative feedbacks to counter the warming.

I haven't seen any science to support that stance; speculation, assumption, model forecasts, correlation=causation abounds but actual science to support doomsday scenarios is thin on the ground.

Then you are misinterpreting what is being said 'J'.

I am saying that past instances where GHG's have exceeded the levels driven by the carbon cycle (as driven by our 'energy budget') that this has led to a 'greenhouse' world.

When CO2 has been depleted beyond the natural variance of the carbon cycle (as driven by our energy budget) then we find an 'ice' world resulting.

We have demonstrably raised CO2 levels beyond the natural variance of the carbon cycle (as driven by our energy budget) and so we must accept the results of that error.

A super tanker may well take a long time to get going but you try and stop one once it is in motion.

CO2's impacts may well take time to manifest fully (and overwhelm current climate systems) but (geological) history shows us that once it is in full spate all falls before it and nature takes her 'step change' to the new climate balance point.

'Tipping points' are only relevant in that they are invisible as they are being breached (because of the delays involved in the climates response above and beyond natural drivers) but past experience shows that if we place the constituents involved in warming in place , then we do warm.

That is the nature of GHG's is it not?

[jethro]

But your argument only works if CO2 is THE driver which over-rides everything else. Where is the evidence for this assertion?

[laserguy]

But your argument only works if CO2 is THE driver which over-rides everything else. Where is the evidence for this assertion?

A doctor tells a guy that he's in such poor nick because he's massively overweight,eating way too much of all the wrong stuff and none of the right stuff. He's depressed,not helped by the filling of his head with a daily dose of climate change nonsense from the MSM and the occasional foray into some obscure subscription channel. He gets zero excercise,drinks way too much alcohol and caffeine and smokes a hundred fags a day. For a cure to all his ills,the doctor suggests cutting down to ninety nine fags a day. Naturally,the guy finds this a bit of a tall order,so the doctor and all his learned pals keep on nagging the government to pile as much tax as possible on fags,hoping that one day that'll do the trick and it'll all go away. All well and good,but has nothing in common with climate - unlike the guy,there's actually nothing at all wrong with it.

[noggin]

As far as im concerned so far there hasnt even been the slightest attempt to resolve the problem.

I totally agree. All of the huge amounts of effort and money wasted on political and scientific posturing, hype and tinkering would have been far better invested in developing clean fuels.

Is anyone seriously working on the issue? I recall that a few years ago, BP used to have adverts on the telly showing all the wonderful research they were carrying out with regard to finding cleaner fuel..........has anything come of this or have R&D budgets been slashed or did it just quietly fade away for some reason?

[noggin]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0

Hmmmmmm, with 40 days to go, could the Copenhagen summit end up being a bit of a damp squib? It hasn't even started yet and "failure" looks to be being contemplated. Honestly, really, truly and sincerely, I believe the AGW thing is running out of steam.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The gap on that poll has widened a bit further with 5448 counted in and 6882 counted out at the time of typing this.

[laserguy]

The gap on that poll has widened a bit further with 5448 counted in and 6882 counted out at the time of typing this.

Bet it gets pulled for not,er,going to plan,and we'll hear no more of it !

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Bet it gets pulled for not,er,going to plan,and we'll hear no more of it !

lol!