Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[Jantar]

No debate there Winston, pollution is a major concern that we must address. I also agree that many of the processes that produce CO2 also produce many of the nasties that cause pollution. However not all fall into this category.

What many people forget is that we are a carbon based life form. We need Carbon to survive, and our main food source, plants, need CO2 for photosynthesis. So CO2 is a fertiliser, not a pollutant.

Maybe I'm too focussed, but I have no trouble is seperating the climate issue from the pollution issue.

[Swoop]

and we are still not at the temperatures where they had vineyards in Britain and that was only back in Roman Britain times.

Rubbish.
Britain had vines introduced by the Romans and there have been vineyards there ever since.
Climate taxing (Oops... "change") has nothing to do with it.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Maybe I'm too focussed, but I have no trouble is seperating the climate issue from the pollution issue.

Totally agree.. there is a big difference and people seem blur the two...

[oneofsix]

Totally agree.. there is a big difference and people seem blur the two...

Which alludes to my biggest bitch about the climate change thing. There is such a focus on the climate change that it seems to be ok to pollute the planet, poison it, provided you can show a reduction in carbon output. Yet even if we stop carbon output totally now we make fuck all difference and human carbon contribution is in the single %s anyhow.

[oneofsix]

Rubbish.
Britain had vines introduced by the Romans and there have been vineyards there ever since.
Climate taxing (Oops... "change") has nothing to do with it.

Yep sunny Britain with Romans planting vines in their time, frozen Thames in the early industrial revolution, and Britain not quite back to the Romain temperates, you sure called BS on that.

[Swoop]

and Britain not quite back to the Romain temperates

The temperature changes over the years have not prevented vines from existing in the UK over all of that time.

You stated that "we are still not at the temperatures where they had vineyards in Britain".
There have been vines there all the time since the Romans popped over for a visit.

[oneofsix]

The temperature changes over the years have not prevented vines from existing in the UK over all of that time.

You stated that "we are still not at the temperatures where they had vineyards in Britain".
There have been vines there all the time since the Romans popped over for a visit.

Yes and vines are rather more hardy than I initially gave them credit for. I did kind of steal the comment from a British historical programme. But as I understand it when the Romains had their little holiday in Britain, more England than Britain at that, the vine lands were much more extensive gaining it the nickname vineland as opposite to vineyards surviving. The temperatures are still lower than in those days.

[Swoop]

Yes and vines are rather more hardy than I initially gave them credit for.

From the reading I have done on this topic, they appear to be a tasty drop as well! Some say they are nicer than the cheese-easting surrender monkey's wine.

[oneofsix]

From the reading I have done on this topic, they appear to be a tasty drop as well! Some say they are nicer than the cheese-easting surrender monkey's wine.

Thanks for reminding, got a nephew over in Blighty sitting his wine tasting exams. Would be nice to think he could supply a drop or two. Why can't NZ call it is champaign style wines champaign? Cause the NZ stuff bet the surrender monkeys in the wine tasting comps.

Anyways back to polluting our home planet.

[Winston001]

Which alludes to my biggest bitch about the climate change thing. There is such a focus on the climate change that it seems to be ok to pollute the planet, poison it, provided you can show a reduction in carbon output. Yet even if we stop carbon output totally now we make fuck all difference and human carbon contribution is in the single %s anyhow.

AHA!! Caught you. Confusing pollution with climate change.

.......ok its damned hard not to.

Here's my take on it:

1. Nobody - including climate scientists, says the Earth's climate doesn't change all by itself.

2. The argument is that human activity has added an extra load of carbon into the environment since the Industrial Revolution. Scientists say thats pushing a fast climate change. Oil companies and deniers disagree.

3. Leave No 2 aside and accept change is normal. Even fast change. So we need to build away from sea-level, anticipate warming trends, and violent weather. The weather comes from more energy in the atmosphere.

4. Crucially IMHO we are poisoning our air, water, and soil with our lifestyles. Mainly the poisons are complex hydrocarbons (methane, plastics, sprays, fertilisers, etc) but also simple CO2. These come from oil and coal.

5. But there are other serious poisons such as cadmium, zinc, copper, and lead. My understanding is that these are mainly used and released into the environment because we rely on oil and coal for energy.

6. In summary if man can find reliable sources of energy not derived from carbon, the other pollutants will fall.

[oneofsix]

AHA!! Caught you. Confusing pollution with climate change.

.......ok its damned hard not to.

Here's my take on it:

1. Nobody - including climate scientists, says the Earth's climate doesn't change all by itself.

2. The argument is that human activity has added an extra load of carbon into the environment since the Industrial Revolution. Scientists say thats pushing a fast climate change. Oil companies and deniers disagree.

3. Leave No 2 aside and accept change is normal. Even fast change. So we need to build away from sea-level, anticipate warming trends, and violent weather. The weather comes from more energy in the atmosphere.

4. Crucially IMHO we are poisoning our air, water, and soil with our lifestyles. Mainly the poisons are complex hydrocarbons (methane, plastics, sprays, fertilisers, etc) but also simple CO2. These come from oil and coal.

5. But there are other serious poisons such as cadmium, zinc, copper, and lead. My understanding is that these are mainly used and released into the environment because we rely on oil and coal for energy.

6. In summary if man can find reliable sources of energy not derived from carbon, the other pollutants will fall.

Not really you cause the loudest group shouting about climate change rabbit on about human carbon emissions and carbon trading and such like. My point was that those people are happy to pollute as long as its not carbon. I didn't say that carbon emissions weren't pollution.
1. sometimes do wonder but at the scientist level I agree, not so sure about Green politicians and such like
2. Oil companies are big sponsors of the anti-carbon climate change groups. Why? To push up prices? They are certainly making bigger profits with the higher fuel prices - the companies not the retailers.
3. yes and that energy could be nuclear (sun spots etc for the dumb arses)
4. Every animal does. We are particularly good (bad if you prefer) at it yes. Carbon not so sure as it just goes around and around the system and earth is based on carbon based life forms. Rumour is the Maori channel had a good program on it, Crude I think it was called.
5. yes to the first part
6.false we will still use and release the other pollutants

[Edbear]

Number 2 is accurate though, in that scientists are definitely saying the Industrial Revolution has contributed hugely to the amount of CO2 and other poisonous gasses in our atmosphere.

[Scuba_Steve]

6. In summary if man can find reliable sources of energy not derived from carbon, the other pollutants will fall.

you sure about that? In our "fight to stop carbon" we have increased use of mercury laden products after spending decades trying to decrease them, we're trying to taint & possibly poison our meat supply to try & stop something natural from farting, we are destroying the earth to produce "eco friendly" vehicles, we use cheaper 3rd world countries with less to no "substance controls" to deal with our polluting substances so we can save moneys & claim "our country has less pollution" all the while destroying the earth more than had we processed them ourselves.

IMO this whole "fight" is at the least a case of the path to Hell is paved with good intentions at the most a pure corporate lets make some $$$ no matter what the "cost"

[Edbear]

you sure about that? In our "fight to stop carbon" we have increased use of mercury laden products after spending decades trying to decrease them, we're trying to taint & possibly poison our meat supply to try & stop something natural from farting, we are destroying the earth to produce "eco friendly" vehicles, we use cheaper 3rd world countries with less to no "substance controls" to deal with our polluting substances so we can save moneys & claim "our country has less pollution" all the while destroying the earth more than had we processed them ourselves.

IMO this whole "fight" is at the least a case of the path to Hell is paved with good intentions at the most a pure corporate lets make some $$$ no matter what the "cost"

What!? You're surely not suggesting that big business is only concerned with $$$, are you...?

[Scuba_Steve]

What!? You're surely not suggesting that big business is only concerned with $$$, are you...?

that depends... are they watching right now