Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[Scuba_Steve]

Nope, religion and science are diametrically opposed, which is why the church has long tried to block science and the use of scientific reason - climate change is the latest case, before that we had the sun revolving around the earth, creationism vs evolution, the existence of god etc

I'm sorry, but your an idiot

[oneofsix]

That's what we've been doing for several decades, and just like the most likely reason Plastic Messiah resulting in Him melted was because you applied heat, the most likely reason for the rise in global mean temperatures with the attendant change in climate is because of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases we have emitted. Sure, it may be because of other reasons, just like my jesus melting may have been caused by Ken Ring, but none of the other reasons have stood up to detailed scrutiny.

If Mashman is on the other side of the room with his bic lighter pointed at PJ and I'm next to PJ with a blow torch pointed across but in front of PJ who is most likely to have caused PJ to have melted. By the climate science argument it was Mashman.

[Edbear]

If Mashman is on the other side of the room with his bic lighter pointed at PJ and I'm next to PJ with a blow torch pointed across but in front of PJ who is most likely to have caused PJ to have melted. By the climate science argument it was Mashman.

[shrub]

I'm sorry, but your an idiot

Run out of arguments huh?

[mashman]

That's what we've been doing for several decades, and just like the most likely reason Plastic Messiah resulting in Him melted was because you applied heat, the most likely reason for the rise in global mean temperatures with the attendant change in climate is because of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases we have emitted. Sure, it may be because of other reasons, just like my jesus melting may have been caused by Ken Ring, but none of the other reasons have stood up to detailed scrutiny.

And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

[oneofsix]

And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

Oh MY Mashman don't you realise you are a heretic? We have to stop producing our 1% of the yearly carbon emissions or we will all diiiie. We must instead pollute the place with mercury, lead and radiative particles than risk another carbon atom escaping a cow's backside.

Please resume normal transmission.

[george formby]

And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

Now that would depend on the type of wind..

Wind circulates at different speeds & different directions at different altitudes.

It was stated recently that we would not see any fall out from Fukushima because it's impossible for airborne particles to cross the equator. The winds either side are traveling in opposite directions. Freaky, but true.

Erm, as an after thought. Their is no wind in a vacuum so the methane & C02 must be constituents of the atmosphere, moving or not.

[oneofsix]

It was stated recently that we would not see any fall out from Fukushima because it's impossible for airborne particles to cross the equator. The winds either side are traveling in opposite directions. Freaky, but true.

yeah I've read Nevil Shute's On the Beach. Not a bad book in its day.

[george formby]

yeah I've read Nevil Shute's On the Beach. Not a bad book in its day.

Never had the pleasure, enlighten me please.

[mashman]

Oh MY Mashman don't you realise you are a heretic? We have to stop producing our 1% of the yearly carbon emissions or we will all diiiie. We must instead pollute the place with mercury, lead and radiative particles than risk another carbon atom escaping a cow's backside.

Please resume normal transmission.

Then I should be burned in the most carbon and gas neutral way as possible.

[shrub]

And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

Actually all they've done badly is understimate the fear their findings have caused in the denialist community and the amount of effort, money and skill that has gone into an extensive and very clever PR campaign; and that was reprehensible. The same tactics were used (and often by the same PR people) by the tobacco industry to try and discredit the evidence that cigarette smoking was dangerous, and they should have expected it. But they didn't, and that's where they fucked up.

Bloody scientists, they have no idea how gullible and easily swayed even intelligent people can be.

[Winston001]

Sadly science is a "religion" if you don't listen to others. So I guess your both right.

No no no. The discipline of science is diametrically opposed to religion. That doesn't mean religion is wrong or irrelevant, it is simply different being concerned with human behaviour and spiritual reflection.

Science by contrast is concerned with endless questioning and testing of the physical world. For example, Newton said Mercury would appear from behind the Sun at a certain time. 200 years later Einstein wondered about this and correctly predicted Mercury would appear early. It did. Thus Newton's principles of gravity were nailed down further and in more detail. Newton was roughly right, he just didn't know enough and telescopes weren't up to the job in the 18th century.

Humans contribute about 4% of carbon release. Not a lot but plenty more than 1%.

The central problem is pollution. Burning oil/coal/gas poisons the environment. We are lucky in NZ, it isn't visible or a problem here. Go anywhere in Asia and you'll be living in the South-Asia Plume. Its a vast cloud of brown pollution from Pakistan across to South China and south.

I was in New Delhi and Mumbai 3 years ago. I could see 400m most of the time. The whole continent of India is smog.

So...cutting down carbon intensive activities is a no brainer. Naturally we won't do that.

[mashman]

Actually all they've done badly is understimate the fear their findings have caused in the denialist community and the amount of effort, money and skill that has gone into an extensive and very clever PR campaign; and that was reprehensible. The same tactics were used (and often by the same PR people) by the tobacco industry to try and discredit the evidence that cigarette smoking was dangerous, and they should have expected it. But they didn't, and that's where they fucked up.

Bloody scientists, they have no idea how gullible and easily swayed even intelligent people can be.

I wouldn't say that deniers have their opinions based on fearful findings... what gives them that impression? The deniers usually have bloody good reasons to question the data and data modelling methods that are being used to predict the future, yes the future, and by default casting a whacking great big shadow over the results/findings. Oh we've recalculated the X and Y based on the new finding of Z, and it matches the previous line through scatter graph model, so it must be correct . And you think it's fear that drives the deniers?

You don't have to be intelligent, i think i've proven that , to see the flaws in the prediction models being used. You would have thought the scientists would have known this, being so intelligent and all, and would have tried a little harder

[Spearfish]

I remember way back when fridge gas was the big one.
Now its carbon.
next week it will be fridge magnets....

[Woodman]

Reading all you guys posts just reconfirms to me that nothing will ever get done about what we are doing to this place. Don't get me wrong your views are interesting and well documented but basically analysis paralysis.

The only thing that will save us is some sort of dictatorship or military power that is willing to save the place by force. You cut down a rainforest you get shot, simple as that. You overfish a seabed, you get shot. Easy.
The boffins and spineless politicians, both who have dubious agendas have had their day.