Global Warming a Rethink

[foghornleghorn2]

I think it would be hard to argue that the population having risen from 2.55 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion in 2009 hasn't had an effect on the planet and the resources required to maintain that population are not all sustainable. I think the issue here is not who is responsible for the changes to date but who has to be responsible for making the changes for the future.

What does not surprise me is that perhaps the public are starting to question the validity of concern regarding global warming when the powers that be can't get their act together and sort something out for the benefit of the planet we live on.

There are many issues that are obvious threats to our world such as chopping down the rain forests, these issues should be dealt with now as there are no grey areas, it is clearly bad for our planet.

Politicians have there own agenda when it comes to climate change.

[BodhisatvaJohn]

Whoooo Bojo, you need to take a chill pill and fast baby.

I don't know where you are getting the references to the Daily Mail from I don't read it, unless it is laying about in a cafe somewhere.

To catergorise people by what newspaper they read is very wrong, I'm sure not everyone who reads the Guardian is a treehugging, sandal wearing, muesli muncher but if the peruvian knitted hat fits..........

I have an opinion about global warming that doesn't sit well with you, well thats tough, it's a free country and I am entitled to an opinion whatever it may be. Deal with it Bojo and move on.

Ermm I am 'chilled,' thanks 'Fogho.' But I do have a warm jumper on!

Again, as I have said before, I don't come on here to cause upset to anyone. And never mean to be involved in any personal attacks. If I cause any upset, I sincerely apologise. I know that most of the good people on this site are only here to share their experiences with frugal and green living. So I'll restrain myself now from any more rants on man made global warming.

To Steve the Gas. Yes, the spelling in my last piece was appalling. My only excuse is that I suffer from M.E and I wrote that when in one of my usual fatigued states.

Anyway lots of love to all of you.

[foghornleghorn2]

Bojo, good response, lets just agree to differ on this subject.

Go in peace,

Fogho



(life is far too short to argue)

[p.penn]

(life is far too short to argue)

I agree.

[Stig]

John, I share your sense of frustration - although not with this forum & certainly none of the individuals who post here. The issue of the environment has become politicised and gradually everyone is taking their place on whatever side of the divide they feel more comfortable with. But there should be NO divide based on political leanings or economic models or any other arbitrary artificial measurement.

Foghorn, I can see you are as entrenched in your viewpoint as I am in mine and John is in his. But since we're all here I guess we're all concerned about the environment & are not 100% happy with the way things are. We should find some things we agree upon next time. I'm pro-global-warming, but my views on the environment would change little if there were no such thing.

[BodhisatvaJohn]

Stig. Yes, I agree, the issues of climate change have become very politicised, and personal. I can no longer read the comments section of newspapers , fiollowing an article relating to CC, as there is so much nastiness coming from on both sides. I even felt I had to write a personal apology to Benny Peiser, one of the leading climate sceptics, after reading a very personal attack upon him, from the Science editor of the Guardian, no less! I received a pleasant reply from him too, which I replicate here in full. it sums it all up really:

Dear John

Many thanks for your kind note which is much appreciated. I was also saddened by Mr McKie's tone because I thought he didn't actually read what I was saying.

One of the biggest problems over the last ten years or so has been the lack of an open, fair and matter-of-fact debate on some of the most contentious issues of climate science and policies. Mostly, what we get are shouting matches dominated by advocates of dogmatic or extreme positions. This populist style in itself is poisonous for a scientific culture and for a better understanding of the inherent problems faced by climate science and climate policies.

I am grateful for your kind words and hope that moderates like you and me will gain more ground in the climate debates.

With best regards

Benny Peiser

What frustrates me Stig, is the deliberate untruths that are being propagated by certain sections of the media, who are trying to sink, the debate. The sceptics are being funded to the tune of millions of dollars, by vested interested connected to the energy companies (all of which is documented and available for anyone to review). And, due to the frequency of these untruths, many members of the public are becoming convinced that human beings are not responsible for climate change.

Of course, there is no final proof either way yet, but, my concern is, if we carry on as we are, in effect doing nothing to limit our greedy consumption of the earths dwindling resources, whilst continuing to pump out vast amounts of greenhouse emissions, it will be too late, and the tipping point will reach the point of no return. We will probably get away with it, in our lifetime, but our children will have to face the dire consequences of our non actions.

[saint-spoon]

I have just finished watching the series Man on Earth narrated by Tony Robinson (recorded before Christmas). It researches swings in climate throughout human history and examines how we have adapted or failed to adapt to those changes. There have certainly been hard and rapid changes in the past which have occurred without much input from ourselves, it would therefore seem logical to conclude that our current problem could indeed be a perfectly natural phenomenon. That is before you take into account proven facts such as the ozone depleting properties of CFCs, the impact of cutting down the rain forests etc.
The question is not if we are having an effect, I think that we most certainly are, but how much our activities are effecting our atmosphere? CFCs are certainly ours in totality but CO2 has been released in unimaginable quantities by recent volcanic eruptions. There are just too many variables to consider.

[BodhisatvaJohn]

I have just finished watching the series Man on Earth narrated by Tony Robinson (recorded before Christmas). It researches swings in climate throughout human history and examines how we have adapted or failed to adapt to those changes. There have certainly been hard and rapid changes in the past which have occurred without much input from ourselves, it would therefore seem logical to conclude that our current problem could indeed be a perfectly natural phenomenon. That is before you take into account proven facts such as the ozone depleting properties of CFCs, the impact of cutting down the rain forests etc.
The question is not if we are having an effect, I think that we most certainly are, but how much our activities are effecting our atmosphere? CFCs are certainly ours in totality but CO2 has been released in unimaginable quantities by recent volcanic eruptions. There are just too many variables to consider.

Volcanoes send sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. These reflect sunlight, cooling the earth. A strong volcanic eruption can have a radiative forcing effect of up to -3 Wm-2. However, the effect of volcanic activity is transitory - over several years, the aerosols wash out of the atmosphere and any long term forcing is removed.

[saint-spoon]

and absolutely no CO2 is released by volcanoes at all?

[foghornleghorn2]

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

[Stig]

The media have admitted that they deliberately mis-reporting the facts that led to "climategate" and issuing apologies & a retraction. No surprises that this didn't make the front page...

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggl ... -done.html