I'm not sure how relevant discussions on the level of subsidy we give to non carbon based fuels will be when we can no longer live on the planet. Cost is a relative term, if it costs more to use wind farms and we can live where we are, it is surely cheaper than a smaller subsidy on carbon based fuel that renders our planet uninhabitable.
The carbon cycle is being interfered with on a grand scale and the consequences of that are quite frightening, we need to live with it and deal with it or suffer the consequences. Link below shows the normal and damaged cycles and quite a bit more if anyone is interested; it's worth a read.
Pretty soon I think we are going to have to find a way of getting carbon back out of the atmosphere and into long term storage. I wonder if we can get an EU subsidy for that?
Last night on TV they showed the "fracking industry" in the USA. In a few years this will start to export LNG to the UK. The ports for these huge ships ere adapted/re-built by ExxonMobil at Milford haven and South Hook. we need in the UK to develope this industry ---in a safe manner if possible.
Was told tonight there's at least a hundred years of oil in one specific country. Saw the maps of where they are too.
Maybe but if we carry on using carbon based fuels for another hundred years we will not be able to live on this planet, so it's not really the important point is it?
Was told tonight there's at least a hundred years of oil in one specific country. Saw the maps of where they are too.
Maybe but if we carry on using carbon based fuels for another hundred years we will not be able to live on this planet, so it's not really the important point is it?
The Met Office had to adjust its thinking on global warming earlier this year as they had to agree that there has been no appreciable warming in the last 20 years. This was against all the original climate change models.
As the jury is out on the question of man made global warming, I don't think we should be spending so much money on inefficient renewable energy when there is clearly plenty of oil and gas to be had for the forseeable future. If we go down the fracking route it will provide plenty of jobs for this country. If we can produce enough of our own gas and oil we can be a major world economic power once again, without the need to rely on middle eastern fuel.
The London Array wind farm hasn't provided that many jobs for this country and the turbines were made abroad and most of the workers were foreign.
The Met Office had to adjust its thinking on global warming earlier this year as they had to agree that there has been no appreciable warming in the last 20 years. This was against all the original climate change models.
As the jury is out on the question of man made global warming, I don't think we should be spending so much money on inefficient renewable energy when there is clearly plenty of oil and gas to be had for the forseeable future. If we go down the fracking route it will provide plenty of jobs for this country. If we can produce enough of our own gas and oil we can be a major world economic power once again, without the need to rely on middle eastern fuel.
The London Array wind farm hasn't provided that many jobs for this country and the turbines were made abroad and most of the workers were foreign.
The graph looks like a massive increase in temperature until you look at the scale on the left - the increase is minute. We have temperature variations of far more than that from one day to the next, so I can't see how an increase of about one degree can make much difference.
The Met Office had to adjust its thinking on global warming earlier this year as they had to agree that there has been no appreciable warming in the last 20 years. This was against all the original climate change models.
I think you're refering to the last Met Office "Decadal Forecast" there ME14 which they "published", without any sort of fanfare on Christmas Eve 2012. Without any accompanying press release too I read.
Presumably they did this knowing that there were no papers the next day to report on it i.e. it was a good day to bury "good" news...
There are still too many vested interests in both sides of the argument and the minute anyone adopts a sceptical attitude to the adopted "consensus" around climate change the name calling starts. Sadly this is why we cannot have a proper discussion of what is probably the most important issue facing us.
Was told tonight there's at least a hundred years of oil in one specific country. Saw the maps of where they are too.
Maybe but if we carry on using carbon based fuels for another hundred years we will not be able to live on this planet, so it's not really the important point is it?
The Met Office had to adjust its thinking on global warming earlier this year as they had to agree that there has been no appreciable warming in the last 20 years. This was against all the original climate change models.
As the jury is out on the question of man made global warming, I don't think we should be spending so much money on inefficient renewable energy when there is clearly plenty of oil and gas to be had for the forseeable future. If we go down the fracking route it will provide plenty of jobs for this country. If we can produce enough of our own gas and oil we can be a major world economic power once again, without the need to rely on middle eastern fuel.
The London Array wind farm hasn't provided that many jobs for this country and the turbines were made abroad and most of the workers were foreign.
The quote below, taken from the Met Office's website this afternoon (my emphasis though), tells the real truth on their position. Yes, the rate of change has slowed down over the last decade, but no that does not mean that climate change isn't a very major problem.
"The 'warming pause' over the recent decade does not show that climate change is not happening. And it certainly does not mean that climate scientists are "backing away" from our fundamental understanding. Every new decade of data brings new information that helps reduce uncertainties in climate forecasts. In some ways, the picture changes surprisingly slowly for such an intensely scrutinised problem: our new results may help rule out some of the highest-response models, but they are still consistent with the multi-model average, and our uncertainty range encompasses the bulk of the old range. It would certainly also help to test the physically based global circulation models against more than their transient climate response and climate sensitivity. Knowing how they perform in representing regional climate variables like air pressure at sea level (PMSL) or moisture variables is important and might lead to a narrowing of uncertainty eventually, and confidence in how they perform in projecting regional impact relevant quantities. This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade's worth of data."
Please don't use weasil words like "The Met Office had to adjust its thinking..." which are clearly intended to imply that they have back-tracked in some way. They haven't. The facts of the matter are that climate change is a real phenomenom and the Met Office still recognises this.
As for your thinking that "the jury is out on the question of man made global warming". It isn't. If you doubt this, take a look at this meta-study which shows that of 928 papers published on climate change 75% agreed with the concensus whilst the remaining 25% didn't cover the issue:
Or perhaps this one, that found that "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
It Looks like you might have been reading one of David Rose's discredited articles in the Daily Mail, or perhaps a something drafted by the re-write desk at The Washington Post. Either way, I'd take it with a pinch of salt if I were you.
The graph looks like a massive increase in temperature until you look at the scale on the left - the increase is minute. We have temperature variations of far more than that from one day to the next, so I can't see how an increase of about one degree can make much difference.
If you not understanding meant it wasn't a problem, that'd be a result.
I'm not disputing the fact that climate changes - it always has since the planet formed. What I do dispute is the notion that it is man made. There isn't enough consensus on this to make it a certainty.
Many of the organisations which like to perpetuate the theory have a vested interest in doing so, as their funding would be cut off if the idea of man made global warming were disproved.
The graph looks like a massive increase in temperature until you look at the scale on the left - the increase is minute. We have temperature variations of far more than that from one day to the next, so I can't see how an increase of about one degree can make much difference.
If you not understanding meant it wasn't a problem, that'd be a result.
Please enlighten me if you think I have misunderstood.
I'm not disputing the fact that climate changes - it always has since the planet formed. What I do dispute is the notion that it is man made. There isn't enough consensus on this to make it a certainty.
Many of the organisations which like to perpetuate the theory have a vested interest in doing so, as their funding would be cut off if the idea of man made global warming were disproved.
You insult the work of thousands of scientists around the world who actually make up a quite solid consensus. The few noisy sceptics often turn out to be funded by the likes of Exxon. Or like the former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, are just narcissistic nutters with no scientific qualifications whatsoever, but for whom adjusting to climate change would mean personal inconvenience like not driving a petrol guzzling car to the hypermarket.
1. I don't know enough about the science to have an informed view. I am therefore reliant on experts
2. Scientists are not unananimus but the consensus is very broad. However, even if there is a consensus that does not mean they are right - there are numerous examples in the history of science of consensuses being wrong. On the whole though, a consensus amongst specialists should be taken serieously.
3. If the consensus is correct and we fail to take action, the consequences range form very bad to catastrophic.
4. If the consensus is wrong and we do take action (globally), we will have needlessly spent a significant but not disastrous amount of money in constructing new energy infrastucture.
5. If western Europe spends a deal of money in constructing new energy but carbon emissions continue to rise significantly in China, India and the developing world then nothing much will have been achieved.
6. We should try to meet our targets but should prioritise persuading other countries (including China, India, the US and Australia) to agree and meet theirs.
The graph looks like a massive increase in temperature until you look at the scale on the left - the increase is minute. We have temperature variations of far more than that from one day to the next, so I can't see how an increase of about one degree can make much difference.
If you not understanding meant it wasn't a problem, that'd be a result.
Please enlighten me if you think I have misunderstood.
I don't need to (see above). But the clue was in "I can't see how..."
I still remain sceptical about man made global warming but I do think we need to spend more energy in looking at how humans have affected the planet in other ways e.g cutting down rainforests for palm oil plantations.
I think population growth is far more injurious to the planet. We cannot continue to have more and more people without it badly affecting the planet. More and more land is needed for housing and wildlife is being affected as a result.
We need biodiversity for the planet to survive yet many species are becoming extinct due to their habitat destruction.
Governments should be looking at ways to reduce population growth. In this country, limiting child benefit to only two children could be a start.
I still remain sceptical about man made global warming but I do think we need to spend more energy in looking at how humans have affected the planet in other ways e.g cutting down rainforests for palm oil plantations.
I think population growth is far more injurious to the planet. We cannot continue to have more and more people without it badly affecting the planet. More and more land is needed for housing and wildlife is being affected as a result.
We need biodiversity for the planet to survive yet many species are becoming extinct due to their habitat destruction.
Governments should be looking at ways to reduce population growth. In this country, limiting child benefit to only two children could be a start.
Whilst I'm not so sceptical about the man made nature of global warming, you make some points I agree with. There's a very good book called "the future of life" by EO Wilson, who argues about the value of biodiversity. In purely economic terms he calculate the value of biodiversity as much higher than the world domestic product. We are talking in terms of food and food security, defence against disease, new drugs, protection against soil erosion, protection against natural disasters etc. That's even without mentioning the ethical reasons for preserving biodiversity.
Population growth is one thing, but people in the third world etc don't use a great deal of resources, when you consider how many "world's worth" of resources would be required for everyone to live like they do in the US for example. We all need to take a hard look at how we treat the planet.
...I think population growth is far more injurious to the planet. We cannot continue to have more and more people without it badly affecting the planet. More and more land is needed for housing and wildlife is being affected as a result.
We need biodiversity for the planet to survive yet many species are becoming extinct due to their habitat destruction...
The graph looks like a massive increase in temperature until you look at the scale on the left - the increase is minute. We have temperature variations of far more than that from one day to the next, so I can't see how an increase of about one degree can make much difference.
If you not understanding meant it wasn't a problem, that'd be a result.
Please enlighten me if you think I have misunderstood.
Comments
The carbon cycle is being interfered with on a grand scale and the consequences of that are quite frightening, we need to live with it and deal with it or suffer the consequences. Link below shows the normal and damaged cycles and quite a bit more if anyone is interested; it's worth a read.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
Pretty soon I think we are going to have to find a way of getting carbon back out of the atmosphere and into long term storage. I wonder if we can get an EU subsidy for that?
As the jury is out on the question of man made global warming, I don't think we should be spending so much money on inefficient renewable energy when there is clearly plenty of oil and gas to be had for the forseeable future. If we go down the fracking route it will provide plenty of jobs for this country. If we can produce enough of our own gas and oil we can be a major world economic power once again, without the need to rely on middle eastern fuel.
The London Array wind farm hasn't provided that many jobs for this country and the turbines were made abroad and most of the workers were foreign.
a meta-analysis published by the Institute of physics came to a similar conclusion.
Presumably they did this knowing that there were no papers the next day to report on it i.e. it was a good day to bury "good" news...
There are still too many vested interests in both sides of the argument and the minute anyone adopts a sceptical attitude to the adopted "consensus" around climate change the name calling starts. Sadly this is why we cannot have a proper discussion of what is probably the most important issue facing us.
"The 'warming pause' over the recent decade does not show that climate change is not happening. And it certainly does not mean that climate scientists are "backing away" from our fundamental understanding. Every new decade of data brings new information that helps reduce uncertainties in climate forecasts. In some ways, the picture changes surprisingly slowly for such an intensely scrutinised problem: our new results may help rule out some of the highest-response models, but they are still consistent with the multi-model average, and our uncertainty range encompasses the bulk of the old range. It would certainly also help to test the physically based global circulation models against more than their transient climate response and climate sensitivity. Knowing how they perform in representing regional climate variables like air pressure at sea level (PMSL) or moisture variables is important and might lead to a narrowing of uncertainty eventually, and confidence in how they perform in projecting regional impact relevant quantities. This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade's worth of data."
Please don't use weasil words like "The Met Office had to adjust its thinking..." which are clearly intended to imply that they have back-tracked in some way. They haven't. The facts of the matter are that climate change is a real phenomenom and the Met Office still recognises this.
As for your thinking that "the jury is out on the question of man made global warming". It isn't. If you doubt this, take a look at this meta-study which shows that of 928 papers published on climate change 75% agreed with the concensus whilst the remaining 25% didn't cover the issue:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Or perhaps this one, that found that "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
It Looks like you might have been reading one of David Rose's discredited articles in the Daily Mail, or perhaps a something drafted by the re-write desk at The Washington Post. Either way, I'd take it with a pinch of salt if I were you.
*anthropogenic global warming
Many of the organisations which like to perpetuate the theory have a vested interest in doing so, as their funding would be cut off if the idea of man made global warming were disproved.
1. I don't know enough about the science to have an informed view. I am therefore reliant on experts
2. Scientists are not unananimus but the consensus is very broad. However, even if there is a consensus that does not mean they are right - there are numerous examples in the history of science of consensuses being wrong. On the whole though, a consensus amongst specialists should be taken serieously.
3. If the consensus is correct and we fail to take action, the consequences range form very bad to catastrophic.
4. If the consensus is wrong and we do take action (globally), we will have needlessly spent a significant but not disastrous amount of money in constructing new energy infrastucture.
5. If western Europe spends a deal of money in constructing new energy but carbon emissions continue to rise significantly in China, India and the developing world then nothing much will have been achieved.
6. We should try to meet our targets but should prioritise persuading other countries (including China, India, the US and Australia) to agree and meet theirs.
I think population growth is far more injurious to the planet. We cannot continue to have more and more people without it badly affecting the planet. More and more land is needed for housing and wildlife is being affected as a result.
We need biodiversity for the planet to survive yet many species are becoming extinct due to their habitat destruction.
Governments should be looking at ways to reduce population growth. In this country, limiting child benefit to only two children could be a start.
Population growth is one thing, but people in the third world etc don't use a great deal of resources, when you consider how many "world's worth" of resources would be required for everyone to live like they do in the US for example. We all need to take a hard look at how we treat the planet.