The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[wanton dwarf]

What money and what power?

A lot of alternatives to carbon are in fact becoming cheaper than the alternative. You think people will buy an electric car purely because they don't burn carbon to power it, or is it the fact you can fill it for £7 on off peak juice?

China is a prime example. They are sat on thousands of tonnes of coal. Now they are investing in renewables, (having already built the largest hydroelectric plant on earth), and are planning 80 GW of nuclear power. You think they are doing that for the sake of it?

You've got a few problems there.

1) Electric cars are heavily subsidised.
2) Battery production is very polluting.
3) Charging batteries comes from power stations which are not carbon free. Plus there is an added efficiency loss during power production at the power station, transmission, point of charging.
4) To build the new vehicle takes way more carbon than running an older car.
5) "Filling it for £7" equates to about 100 mile range at low speed for a Hybrid ... which most people don't do.

China predominantly uses coal. Asia is not reknowned for being "truthful".

Well they need the nuclear power stations to breed Plutonium for Nuclear Weapons anyway.

Hydroelectric is good, yep we could put Scotland to good use whilst solving the Jiminy Cricket problem.

Don't get me wrong, we'll buy Solar panels if it's viable mainly because we like them, personally I prefere Wind Turbines ... but don't pretend they are "Carbon Neutral".

 

[wanton dwarf]

Mm Yes there have been, are happening and will get worst in the future,

I m following the money and they lead to oil and petrochemical multinational who are making a mint out of fossil fuel, who incidently are behind all of these counter-climate change propaganda and misinformations, they don t want their golden goose to be taken away. Research the Koch brothers who have invested over 88 million dollars in a counter CC machine, through lobbing, creating/supporting foundation/institutions and events, paying/supporting politicians and parties. And there are more like them so yes follow the money.


Yes and those were good times if you were a single cellular organism who did not need much or none oxygen to survive

Er no there have been NO scientifically proven Climate Change Weather events ...


Those dinosaurs must have been bloomin big single cells .. or was it Glaciers which killed off the Dinos ?


Davos ... I wonder what goes on in Davos.

Why would rich people actively subvert the Western Poor with the active support of Liberal politicians ?

Hmmm ?

World Governance !?! A big EU !?! The problem of solving the worlds poor ... hmmm. Looks like we have lots of Westerners with money that they shouldn't have.

 

[Dave645]

To bring things to a very simple level.
You know my position on climate change, but I will put that aside.

Ok for people who think Its a 60 year cycle, when in the last 60 years did the river Trent freeze?
Because it has in the past my great great grand parents ice skated on it.
Now if there was a cold spell in the cycle then we missed the last one because that was way longer than 60 years ago...or it was so small we didnt notice it. I have spoken to family who have skated on the river Trent, near where I live. So this is not fudged data.

Ok for people that think current levels of co2 are 96% natural, as in we only add 4%.
Ok 2 facts in the last 800,000 years we have had a min max of 170ppm to 300ppm of co2 we can call that natural very little man made effects... and the second fact the current levels of 390-400ppm...
Non of this is argued about both sceptics and believers agree on this, so we can on that reasoning say they are excepted facts.
So you have got to say that, that small addition of 4% has slowly increased co2 levels above natural levels as proven in ice records over the last 800k Years.
So we are in man made environment any change that effects natural balances that's man made even if that's we are breeding animals to eat which are adding co2 then it's still man made but I would say that live stock have replaced wild life just take the wild buffalo herds in the USA of the past man killed them and replaced that food with their food.
So it's agreed we are living in a man made environment....

Now what's not agreed is what effect it's having this is where we have opposing views some say natural 60 year cycles are at work and we will see dropping tempratures, and we may but the key data is but not by much in the last down cycle we did not see the lows we saw in the one before that, or have been seen and have been talked about by my great great grand parents. So for me that leads me to belive in long trends and cycles but the reducing effect those natural cycles are having. Are leading to trends of increasing tempratures, now I don't even need to call on, it's co2 causing it I have no need to say it is, I just look at the trends and say it points to it may be a cause by co2 but it's not 100% proven I can except that, and I can also except the trend to globle warming they are not mutually exclusive in my eyes. I can see warming trends they defy explanation, but I agree that the currently accepted thinking that the man made environment we are living in is having an effect........ and as one of the factors in the man made environment is co2 I can not rule it out as harmless.

Taking the above fact I come to the conclusion it can do no harm to reduce the man made part of co2 in the environment to 300ppm again the natural max we have seen in the last 800k years, but it may be doing harm if we keep adding it.

When you except a few very basic facts that are uncontested and look back at the past maybe in your own family's story's and they point to low tempratures in the past maybe 120 years ago which is 2 natural cycles then you can see the natural pattern is maybe still there but is still pointing to a trend for increasing temperatures which again most people except, that's leaving co2 out of it.
Then you have to look at why it is then you compair the environment now to the past and ask what's different, it's not poor science to then conclude that the differences may be a factor in the rising temperatures.
But facts are facts the enviorments now is different from the past and the current trend is against the natural trend that points us to think we should be seeing globle cooling. Which makes the current trend more worrying.

 

[dstudent]

Er no there have been NO scientifically proven Climate Change Weather events ...

So now science is your friend, could you provide scientific papers with 100% confidence confirming that recent weather extremes, outside of normal natural pocesses are not caused by increases in rise of temperatures?
If u can be 100% confident I ll be very very happy.

Those dinosaurs must have been bloomin big single cells .. or was it Glaciers which killed off the Dinos ?

This below was your original quote, could you specify which times the gasses and the concentrstions you were referring to?and more importantly were there any humans?
If u r being vague then I ll ve to make my own interptetstions of what I might assume you are referring to.
The bit about Davos I don t get, could you explain? Who are the people attending and why. I know what happens in Davos, but you are making the assumption I agree with it.

But we already know these gases were in the atmosphere for 100s of millions of years

 

[Old McDonald]

LOL, plants give out CO2 as well you know, they need oxygen just as much as any of us.

when I was in school plants took in CO2 and released O back out

Yes, and what do they do at night?

I will use pictures for this one because it is simpler, but there are some words too. It is an extract from BBC Science for GCSE students. As can be seen, plants release CO2 24 hours a day, and oxygen (as a by-product) only when they are photosynthesising. Do not worry, plants do not use up much of the available oxygen when they are not photosynthesising.

Current temperatures are sufficient to reduce photosynthesis in summer in many plants. This has always been the case, it is not something new:-



Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction that happens in the chloroplasts of plant cells. It produces glucose for use by the plant, and oxygen as a waste product. Here are the equations for photosynthesis:

Carbon dioxide + water

glucose + oxygen

6CO2 + 6H2O

C6H12O6 + 6O2

Light energy is absorbed by chlorophyll in the chloroplasts for photosynthesis to happen.

Respiration
It is not just animals that respire – plants carry out respiration as well. Plants respire all the time because their cells need energy to stay alive, but plants can only photosynthesise when they are in the light.


Time of day Photosynthesis Respiration
Day P- Active R - Active
Night P - None R - Active
The diagrams summarise what this means for the overall release of carbon dioxide or oxygen from plants. Remember that respiration uses oxygen and produces carbon dioxide.

How plants affect the atmosphere: day

How plants affect the atmosphere: night

 

[rob1]

I will use pictures for this one because it is simpler, but there are some words too. It is an extract from BBC Science for GCSE students. As can be seen, plants release CO2 24 hours a day, and oxygen (as a by-product) only when they are photosynthesising. Do not worry, plants do not use up much of the available oxygen when they are not photosynthesising.

Current temperatures are sufficient to reduce photosynthesis in summer in many plants. This has always been the case, it is not something new:-



Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction that happens in the chloroplasts of plant cells. It produces glucose for use by the plant, and oxygen as a waste product. Here are the equations for photosynthesis:

Carbon dioxide + water

glucose + oxygen

6CO2 + 6H2O

C6H12O6 + 6O2

Light energy is absorbed by chlorophyll in the chloroplasts for photosynthesis to happen.

Respiration
It is not just animals that respire – plants carry out respiration as well. Plants respire all the time because their cells need energy to stay alive, but plants can only photosynthesise when they are in the light.


Time of day Photosynthesis Respiration
Day P- Active R - Active
Night P - None R - Active
The diagrams summarise what this means for the overall release of carbon dioxide or oxygen from plants. Remember that respiration uses oxygen and produces carbon dioxide.

How plants affect the atmosphere: day

How plants affect the atmosphere: night

looked it up after I posted and found the right info, so there is two possibilites, 1 I was paying more attention to the young ladies in my O level group than the teacher or 2 they didnt know what they were on about in the mid 70's . More likely the first if I'm honest still got a B grade though

 

[dstudent]

 

[Bury the Trash]

Renewables

 

[ollie989898]

You've got a few problems there.

1) Electric cars are heavily subsidised.
2) Battery production is very polluting.
3) Charging batteries comes from power stations which are not carbon free. Plus there is an added efficiency loss during power production at the power station, transmission, point of charging.
4) To build the new vehicle takes way more carbon than running an older car.
5) "Filling it for £7" equates to about 100 mile range at low speed for a Hybrid ... which most people don't do.

China predominantly uses coal. Asia is not reknowned for being "truthful".

Well they need the nuclear power stations to breed Plutonium for Nuclear Weapons anyway.

Hydroelectric is good, yep we could put Scotland to good use whilst solving the Jiminy Cricket problem.

Don't get me wrong, we'll buy Solar panels if it's viable mainly because we like them, personally I prefere Wind Turbines ... but don't pretend they are "Carbon Neutral".

1. I don't see the Tesla cars being subsidised.
2. Battery production is polluting, yes, and internal combustion engine production and emissions are not?
3. Charging batteries using electricity from whatever power source is preferable as it is easier and more effective to burn carbon in a power-station rather than an engine, as well as clean up the emissions when they occur. Transmission losses are not an issue.
4. Building new vehicles is going to happen whether battery power is adopted or not. The emphasis should be on recycling the materials involved as much as possible, which, to it's credit the car industry is well on it's way to doing.
5. The Tesla model S costs about £7 on off peak juice to charge, and gives about 400km in range, not 100 miles, nor is it a hybrid. When faced with running costs like that, the ICE engine in passenger cars is finished.

The Chinese are sat on top of a mountain of coal, yet are making massive moves into renewables and nuclear power. They have a stockpile of nukes already, I don't see what adding a fleet of new PWRs will add in that regard.

If the Chinese are only worried about cheap juice, they would not be spending so much time and effort developing nuclear power. In reality, they don't like the pollution and environmental effects of coal, they want to be one of the leaders in nuclear power worldwide and are already trying to export their latest designs. They also have literal hordes of Phd students being churned out in most fields annually.

 

[ollie989898]

'These gases were in the atmosphere for millions of years....' The fact is they weren't in the atmosphere for a long time until recent times either. They were buried away as carbon deposits. And now mankind is burning them and releasing them in large amounts in a much shorter time frame.

Why is this so difficult for people to accept? Or do we just knowingly want to hand over an earth we have already half screwed to our kids?

 

[Old McDonald]

Why is this so difficult for people to accept?

Some deny it is happening, some do not want to believe it is happening, some do not know it is happening, and some just like to argue that it is not happening, even if they know it is.

 

[banjo]

Some deny it is happening, some do not want to believe it is happening, some do not know it is happening, and some just like to argue that it is not happening, even if they know it is.

No, some say climate change is happening naturally in an earthly cycle, these people also believe the earth will fix itself, cos we are part of the cycle. These will not be bullied into silence and will keep on stating the obvious until it is proved correct.

Others believe they know the lot and try to force their opinion on to others by stopping others question them. There is no proof that their theory is correct, in fact there is more proofing it isnt correct !

I and many are not stupid ( as some try to make out ) we just thnk money is driving the climate change lobby, and power.
some are brainwashed because it makes them feel better, some see right through all the bulls**t and see it for what it is, scaremongering the worlds population so the poorer country's stay in the dark ages, while we use all the resources, it's that simple.

I know a chap who has just built a 80 by 100ft shed to put 3 or 4 boilers in to heat an empty shed ( he has one already ) these are part of it all, one big financial scam, you only have to look in Ireland.
Buy £1 of wood pellet, they pay you £1.60 in a grant, it's brought down the government!
Huge factories being warmed with nothing inside making millions all for renewables.
Open your eyes sheeple!

 

[wanton dwarf]

This below was your original quote, could you specify which times the gasses and the concentrstions you were referring to?and more importantly were there any humans?

I suggest you go back to school and actually get an education.

You come across as though you've been indoctrinated.

For your education CO2 has been many many times higher in Earths history for 100s of millions of years whilst life flourished producing some of the largest plants, reptiles and insects.

 

[dstudent]

I suggest you go back to school and actually get an education.

You come across as though you've been indoctrinated.

For your education CO2 has been many many times higher in Earths history for 100s of millions of years whilst life flourished producing some of the largest plants, reptiles and insects.

Ho snap
Were there humans present? Simple question. Yes or not, anything to support your claims?
And 100 millions of years, as the earth is about 4.5 billions years old you ll need to give a better time frame and timeline, and the various processes, gasses concentration etc. My education is just fine, yours .. not so much.
Or just agree to disagree on this one. Bye

 

[Dave645]

No, some say climate change is happening naturally in an earthly cycle, these people also believe the earth will fix itself, cos we are part of the cycle. These will not be bullied into silence and will keep on stating the obvious until it is proved correct.

So your happy to ignore that we are experiencing co2 at 390-400ppm which is over the long term average in the last 800,000 years some of which man has lived which was 170-300ppm.
And that it's agreed that tempratures are rising despite we are actually in a natural ice age cycle? And that science is only pointing at co2 as a factor because no other factor in the ice records past data to today's data can explain the changes. If the sceptics could find another they would, the fact they cannot, means that we are left with co2.

I know a chap who has just built a 80 by 100ft shed to put 3 or 4 boilers in to heat an empty shed ( he has one already ) these are part of it all, one big financial scam, you only have to look in Ireland.
Buy £1 of wood pellet, they pay you £1.60 in a grant, it's brought down the government!
Huge factories being warmed with nothing inside making millions all for renewables.
Open your eyes sheeple!

Saying that one govermants corruption or poor legistrative uses is argument that making changes is bad is very poor foundation to place your argument, many other countries have similar schemes and have a lot less issues if any, similar to Ireland has experienced, and if corruption of a system is possible it's down to poor policy implementation not goal.
It's mans way to exploit, if there is a way it will be used. But to tar everyone on the scheme in Ireland with the same corruption is unlikly to be true for every person taking advantage there may have been others trying to make a difference for the greater good. And using the scheme as it was intended.

 

[Old McDonald]

@banjo, I have asked you before to learn to understand what people post. This what Ollie posted:-

'These gases were in the atmosphere for millions of years....' The fact is they weren't in the atmosphere for a long time until recent times either. They were buried away as carbon deposits. And now mankind is burning them and releasing them in large amounts in a much shorter time frame.

Why is this so difficult for people to accept?

I replied with various suggestions as to why some people find it difficult to accept we are burning fossil fuels and releasing the gases in a much shorter time frame than they have been sequestered in the earth.

He neither asked, nor did I respond, to the wider question "Is the climate changing, and if so, why?"

I take it from your rebuttal of my suggestions that you think they are incorrect, so please tell us your suggestions for why you think people find it difficult to accept Ollie's statement.

I suppose it is a waste of time telling you yet again that I am not 100% convinced that the current rising temperatures are totally man made, and that I could be persuaded they are not. But there might be an odd new reader or two who has not seen a post of mine that says so and I do not want to leave them under the same misapprehension as you appear to be have.

 

[banjo]

I always say this I know, but thanks to the farming forum for letting an alternative view be heard.
Usually this conversation gets shut down, this time a lot of info from both sides has been put into one place and all who watch or read can decide for themselves, that's all I ask, look for yourself and always question what your told.
Some disagree with my side some don't, nothing personal, all my side ask for is the same platform to discuss their views.
This vid is from a few years back, a very high up ipcc British leader being given some hard questions, what a slippery swine, these people are to blame by corrupting data and then trying to hide it from the public. But they still stick to the same line even when it's proven to be falsified.
Snake oil salesman !

 

[Paddington]

Does that remind anyone of a hockey stick ?

 

[Old McDonald]

This vid is from a few years back, a very high up ipcc British leader being given some hard questions, what a slippery swine,

Snake oil salesman !

Charming turn of phrase you have.

You are not asking people to decide for themselves when you refer in that way to someone who was being bullied. There is no other word for it than bullying when presenters do the sort of "interviewing" seen here. Even the bloke at the end told Marr how badly he had conducted the interview. Marr claims "it is my job". How would you describe someone like him?

Marr went back to the June 1999 article in New Scientist. Here is an extract (my bolding) from Fred Pearce's article:-

MELTING Himalayan glaciers are threatening to unleash a torrent of floods into mountain valleys, and ultimately dry up rivers across South Asia. A new study, due to be presented in July to the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI), predicts that most of the glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming.

“All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating,” says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the chief author of the ICSI report. A typical example is the Gangorti glacier at the head of the River Ganges, which is retreating at a rate of 30 metres per year. Hasnain’s four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline.
..............................

The "could" statement by Hasnain, Chairman of the ICSI at that time, and a highly respected glaciologist, was turned into "will" by Pearce, and then bandied about until Prof. Lal picked it up and accepted it. A mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life despite it being one paragraph in a 938 page report.

Cherry-picking small holes in the IPCC report is not a revocation of the science of climate change. It is akin to cherry-picking holes in Newton's Theory of Gravity (of which there are many): unless you are seeking to fundamentally overthrow the principle, it doesn't change the overall theory. Even Einstein made mistakes in some of his calculations, including dividing by zero.

There is a saying "One weed does not stop a cornfield from being a cornfield". Lal, Newton and Einstein all made mistakes, that does not make them slippery swine or snake oil salesmen.

I suppose a seven years old video is better than your opening 10 y.o. shot I suppose. Nothing in the last year to show us?

What has happened to temperatures since 2010? No hearsay from you, just global figures please from any source you care to choose.

 

[bovrill]

You are not asking people to decide for themselves when you refer in that way to someone who was being bullied. There is no other word for it than bullying when presenters do the sort of "interviewing" seen here. Even the bloke at the end told Marr how badly he had conducted the interview. Marr claims "it is my job". How would you describe someone like him?

I'll give Andrew Neil (the interviewer) his due, I normally find him to be a very good interviewer, being very knowledgeable on most subjects, freely admitting when he's not, and only going for an interviewees jugular when he senses they are avoiding being honest.
He hosts a very relaxed political programme late on a Thursday night, and the majority of the guests come on without trying to hide anything, and get treated very civilly. Slippery ones are torn apart.

As for the third bloke at the end of the interview above, that's Will Self, a rent-a-mouth 'liberal intellectual commentator', and a pretty horrible person, in my opinion!