Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave645" data-source="post: 3388146" data-attributes="member: 55822"><p>When I started reading this thread, I was near the centre in terms of my beliefs I believed in globle warming but was unsure to what extent man was responsible.</p><p></p><p>But after researching info, that was used by the sceptics, it's moved me further from the centre, and more over to it's defiantly man doing it.</p><p>There is to much historic data from ice cores and geological data to say this is natural.</p><p>When you except that as a fact, you then start to look at the changes for what they are, and what they may be doing.</p><p>It's now excepted by both sides that things are warming up.</p><p>It's excepted by both sides co2 levels have risen.</p><p>What the sceptics are only really arguing about is to what extent things will change. If at all.</p><p>So I asked my self this, as co2 is man made and co2 has been increasing world tempratures, then the likely effect of increasing our co2 levels and then them remaining above the levels recorded over the last 800,0000 years of historic levels of 300ppm maximum, puts us in unknown territory, with a trend in place and unknown factors at play, its safer to assume trends will continue than not. I would put it at 90% likely to continue 10% chance we will see falls or levelling of if we see a drop in solar flux. </p><p>All the computer models show it's co2 it's the only factor that can be doing it as far as current models show, that's why the sceptics cannot produce a model to predict the falls they are banking on, with no evidence solid or other wise, to back up why they are predicting a fall. they look to historic trends but ignore, the facts we are outside historic trends with co2...</p><p></p><p>Now if your a gambling man with those odds most would put there lives on trends continuing, because that also covers all bets including the other 10% because it does no harm. Because it also helps us wean of the fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Before they get to expensive.</p><p></p><p>Now if you decide to put your faith on the 10% that's fine but you don't get the winnings if your proved wrong, by that you have made no progress so if your wrong it will cost you more in the long run. As you scramble to make up for lost time. Which often costs 3x the amount. And they are often far more painful.</p><p></p><p>I have said it before changes may be painful and we may think they are expensive but the actual, expense of dealing with even the mild effects of globle warming, on the conservative side of predictions can lead to some very big numbers. And the fact that the changes we are making are also heading off problems we will have to face with fossil fuels, even if co2 was proven to not to be a problem ( which is very unlikely) we are at least heading off inflation in fossil fuel prices.</p><p></p><p>Going the 10% way helps with nothing. You really are gambling that we can just keep doing what we are doing for ever, and that is defiantly impossible, and cannot happen.</p><p>I don't see a choice, what ever you belive we have to make changes. Even if it's not for globle warming.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave645, post: 3388146, member: 55822"] When I started reading this thread, I was near the centre in terms of my beliefs I believed in globle warming but was unsure to what extent man was responsible. But after researching info, that was used by the sceptics, it's moved me further from the centre, and more over to it's defiantly man doing it. There is to much historic data from ice cores and geological data to say this is natural. When you except that as a fact, you then start to look at the changes for what they are, and what they may be doing. It's now excepted by both sides that things are warming up. It's excepted by both sides co2 levels have risen. What the sceptics are only really arguing about is to what extent things will change. If at all. So I asked my self this, as co2 is man made and co2 has been increasing world tempratures, then the likely effect of increasing our co2 levels and then them remaining above the levels recorded over the last 800,0000 years of historic levels of 300ppm maximum, puts us in unknown territory, with a trend in place and unknown factors at play, its safer to assume trends will continue than not. I would put it at 90% likely to continue 10% chance we will see falls or levelling of if we see a drop in solar flux. All the computer models show it's co2 it's the only factor that can be doing it as far as current models show, that's why the sceptics cannot produce a model to predict the falls they are banking on, with no evidence solid or other wise, to back up why they are predicting a fall. they look to historic trends but ignore, the facts we are outside historic trends with co2... Now if your a gambling man with those odds most would put there lives on trends continuing, because that also covers all bets including the other 10% because it does no harm. Because it also helps us wean of the fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Before they get to expensive. Now if you decide to put your faith on the 10% that's fine but you don't get the winnings if your proved wrong, by that you have made no progress so if your wrong it will cost you more in the long run. As you scramble to make up for lost time. Which often costs 3x the amount. And they are often far more painful. I have said it before changes may be painful and we may think they are expensive but the actual, expense of dealing with even the mild effects of globle warming, on the conservative side of predictions can lead to some very big numbers. And the fact that the changes we are making are also heading off problems we will have to face with fossil fuels, even if co2 was proven to not to be a problem ( which is very unlikely) we are at least heading off inflation in fossil fuel prices. Going the 10% way helps with nothing. You really are gambling that we can just keep doing what we are doing for ever, and that is defiantly impossible, and cannot happen. I don't see a choice, what ever you belive we have to make changes. Even if it's not for globle warming. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top