Climate Change - Man made or not?

[Jack-Arb aka Tiago Sinclair-Julio.]

I do wish you would read my posts, I did not say "offsetting", you seem to be so brain washed by the media term that you read them he when they are not there!

 

What I said was a simple statement of fact, if you cut down a tree and burn it and then grow a new tree you have produced NO carbon!

 

Hi Skyhuck,

 

Actually I do read your posts, brain washed by the media?! Whats the big deal about using offsetting to describe what I understood you meant in the post!

 

Your statement says: if you cut down a tree and burn it and then grow a new tree you have produced no carbon!

Offsetting explains what you say about burning one and then grow a new to counterbalance, compensate. A bit like in the plane nowdays, depending on how many miles one flyes one pays a little tax to plant some trees. If this is not what you meant, I've missed the point.

And im not quite sure if its really No carbon....

 

Jack

 

 

Jack

[Jason James Gairn]

As for my opinion, I really do not have enough "real" information on which to make an informed view, but my gut feeling on what I do know is that we are like a group of ants on the bonnet of a car, we have been hear for 2 hours when the engine of the car starts, we are convinced that we are responsible for the engine starting, because we have been here for 2 hours and it had never started before! what we do not realise is that the car starts this time every day.

Brilliant stuff! Cut and pasted? Hope not as its a great quote.

Hi all. There's been a lot of cutting and pasting on this thread, which despite the egotistical and justifiable motivations of the two obvious ones,is cutting and pasting some one else's ideas helpful and lazy in equal measure? Eloquence can sway an argument even when its borrowed eloquance. But does eloquence have greater merit than honesty? Badly enuciated truths V's Articulate lies? I speak from the point of view of someone who came late to learning and stuff, reading writing and the other two.

I think motivation is a useful question to level at any two sides of an argument. Who is set to gain the most from the logical conclusion of their ideologies?

Whats the Polar (no pun intended) worst case scenario if the other is right?

I was always rather in awe of `Stinky' et al when they were underground or up in trees trying to save trees from bypasses. Nothing to gain personally except pride and satisfaction. But a whole lot to lose. The `road builders' on the other hand had deals within deals all profiting from the wheels of industry.

Are there examples of respected sceptic experts who lose dramatically from their point of view?

I want to use my car more. I like it. I like flying, foreign travel, i like plastic widgets, I'm lazy and hate having to recycle. Not real suffering I know, not next to Darfur.

I gain nothing from my point of view.

Slytherin house on the other hand, want the quiddich cup and an X5 to bomb around Hogsmeade.

Cant fit this grammatically frenetic post into a nut shell, so I'm gonna leave it there for now. Muttering as I go.....

[THE88MAN]

gosh jason thats so deep you may well have just ended the thread..............wasn't 'stinky' 'swampy' though?

[Tom11]

This was recently sent to me via e-mail and thought it appropriate for this thread:

 

'Global Warming Politics' reports on an eminent Japanese scientist, Professor Kunihiko Takeda, currently Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University, who is scathing about the use of 'global warming' as a political control paradigm:

 

'Japanese Professor: Paradigms of Fear'

 

“Fear is a very efficient weapon: It produces the desired effect without much waste. Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth. For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Soon it will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless of what we do. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. What makes a whole lot of economic and political sense is to blame global warming on humans and create laws that keep the status quo and prevent up-and-coming nations from developing. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

[Mr Ed]

So Professor Kunihiko Takeda is an expert on Uranium enrichment, but knows better than most of the worlds climatologists? Hmmm......

[Andy Collins]

I care little for the petty politics of this discussion, all I can remember is the talk of us sliding towards another Ice Age, (in the 70's I think), and yet now we have "global warming". Yet another tax raising gimick by those in control, with yet another excuse to control us and our movements. Nature has and always will work in cycles, and evolve as necessary. Whether or not mankind will survive, who knows?After all we are just a small blip in the history of the Earth, and I'm pretty certain the Earth will out-survive mankind. We have all the so-called experts hand-wringing their woes, but do they really know the truth? Or just justifying their own existence and fat salaries by leaping on the passing band-wagon?

[Tom11]

So Professor Kunihiko Takeda is an expert on Uranium enrichment, but knows better than most of the worlds climatologists? Hmmm......

 

He is also Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University and I would imagine that his knowledge is not limited to one area.

As for most of the worlds climatologists believing in man made global warming, it would be fair to say that the number who don't grows on a daily basis. For example 500 met earlier this year in New York to question the IPCCs assumption on man made climate change.

[Mr Ed]

He is also Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University and I would imagine that his knowledge is not limited to one area.

As for most of the worlds climatologists believing in man made global warming, it would be fair to say that the number who don't grows on a daily basis. For example 500 met earlier this year in New York to question the IPCCs assumption on man made climate change.

 

I actually agree with a lot of what the proffessor says, particularly with regard to the use of fear as a political tool. Fear of terrorism, fear of climate change, fear of nuclear war, fear of foriegners...

Its all used to control populations.

 

However, things like his stance on recycling worry me. European nations like Germany, france, holland, denmark etc have prooved beyond doubt that recycling is totally viable, right down to thermal depolymerisation of waste into light crude oil.

 

The proffesor is supposed to be an 'expert' on recycling, and yet his answer is 'consume more, and just incinerate waste'.

 

When someone is as ignorant as that on a subject they are supposed to be an expert on, it makes me worry about their other statements.

[Tom11]

The proffesor is supposed to be an 'expert' on recycling, and yet his answer is 'consume more, and just incinerate waste'.

 

I haven't been able to find that quote but I can understand where you come from. From what I've read he is saying that some things create more energy waste to recycle than they save by simply incinerating. Therefore better to incinerate. I certainly have no problem with incineration provided it is in an energy from waste facility. From what I've read he is not a fan of consuming more but prefers simply not to consume. ie make things last rather than having to keep on using and recycling.

[Mr Ed]

Japan times article -

Quote - 'recycling is rubbish'

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080722jk.html

 

Not consuming is definately the best policy. But recycling what we do use is the next best thing...