Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Monbiot writes:
Can we please stop talking about the bloody polar bears? Climate change is not - or not only - about polar bears. It is not - or not only - about the Arctic, or the Amazon, or the oceans. It is not - or not only - about the future. This is about everything and everyone. It's about every ecosystem on earth. It's about everyone who lives there. It's about people like us, who love their children and value their own lives as much as we do. We don't need totemic animals or a deep green spiritual awakening. We just need to act on what we know.
While we're at it, let's drop all that guff about 100 months to save the planet. All this does is to persuade people that the issues are 100 months away, and we don't have to do anything until then, whereupon we'll be told we have another 100 months to save the planet from the next escalation. There isn't any other time or place to act. The climate crash is here, now, and here and now is how we must respond.
Do we really need more evidence before we decide to treat this as a global emergency? Two weeks ago the Lancet released a report on a report on "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." It isn't swine flu, or HIV/AIDS, or drug-resistant malaria; it's climate change. A month ago, Oxfam reported that, by 2015, over 375 million people a year are likely to be affected by climate-related disasters.
In a new report, Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) has warned that climate change is already causing 300,000 deaths a year and "seriously affecting" 325m people. Almost two-thirds of the world's population is already classed as "vulnerable" to climate change, while 500 million are at "extreme risk".
Please note, the people producing these reports are not - or were not - environmentalists. They are humanitarians. It is true that they have taken one heck of a long time to wake up to this issue, but better late than never. If they did not believe that climate change was now an urgent humanitarian concern, they would not be producing reports which, in effect, call for spending and effort to be diverted from other purposes. They now recognise, as environmentalists have been warning for years, that few global health issues are unaffected by climate breakdown.
This is partly because it threatens greatly to increase levels of malnutrition as food production in some of the most vulnerable regions - and eventually the whole world - declines. In its assessment report of 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that global food production is "very likely to decrease above about 3°C". The latest results from MIT's Integrated Global Systems Model give us a median estimate of 5.2C of warming by 2100 if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This is another way of saying unprecedented disaster, as food production plummets almost everywhere at about the same time as the human population reaches its peak.
Can we please stop talking about the bloody polar bears? Climate change is not - or not only - about polar bears. It is not - or not only - about the Arctic, or the Amazon, or the oceans. It is not - or not only - about the future. This is about everything and everyone. It's about every ecosystem on earth. It's about everyone who lives there. It's about people like us, who love their children and value their own lives as much as we do. We don't need totemic animals or a deep green spiritual awakening. We just need to act on what we know.
While we're at it, let's drop all that guff about 100 months to save the planet. All this does is to persuade people that the issues are 100 months away, and we don't have to do anything until then, whereupon we'll be told we have another 100 months to save the planet from the next escalation. There isn't any other time or place to act. The climate crash is here, now, and here and now is how we must respond.
Do we really need more evidence before we decide to treat this as a global emergency? Two weeks ago the Lancet released a report on a report on "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." It isn't swine flu, or HIV/AIDS, or drug-resistant malaria; it's climate change. A month ago, Oxfam reported that, by 2015, over 375 million people a year are likely to be affected by climate-related disasters.
In a new report, Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) has warned that climate change is already causing 300,000 deaths a year and "seriously affecting" 325m people. Almost two-thirds of the world's population is already classed as "vulnerable" to climate change, while 500 million are at "extreme risk".
Please note, the people producing these reports are not - or were not - environmentalists. They are humanitarians. It is true that they have taken one heck of a long time to wake up to this issue, but better late than never. If they did not believe that climate change was now an urgent humanitarian concern, they would not be producing reports which, in effect, call for spending and effort to be diverted from other purposes. They now recognise, as environmentalists have been warning for years, that few global health issues are unaffected by climate breakdown.
This is partly because it threatens greatly to increase levels of malnutrition as food production in some of the most vulnerable regions - and eventually the whole world - declines. In its assessment report of 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that global food production is "very likely to decrease above about 3°C". The latest results from MIT's Integrated Global Systems Model give us a median estimate of 5.2C of warming by 2100 if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This is another way of saying unprecedented disaster, as food production plummets almost everywhere at about the same time as the human population reaches its peak.
Show More
i'm in favour of lower population too... i don't see why you're painting it as an either/or proposition EO
What are you trying to paint CC as please, EO? You seem to be shifting position with every new post.
Of course energy policy is part of the solution but of course it's not the whole solution. Trying to bait people in this way makes no sense, old boy.
What are you trying to paint CC as please, EO? You seem to be shifting position with every new post.
Of course energy policy is part of the solution but of course it's not the whole solution. Trying to bait people in this way makes no sense, old boy.
owing to human nature, i'm of the belief that we're more likely to tackle the energy problem before we manage to tackle the population problem
that is, unless we screw things up so badly that nature tackles the population problem for us
that is, unless we screw things up so badly that nature tackles the population problem for us
btw if anyone is interested in some non-tribal, non-partisan reading on this topic, i'd recommend Thomas Friedmans 'Hot, Flat and Crowded'
he's an economist who also wrote 'The World is Flat'
basically explores the future economics and politics of a world which is becoming resource constrained/polluted ('Hot'), where barriers between countries are being removed by technology ('Flat'), and overpopulated ('Crowded')
a good, balanced read
he's an economist who also wrote 'The World is Flat'
basically explores the future economics and politics of a world which is becoming resource constrained/polluted ('Hot'), where barriers between countries are being removed by technology ('Flat'), and overpopulated ('Crowded')
a good, balanced read
subversion
Fair enough. However, I did ask what you would do and left the field open for you. The fact that you came back with an energy policy suggested to me that this was the club with which you were going to batter the beast into submission.
It wasn't a trick question. I remain on the somewhat sceptical side of the argument but I do grasp the fact that if man made climate change is or is going to massively affect the environment then tinkering around the edges isn't going to cut the mustard.
I will await a more comprehensive strategy and perhaps you could address the question I have posited for Dr J:
Are you prepared to back up your suggestions with some of the positive action which will be necessary?
Fair enough. However, I did ask what you would do and left the field open for you. The fact that you came back with an energy policy suggested to me that this was the club with which you were going to batter the beast into submission.
It wasn't a trick question. I remain on the somewhat sceptical side of the argument but I do grasp the fact that if man made climate change is or is going to massively affect the environment then tinkering around the edges isn't going to cut the mustard.
I will await a more comprehensive strategy and perhaps you could address the question I have posited for Dr J:
Are you prepared to back up your suggestions with some of the positive action which will be necessary?
EO - perhaps i should have worded my reply a bit better -
rather than 'energy policy is everything', i amend to this
energy policy and population are the keys, due the the energy/population ratio i stated above, but i believe, owing to human nature and the 'nation/state' approach, that individual nations are capable of solving the energy problem far sooner than the population problem
the French have already shown us that it is possible to run the energy policy of a modern industrial economy and achieve extremely low levels of carbon emissions
as for 'sacrifice' EO - this doesn't really apply in the same way to energy - the French are deriving a massive benefit from their energy policy... net electricity exporters, cheap, stable supply, far less political/economic reliance on increasingly scarce fossil fuels, cleaner air, etc
so for 'concrete action plan', i simply say - look at France... we aren't talking pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking here, the French have *ALREADY* achieved the holy grail of a close-to-zero carbon modern industrial economy, and are benefiting greatly from this
and i wont go into the technical details here unless you really want me to (my academic background and initial career was as a Chemical Engineer, btw, and i'll have to touch on subjects like laws of thermodynamics etc) - but once you have abundant cheap/clean energy from a non-carbon source available for your industrial lifecycle, then suddenly you have options for dedicating this energy to actively reducing existing problems
rather than 'energy policy is everything', i amend to this
energy policy and population are the keys, due the the energy/population ratio i stated above, but i believe, owing to human nature and the 'nation/state' approach, that individual nations are capable of solving the energy problem far sooner than the population problem
the French have already shown us that it is possible to run the energy policy of a modern industrial economy and achieve extremely low levels of carbon emissions
as for 'sacrifice' EO - this doesn't really apply in the same way to energy - the French are deriving a massive benefit from their energy policy... net electricity exporters, cheap, stable supply, far less political/economic reliance on increasingly scarce fossil fuels, cleaner air, etc
so for 'concrete action plan', i simply say - look at France... we aren't talking pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking here, the French have *ALREADY* achieved the holy grail of a close-to-zero carbon modern industrial economy, and are benefiting greatly from this
and i wont go into the technical details here unless you really want me to (my academic background and initial career was as a Chemical Engineer, btw, and i'll have to touch on subjects like laws of thermodynamics etc) - but once you have abundant cheap/clean energy from a non-carbon source available for your industrial lifecycle, then suddenly you have options for dedicating this energy to actively reducing existing problems
I'm all ears and unlike some on here they are open.
ok EO i'll need to find a sensible way to word this without sounding like i'm giving a chemistry or thermodynamics lecture (and no doubt a bad one as well) :)
Forget the sensible approach just go with simple for now.
:)
:)
ok EO, heres my best shot (keeping it short and simple, and no doubt easy to rip to shreds for anyone with a science background)
first of all, the important thing is think about energy as a full lifecycle, and not just at localised parts
a good concrete example of this is the electric/hydrogen car debate - so you get to drive around and not emit anything more harmful than water, sounds good right?
but this picture is incomplete - you have to understand where the electricity or the hydrogen comes from. if you drive around, then get home, and plug in your car to recharge, and the electricity is supplied by the coal/oil/gas fired power station down the road, then you have achieved a grand total of sweet f*ck all
same goes for hydrogen - this does not exist as an energy source to us humans in the same way as oil (which we can just dig up and burn)... we actually have to synthesize the hydrogen fuel, which requires energy, and once again the question is - where does this energy ultimately come from?
and this is where the laws of thermodynamics bite us on the a*se, because (to simplify them greatly), they say that we will always have to put more energy into a reaction than we will yield from the reverse reaction (due to things like waste, entropy etc)
so to synthesize this hydrogen, we will have to put in significantly *MORE* energy to create it than we will ultimately derive from it when we burn it to liberate energy... so again, if this energy is ultimately coming from a carbon source, we haven't achieved much
but what if the ultimate energy source for the electricity/hydrogen in this lifecycle is solar/nuclear power etc? then, all of a sudden, the picture changes... since the ultimate energy supply to the electric/hydrogen car will now be genuinely carbon-free, and we really can drive around with a minimal carbon footprint
a good concrete example of this is the electric/hydrogen car debate - so you get to drive around and not emit anything more harmful than water, sounds good right?
but this picture is incomplete - you have to understand where the electricity or the hydrogen comes from. if you drive around, then get home, and plug in your car to recharge, and the electricity is supplied by the coal/oil/gas fired power station down the road, then you have achieved a grand total of sweet f*ck all
same goes for hydrogen - this does not exist as an energy source to us humans in the same way as oil (which we can just dig up and burn)... we actually have to synthesize the hydrogen fuel, which requires energy, and once again the question is - where does this energy ultimately come from?
and this is where the laws of thermodynamics bite us on the a*se, because (to simplify them greatly), they say that we will always have to put more energy into a reaction than we will yield from the reverse reaction (due to things like waste, entropy etc)
so to synthesize this hydrogen, we will have to put in significantly *MORE* energy to create it than we will ultimately derive from it when we burn it to liberate energy... so again, if this energy is ultimately coming from a carbon source, we haven't achieved much
but what if the ultimate energy source for the electricity/hydrogen in this lifecycle is solar/nuclear power etc? then, all of a sudden, the picture changes... since the ultimate energy supply to the electric/hydrogen car will now be genuinely carbon-free, and we really can drive around with a minimal carbon footprint
now to step outside the box a bit and become more abstract
the above (oversimplified) thermodynamic principles (putting more energy into a reaction than yielding from the reverse) apply to all chemical systems with which we interact, and are a big constraint on us
now, heres a very simple question which i dont think gets asked enough - if there is too much carbon dioxide in the air, why don't we just try and remove it?
well, the simple answer is - plant more trees... except that at the rate we are deforesting the world, this isn't realistically happening is it
so the next question is - why don't we remove the carbon ourselves, using an industrial process?
the chemical reactions we're interested in (again simplified greatly, focusing purely on the carbon/energy bits) look like this
generating energy/CO2: solid carbon - waste carbon gases + energy (- waste energy)
storing energy/CO2: waste carbon gases + energy (+ waste energy) - solid carbon
so the obvious thing here should be, if we want to use carbon-based energy sources to drive processes which remove CO2 from the air, its impossible - for every unit of carbon we remove, we will have to burn several units of carbon to provide the energy (those pesky laws of thermodynamics again)
but again, what if we have surplus energy from a solar/nuclear etc source? now, suddenly the process looks less silly... we can store carbon using a process driven by non-carbon energy... (and this is *exactly* what we are in fact advocating when we say plant more trees - a carbon storing process driven by a bio/solar process)
now, to abstract even further - *ALL* pollution is effectively just waste chemicals from reactions that we haven't bothered to spend the energy to clean up, we've just decided to dump into the environment
the limiting factor again here is energy... so again, the hypothetical question - what if we had abundant, low-pollution energy such as from solar/nuclear etc? once again, if we had this energy in abundance, and it didn't come from a polluting carbon source, we could effectively dedicate as much energy as we could spare to cleaning up *ANY* kind of pollution we generate
pretty much everything we're talking about here with regard to pollution (carbon dioxide or otherwise) is just a bunch of chemical reactions which are reversible given enough energy input
and this is why i consider energy to be the key to solving this problem... without solving the energy problem, we are royally screwed
and if we manage to solve the energy problem, a lot of the other problems suddenly look a lot less daunting
the above (oversimplified) thermodynamic principles (putting more energy into a reaction than yielding from the reverse) apply to all chemical systems with which we interact, and are a big constraint on us
now, heres a very simple question which i dont think gets asked enough - if there is too much carbon dioxide in the air, why don't we just try and remove it?
well, the simple answer is - plant more trees... except that at the rate we are deforesting the world, this isn't realistically happening is it
so the next question is - why don't we remove the carbon ourselves, using an industrial process?
the chemical reactions we're interested in (again simplified greatly, focusing purely on the carbon/energy bits) look like this
generating energy/CO2: solid carbon - waste carbon gases + energy (- waste energy)
storing energy/CO2: waste carbon gases + energy (+ waste energy) - solid carbon
so the obvious thing here should be, if we want to use carbon-based energy sources to drive processes which remove CO2 from the air, its impossible - for every unit of carbon we remove, we will have to burn several units of carbon to provide the energy (those pesky laws of thermodynamics again)
but again, what if we have surplus energy from a solar/nuclear etc source? now, suddenly the process looks less silly... we can store carbon using a process driven by non-carbon energy... (and this is *exactly* what we are in fact advocating when we say plant more trees - a carbon storing process driven by a bio/solar process)
now, to abstract even further - *ALL* pollution is effectively just waste chemicals from reactions that we haven't bothered to spend the energy to clean up, we've just decided to dump into the environment
the limiting factor again here is energy... so again, the hypothetical question - what if we had abundant, low-pollution energy such as from solar/nuclear etc? once again, if we had this energy in abundance, and it didn't come from a polluting carbon source, we could effectively dedicate as much energy as we could spare to cleaning up *ANY* kind of pollution we generate
pretty much everything we're talking about here with regard to pollution (carbon dioxide or otherwise) is just a bunch of chemical reactions which are reversible given enough energy input
and this is why i consider energy to be the key to solving this problem... without solving the energy problem, we are royally screwed
and if we manage to solve the energy problem, a lot of the other problems suddenly look a lot less daunting
I understand your point but isn't nuclear a finite resource itself and do we have the technology and capability of running everything on renewables?
And isn't that just one part of the equation?
Isn't the bigger question whether we should be looking to maintain or retreat?
Assuming that the technology is able to maintain us doesn't that in itself create even bigger problems?
If renewables can maintain us then how do you facilitate the third world catching up with the west whilst not using up what is left of the worlds natural resources?
Assuming you address this problem how do you deal with the exploding population which would result from the massive resultant increase in life expectancy?
Assuming you can do that how do you feed the extra billions without creating further climate change?
And on and on.
And isn't that just one part of the equation?
Isn't the bigger question whether we should be looking to maintain or retreat?
Assuming that the technology is able to maintain us doesn't that in itself create even bigger problems?
If renewables can maintain us then how do you facilitate the third world catching up with the west whilst not using up what is left of the worlds natural resources?
Assuming you address this problem how do you deal with the exploding population which would result from the massive resultant increase in life expectancy?
Assuming you can do that how do you feed the extra billions without creating further climate change?
And on and on.
Excuse my ignorance but isn't solar a finite resource as well?
By that I mean do we have the natural resources to build the solar panels, transport the energy etc etc?
By that I mean do we have the natural resources to build the solar panels, transport the energy etc etc?
i've told you EO - i believe solving the energy problem is a vital prerequisite, and is necessary no matter what path we choose
re. nuclear power, uranium supply - i've told you, i believe fission is a *STOPGAP*, but it is one that is proven to work on an industrial scale, and can power entire modern economies using technology available *NOW*
as i've explained above, solve the energy problem, and resource constraints become more solvable... want another concrete example? clean drinking water... google 'nuclear desalination plants' for an idea
re. population problem, i'm sorry i don't have the answers to that...
your approach, EO, seems to be - you cant see the answer to one part of the puzzle, so you dont think we should try to solve any part of it
anyway, maybe you've got some ideas to contribute? its easy being a skeptic isn't it, generating positive ideas is a lot harder...
re. nuclear power, uranium supply - i've told you, i believe fission is a *STOPGAP*, but it is one that is proven to work on an industrial scale, and can power entire modern economies using technology available *NOW*
as i've explained above, solve the energy problem, and resource constraints become more solvable... want another concrete example? clean drinking water... google 'nuclear desalination plants' for an idea
re. population problem, i'm sorry i don't have the answers to that...
your approach, EO, seems to be - you cant see the answer to one part of the puzzle, so you dont think we should try to solve any part of it
anyway, maybe you've got some ideas to contribute? its easy being a skeptic isn't it, generating positive ideas is a lot harder...
You really need to read Monbiot's books on this topic, EO. 'The Age of Consent' is good, but 'Heat' is probably most relevant to the questions you're asking.
There are ways that carbon emossions can be reduced without damaging the Developing World's chances of progress. Monbiot spells them out in great detail. The trouble is, they invariably involve The West losing out. This may be fair, but it's completely unpalatable to most politicians.
There are ways that carbon emossions can be reduced without damaging the Developing World's chances of progress. Monbiot spells them out in great detail. The trouble is, they invariably involve The West losing out. This may be fair, but it's completely unpalatable to most politicians.
EO - the infrastructure to transport energy is really not a significant constraint compared to others
as for producing solar power, for photovoltaic cells, yes the manufacturing expense/resource usage is a problem
but for solar technologies like these, its far less of a problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrating_solar_power
as for producing solar power, for photovoltaic cells, yes the manufacturing expense/resource usage is a problem
but for solar technologies like these, its far less of a problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrating_solar_power
You guys are f***ing crazy. Seriously? Lets save the planet by building more nuclear plants. What happens when all these plants need decommissioning in the future? Let the next generation worry bout that ay? WE DO NOT WANT TO BUILDING ANY MORE NUCLEAR ANYTHING!!! Until we have perfected Nuclear fission.
CO2 is a benign, life giving molecule. CO2 is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living things. Standard air has 370 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which 93% comes from
CO2 is a benign, life giving molecule. CO2 is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living things. Standard air has 370 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which 93% comes from
subversion
your approach, EO, seems to be - you cant see the answer to one part of the puzzle, so you dont think we should try to solve any part of it
I don't suppose I am much different from most people in that respect. If you think there is a problem then you need to give me a rounded solution.
If we have a twin problem of energy and population it isn't an answer to say that you don't know what to do about the population when solving the energy problem will greatly exacerbate the population problem.
Equally I am not reassured and would want further convincing that we are in a position any time soon to address the issue of how we manufacture the sheer number of solar receptacles to garner power from the sun to this extent.
I must confess to starting with an inbuilt prejudice against Monbiot. Not just because he is yet another example of the do as I say brigade but because he articulated the problem decades ago and has spent most of the intervening period railing against the logical stop gap of nuclear power. At this late stage he comes on board and carries on lecturing and hectoring people as if he hasn't dropped the biggest bolllock ever.
What would I do?
If man is driving climate change then we are fecked because there is no way that the necessary steps will be taken. We will just have to adapt to it as best we can. Nothing and I repeat nothing that you or Dr J are advocating will solve the problem.
If you want to actually solve the problem then we must voluntarily give up many of the advances which industrialisation has given us and we need to address the issue of the population.
your approach, EO, seems to be - you cant see the answer to one part of the puzzle, so you dont think we should try to solve any part of it
I don't suppose I am much different from most people in that respect. If you think there is a problem then you need to give me a rounded solution.
If we have a twin problem of energy and population it isn't an answer to say that you don't know what to do about the population when solving the energy problem will greatly exacerbate the population problem.
Equally I am not reassured and would want further convincing that we are in a position any time soon to address the issue of how we manufacture the sheer number of solar receptacles to garner power from the sun to this extent.
I must confess to starting with an inbuilt prejudice against Monbiot. Not just because he is yet another example of the do as I say brigade but because he articulated the problem decades ago and has spent most of the intervening period railing against the logical stop gap of nuclear power. At this late stage he comes on board and carries on lecturing and hectoring people as if he hasn't dropped the biggest bolllock ever.
What would I do?
If man is driving climate change then we are fecked because there is no way that the necessary steps will be taken. We will just have to adapt to it as best we can. Nothing and I repeat nothing that you or Dr J are advocating will solve the problem.
If you want to actually solve the problem then we must voluntarily give up many of the advances which industrialisation has given us and we need to address the issue of the population.
In the meantime we need to kick back, have a coke and enjoy the sun before the ice age hits.
:)
:)
i guess this is what we get when the population wants easy answers handed to it on a plate
you're right, its futile... but hey, i tried (and failed) to contribute something constructive :D
you're right, its futile... but hey, i tried (and failed) to contribute something constructive :D
Who said the world was overpopulated? What evidence have you for this? Are you saying that in this day and age we are unable to cloth and feed every man and woman on this planet? The fact that we know children are starving in Africa shows were in a position to do something about it, but the problem is we dont WANT too. 95% of the UK population lives on 5% of the land. Is that overpopulation or overcrowding? Overpopulation what a load of BS. The planet could sustain 20 billion people if everyone treated each other fair and equal.
EO
I don't suppose I am much different from most people in that respect
you know, EO, i wouldn't have expected you to use the 'hiding behind the lowest common denominator' defence, but i see that you have... not just lefties that do that then, eh?
and your ridiculous comments about 'not solving the problem'... ffs is the world really that binary to you? problem either solved or unsolved, no grey area, nothing in between?
I don't suppose I am much different from most people in that respect
you know, EO, i wouldn't have expected you to use the 'hiding behind the lowest common denominator' defence, but i see that you have... not just lefties that do that then, eh?
and your ridiculous comments about 'not solving the problem'... ffs is the world really that binary to you? problem either solved or unsolved, no grey area, nothing in between?
lol ENDRCOCH, any basis for your theories? 20 billion sustainable? 370ppm CO2 being 'normal'? even higher CO2 being fine because its a 'life-giving molecule'?
sources/evidence please?
sources/evidence please?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Without CO2 everyone dies. Do you disagree?
Without CO2 everyone dies. Do you disagree?
the world popualtion is a great problem not least becasue its still going up at a high rate of knots.
that said the earth will naturally correct it at some point but its likely to be accompanied by some sort of terrible disaster -far better to implement measures to control it before this happens
that said the earth will naturally correct it at some point but its likely to be accompanied by some sort of terrible disaster -far better to implement measures to control it before this happens
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1188937/The-great-carbon-cre...
lol ENDRCOCH, try looking at charts that go back a little further than that
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html
**:/**.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
the data indicate that the current concentration of CO2, at 380 ppm, is 27% higher than the preindustrial level and higher than any level attained during the past 650,000 years.
and i guess you havent thought much about the 'life giving qualities' of increased acidification of the oceans due to CO2 concentration
your knowledge of chemistry seems just a tiny bit... simplistic
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html
**:/**.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
the data indicate that the current concentration of CO2, at 380 ppm, is 27% higher than the preindustrial level and higher than any level attained during the past 650,000 years.
and i guess you havent thought much about the 'life giving qualities' of increased acidification of the oceans due to CO2 concentration
your knowledge of chemistry seems just a tiny bit... simplistic
If you want to actually solve the problem then we must voluntarily give up many of the advances which industrialisation has given us and we need to address the issue of the population.
You may not like Monbiot, EO, but that's pretty much exactly what he advocates.
I agree that it's not a problem you can 'solve', but to do nothing to address it at all would be criminally irresponsible. Cutting emissions (drastically) now could have a massive effect on future generations.
You may not like Monbiot, EO, but that's pretty much exactly what he advocates.
I agree that it's not a problem you can 'solve', but to do nothing to address it at all would be criminally irresponsible. Cutting emissions (drastically) now could have a massive effect on future generations.
I am not arguing CO2 has been increasing. CO2 is nothing to be scared of is what im saying. CO2 is a product of climate change not the other way around.
My chemistry may be simplistic but yours is child-like. Please explain how a 3 atom molecule can determine that all radiation should be allowed in by day, but none to escape at night.
The earth receives a full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation by day but by night only a portion, the infrared stored on the surface, is radiated back into space. There is no gaseous one way control of this energy.
My chemistry may be simplistic but yours is child-like. Please explain how a 3 atom molecule can determine that all radiation should be allowed in by day, but none to escape at night.
The earth receives a full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation by day but by night only a portion, the infrared stored on the surface, is radiated back into space. There is no gaseous one way control of this energy.
What's causing the rising ocean levels please? And the rising global temperatures? Surely your position isn't that these issues are nothing to worry about too. We're already seeing displacement, wars and famines as a result.
ENRDCOCH 01 Jun 14:32
My chemistry may be simplistic but yours is child-like. Please explain how a 3 atom molecule can determine that all radiation should be allowed in by day, but none to escape at night.
erm... where did i say this please? you are making up arguments now. feeble.
climate change is not just about the globalised warming/cooling debate, which as you say, has far more variables than just CO2 levels (but this is *NOT* the same as saying that CO2 has no impact on this)
My chemistry may be simplistic but yours is child-like. Please explain how a 3 atom molecule can determine that all radiation should be allowed in by day, but none to escape at night.
erm... where did i say this please? you are making up arguments now. feeble.
climate change is not just about the globalised warming/cooling debate, which as you say, has far more variables than just CO2 levels (but this is *NOT* the same as saying that CO2 has no impact on this)
The big fiery ball in the sky is what's to blame.
CO2 is also a part of everyday life. Therefore, this gas should not be confused with smog, which creates a low level ozone layer that can be harmful to humans. CO2 is less than 2% of the worlds atmosphere. Meanwhile 93% of all CO2 is stored in the worlds oceans; the rest is stored the biosphere in things like plants. Oceans move CO2 into the atmosphere and then remove it as continual cycle. Warmer waters, like tropical waters, store less CO2 than colder arctic or deep waters. As CO2 increases in the Earths atmosphere, the oceans work harder to remove it. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 30% since the pre-industrial era. The ocean has also increased its absorption of CO2 from roughly 2.0 Pg of CO2 in the 1980s to 2.4 Pg in the 1990s. Along with the oceans increased CO2 absorption, plants and trees also take in more CO2. This extra absorption of CO2 increases crop yields and plant growth.
The question arises if man is increasing the CO2 significantly or if the oceans are naturally warming and releasing more CO2 as a part of a cycle? Unfortunately, most graphs shown in news articles only go back 120 years, starting in the 1880s. One glance at these graphs and a person could easily deduce that man and industrialization has caused global warming. Many seem to forget that the last ice age was over 100,000 years ago, so looking at the last 120 years for temperature change seems inadequate. Archeologists have found cities under the oceans, such as the one in India that is 9500 years old. This indicates that the Earth must have been warming for some time, possibly including many warming and cooling cycles. Going back 2000 years paints a better picture than the 120 year "hockey stick" graph. In the Middle Ages the temperature deviation was the same as today. This period did not have industry that created man made CO2.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1432
CO2 is also a part of everyday life. Therefore, this gas should not be confused with smog, which creates a low level ozone layer that can be harmful to humans. CO2 is less than 2% of the worlds atmosphere. Meanwhile 93% of all CO2 is stored in the worlds oceans; the rest is stored the biosphere in things like plants. Oceans move CO2 into the atmosphere and then remove it as continual cycle. Warmer waters, like tropical waters, store less CO2 than colder arctic or deep waters. As CO2 increases in the Earths atmosphere, the oceans work harder to remove it. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 30% since the pre-industrial era. The ocean has also increased its absorption of CO2 from roughly 2.0 Pg of CO2 in the 1980s to 2.4 Pg in the 1990s. Along with the oceans increased CO2 absorption, plants and trees also take in more CO2. This extra absorption of CO2 increases crop yields and plant growth.
The question arises if man is increasing the CO2 significantly or if the oceans are naturally warming and releasing more CO2 as a part of a cycle? Unfortunately, most graphs shown in news articles only go back 120 years, starting in the 1880s. One glance at these graphs and a person could easily deduce that man and industrialization has caused global warming. Many seem to forget that the last ice age was over 100,000 years ago, so looking at the last 120 years for temperature change seems inadequate. Archeologists have found cities under the oceans, such as the one in India that is 9500 years old. This indicates that the Earth must have been warming for some time, possibly including many warming and cooling cycles. Going back 2000 years paints a better picture than the 120 year "hockey stick" graph. In the Middle Ages the temperature deviation was the same as today. This period did not have industry that created man made CO2.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1432
Please answer this one question please.
Please explain how a 3 atom molecule can determine that all radiation should be allowed in by day, but none to escape at night?
You must have a short memory 4/5 posts up you say my chemistry is simplistic. I do not want to cause any arguments.
Please explain how a 3 atom molecule can determine that all radiation should be allowed in by day, but none to escape at night?
You must have a short memory 4/5 posts up you say my chemistry is simplistic. I do not want to cause any arguments.
the simple answer is - heat reflected back from the earths surface is at a different wavelength to that coming from the sun
the greenhouse gases (of which there are many, not just CO2) are those that allow the wavelength from the sun through, while reflecting the wavelengths reflected from the earth back downwards
you using words like 'all' and 'none' in your questions is just showing how sensationalist you seem to be trying to be
obviously there is no single molecule that is responsible for 'all' radiation getting through and 'none' escaping
the greenhouse gases (of which there are many, not just CO2) are those that allow the wavelength from the sun through, while reflecting the wavelengths reflected from the earth back downwards
you using words like 'all' and 'none' in your questions is just showing how sensationalist you seem to be trying to be
obviously there is no single molecule that is responsible for 'all' radiation getting through and 'none' escaping
and, in fact, the same principle applies to why, in cold weather, cloudy nights are normally warmer than clear nights
more heat is trapped by the atmosphere and less escapes into space
there is no question that a greenhouse effect exists, the main question is how it interacts with all the other many variables affecting the global temperature
more heat is trapped by the atmosphere and less escapes into space
there is no question that a greenhouse effect exists, the main question is how it interacts with all the other many variables affecting the global temperature
You still haven't answered my question. How can a gas allow wavelengths one way and not the other? Do the wavelengths change when they pas through the gas?
subversion 01 Jun 15:06
the simple answer is - heat reflected back from the earths surface is at a different wavelength to that coming from the sun
i've already answered you
the simple answer is - heat reflected back from the earths surface is at a different wavelength to that coming from the sun
i've already answered you
Dr J
You may not like Monbiot, EO, but that's pretty much exactly what he advocates.
You see. Now we are getting somewhere. All you need to do is listen to me. Not that cnunt Monbiot.
:)
You may not like Monbiot, EO, but that's pretty much exactly what he advocates.
You see. Now we are getting somewhere. All you need to do is listen to me. Not that cnunt Monbiot.
:)
Yes on a cloudy night it is warmer because it traps heat like a blanket would. But what happens when its a cloudy day? Its not as warm as if were a clear day because the clouds reflect some of the suns energy back into space. Do green house gases work the same way? Forming higher concentrations in one place compared to another?
How does a gas allow one way transfer?
How does a gas allow one way transfer?
So when sun rays hits the earth they spontaneously change wave length?
ENRDCOCH 01 Jun 15:21
How does a gas allow one way transfer?
are you really interested in having a proper discussion? because you've asked the same question multiple times now, and i've given the same answer every time
How does a gas allow one way transfer?
are you really interested in having a proper discussion? because you've asked the same question multiple times now, and i've given the same answer every time
Ok will you agree with me that the sun outputs all know wavelengths?
i'll try one last time to answer the same question, then i give up
the 'greenhouse gases' work by allowing a large portion of direct solar radiation through
the ground then absorbs a lot of the energy from this solar radiation, and radiation at a different wavelength (mainly infrared) is emitted back upwards
the greenhouse gases absorb/reflect most of this infrared radiation back downwards towards earth
i've found a site with pretty pictures on it for you
http://timeforchange.org/radiation-wavelength-and-greenhouse-effect
summarised as simply as possible from this site:
You could summarize this in saying the atmosphere does transmit 70 to 75% of solar radiation but only 15 to 30% of heat radiation.
the 'greenhouse gases' work by allowing a large portion of direct solar radiation through
the ground then absorbs a lot of the energy from this solar radiation, and radiation at a different wavelength (mainly infrared) is emitted back upwards
the greenhouse gases absorb/reflect most of this infrared radiation back downwards towards earth
i've found a site with pretty pictures on it for you
http://timeforchange.org/radiation-wavelength-and-greenhouse-effect
summarised as simply as possible from this site:
You could summarize this in saying the atmosphere does transmit 70 to 75% of solar radiation but only 15 to 30% of heat radiation.
i really should have known better than to try and have any kind of balanced scientific discussion on a politics forum :D
sub, you should have started with the basics and talked about greenhouses :)
look its all simple
the solar energy from the sun intertwines in a helical manner with molecules of type 2 CO2 which heats up the electronal surface of the energised atom and causes a corresponding rise in the atmospheric temperature of the earth.
this according to boyles law (and some say also Charles law of the third variety) means that the pressure on ice glaciers casue a viscosity so low that its Reynolds number canot hold the icesheet together and thus breaks up causing news 80 years later of the last titanic survivor dying.
the solar energy from the sun intertwines in a helical manner with molecules of type 2 CO2 which heats up the electronal surface of the energised atom and causes a corresponding rise in the atmospheric temperature of the earth.
this according to boyles law (and some say also Charles law of the third variety) means that the pressure on ice glaciers casue a viscosity so low that its Reynolds number canot hold the icesheet together and thus breaks up causing news 80 years later of the last titanic survivor dying.
All this is fine, but whats the forecast for wednesday afternoon, I'm playing golf?
subversion
I for one am interested in exploring what our man is saying. Coming from a novice could you explain this to me:
I think I understand that solar radiation comes in on a wavelength and that after it has travelled into the atmosphere then at some point it goes back up largely in the form of infrared. What you seem to be saying is that the greenhouse gases then reflect it back down to earth.
I think I am with you up to this point.
However, the obvious question which springs to my mind is how does the infra red and all the other solar radiation get into but not back out of the atmosphere?
It seems that you have answered this question by commenting that it is to do with different wave lengths.
This is where you lose me because questions fly off from this which seem to be being articulated by ENRDCHOCH.
In particular, presumably what is going back up is part of what came in. Even under a different guise the constituents remain essentially part of what came in so how can it go in one way and not out the other?
By the way I'm not pulling your chain. I am interested in understanding this point.
I for one am interested in exploring what our man is saying. Coming from a novice could you explain this to me:
I think I understand that solar radiation comes in on a wavelength and that after it has travelled into the atmosphere then at some point it goes back up largely in the form of infrared. What you seem to be saying is that the greenhouse gases then reflect it back down to earth.
I think I am with you up to this point.
However, the obvious question which springs to my mind is how does the infra red and all the other solar radiation get into but not back out of the atmosphere?
It seems that you have answered this question by commenting that it is to do with different wave lengths.
This is where you lose me because questions fly off from this which seem to be being articulated by ENRDCHOCH.
In particular, presumably what is going back up is part of what came in. Even under a different guise the constituents remain essentially part of what came in so how can it go in one way and not out the other?
By the way I'm not pulling your chain. I am interested in understanding this point.
some confusion may have arisen from my use of the word 'reflected' when describing the solar radiation hitting the earth... 'absorbed and a different wavelength emitted' would have been clearer
direct reflection of solar radiation is a related but separate issue... for example, why white surfaces are less hot than black surfaces in sunlight
subversion saying there are differences between white and black is very dangerous on politics forums
It's called the greenhouse effect because it's exactly why the interiors of greenhouses are warmer than their surroundings, even if there's nothing whatsoever inside the greenhouse to warm it up. The glass allows short wavelength radiation to escape, but reflects long wavelength (ie infrared) radiation back inwards. Short wavelength radiation from the sun goes through the glass and is absorbed by the ground, which subsequently re-emits it as longer wavelength radiation. Absorption and re-emission by the ground leads to a different distribution of wavelengths to that which originally came in.
The "greenhouse gases" have a similar effect to the glass of a greenhouse, hence the name the "greenhouse effect".
The "greenhouse gases" have a similar effect to the glass of a greenhouse, hence the name the "greenhouse effect".
PoolFC
I think I understand what you are saying:
Greenhouses are dangerous.
;)
I think I understand what you are saying:
Greenhouses are dangerous.
;)
ENRDCOCH 01 Jun 14:51
CO2 is less than 2% of the worlds atmosphere.
its much less than 2% Erndcoch. We are talking in parts per million.
0.036% or something similar.
the greenhouse effect is correct
but c02 does lag warming by hundreds of years, normally.
There is no doubt we are putting c02 into the atmosphere.
its undeniable that Gore lies, that the issue is being hyped and exaggerated to serve political aims, that only the negative effects of rising c02 are promoted, that many other environmental issues have been demoted due to this one.
Many eco scares of the past turned out to be exaggerated if not invented.
CO2 is less than 2% of the worlds atmosphere.
its much less than 2% Erndcoch. We are talking in parts per million.
0.036% or something similar.
the greenhouse effect is correct
but c02 does lag warming by hundreds of years, normally.
There is no doubt we are putting c02 into the atmosphere.
its undeniable that Gore lies, that the issue is being hyped and exaggerated to serve political aims, that only the negative effects of rising c02 are promoted, that many other environmental issues have been demoted due to this one.
Many eco scares of the past turned out to be exaggerated if not invented.
Nice greenhouse analogy but i believe that ain't nothing how the planet works. A greenhouse has an actual physical barrier being the glass. The sun heats up the air in the greenhouse and because the air cant go anywhere thats why a greenhouse is hotter than its outside environment. Put a nice free flow of air in a greenhouse and see if its warmer then.
Can you show me some evidence that even suggests that CO2 has the same properties as a solid object and can reflect infra red waves. On your thinking that means infra red waves are reflected from earth and never enter our atmosphere. If CO2 has these magic properties then why is there a vacuum between my double glazed windows? Makes more sense to pump CO2 in there.
CO2 is about 50% heavier than air,
CO2 is about 380 ppm of the atmosphere, by volume, 590 ppm by weight.
That means the atmosphere is 1/1695 th of CO2
Seams like a hair on the tail, wagging the whole dog.
Can you show me some evidence that even suggests that CO2 has the same properties as a solid object and can reflect infra red waves. On your thinking that means infra red waves are reflected from earth and never enter our atmosphere. If CO2 has these magic properties then why is there a vacuum between my double glazed windows? Makes more sense to pump CO2 in there.
CO2 is about 50% heavier than air,
CO2 is about 380 ppm of the atmosphere, by volume, 590 ppm by weight.
That means the atmosphere is 1/1695 th of CO2
Seams like a hair on the tail, wagging the whole dog.
"The sun heats up the air in the greenhouse"
Yes, that's the greenhouse effect.
Yes, that's the greenhouse effect.
How much air do you think leaves the earth's atmosphere every day?
Well, I'd guess that more air leaves the atmosphere than crisp packets for example
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm
Debunk this sucka's.
Debunk this sucka's.
There's no need to debunk this sort of argument because it does nothing to undermine the facts about CC. All it's really doing is acknowledging that, historically, other factors also influence climate. But I've never yet met a scientist who'd disagree.
The conclusion states:
The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.
Spelling and punctuation errors aside, I agree.
[b]And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.[/b
Again, I agree. It may play a role.
But so what?
This does nothing to change the clear correlation between carbon emission and global tempterature. The idea that this article in any way lessens the threat of CC is laughable.
The conclusion states:
The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.
Spelling and punctuation errors aside, I agree.
[b]And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.[/b
Again, I agree. It may play a role.
But so what?
This does nothing to change the clear correlation between carbon emission and global tempterature. The idea that this article in any way lessens the threat of CC is laughable.
Man occupies such a small niche on the planet that I find it arrogant that we can have that much of an impact. That being said, any changes that are taking place are also beyond our small, meager ability to enact any changes.
We need to stop the hoax that we are causing this, too bad the sheeple won't think for themselves.
We need to stop the hoax that we are causing this, too bad the sheeple won't think for themselves.
I find it arrogant that we can have that much of an impact.
Mankind has been very arrogant, yes.
Just compare the two graphs - carbon emission and global temps - for the last 50 years then tell me whether you really want to attribute that to coincidence.
Mankind has been very arrogant, yes.
Just compare the two graphs - carbon emission and global temps - for the last 50 years then tell me whether you really want to attribute that to coincidence.
Climate Change already causing 300,000 deaths a year
is that all?
is that all?
Good point, steven.
In years to come, we'll look back and say: 'damn, in 2009, the figure was only 0.3m - why the hell didn't we address the problem then?'
In years to come, we'll look back and say: 'damn, in 2009, the figure was only 0.3m - why the hell didn't we address the problem then?'
.......of Dr J 's brain cells.
Soon there will none left.
He will then be a genuine ' Progressive '
Soon there will none left.
He will then be a genuine ' Progressive '
Just compare the two graphs - carbon emission and global temps - for the last 50 years then tell me whether you really want to attribute that to coincidence.
But what about the fact that a higher temperatures creates more CO2?
Is it not the case that the CO2 is caused by the temperature rise, not the cause of it?
But what about the fact that a higher temperatures creates more CO2?
Is it not the case that the CO2 is caused by the temperature rise, not the cause of it?
Climate Change, Global warming, GreenHouse effect.
What will the luvvies call it next?
Protect your own country from over population first, stop globalisation, and stop giving handouts to third world countries who cannot sustain their population levels.
Best ways to protect the environment.
:) :)
What will the luvvies call it next?
Protect your own country from over population first, stop globalisation, and stop giving handouts to third world countries who cannot sustain their population levels.
Best ways to protect the environment.
:) :)
1000 years ago the Vikings colonized Greenland. They grew grapes and had merry times. Greenland today is almost entirely covered in ice. Please tell me, was is the earth warmer today that it was 1000 years ago? Maybe the Vikings conquered Lands with Range Rovers. Show me data from the past 500,000 years then maybe i'll believe you.
you cannot count them viking days.
Don't know why but Dc J will come up with some B*llS*te
:( :(
Don't know why but Dc J will come up with some B*llS*te
:( :(
Is it not the case that the CO2 is caused by the temperature rise, not the cause of it?
Not really.
The problem with that argument is we know exactly why CO2 levels have increased - it's an inevitable consequence of global industrialisation. To pin it on temperature rise would be a bit daft when every landscape has a power station belching thick, black smoke into the atmosphere.
In answer to the other cynical comments (of which this thread contains far fewer than my previous CC threads, incidentally), I don't expect that you all believe a forum yoghurt-knitter, I just ask that you read a couple of peer-reviewed articles on the topics with an open mind.
It's absurd to keep dismissing CC as a tax-raising Lefty conspiracy just because you're not one of the 300,000.
Not really.
The problem with that argument is we know exactly why CO2 levels have increased - it's an inevitable consequence of global industrialisation. To pin it on temperature rise would be a bit daft when every landscape has a power station belching thick, black smoke into the atmosphere.
In answer to the other cynical comments (of which this thread contains far fewer than my previous CC threads, incidentally), I don't expect that you all believe a forum yoghurt-knitter, I just ask that you read a couple of peer-reviewed articles on the topics with an open mind.
It's absurd to keep dismissing CC as a tax-raising Lefty conspiracy just because you're not one of the 300,000.
'Dr J 07 Jun 21:34
Is it not the case that the CO2 is caused by the temperature rise, not the cause of it?
Not really.
The problem with that argument is we know exactly why CO2 levels have increased - it's an inevitable consequence of global industrialisation. To pin it on temperature rise would be a bit daft when every landscape has a power station belching thick, black smoke into the atmosphere.'
Sorry but i had to really laugh at this. Thats something a 12 year old would say after a science lesson.
We know exactly do we? Thats why its called a theory nothing has been proven. Go research how the oceans lose and gain CO2 with respect to temperature change. Stop looking at your 50 year graphs and go look at 100,000 year graphs. CO2 increase lags behind temperature increase.
'Is it not the case that the CO2 is caused by the temperature rise, not the cause of it?' Is indeed correct.
Is it not the case that the CO2 is caused by the temperature rise, not the cause of it?
Not really.
The problem with that argument is we know exactly why CO2 levels have increased - it's an inevitable consequence of global industrialisation. To pin it on temperature rise would be a bit daft when every landscape has a power station belching thick, black smoke into the atmosphere.'
Sorry but i had to really laugh at this. Thats something a 12 year old would say after a science lesson.
We know exactly do we? Thats why its called a theory nothing has been proven. Go research how the oceans lose and gain CO2 with respect to temperature change. Stop looking at your 50 year graphs and go look at 100,000 year graphs. CO2 increase lags behind temperature increase.
'Is it not the case that the CO2 is caused by the temperature rise, not the cause of it?' Is indeed correct.
Can you refer me to any credible scientific journal articles that support your 'theory' please?
(There are over 40,000 that support mine....)
(There are over 40,000 that support mine....)
Eternal optimist 29 May 23:18
Haven't global temperatures decreased since the high point in 1998?
Yes, that's why the creationists went from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Haven't global temperatures decreased since the high point in 1998?
Yes, that's why the creationists went from Global Warming to Climate Change.
IF there have been 300,000 deaths - then that'll reduce the amount of polution we create, reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and ease the demands on food and water production.
Self limiting, this issue.
Self limiting, this issue.
Shame the people causing the problems aren't the ones suffering.
I owe you one for this, Chippie - this was exactly the thread I was hoping you'd pull.
In a new report, Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) has warned that climate change is already causing 300,000 deaths a year and "seriously affecting" 325m people.
This finding makes a nonsense of sub's position that the effects of CC are unknown and scientists are merely speculating about the impact. Tell that to the 300,000 people dying every year! The fact is that CC is happening right now - just because it's the world's poorest who suffer first doesn't mean the problem isn't there.
Thanks again Chippie - I know we've had our differences in the past but I really appreciate this, mate.
In a new report, Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) has warned that climate change is already causing 300,000 deaths a year and "seriously affecting" 325m people.
This finding makes a nonsense of sub's position that the effects of CC are unknown and scientists are merely speculating about the impact. Tell that to the 300,000 people dying every year! The fact is that CC is happening right now - just because it's the world's poorest who suffer first doesn't mean the problem isn't there.
Thanks again Chippie - I know we've had our differences in the past but I really appreciate this, mate.
and in other news, natural causes cause millions of deaths a year
Dr J
You don't really think that anyone buys that line of assumptive spin do you? :D
My oh my.
You don't really think that anyone buys that line of assumptive spin do you? :D
My oh my.
Global Humanitarian Forum ffs
Whoever said there was a mug born every day was underestimating the gullibility of humans. Does he talk about Ethiopia's population doubling and the resulting problems and what should be done to curtail it?
Whoever said there was a mug born every day was underestimating the gullibility of humans. Does he talk about Ethiopia's population doubling and the resulting problems and what should be done to curtail it?
Climate Change already causing 300,000 deaths a year
Didn't know they had started putting climate change as cause of death, on death certificates.
Didn't know they had started putting climate change as cause of death, on death certificates.
Few of these people would receive death certficates, Grumpy. It's the world's most vulnerable - the starving, the thirsty, the homeless, etc. - who make up that 300,000.
Many millions of the worlds most vulnerable have died, from famine and disease. Undoubtedly many of them needlessly. How is it decided that 300,000 were solely due to climate change. Seems to be an arbitrary figure, plucked from the air.
Have you read the GHF report, Grumpy?
There's a link on Monbiot's website.
There's a link on Monbiot's website.
How is it decided that 300,000 were solely due to climate change. Seems to be an arbitrary figure, plucked from the air.
Ye, rubbish spin that. I bet our Nuliar boys could have conjured up another 700,000 corpses to make a nice round 1 million.
Ye, rubbish spin that. I bet our Nuliar boys could have conjured up another 700,000 corpses to make a nice round 1 million.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
Not according to these guys, it hasn't.
Not according to these guys, it hasn't.
Yes, and you should ask those guys about the link between smoking and cancer...
They are not talking about that, they are scientifically refuting the myth that you peddle. They use scientific facts you use slurs. Funny that.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539