livemusic
Premium
- 10,239
- Blumenau, SC
- livemusic81
Thanks for the link, I'll have a look on this when I get home.
Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread
- Thread starter ZAGGIN
- 3,644 comments
- 221,419 views
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
There are two problems with this report.
1) The top scientists in the world issued a report using the term likely, which means they can't actually prove it and if they are the top scientists they know what that means. Despite that they then go on to say definitively that if humans don't change the world will all go to hell. They went from likely to definite, changing terms and meanings. Either their grammar sucks or they wanted to gloss over the "likely" and hope we don't notice.
2) This whole idea of no arctic ice. At its warmest the North Pole is 0*C. Its lows drop well below the scientists own predicted maximum temperature increase.
Another point about these reports making statements about arctic and North Pole temperatures is that they are playing on the general mass assumption that the North Pole is the coldest place in the northern hemisphere. Tell me that Siberia and/or the South Pole will completely thaw and then I will be amazed.
Then when you look at reasearch like this, the idea of arctic melting (and even warmer temperatures) doesn't necessarily sound like something new. In fact, it sounds as if it might be doing something it has already done before.
1) The top scientists in the world issued a report using the term likely, which means they can't actually prove it and if they are the top scientists they know what that means. Despite that they then go on to say definitively that if humans don't change the world will all go to hell. They went from likely to definite, changing terms and meanings. Either their grammar sucks or they wanted to gloss over the "likely" and hope we don't notice.
2) This whole idea of no arctic ice. At its warmest the North Pole is 0*C. Its lows drop well below the scientists own predicted maximum temperature increase.
Another point about these reports making statements about arctic and North Pole temperatures is that they are playing on the general mass assumption that the North Pole is the coldest place in the northern hemisphere. Tell me that Siberia and/or the South Pole will completely thaw and then I will be amazed.
Then when you look at reasearch like this, the idea of arctic melting (and even warmer temperatures) doesn't necessarily sound like something new. In fact, it sounds as if it might be doing something it has already done before.
- 29,080
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
To be fair to them, they do clearly define the terms they use throughout the report:-
And from the statements made earlier in the conference, I didn't hear them say anything about 'definites' or anything that could be construed as scaremongering or doom-laden projections - that's for the media to do. In all, it was a fairly straight-forward, sober presentation of the facts.
The more general point of 'they can't actually prove it' is a charge that any and every scientific endeavour has thrown at it... whilst literally true, you must bear in mind that the IPCC has a consensus-based approach, and a remit to attempt to clarify and bring together many disparate areas of research. Sometimes, a true consensus is either impossible or damn near so, but that is true for just about anything in science. The best the IPCC (or anyone else for that matter) can hope to do, is to use the evidence that is currently available (from peer-reviewed scientific literature) in order to build a picture that reflects the reality of the situation as closely as possible...
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I haven't read through everything in the link you gave, being at work and all. So, that seems to say it is 90% likely. I know I shouldn't rely on the teachings at a public university from six years ago, but my statistics professor would have failed me for this. He wanted no less than 5% margin of error and ever since I have sort of stuck by that myself.
After reading this post I went back and reread the article I first saw and the definite was from a scientist not involved in the conference (thanks CNN) and apparently the conference actually gave no recommendations for stopping it.
But when the answer to a situation will most likely upset entire economies (because we all know that if everyone drove a hybrid it wouldn't do squat) then you need people to agree on something stronger than a 90% chance of being right. Consequences that strong need to be definite.
The reality is that a report like this does little to help when no solutions are offered. All it will do is feed the Al Gores of the world and we will all start driving hybrids, using compact flourescent bulbs, and creating economy harming policies instead of focusing to find a more viable long-term solution that has benefits all around.
Being free of our current use of oil will definitely help the economy over time and may 'very likely' help the economy, but the knee jerk reactions you will see actually do more to hurt true progress than help it. If this conference is so sure of this they need to lay out a long-term viable plan, not just issue a report that the world is getting all kinds of screwy and they share the opinion that there is a 90% chance it is our fault.
They need to answer questions proposed by opponents regarding research that points to other possibilities and explain how they are incorrect or how they still have room for humans to be the main catalyst.
It just seems to me that there are too many times in history when a single scientist or small team of scientist has come about to prove that what the majority of scientists (or even society) believed about the world around us is incorrect. That is how breakthroughs happen. So, saying a large number of scientists agree on something being a 90% likelihood isn't going to motivate me too much.
Anyway, I might not jump back in here until I get home and have a chance to read through all the information you posted. So, if I don't respond I didn't run away.
- 29,080
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Despite the fact that the headlines say 'very likely', the report goes on to add (amongst other things) that the likelihood of the warming trend to continue in line with current projections is 'virtually certain' (>99% probability). Whether or not humans are responsible for this (and the report suggests that it is 'very likely' that we are), then it is surely remiss of us not to do something about it. One of the only things we can do about it is to reduce the amount of activity that we know for certain does contribute to global warming, which are practices that result in the release of greenhouse gases....
Again, to be fair to them, that's not really what they are being charged to do... the IPCC report seems to be more about clarifying what is happening, how it's happening and why. This, presumably, is the purpose of the 'Summary for Policymakers', so that the people who are charged with tackling the problem are at the very least armed with the basic facts. I think it's fairly obvious what the recommendations would have been if the IPCC had been asked to make any.
I think the IPCC are quite correct to speak in terms of probabilities rather than in terms of 'definites'... for me, the point is that whether or not we ever know the whole story, we have to realise that we can only ever have 'a best model' to explain the reality of the situation. When making predictions about the future, you can never be definite - not even in theory - by that token, it would be foolish to dismiss any possibility. By the same token, it would be foolish to over-react over something that was unlikely, too... but a 90% probability is high enough for me... also, if you look at the trend, the previous report said 66%... we're now at 90%... the direction of the evidence is lending weight to the argument for anthropogenic warming, not against (and it could easily have gone in the opposite direction...)
One major point about 'upsetting economies' is that failure to act could just as easily have calamitous effects on the economies of the world too. One new area of research has been to assess the cost (financially) of things that we currently gain from nature, specifically how much it would cost us if certain natural processes were required to be simulated artificially (for example O2 production/CO2 scrubbing by rainforests) by technological means alone... already it is becoming apparent that the costs could easily be astronomical. In other words, the economic cost of tackling anthropogenic global warming could be very high (especially if wrong choices are made - which they undoubtedly will be), but the cost of not tackling it could be much much higher...
I believe they are doing this... aside from merely studying how human activity might influence global climate, the IPCC have had to consider all drivers of climate change - either negatively or positively.
Same here
👍 Come 5pm this evening, I will be tucked away in a pub, probably until Sunday morning!
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Just to quickly clarify my views.
Small stepstone ideas that we see everyday will not work with the mass public. People will do one thing like recycle, use compact flourescent bulbs, or drive a car they wouldn't normally even consider and they think they have done what they can. Or better yet the president will push for ethanol and everyone thinks it sounds good when it isn't physically possible to completely switch over (and it costs more for less).
If you want to stop greenhouse gases you have to eliminate our need for fossil fuels. Instead of having people sitting around thinking of things that cost more and only use marginally less fossil fuels, but still fossil fuels, we should be thinking about something that will replace fossil fuels and still be affordable.
"And we play football the right way."
Randy (Ethan Suplee), from "My Name is Earl," trying to convince a Frenchman that America is a great country.
I have no disagreement that warming is occuring. Greenhouse gases or no simple climatic cycles tell me that it is expected.
Too bad policymakers can't understand the facts. Giving them a scary vision of the future without a recommendation is like handing a child a gun because someone is abducting children in your neighborhood. He has the ability to do what he needs, but is more likely to cause more harm than good.
I'm not against making changes to reduce greenhouse gases, but I have yet to see any that will actually affect things but always cost a lot more. I even saw a local editorial where a woman thought that gas prices going down was bad because people will be more willing to drive. Her solution to global warming was fuel tax increases to make it cost more here than it does in any other country. All ideas like that do is hurt people financially without creating a significant reduction in greenhouse gases. The same goes for practically every idea I have heard. None of them are good enough to make a difference, but will hurt the economy. Then silly ideas like hybrids catch on and it lulls people into thinking they are doing the right thing, when all they did was pay more for their car.
Small stepstone ideas that we see everyday will not work with the mass public. People will do one thing like recycle, use compact flourescent bulbs, or drive a car they wouldn't normally even consider and they think they have done what they can. Or better yet the president will push for ethanol and everyone thinks it sounds good when it isn't physically possible to completely switch over (and it costs more for less).
If you want to stop greenhouse gases you have to eliminate our need for fossil fuels. Instead of having people sitting around thinking of things that cost more and only use marginally less fossil fuels, but still fossil fuels, we should be thinking about something that will replace fossil fuels and still be affordable.
5pm for you? Then it will most likely be Monday, because Sunday I will be busy with Super Bowl activities.Same here
"And we play football the right way."
Randy (Ethan Suplee), from "My Name is Earl," trying to convince a Frenchman that America is a great country.
- 86,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's all nice, but...
They're using models for climate change without a clear understanding of how the mechanisms in those models work (which, to be fair, no-one has).
The models they're using for climate change ignore any other possibility than changing atmospheric composition as the basis for the model.
They ignore Arctic ice as they don't have a clear understanding of the mechanisms behind it (ironic).
This report itself is merely a summary for the full report 3 months hence - delayed to allow the report to be changed (something I'm suspicious of - headline grabbing summary before the possibly-less-dramatic full report?).
The summary of the fourth report has a smaller possible temperature increase and a smaller possible sea level rise than the third report did...
Now... given that man produces greenhouse gases and their models ignore any possibility but for change of atmospheric content as the driving force behind Global Climate Change (without understanding HOW it might be the driving force), I find it quite surprising that they only put forward a 90% probability that man is at fault.
- 2,734
- AndrewPaul
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
There's a lot of things wrong with the article, but regardless it doesn't really help our side of the debate...
There's a lot of things wrong with the article, but regardless it doesn't really help our side of the debate...
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
It is very vague, so let me summarize the points:
- A group offered scientists money to dispute IPCC study (vague on details)
- Said group is connected to the Bush Administration (Mention of consultants working for Bush, short on the details)
- Said group is connected to Exxon/Mobile (Vague details about donations - they are non-profit you know.)
- Summary: Bush is the lapdog of the oil companies and said group follows his lead (As said by a Bush hater/Greenpeace member, aka not an expert)
Well, that looks fair. Lots of people who oppose Bush got interviewed but no one from the White House. Odd. They must have been busy.
I have to wonder if asking a scientist to look over research that disagrees with your opinion for weak points for free would work, or should you pay them for their services? And does having the same views as the Bush Administration mean you just follow his lead? It seems like the American Enterprise Institute was started by Bush cronies to help Bush with his evil plans. Man, Bush has been planning all this since 1943.
Wait, when you read far enough down, buried in the middle somewhere you get an actual interview with the AEI member that sent the letters to the scientists. Wait, this isn't for AEI at all, but an independent review that will highlight BOTH strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report. He even goes on to say the review is to help depolarize the issue. Heck he didn't say one negative thing about the IPCC or their study. Odd, this doesn't sound like AEI that every other interviewee describes. I wonder if the scientists writing the review articles supporting the IPCC study are going to be paid? They must have forgotten to put that in the story.
Maybe this article should be put in the media bias thread.
- 49
I think there's a slight mis-use of the 95% confidence rule there. Statistically, when comparing two different data sets, you can conduct an analysis which will tell you the probability that the two sets are essentially the same or not and the 95% confidence level is generally used to determine if the difference is significant.
However, when talking about the risk of something happening or not, the situation changes somewhat. Any decision on risk is based on the combination of how likely something is to happen and how bad it would be it it did (or Risk is a combination of Probabilty and Severity). To take what is admittedly an extreme case: I assume nobody would play Russian Roulette on the basis that there would be less than a 95% probability of shooting yourself.
However, when talking about the risk of something happening or not, the situation changes somewhat. Any decision on risk is based on the combination of how likely something is to happen and how bad it would be it it did (or Risk is a combination of Probabilty and Severity). To take what is admittedly an extreme case: I assume nobody would play Russian Roulette on the basis that there would be less than a 95% probability of shooting yourself.
- 86,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The 90% figure being bandied around is comparing two sets of data - the set that says the Earth is heating up because of people and the set that says the Earth is heating up anyway.
It's not a 90% probability that global warming is occurring - it's acknowledged that the average global mean temperature is getting higher, decade-on-decade - but a supposed 90% confidence that it's not due to chance.
- 49
Well I feel the Risk analogy still has some validity. If it is due to chance alone then nothing we can do will make a blind bit of difference and what will come will come (the climate will fix itself or get worse on its own accord). However if it is being caused by our emissions then it will get worse and at an ever increasing rate as we continue on our merry way in the industrialised nations and as the developing nations continue their growth.
I would really like to see everyone take this seriously and have a unilateral approach where every nation does something about this. The arguement about loss of economic competitiveness wouldn't apply then as we're all just competing with each other anyway. Unfortunately this is foolish niavity on my part as it won't work unless everyone does it: I read recently that if Britain shut down tomorrow then the rate of increase in China is such that they'd make up the shortfall in... 18 months or something (I forget the figure now).
I would really like to see everyone take this seriously and have a unilateral approach where every nation does something about this. The arguement about loss of economic competitiveness wouldn't apply then as we're all just competing with each other anyway. Unfortunately this is foolish niavity on my part as it won't work unless everyone does it: I read recently that if Britain shut down tomorrow then the rate of increase in China is such that they'd make up the shortfall in... 18 months or something (I forget the figure now).
- 86,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's an interesting notion that there's only the two options. It's one the IPCC took as well.
Without knowing which of the two options is right, any course of action is foolish. To borrow your Russian Roulette example, the IPCC is 90% confident that there's a bullet in the gun somewhere - though their model for bullet/gun interface relies only on the information that there's a bullet and a gun. Putting it to your head would be foolish but so would passing it to your opponent and allowing him to put it to his head. Using an inaccurate model and not knowing what the results will be, you're liable to lose either way.
For all we know, cutting emissions across the board might plunge us into an ice age. Or cool the planet down a little. Or do nothing. Or slow down global warming a little bit. Or have no effect at all on natural global warming. Or, in a bizarre twist, allow aliens to invade, cause Triffids to take over the world, make everyone infertile, wipe out blue-green algae and kill everyone (75% of our oxygen comes from them) or almost anything else. Our climate models - and by "our" I mean "the IPCC's" - are nowhere near sophisticated enough to actually model the climate, which is a pretty big problem when you're assessing the source of climate change.
- 49
Right. I was heading out the door, but I had one last look and saw the reply so I thought I'd have one more post for now (this is all very enjoyable - the cut and thrust of a good debate eh?)
I'm not sure I follow you here. My analogy isn't that doing nothing is putting the gun to your head and doing something about it is your opponent putting the gun to his. If we are to continue with my laboured analogy then perhaps we are playing a one-shot, one-man game of Russian Roulette?
All of these still boil down to either we cause it or it's naturally occurring. Okay, you have added a third option: it could be a bit of both, but in this case we should still be thinking what we can do about our contribution to it.
Heh. I know you're just being silly now but, for completeness, I'll respond: Our emissions now are higher than ever so if we did reduce them, it'll be to a level that is comparable to those from some past age. None of these things happened in the 90's. Or the 80's. Or the 70's. Or... ah you get the idea.
This does sound like you're questioning either the IPCC's integrity or its compentence here, but they're the best climate change models we have so far - and by "we" I mean us earthlings...
I'm not sure I follow you here. My analogy isn't that doing nothing is putting the gun to your head and doing something about it is your opponent putting the gun to his. If we are to continue with my laboured analogy then perhaps we are playing a one-shot, one-man game of Russian Roulette?
All of these still boil down to either we cause it or it's naturally occurring. Okay, you have added a third option: it could be a bit of both, but in this case we should still be thinking what we can do about our contribution to it.
Heh. I know you're just being silly now but, for completeness, I'll respond: Our emissions now are higher than ever so if we did reduce them, it'll be to a level that is comparable to those from some past age. None of these things happened in the 90's. Or the 80's. Or the 70's. Or... ah you get the idea.
This does sound like you're questioning either the IPCC's integrity or its compentence here, but they're the best climate change models we have so far - and by "we" I mean us earthlings...
- 86,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Aye, it's all a good laugh.
Until somebody gets hurt...
Possibly - but with no known outcome... Let's call it Schroedinger's Russian Roulette...
The bit about our emissions is true - but that's not a complete picture of the atmosphere.
We've had higher global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide in the past coinciding with ice ages. We've had lower global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide in the past coinciding with warm spells (of note is the Medieval Warm Period) - and digging up dead plants and burning them to make electrons move were not a cause of either. Humanity's output of carbon dioxide right now is equivalent to putting 1 drop of red food colouring (carbon dioxide) into 10 litres of water (the atmosphere) per year... That notwithstanding, carbon dioxide's ability to trap heat is dwarfed by that of water vapour, by a factor of around 800 - and there's 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide compared to 10,000 parts per million of water vapour.
Now I'll grant that humans have shoved a few artificial compounds up there - CFCs being of particular import - but in really, hopelessly small amounts. We struck unlucky with CFCs - they reacted with a bit of our atmosphere we just didn't realise they could react with, even in those small amounts, and had quite the effect, but we puther out FAR more carbon dioxide and that's naturally occurring too (by a factor of about 1 human molecule to every 49 natural molecules). If it had an effect just through the tiny amounts we add, there should be traceable fluctuations through ice core records and, sadly, over the last billion years or so, there has been no positive correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global mean temperature.
This does sound like you're questioning either the IPCC's integrity or its compentence here, but they're the best climate change models we have so far - and by "we" I mean us earthlings...
It does rather... And I suppose I am - their models ignore any possibility for global temperature change other than atmospheric composition. They ignore local effects (cooling from Arctic ice as an example), Earth's albedo flux (more ice/water -> higher albedo -> less retained energy; less ice/water -> lower albedo -> more retained energy), precipitation, Earth's position relative to the Sun, Earth's position relative to the Moon (both increase gravitational energy as the objects pass closer to one another), Earth's core activity and short- and long-term Solar activity flux. They concentrate on one thing and one thing alone - atmospheric composition, despite us not understanding precisely how changing atmospheric composition would cause changes in global mean temperature and with the full knowledge that, while there's a recent correlative trend (CO2 has increased and global mean temperature has increased), there is no corresponding long-term correlation (besides which correlation is no indicator of causation).
Frankly, if all they consider is that changing atmospheric composition changes the Earth's temperature (with no firm understanding of the mechanics of it) and we know that mankind is changing atmospheric composition, it should only come as a surprise that they said man is 90% probable to cause global warming, rather than 100%.
My personal bet is that it's a normal, background thing - due to increased Solar activity (measured), increased core activity (postulated) and increasing tidal forces (measurable) which man is having a very, very slight effect on (because we do change the composition of the atmosphere, by using things). Whether it's an additional effect (we're making it get slightly hotter on top of the normal background gettinghotterness) or a retarding effect (we're insulating the Earth slightly against the normal background gettinghotterness), I can't say. So for me to act on this would also be foolish. Personally, I use as little gas/electricity/petrol as I can get away with to enjoy my life, because it's expensive.
- 15,486
- UK
Also Famine is there much point in say a 10th of Brits doing something when China and India (and the other nations which are increasing their use of fuels, etc by alot) aren't going to do anything?
When you see that alot of the cities in China are smog-like you have to ask yourself if they'll change that?
When you see that alot of the cities in China are smog-like you have to ask yourself if they'll change that?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Los Angeles
Or Los Angeles
My how things can change.
Once they realize their murky rivers and hazy skies are really screwing things up they will find ways around it. You have to realize that China is trying to leap their economy forward to catch up and most likely get ahead. Right now they are polluting the way we did decades ago, but they already have people calling for change. It will happen, but it might take a while.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,783
- Mile High City
Los Angeles
Or Los Angeles
My how things can change.
After living in LA for a while now, I'm convinced that those two pictures could have been taken within a week of each other.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Your right about that. We have this happen to us in Denver on a regular occurrence during the winter.
A temperature inversion is a thin layer of the atmosphere where the decrease in temperature with height is much less than normal (or in extreme cases, the temperature increases with height). An inversion, also called a "stable" air layer, acts like a lid, keeping normal convective overturning of the atmosphere from penetrating through the inversion. This can cause several weather-related effects. One is the trapping of pollutants below the inversion, allowing them to build up. If the sky is very hazy, or is sunsets are very red, there is likely an inversion somewhere in the lower atmosphere. This happens more frequently in high pressure zones, where the gradual sinking of air in the high pressure dome typically causes an inversion to form at the base of a sinking layer of air. Another effect is making clouds spread out and take on a flattened appearance. Still another effect is to prevent thunderstorms from forming. Even in an air mass that is hot and humid in the lowest layers, thunderstorms will be prevented if an inversion is keeping this air from rising. The opposite of a temperature inversion is an unstable air layer.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Yes. That is the general theory, but celebrity fear mongers want you to think we will suddenly be living on either Dune or a water covered planet. These poorly informed conclusions make me question whether they actually care and did research or whether they are just trying to be trendy.
This is the premise behind The Day After Tomorrow, even though the science was so horribly bad it isn't even worth an MST3K episode. I find the premise that our atomic technology awoke men in giant rubber monster costumes to be much more entertaining, and possibly more accurate.
- 2,614
- Metroider17
So should we start getting ready now for a mass hysteria?
Taken from http://www.wlwt.com/news/11221758/detail.html
- 15,486
- UK
Talking of water shortages...
In the South of England we had a hosepipe ban were officially in a drought for about 18 months (iirc) until January. The reservoirs are at 100% and someone from the Environment Agency said we still weren't out of the woods yet (along those lines anyway). Do government officials read what's given to them?
In the South of England we had a hosepipe ban were officially in a drought for about 18 months (iirc) until January. The reservoirs are at 100% and someone from the Environment Agency said we still weren't out of the woods yet (along those lines anyway). Do government officials read what's given to them?
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
This is a tricky topic and one which is not being helped by propaganda. I will give you an example.
Gigormous picture
I was out for day in Manchester with some friends, when two men in green outfits approached with a large picture (very similar to the picture shown above). Above it had a title reading 'STOP CLIMATE CHANGE'. As we attempted to make a brief detour on are original route the to avoid the environmentalists. This detour was short lived as they called us over for a quick word to which we reluctantly agreed. One of the Men asked us how we had arrived in Manchester, to which I replied "by train", he proceeded to teach us about are selfish ways as he rolled out statistics about CO2 emitted by trains. He then drew are attention to the picture similar to the picture above. He then asked me if I could live with the amount of CO2 pouring out of the towers every second knowing it was going to cause the ice bergs to melt and cause an iceage which would kill thousands of people and render are beloved trains useless. Looking at the photo the billowing cloud emitted by the tower it did appear to be incredible amounts however something didn't appear to be right, the towers in the picture were cooling towers and cooling towers don't emit CO2, the cooling towers emit water vapor which doesn't contain CO2 at all. So I asked the man who gave me the speech if cooling towers emit CO2, he gave me a blank look so I asked him what gases were pouring out the towers. Again he didn't respond he appeared very offended and walked away with his other Environmentalist friend without saying anything. Looking back at it now it makes me laugh but it just shows propaganda can confuse people and make them believe something they know very little about, the truth is we don't really know enough about the subject to put a well structured argument with out quite a lot of guess work. My stance on this subject therefore is neutral since I can't be convinced either way.
P.S I am correct in assuming that the white cloud emitted by the cooling towers is just steam right!? otherwise this is a misleading post, can someone confirm this please.
Gigormous picture
I was out for day in Manchester with some friends, when two men in green outfits approached with a large picture (very similar to the picture shown above). Above it had a title reading 'STOP CLIMATE CHANGE'. As we attempted to make a brief detour on are original route the to avoid the environmentalists. This detour was short lived as they called us over for a quick word to which we reluctantly agreed. One of the Men asked us how we had arrived in Manchester, to which I replied "by train", he proceeded to teach us about are selfish ways as he rolled out statistics about CO2 emitted by trains. He then drew are attention to the picture similar to the picture above. He then asked me if I could live with the amount of CO2 pouring out of the towers every second knowing it was going to cause the ice bergs to melt and cause an iceage which would kill thousands of people and render are beloved trains useless. Looking at the photo the billowing cloud emitted by the tower it did appear to be incredible amounts however something didn't appear to be right, the towers in the picture were cooling towers and cooling towers don't emit CO2, the cooling towers emit water vapor which doesn't contain CO2 at all. So I asked the man who gave me the speech if cooling towers emit CO2, he gave me a blank look so I asked him what gases were pouring out the towers. Again he didn't respond he appeared very offended and walked away with his other Environmentalist friend without saying anything. Looking back at it now it makes me laugh but it just shows propaganda can confuse people and make them believe something they know very little about, the truth is we don't really know enough about the subject to put a well structured argument with out quite a lot of guess work. My stance on this subject therefore is neutral since I can't be convinced either way.
P.S I am correct in assuming that the white cloud emitted by the cooling towers is just steam right!? otherwise this is a misleading post, can someone confirm this please.
- 68
- Tom5_09
Yep, it is just steam. The clue is in the name, they just contain cooling water that has been heated. Probably why they wouldnt answer your question
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
I just saw that on More 4 just past midnight last week and it's a real eye-opener. Politicians and celebreties campaign on going green, but it seems they don't have a clue what the hell they're going on about. It reminds me of the Brass Eye program years ago and how they made celebrities look like fools by giving them garbage to talk about with regards to paedophilia.
Youtube clip from that show (this one includes Lord Sebastian Coe, who led the 2012 Olympic bid - part three is even funnier/worse, including gloves that can touch someone through a PC moniter - this from a past presenter of Tomorrow's World
).Here's the full list of those who appeared (and spouted nonsense) in the show (thanks to wiki)
Gary Lineker
Andy McNab
Gerald Howarth MP
Lord Coe
Neil "Dr." Fox
Syd Rapson MP
Phil Collins
Barbara Follett MP
Nicholas Owen
Michael Hames
Philippa Forrester
Kate Thornton
Richard Blackwood
Makes you think what those celebrities driving Prius's really know about "global warming"....
What was ironic was the ad that came on during one of the breaks, showing that we can make a difference now to prevent climate change. Politics and science (and celebrities me thinks) shouldn't mix....
