312 replies to this topic

[summersnow]

weather ship, on 08 March 2012 - 09:50 , said:

Regarding the ozone hole I think "it has to be a human induced effect"! fits the bill perfectly.

Agreed!

[BornFromTheVoid]

The full Antarctic ozone paper is here guys

http://ruby.fgcu.edu...hilo/Turner.pdf

[laserguy]

Solar Sausage, on 08 March 2012 - 09:38 , said:

It my sound loke a silly question, Barrie...But when, not if, fossil and nuclear fuels run out - where are we going to get our energy from??

Not a silly question at all,Pete. But the running-out of FF's and finding replacements ain't got squat to do with climate change. And when the sun "runs out" even the most hardened AGW nuts will have long stopped worrying. In the meantime, stop making toy windmills,get the unemployed working to make solar panels and give 'em away free. That's a good way to spend taxes and to see if they're serious. Don't hold your breath,you'd be better off using it to turn those windmills.

[pottyprof]

laserguy, on 08 March 2012 - 06:49 , said:

If the government would care to populate my roof with solar panels free of charge instead of talking crap and building useless windmills,I'd be happy to humour this climate-change malarkey.

http://ashadegreener.co.uk/

Free panels if you meet the positioning and roof size criteria. You even get to use the electricity for free too.......

*other solar panel installers are available....

[Kained]

Solar Sausage, on 08 March 2012 - 09:38 , said:

It my sound loke a silly question, Barrie...But when, not if, fossil and nuclear fuels run out - where are we going to get our energy from??

I'd be really concerned if deuterium ran out.

[loafer]

Solar Sausage, on 08 March 2012 - 09:38 , said:

It my sound loke a silly question, Barrie...But when, not if, fossil and nuclear fuels run out - where are we going to get our energy from??

Geothermally cracked hydrogen. Bacterial hydrocarbons. Amongst many other things.

[mike Meehan]

I dare say that when the Jellystone caldera blows, as it undoubtably will one day, it will put all talk of global warming into a cocked hat, and it is just about due given a variance of a few millenia.

[Devonian]

mike Meehan, on 10 March 2012 - 23:47 , said:

I dare say that when the Jellystone caldera blows, as it undoubtably will one day, it will put all talk of global warming into a cocked hat, and it is just about due given a variance of a few millenia.

Probably will blow at some point in the next X thousand years, it's not certain is it? I would agree it's likely, just like 2-4C of AGW - imo.

[Devonian]

loafer, on 10 March 2012 - 20:35 , said:

Geothermally cracked hydrogen. Bacterial hydrocarbons. Amongst many other things.

I'm not sure what the former is? The latter less so but still not sure what you mean.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'd like to think there would be little or no talk of AGW in 100 years or so. Surely by then we'll either have the technology to sequester most of our CO2 emissions, have fusion reactors so we don't need much oil or have some other mechanism to nullify our greenhouse gas output.
If it's still an issue by the time Yellowstone blows, the volcanic winter will probably be a welcome relief!

[Solar Sausage]

Devonian, on 11 March 2012 - 12:02 , said:

I'm not sure what the former is? The latter less so but still not sure what you mean.

Me neither!

[Gray-Wolf]

Back to the thread title;

Does anyone else feel that actually 'adhering' to the general AGW premise brings more 'trouble' than skepticism on any level?

Why folk cannot remain 'objective' about the science instead of launching assaults/insults when we read papers/reports about the growing evidence in support of human driven rapid climate shift I do not know but it appears that this is rapidly becoming the norm on many sites hosting 'climate and Environment ' sections. I can only muse that it is fear that such change brings with it that fires the need to push away/put down anyone foisting thoughts that may 'feel' unpleasant and scary?

Most of the objections as to why folk 'should' adhere to the science and current understanding/observations are always supported by the science (and not personal insult/aggravation),

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 16 April 2012 - 09:44 .

[pottyprof]

Gray-Wolf, on 16 April 2012 - 09:43 , said:

Most of the objections as to why folk 'should' adhere to the science and current understanding/observations are always supported by the science (and not personal insult/aggravation),

Well when scientists and politicians act like kids and fora are full of drivel, what do you expect? I don't spend my time looking for arguments, I spend my time looking for information. The subject is getting to be a complete turn off because of nit picking idiots who can't be courteous or polite or people that think they know it all. It's a shame really because it could be a really interesting and important subject.