Harpodom Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Bit of a straw poll this, but interesting nonetheless to see what people think. We have a climate sceptic as a PM in Australia. In fact, his business adviser famously advised him about the perils of global cooling last week. Not that he has any scientific qualifications or nuffink, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petals Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I believe in global warming and that we are ruining the planet's atmosphere. Blind Freddy would have to be able to see what is happening, the throw away society, plastic island in the middle of the pacific, pollution, and our leader and his cronies has blinkers on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibbs Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 "Global Warming" has several meanings. Do I believe the data models used show we have an impact? Yes. Do I believe the data models are correct? No. http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/24/new-paper-by-mckitrick-and-vogelsang-comparing-models-and-observations-in-the-tropical-troposphere/ Do I believe in anthropogenic climate change? A bit, but on a local level. Obviously we have the issue of urban heat islands, and old school pollution causing issues down wind. Do I think we have a huge impact on the climate? No. The Sun is a bigger influence. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140818095204.htm http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html Do I think we should move to clean energy and less pollution? Yes, as long as it actually makes sense. Solar panels in the UK, not so much, tidal in the Severn, yes. So in your eyes I'd be a 'denier' and an awful person. To me I think we should be pushing for renewable energy, cleaning up proper pollution and air/water quality, recycling more .. but I don't believe it's that nasty 'carbon' and i don't think the world will end in a week if we don't do something now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeGirl Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Yes. I also "believe" in gravity. When something exists as incontrovertible fact to the point that 97% of the world's climate scientists say it's happening, it exists whether you think it does or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I cannot wait for the next ice age so we have something else to go on about!:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibbs Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Yes. I also "believe" in gravity. When something exists as incontrovertible fact to the point that 97% of the world's climate scientists say it's happening, it exists whether you think it does or not. The 97% isn't the truth. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 And 'consensus' isn't the same as 'truth'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Sure I believe in it. It's happened before, the world has gone through periods of being hot, ice ages, who knows what else it's seen. One giant eruption could change the atmosphere overnight. I believe the scientists have a good point when they say that what humans are doing is having an affect on climate. Doesn't really take a scientist to realise that pouring all the crap that we do, into the atmosphere and oceans, over generations, will have a negative affect. Don't know whether it's too late to do much about it and I think, eventually, whether it's our kids, their kids or their grandkids it's going to come to a head where something really bad is going to happen. Whether that happens before the next world war, or some other, calamity it's just obvious to me that the population cannot keep growing like it is, with more and more people displaced, looking for somewhere to go, less and less jobs, money, natural resources, food water to go around, something has to give. The World and nature has a way of evening things up and if that means lots and lots of people having to die, before some status quo can be restored, then it's coming in the nest few generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Whether it is or not, just what the man/woman in the street can do is the issue, if it is it's to late for action surely? Too many humans want an easy life, with that comes gas out of a pipe in the wall, a car to trundle around in, aircraft to take you places or bring goods to you, same with large sea going vessels, what to do stop all that and starve half the world in the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeGirl Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 The 97% isn't the truth. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 And 'consensus' isn't the same as 'truth'. That is an OP-ED. Keyword OPINION, authored by two climate change deniers. Try again. Not a Salon fan usually myself, but this article shows why that op-ed is BS. http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Nuclear power is the least polluting of all, and Australia has the world's largest deposits of uranium. Yes, there is a problem with disposal of spent uranium, and the possiblity of accidents, but technology and science may conquer both those problems. Moreover, if climate change is THE greatest problem facing humankind, then the drawbacks of nuclear power represent the lesser of the evils. Of course, the Greens and ALP will not countenance the use of nuclear power because of their own prejudices. Hypocrites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoll Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 The poll doesn't make sense. Global warming, AGW and CAGW aren't the same. Do I believe the world is warming - yup, thank heavens, I'm glad I'm not living in an Ice Age although I am concerned that it may have stopped warming (as all data sets have shown for the last decade or more). Is man playing a part in that warming? Probably - the UHI is having an effect locally and of course the revisions of temperature records is definitely man made! But there is no evidence that what we're getting we haven't experienced before (despite that lunatic Mann's attempts to airbrush the historical record) Do I believe we're heading for a cooling period - on balance (current solar trends and general cyclical trends), unfortunately, yes and due to green influences solar and wind power are going to be very ill equipped to provide us with power to cope Do I trust climate "scientists" - nope, they've been hamstrung to follow the funding party line and publishing opportunities but I take hope from the fact that there are more and more who, in their old age, have broken free of the funding shackles and are becoming increasingly vocal in their objections. The climate change emperor is buck naked! I most certainly don't trust the social psychologists who couldn't lie straight in bed and who distort findings in order to pathologise normal reservations in pursuit of their political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikey Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I believe in the precautionary principle and I just don't see why anybody wouldn't. My theory is that it is too scary for a lot of people to process. Ps. The poll could say climate change and encompass cooling and warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikey Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Guess who has the biggest store of plutonium in the world? Yes the uk! We have it so that we can make money by selling it to the Japanese only they don't want it anymore so we are stockpiling it. No wonder the government are keen on nuclear. ...it is ghe cheapest way of ridding this stockpile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 That is an OP-ED. Keyword OPINION, authored by two climate change deniers. Try again. Not a Salon fan usually myself, but this article shows why that op-ed is BS. http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/ Why is this any different to the WSJ article? Genuine question, I could only read the first line of the WSJ article by the way as it appeared to want me to subscribe and I didn't want to. To your earlier post, I just cannot see the parallel to gravity and climate change. I know gravity exists because when I let go of my pen it fell to the floor, but climate change ... no I can't perform a similar experiment to evidence it. It is not incontrovertible by any means otherwise we would not be discussing it on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Guess who has the biggest store of plutonium in the world? Yes the uk! We have it so that we can make money by selling it to the Japanese only they don't want it anymore so we are stockpiling it. No wonder the government are keen on nuclear. ...it is ghe cheapest way of ridding this stockpile The UK's history with nuclear power isn't good though. That's why Windscale has had it's name changed so many times. They think people will forget about past history and stories about leukaemia spots, can't go in the ocean near the outlet, don't eat meat from around certain areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Nuclear power is the least polluting of all, and Australia has the world's largest deposits of uranium. Yes, there is a problem with disposal of spent uranium, and the possiblity of accidents, but technology and science may conquer both those problems. Moreover, if climate change is THE greatest problem facing humankind, then the drawbacks of nuclear power represent the lesser of the evils. Of course, the Greens and ALP will not countenance the use of nuclear power because of their own prejudices. Hypocrites! Just what we don't want for obvious health reasons and environmental dangers. Germany has decided to ditch theirs for said reasons. The nuclear industry has always been big talking it up though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 The UK's history with nuclear power isn't good though. That's why Windscale has had it's name changed so many times. They think people will forget about past history and stories about leukaemia spots, can't go in the ocean near the outlet, don't eat meat from around certain areas. Exactly. Also cancer rates among workers is allegedly higher than the norm. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear plant and not sure who would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Just what we don't want for obvious health reasons and environmental dangers. Germany has decided to ditch theirs for said reasons. The nuclear industry has always been big talking it up though. I agree (for once) with almost everything you say about nuclear energy, BUT, if climate change is THE greatest danger to humankind (repeating myself) and nuclear power is the least polluting form of energy, then the risks of accidents, environmental damage, etc, are, repeating myself again, surely the lesser of the evils? Has Germany the means to provide 100 per cent of the power it needs, without (hypocritically) taking nuclear power from, say France (they aren't closing down their nuclear power stations are they?) or conventional power (oil, gas, coal) from the likes of Russia? (equally hypocritcally.) No wonder they want to suck up to Putin? Could Australia close down all of its coal/gas/oil fuelled power stations, and provide 100 per cent of its power needs from the sun and wind? Even if they covered the whole of Australia with wind farms, I doubt that. And what about the coal we sell to China to power their conventional power stations (one a week opened, I seem to recall reading somewhere?) Do we close down our mines, too? Isn't it also possible that science will find a way to make nuclear energy much safer? Sure the nuclear industry talks up its virtues, but then so do the solar and wind power industries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Exactly. Also cancer rates among workers is allegedly higher than the norm. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear plant and not sure who would. I would not want to live close to a nuclear power station either, but then again, I don't believe in the danger of climate change. In my opinion there are far greater threats to our way of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echidna66 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 No..Its actually cooling.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Exactly. Also cancer rates among workers is allegedly higher than the norm. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear plant and not sure who would. Yeah well i live near one and i am perfectly ok :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Mouth from the South? I am an infidel. I believe climate change will occur continually- hot, cold and in between and it has nothing to do with anything we do- or at least very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PityTheFool Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Global warming is a fact; the question should be 'do you think we should do anything to combat global warming?' Global warming has, or is being, accelerated by our actions, this is as a result of our evolution as human beings, you could argue trying to combat it is also part of our evolution as becoming educated about the effects we are having on our planet is leading us to want to change the path we have unknowingly chosen. Should we try and control such things, who knows? If we hadn't have burnt fossil fuels (etc) would the earth's temperatures have risen anyway but at a slower rate, who knows? How much time would we / have we bought by trying to educate ourselves, guess what...who knows!! If we evolve enough to change things so be it, but if the dinosaurs had done the same would we be here now?? Who are we to try and control the earth and it's future?!? (A brief glimpse inside my head... Don't feel sorry for me, I'm fine, it's my wife you should feel sorry for!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 As an earth scientist, I believe the earths climate "may" be changing, though it is very hard to say for certain due to lack of data. The problem is that the earths climate is old - over 3,000,000,000 years old. The oldest ice core data is only about 1.5 million years old. The majority of the data is from recorded weather patterns. Simply too young to establish the case against natural variability. At the same time, we know from the geological record that the earths climate changes a lot naturally and can even do so very quickly. The geological record indicates the earths normal state is much colder and we are currently in what we call an interglacial period. The problem is we have no real records of what the previous interglacial periods were like and how volatile they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibbs Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Just what we don't want for obvious health reasons and environmental dangers. Germany has decided to ditch theirs for said reasons. The nuclear industry has always been big talking it up though. And that's why Germany is going to have big issues with supplying power to it's industry. Green Energy Policy In Germany Beginning To Strangle The Economy Chancellor Angela Merkel’s abrupt exit from nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster in Japan and aggressive push into renewables has unnerved German industry. A recent overhaul of the country’s complex renewable energy law has done little to alleviate uncertainty over future policy or assuage fears about German energy competitiveness. “Energy intensive industries in particular have lost confidence in the future of Germany as a business location,” said Thomas Mayer, a former chief economist at Deutsche Bank. Reuters, 16 August 2014 and the Green lobby isn't happy she's speaking to an Industrial lobby group. Bit hypocritical. German Greens Frothing At The Gills The Green Party has criticised Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, for cancelling her attendance at the UN Climate Summit on 23 September in New York and accused her of giving preference to lobby interests. "Instead of fighting for global climate protection on the international stage, she rather goes to speak to the lobby group of German industry which is not known to be a haven of climate change activism," said the party's parliamentary deputy Oliver Krischer. Die Welt, 15 August 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.