How we can stop global warming

[Devvert]

how does the global warming is going to affect our planet? What can we do about it? Is it as real as people say it is?

 

[wecandobiz]

Yes, it's real. It's been warming up since the Ice Age ended. What I don't believe is real is that Man has any significant impact on it.

Don't get me wrong, we should reduce our affect on the environment as much as we possibly can, in all ways. Living sustainably is common sense and our gross consumerism goes against all we know is good and wise. But believing we have made a big impact and we can change it back, focusing on very specific pollutants (CO2) rather than them all, and using it all as an excuse to tax us is stupid in the extreme.

The recent recession and lack of security has made us less willing to pay more for so-called "green" products while, ironically, reducing our comsumption in many cases.

 

[skiesnpies]

WebCanDoBiz, be interested to know which bits of the evidence on climate change being man made, you have issue with and what your alternative explanations are?

 

[wecandobiz]

WebCanDoBiz, be interested to know which bits of the evidence on climate change being man made, you have issue with and what your alternative explanations are?

All of it. I've never seen anything that someone else couldn't explain. Not all scientists agree on this, it's just that the doubters get shouted down.

And my explanation for the climate changing is "that's what it does". It's how I can live on the side of a hill in Buckinghamshire without getting squashed by a glacier.

Global warming will end up being just as exagerated as the threat to civilsation from AIDS, H5N1, the constant tsunamis that were forecast after the Boxing Day incident and a whole load of other tosh that scientists have warned us about but have shown to have been a complete over reaction.

I am not sure whether to blame the scientific community, the Daily Mail or politicians for believing and then setting policies around the heresay of both.

 

[skiesnpies]

"Not all scientists agree on this" - nope, but the % that do is in the high nineties. A fact the media for some reason seldom report.

Of course climate changes and would change with or without us, but CO2 levels have rocketed in recent years, its an insulating gas, and climate measurements show unprecedented increases in average global temperatures. As far as I can see, this is a fairly established fact, not a theory.

Just because one scientist can try and explain away something, doesn't make the other 99 scientists wrong. And of course, the 99 could be wrong, but less likely you would think. Perhaps they get shouted down because the can't provide the evidence to back it up (I have yet to see anything other than odd anomalies - and odd anomalies occur all the time by chance and can be expected in any research results).
JJ

PS. Some countries have > 25% of working adults infected with HIV (with little chance of reliable drug treatment). I would say thats quite a problem (nobody ever claimed it was a threat to civilisation as far as I am aware).

 

[wecandobiz]

I'm not getting drawn into yet another debate on this. I'm not going to argue that CO2 levels haven't increased even. I just don't get why CO2 seems to be all that matters, as if all other pollutants are just no longer relevant. Or perhaps the rest just aren't increasing in a way that suits the argument.

Whetever. It's our responsibility to reduce our OVERALL effect on the environment. I'll continue to do that by not taking needless trips, rampant consumerisim, not buying things with excessive packaging so I don't need to recycle and the like and not caring one jot about my CO2 levels.

 

[Merchant UK]

Remember the good old days where taxes were bought in to prevent the ozone layer hole from getting bigger and that we all were going to die of radiation that didn't happen in the end, so they had to come up with another horror story to tax us to the hilt again.

Yes Global Warming!! We're all going to die (After spending billions on taxes) oh well in a few years time, when we're all still here, it'll be something else........ I say they should bring back hanging for those people that leave their dustbin lids open by 25mm, a £1000 fine and a criminal record is not enough, even worst what about those families that put their rubbish out a day early The horrors are too graphic to even try to explain.

Its the end of the world

 

[skiesnpies]

Taxes to prevent ozone layer? There were no taxes? Nobody said we were going to die of radiation either? You should stop reading the Daily Mail mate

 

[skiesnpies]

As for "I'm not getting drawn into yet another debate on this" - as far as I can see, nobody on the denial side ever does, I have yet to see a convincing scientific argument which uses more than a single dataset, has been peer reviewed and has been repeated with the same results being show (ie. it has been done SCIENTIFICALLY).

There are loads of reasons why it may suit some people to deny climate change exists or claim it is not man made, there are plenty of vested interests. Of course there are also a few on the other side that could be accused of having good reason to promote it (renewable energy suppliers etc etc), but I am constantly baffled as to why people accuse governments of having made it up - usually stating that its an excuse to raise taxes!
To me, climate change is the absolute WORST nightmare for a government - it is a huge threat to the economy (although could be somewhat reduced if treated as a way to stimulate growth as is starting to happen). Also, taxation is hugely unpopular with voters, why invent something which means increasing tax?
Tax's on climate change haven't even STARTED to kick in yet anyway, there are not that many. Road tax has gone DOWN if you have an efficient car, airline travel taxes are high now, but that only balances the fact that the fuel is tax free in the first place. Many eco taxes (CCL for example) were totally revenue neutral.

Its hard to have any kind of sensible conversation about this when those taking the opposing argument fail to provide any facts or evidence, but when people post unsubstantiated claims, I feel somebody needs to point out the flaws given the media's reluctance to cover things accurately.

 

[Merchant UK]

I feel somebody needs to point out the flaws given the media's reluctance to cover things accurately.

As well as the Climate change proffessionals who were also caught out lying and sexing up the figures

You should stop reading the Daily Mail mate

Was it in there too was it???

 

[skiesnpies]

As well as the Climate change proffessionals who were also caught out lying and sexing up the figures

LOL, if you actually look into it in depth though, even that was blown out of proportion, it was a non-story that was clung to in a way that would make any limpet very proud

 

[Digger]

Just thinking on my feet...not an exhaustive list by any means

Eat less Beef
ABSOLUTELY NO air travel
Ships should have Sails, nothing else.
No cars AT ALL
No central Leccy..unless from millions of windmills and sunny panels
And MOST importantly....STOP BREEDING!!!!

just for staters like..........I mean...it's really urgent isn't it...we should of like stopped breeding years ago.!!!!

 

[skiesnpies]

And MOST importantly....STOP BREEDING!!!!
!

Just rumbled the wifes policy in the bedroom, its environmental concerns :|

 

[Digger]

tell her to eat less sprouts

 

[sarky]

As for "I'm not getting drawn into yet another debate on this" - as far as I can see, nobody on the denial side ever does, I have yet to see a convincing scientific argument which uses more than a single dataset, has been peer reviewed and has been repeated with the same results being show (ie. it has been done SCIENTIFICALLY).

There are loads of reasons why it may suit some people to deny climate change exists or claim it is not man made, there are plenty of vested interests.

If you reversed your comments to the sceptical side of the argument they would apply equally. I've not seen any scientific proof that global warming (or climate change as we have to call it now to avoid the 'problem/blip' of recent global cooling) is convincing either.

There are loads of environmental scientists and Marxists who have a vested interest in promoting this type of issue. 'Globalization is bad; small self-sufficient collectives are good. No one makes a profit, we're all equally as miserable.' 'I'm a scientist, only I know the truth 'cos I did a 3-year course in East Anglia.'

My feeling is that the climate is changing but by how much and why is not clear. I've read some convincing stuff that it is methane which is more of a problem than carbon dioxide in causing temperature variations.

In any case, the cooling effects of the soot and dust from burning fossil fuels will hopefully cancel out the warming effects of carbon dioxide!

When I was a kid we worried about nuclear winters - now that would really be climate change.

 

[Merchant UK]

Global Warming is a dramatically urgent and serious problem. We don't need to wait for governments to find a solution for this problem: each individual can bring an important help adopting a more responsible lifestyle: starting from little, everyday things. It's the only reasonable way to save our planet, before it is too late.

I think people given the change would simply love to save the planet, what puts people off is that the government see that we like this and decide to tax us like crazy.

Take wind turbines, Each costs 3 million and now there are doubts that they are effective, silly thing is when its working they only are a percentage effective at generating electricity and we pratically need hundreds to even make it worthwhile.

So 3 million of taxpayers money goes as a grant to a foreign engery supplier like EDF, who inturn charge us one of the highest electicity price tarriffs in europe for power from a wind turbine which effectively the taxpayers own. They make Millions in profit, we pay Hundreds more each year for our engery, and thats why people hate the very concept of Global Warming.

Britain’s wind farms almost ground to a halt during the coldest spells in December, it has emerged.

As temperatures plunged below zero and demand for electricity soared, figures reveal that most of the country’s 3,000 wind turbines were virtually still, energy experts say.


During some of the chilliest weather, they were working at less than one-hundredth of capacity, producing electricity for fewer than 30,000 homes.

The National Grid was forced to compensate for the still, cold conditions by cranking up conventional coal and gas-fired power stations.

December was the coldest month in more than a century – and yesterday, as some in northern England, the Midlands and Wales were hit with more snow, residents will have been switching on the heating again. But critics have warned that the UK is becoming too dependent on wind for power.

There are 3,153 working turbines in 283 wind farms across the UK, capable of generating more than 5.2 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power almost three million homes, the wind industry says.

 

[skiesnpies]

Take wind turbines, Each costs 3 million and now there are doubts that they are effective,

Hang on, the reason PRIVATE investors are putting wind turbines up is that they ARE effective - exactly what criteria are you using to state they are ineffective?

So 3 million of taxpayers money goes as a grant to a foreign engery supplier like EDF.

As far as I know, there are NO grants for putting up large scale wind turbines. Business is funding them because they pay for themselves. Can you explain where your 3 million pound grant for the cost of a single wind turbine has come from?

 

[Digger]

"exactly what criteria are you using to state they are ineffective?"

...er...the fact they they stopped turning? that would be one.

like those dopey road signs that are springing up - seems like 1/2 the time their default condition...is OFF/BLANKETY BLANK/ZERO/NADA.

So utterly utterly pointless...not to mention down right dangerous!!!

 

[skiesnpies]

"
...er...the fact they they stopped turning? that would be one.

Thats the same crazy logic as "it is cold today therefore there is no global warming"

 

[AdamJ]

I occupy some middle ground on this in that I don't really care. I have a sneaky feeling a lot of others also have the same position on this but you normally get the more hysterical element shouting that 'you must care' rather than just accepting not everyone gives it the same weight.

Whether it is man-made or natural, or even ocurring, is just not something I give a huge amount of importance or weight to. Common sense says try and use less stuff and do less harm. I don't have, nor ever want to have, kids (and given I'm 40+ that's pretty much a given now), and as having kids is the most environentally damaging thing anyone can do I consider it a free pass to the world of 4x4s and as many flights as I want, and I still won't do as much damage as some eco-beardy with a kid or two.

 

[Digger]

Thats the same crazy logic as "it is cold today therefore there is no global warming"

Not crazy logic at all

not turning = no leccy
100% NAILED ON FACT

High Demand ( cold weather ) + no leccy = Y

where Y = INEFFECTIVE

 

[Merchant UK]

Hang on, the reason PRIVATE investors are putting wind turbines up is that they ARE effective - exactly what criteria are you using to state they are ineffective?


As far as I know, there are NO grants for putting up large scale wind turbines. Business is funding them because they pay for themselves. Can you explain where your 3 million pound grant for the cost of a single wind turbine has come from?

Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents major companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers in the steel, glass, pottery, paper and chemical industries, said the failure of wind power had profound implications.


He was speaking after new figures showed that during the latest cold snap wind turbines produced less than two per cent of the nation’s electricity.

Now Mr Nicholson predicts that the Government will encourage power companies to build billions of pounds worth of standby power stations in case of further prolonged wind failures.

And the cost of the standby generation will be paid for by industry and households through higher bills – which could double by 2020.
Industry regulator Ofgem has already calculated that the cost of achieving sustainable energy targets – set by Brussels but backed by the British Government – will amount to £200 billion, which will mean that annual household fuel bills will double to about £2,400 on average within the next ten years.

In the last quarter ending December 23, wind turbines produced on average 8.6 per cent of our electricity, but the moment the latest bad weather arrived with snow and freezing temperatures, this figure fell to as low as 1.8 per cent.
The slack was immediately taken up by efficient, but dirty, coal-fired power stations and oil-fired plants.
‘What is so worrying is that these sort of figures are not a one off,’ said Mr Nicholson. ‘It was exactly the same last January and February when high pressure brought freezing cold temperatures, snow and no wind.’
In fact last year, the failure of wind power to produce electricity was even more profound.
Then, over a few days, the lack of wind meant that only 0.2 per cent of a possible five per cent of the UK’s energy was generated by wind turbines.
So little energy was generated then that the National Grid, which is responsible for balancing supply and demand of energy in the UK, was forced to ask its biggest users – industry – to ration supplies.

Mr Nicholson said:

‘We can cope at the moment because there is still not that much power generated from wind. But all this will change. What happens when we are dependent on wind turbines for 30 per cent of our power and there is suddenly a period when the wind does not blow and there is high demand?
‘We will be forced to switch off the gas and it could even lead to power cuts.’
The Government is aware of the dangers of relying on intermittent power sources and is working on plans to encourage energy companies through financial inducements to have stand-by generation.

 

[sarky]

Hang on, the reason PRIVATE investors are putting wind turbines up is that they ARE effective - exactly what criteria are you using to state they are ineffective?


As far as I know, there are NO grants for putting up large scale wind turbines. Business is funding them because they pay for themselves.

Please use Google and search: wind turbine subsidies site:UK

You can see that we are paying these investors to put up turbines. This kind of reminds me of my town (this is a bit of a metaphysical argument, so bear with me): we have six bus companies in a town of 50,000 with bus stops every 400 yards. The buses, except for peak periods, are empty. Are these bus companies doing so well they can afford to provide such an outstanding service? No: it's the £7m they get per year from the county council. The fares are irrelevant.

So, what I'm trying to say is that where there is a fat subsidy, there'll be someone ready to take it. The subsidy is important, the money for the electricity they generate is less so.

 

[skiesnpies]

Not crazy logic at all

not turning = no leccy
100% NAILED ON FACT

High Demand ( cold weather ) + no leccy = Y

where Y = INEFFECTIVE

Well, lets use your [HUGE FAIL] logic then if you really insist - I have just been on a bike ride in the last hour and there was a turbine spinning merrily around so you are quite clearly and categorically wrong by your own measures. This is so utterly dumb I can't believe I am bothering to respond but ho-hum......

 

[skiesnpies]

He was speaking after new figures showed that during the latest cold snap wind turbines produced less than two per cent of the nation’s electricity.

Again, this logic is so flawed my cat could see through it - ie. write off the whole technology by looking at one short period when it wasn't windy. I am amazed more people are not insulted by this patronising drivel never mind believing it.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

I wouldn't mind it being a little warmer in East Sussex today.That wind is bitter.My dog,usually very keen to smell every rabbit squirrel and fox track that has been through my field, ran actually ran back into the house.

 

[AdamJ]

Again, this logic is so flawed my cat could see through it - ie. write off the whole technology by looking at one short period when it wasn't windy. I am amazed more people are not insulted by this patronising drivel never mind believing it.

And the 'believers' wonder why the message seems to have stalled in the general public's consciousness...

It was quite widely reported that when the UK gets really cold spells such as in December 2010, not just when it's 'a bit nippy', that it is frequently associated with a lull in winds and the low-pressure causing the unusually cold period stalls over the UK rendering wind turbines mostly ineffective just at a time of peak electricity demand, which is what happened during the prolonged cold in December.

Even even I as someone who's couldn't give a monkeys about it managed to glean that much from the news. Maybe more research, less mindless insulting and more reasonable debating may bring people to your point of view? At the moment you just read like a bit of a web-nutter common to forums the web-over.

 

[Digger]

Well, lets use your [HUGE FAIL] logic then if you really insist - I have just been on a bike ride in the last hour and there was a turbine spinning merrily around so you are quite clearly and categorically wrong by your own measures. This is so utterly dumb I can't believe I am bothering to respond but ho-hum......

No...my "logic" stands up very well as it happens.

What part of "not turning" is hard to decipher?

 

[skiesnpies]

Since when do wind turbines have to turn every minute of every day to be effective? I simply don't get that you don't understand the idea of averages?
Clearly they have down time and so need to be part of a balance of solutions, but that doesn't render the technology in some way useless? That is patently nonsense. Its like claiming cars are useless because you see some parked ones?

As for the subsidy, this is also laughable - how do you think the coal fire power stations and most definitely the nuclear ones got built - and why do you think that now that they are privatised - nobody is volunteering to build some new ones? They were hugely subsidised - so does that make them a non-viable technology ?

 

[Digger]

"Its like claiming cars are useless because you see some parked ones?"

nothing like that at all - the cars PRIMARY purpose is Transportation - when it is parked, it is normally as a result of having achieved this....and therefore fully effective.

An "energy source" that bails out when it is needed most- is - on balance - karp.

clearly a wind up

 

[skiesnpies]

there are really too many trolls in these forums I think, gotten a bit boring.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

Oh right,so as people have the temerity to disagree with you they are trolls?

 

[An Oasis]

No one really knows, nor can anyone really prove whether it's a natural cycle or manmade or even a combination of the two.

Personally, I believe that mankind should get off its selfish arse and take more responsibility for what we do. But no matter who you talk to on the subject they will all have a selfish agenda, usually revolving around money.

So how about the old adage that prevention is better than cure? You'll find that nature does things a lot more efficiently than mankind and without many side effects.

It's difficult to find a website that is not horribly preachy on the subject but this one is better than most. When you have a few minutes have a read and see if it makes sense to you, if it does throw the idea at other people and see if it makes sense to them.

 

[marcuz88]

Save as much paper as we could.. We are one of the largest consumer of papers..

 

[marcuz88]

But the fact is, we cannot stop global warming.. all we can do is to slow it down..

too sad, I just hope that this 2012 things is a lie..

 

[skiesnpies]

Oh right,so as people have the temerity to disagree with you they are trolls?

Not at all. People who make sweeping statements (repeatedly) with no explanation / evidence and disregard other evidence placed in front of them without any counter argument - are trolls.
I love a good debate, its hard to debate somebody who won't engage with science and evidence - its a bit like debating the existence of god when somebody says "I know he exists because I can feel it" - you can't really go far from that point and it gets a bit boring to try.

 

[skiesnpies]

Personally, I believe that mankind should get off its selfish arse and take more responsibility for what we do. But no matter who you talk to on the subject they will all have a selfish agenda, usually revolving around money.

I totally agree with this point, even if you refuse to engage in the climate change issue, oil IS finite, coal IS finite, natural gas IS finite (although replacements can be made with biodigesters). However much oil we discover , it will still run out one day and we are wasting stacks of it. To me, this is reason alone to get uncoupled from the stuff - causes more wars and trouble, be nice to be independent of it.
Also, we are living well beyond our means as a species - climate change or otherwise, the earth can't support our standard of living as we currently live with the level of population. Sustainable development is the only long term solution.

No one really knows, nor can anyone really prove whether it’s a natural cycle or manmade or even a combination of the two.

I am not sure I entirely agree here though. Nobody really knows or can prove that evolution exists, it just looks pretty damn likely. We assume that it is correct in the absence of a better theory (except for a few nutters with a non-science religious agenda). I agree that the climate change evidence is far from clear cut, but there is a fairly heavy consensus among scientists.

 

[garytulley]

I've been thinking about the effects of global warming for some time now. Although the natual cycle is taking place, the changes that have happened in the last 100 years would normally take 1,000s of years without human intevention. You only have to look at the coral reefs to see the effect it is having on our eco systems.

Alot of people seem to think that a tiny little change wont make a difference but when you multiply that change by the amount of people on the planet, that number is no longer small.

When you look at a picture, is it all one colour? Or is it made up of thousands of tiny dots?

For those that are interested I've posted a video I made about global warming. Maybe some of you out there will appreciate it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3kSoUBfcuY

 

[iArtist]

I was up until very recently a climate change skeptic, but after much debate I've had a bit of a turn-about, anyway I am now doing my bit to help raise awareness re the various issues.

 

[Merchant UK]

Global warming happens because humans are on the planet with tiny brains for not seeing what it really is A Cash Cow for the Government.

If we were really concerned about Global warming we'd stop ships using bunker fuel, Do a google and you'll see what that is, Its one of the worst, dirtiest fuels known to man and burn by Ships worldwide, That pollutes the planet more than all the cars in the world alone.

Flying - Why don't we charge the airline more for their fuel, tuff luck that you can't afford then to go on holiday, its saving the planet or 2 weeks in spain??

Large ocean going ships, including cruise ships, release more sulfur dioxide than all land transportation combined states a recent report from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). ICCT further reports that in 2005, ships produced 27% of the world's total nitrogen-oxide emissions, which contribute to smog and global warming

Get USA, Russia China and India on board, without them helping to cut CO2 its pointless anyone even trying, let alone using it as an excuse to tax us even more

Its like being on a boat thats skinking, and yet you try and rent it out for fishing?? Bit pointless really.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2438.html