Toggle sidebar

How we can stop global warming

Sort by date Sort by votes
Getting rid of a couple of trees this weekend. Stick them in the garden incinerator - means I can have the heating turned to 25 for a couple of hours as I'm kept warm by the fire outside.
Not planning on planting any new trees at the moment. Though will probably have some more garden rubbish to burn next weekend and the weekend after too.
Cutting the trees down then cutting them up then burning them takes time.
 
Upvote 0
At some level we are responsible but based on what I've been reading, the planet would have continued to get warmed even if we weren't around.

All this talk about electric cars fail to mention that carbon emissions through vehicles are barely 8% of the total vehicle emission. So yeah, there is widespread misinformation regarding this topic everywhere. I can't help but think that there are vested interests from some groups in this regard.

Also, given how clean, safe, cheap & scalable nuclear power is, I don't understand why green citizens would be weary of adopting it. Almost all arguments against its safety concerns have been trashed. It seems to be the only hope when for curbing heavy industry emissions
 
Upvote 0
Global warming is real. We can see how the weather is not as stable as it used to be. Everyone can play a vital part to help fight climate change.
 
Upvote 0
I cannot support causes where the general public's input is microscopic, compared to industry in some countries. The public shouting a lot does very little but annoy people who are not so, er, aligned. I wait for countries and Governments. Every single MP is equally aware of global issues. The difference is that they could do something, where I cannot.

I'm in favour of nuclear power (we have a dispute over one 30 miles away), I've resisted nuclear issues on power and weapons.

I don't do causes of any kind - so it doesn't matter if I support or am incensed by them.

I would NEVER go on a rally. On the news today, football fans were being accused of all sorts because when the players suddenly took the knee many people booed.

I suspect that instead of being racist, as the media suggested, they merely wanted to see some football. Maybe people simply are getting fed up at the constant requirement to show solidarity for something they don't actually see in their own lives. Everyone is required by law (almost) to constantly empathise for the issues of other people.

I don't do it. I don't personally approve of experiments on animals, but you won't find me on a march. I won't be walking about in front of bulldozers, no matter how terrible a building project is for the environment is, and the global warming people who can actually do something are the experts - I rather approve of landfill myself. Sure, not having the need for it would be wonderful, but it is getting better. So much packaging now has gone back to cardboard, instead of foam. Change IS happening. I cannot do anything more for climate change than tokenism. Hence why I choose in many cases to do nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucan Unlordly and DontAsk
Upvote 0
Joseph K said:
Global warming is real. We can see how the weather is not as stable as it used to be. Everyone can play a vital part to help fight climate change.
Click to expand...

Back when we had global cooling and the new ice age the weather was not stable then either.

The missionaries for global warming don't appear to be any better at telling the good news than other groups.
 
Upvote 0
Joseph K said:
Global warming is real. We can see how the weather is not as stable as it used to be. Everyone can play a vital part to help fight climate change.
Click to expand...

David Bellamy disagreed with you. As do many others. Global warming is just being touted as the big challenge since it offers new taxes, new industries, jobs etc. Since it was shown that the figures were deliberately skewed, the new preferred name is now climate change.

The Earths climate has always changed, the Sun has 99% more to do with it than man.
 
Upvote 0
MBE2017 said:
David Bellamy disagreed with you. As do many others. Global warming is just being touted as the big challenge since it offers new taxes, new industries, jobs etc. Since it was shown that the figures were deliberately skewed, the new preferred name is now climate change.

The Earths climate has always changed, the Sun has 99% more to do with it than man.
Click to expand...

Nothing against renewable energy, electric vehicles etc - just the benefits to the individual or business need to be sold better, need to be actually sold rather than people trying to argue others to their way of thinking.
And slapping 'green' onto something does not automatically make it superior to existing products and services.
 
Upvote 0
MBE2017 said:
The Earths climate has always changed, the Sun has 99% more to do with it than man.
Click to expand...

The rate of change is more the issue though.

I don't think pointing sticks at ordinary folk helps the cause. Being clipped around the ear for driving a petrol vehicle, when an electrical option is currently not suitable, does not make me very supportive.

There are issues in our oceans. Pollution, over fishing etc. Swapping plastic straws for paper ones isn't going to really impact that.

Also, how does all this stuff end up in the sea? Straws and bags etc? I put everything in the bin. So, why are they saying that my plastic use is impacting the ocean? I didn't put it in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gpietersz
Upvote 0
thetiger2015 said:
The rate of change is more the issue though.
Click to expand...

True, but we have very little data on the rate of change or the range of change until very recently. We cannot answer questions like what temperatures were like during the Roman and medevil warm periods, whether they were global or only occured in certain regions, what the range of temperatures was like over say, the millennium or two etc.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
@japancool I never said we had no data. I said we had limited data, and contested extrapolations from that data.

It is very different from recent data from recorded direct measurements - you can say "this was the temparature in central London on the 5th of August 1978" because someone measured it and recorded it.
 
Upvote 0
@japancool again, proxies do not give you the accuracy or coverage (in terms of locations) or the resolution (in terms of time or location) that instruments do. The 95% confidence interval in some places looks about as broad as the entire pre-instrumental measurement max to min range.

If you read the regional bits of the Medaevil warm period article there are a number of places that look like they were warmer than they were now. I do not know how that is reconcilled with the graph on the climate proxy page which suggests current temperatures are much higher, unless there were much larger regional variations.
 
Upvote 0
@japancool someone will always have an asnwer, but there is o definitive answer:

https://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period

"The notion of a medieval warm period is highly controversial. Many paleoclimatologists claim that well-documented evidence for the phenomenon appears across the North Atlantic region, while others maintain that the phenomenon was global, occurring all over the world. Still other scientists insist that their data do not show appreciable changes in average temperature anywhere over the course of the interval."
 
Upvote 0
atmosbob said:
You are wasting your time. Climate sceptics will grasp at anything to "prove" their arguments.
Click to expand...

Define the term "climate sceptic". Climate science is a mix of theories that range from the very well proven (e.g. that CO2 is a greehhouse gas) to the highly uncertain (predictions based on complex models that are poorly validated). Which particular bits of this does someone have to be sceptical about to qualify as a "climate scpetic".

The biggest problem here is with the common perception of science as received wisdom rather than process and methodology. Largely because most people learn science in schools as facts, devoid on any discussion of philosophy and methodoly, so they cannot distincguish between facts, less well proven theories and expert opinions.
 
Upvote 0
gpietersz said:
Define the term "climate sceptic". Climate science is a mix of theories that range from the very well proven (e.g. that CO2 is a greehhouse gas) to the highly uncertain (predictions based on complex models that are poorly validated). Which particular bits of this does someone have to be sceptical about to qualify as a "climate scpetic".

The biggest problem here is with the common perception of science as received wisdom rather than process and methodology. Largely because most people learn science in schools as facts, devoid on any discussion of philosophy and methodoly, so they cannot distincguish between facts, less well proven theories and expert opinions.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, given how you were confidently proclaiming that we didn't need to worry about Covid variants, I won't put my trust in your understanding of science.
 
Upvote 0
japancool said:
Yes, well, given how you were confidently proclaiming that we didn't need to worry about Covid variants, I won't put my trust in your understanding of science.
Click to expand...

I said the risk of vaccine escape covid variants was low, which has so far proved correct. Also, low risk is not the same as no risk.

Ad hominem attacks prove nothing. Even I I was wrong about something about covid it proves nothing. Most physicists agree that Einsteing was wrong about randomness, everyone agree Hoyle was wrong about a stready state universe. I am pretty sure both had a fairly good knowledge of science.

I clearly know a lot more science than most people around here, and a lot more about modelling.

atmosbob said:
You.
Click to expand...

Why? Anyone who disagrees with what you think?
 
Upvote 0
Global warming is just a symptom

The disease is a portion of the human race

Planet is gearing up to spit us all out
 
Upvote 0
Science can be as dogmatic as religion is within a reasonable period of time, quite often a generation or longer. There is a lot of consensus requirement to perform well in academia; from what I understand and have had relayed it is a bloody vicious world to anybody who thinks outside the box or dares question the prevailing narrative. Not what some expect it to be. And the outside box thinkers are often ridiculed before being proven right, sometimes posthumously. Thankfully they aren't killed or called heretics these days but careers can be extinguished for questioning the accepted narrative. A few brave souls are prepared to go against the received wisdom which is what ultimately pushes science forward, even if they are wrong it is absolutely essential work to constantly challenge a theory. Or it becomes dogma.

And before anyone comments, I am a radiochemist by education. I was only glad I left it behind to make money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InsuranceBroker
Upvote 0
Only people who can fix it realistically is Governments, who need to create laws and apply pressure to corporations. We need to really push Governments in any way we can!
 
Upvote 0
In covid, it’s follow the science, and laws and restrictions. In climate change the science is very shaky and data very shaky and contrary. Long term data is unreliable and because of the slow natural changes virtually impossible to assess. We had a year with no air travel, yet even the results of massive emission reductions did not produce results everyone can agree about. I suspect my view is simple. We should reduce emissions now to give our great great great great great grandchildren a few extra years as the Earth’s natural cycle repeats. Every little helps the future, but not in my lifetime. Will I fit solar panels and buy an electric car? No, not until I have to I am afraid. When the government ban diesel and petrol vehicles I’ll have to. There are of course lots of reasons I could use for keeping my diesel, but I started buying diesels because we were told they were better for the environment than petrol and fuel was cheaper and taxed less. Then the science changed and they’re now bad. God help us if the world was run by the Greta girl and her lot. We’d be living in tents wearing Hawaiian skirts.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back