I’m all for saving the earth and all that malarkey. I recycle bottles, separate the green bin for recycling, the brown bin for mulch stuff and black bin for crap. I dont smoke (does it count?) and generally wouldnt waste too much.
But is anyone else sick of the OTT reaction lately, and the ‘fad’ that has become to be eco friendly? Its the latest bandwagon to be on. Carbon footprints and all that stuff, dont fly, dont buy imported stuff blah blah blah.
But last night listening to Matt Cooper beat all. Eco Friendly funerals, because you dont want to upset the world when you are dead. Check this out - http://www.greenendings.co.uk/, and after a quick entry on google for green funerals, they arent the only ones at it.
Basically, they dont like cremation, because it uses fossil fuels, and anyway, bodies used always go back to the ground so this is most natural. No wooden coffins either, oh no, they arent forrested in eco friendly ways. So its paper mache or wicker woven coffins for you. A headstone? No way man, that is marble coming from China, think of the air miles that does. Hearse? Forget it! Carbon emmisons dude. No embalment either, think of the chemicals.
I just couldnt believe the crap coming out of your man going on about it. When Cooper asked him where they got the bamboo and he said China, he wouldnt answer Cooper when he compared it to the headstone. And then when the guy said it wouldnt cost much more than a normal funeral, Cooper said how could it when you are in a paper mache coffin?
As I said, I’m all for doing my small bit for the eco friendly brigade, but some things are just going too far and its become a real bandwagon fad for people to jump on and be their new project.
Heard that alright. Cooper should have pressed him more on the bamboo but he was running out of time as it was after six already. Pure nonsense it was though - there was no real meaning to it other than just a different way of profiteering from death.
The amount of money you could get by coming up with the latest “eco” friendly fad, maybe it’s time Ben Shermin comes out with a enviromentally friendly tracksuit or runners or some item of clothing!
It’s all a media fad by the way, first the OZone layer and now this, I wonder what the Fox News followers will be shiting themselves over in twenty years time. I’d say sewer gremlins, we’ll all have to put our shit in the brown bin instead of flushing it so that the sewer gremlins don’t rob our children over destroying their home with shite!
The face of the world changes. For Global Warming to exist on a grand scale as the opponent says, the planet would have to cease all tectonic movement, but because the plates move, then we get changes in climate, and this would cause what happens with weather, the quake that caused the tsunami in the east was powerful enough to shift the poles. All that’s happened is the poles have shifted and the point where the poles were are warmer than they were before the tsunami, also the glaciers would also have shifted but this factor was never considered.
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.
Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.
Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.
Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.
Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas – they are mostly water droplets – but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.
Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13m) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).
Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6m.
Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.
Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.
The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend – global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
Believe the lie, and pay extra for flights, extra tax on your petrol, and forget about heating your house in the winter etc. etc. Carbon Tax is just a fooking money making racket for governments.
Even if Global Warming is real, 40/50 years down the line the worlds oil supplies will be depleted and we will need the extra MEGA 2 degrees celcius change in temperature to power the planet via solar power. The problem will fix itself!
[quote=“BenShermin”]The face of the world changes. For Global Warming to exist on a grand scale as the opponent says, the planet would have to cease all tectonic movement, but because the plates move, then we get changes in climate, and this would cause what happens with weather, the quake that caused the tsunami in the east was powerful enough to shift the poles. All that’s happened is the poles have shifted and the point where the poles were are warmer than they were before the tsunami, also the glaciers would also have shifted but this factor was never considered.
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.
Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.
Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.
Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.
Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas – they are mostly water droplets – but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.
Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13m) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).
Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6m.
Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.
Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.
The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend – global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.[/quote]
Can you not do any better than a copy and paste job Ben?
You don’t understand most of that shite so think and argue for yourself instead of just spooning out what you’ve picked up from some contrary fuckers somewhere. Have a different opinion by all means but at least make it your own opinion.
I don’t know to be honest, but their UK daughter Sky News loves reporting on it.
The copy and past jobbie is from an E-mail one of my friends put together. It can be argued that you’ve copied and pasted your belief in global warming from what you’ve heard in the news, at school etc.
No I’ve formed my own opinion based on all the empirical evidence I have seen and heard over the course of my lifetime. You think it’s funny to have a different opinion so you got someone else to form it for you and you just copy their arguments and pretend they’re your own.
You can spout all the shite you want about clouds and water and rainfall but the truth is it’s all irrelevant. The climate is changing and the causes of that change are manmade. If you don’t agree with that then you’re disputing the work of the vast, vast majority of the world’s leading scientists. We’re not talking crackpots, or rogue, lone workers here. It’s the overwhelming belief of experts in this area that there is climate change and that it’s causes or manmade.
So what don’t you agree with (because your friend’s post is a bit rambling):
there is climate change
the climate change is occurring as a result of the actions of humanity
the climate change will be damaging to the environment
the climate change will be damaging to the economy
That’s BS, I never said they were my arguements in the first place and I’m not pretending their my own! I even fooking admited that I copied and pasted them.
You got your opinion by reading up on pro-global warming evidence therefore you are also getting somebody else to “form” your opinion for you.
Yeah but you’re still not able to make any reasonable counter-arguments. I’ve asked you what bit of accepted climate change wisdom do you not agree with and you’ve been unable to answer. All you’ve posted on this thread is innane shite like:
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
That’s not your own argument, you don’t even have the reconstructions. You’ve also said:
Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13m) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).
I’d wager you don’t even understand that but you still advance it as an argument to support your baseless theory.
I don’t just form my opinion by reading pro-global warming evidence. I form my opinion by reading about an awful lot of this stuff (some of that as research for a tv programme) and as a result I’ve come to an informed viewpoint. I’ve considered the views of experts and the divergent views and concluded that:
a- there is climate change taking place (irrefutable)
b- the climate change is man made (95% sure)
c- the climate change will have huge detrimental effects to the environment as we know it (irrefutable)
d- this will have disastrous economic consequences if it’s allowed to proceed unchecked (again I’d argue irrefutable if nothing is done).
You haven’t debated a single one of those points becuase you came up with some shite idea and you’re sticking to your guns. Last time we had this debate about all you brought to the argument was that the energy saving light bulbs contain dangerous chemicals. It’s scaremongering, it’s ridiculous, it’s a distortion of the facts and above all else it’s pure horseshit.
Back to Gmans OP albeit only for a few minutes has anybody recently booked a flight with British Airways or Easyjet. They actually give you the option to pay extra money on top of your flight to offset your cabon emissions. So that’s an extra 5gbp for each bag and sure I’ll rub salt into the extra charges wounds and pay an extra 2gbp for the gas while I’m at it. What’s next paying an extra €3 for a Sunday roast because the cow farted a few times.
