What on earth makes you so certain? The basic problem is that research funds for 'Climate Science' would dry up pretty fast if it were admitted that thee isn't a problem.This is an area I readily accept - I think manmade climate change is very real and is some thing we need to accept and seriously think about how we deal with it.
What on earth makes you so certain? The basic problem is that research funds for 'Climate Science' would dry up pretty fast if it were admitted that thee isn't a problem.
Of all the problems that the earth faces, I would put this one last!
If you want one good reason to doubt CAGW, look at Venus! Yes Venus, the planet that is supposed to demonstrate the consequences of a runaway greenhouse effect! The temperature at the surface of Venus is enough to melt lead, and its atmosphere is largely CO2 - so what could possibly be wrong?
Well here is a lot of temperature and pressure data collected by a US Magellan spacecraft:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
The flaw in the above argument, is that the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is over 92 times the pressure on the Earth's surface. If you follow the black lines on the temperature and pressure diagrams, you can see that the temperature of the atmosphere at i atmosphere pressure is 66 C. Certainly hotter than on Earth - but Venus is a lot closer to the Sun - but nowhere near hot enough to melt lead!
One of the fascinating things about our time, is that a lot of science has become corrupted. That, if you think about it, is why science handles subjects like NDE's in such a peculiar way - because it can't be honest with data.
David
Of course it is, and if our atmosphere was that thick, the temperature at the surface would be nearly as hot here! Haven't you ever noticed that it gets colder as you ascend a mountain, or if you go up in an aircraft!Yes, but the surface temperature is 500C, which is enough to melt lead.
They only started to call it 'Climate Change' out of desperation when the temperature predictions went all wrong. There is tons of money to be made out of Climate Change! For example, some large landowners in the UK charge exorbitant fees to allow wind energy to be generated on their moorland. Other people make money by chopping down trees in the US, shipping them to the UK so they can be burned instead of coal (the trees are called renewable carbon).Honestly, the fact that humans are causing climate change is pretty much settled, and the idea that there is some conspiracy to promote to make money it is laughable.
The energy companies are doing just fine! If they are told to sell a deluxe product to people they do, and roughly speaking they take the same percentage cut - which is obviously greater in magnitude!The profit made in muddying the waters is far greater. Fossil Fuel companies have a vested interest in the consumption of petroleum and gas supplies where they rake in hundred of billions of dollars a year. What exactly does one get from saying the AGW is real?
Assuming profits are made under any model of energy supply, what are the specific downsides of a more sustainable, renewable supply with reduced emissions? I can't see much that outweighs the benefits/positives.Of course it is, and if our atmosphere was that thick, the temperature at the surface would be nearly as hot here! Haven't you ever noticed that it gets colder as you ascend a mountain, or if you go up in an aircraft!
They only started to call it 'Climate Change' out of desperation when the temperature predictions went all wrong. There is tons of money to be made out of Climate Change! For example, some large landowners in the UK charge exorbitant fees to allow wind energy to be generated on their moorland. Other people make money by chopping down trees in the US, shipping them to the UK so they can be burned instead of coal (the trees are called renewable carbon).
The energy companies are doing just fine! If they are told to sell a deluxe product to people they do, and roughly speaking they take the same percentage cut - which is obviously greater in magnitude!
People are so blind to this con!
David
Assuming profits are made under any model of energy supply, what are the specific downsides of a more sustainable, renewable supply with reduced emissions? I can't see much that outweighs the benefits/positives.
1) They turn out to be pretty expensive.Assuming profits are made under any model of energy supply, what are the specific downsides of a more sustainable, renewable supply with reduced emissions? I can't see much that outweighs the benefits/positives.
So... some problems, but a worthwhile goal, no?1) They turn out to be pretty expensive.
2) They are intermittent - so for example wind power has to be backed up by a gas power station already idling - just in case the wind drops.
3) Many of the schemes are environmentally very unfriendly - they kill birds, trees get chopped down to burn, etc!
4) They help industrialise our wild places - moorland, etc.
Other than that, probably nothing much!
David
So... some problems, but a worthwhile goal, no?
So... some problems, but a worthwhile goal, no?
The biggest problem is to disentangle the (very gentle) warming coming from CO2 from the gentle warming coming from the rebound from the last ice age. People knew about a gentle warming trend for a long time before CAGW came along, and nobody worried - indeed they worried about the potential for another ice age! We know this will eventually happen, and when it does it will be devastating.To get a bit more serious, like most things I haven't looked into I don't know the extent of man made climate change. Instinct, and some brief glances at the data, make me feel it's real but I can no more argue the case for/against than I can with Intelligent Design.
It does seem caution would suggest some measures should be taken, though the degree of such measures would depend on economic impact and other considerations.
The biggest problem is to disentangle the (very gentle) warming coming from CO2 from the gentle warming coming from the rebound from the last ice age. People knew about a gentle warming trend for a long time before CAGW came along, and nobody worried - indeed they worried about the potential for another ice age! We know this will eventually happen, and when it does it will be devastating.
Leaving aside CAGW, CO2 isn't a pollutant - it makes plants grow better - indeed it is essential for life on earth!
I am not anti-green in general, but I think the movement has been diverted into an obsession about something that doesn't matter, at the expense of all the things that really do matter!
Chopping trees down in the US, transporting then to the UK, and burning them in power stations simply isn't green by my definition of things!
David
Honestly, that is now what happens in the UK, we stopped mining coal, and to comply with EU rules we now import wood to burn - if we didn't, the lights would go out in the winter! I'd much rather we reverted to coal because that would be a much greener solution!I've also never heard any green proponents talk about burning wood as a solution. Most people think we need to reduce consumption and move to wind, solar, tidal etc.
To get a bit more serious, like most things I haven't looked into I don't know the extent of man made climate change. Instinct, and some brief glances at the data, make me feel it's real but I can no more argue the case for/against than I can with Intelligent Design.
It does seem caution would suggest some measures should be taken, though the degree of such measures would depend on economic impact and other considerations.
I'd give up if I were you, David. There's no convincing some people just how iniquitous and, paradoxically, environmentally damaging the AGW farrago is. We seemingly can't do without our apocalyptic myths that somehow always have their roots in our simply being here and improving our lives. The solution? Stop anyone else improving their lives. It could be viewed as part of a subliminal agenda in eugenics. If only all those nasty poor people in India and elsewhere (even in our own countries) would resist the temptation to use up precious resources and continue dying in droves, then we could be happy and feel unthreatened.
Luckily, the Indians aren't stupid and whatever we do, however much we whine, they're determined to bring themselves into modernity. The populations of North America and Europe combined are less than that of India, or China for that matter, and we're just pissing in the wind, wallowing in self-indulgent guilt. As you say, there are genuine environmental issues, but they're being turned a blind eye to in cases where it suits the great god of AGW (which is the public face of something else: Marxism).
We seem doomed to get ourselves into situations where best intentions turn out to produce tragic outcomes; where we spend billions chasing illusionary rainbows, when less money would achieve really useful ends. I don't know, sometimes I despair.