the great global warming swindle

[Paul Chapman]

smog was the great killer in the 50's, and that used to block out the sun, so we had the clean air act. did anyone ever check what impact it really had?? :twisted:

Has anyone else noticed that when we had filthy air hardly anyone suffered from hayfever. Ever since the clean air act everyone seems to have it :shock: Is there a link :?: I think we need to be told :shock: :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Anonymous]

snip
why there have been very few verifiable experiments to see what happen in laboratory conditions when you change the atmospheric make up.

The experiments were done in the 19C showing the greenhouse effect of certain gasses. It's all there on the net if you search

snip
in the late 60's and early 70's we saw the threat of global cooling, whatever happened to that?????

Actually global cooling and a new ice age was presumed to be the countervailing factor which might prevent global warming. Unfortunately it wasn't to be.

snip
i have always wondered how anyone can think it good for you to burn the residues of a dead plant that was covered in fertiliser, and then draw that smoke through a plastic filter. have you ever burnt a filter, boy that is scary. :roll:

So organic tobacco in unfiltered cigarettes is harmless! That's amazing, how come the *** companies didn't know this - you could make a fortune Paul :lol:

cheers
Jacob

 

[MrJay]

Has anyone else noticed that when we had filthy air hardly anyone suffered from hayfever. Ever since the clean air act everyone seems to have it. Is there a link? I think we need to be told

Are you suggesting a global pollen conspiracy, or did you mean asthma?

 

[Nick W]

gee jacob, you are right, but does kind of prove the point that nick makes.

Don't misunderstand me please. The only point I was making was that your assumption that small input = small output does not necessarily hold. I was not making a statement of support of either side of this discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

smog was the great killer in the 50's, and that used to block out the sun, so we had the clean air act. did anyone ever check what impact it really had?? :twisted:

Has anyone else noticed that when we had filthy air hardly anyone suffered from hayfever. Ever since the clean air act everyone seems to have it :shock: Is there a link :?: I think we need to be told :shock: :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

What I've noticed is that since the Clean Air Act my hair has been thinning and now I'm nearly bald!
A great international conspiracy of trichologists. 8)
Bring back the smog I say. I wonder if my curls would grow back?

cheers
Jacob

 

[Paul Chapman]

Has anyone else noticed that when we had filthy air hardly anyone suffered from hayfever. Ever since the clean air act everyone seems to have it. Is there a link? I think we need to be told

Are you suggesting a global pollen conspiracy, or did you mean asthma?

I wasn't suggesting anything in particular, just stating my observations. I was born in 1945 so I grew up in the days of filthy air. Up until the 1960s, when the clean air act was introduced, my observations were that only a handful of the people I knew suffered from hayfever. However, since then I have observed that an ever-increasing number of people suffer from it. I've often wondered if there was a link - something simple like everything being smothered in a layer of soot (as it was in the old days) which possibly kept the pollen down.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[engineer one]

no jacob i am not saying that organic cigs are pure only that there was a cancer scare, they changed the design and cancer did not change in fact it increased.. :?

as for your comments about the scientists.
1/ i am always interested that people say " he is eccentric and sponsored by the oil companies so his view can be ignored" surely the oil companies have an interest in staying in business and most people think that eventually the oil as we know it will run out. then what do they do??
so it is a little silly to say because someone is supported by an oil company their view is less acceptable than that of someone who is supported by a battery company for instance.
2/ according to Isaac Newton, all matter is within the earth, and if the carbon that cows produce is actually already in their food, then how is the corollary that cars produce "extra" carbon, since the product comes from a previous carbon input :roll:
3/galileo stated the earth was round and nearly got killed by the catholic church, however the chinese astronomers and astrologers had been using the roundness of the earth for centuries before it became an accepted fact in the west. so what was galileo ???

4/ einstein is generally accepted as the outstanding scientist of the 20th century, but for years his work was demeaned and called false and untrue.
later the "great and good" said that setting off atom bombs would
de-stabilise the earth but that hasn't happened either.

5/go back 170 years and at a parliamentary committee George Stephenson was told that railways could not work because above 25 miles per hour, the human could not breath .
wonder what happened to that theory???? not least since i have ridden a motor bike at over 175 mph and not died because of lack of oxygen

6/ about david bellamy, i agree he is not a climatologist, but as a botanist his view point is as valid since he studies the evolution of plants flora and fauna. since he has questioned the actual impact of so called warming, he has got less and less media work. "why are opposing views not allowed"

7/ as for internet, i asked my doctor about a treatment he was suggesting for my heart, and said that i had seen it on the web. his answer was "be careful" the research is so fast moved that often the information there is out of date and designed to scare, not to inform and promote.
sure something is happening, but global warming who can be sure???

without doubt we will all have diverse views, but until the so called science makes sense i will question being forced to accept unproved theories.

maybe i am wacky, but in the old days we were called eccentrics and respected, because we questioned things, these days we have to be politically correct and not question what we are drip fed by people with their own agendas. :twisted:

paul :wink:

 

[MrJay]

1. Sure, the scientific arguments should be considered on their own merits. Being funded by private industry or government body or university doesn't necessarily produce bad science. Funding is a fact of life; and if you want to earn a living as a research scientist a rather happy one.

2. We can agree that the quantity of elements is fixed, however their location is not. Crucially for the argument supporting man made climate change is the quantity of carbon actively in the carbon cycle. Cows, oceans and plants do not produce carbon, they process it - carbon goes in, carbon comes out. Fossil fuels contain carbon not currently in the carbon cycle - the process of fossilisation takes carbon out of the carbon cycle and stores it in the earth's geology. Burning fossil fuels releases that carbon back into the carbon cycle. We burn fossil fuels at a faster rate than fossilisation takes the carbon out of the carbon system, so the net quantity of carbon actively in the carbon cycle increases.

3. Galileo was a banana.

4. Association fallacy.

5. Association fallacy.

6. David Bellamy's arguments about climate change have been flat out demonstrably pants. But I take your point, Bjorn Lomborg's book was god awful, but the point he was trying to make was interesting and his detractors were wrong to lambast him so.

7. How can we ever know anything? Normally how it works is we amass an ever growing body evidence and test it to see if the wheels fall off. Which brings us to the point about proof. Proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. There is no proof that gravity works, only a substantial body of supporting evidence.

 

[engineer one]

so we are moving together in some ways

i think however it is not good practice to look at the past and think
this was an accepted fact, and now we know it not to be true. should we consider other so called evidence in such a way??

but another point to the melting point.

hydrogen power is promoted as one of the "cure-alls", but consider this.
in most cases, the hydrogen is produced from water, and technically, the end product is extra oxygen. but of more interest is the fact that many would say that the next great war will be fought over water or the lack of it. but how do we replace water when we are expending it to produce hydrogen for motive power???? :roll:

there are no simple answers, only simple questions :twisted: :roll:


paul :wink:

 

[Nick W]

hydrogen power is promoted as one of the "cure-alls", but consider this.
in most cases, the hydrogen is produced from water, and technically, the end product is extra oxygen. but of more interest is the fact that many would say that the next great war will be fought over water or the lack of it. but how do we replace water when we are expending it to produce hydrogen for motive power????

And as soon as you burn the hydrogen (to produce motive power), it combines with oxygen to produce ....... water - oh my god, now that's a surprise, not.

The energy that you get out of this burning process is 'supplied' at the time that water is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen via electrolysis. If you do this using electricity supplied by fossil fuel burning power stations then the end effect is the same - you can choose to burn the fossil fuel in a power station or in your car but you still pump carbon from a 'locked up' geological source into the air. Hydrogen is just an energy dense substance that you can (with the necessary precautions) carry around, like petrol and diesel.

The real benefits only come if the hydrogen is produced by some non fossil fuel method, be that wind power, tidal power, atomic power, or collecting and burning cow fart.

At the risk of getting personal, if you don't already know and understand this, how can you justify calling yourself Engineer? You're giving real Engineers (those with at least a first degree in the subject) a bad name.

Oh, and there are some simple answers, you just don't seem to know them.

 

[Anonymous]

Good site here; http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278

There are simple answers - it's a single issue problem: fossil fuel, the answer: stop using it.

cheers
Jacob

 

[andycktm]

Nick, there was once a progam on ch4 called equinox i believe .Anyway it showed you a man who found a way to extract hydrogen from water for pennys and the bloke got death threats :shock: Also another person created a machine that gave out more energy than you put in :shock: something like 110 % efficient.I don't know it's it's poss or was true.One thing i am sure of though is until the need for greed or competition to be excessively whealthy is gone things won't get any better.
Europe is going green :roll: yet funding China to polute the world :evil:

 

[Anonymous]

Nick, there was once a progam on ch4 called equinox i believe .Anyway it showed you a man who found a way to extract hydrogen from water for pennys and the bloke got death threats :shock: Also another person created a machine that gave out more energy than you put in :shock: something like 110 % efficient.I don't know it's it's poss or was true.

Don't worry - not poss, not true.

One thing i am sure of though is until the need for greed or competition to be excessively whealthy is gone things won't get any better.
Europe is going green :roll: yet funding China to polute the world :evil:

Chinese have a long way to catch up before their pollution reaches European/American levels. American "carbon footprint" is 20 times higher per person than Chinese.


cheers
Jacob

 

[Nick W]

... extract hydrogen from water for pennys ...

If you can generate electricity for pennies then you can extract hydrogen from water for the same amount. It's called the Electrolysis of Water

... the bloke got death threats...

Then we should all be shaking in our boots. We've all done it; it's part of the year 6/7 Science Curriculum.

... another person created a machine that gave out more energy than you put in

That's Perpetual Motion. Can't be done. Responses that include the phrase 'That's what they used to say about...' will be treated with the scorn they deserve.

... until the need for greed or competition to be excessively whealthy is gone things won't get any better...

Hear, hear. But also not until the promulgation of factually incorrect material is made, somehow, impossible. And let's be clear here; I mean factually incorrect; everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs where they do not contradict fact.

... Europe is going green :roll: yet funding China to polute the world ...

Yup, we're all going to hell in a handcart.

 

[andycktm]

Mr-grimsdale
Which the hydrogen or 110 %


The usa is not bragging about it though
China 1X coal fired powerstation a day

ps I'm not worried about it(bit of a strange comment!)

 

[Anonymous]

Mr-grimsdale
Which the hydrogen or 110 %

Both

The usa is not bragging about it though
China 1X coal fired powerstation a day

Whaddya mean? :shock: :shock: They certainly do brag about it (the american way of life etc etc) and also are extremely reluctant to do anything about it - although that's changing latterly as the evidence piles up.

ps I'm not worried about it(bit of a strange comment!)

OK so you're not worried I accept that, I thought it was supposed to be a scary story. :lol:

cheers
Jacob

 

[andycktm]

They've (yanks) just got a better economy than us and the average family is well off,were as over here the average family is poor(in comparison) :evil: .
But the usa is getting the message so maybe......... but China is just starting.

 

[Sailor]

Evening,

As the BBC reported, (I think it was last weekend,) the expectation that China's emissions wouldn't equal or overtake those of the USA until 2015, have now had to be revised. They now expect China to overtake the USA's total emissions by the end of 2008!

I think that the majority of people agree though, we cannot just go on consuming resources as if there were no tomorrow - or there might not be one. But, I also feel,being cynical that quite a few politicians see it as a God-given opportunity to raise extra taxes.
In fact, it's already started, we have had solar panels and a 'green roof' installed and like a fool, I consulted the Local Council prior to installation. They now say it will mean that our house will move up at least one Tax Band when the appraisals are next done.

Colin

 

[engineer one]

nick no offence, i just picked a name which showed i was not a "proper woodworker".

the relevance is that learning changes everyday, and much of the information readily available is vague and unclear. that you have a degree i commend you on, i don't but then i don't think a degree ensures that you either know everything, or can't question.

in fact there are a number of so called hydrogen process which don't actually produce water as a waste product, and most of these are supposed to be more efficient in their output, even if not so in their production of waste products. so hence the question.

everyone seems to be concentrating on producing hydrogen fuel cells, but if they are as efficient as present fuel cells, then will they be worth the effort, expense and aggro.?

paul :wink:

 

[engineer one]

ok so final thought for the night.

why are we only concerned with global warming and carbon dioxide as the problem??

what about the sulphur production, the volatile by products of combustion,
nitrogen dioxide and other such things.

i learnt engineering in the bad old days when we thought the car was going to save the world, and internal combustion engines were the better replacement for steam engines, none of which are particularly efficient
but so far no one seems to have made much in the way of improvements in the efficiency of anything. experiments in battery power and hydrogen production do not seem to have kept up with the increases in car engine efficiency.

my 2p :twisted:

g'night all back to learning about engineering :lol:

paul :wink: