Earth Hour - join the movement...

[Mila]

Joined.

 

[mercurial]

I dunno why everyone's moaning. Eskom has been doing Earth hour for years now.

 

[Aeron]

TMoose, speak for yourself you ignorant person. Global warming happens, we all know that! However, it's happening on Mars and Venus and even that spit of rock Pluto is melting away happily as the sun expands. But only the hyperintelligent denizens of Earth believe, in their stupidity and arrogance, that THEY are causing global warming when our entire civilization's pollution has yet to contribute a substantial amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even volcanoes contribute more greenhouse gas than we do. And yet here we are, making solar cars and mielie-cars when millions are losing their jobs and others are simply starving to death. So that we can have mielie-cars. That's bureaucracy for you.

So, no. I will not put off my lights to raise awareness for the energy scam, the biggest cashcow bandwagon in history.

 

[CathJ]

This isn't really the thread to start debating this, but have you read Michael Crichton's book State Of Fear? It's partly fiction, but a lot of the research mentioned is real. It's very interesting.

At the very least it balances out Al Gore's movie

 

[BCO]

TMoose, speak for yourself you ignorant person. Global warming happens, we all know that! However, it's happening on Mars and Venus and even that spit of rock Pluto is melting away happily as the sun expands. But only the hyperintelligent denizens of Earth believe, in their stupidity and arrogance, that THEY are causing global warming when our entire civilization's pollution has yet to contribute a substantial amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even volcanoes contribute more greenhouse gas than we do. And yet here we are, making solar cars and mielie-cars when millions are losing their jobs and others are simply starving to death. So that we can have mielie-cars. That's bureaucracy for you.

So, no. I will not put off my lights to raise awareness for the energy scam, the biggest cashcow bandwagon in history.

Everything you just said is false. Fail.

 

[Alan]

This isn't really the thread to start debating this, but have you read Michael Crichton's book State Of Fear? It's partly fiction, but a lot of the research mentioned is real. It's very interesting.

At the very least it balances out Al Gore's movie

Hmm will give that a look, thanks

 

[BCO]

I just find it particularly weird that so many people are willing to accept the findings of science on so many issues, but when it comes to this one, suddenly everyone doubts the accepted explanations and starts rather supporting fringe scientists.

 

[Alan]

I just find it particularly weird that so many people are willing to accept the findings of science on so many issues, but when it comes to this one, suddenly everyone doubts the accepted explanations and starts rather supporting fringe scientists.

We can't deal with the great sacrifices demanded of us to save humanity. One hour without lights. You got to be kidding. Can't do that

 

[CathJ]

I just find it particularly weird that so many people are willing to accept the findings of science on so many issues, but when it comes to this one, suddenly everyone doubts the accepted explanations and starts rather supporting fringe scientists.

Because we don't feel that those that dissent are fringe scientists. And because we think that even those scientists who do support it are basing their analyses on... let's put it nicely... dubious data.

 

[BCO]

Because we don't feel that those that dissent are fringe scientists. And because we think that even those scientists who do support it are basing their analyses on... let's put it nicely... dubious data.

Based on what evidence? If your beliefs are true then there must be some kind of global conspiracy, because the vast majority of climate scientists stand by the statements put forward by the IPCC on climate change. Why would these people lie? Why would they not be trying to put forward the most scientifically sound theories based on the most reliable evidence available?

 

[CathJ]

Based on what evidence? If your beliefs are true then there must be some kind of global conspiracy, because the vast majority of climate scientists stand by the statements put forward by the IPCC on climate change. Why would these people lie? Why would they not be trying to put forward the most scientifically sound theories based on the most reliable evidence available?

Many don't, so when you say the vast majority I don't agree with you (although I do admit that I don't have any hard numbers on this).

There's so much interpretation in the data. Measuring stations have changed locations, the equipment's changed over the years, urban sprawl has contributed to local heating; much research is based on computer models, and many of those flat out contradict each other. There've been cases where research papers have been altered, or the reporting on them has diluted their stance. The time frame at which you look at the data is important, too - in the 70's they thought we were heading into an ice age. If you look at temperatures since the 30's, they've gone up something like 0.5%. Upper atmosphere readings taken by NASA don't show the heating you would expect.

If you're asking why would scientists get it wrong - there's a bunch of possibilities. There's sponsorship and grant applications; there's the media misrepresenting the results; there's government promoting the idea; there's incorrect data, as mentioned above; there's even experimenter bias, although that's less likely to be an issue in the physical sciences, but are possible when the data is as bad as it is in climate studies.

 

[hj2k_x]

Precisely why I won't be doing it - I'm not committed to the cause.

1) I'm not convinced global warming is happening
2) If it is, is it natural or man-made?
3) Regardless of the answer to 2, can we do anything to stop it?
4)... without making it worse because we don't know what we're doing?

Certain things make sense to do, regardless of my 1 - 4 above, like cutting down on non-biodegradable waste, etc. But many don't, and some may well make it worse (like apparently the mass planting of trees, to prevent global warming, leads to massive erosion)

Anyway, this isn't the right thread to debate these issues, but I wanted to point out that some of us aren't not doing it just because we're lazy, but because we're also making a point (just one that's opposite to the point you're making).

I am with you on this one.

All good points which you make, none of which the tree-hugging zealots have even considered replying to.

 

[BCO]

Many don't, so when you say the vast majority I don't agree with you (although I do admit that I don't have any hard numbers on this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It *is* the vast majority. There are also a number of meta-studies that support this.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[75]

There's so much interpretation in the data. Measuring stations have changed locations, the equipment's changed over the years, urban sprawl has contributed to local heating; much research is based on computer models, and many of those flat out contradict each other. There've been cases where research papers have been altered, or the reporting on them has diluted their stance. The time frame at which you look at the data is important, too - in the 70's they thought we were heading into an ice age. If you look at temperatures since the 30's, they've gone up something like 0.5%. Upper atmosphere readings taken by NASA don't show the heating you would expect.

All the arguments you have mentioned have been refuted by mainstream climate science. Look here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses

or here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

or here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

or here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

If you're asking why would scientists get it wrong - there's a bunch of possibilities. There's sponsorship and grant applications; there's the media misrepresenting the results; there's government promoting the idea; there's incorrect data, as mentioned above; there's even experimenter bias, although that's less likely to be an issue in the physical sciences, but are possible when the data is as bad as it is in climate studies.

Everything here is equally applicable to contrarians, no? If anything, there's much more money to be had by advocating that we maintain the status quo - it certainly pays to be a mouthpiece for big oil.

 

[Aeron]

Look at the Qui Bono thread in Current Affairs.

 

[BCO]

I am with you on this one.

All good points which you make, none of which the tree-hugging zealots have even considered replying to.

Now now henry, less name calling please.

 

[CathJ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It *is* the vast majority. There are also a number of meta-studies that support this.





All the arguments you have mentioned have been refuted by mainstream climate science. Look here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses

or here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

or here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

or here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462




Everything here is equally applicable to contrarians, no? If anything, there's much more money to be had by advocating that we maintain the status quo - it certainly pays to be a mouthpiece for big oil.

Cool, I'll take a look at those links.

As I said in my first post, which Alan quoted just above - I'm not convinced either way. I'm willing to consider new data as I get it, and I'm not trying to convert anyone to my view. I suspect, though, that this is something that you can go backwards and forwards on all day, with each side refuting the other side's refutations

 

[Alan]

I am with you on this one.

All good points which you make, none of which the tree-hugging zealots have even considered replying to.

Henry. I would never have thought

I'd add to CathJ's post you quoted another question. Why if this catastrophe of such epic proportions is about to hit humanity is actions proposed by those who propagate our demise so lackluster for a lack of a better word. Earth Hour being a case in point.

 

[Xyber]

Dunno how it will make 'em "notice" me if I turn off my lights so I'll not join in and rather be doing whatever I'll be doing.

Will be interesting to see the satellite photos. I'm guessing you won't see too much difference as municipalities are not about to turn off street lights; and lights in all those offices and business parks will hapely burn away joined by PCs that are not turned off at the end of a work day.

 

[hj2k_x]

Now now henry, less name calling please.

The point still stands

 

[BCO]

The point still stands

Not really, because I posted just after you made your point, replying to everything Cath raised.