• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Alan USA said:
You do yourself no justice by suggesting research gets approved because you're "pals" with someone.
Click to expand...

Maybe 'group think' might be a better term. The inference is certainly there in the Climategate emails.
There is an interesting discussion here on changing scientific concensus:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/07/global-warming-and-the-age-of-the-earth-a-lesson-on-the-nature-of-scientific-knowledge/

What convinces you that we as a species know much better now?
 
Oh FFS. This is what you're reduced to? 'Science got something wrong once, so we should assume science is wrong now?'

Have you ever got anything wrong? Meaning everything else is wrong?

Actually, dont answer that. You're perfect.
 
Visage said:
Oh FFS. This is what you're reduced to? 'Science got something wrong once, so we should assume science is wrong now?'

Have you ever got anything wrong? Meaning everything else is wrong?

Actually, dont answer that. You're perfect.
Click to expand...

I'm just presenting reality, I'm not the one welded to a political doctrine as you seem to be. I'm merely pointing out that there is debate and that there is no escaping that reality.
It is rather ignorant to present science today as having reached an idealogical plateau. I've found some wierd stuff in my time that I don't have a complete explanation for. There is stuff I do now that was barely imaginable 30 years ago.
 
Visage said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33040965

Good news. Although, has no-one told them renewables can't be scaled up to mass production?
Click to expand...

A touch of Harrabin fantasy land there even so it does reference shale as a renplacement, coal fired power stations are still being developed (cleaner, fair enough, just as the West has done for decades). Unless you count nuclear renewbles do not scale for a fit for purpose energy supply as yet, it is questionable if it could be acheived without dominating environmental impact in a UK scenario. The energy recovery density cannot be made to work in practice in any sensible analysis. On the other hand genuine pollutants (carbon dioxide isn't one) are manageable.
 
Depends on how define pollutant. Man made which can affect the eco system?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
A touch of Harrabin fantasy land there even so it does reference shale as a renplacement, coal fired power stations are still being developed (cleaner, fair enough, just as the West has done for decades). Unless you count nuclear renewbles do not scale for a fit for purpose energy supply as yet, it is questionable if it could be acheived without dominating environmental impact in a UK scenario. The energy recovery density cannot be made to work in practice in any sensible analysis. On the other hand genuine pollutants (carbon dioxide isn't one) are manageable.
Click to expand...

Any reason why this nonsense would actually be true?
 
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...david-cameron-to-take-stronger-climate-action

"Eighty British companies, including two of the Big Six energy companies and high street names including John Lewis and Tesco, have called on David Cameron to take stronger action on climate change both at home and abroad.
Such action could create jobs and boost the UK’s competitiveness, but failure to address climate change could put economic prosperity at risk, the signatories warn in a letter to the prime minister."
 
leedswolf said:
Depends on how define pollutant. Man made which can affect the eco system?
Click to expand...

There is plenty of well documented evidence that carbon dioxide benifits plant life and therefore the entire food chain through to human agriculture. Indeed artificially high carbon dioxide levels are commonly used in agriculture.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
There is plenty of well documented evidence that carbon dioxide benifits plant life and therefore the entire food chain through to human agriculture. Indeed artificially high carbon dioxide levels are commonly used in agriculture.
Click to expand...

Yes, in places where people do not live, like greenhouses.

Humans cannot breathe high concentrations of CO2; it is a poison to us.
 
Alan USA said:
Yes, in places where people do not live, like greenhouses.

Humans cannot breathe high concentrations of CO2; it is a poison to us.
Click to expand...

Behave, the enhancement is up to around 1000ppmv, perfectly habitable, you probably get that in common human closed evironments (exhaling works at about 40000ppmv). Nuclear subs are happy at 8000ppmv.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Behave, the enhancement is up to around 1000ppmv, perfectly habitable, you probably get that in common human closed evironments (exhaling works at about 40000ppmv). Nuclear subs are happy at 8000ppmv.
Click to expand...

Never spent an extended period in an industrial greenhouse, have you?
 
So Long Architect said:
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...david-cameron-to-take-stronger-climate-action

"Eighty British companies, including two of the Big Six energy companies and high street names including John Lewis and Tesco, have called on David Cameron to take stronger action on climate change both at home and abroad.
Such action could create jobs and boost the UK’s competitiveness, but failure to address climate change could put economic prosperity at risk, the signatories warn in a letter to the prime minister."
Click to expand...

I find it rather ironic that a good proportion of those companies sell product that feature carbon dioxide. Corporate posturing bollocks IMO.
 
Alan USA said:
Never spent an extended period in an industrial greenhouse, have you?
Click to expand...

I think you are conflating storage facility and growing facilities. Plants need oxygen too especially when light is removed. The figures I gave are accurate.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Now that is insanity for a pathetic 60MW at a ludicrous price.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11657474/Insane-crazy-the-riddle-of-the-sands-in-Swansea.html

Spend the same on a gas plant you get 30x the power 24/7.
Click to expand...

Gas plants that have been developed over a hundered years. In any engineering you start small and gain expertise then scale up - and its obvious that initial iterations will be proportionately more expensive.

The first nuclear reactor operated at half a watt. Doubtless had you been there that day you'd have scoffed and claimed that made nuclear power pathetic....
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I think you are conflating storage facility and growing facilities. Plants need oxygen too especially when light is removed. The figures I gave are accurate.
Click to expand...

Indeed they are, but then I don't need to know the PPM of H2O in my lungs it would take to kill me to know that eventually it would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top