• 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

HAzelGroveWolf said:
We need to move ahead with a hydraulic fracturing start up somewhere that would not involve a national park. No harm anyway with the permission for horizontal drilling at the depths and periphery involved.
Take a trip to Buxton and its surrounds and tell me quarrying activity there is less invasive on the Peak District National Park.
Click to expand...
"Scientists are increasingly confident about the link between earthquakes and drilling."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drilling-for-earthquakes/
 
lemonjelly said:
Germany leading the way again:
http://myimpact-academy.com/course/casesstudies-renewable-energy-the-pioneer-made-in-germany/?utm_source=MIA&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=MIAmarch
Click to expand...

Well done them. Personally I prefer solar panels to monstrous inefficient wind turbines. If you want to do something really radical why not offer free solar panels and fitting to every house in the UK suitable for them? Add that lot to the grid and the Chinese nuclear plant may not be required. Solar panels should be mandatory on all suitable local authority and public owned buildings and public service buildings. Energy bills are huge. Time to make some back.
 
IIRC there were government financial incentives to homeowners (domestic and commercial) to install solar panels which were effectively axed by the Tories.
 
As long as the Earth is warming then yes.

So no, as HAzelGroveWolf would say.
 
Do you know, that some times many of us on the forum like to discuss stuff as laymen, workingmen, or whatever.

That the scientific/engineering part of the forum has taken this and many other threads over into a private, intellectual scrap, is on one hand invigorating to a small degree, but on the other hand, pretty fucking boring to the mere mortal.

For fuck sake guys, stop fighting and simplify, so us mere mortals have a chance to learn more.
 
You cant.

Its like saying 'Can you simplify how they discovered the Higgs Boson at the LHC?'

You cant simplify it becaus it isnt simple, unless you're prepared to accept gross inaccuracies. And if that what you want, ask HGW.
 
Visage said:
You cant.

Its like saying 'Can you simplify how they discovered the Higgs Boson at the LHC?'

You cant simplify it becaus it isnt simple, unless you're prepared to accept gross inaccuracies. And if that what you want, ask HGW.
Click to expand...

No it's not Vis, sorry.
To understand the Higgs Boson stuff you would have to be a scientist, but there are obvious areas in climate change that don't have to be fought over with a zillion figure tables, logarithms et al.

You guys could gain favour or support for your principles by explaining some of the stuff in layman's terms, but you're not, you are just all fighting each other to score points,as sadly you did above (see HGW comment).

It must be said, that climate change arguments can go on ad infinitum among the boffins, but when the general public worldwide, lock onto one of them, (one way or the other), no disrespect, but you clever guys are out of the water and the public opinion will decide, right or wrong as it may be.

Climate change is a popular/populist subject in simple terms for the masses, but if someone convinces them (as Al Gore almost did) in layman's terms to sway on masse in one particular direction, you will never sway them back.
 
So which areas of climate change can be described in laymans terms then?
 
Also, public opinion will never decide truth. You dont have a referendum to decide if 2+2=4.
 
Visage said:
Also, public opinion will never decide truth. You dont have a referendum to decide if 2+2=4.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't, the public rarely knows anything worth knowing, but that's not what I am talking about.
While all of the scientists are busy contradicting each other, some holy joe or whatever will come along and say something that may well be total bollocks, but if a bored world general public latches on to it, the scientists and governments are fucked. the public may know diddly about the real facts of climate change, but they know it's out there and for want of a seriously informed factual decision, they will make up their own, and then we are really fucked!
 
All the scientists arent busy contradicting each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top