What

[Lynden]

I personally subscribe to the belief that global warming may in fact be man-made, but more likely to be from causes other than CO2 (such as changes in albedo and altering of ecosystems). This belief of mine includes the idea that it will be very very mild, and not the least bit catastrophic.

 

[Piltdownpaul]

The longer this global warming lark carries on the more farcical it gets. In the uk they are now talking about taxing you for plastic carrier bags if the supermarkets dont get their act together. If they were really serious they would tax aviation fuel as one jumbo going across to new york is going to damage the atmosphere far more than millions of carrier bags sold each year. Its getting a joke over here and appears to be another way to tax us brits

 

[Colin_T]

I hear you about the plastic bags. Our fed government is doing the same thing. All the fish shops around here are asking what will they pack fish in from now on. Paper or plastic?

As you mentioned aircraft do a lot more damage than biodegradable plastic bags.
Our last Prime Minister actually put a ban on incandescent light globes, which was kind of a good idea. But now everyone is using compact fluorescents and although they are more energy efficient, they can't be recycled and can't go into normal rubbish collections. At least the old fashioned light globe was only made of glass and metal. The compact fluoros have electronic components and phosphorus in them and are much more toxic to the environment.

If the politicians really cared about the environment they would stop being chauffeur driven around in their V8 luxury cars, ban smoking, ban the use of fossil fuels, force companies to clean up and not just allow them to self regulate, and ban computers. They would also implement renewable power sources and not um and ah over whether or not they should. Australia has more sunlight than any other country in the world and we have one of the lowest rates of solar power usage. The technology is there but it cost so damn much.

The politicians need to spend more time making decisions rather than just arguing over them.

Ok all done, I feel better now

 

[geo7x]

To be honest I think the whole reduction of plastic bags is a good idea, because it at least makes the countryside look nicer if nothing else and it will actually be good for the environment.

However before making customers pay I think packaging of food should be reduced, plastic carrier bags are pretty vital compared to how much unnecessary wrapping they put round things, but hang on, that packaging is from industrial sources so it's ok as that's not the public .

It does seem that, although I believe it is a worthy cause, the government is determined to use this "green" and "environmentally friendly" thing to it's advantage and charge the public for it when really industry (this goes back to the aviation fuel thing) is more to blame. It's all very well charging us for a worthy cause but as I mentioned earlier whilst it is still so expensive to go "green" where is all this tax and money going that goes to the government for petrol and plastic bags etc etc etc?

I'm still waiting for them to build wind turbines out to sea, it's already been proven that the whole country could run off offshore wind farms and as this is an island (UK) we live on it surely makes sense so why doesn't all this tax go in to something like that and not fossil fuelled power stations that no one wants anyway yet we are still paying for it??? We know nuclear is expensive but once the equipment's up renewable costs nothing in the way of fuel! Yet ironically the government is reluctant to do this as then they wouldn't get all their money from us for energy from fossil fuels.

 

[The-Wolf]

global warming is a myth and one that is perpetuated by certain governments of the world,
even the UN contradicts its own studies into this so called phenomena.

just think of this fact
the worlds oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.


http/www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#intro
http/www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http/www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

and a page by Professor David Bellamy (a well renowned botanist)
http/www.globalwarming.nottinghamshireti...ARMINGMYTH.html

 

[OohFeeshy]

To be honest, I think the majority of this is all because we like to feel important- that we actually matter in the grand scheme of things. We don't- but by thinking that we're saving some trees and small fluffy animals, we think too that we've done a great job, that the Universe really owes us something for being so good. Well, tough luck. We aren't, and we don't. Won't we all feel a bit silly when we're dead and the world carries on regardless...

 

[Lynden]

global warming is a myth and one that is perpetuated by certain governments of the world,
even the UN contradicts its own studies into this so called phenomena.

just think of this fact
the worlds oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

To be honest, I think the majority of this is all because we like to feel important- that we actually matter in the grand scheme of things. We don't- but by thinking that we're saving some trees and small fluffy animals, we think too that we've done a great job, that the Universe really owes us something for being so good. Well, tough luck. We aren't, and we don't. Won't we all feel a bit silly when we're dead and the world carries on regardless...

I wholeheartedly agree on all points. I do however think it's plausible that the extra gas emissions could be altering the global temperature ever so slightly; as in within a tenth of a degree. Very pedantic to be worrying about it though.

Remember also that most - if not all - catastrophist views can be dismissed as political propaganda. Take An Inconvenient Truth, for example. With all it's "errors" (lies?) it's an insult to the very word "documentary". The fact that Mr. Gore has won a Nobel Prize over the matter is simply appalling.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

To be honest I think the whole reduction of plastic bags is a good idea, because it at least makes the countryside look nicer if nothing else and it will actually be good for the environment.

However before making customers pay I think packaging of food should be reduced, plastic carrier bags are pretty vital compared to how much unnecessary wrapping they put round things, but hang on, that packaging is from industrial sources so it's ok as that's not the public .

I agree, plastic bags contribute a great deal to rubbish in our beautiful countryside and they're not exactly very biodegradable either, nor are they environmentally friendly to produce. Also, while you can re-use them, they don't last anywhere near as long as something like a fabric bag.

I agree though that a lot more needs to be done about cutting down on the amount of packaging around food- no kidding, at my local supermarket they had individual banana's which were put in a polystyrene container which was then wrapped in cling film and had all manner of stickers and things stuck to it- i mean, for Christs sake, banana's already have their own natural packaging- their skin!
When you take into consideration that whoever buys that over-packaged banana will probably put that banana in a plastic shopping carrier bag, the amount of plastic and stuff used just to transport a single banana (where all of its unnecessary packaging will probably be thrown in the bin when the person gets home and eats it) is just nuts!

One thing that really irritates me is when you see people at the supermarket and they buy like one lemon, one pear and one apple and they put each item of fruit in its own small plastic bag- its just so wasteful! I mean, whats the point? Are they afraid their lemon is going to come into contact with their pear, or that the 3 fruits might get mixed up and they won't be able to tell the difference between them etc? Its no better when you see people at the checkout paying for their food they're going to eat at their lunch break and they buy a can of coke, a sandwich and a chocolate bar and you see the person put the 3 items in a plastic bag- i mean geez, its hardly a challenge to carry 3 small items of food without a bag. Or you see people buy like 10 items of food and they put the items in 2 or 3 bags- i could understand it if say they were buying frozen foods and non-frozen foods, or canned food and soft vegetables/fruit, but half the time this isn't the case and the person just uses extra bags because they want to.
Its all so wasteful and unnecessary.

So yeah, i totally agree with people being charged for plastic carrier bags- like say 2-5p per bag. I'm sure if supermarkets actually charged people for bags then a lot of people wouldn't use them so readily and wastefully/unnecessarily. Its really not difficult to just buy a cheap nice looking fabric carrier bag which you can take to the supermarket yourself and use again and again for food transport for years and years on end- i often do the same myself. Considering how few people actually bother to recycle even in this day and age, i think more needs to be done to deter people from making unnecessary wasteful rubbish.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

global warming is a myth and one that is perpetuated by certain governments of the world,
even the UN contradicts its own studies into this so called phenomena.

just think of this fact
the worlds oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

Still though, you have to admit that we're really over-polluting the environment from a wildlife/ecosystems point of views- one of the main threats to a lot of species of animals (particularly those that live in marine or freshwater waters) is pollution. I'm not sure about what to think about the man-made global warming thing, i do think we're contributing to it either way, but my main concern is what we are directly doing to the environment and the detrimental/negative effect its having on wildlife/ecosystems. Many an animal has been driven to extinction or has been made endangered/threatened with pollution and habitat loss/destruction being one of the main/primary contributing factors- the recently extinct river Yangtze dolphin is a classic example of this;

<a href="http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6935343.stm" target="_blank">http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6935343.stm</a>

Habitat destruction and pollution were major contributing factors to the extinction of the Baiji dolphin. An even better example, the Gharial crocodile which is critically endangered (there are thought to be no more than 1400 of them left in the wild) suffered major losses when 110 of the crocs were killed by poison-induced Gout from eating fish which came from highly polluted waters;

<a href="http/news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...2-gharials.html" target="_blank">http/news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...2-gharials.html</a>


...Regardless of whether we're to blame for the global warming we're currently experiencing or not, its a fact that we're polluting environments across the world to a very bad degree and we're driving many animals to extinction because of this and habitat destruction/loss in general. What makes this even worse, and a crime of humanity in my opinion because of this, is that many of us are well aware of this and yet we still fail to really effectively do enough about about actions- with the Baiji/Yangtze dolphin, people were well aware for decades of this dolphins worrying low numbers and the causes behind its declining numbers, yet people still essentially drove it to extinction none the less. We're well aware of the Gharial crocodiles critically low numbers and the main reasons behind them, yet nothing has really been effectively done to slow the progress of factories and residential lining the river fronts leaking their pollution into the Gharials rivers etc.
This kind of thing (i.e being well aware we're doing something wrong yet fail to stop doing the thing we are doing wrong even when we can etc) is one of humanities greatest crimes to the environment and its wildlife. More focus needs to be done on reducing pollution and habitat destruction etc primarily for the sake of the environment and its wildlife rather than global warming.

 

[Colin_T]

maybe we should err on the side of caution and assume the planet is in trouble. Then we can do something about it and perhaps prevent a catastrophy. And if the planet isn't in trouble, it won't matter. But if it is, well we saved ourselves and hopefully the other species living here.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

maybe we should err on the side of caution and assume the planet is in trouble. Then we can do something about it and perhaps prevent a catastrophy. And if the planet isn't in trouble, it won't matter. But if it is, well we saved ourselves and hopefully the other species living here.

I agree .

 

[The-Wolf]

Habitat destruction and pollution were major contributing factors to the extinction of the Baiji dolphin.

if by pollution you mean dumping rubbish, like plastic and other household waste they are separate matters that don't fit with this thread.
all I'm trying to point out is that global warming, if indeed there is such a thing, is not being made any better or worse but us mere humans.
the magnificent engine that is the Earth has its own cycles and its own time scale, one that we can only hope to glimpse the slightest of understanding.

there are ice ages approx every 10.000 years, when was the last one? approx 10,000 years ago
hmm that sounds like a coincidence and that is something I don't believe in.

BTW I' not anti re-cycling or doing my bit to help nature
I am anti-scaremongering which is exactly what the global warming myth is all about.

 

[Lynden]

maybe we should err on the side of caution and assume the planet is in trouble. Then we can do something about it and perhaps prevent a catastrophy. And if the planet isn't in trouble, it won't matter. But if it is, well we saved ourselves and hopefully the other species living here.

The above is the "boogeyman card", sort of an ultimate justification for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) scares. The problem is, many of these anti-AGW measures are capable of causing tremendous harm if not executed perfectly: in developing countries by denying them a critical resource, and therefore continuing their starvation; and in developed countries by 1) undermining the economy (only somewhat, however, and almost certainly in repairable amounts), and 2) in the pursuit of irresponsible "green" technologies such as hybrid cars (the production of which causes terrible environmental damage on site) or corn ethanol (which requires more energy to produce than it actually puts out).

Then there are those that one can't help but wonder how much good they are actually doing, such as in-orbit solar blocking machines (a proposed method of stopping global warming).

The point being it's easy to support these measures if one is in a rich country that won't feel it's negative effects. That's why I would certainly support and endorse more research into the matter, but not necessarily measures, or lack thereof, on either side.

P.S.
Planet Earth is not in trouble. The current biological set (including us) is. Even if we managed to systematically destroy 99.9% of multicellular organisms, the food chain would topple, we would become extinct, and nature would be free to again fill those biological niches vacated; which it would. In a few million years it would be like we never were there.

Of course I am all for preserving the ones we have here and now, if for no other reason the planet would feel empty and dull without them.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

Have to agree completely with Lynden and The-Wolf here. The world has undergone drastic changes throughout its history long before we were on the scene. Rather than screwing about with all the "OMG we are killing the planet with our carbon emissions" we should be doing something to adapt to the global environmental changes (they are going to change if we like it or not, no matter what we do). Not to mention that environmental systems are so complex we really aren't even a 1/4 of the way to fully understanding them yet.

On the flip side of that I do think that reducing carbon emissions, waste and pollution is general is a good thing but the whole "man made global warming" is a pile of crap (which conveniently gives the government another way to tax individuals and businesses alike).

In the grand scheme of things I would prefer to see all the money wasting on "researching mans effect on global warming" going towards funding projects in the third world or to space exploration (I'm much more concerned about getting smashed with a giant piece of space rock then I am about my car causing us all to die in floods, etc).

 

[Lynden]

I personally would also like to see those funds spent on wildlife conservation, especially regarding rainforests. Problem is, to be skeptical of global warming is about the most "politically incorrect" thing one can do these days... apparently it's too much to ask for responsible science.