Climate Change - The big hits...

We are all interested amateurs here and as such we cannot be expected to operate according to strict scientific principles. Even if what you say is true (and it has not been demonstrated to me) there is no reason to think anyone here used it intending to deceive.

You have changed your position. You called a fellow poster a paid liar for carrying out a legitimate employment which involved manipulation of raw data. Such data exists to be manipulated. That is how it's true significance is assessed. Different manipulations can then be compared and debated. Your allegation was unfair and unsound.

I am leaving these posts in place as an example to others.

You often refer us to useful data. You make many points which stimulate debate. Please continue. Just cut out the personal and emotional stuff.
Stephen,
Although I often disagree with your views, you at least take the trouble to respond to other posts. Some others have made false claims about the statements made in this forum and have been either too lazy or too dishonest to respond when challenged. I trust that you will jump on such perfidy (such a nice word).

I now point out that I, not NJP, suggested that another member was a "paid liar". He made that claim himself, albeit with different wording. I was just attempting to clarify.

How has NJP changed his position?
 
I now point out that I, not NJP, suggested that another member was a "paid liar". He made that claim himself, albeit with different wording. I was just attempting to clarify.


"Paid liar" is very strong wording mate.
 
Stephen,
Although I often disagree with your views, you at least take the trouble to respond to other posts. Some others have made false claims about the statements made in this forum and have been either too lazy or too dishonest to respond when challenged. I trust that you will jump on such perfidy (such a nice word).

I now point out that I, not NJP, suggested that another member was a "paid liar". He made that claim himself, albeit with different wording. I was just attempting to clarify.

How has NJP changed his position?

Actually you both said it. Please desist.

Accepting that one is employed to manipulate raw data is not the same thing at all. If anything it gives the person so employed an insight into how data can be used for differing agendas quite legitimately.
The climate models themselves are made up of manipulated raw data and there are many underlying unproven assumptions.

NJP switched from the liar allegation to the alleged deceitful use of a graph without answering my primary point. It is his privilege to do that and mine to draw attention to it.

We should now draw a line and concentrate on the subject of this thread.
 
Hi All,

I have done some reading on Climate Change but do not claim any kind of expertise. In fact with all the arguments and counter claims, and counter counter claims.. its difficult to really have any kind of decent view.

The problem for me is that I dont really understand what are the major contributors to global warming.

I am not going to argue that at any point we should not be taking steps to use less fossil fuels, do less damage to the environment, decrease polution, make better use of resource and waste management through recycling but the feeling that I get is that these will have largely a very small impact on global warming (but still has profound impact on the quality of life and condition of the planet) which seems to be more of a macro problem that we are trying to deal with through micro responses.

As I said, I do believe that we need to take many of the steps that we have or are going to continue to take but I dont entirely buy into the lets not drive our cars because we will prevent the world from overheating and the glaciers from melting.

So, my questions are (assuming there are definitive answers):

What greenhouse gases cause the worlds average temperatures to rise? Do we know?

What actual contribution does man make to these figures? In what percentages and from what actions?

Confusion over the issues is by default the norm, unless you have studied the science to a great degree. I would consider my academic qualifications to be way above average, but still don't claim to really understand the fundamentals behind the science of GW. What I do know is the scientific process and the methodologies that have been established to promote good science. Theory and experimentation, publishing in peer-reviewed learned journals, more work, more refined theories, further results, more peer-review. Peers also going over your work to establish its veracity and perhaps push it further along or down different routes, and if they are successful then that is further evidence for the soundness of the basic premise.
And so it continues. I can't and won't argue over the science, in the same way that I wouldn't expect the majority here to argue over, for example, the mechanistic aspects of the cyclisation of benzil and some benzil analogues when treated with an excess of chlorosulphonic acid (chlorosulfonic acid for our american readers). But the science has been established and peer reviewed and accepted. It may go via an alternative mechanistic pathway, certainly, but as a predictive tool it works satisfactorily and as an explanation of empirical observations it is reasonable and logical.
So it is with global warming. The huge majority of the science stands up to review by its peer group and that fact alone should be enough for 'us' to accept it as valid. It is a huge subject, possibly one of the most studied areas of science ever and still it stands. You may be able to pick holes in small areas. You may be able to snipe at some aspects if you want, but if it was wrong, then the truth would rapidly be out. There is no room here for conspiracy theories that the government want an excuse to tax us. They don't need and never have needed a reason to tax us. You certainly don't want to pay attention to a minority of trolls who play stupid games with obscure areas of the subject and add political dimensions that just don't exist. GW Bush accepts it as a problem, every western government accepts it as a problem. Most heads of industry and academics throughout the world accept it as a problem.
The only people who don't accept it are those who don't care, don't know or are too selfish and looking for a reason not to change.

And if you come onto these forums and see a lot of posts that deny the veracity of the science, then you have uncovered the plague of trolls that live in this forum. But don't believe what these siren voices tell you. They are just bored with nothing better to do. And they live for a reaction to their rubbish. The stronger the reaction, the more excited they get. Every forum based website has them and these are the AVForums nest. If you should be tempted to believe anything they say, just remember that GW Bush, A. Schwarzneger of California and the US Senate all acknowledge the problem. They are bigger than trolls and so much more believable.

Finally a note about the forum itself. Stuart, the Big Boss says in his bit about the forum:
A note to people who do not believe that global warming is a result of man's influence, this forum is *not* for you. Arguments as to whether global warming exists or not; or that it exists as a result of man's influence or not are mute

- so you know the posts that deny it are trolling, without any shadow of a doubt. They are not welcome, this is not a forum for them, they are trolling. Their presence has meant this forum has descended at times into mayhem and nonsense, rather than a source of information on perhaps the most pressing issue of the 21 st Century. But we are kindly folk and have let them live. At times we may even have been guilty of encouraging them by feeding their sad need for a response. But things change. I say squash them all. Terminate them and their presence with prejudice. Don't accept any more lies or mis-information, or 'playful' needling. The time has come to take this forum back to what it should be.
 
May I point out that I use my real name on this forum.
I gain work through my reputation for honesty and integrity.
As such the laws of "malicious defamation" and "libel" fully apply.
The internet provider (as publisher)
Stuart Wright (as site owner)
The poster
All may be held jointly liable for any defamatory remarks posted in this forum.

Your IP address is held by this website for each post you make, your home address is easily found from this data.

This is a formal cease and desist warning

Stephen, congratulations on your elevation
(you may wish to delete some posts as you now share legal responsibility for them)
 
Confusion over the issues is by default the norm, unless you have studied the science to a great degree. I would consider my academic qualifications to be way above average, but still don't claim to really understand the fundamentals behind the science of GW. What I do know is the scientific process and the methodologies that have been established to promote good science. Theory and experimentation, publishing in peer-reviewed learned journals, more work, more refined theories, further results, more peer-review. Peers also going over your work to establish its veracity and perhaps push it further along or down different routes, and if they are successful then that is further evidence for the soundness of the basic premise.
And so it continues. I can't and won't argue over the science, in the same way that I wouldn't expect the majority here to argue over, for example, the mechanistic aspects of the cyclisation of benzil and some benzil analogues when treated with an excess of chlorosulphonic acid (chlorosulfonic acid for our american readers). But the science has been established and peer reviewed and accepted. It may go via an alternative mechanistic pathway, certainly, but as a predictive tool it works satisfactorily and as an explanation of empirical observations it is reasonable and logical.
So it is with global warming. The huge majority of the science stands up to review by its peer group and that fact alone should be enough for 'us' to accept it as valid. It is a huge subject, possibly one of the most studied areas of science ever and still it stands. You may be able to pick holes in small areas. You may be able to snipe at some aspects if you want, but if it was wrong, then the truth would rapidly be out. There is no room here for conspiracy theories that the government want an excuse to tax us. They don't need and never have needed a reason to tax us. You certainly don't want to pay attention to a minority of trolls who play stupid games with obscure areas of the subject and add political dimensions that just don't exist. GW Bush accepts it as a problem, every western government accepts it as a problem. Most heads of industry and academics throughout the world accept it as a problem.
The only people who don't accept it are those who don't care, don't know or are too selfish and looking for a reason not to change.

And if you come onto these forums and see a lot of posts that deny the veracity of the science, then you have uncovered the plague of trolls that live in this forum. But don't believe what these siren voices tell you. They are just bored with nothing better to do. And they live for a reaction to their rubbish. The stronger the reaction, the more excited they get. Every forum based website has them and these are the AVForums nest. If you should be tempted to believe anything they say, just remember that GW Bush, A. Schwarzneger of California and the US Senate all acknowledge the problem. They are bigger than trolls and so much more believable.

Finally a note about the forum itself. Stuart, the Big Boss says in his bit about the forum:
A note to people who do not believe that global warming is a result of man's influence, this forum is *not* for you. Arguments as to whether global warming exists or not; or that it exists as a result of man's influence or not are mute

- so you know the posts that deny it are trolling, without any shadow of a doubt. They are not welcome, this is not a forum for them, they are trolling. Their presence has meant this forum has descended at times into mayhem and nonsense, rather than a source of information on perhaps the most pressing issue of the 21 st Century. But we are kindly folk and have let them live. At times we may even have been guilty of encouraging them by feeding their sad need for a response. But things change. I say squash them all. Terminate them and their presence with prejudice. Don't accept any more lies or mis-information, or 'playful' needling. The time has come to take this forum back to what it should be.


Which is ?

Stuart only intends to exclude those who blindly refuse to accept the possibility of human influence at all. That would obviously be an irritant and contrary to the purpose of this part of the forum. Debate as to the extent and significance of the human effect is wide open and critical to the core question as to what should or could be done about it.

Mooky's question is a good one which your contribution makes no attempt to answer. And you are back to the abuse which I am attempting to eradicate from this board.
 
May I point out that I use my real name on this forum.
I gain work through my reputation for honesty and integrity.
As such the laws of "malicious defamation" and "libel" fully apply.
The internet provider (as publisher)
Stuart Wright (as site owner)
The poster
All may be held jointly liable for any defamatory remarks posted in this forum.

Your IP address is held by this website for each post you make, your home address is easily found from this data.

This is a formal cease and desist warning

Stephen, congratulations on your elevation
(you may wish to delete some posts as you now share legal responsibility for them)

No I don't. On behalf of Stuart et al I have defended you robustly. There is also the issue that your own words were unwisely chosen and might reasonably have been expected to provoke such misguided allegations by those who disagree with you. I could give you the benefit of my full legal opinion but I do not do online advice and it would bore everyone.

Nevertheless the posters concerned might see fit to delete their own offending posts as soon as possible.
 
I keep seeing this bit rattled, sabre like..

A note to people who do not believe that global warming is a result of man's influence, this forum is *not* for you. Arguments as to whether global warming exists or not; or that it exists as a result of man's influence or not are mute.

But the real point of the forum is this bit..

Welcome to the AV Forums climate change forum.
Why is this forum here? Well as the owner of this forum, it's a small something I can do to promote discussion and hopefully raise awareness of the problems and the solutions of global warming.
Having a couple of kids, their well being is now the most important thing in my life, and so whether I like it or not, global warming has replaced global nuclear war as the big thing to worry about. And I do worry about it.

AV Forums thankfully has excellent reach into Google, so people searching for discussions on the subject may find us here.

No AV system exists without electricity. What can we do to enjoy our electronic home entertainment AND save the planet?

Now, apart form changing lightbulbs, switching off standby and not filling the kettle up, I sometimes wonder how many other enlightening suggestions this has acheived with all of the obviously highly intelligent contributors.
 
What greenhouse gases cause the worlds average temperatures to rise? Do we know?

All greenhouse gasses contribute, by definition of a greenhouse gas
What actual contribution does man make to these figures? In what percentages and from what actions?

Percentage wise debateable, but significant and noticeable.(*njp any numbers?)
Where from? Well, Burning fossil fuel, unburnt fossil fuel (eg vapours escaping from various activities,etc. Also, no doubt because the trolls seem to like this kind of ribald stuff, cows that fart and lets face it we have huge numbers of cows. Basically everywhere that modern western man has an influence, GGs are emitted. Anaerobic emissions from landfill, deforestation (cut one tree for timber, burn a hundred other skanky trees that are in the way, so reducing the size of the overall CO2 sink).
 
I keep seeing this bit rattled, sabre like..



But the real point of the forum is this bit..



Now, apart form changing lightbulbs, switching off standby and not filling the kettle up, I sometimes wonder how many other enlightening suggestions this has acheived with all of the obviously highly intelligent contributors.

Blimey !
I'd have nothing to do on that basis. And all those contributors' brain cells would have remained unexercised.

I think we really have to rely on the title which is 'Combating Man Made Global Warming'. That obviously includes consideration of pretty much every conceivable aspect. One can hardly reach decisions on that without knowing the extent and precise nature of the problem and all it's potential causes and consequences.

Stuart didn't entitle it 'How to reduce emissions of CO2'.

Apart from blanket denial this forum is for everyone concerned about the topic and all the more interesting and useful for that.

I do notice that this point only comes up when one side starts to lose ground. If Stuart disagrees with me I'm sure I will soon know.
 
Now, apart form changing lightbulbs, switching off standby and not filling the kettle up, I sometimes wonder how many other enlightening suggestions this has acheived with all of the obviously highly intelligent contributors.

It's true that practically every topic gets hijacked away from the OP, so the usefullness of the forum as a resource has been somewhat lacking. But when every topic is trolled into, one way or another, a debate on the veracity of the science rather than causes and solutions, then of course its never going to address the issues.

Only when these distractions have been removed will the addressable issues rise to the fore and then suggestions as to how they can be addressed may be forth-coming.
Only 40% of new build UK houses actually come up to standard wrt insulation. Now a debate on how to address that would be a step towards something positive, but won't happen under the current climate on this forum.
And if you live in a home that is properly insulated, then your footprint, even with leaving AV kit on standby, will be relatively less.
 
It's true that practically every topic gets hijacked away from the OP, so the usefullness of the forum as a resource has been somewhat lacking. But when every topic is trolled into, one way or another, a debate on the veracity of the science rather than causes and solutions, then of course its never going to address the issues.

Only when these distractions have been removed will the addressable issues rise to the fore and then suggestions as to how they can be addressed may be forth-coming.
Only 40% of new build UK houses actually come up to standard wrt insulation. Now a debate on how to address that would be a step towards something positive, but won't happen under the current climate on this forum.
And if you live in a home that is properly insulated, then your footprint, even with leaving AV kit on standby, will be relatively less.


You can start a thread on any aspect you like and by careful monitoring drag it back onto topic if it drifts away.
I thought this part of the forum was more for intellectual exercise than for use as a resource.
I'm also in favour of a fair bit of robust disagreement but personal insults, sarcasm and constant accusations that anyone disagreeing is a troll are not acceptable.
Putting someone down wittily whilst making a valid point is encouraged but maybe use a smiley.
 
Confusion over the issues is by default the norm, unless you have studied the science to a great degree. I would consider my academic qualifications to be way above average, but still don't claim to really understand the fundamentals behind the science of GW. What I do know is the scientific process and the methodologies that have been established to promote good science. Theory and experimentation, publishing in peer-reviewed learned journals, more work, more refined theories, further results, more peer-review. Peers also going over your work to establish its veracity and perhaps push it further along or down different routes, and if they are successful then that is further evidence for the soundness of the basic premise.
And so it continues. I can't and won't argue over the science, in the same way that I wouldn't expect the majority here to argue over, for example, the mechanistic aspects of the cyclisation of benzil and some benzil analogues when treated with an excess of chlorosulphonic acid (chlorosulfonic acid for our american readers). But the science has been established and peer reviewed and accepted. It may go via an alternative mechanistic pathway, certainly, but as a predictive tool it works satisfactorily and as an explanation of empirical observations it is reasonable and logical.
So it is with global warming. The huge majority of the science stands up to review by its peer group and that fact alone should be enough for 'us' to accept it as valid. It is a huge subject, possibly one of the most studied areas of science ever and still it stands. You may be able to pick holes in small areas. You may be able to snipe at some aspects if you want, but if it was wrong, then the truth would rapidly be out. There is no room here for conspiracy theories that the government want an excuse to tax us. They don't need and never have needed a reason to tax us. You certainly don't want to pay attention to a minority of trolls who play stupid games with obscure areas of the subject and add political dimensions that just don't exist. GW Bush accepts it as a problem, every western government accepts it as a problem. Most heads of industry and academics throughout the world accept it as a problem.
The only people who don't accept it are those who don't care, don't know or are too selfish and looking for a reason not to change.

And if you come onto these forums and see a lot of posts that deny the veracity of the science, then you have uncovered the plague of trolls that live in this forum. But don't believe what these siren voices tell you. They are just bored with nothing better to do. And they live for a reaction to their rubbish. The stronger the reaction, the more excited they get. Every forum based website has them and these are the AVForums nest. If you should be tempted to believe anything they say, just remember that GW Bush, A. Schwarzneger of California and the US Senate all acknowledge the problem. They are bigger than trolls and so much more believable.

Finally a note about the forum itself. Stuart, the Big Boss says in his bit about the forum:
A note to people who do not believe that global warming is a result of man's influence, this forum is *not* for you. Arguments as to whether global warming exists or not; or that it exists as a result of man's influence or not are mute

- so you know the posts that deny it are trolling, without any shadow of a doubt. They are not welcome, this is not a forum for them, they are trolling. Their presence has meant this forum has descended at times into mayhem and nonsense, rather than a source of information on perhaps the most pressing issue of the 21 st Century. But we are kindly folk and have let them live. At times we may even have been guilty of encouraging them by feeding their sad need for a response. But things change. I say squash them all. Terminate them and their presence with prejudice. Don't accept any more lies or mis-information, or 'playful' needling. The time has come to take this forum back to what it should be.

Thanks for stating so well what a number of us have felt the need to repeat a number of times in the past.
 
All greenhouse gasses contribute, by definition of a greenhouse gas


Percentage wise debateable, but significant and noticeable.(*njp any numbers?)
Where from? Well, Burning fossil fuel, unburnt fossil fuel (eg vapours escaping from various activities,etc. Also, no doubt because the trolls seem to like this kind of ribald stuff, cows that fart and lets face it we have huge numbers of cows. Basically everywhere that modern western man has an influence, GGs are emitted. Anaerobic emissions from landfill, deforestation (cut one tree for timber, burn a hundred other skanky trees that are in the way, so reducing the size of the overall CO2 sink).
I gave some overall figures early in this thread.
 
I gave some overall figures early in this thread.

Yes you did and they were very helpful.
Then Mooky asked a more searching question and quite rightly you referred him to the source material and bowed out.
The trouble is that the source material begs the important questions as well.
 
Yes you did and they were very helpful.
Then Mooky asked a more searching question and quite rightly you referred him to the source material and bowed out.
Correct. All the same, I don't think anyone else has provided any figures at all.
I think NJP might have done so but he was away at the time.

So, who's got the time? :D
 
Correct. All the same, I don't think anyone else has provided any figures at all.
I think NJP might have done so but he was away at the time.

So, who's got the time? :D

Anyone who had the answer would have the time.:devil:
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom