Global Warming... a hoax?

[HectortheInspector]

Hector, I'm sure you understand my point pretty well. Benefits of more warm climate for Russia are obvious but threats are unclear and anyway not evident.

Thus, why should such countries as Russia care about fight with Global warming? Additional 2-3 even 5 degreess would be for good.[/quote]

Benefits seem obvious. The risks? High.
There is an awful lot of Carbon locked up in permafrost soils. If it warms, there is the risk of sudden release, yet another of those potentially catastrophic tipping points that the Hollywood people like.
(academic paper here http://whrc.org/resources/published_...lNature.06.pdf )
Now , is this going to happen? Don' t know. What effect will it have? Don't know. Benefit or disaster ? Don't know.

That's a bit too uncertain for my liking. It's a bit too uncertain for me to say, 'Yeah, let's warm it up and see what happens.'

[Mali]

31,486 scientists sign a petition against the theory of "man-made" global warming.

http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

Who shall we believe?

A couple of hundred, "non scientific" politicians with their eyes on a new tax revenue stream?

OR

31,486 scientists? who have used many Physical research methods

I Know who I believe...

debates?

So if a million scientists have an interest in this and I believe that is a low figure then the 31,486 who reckon it's all tosh represent 3% of the scientific comunity. Using my amazing mathematical prowess I'd say that makes 97% of the scientific comunity who do not think it is all tosh.

I'm not a climate change denier by the way.

Care to publish the names of these supposed million scientists?
I recently read that a lot of the scientists whose names had been included had actually different opinions and hadnt given there permission to use there names. Also I heard that many of them werent even scientists but simply activists.

So please do back up that claim with some verifiable evidence.

................and here's me thinking I was preaching to the converted. Wow that came as a surprise.

So anyroad. Where did you RECENTLY read A LOT of the SUPPOSED million scientists actually had different opinions? Who were they? Where did you read it? What were their names?

If you are going to demand a backing up of claims have the decency to back up your reasons for making such demands.

Foxtrot Oscar matey, why the fuck should I back up my reasons for asking for the names of the millions of scientists you claim are interested in climate change!!?? You first seeings as I asked the question first, give me the million names and I'll debunk them!

BTW I'm not a climate change denier either. It is more than apparent that climate change exists and has always done so. What is however in doubt is that climate change is caused or in any way affected by man.

[Tazzers]

Oooh. Cutting. I bet your dads bigger than mine as well. Oh and there's a doctor on another thread reckons he knows more about brain surgery than you do. Go get 'im.

[Mali]

Oooh. Cutting. I bet your dads bigger than mine as well. Oh and there's a doctor on another thread reckons he knows more about brain surgery than you do. Go get 'im.

So your not going to give any names of these million scientists then are you??

Must say Im not surprised, just another scaremonger arent you? Probably believe Polar bears cant swim and are an endangered species also?
OOh the end of the world is nigh, give us your money and we will save you!!

[4(T)]

Hector, I'm sure you understand my point pretty well. Benefits of more warm climate for Russia are obvious but threats are unclear and anyway not evident.

Thus, why should such countries as Russia care about fight with Global warming? Additional 2-3 even 5 degreess would be for good.

Benefits seem obvious. The risks? High.
There is an awful lot of Carbon locked up in permafrost soils. If it warms, there is the risk of sudden release, yet another of those potentially catastrophic tipping points that the Hollywood people like.
(academic paper here http://whrc.org/resources/published_...lNature.06.pdf )
Now , is this going to happen? Don' t know. What effect will it have? Don't know. Benefit or disaster ? Don't know.

That's a bit too uncertain for my liking. It's a bit too uncertain for me to say, 'Yeah, let's warm it up and see what happens.'[/quote]


If you travel around Russia and witness the ecological/environmental horrors they have inflicted on themselves without really giving a fnuck, you will understand that there really is not the remotest chance that they will take any climate control actions seriously - except perhaps viewing "carbon trading" as another juicy opportunity for fraud and theft.....

[KGB_resident]

Maybe for Russia. What about the tropics?

High oil prices are in the interests of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries. But for many countries it is a disaster.

It is exactly my point: for some countries global warming could be a serious problem, for some it is not a problem at all. And for some countries it would be for good.

But why Russia should fight with global warming I don't understand. It is as to sell oil below market price.

[MikeMcc]

There is no shortage of Uranium
The technicalities of deep mining uranium without killin goff the men who mine it are difficult but not insurmountable.
If we want uranium for power generation we have plenty, all we have to is g and dig a hole in the right place (we have known reserves within the UK)

Anyon who claims that we have severely limited uranium resources is talking out of their arse

Since I started that rabbit running, I think I should point out:
1) I have no intention of lying. I have no agenda here, I simply enjoy discussing current affairs. I belong to no political party. I have a certain amount of knowledge of currnt environmental policy and pollution issues.
I'm not a specialist in the nuclear field, so in this case I looked up people who are.
2) If I am a fool for propagating the 'talking points of liars' the 'lies' came from the NEA. These aren't greenies. They are an agency of the OECD, with 28 members, French based and influenced, and the French are very pro nuclear.

http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html

If I post on here, I either make it clear it is my personal OPINION, informed or otherwise, or I post some supporting evidence.

The value of any evidence I post I leave to others, often more informed than me, to comment on.

I'm sure there is a lot of Uranium about. Ther's a lot of Thorium as well. There's also a lot of gold in seawater. If someone can come up with an idea of harvesting these radioactive and mildly toxic heavy metals at no additional cost to the environment, (ie No strip mining) can massively expand the refining and enrichment facilities without leaks, and guarantee the safety of hundreds of hurriedly thrown up reactors, then I say, crack on. If they can't, then I say, let's keep other options in mind.

Sorry Hector, I wasn't trying to imply you are telling fibs at all.
The point I am getting it is some circles use the words "known reserves at current usage" as a portent of doom.
Just as we have no shortage of fossil fuels we have no shortage of uranium.
We have known reserves of uranium for a century at current usage. As ever that is a deceptive figure and doesn't include areas like Orkney where we know there are large deposits but they are un-quantified.

One of my major gripes with involving the French in our nuclear industry is that they simply aren't very good at dealing with waste (and they intend to lumber tha taxpayer with that problem). Energy security is just as big a reason but another matter altogether.

Mining the uranium isn't an insurmountable problem, we have been metal mining in this country for centuries and we are still pretty damned good at it. Modern mechanised deep mining means that with a little imagination we can extract it safely to our hearts content.
Instead of doing that Gordon is selling off UK government interests in uranium mining, coincedently just as demand is likely to go through the roof (I wonder where the Brown envelope will end up for that one)

If we were remotely serious about power generation and the environment we would be building smaller, more localised power stations and getting rid of the huge transmission losses we suffer at the moment.
But we aren't serious are we? If we were we wouldn't be importing energy when we are floating on the means to generate our own very cleanly indeed.

Yeah right, wonderful stuff to mine:

http://motherjones.com/environment/2...-woes-continue
http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/cont...-mining-canada
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=618
http://www.newint.org/features/speci...nd-yellowcake/

Mind you it can be used as a form of population control...

[MikeMcc]

Maybe for Russia. What about the tropics?

High oil prices are in the interests of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries. But for many countries it is a disaster.

It is exactly my point: for some countries global warming could be a serious problem, for some it is not a problem at all. And for some countries it would be for good.

But why Russia should fight with global warming I don't understand. It is as to sell oil below market price.

And what happens if your grain belt is devestated?

[MikeMcc]

(snip)

In the case of Global warming central Russia, some parts of Siberia would have climate as in France. It is rather for good. As for Southern Russia... well climate could be subtropical or even tropical. Big deal. we will grow tropical fruits in this case. As for Nothern Siberia - now in fact voided any population then it could be settled.

For Russia the main threat is global cooling.

As for Southern Russia... well climate could be subtropical or even tropical. - For that - read desert.

[ashie]

Maybe for Russia. What about the tropics?

High oil prices are in the interests of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries. But for many countries it is a disaster.

It is exactly my point: for some countries global warming could be a serious problem, for some it is not a problem at all. And for some countries it would be for good.

But why Russia should fight with global warming I don't understand. It is as to sell oil below market price.

It wouldn't be good for anyone. Obviously there would be mass migration from those worst hit to those countries least hit. There would be disputes over everything from water to fish to food.