1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

Climate change deniers

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by EddieM, 28 Aug 2017.

  1. JohnD

    JohnD

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2005
    Messages:
    72,043
    Thanks Received:
    4,112
    Location:
    Crossgates
    Country:
    Cook Islands
    your link does not seem to say how much CO2 all the world's ships produce per year, and how much all the world's cars.
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. No it doesn't, I read the article about 9 months ago, and lost it. I used that link to try an ilustrate how big these engines are. They're also 2 stroke, so I don't know if they have an CATs fitted.
     
  4. transam

    transam

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2009
    Messages:
    29,587
    Thanks Received:
    3,580
    Location:
    Surrey
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    they were talking on the telly the other day about the amount of pollution caused by these massive ocean liners that cruise the world

    they use a massive amount of fuel (?) plus the pollution they cause when they are in dock (southampton)
     
  5. Just googled and first site says the worlds 15 biggest ships create more pollution than all the worlds 760 million cars???
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. JohnD

    JohnD

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2005
    Messages:
    72,043
    Thanks Received:
    4,112
    Location:
    Crossgates
    Country:
    Cook Islands
    and is it true?

    What is the pollution they are measuring?

    Is it by any chance something that cars don't emit?
     
  7. IWalkLikeHimaMartian

    IWalkLikeHimaMartian

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2017
    Messages:
    4,738
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Then why not provide the link?
     
  8. empip

    empip

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2005
    Messages:
    6,310
    Thanks Received:
    170
    Country:
    United Kingdom
  9. JohnD

    JohnD

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2005
    Messages:
    72,043
    Thanks Received:
    4,112
    Location:
    Crossgates
    Country:
    Cook Islands
    I bet the link doesn't say how much CO2 is generated by ships, and how much is generated by road traffic.

    I bet it doesn't say how much carbon is generated by trucks moving a thousand tons of goods a thousand miles, and how much by a ship doing the same.

    These points are essential to any conversation about climate change and carbon emissions.

    It's even possible that the link was published by somebody wanting to loosen controls on road traffic pollution.

    Will we ever know?
     
  10. Sponsored Links
  11. JohnD

    JohnD

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2005
    Messages:
    72,043
    Thanks Received:
    4,112
    Location:
    Crossgates
    Country:
    Cook Islands
    Yes.
     
  12. securespark

    securespark

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2004
    Messages:
    36,574
    Thanks Received:
    1,240
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I suppose they fart a lot less than cows.
     
  13. wobs

    wobs

    Joined:
    20 Feb 2008
    Messages:
    1,345
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Location:
    Hull
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It isn't speculation if its based upon evidence. We have a theory. You could compare this with evolution, as it is also a theory, with an abundance of evidence (albiet a theory that has had many more years to be looked into). We have a whole heap of evidence supporting AGW, and the evidence against it has looked more and more flawed as a results. This is why people are saying "the debate is over". It sounds hyperbolic, but actually, the evidence is that slanted to AGW that there is less and less need to debate it.

    It would take extraudinary evidence (but of course not impossible) for the opposite opinion to be shown to be right, and we haven't seen that.

    As I said earlier, there are those even in the IPCC who do not believe in AGW. It isn't a closed shop.

    We might hear much in the MSM about studies and healine grabbing evidence, but I have also looked into opposite views, spent many years on the fence looking at both sides, and those denying AGW have looked more and more wrong, as their arguments were shown to be flawed agin and again.

    That's not to say the envirtonmental movement isn't without it's flaws as well (eg. they are anti-nuclear and anti-incineration), but AGW is supported by 97% of relevant scientists for a reason.

    The debate is how do we prevent that, as that would be preferable, as it would reduce extinctions and mean less problems for people (like food production).
     
  14. Now if you go and read the posts on Electric car drivel, you'll see a lot of sensible debate of the boths sides; and from far more knowledgable people than me. I see the way that the climate change proponants continually need to fiddle their data, and I remain a little sceptical. Let's agree to differ.
     
  15. Roger928

    Roger928

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    201
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Last edited: 30 Aug 2017
  16. And people wonder why I consider big businnes's and politicians don't want to be honest about climate change. There's too many vested interests in keeping it within understandable parameters.
     
  17. Roger928

    Roger928

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2016
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    201
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    But doesn't the main thrust about man made climate change denial come from the vested interest groups? The oil barons, coal companies, mining companies etc?

    The ones with the biggest stake to lose will be shouting the loudest.
    What have the tree huggers got to lose?
     
Loading...

Share This Page