Climate Change & Global Warming

[KOYAANISQATSI]

This whole debate, for those of us who are not trained in climate science, is a matter of faith. And I am prepared to put my faith in the scientists.

 

who are now only going to be listened to if they conform to the mainstream or else no funding shall be given.

 

I did have faith in us being the cause of global warming, the same as I had faith in many various assumptions made by scientists, until after a study of their facts I have come to see much of what is given out, is little more than assumptions and in many cases pish poor ones at that.

 

The only sad thing here is watching the sheeple jump through the hoops on cue, not only incapable of critical thinking anymore but unwilling to try because they never got their nob slammed in the fridge door at oxford. (or whatever goes on in them places)

[ArabiaTerra]

And, Malachy, don't get depressed about Global Warming. There's another ice age coming, not that we'll be alive by then..... I wonder what kind of tax will be needed to combat that??

Oh no it isn't..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm

[ArabiaTerra]

Excellent post Malachy, though I do disagree with part of it:

Making a difference, I think, will involve a complete change in our lifestyle. It may involve sacrificing many of the luxuries that we now consider to be our right.

We don't have to sacrifice anything. All we have to do is to stop burning fossil fuels. Close down the coal and gas power stations and replace them with nuclear and renewables and change our transport to run on hydrogen. That's it. Job done.

 

What scares the crap out of me is that the governments who should be making this happen are dithering about so much that they have already wasted twenty years, we can't afford to waste another twenty. The really big consequence is losing the Greenland ice cap. It's a remnant of the last ice age, once it's gone it won't come back and melting it means a 7 metre sea level rise. Now that may take centuries to happen but whether it happens will be decided this century, possibly within the next twenty years, definitely before 2100. That means it is up to us to deal with the problem and we are failing.

[Malachy]

They tell the climate scientists that they know better than them, and in doing so prove nothing but their own ignorance.

 

I did have faith in us being the cause of global warming, [...] until after a study of their facts I have come to see much of what is given out, is little more than assumptions and in many cases pish poor ones at that.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

we cannot hope to understand these things

 

Speak for yourself. Me I've got a brain and I enjoy using it to gain understanding of my environment, instead of just using it as a dead weight in an unthinking, nodding machine for the global elite.

[Carlos]

"Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

 

Of course the bets that will ultimately matter are those that the stockbrokers and insurance companies make - those will drive the changes or maintain the staus quo and decide how profitable any actions will be. It's entirely likely that there could be a ".com" type bubble in "climate change friendly" stocks if popular opinion slides far enough that way as we do the usual and look for the $$. Whether that ultimately powers positive or negative effects we'll likely mostly live long enough to see.

The problem being that as recent events show, nobody is that interested in the long term..........

[Malachy]

That's the first time I've been accused of being a mouthpiece for the global elite, Koy. That's hilarious!

[Spinner72]

^^ unfortunately thats how it comes across though Malachy.

 

I won't go on another quoting and replying session, everything has already been covered, so without the next ten years of data there can be no new points to discuss.

 

I do want to point out though, that i fully and completely BELIEVE what the climatologists are saying. That being the independant climatologists using independant and up to date data, as opposed to those employed by the "industry" to drive the politicians version using out of date, debunked, flawed and most of all selective, data.

 

As I've already said on this thread, I'm all for protecting the environment, because I'm a human being who has to live in it and share it with everyone, and everything, else. Of course we need to be sensible and avoid using chemicals which are damaging whenever possible.

 

However, it's just as important not to pollute the minds of our children and each other with conspiracy theory's regarding the degree of effect we are having, or indeed can have, on the planet as a whole. We're simply not that big a part of the equation, and never will be.

 

For those who still prefer faith over fact - since this is World Philosophy day, please ponder the comparisons between the route the theory of excessive man made global warming and that of so many religions in the past.

[Malachy]

We're simply not that big a part of the equation, and never will be.

Sorry to have to come back again, but this point seems to be absolutely crucial to this whole discussion. It is possibly the main difference between the two sides of the debate- those who believe humans make a big impact on their environment and those who don't.

Without meaning to be offensive, I think what you've said there is at best naive, and at worst dangerously ignorant. The fact is that the climate and the environment more widely are part of self-regulating systems that just happen to currently be favourable to supporting life on the planet. But that system (those systems) are fragile and vulnerable. They rely on certain factors remaining consistent. Until 10,000 years ago, most environmental changes were very slow. With the exception of the occasional massive volcanic eruption, the makeup of the atmosphere only altered gradually, and within a reasonably narrow band. The climate has altered too, though the significant changes have taken place slowly (over millenia).

In the past 10,000 years, humans have moved from being just another animal to being the dominent creature on earth. Fly over Europe or North America, or Asia, and try to imagine what these places looked like, even 1000 years ago. In that very short (environmentally-speaking) amount of time, people have destroyed most of the forests on the planet, concreted over, ploughed up and completely altered the majority of the land available to them. They have also dramatically changed the level of certain gases within the atmosphere. That is an incredible achievement, and it is very odd to think that such a sudden change will not effect the planet at all.

250 million years ago, dramatic climate change (slower than todays) caused the loss of 70% of land animals and plants and 95% of creatures in the sea. It is called the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event. That is the greatest extinction ever believed to have taken place on the planet, and it took place in less than 100,000 years. If the rate of extinction currently taking place today continues, we are likely to reach the same level of loss in about 200 years. That is largely due to habitat loss, climatic changes and exploitation by people. Two of those factors are certainly caused by humans, and the third is believed by a majority of scientists to be largely human-caused. Nobody is denying that humans are responsible for the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but some people still deny that such a huge change will have any impact on the climatic system. I simply fail to understand how anyone can say, as you have, that humans 'are not that big a part of the equation'. If you truly believe that, then I think you are looking at the wrong equation.

 

Just as a postscript:

That being the independant climatologists using independant and up to date data, as opposed to those employed by the "industry" to drive the politicians version using out of date, debunked, flawed and most of all selective, data.

Who exactly are the independent climatolagist and who is the 'industry'? In what sense is a climatologist employed by Exxon-Mobil more independent than one employed by a university? I don't think there is a climatology industry, in any cohesive sense of the word. They are employed by a wide variety of people - universities, research institutes, NASA (who you'd think would have a vested interest in denying climate change). Those scientists who do deny it are almost invariably employed by institutes receiving money from the oil industry and right-wing organisations.

And if the climatologists who 'believe in' anthropogenic climate change are specifically employed to back up the 'politicians version' of things, why is it that politicians have taken 20 years to accept what the climatologists have been saying? Why did they state the opposite for so long, and only now begin to take notice? Mainstream politicians (particularly in the US, but here too) have been denying global warming for years. It took the weight of the IPPC to finally convince politicians that the weight of evidence was against their version of things. So if it is a great conspiracy, as some suggest, it was an incredibly elaborate and well-thought-out one, which was planned two decades in advance. On the other hand, what you're saying could be wrong.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ That's just what I was going to say. ^^^^

[Guest Anonymous]

There are two things which worry me about Global Warming:

 

1st. Most of the population believe the government hype and bullsquash.

 

2nd. I wish there was some Global Warming, as I've been up to my nuts in snow all day.. Can some of you bloody environmentally concious, jump on the band wagon, pro Tesco brigade, etc. etc., please explain to me where all this excess warmth is,, I need some.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Auld Rasmie, all the excess hot air is coming out of the Lerwick Toon Hall

 

below freezing all day over here with snow, and marble size projectile snow pellets taking the paint of the side of my car this evening!

[Guest Anonymous]

..... all the excess hot air is coming out of the Lerwick Toon Hall

 

At last, a sensible explanation for Global Warming.

[Spinner72]

We're simply not that big a part of the equation, and never will be.

Sorry to have to come back again, but this point seems to be absolutely crucial to this whole discussion. It is possibly the main difference between the two sides of the debate- those who believe humans make a big impact on their environment and those who don't.

 

On the contrary, I agree 100% with everything you say in your first paragraph.

 

Thats the problem in my eyes, there is no "big divide". Nobody can deny that climate change and global warming have, and are, taking place, nor that humankind has been a major factor in the way you describe. Be "we", i meerly meant us, here, now. Not the entire history of humankind.

 

To suggest that now, by paying a bit more tax, or denying power to provide water and medical facilities for third world countries for a few (relative) years until renewable/sustainable energy is both environmentally and cost effective, will make everything alright? Well that doesnt make much sense to me.

 

Don't forget the IPCC report has been rubbished by many of the scientists involved, who have since distanced themselves from the report, as it was edited by politicians to suit their aims. Nor that our own good old Maggie Thatcher was using global warming as her biggest argument for replacing coal fired power stations with nuclear ones, long before anyone had heard the letters IPPC. (though of course, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research which was established at that time to provide support for this, eventualy ended up closely linked to the IPPC)

 

I regret using to word conspiracy earlier, as i don't believe their is one involved from either side. Its just politics interfering, again, with science, and encouraging people to take one snapshot of opinion and roll with it to suit their policies at the time. After all, the science of global warming isn't new, the first scientific papers on were pubished almost 130 years ago.

 

It's not uncommon. Look at Newtons third law of motion. It was proved false many years ago but is still actively taught as being correct simply because its too much hassle to change...

 

... until you have a policy to push and can get the public on board

 

Edit - I feel it's worthwhile to draw attention to the introduction on the Hadley Centre website. It pretty much speaks for itself;

Climate change — what you need to know

The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is changing. These changes will affect all organisations — commercial and governmental, local and international.

 

This Met Office climate change seminar focuses on the needs of professionals. It equips you with the knowledge of climate change you need to be able to make the best, most robust decisions for your organisation, informing its policies and safeguarding its future and reputation.

[Skunnered]

Didn't someone once say that with Global Warming we would be able to grow grapes in Shetland? Well my grapes are feeling pretty sorry for themselves right now.