Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

In case anyone missed it: a new study which puts the lie to the solar activity theory. (Though I'm sure its proponents will simply choose to ignore the evidence as usual).

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

 

Or if you prefer the Telegraph to the New Scientist, here's their take:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml

.

 

Wondered what kept you?!

 

Firstly, lets just say I came on this forum with one link to one report which said "AGW is complete phooey" would you accept its findings and give up everything you have believed thus far? No, course you wouldnt, you would quite properly deride me for saying something was proven by relying on one, uncorroborated report. One paper does not a theory make Malachy.

 

Secondly, this report has only just been posted on the RA website and therefore has not been properly peer-reviewed (something you've already said you put great store by) so lets wait and see shall we.

 

Thirdly, just a matter of weeks before this report came out there was this one which said the suns activity was at its highest ever level, so who's right?

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

 

Interesting that you choose to ridicule the notion that Governments (yes thats plural - I didnt mean just the US) would find anything good in GW - well how about more taxes for one from things like car tax, fuel tax, road tolls etc etc all in the name of being "environmentally friendly." Call me Mr.Cynical but I rather suspect GW is proving to be rather a money spinner for various treasuries around the world. Sorry, my mistake, Governments/politicians are altruists aren't they? Silly me!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.   Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocaly

This guy went to Princeton University and Harvard Law School for goodness sake! Please tell me he knew the Paris Climate Agreement was named after the location the meeting took place and had nothing t

Anyone else getting a little fed up with being told that we have to "cut this, and cut that" when in truth, the one thing that we MUST cut is the global population.  Anything else is just "fiddling wh

It doesn't really matter what side of the fence you sit on. Fact is - we gotta react, now!

 

Even if global warming is a natural phenomenon - and lets face it, the climate has been changing since long before we were here - there's no excuse for apathy.

 

I live in a land where we don't unnecessarily leave the lights on, or for that matter we don't flush the toilet unnecessarily. Nothing to do with hygiene - just common sense.

 

We can help to remedy some of the aforementioned problems as individuals, but to strike the real perpetrators we must work as a team!

 

In essence, we cannot tame the giants that manipulate the brainwashed masses, but we can at least live with a clear conscience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An oft used example of how we humans are affecting the climate through AGW is the rate at which ice is melting in the Arctic. Its not that simple though. This has been questioned by some scientists who point out that the Arctic is subject to naturally occurring "multidecadal variability."

 

One of these is Professor Igor Polyakov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The link below gives you his "CV"

 

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=ipolyakov

 

And the following links take you to the relevant papers.

 

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/data/sat_slp.php

 

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/50yr/index.php

 

Prof Polyakov is highly respected internationally and his work has been thoroughly peer-reviewed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, lets just say I came on this forum with one link to one report which said "AGW is complete phooey" would you accept its findings and give up everything you have believed thus far? No, course you wouldnt, you would quite properly deride me for saying something was proven by relying on one, uncorroborated report. One paper does not a theory make Malachy.

But this is exactly what you are doing. You are producing single examples of columnists and the occasional scientist who disagree with the consensus (one suspects for financial or publicity reasons). You come up with these scraps as if they mean something. We are talking about a belief that is held by the vast vast vast majority of climate scientists, arctic scientists and meteorologists. Their views are based on the results of decades of research and analysis. Forgive me if my views are not swayed in the slightest by the ramblings of a handful of cranks. Research that concludes the same as everyone else has found may not get you noticed, but it is far more valuable than research done with the sole aim of seeking publicity and making a name for yourself as a 'maverick'.

 

Call me Mr.Cynical but I rather suspect GW is proving to be rather a money spinner for various treasuries around the world. Sorry, my mistake, Governments/politicians are altruists aren't they? Silly me!

 

Well, Mr Cynical, politicans may not be altruists, but they are in the business of getting re-elected. Introducing unpopular tax raises will not get them elected. If the government was really listening to the scientists were saying they would be introducing carbon rationing tomorrow. In fact they would have done it years ago. But they are not really listening. And they won't introduce carbon rationing (yet) because it will get them voted out. The reason for that is that people are far too willing to believe the propoganda and disinformation being spread by people like yourself. The climate scientists are convinced about global warming but the public are not. This is the same kind of common sense that says the sun goes round the earth.

Just thinking about this subject is making me far too depressed. There is no point in us throwing different links back and forward because it is helping no-one. You believe whatever you want to believe. There is no evidence that will make you change your mind. And believe me, I will take no pleasure in saying "I told you so."

Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is exactly what you are doing. You are producing single examples of columnists and the occasional scientist who disagree with the consensus(one suspects for financial or publicity reasons). You come up with these scraps as if they mean something.

 

Well no actually. What I have posted thus far is only the tip of the iceberg (if you will excuse the pun. I can reference literally hundreds of papers and articles from hundreds of scientists which do not agree with the current "received wisdom" on climate change. You are the one who insists there is an unbroken consensus on the issue and that the science is proven - end of story. There is not. It is not.

 

sole aim of seeking publicity and making a name for yourself as a 'maverick'.

 

Again, with the ad hominems and the "poisoning the well" tactics, you do like your logical fallacies dont you?

 

Well, Mr Cynical, politicans may not be altruists, but they are in the business of getting re-elected. Introducing unpopular tax raises will not get them elected.

 

If you care to look there is ample research which shows that the public is prepared to put up with tax increases if they believe that the money is being put to good use, i.e. combatting Global Warming instead of, lets say, illegal wars for example, but then thats the problem with politicians isnt it, say one thing, do the other.

 

If the government was really listening to the scientists were saying they would be introducing carbon rationing tomorrow. In fact they would have done it years ago. But they are not really listening. And they won't introduce carbon rationing (yet) because it will get them voted out.

 

My point exactly! They are listening selectively to the bits that allow them to hammer us with more taxes.

 

The reason for that is that people are far too willing to believe the propoganda and disinformation being spread by people like yourself.

 

Yet more ad hominems, tsk.

 

And believe me, I will take no pleasure in saying "I told you so."

 

Hurrah, something we can agree on at last. I will take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is time to declare winners and losers in the global warming debate. The results might surprise you.

 

For more than a decade, scientists and policy makers have engaged in a sometimes vitriolic debate about the Earth's climate. The debate concerns potential changes associated with increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, popularly known as global warming. The debate can be summarized as Global Warming: YES or NO? It is rooted in science, including frequent references to computer models and scientific expertise. Yet the debate only thinly masks the associated policy prescriptions: Global Warming: YES = global emissions reductions, while Global Warming: NO = business as usual.

 

On the Global Warming: YES side of the debate are those who think of themselves as Cassandras, warning of impending environmental doom caused by profligate lifestyles and a lack of concern for human impact on the environment. Some Cassandras have hitched their existing social and environmental concerns to global warming. They see the issue as a way to mobilize public support. Still, the majority of Cassandras have taken the moral high ground. If humans are acting in ways that could compromise our collective future, they point out, it is our responsibility to take precautions.

 

The champions of the Global Warming: NO side of the debate see themselves in the role of Dorothy, pulling back the curtain to reveal the frail wizards who manipulate scientific models for political motives. The Dorothies seek to expose the great uncertainty involved in the models, even while at times presenting a "don't worry, be happy" philosophy. This side of the debate has gained stature from the excesses of the Cassandras who make claims at the fringes of scientific credibility—like the well-worn but incorrect claim that extreme hurricanes occur more frequently now than in earlier decades this century.

 

But the Dorothies are guilty of many excesses themselves. Some have even promised that rising greenhouse-gas levels will benefit society. As with the Cassandras, some also use the debate to exploit their political interests, all but inviting ad hominum attacks on their motives, rather than on the merits of their positions. But, like the Cassandras, many Dorothies have taken the moral high ground, pointing out that it would be foolish to act as if we know the future with certainty, when most evidence suggests that we don't — and can't.

 

So who has won the debate? The answer depends on how one judges victory.

 

From the standpoint of policy action, the Cassandras have won the debate going away. The 1997 Kyoto Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, proposed strong reductions in emissions growth. Many nations of the world have all but accepted that something of the sort will become reality. Many companies as well, including Ford and British Petroleum, have begun to acknowledge the need for emissions policies in response to climate change.

 

Some Cassandras will decry the pace of the action. But it cannot be denied that the Global Warming: YES or NO? debate is no longer about whether to act. Even in the United States, where the Senate has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the question now is how to act.

 

From the standpoint of science, however, the debate is a draw. We have learned much more about climate over the past decade, but arguably we are no closer to gleaning the future state of the climate. The relationship between human activities, the atmosphere, and indeed the global environment is much more complicated than scientists had thought. Modeling historical climate has proven hard enough, but accurate predictions of future climate — decades or more hence — remain out of reach. An oil crisis, a volcano, or a breakthrough in energy technology would render irrelevant the predictions of even the most sophisticated computer model.

 

In any case, the real-world evaluation of the accuracy of climate forecasts must await the unfolding of a distant future. Thus, there is one prediction of which we can be confident: ten years from now, debate over scientific uncertainties about global warming will rage on. Still, the public is on the side of the Cassandras. As many studies have shown, the public readily believes that human activities can significantly alter the Earth's climate. The conclusions of prestigious science reports can seem rather tame by comparison.

 

From the standpoint of the impacts of climate on humans and the environment, we are all losers. The global-warming debate has missed one of the most important aspects of the problem: Climate changes. In fact, the phrase "climate change" is redundant. A changing climate is an unchanging attribute of a dynamic Earth. Human-caused or not, these changes are likely to have impacts on society and the environment. Natural disasters, human health, biodiversity, endangered species, water resources, international trade, financial services, transportation networks, agriculture — virtually any area of human experience is in some way affected by climate. These impacts are occurring today, and they hold the prospect of increasing in the future. And for the most part, we are doing too little in response.

 

We are all losers because the global warming debate has focused almost exclusively on preventing climate change. And it has addressed greenhouse-gas emissions as the sole cause. But climate is only part of the cause of impacts, and greenhouse gases are only one potential cause of changes in climate. ...

 

... not hundreds ... not me ;-) ... just one of the egg-heads responsible for IPCC 4 (RJ Pielke, Jr.) comenting on the media hysteria following the publishing of the report ...

 

And hands up:

Who has read the IPCC 4 report and who is just quoting from the media?

Who has noticed that in between of IPCC 3 and IPCC 4 the calculated human impact was reduced by roughly some 25%?

Who quotes that report correctly when it comes to the question of human impacts with all its "might bes, "possiblies" and "more probable than not"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thirdly, just a matter of weeks before this report came out there was this one which said the suns activity was at its highest ever level, so who's right?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

 

The BBC report indeed states that over the past 60 years the sun has been more active than at any time in the previous 1000 years. It then goes on to say that sunspot activity cannot explain the warming observed over the last 20 years, which is instead put down to a human-induced greenhouse effect. The following article, published online in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, also shows that solar variability can in no way explain the observed temperature rise since 1985.

 

There does seem to be a wider problem in receiving climate science through the mainstream media. After hearing the arguments against anthropogenic global warming, as presented in the Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", I was left feeling pretty confused and a bit like I’d been had by the green lobbyists. The documentary subsequently attracted a lot of criticism and its arguments were shown to be based largely on half-truths and outdated science:

 

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

 

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#more-1047

 

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

 

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science, run by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. They aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary (see the posts on 9th and 13th Jul 2007, regarding the resistance of the Greenland Ice Sheet to climate change and the solar theory, both mentioned earlier on this thread).

 

The Hadley Centre at the Met. Office also has a short section on common climate change myths which I’d recommend reading.

 

The IPCC 4th Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers (OK, so I didn't read the full report, but it's massive) states that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". In IPCC terminology, "very likely" means more than 90% likelihood.

 

Really, I think 90% probability is about all we can reasonably ask for. Check out the following interview with Carl Wunsch, Professor of Oceanography at MIT. The interview was given in response to his being grossly misrepresented in the above-mentioned documentary. In particular, note the following extract:

 

Is there is no proof? Well, there is no proof, but science is very rarely about proof, science is about plausibility. Most of the people who work in this subject without guaranteeing anything will say, "It seems very likely that we are seeing human induced warming because it is taking place on time scales that nature does not normally produce". There is the argument in that film that it's all due to the sun. There is absolutely no evidence, apart from the distortions they made in the graphs in that film in the version that I saw, there's no absolutely no evidence that what we're seeing is due to solar forcing.

 

Will I guarantee what we're seeing is due to anthropogenic causes? No. Do I think it's very likely that it is due to anthropogenic causes, and we should react on that basis? Yes, I do, it's very worrying.

(my emphasis)

 

Given that the stakes are so high, I tend to agree with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I used to think that the effects of global warming would subside within a couple of centuries of us changing to a zero fossil fuel economy but it seems I was wrong. The changes we are now making to the worlds climate appear to be, to all intents and purposes, permanent. :cry:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

About time that some sense was written on this subject.

Every time someone has the temerity to deny agw I'm reminded of the reaction of the John Cleese character in life of brian You know the the one who follows the messiah "and I should know, I've followed a few" when the old guy says of brian, "he's not the messiah". remember the reaction BURN KILL HERETIC.

well thats the prevelent reaction to doubters. no matter how good their argument.

Global warming has become the new religion and god help us non believers.

Just a thought but a lot of folk who shout about global warming also get up and shout at the G8 summits could their political beliefs not have an effect on their environmental beliefs. after all if you already hate those big nasty corporations is it not great to have another stick to beat them with.

I personaly do not have the time or inclination to post links to support my arguments (i would rather get pissed than troll the net) but I have checked out links posted by others.

And guess what I find myself agreeing with bitttter truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought but a lot of folk who shout about global warming also get up and shout at the G8 summits could their political beliefs not have an effect on their environmental beliefs. after all if you already hate those big nasty corporations is it not great to have another stick to beat them with.

Ah, the "left-wingers are concerned about global warming, therefore it can't be a problem" argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...