Is global warming/climate change a crock?

[Daniel]

Was having a bit of a read of some article on the net today and I've come to think that there's a good chance that Climate change/Global Warming is a crock of youknowwhat.

Last night I'd been watching some program about how if you look at certain patterns in the bible the bible has apparently predicted many assasinations and world events such as the twin towers attack and so on. Obviously a lot of people don't agree with this and set about disproving it and have since found similar messages in books like Moby Dick and other popular novels. So basically you can prove anything with pattern because patterns are fricking random and when you've got something as large as a climate on a planet then if there isn't a drought in Australia there's bound to be a severe flood or a hurricane somewhere else you can blame on climate change. Do people simply see stuff that's happened and then go "oooh there are more baseball games going on now than there were last year so that's what caused it!" or are we seeing real science in action?

As someone commented in the comments page below. How did they not predict the warm 2006 or the exceptionally wet summer of 2007 in the UK if global warming is having such a profound effect on the worlds climate. I simply think stuff is happening and Scientists are trying to find a reason why it's happening so they can be the one that proved that "Climate Change" exists and their picture can be next to that of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein in the book of "Scientists who actually discovered something real which didn't turn out to be wildly wrong later down the line"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/30/flooding_plants/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/30/flooding_plants/comments/#c_54161

Here they also talk of there being vineyards (vineyards need warm weather of course!) in Northern England which would be impossible today so obviously the earth was rather warm at some stage in the very recent past and there was no industrialisation going on at this point either.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=16396

Thoughts?

Has anyone actually proved that CO2 in the amounts in the atmosphere is actually enough to cause this warming on the earth and is there any proof that this will be the end of us?

I personally think it's all a crock of poo :mark:

[tinchote]

I personally think it's all a crock of poo :mark:

You're gonna get some friends show up in this thread soon ;) :p :


Anyway, I agree with you. In particular when I know that some of the evidence is not such. For example, my Inuit friends tell me that in the last two winter, ice melting was slower than usual. They also tell me that the starving of polar bears has little to do with GW and a lot to do with hunting quotas being established in the 80s, leading to overpopulation and thus to starvation. A last example very near to me is that this last winter in Argentina has been the coolest in 45 years.

I have been interested for a while in the wording "climate change": I don't really know what they mean by that. Do they mean that climate didn't change in the past? That doesn't make any sense. So, climate is changing, from what to what? I'm lost here.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Daniel, join the growing club of skeptics and realists who wonder where the heck did this new religion come from?

The problem isn't that there is or isn't climatic warming, it is that there are too many fanatics that seem to think that their answers to the question are the only ones that count, and that you are not allowed to contest this "Truth" or become part of a heretic class.

I have no idea if the Earth is actually getting warmer across the board. It is just about impossible to quantify, but there is a few things that are noticeable:

1) Winters in my part of Canada seem to be warmer with less snow. Is this permanent? Is this something I should worry about? Maybe, maybe not, but my summer this year was no warmer than most, and the stats back that up. Spring was slow in getting going around here, so does that mean this year is a wash? Heck, in the end, likely a year or two fluctuations mean very little. Real substantive Climatic altering evidence may not show itself for HUNDREDS of years. I think to base a lot of this crap on what has gone on in the last 20 years is nonsense, yet that is what this new religion is doing.

2) The earth was a lot warmer, and then a lot cooler than it is now, and that is in the period of the late first Millenium (warmer) until the Middle Ages, where it stayed cool up to about the 1800s. Evidence of this is from historical accounts, and the fact that Vikings landed in Newfoundland's north coast and called it Vinland and reported grapes growing. Now anyone who has been to L'Anse aux Meadows, where the settlement's ruins are would know that it is a damn sight colder there now than it ever was around 1000, so what can you conclude? One thing is for sure, we didn't have an industrial economy back then, so it wasn't greenhouse gas emissions from man.

Daniel my friend, be prepared to batten down the hatches for all the abuse you will take from those who believe in this crap universally. When you use facts and logic, you are called names, and then the caveat is always tossed out there "We cant take a chance that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, so wouldn't it make sense to be prudent?" I agree if you an show me how to knock down CO2 emissions without costing me or everyone a ton of money and kick our economies into a tail spin? If not, then some more prudent public policy and research is in order. I don't have any faith in the IPCC studies for there is so much research being done by people who are not sold on this theory who have found flaws with it, and they are a lot better educated than I, a common layman.

[Drew]

I don't really know what to think about it. I'm sceptical about global warming being caused by man, but I can't help but thinking it's not such a bad idea to try and clean up our act anyway.

[Daniel]

i agree. Efficiency, energy conservation and air quality can only be good things.

[NoFender]

I just look at the # of ice ages our planet has been through, and I ask, What guy with a factory,a Hemi, and a can of hair spray started those???

When Mother Nature decides to turn it off, she will, and there's nothing Al Gore can do about it.

No, it's not right to dump chemicals in our water, and No, it's not right to pollute, but sometimes these Green freaks go way over board.

[Hondo]

I don't really know what to think about it. I'm sceptical about global warming being caused by man, but I can't help but thinking it's not such a bad idea to try and clean up our act anyway.


I bow to the smartest post I've seen anywhere about global warming.

I believe the climate is changing as part of it's natural cycles, not the influence of man.

[MJW]

C02 problem - plant for forests, rip up the asphalt and have gravel roads. Make motorsport carbon neutral.

[BDunnell]

I don't really know what to think about it. I'm sceptical about global warming being caused by man, but I can't help but thinking it's not such a bad idea to try and clean up our act anyway.

I agree with you to a point, but I do believe that there is enough evidence of man-made climate change to make it credible. I know that, equally, there is scientific evidence to the contrary, but I don't personally buy into it.

I am certainly very sceptical of the way in which, coincidentally, many enthusiasts of things that pollute, whether cars, aeroplanes or whatever, happen to believe that global warming is a myth. This is no coincidence. I am not really levelling this at anyone here, but it seems to suggest that one's opinion on the issue is often based more on one's interests than anything more solid.

[Alexamateo]

... rip up the asphalt and have gravel roads...

just fyi. Gravel roads are actually more expensive to maintain, not to mention they throw a lot more particulate matter (dust) into the air.

Now, if what you are trying to refer to is not to have 8 lanes of steaming asphalt cutting through the countryside, a solution could be to have no more than say three lanes contiguous seperated by planting strips of trees and shrubs. Then though you would get people complaining about safety when cars run off the road and crash into the trees so what do you do? All life is a trade-off.

Back on topic. The earth is warming, man probably contributes it to it some, but not to the extent the doomsday predictors would have us believe. Regardless, if carbon emissions are a problem, they are working the wrong side, because China and developing countries are not going to stop progress. If it truly is a problem, they should work on ways to remove it after it's been emmitted not before.

Another thing is this. What is the proper temperature for the planet? The Vikings settled in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period(800-1300AD), and those settlements had to be abandoned when the earth cooled and entered The Little Ice Age(1300?-1850) The Viking colonies died out in the 1400's because they couldn't grow enough food to sustain themselves anymore. We may come to find out that the warming now opens up great swaths of Canada and Siberia to agriculture in order to feed a growing planet population. THere is always a tendency to focus on negative aspects, when there could be many positives also.

[jso1985]

I personally think it's all a crock of poo :mark:

so do I.

I'm hating the fundamentalism some people takes with their belief in man-caused Global Warming. but let's be honest a bit of pollution control won't hurt at all, probably won't stop GW anyway but it can help on something

[Rollo]

Industrial Activity over the past 300 year and the burning of things which releases chemicals and latent heat into the environment has had zero effect?

People won't care about global warming until it is economically beneficial to do so. Companies never change anything unless forced to by legislation, their job is to make a return to the people they're answerable to.

I think that global warming exists, and that we're responsible but no-one is going to do a damn thing about it until it becomes too expensive not to.

[Woodeye]

Did't we just had a thread like this some time ago? :mark:

This time I'm not going to stick my hand into this crock of youknowwhat.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Another thing is this. What is the proper temperature for the planet? .



Who knows?

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/2.jpg

[jso1985]

interesting chart

what caused CO2 to increase before?

[tinchote]

interesting chart

what caused CO2 to increase before?

The greenhouse gases caused by the stone-age industry ;) :p :

[Alexamateo]

The greenhouse gases caused by the stone-age industry ;) :p :
Here's the proof! :p : ;) :)

[tstran17_88]

interesting chart

what caused CO2 to increase before?Mostly volcanic activity during those periods.

[tstran17_88]

I think we need to be less concerned about C02 (carbon dioxide) and more concerned about CO (carbon monoxide) , Nox and Hydrocarbons. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too and there is a bigger percentage of that in the atmosphere and nobody seems worried about that. Plants need CO2 to survive and we need the plants producing oxygen to survive. But that's just my radical anti-Gore, anti-Hollywood opinion. :D

[Hondo]

Scientists say our sun will run out of fuel, collapse and take us with it someday, so......who cares? Then we have the astroid group that swears we are going to be smacked at any time by an object from space large enough to render us obsolete and there's nothing we can do about it.

I think it's hard for people and especially governments to accept that there are things out there we don't and can't control. "Why do our weather patterns no longer fit within our linear projections?" To say the climate is doing what it does naturally, in short, it's changing because it can and does, is far too simple and helpless for some to accept.

But thats whats going on and why.

[BDunnell]

Scientists say our sun will run out of fuel, collapse and take us with it someday, so......who cares? Then we have the astroid group that swears we are going to be smacked at any time by an object from space large enough to render us obsolete and there's nothing we can do about it.

I think it's hard for people and especially governments to accept that there are things out there we don't and can't control. "Why do our weather patterns no longer fit within our linear projections?" To say the climate is doing what it does naturally, in short, it's changing because it can and does, is far too simple and helpless for some to accept.

But thats whats going on and why.

May I ask why you believe this view and not that of the many scientists who think otherwise?

[Daniel]

because the weather has been warmer and colder than it is now. The thames froze over in the 17 or 1800's so it obvious that things change. The thames even froze over in 1963. I find it hard to believe that in 40 years it's changed so much because of carbon dioxide.

[Hondo]

because the weather has been warmer and colder than it is now. The thames froze over in the 17 or 1800's so it obvious that things change. The thames even froze over in 1963. I find it hard to believe that in 40 years it's changed so much because of carbon dioxide.

Thank you. The climate on this planet has undergone many changes, before man, while man was here, while man was beginning industrialization, and it will continue to change, or evolve if you like.

Thats why it's called nature. It does these things naturally, is doing these things naturally, and will continue to do these things naturally, and nature doesn't give a damn whether you like it or not.

From another standpoint, trying to force the weather from it's natural progression back into a pattern that you consider pleasant and proper is pompous and arrogant as hell.

BD, you're a natural born politician.

[MadCat]

and it will continue to change, or evolve if you like.

Thats why it's called nature. It does these things naturally, is doing these things naturally, and will continue to do these things naturally, and nature doesn't give a damn whether you like it or not.

That is exactly what I think. Climate Change/Global Warming is the biggest load of tripe i've heard.

Are they using it to try and scare people into becoming more aware of the 'energy' they use I sometimes wonder??

As if the amount of carbon emissions a car produces will decrease the speed of earths natural 'evolution' ... I pity those who have fallen for it.

Although, like Daniel says, there's no harm in "doing our bit for the environment" like recycling.

[BDunnell]

Thank you. The climate on this planet has undergone many changes, before man, while man was here, while man was beginning industrialization, and it will continue to change, or evolve if you like.

Thats why it's called nature. It does these things naturally, is doing these things naturally, and will continue to do these things naturally, and nature doesn't give a damn whether you like it or not.

From another standpoint, trying to force the weather from it's natural progression back into a pattern that you consider pleasant and proper is pompous and arrogant as hell.

So, without the benefit of having done any scientific research of your own, why are you willing to believe that those who have and concluded that global warming as a phenomenon does exist are wrong?


BD, you're a natural born politician.

With respect, I don't think this has anything to do with it. I'm merely asking what I think is a reasonable question.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That I posted may be a little deceiving.

In the past 400,000 years Co2 has varied from 180ppmv to 300ppmv, worryingly in the past view decades it has risen to near 480ppmv which is unnaturally high amount.

However I've heard before that it's temperature that controls the amount of C02 in the atmosphere due to the effect it has on plant life :\ ......not the other way round

[tinchote]

So, without the benefit of having done any scientific research of your own, why are you willing to believe that those who have and concluded that global warming as a phenomenon does exist are wrong?


Because of opinions like this one:



Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"


You can find that opinion and many others here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_asse ssment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is _primarily_caused_by_natural_processes)

[Hondo]

Because there seems to be just as many scientists that say the change is natural. And, as has been stated many, many times before, the earth's climate has changed just like it's doing now before man was a factor in anything. If the climate had fit our linear expectations of the seasons throughout the planet's history, then I would be open to the man-made argument.

I am not a scientist, nor do I have any training in climate and weather patterns. I look at the situation and ask myself "does this make sense?". That no more disqualifies from forming an opinion than if I was sitting on a jury and the prosecution presents their DNA expert and evidence and then the defense presents their DNA expert who swears with just as much holy zeal that the prosecution has it all wrong. The fact that I know nothing about DNA does not excuse me from being on the jury or release me from my responsibility to make a decision as a part of that jury. So, from the 2 experts testimonies, I have to decide which one makes the most sense to me. Many times, the simple answer is the correct answer,

[BDunnell]

Of course, I understand that there are contrary opinions. However, I would reckon that there is a majority of relevant scientific opinion that does believe in global warming, and I am prepared to concur with it. Obviously, I can't claim to have undertaken any research by myself, but from what I have read and heard I believe the latter to be right. On a very simple basis, I do not understand how carbon emissions can have had no meaningful effect over the last century or more, just as it is obvious that smoking does damage to one's health, or that a smoggy atmosphere in urban areas is hardly as good as clean air.

Believe me, I would be delighted if I could be convinced that global warming didn't exist and that there is no need to take any action at all, but as things stand, this isn't my view. Even if it was, I am sure I would still think that now is a good time to clean up our act.

[Daniel]

Of course, I understand that there are contrary opinions. However, I would reckon that there is a majority of relevant scientific opinion that does believe in global warming, and I am prepared to concur with it. Obviously, I can't claim to have undertaken any research by myself, but from what I have read and heard I believe the latter to be right. On a very simple basis, I do not understand how carbon emissions can have had no meaningful effect over the last century or more, just as it is obvious that smoking does damage to one's health, or that a smoggy atmosphere in urban areas is hardly as good as clean air.

Believe me, I would be delighted if I could be convinced that global warming didn't exist and that there is no need to take any action at all, but as things stand, this isn't my view. Even if it was, I am sure I would still think that now is a good time to clean up our act.
Yes but once upon a time when "scientists" had only been making maps for a while and studying the planets for a while we thought the sun went around us and that the earth was flat. Scientists are always learning. It just seems that every strange bit of weather that happens is blamed on "climate change" we don't even know if we CAN impact upon the weather :mark:

I've never said we can't but there is a lot of evidence to say that weather is a very dynamic thing. When it was clearish when I got out of my car but raining when I got into work I didn't blame climate change, I simply understood that weather is unpredictable. There have always been droughts and floods and storms and cold snaps and heat waves. Why all of a sudden does it come down to climate change?

For all we know it could be down to the fact that there are more dachshunds around than there have ever been? If there are more dachshunds around next year and the weather is stranger next year then that must be the cause. Of course my argument is absurd because I've not provided historical proof that in times of abnormal weather (what is normal weather?) there were high numbers of dachshunds. I could just show some graph showing the last 40 years or so of weather and of the dachshund population and show that there is correlation between the two. Now of course that is absurd but in 10 or 20 years if the warming cycle ends even in the face of further CO2 gas emission then perhaps these scientists will look as silly as the ones who said that the earth was flat and the sun orbited us?


This was published in June this year.

OMFG PERTH IS GOING TO DIE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A DRY WINTER!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.warwickhughes.com/water/twa25jun.gif

So what happened? In August Perth got a crapload of rain and the dams are now at their highest level for this time of the year for the last 5 years or so. Perth had a dry Autumn...... blamed on global warming so I heard and then it was equalled out by a wet late july and wet august. Probably blamed on global warming too.

It seems that forecasters are chasing their tails. They can't predict what the weather's going to be like as well as they used to in times of more "average" (I prefer that term to "normal") weather and they've found a convenient cause.

At the end of whatever period we're currently in temperatures will start to drop and scientists will find some clever way of having it tied in with climate change and CO2 emissions just you mark my words. They'll probably argue that it's just a blip and that temperatures are still on their way up :)

It's not that I don't believe that it's possible we're having an impact such as this it's just that a lot of evidence such as ice core samples and so on are pointing to the fact that CO2 has little to do with the temperature of the planet. Yet scientists hold up graphs of how temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. That's only a small part of the earth's 4.5 billion years of history. It makes as much sense as me branding you as an environmentalist nut because you posted something about global warming in this thread when we all know there's much more to you than just what you posted on the forum on this thread.

[Daniel]

http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/LG07.JPG
Another interesting graphic which shows the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature and the correlation between that big burning thing in the sky which I believe is called "the sun" and northern hemisphere temperatures.

[BDunnell]

Yes but once upon a time when "scientists" had only been making maps for a while and studying the planets for a while we thought the sun went around us and that the earth was flat. Scientists are always learning. It just seems that every strange bit of weather that happens is blamed on "climate change" we don't even know if we CAN impact upon the weather :mark:

I've never said we can't but there is a lot of evidence to say that weather is a very dynamic thing. When it was clearish when I got out of my car but raining when I got into work I didn't blame climate change, I simply understood that weather is unpredictable. There have always been droughts and floods and storms and cold snaps and heat waves. Why all of a sudden does it come down to climate change?

I think that people saying that (for example) recent summers in the UK, whether they've been unusually hot or unusually wet, are examples of the effects of climate change are barking up the wrong tree. This surely isn't how the effects of climate change work. We won't necessarily notice the difference on a year-by-year basis — maybe, even, on a decade-by-decade basis. However, as I said, I am willing to trust those scientists — a very significant body of opinion, after all — who believe that global warming does exist and needs to be tackled.

You say that scientists are always learning. This is true. I believe that the discovery of climate change as a phenomenon is part of that learning process. I do not believe that saying it all comes down to natural phenomena represents a scientific advance (not that every advance is accurate, of course). It's hardly anything new under the sun.


Now of course that is absurd but in 10 or 20 years if the warming cycle ends even in the face of further CO2 gas emission then perhaps these scientists will look as silly as the ones who said that the earth was flat and the sun orbited us?

Or as silly as everyone who, today, doesn't believe that global warming exists or is a man-made phenomenon in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This could very well be the case too.

By the way, may I ask whether you reckon you would feel exactly the same way if you weren't an enthusiast of cars, motorsport and aircraft? It seems to me that a lot of people (not necessarily you, I hasten to add) who are interested in such things do not believe in global warming, which cannot be a coincidence.

[Daniel]

)perhaps they find it easier to ask that there things be banned if there isn't so much of an impact upon them :) i've not said it's necessarily incorrect to assume that we are having an impact upon the climate but that there should be balance to the argument and i honestly don't think there is balance in the argument. I think it's possible this might not be a false alarm but think we should be cautious before we go believing the studies of what is a rather a new science (climate study) as it's not like gravity where you can see how fast an object falls and them somehow measure it. Climate is far more complex and beyond our understanding in the way that it works. I also think that mankind has a rather self indulgent hope that we can actually alter something as complex and vast as the world's climate but at the end the day we're an insignificant dot on the history of this planet.

[Malbec]

http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/LG07.JPG
Another interesting graphic which shows the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature and the correlation between that big burning thing in the sky which I believe is called "the sun" and northern hemisphere temperatures.

Doesn't that graph show an overall correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?

I don't mind listening to people who believe there is no connection between CO2 levels and global temperatures. However I would very much like to see evidence that there is NO correlation. The scientific community is very much united regarding global warming and its correlation with CO2 production, and those that disagree tend to have other agendas, ie their funding comes from groups with interests in dissociating CO2 from global warming.

Most of the arguments seem to revolve around 'maybe the scientists are wrong'. I'm afraid science doesn't work like that. You have to present evidence to explain exactly WHY the current prevailing thinking in scientific circles are wrong. Please present this evidence.

[Hondo]

I have no doubt the climate is changing. I will not argue that at all. BDunnell refers to "a significant body" that feels it is being caused by man while choosing to ignore or dismiss "a significant body" that feels it is not caused by man. The answer for most people is merely what side do you want to believe because it seems to be a tied score.

For me, the tie breaker is simple. Has the planet undergone climate change in the past, before man's industrialization? Answer, yes. Can science prove that the climate has changed in the past before our influence? Answer, yes.

Conclusion: Any climate change happening now is due to natural influences.

The short painfully simple answer: the climate is changing because it can.

[Hondo]

Doesn't that graph show an overall correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?

I don't mind listening to people who believe there is no connection between CO2 levels and global temperatures. However I would very much like to see evidence that there is NO correlation. The scientific community is very much united regarding global warming and its correlation with CO2 production, and those that disagree tend to have other agendas, ie their funding comes from groups with interests in dissociating CO2 from global warming.

Most of the arguments seem to revolve around 'maybe the scientists are wrong'. I'm afraid science doesn't work like that. You have to present evidence to explain exactly WHY the current prevailing thinking in scientific circles are wrong. Please present this evidence.

I would, could, and will argue that those that argue for man-induced global warming also have their own little funding agendas they want to see come true. Anyway you look at it, there is money to be made in heaps and piles for the scientific community if they can sell the scare. Neither side is lilly white on the money aspect, so unless this "very much united community" is willing to donate their time and work for free, I'd leave the money out of it. As for government, this is just what they love! A chance to grow ever larger while exerting their ever expanding control over their flocks of sheep as they assure their lambs they are in control and will soon have this problem stopped in it's tracks just like they eliminated the drug problem.

[rah]

I must say there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Bit of a laugh I must say. Except for those that will be affected by AGW that is.

I try to always keep an open mind about this, but I am yet to find an argument that disputes AGW that is real. If anyone would like a hand with some research please let me know. I am by no means an expert, but I do try to learn what I can.

[tinchote]

I must say there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Bit of a laugh I must say. Except for those that will be affected by AGW that is.

I try to always keep an open mind about this, but I am yet to find an argument that disputes AGW that is real. If anyone would like a hand with some research please let me know. I am by no means an expert, but I do try to learn what I can.

No one here is disputing "global warming": that's something you measure. Temperatures are higher, and that's it. The whole debate is about whether that temperature increase is caused by humans or not.


Doesn't that graph show an overall correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?



Definitely not.

The graph shows a constant increase of CO2, while it shows a fluctuation of temperature and insolation (and these two do look correlated from the graph).

[Alexamateo]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

More scientist are joining the ranks of Skeptics according to July 2007 review of peer-reviewed scientific journals 2004-2007

[rah]

No one here is disputing "global warming": that's something you measure. Temperatures are higher, and that's it. The whole debate is about whether that temperature increase is caused by humans or not.



Definitely not.

The graph shows a constant increase of CO2, while it shows a fluctuation of temperature and insolation (and these two do look correlated from the graph).

AGW is anthropogenic global warming ie. man made global warming. I know the temperatures are increasing.

The graph you posted is interesting. It shows a steady increase in CO2 and a steady increase in temperature. You have to look at trends. And also the graph is misleading because it is missing a few years.

[tinchote]

AGW is anthropogenic global warming ie. man made global warming. I know the temperatures are increasing.

The graph you posted is interesting. It shows a steady increase in CO2 and a steady increase in temperature. You have to look at trends. And also the graph is misleading because it is missing a few years.


That's not strictly true. The graph shows such increase from 1800 onwards, while it shows a huge decrease and a huge increase (before and after 1800), with no similar change in CO2.

And, any graph is potentially misleading. So let's put it another way: what evidence are you aware of CO2 causing the current warming? And what do you think about the majority of scientists (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966) who do not seem to endorse the theory that GW is man-caused?

[rah]

That's not strictly true. The graph shows such increase from 1800 onwards, while it shows a huge decrease and a huge increase (before and after 1800), with no similar change in CO2.

And, any graph is potentially misleading. So let's put it another way: what evidence are you aware of CO2 causing the current warming? And what do you think about the majority of scientists (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966) who do not seem to endorse the theory that GW is man-caused?

Year to year the temperature will rise and fall. That is easy to see, what you are looking for is trends. There have always been a dryer year or hotter year or colder year or wetter year, but you need to look at decades or more. You need to look for trends. That graph clearly shows the temperature and CO2 rising.

Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gass? You obviously do not dispute that CO2 levels are rising.

That article you linked to does not bare reading. Anything regarding Inhofe is usually a load of steaming used grass.

[tinchote]

Year to year the temperature will rise and fall. That is easy to see, what you are looking for is trends. There have always been a dryer year or hotter year or colder year or wetter year, but you need to look at decades or more. You need to look for trends. That graph clearly shows the temperature and CO2 rising.


The raising and falling of temperature around 1800, where CO2 was not changing along with temperature are of 25 years each, and this is obtained by taking an 11 year average (as the graph says), so in fact it is 36 years each. Is that "decades or more", or not?



Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gass? You obviously do not dispute that CO2 levels are rising.


No, I don't dispute that. I also don't dispute that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and its amount in the atmosphere is hugely bigger than that of CO2.



That article you linked to does not bare reading. Anything regarding Inhofe is usually a load of steaming used grass.


And you know that before reading, what an objective person you are. The article, whether you read it or not, quotes a scientific paper, written by a certain Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, and the article has been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment.

Because you are so "objective" and you won't read it, I'll summarize for you:



Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7&#37 ;) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

[Hondo]

This is simple tinchote. If the scientists don't support man-made global warming, then they are reaping huge profits from industries that create CO², are all idiots, cannot read graphs and charts, have an evil desire to bring about the end of the world and/or are full of pooh.

If man is the cause of global warming and climate change, enlighten me as to how and why the climate has changed so many times over the course of it's history prior to the industrialization of man.

[Erki]

Who cares about the climate change. Climate could fluctuate as much as it wants to, our task is to play by the rules of Nature, not to expect how, when, how much climate should change. Some people seem to have forgotten that we are also part of nature. It's not just that we depend on each other, but what we do to our earth is what we do to ourselves.

I don't quite understand why the mainstream term is "global warming". Is it because this is something you can measure, make fancy scales. Make nice tools for politicians to hold the illusion of them knowing everything and keep people under control i.e. from thinking by themselves.

For sure the Earth is mightily polluted and quite beat up. Hundreds of years worth of industrial debris can't just disappear without leaving a mark. I don't think increase of deserts and decrease of rain forests are natural cycles; them to be natural would take a lot more time, barring things like huge volcano eruptions. Add there shortage of clean drinking water, decline of fish in oceans plus social things like poverty and there it is.

I could ramble on but I think I'd stop here. Ah, conclusion, you ask? Sure: global warming: dunno, really, it's hard to get your hands on an authentic study that's not been funded by some company(or political group) with vested interest. And as tinchote said in some earlier thread, statistics can show almost everything you want them to show; so I wouldn't really trust any of those charts(often contradicting each other, maybe sometimes even themselves?!). As Rollo said earlier, people won't care until not doing it would dent their wallet. This whole global warming thing is quite made into a joke, no wonder so few people take it seriously.


//wheew, that was long! :D

[rah]

The raising and falling of temperature around 1800, where CO2 was not changing along with temperature are of 25 years each, and this is obtained by taking an 11 year average (as the graph says), so in fact it is 36 years each. Is that "decades or more", or not?

No, I don't dispute that. I also don't dispute that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and its amount in the atmosphere is hugely bigger than that of CO2.

And you know that before reading, what an objective person you are. The article, whether you read it or not, quotes a scientific paper, written by a certain Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, and the article has been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment.

Because you are so "objective" and you won't read it, I'll summarize for you:

Ok maybe I will go down another track: what do you believe is causing global warming?

Water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas, however its effectis short term. CO2 will stay in the atmosphere much longer that CO2 will. An increase in global temps will also increase the water vapour in the air.

Lol, I said the article was not worth reading, I did not say I did not read the article. The article regards a survey load of misinformation that has already been debunked several times. If you need a hand with it, better look here http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php

This is a response to the article by the author of the original survey.

Another thing to consider is that your good Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte is a medical researcher.

Hope that helps.

[Hondo]

Meanwhile, the question begs to be answered, what has caused all the earth's climate changes prior to the industrialization of man?

[Erki]

Meanwhile, the question begs to be answered, what has caused all the earth's climate changes prior to the industrialization of man?

Nature. Nature's nature. It's the nature of the climate to change from time to time.

Perfectly logical. :p

[rah]

Meanwhile, the question begs to be answered, what has caused all the earth's climate changes prior to the industrialization of man?

A range of things dude. From extremely large volcanic eruptions to meteroic impacts, even evolution itself. Solar activity will probably have affected it too. There are natural cycles to global warming and chilling, and I am not saying that the current global warming is partly a natural occurance. The problem with the effect we are having on the planet is the speed of the global warming. We are pushing things too far too quickly.

[Daniel]

Doesn't that graph show an overall correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?

I don't mind listening to people who believe there is no connection between CO2 levels and global temperatures. However I would very much like to see evidence that there is NO correlation. The scientific community is very much united regarding global warming and its correlation with CO2 production, and those that disagree tend to have other agendas, ie their funding comes from groups with interests in dissociating CO2 from global warming.

Most of the arguments seem to revolve around 'maybe the scientists are wrong'. I'm afraid science doesn't work like that. You have to present evidence to explain exactly WHY the current prevailing thinking in scientific circles are wrong. Please present this evidence.
There are peaks and troughs in temperature (which strangely enough are mirrored by those in solar irradiance) and a steady rise in CO2 that just doesn't reflect this over any discernable period.

[Mark]

We can't realistically stop it, no matter what we do.

However that doesn't stop governments using it as an excuse to put up our taxes.

[Hondo]

We can't realistically stop it, no matter what we do.

However that doesn't stop governments using it as an excuse to put up our taxes.

Bingo, bullseye, right on target.

[BDunnell]

So, do you believe outright that it is a conspiracy?

[Daniel]

So, do you believe outright that it is a conspiracy?
I don't. I think most scientists are generally at a loss to explain why the temperature of the planet is rising. So they've used CO2 as an excuse because we're emitting more CO2 than ever and the temperature is going up. But I feel they're falling into the trap that the earth is the centre of the universe. But it's not and there's a sun out there which is the biggest influence on our temperature. I mean an obvious example is night and day. I don't discount the fact that CO2 could be causing this warming but there are a lot of powerful factors at work which we don't have control over such as the sun, ocean temperatures and currents which can have an effect on the climate as a whole. Everyone is aware that there have been ice ages and hot periods in the past but most scientists seem to put it down to us :mark:

[Hondo]

So, do you believe outright that it is a conspiracy?

Conspiracy? No, I've never thought of it that way. I've always viewed it as more of a religion/cult kind of thing. Like religion where you can't prove there is a God and you can't prove there isn't a God. It's a matter of faith and a personal choice based mainly upon fear. Like any religion or cult, you have a certain number of upper level players that realize this could benefit them from a financial aspect or an increased power aspect or both, so they do what they can to keep the passions fueled. Kind of like the big Y2K scare.

The split amongst scientists only proves that neither side can prove anything conclusively to the other side in which case I refer back to my tie-breaker post.

It kind of reminds me of the Islamic thing. You have a bunch of little suicide zealots running around honestly believing, because of what and how they've been taught or told, that they will find themselves with Allah in paradise and the world's supply of virgins. The people above them suspect the whole thing is a crock and they are in it for the money (see the late Mr. Arafat) and the personal power. You really think Bin Laden is going to strap on a bomb and lead from the front?

[BDunnell]

I don't. I think most scientists are generally at a loss to explain why the temperature of the planet is rising. So they've used CO2 as an excuse because we're emitting more CO2 than ever and the temperature is going up.

I think that if you were to tell a scientist who does believe in climate change that you believe this to be their motivation for so doing, they might disagree and with good reason.


I don't discount the fact that CO2 could be causing this warming but there are a lot of powerful factors at work which we don't have control over such as the sun, ocean temperatures and currents which can have an effect on the climate as a whole. Everyone is aware that there have been ice ages and hot periods in the past but most scientists seem to put it down to us :mark:

I would imagine that this has not been discounted in the research that has concluded that climate change is the causal factor.

[Andrewmcm]

Meanwhile, the question begs to be answered, what has caused all the earth's climate changes prior to the industrialization of man?

Galactic dust, long-term sunspot activity, impact of meteorites on the Earth, volcanic activity, any other geological catastrophe you can name, the flipping of the Earth's magnetic poles, although some people suggest that the flipping of the Earth's poles doesn't do much to the human population, it will have an effect on satellites and possibly weather systems.

Humans are but a tiny blot on the landscape of the evolution of the Earth - sure we aren't helping things by polluting the atmosphere, but I honestly don't buy the idea that we're solely responsible for all the climate change we see around us. Once humans have died out the Earth will still remain and some other species will come along to dominate the environment.

Religion doesn't work in scaring the hell out of people any more, so telling people that they're going to die at the hands of terrorists, or that their children's children will suffer due to our ignorance is a good way of getting people to do what governments want. Of course, any measures the serve to rectifiy the wasteful nature of human beings are welcomed, but I feel that the information is presented to the general public in the wrong way.

[Daniel]

I think that if you were to tell a scientist who does believe in climate change that you believe this to be their motivation for so doing, they might disagree and with good reason.



I would imagine that this has not been discounted in the research that has concluded that climate change is the causal factor.
Yes but it's science that went "ooh thallidomide!" and certain scientists that said "You don't need to vaccinate your child, it can cause autism plus these illnesses aren't around anymore".

They were wrong and could quite possibly be wrong now. Just like I could be wrong in doubting them.

[Robinho]

don't know where to start on this, especially as i'm no expert and have no personal scientific study to fall back on.

there are many valid points on this thread, on both side of the fence, and for that i think we should be congratulated, its not often a subject of this magnitude can be discussed without everyone falling out!

i think i see it all like this:
there is no doubt that Global Warming is a phenomenon that is occurring now.

there is no doubt that phenomenon similar to this have occured in the past, before man was able to have an impact on CO2.

for some that fact alone is enough to belive that there is no link between our actions and the warming of the planet.

i think that is too simplistic a view to hold, and i feel the same about the other hardline that Man is solely responsible for Global warming and that it will destoy the planet.

in the past a number of factors have caused varying temperature, both by increased greenhouse gases, and also releasing increasing amount of greenhouse gases. the planet does have a natural cycle over hundreds of thousands of years, in and out of ice ages - i am in no position to say what the tipping point was, or if one thing or a combination of factors caused a shift in these, but, there is a good deal of evdience that temperature rise and CO2 levels are linked (i don't say which has caused which).

throw approx 300 years of intensive man made CO2 emissions into a period where the cycle tended towards a rise in temperatures and you find us where we are today - temps rising faster than before, and forecasts based on the pre-man made CO2 evidence and being overtaken.

it could all be coincidence, it could be a cycle, but also increased emissions may be contributing not soley repsonsible, for the trend in temperatures - hence the fact it has happened before, but has it happened on the scale that scientists are predicting now? i don't belive the worst case scenarios, nor do i hold that we are doing nothing and its all natural, somewhere in between should be enough to make us at least look at what we are doing

couple this to facts such as we are also responsible for stripping the globe of huge proportions of lush forest that thrive on CO2 and convert to oxyge, also that we also contribute to massive amounts of methane from agriculture, land fill and (i think i read this) rice production (?) which is also a greenhouse gas and i tend to feel that we are pushing the natural cycle to its limits and are perhaps on the edge of seeing something that hasn't happened on the same scale in the past, and perhaps, may not drop of as predictably as in the past.

with all this possibly occuring we would be massivley foolish not to research the phenomenon as thoughroughly as possible, and also foolish not to explore avenues that may decrease our part in the global warming.

there is massive amounts of research and revenue in low carbon energy sources both for power and vehicles, and lets face it, the oil and coal reserves on the planet are running out (although thanks to global warming the arctic oil fields have never been so accessible, and thanks to that we may be closer to global conflict than you realise as the fight to control these reserves intensifies and everyone is looking to the middle east scared of anyone with a tan! - please read up on this!).

its very easy to say that you personally can have no effect, that you don't believe it, that developing nations are ignoring tha calls from the west. but its really not that difficult to make a small effort, not just cutting emissions, but other things too.

for the record, i am no Green Freak - i drive a pretty quick and high emissions car, i commute long distances to work, i take foreign holidays, i love motorsport, but i try to be careful and i'm happy to try and offset my emissions if possible and support "green" initiatives.

if it all turns out to be a crock then i'm happy to look foolish, whilst at least having made an effort to save some energy/resources, which is still useful regardless of the motive. however, if it is proved that the science is right, and that we are at least partially reposnsible for a phenomenon that will play havoc with many highly populated and relatively poor areas of the globe that are already lving on the edge of marginally hospitable climates, then i don't wan to think i couldn't be arsed, or chose to belive it was all a conspiracy - i've got a daughter who i want to have a decent life, if making a few sacrifices helps then great, if they don't, then no great loss.

personally i think that big business will increasingly get into "green" technologies and that there will likely be an explosion of carbon cutting products and technologies in the next 20-50years, and that it is these that will make the big difference.

like i said before, regardless of the motive, can anyone really say that saving energy, not being reliant on fossil fuels and saving other scarce resources, or not contrubuting to the amounts of landfill waste is a bad idea?

[Andrewmcm]

Yes but it's science that went "ooh thallidomide!" and certain scientists that said "You don't need to vaccinate your child, it can cause autism plus these illnesses aren't around anymore".

They were wrong and could quite possibly be wrong now. Just like I could be wrong in doubting them.

But science is just that, a sciecne. It is neither exact nor always completely correct. For instance, in my field of academic research there are several seminal papers that were published in the 1970s, all in the leading journal in the field (Journal of Fluid Mechanics). These papers, authored by some of the best fluid dynamicists around, discovered something new and interesting and went into great detail about the specifics of the dynamisc of this new discovery. Zip forward 30 years and some of my research has shown that these researchers didn't fully appreciate the subleties of their discovery, and hence some of their assertions were ill-founded. The problem I have is that as these old ideas are so ingrained in the minds of the wider scientific community, it is extremely difficult to convince them otherwise.

I'm not saying that I'm brilliant either, I'll happily admit that since the publication of my thesis, I have found some of it to be slightly wayward and have had to re-perform my simulations to produce better results. Any journal paper, report, or news article is a marker in the sand of the knowledge of the scientist at that time - further research can solidify, contradict, or outright disprove what has gone before.

Producing results from scientific examination is easy - interpreting their results (particularly those from computer simulations) is where the problems begin.....

[BDunnell]

for the record, i am no Green Freak - i drive a pretty quick and high emissions car, i commute long distances to work, i take foreign holidays, i love motorsport, but i try to be careful and i'm happy to try and offset my emissions if possible and support "green" initiatives.

if it all turns out to be a crock then i'm happy to look foolish, whilst at least having made an effort to save some energy/resources, which is still useful regardless of the motive. however, if it is proved that the science is right, and that we are at least partially reposnsible for a phenomenon that will play havoc with many highly populated and relatively poor areas of the globe that are already lving on the edge of marginally hospitable climates, then i don't wan to think i couldn't be arsed, or chose to belive it was all a conspiracy - i've got a daughter who i want to have a decent life, if making a few sacrifices helps then great, if they don't, then no great loss.

I should maybe add to what I've been saying that while I may become a bit vehement on this topic, I wouldn't class myself as being a 'green freak' either. Some people seem to relish the fact that global warming gives us the excuse to bash X or Y, and some, I would say, are martyrs to being green. I'm not. I also believe that a balanced approach to tackling environmental problems is necessary, because people are not suddenly going to stop flying, or wanting goods delivered to them the day after ordering them, and so on.

Furthermore, I believe that saving energy and being environmentally aware is a very good thing under any circumstances.

[Robinho]

i'm glad there are two sides to the scientific community on this one, it only pushes them harder to get closer to reality with their predictions.

there are always things that are proved wrong, to jump on thallidomide and MMR vaccines is no more than a knee jerk, "science can be wrong, so science is bad". you might have easily picked penicillin and telescopes, but they wouldn't have fitted. but science came up with them so i put my faith in the guys who sday global warming is happening and is contributed to by man made carbon emissions! ;)

would you rather be happy living in a dark cave, happy in the knowledge that the world is flat, that you need to pray for a new sun to come up and that your newborn has just died from measles? :p :

[Daniel]

i'm glad there are two sides to the scientific community on this one, it only pushes them harder to get closer to reality with their predictions.

there are always things that are proved wrong, to jump on thallidomide and MMR vaccines is no more than a knee jerk, "science can be wrong, so science is bad". you might have easily picked penicillin and telescopes, but they wouldn't have fitted. but science came up with them so i put my faith in the guys who sday global warming is happening and is contributed to by man made carbon emissions! ;)

would you rather be happy living in a dark cave, happy in the knowledge that the world is flat, that you need to pray for a new sun to come up and that your newborn has just died from measles? :p :
She's not dead. She's sleepin' :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

Facinating debate this time around (the last time this topic hit the board, it got a little heated), with some new voices, for which I appreciate.

Here is a few things that I think should be added. Whenever the supporters of Global Warming spout off that "the majority of the World's Scientests believe in this", I take note. IPCC is a UN funded convention of world's scientests, and yes, they all got together and said we are all doomed as an industrialized society because of global warming and we must make changes. Science isn't a democracy my friends. If only ONE scientest disputed this, and in the end was proven right, wouldn't that just say it all?

The fact is though that more than one scientest is disputing that man is the cause, and there are some disputing there is any global warming at all. Remember, the majority of scientests thought that German Jew Einstein was an idiot in 1905 with his theory, but by the 20's came along, they handed him the Nobel prize. So I am very glad no one has dug up that argument that more scientests are buying into this theory argument, because it isn't good science.

Just remember, the greatest influence on temperature on the earth is that big ole ball of gas that we call the Sun. It has been noted that solar changes have changed the average temperatures on Mars, about the same rate as what was changed on Earth. Are we supposed to believe that the Sun has no effect? Pretty foolish science to not take note of the biggest source of all heat on our world......

We may have global warming, but I refuse to buy into the religious fervour to go to "Carbon Offsets". You see people offsetting flying on their Business Jets by buying trees......as if these rich types ever thought about actually just cutting back instead of jetsetting around telling the rest of us to cut back. Al Bore...are you listening?? YA...Talking to you fat boy!!!

[Daniel]

i'm glad there are two sides to the scientific community on this one, it only pushes them harder to get closer to reality with their predictions.

there are always things that are proved wrong, to jump on thallidomide and MMR vaccines is no more than a knee jerk, "science can be wrong, so science is bad". you might have easily picked penicillin and telescopes, but they wouldn't have fitted. but science came up with them so i put my faith in the guys who sday global warming is happening and is contributed to by man made carbon emissions! ;)

Well of course they wouldn't have fitted. I was trying to show that science can be wrong so listing the 100 greatest science successes wouldn't be the best move ;) I'm not suggesting that science is always wrong. Merely just that it can/could be wrong :)

I'm glad there are two sides to the scientific argument and the one on this forum and that even if we disagree on the cause of the increase in temperature we agree that conserving energy is a good thing :)

[Mikeall]

Climate change has happened before and the only reason man made climate change was discovered was because scientists from a variety of disciplines began to look into why ice ages happened and the factors affecting weather and climate. As they began to understand the causes they began to realise that the global climate was very delicate and that it could flip from one state to another and enter a period of rapid cooling or heating at the slightest provocation.

Another topic scientists were looking into was about why the earth was the temperature it was yet Venus and Mars were so different and made the discovery of the greenhouse effect where gases effect the amount of heat energy reflected back into space. CO2, water vapour, methane and many oither gases all contribute to the "greenhouse effect".

Scientist then researched whether humans were effecting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I can't remember the exact story but using ice cores and other methods it was possible to see that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were increasing year on year. However not by as much as produced by industry. Much was absorbed by carbon dioxide sinks, mainly the oceans and plantlife.

Various calculations and models were produced to see of the increase in CO2 could lead to a change in climate. Most predictions tended towards a rise in global temperatures. There is no known natural way of absorbing this extra CO2 so increased production will lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect. As it is not known exactly how much CO2 will be produced or when the positive feedback effects (such as the death of algae, melting of icecaps etc) the exact temperature increase and when time when the climate will flip to another state is not known.

That is pretty much the theory there are other things I have probably missed out.

In practice the rise in global temperatures recently has matched the predicted rise in temperatures due to green house gas levels more than any other cause. Most climatologists, politicians and even polluting industries do seem to agree with the idea of man made climate change. I'm not quite sure if there is the will to change things and there is always the chance that things will be worse than is predicted.

While people are entitled to their opinion I do find it worrying when the general public are skeptical of the general consensus on global warming. Skeptic scientists may put forward persuasive arguments but they are the minority and it makes more logical sense to agree with the majority as in probability they are right, particularly as the skeptical opinion is pretty much the same as before any research was done. However the idea of a world without man made climate change would make me feel better about myself and the rest of the industrialised world, I just can't lie to myself like that.

[BDunnell]

We may have global warming, but I refuse to buy into the religious fervour to go to "Carbon Offsets".

Me neither — although I do not share your antipathy towards Al Gore. Carbon offsetting is, at present, almost totally pointless, and little more than a means of trying to salve one's conscience. It also provides ample scope to rip people off, and shouldn't be in the hands of organisations trying to make money out of it, which of course they all must.

[Mikeall]

Well of course they wouldn't have fitted. I was trying to show that science can be wrong so listing the 100 greatest science successes wouldn't be the best move ;) I'm not suggesting that science is always wrong. Merely just that it can/could be wrong :)

I'm glad there are two sides to the scientific argument and the one on this forum and that even if we disagree on the cause of the increase in temperature we agree that conserving energy is a good thing :)

There are many more than two sides to the scientific argument. Every study that lead towards the current view of man made climate change was peer reviewed and most likely had opponents questioning the quality of the work and even though it was approved some will still question it's validity. However as a paper is peer reviewed it can be considered valid, but that's not saying its true. Whether man made climate change is happening in general is not a scientific argument but is one of belief and disbelief and is more like a religious argument.

[rah]

Ok, maybe a few things need to be cleared up.

The sun is not the cause of the current global warming trend. This theory has been thoroughly researched and very well debunked. The problem with graphs like the one posted previously is it stops around 10 years ago.

There are some scientists who doubt AGW (man made global warming). But I am yet to find one that has not been paid by exxon or other commercial interests. If you find one please let me know as I would genuinely like to see it.

I am yet to hear of a climatologist still doubting AGW.

It is not just a few economies at risk. If we continue on our path every country will be adversely affected and potentially millions of lives lost. Not to mention the breakdown of entire ecosystems.

It is possible to slow and reverse the effects. We have around 10-15 years to reach peak carbon output.

Hope that helps. And please cut down on the religious rubbish. People can be sensitive about their religion.

Carbon offsets if misused are useless. If used correctly, they are a valuable tool.

[Hondo]

I should maybe add to what I've been saying that while I may become a bit vehement on this topic, I wouldn't class myself as being a 'green freak' either. Some people seem to relish the fact that global warming gives us the excuse to bash X or Y, and some, I would say, are martyrs to being green. I'm not. I also believe that a balanced approach to tackling environmental problems is necessary, because people are not suddenly going to stop flying, or wanting goods delivered to them the day after ordering them, and so on.

Furthermore, I believe that saving energy and being environmentally aware is a very good thing under any circumstances.

Out of curiosity, as your belief seems to gravitate to the man-induced theory via elimination of forests (for lumber, construction, etc.) and emissions of all types(by transportation of goods, food, and people, power generation, manufacturing, and farm lands, etc), what will be your solution if the root cause of the problem is overpopulation. If these significant bodies of scientists decide the earth can only support and sustain 980 million people without damage to the planet, who do you plan to eliminate? Here again the simple solution to cause and effect. Why are emissions higher? Because we have more people, needing more food, using more energy, requiring more homes, requiring more jobs, requiring more transportation, etc.

Who decides who stays and who goes? If this is the great emergency that so many like to portray it is, cutting the world population by 2/3rds immediately should drop emissions like a rock overnight. Who wants to get off? Volunteers?

[BDunnell]

Out of curiosity, as your belief seems to gravitate to the man-induced theory via elimination of forests (for lumber, construction, etc.) and emissions of all types(by transportation of goods, food, and people, power generation, manufacturing, and farm lands, etc), what will be your solution if the root cause of the problem is overpopulation. If these significant bodies of scientists decide the earth can only support and sustain 980 million people without damage to the planet, who do you plan to eliminate? Here again the simple solution to cause and effect. Why are emissions higher? Because we have more people, needing more food, using more energy, requiring more homes, requiring more jobs, requiring more transportation, etc.

Who decides who stays and who goes? If this is the great emergency that so many like to portray it is, cutting the world population by 2/3rds immediately should drop emissions like a rock overnight. Who wants to get off? Volunteers?

I don't know. It's an extremely difficult question — I very much agree that overpopulation is already a problem. What I do know is that I would never support any form of extermination or forced birth control.

[Daniel]

There are many more than two sides to the scientific argument. Every study that lead towards the current view of man made climate change was peer reviewed and most likely had opponents questioning the quality of the work and even though it was approved some will still question it's validity. However as a paper is peer reviewed it can be considered valid, but that's not saying its true. Whether man made climate change is happening in general is not a scientific argument but is one of belief and disbelief and is more like a religious argument.
Peer review schmeer review :) Back a few hundred years ago a research paper on the shape of the earth could have been reviewed by many peers and have still concluded that the earth was flat. There have been many theories that were once considered very credible that have since been replaced by other theories which have been disproven too :) Knowledge is something that's constantly changing and just because scientists say something that seems sensible yet can't be proven and which seems to conflict other sources of evidence doesn't mean it's correct. I simply think that it's not more than an untested theory and we haven't been testing and recording detailed data for long enough to prove that this is anything more than just a blip.

[Hondo]

In an odd sort of way, the blame may lie with nuclear weapons. Love them or hate them, they have done their job as a deterrent to large wars on a global scale like WWI and WWII. Both of those wars, coming so close together decimated the populations of the industrialized nations. Since the end of WWII, we have been breeding like rabbits with nothing to really hold down the population growth. Does make you wonder, doesn't it?

[BDunnell]

In an odd sort of way, the blame may lie with nuclear weapons. Love them or hate them, they have done their job as a deterrent to large wars on a global scale like WWI and WWII. Both of those wars, coming so close together decimated the populations of the industrialized nations. Since the end of WWII, we have been breeding like rabbits with nothing to really hold down the population growth. Does make you wonder, doesn't it?

I certainly believe that there is a direct correlation between the fact that I don't feel in danger and my failure thus far to give birth. ;)

[Hondo]

I don't know. It's an extremely difficult question — I very much agree that overpopulation is already a problem. What I do know is that I would never support any form of extermination or forced birth control.

And if push came to shove with overpopulation being the cause, if you were in political office, you might find yourself having to support extermination with that time honored social philosophy that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual" helping you to sleep.

[Hondo]

Perhaps global warming is just that. As we won't hold ourselves in check, the climate will change and thin us down to a managable population level.

[Mikeall]

Peer review schmeer review :) Back a few hundred years ago a research paper on the shape of the earth could have been reviewed by many peers and have still concluded that the earth was flat. There have been many theories that were once considered very credible that have since been replaced by other theories which have been disproven too :) Knowledge is something that's constantly changing and just because scientists say something that seems sensible yet can't be proven and which seems to conflict other sources of evidence doesn't mean it's correct. I simply think that it's not more than an untested theory and we haven't been testing and recording detailed data for long enough to prove that this is anything more than just a blip.

As I said peer review does not make something true.

Its not about testing the theory. It cannot be tested as there is only one Earth. It can be modelled and the models are constantly being refined and improving the results. There is nothing else you can do. The ice cores show CO2 and temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. The scientific principles are widely understood. I won't be able to convince you and I shouldn't because I'm not an expert but maybe you need to look at it in another way seeing why the general consensus is true rather just why it isn't and the comebacks to the skeptic argument.

[BDunnell]

And if push came to shove with overpopulation being the cause, if you were in political office, you might find yourself having to support extermination with that time honored social philosophy that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual" helping you to sleep.

I think that we will find a way around it somehow that will never lead to such drastic measures.

[Mikeall]

Perhaps global warming is just that. As we won't hold ourselves in check, the climate will change and thin us down to a managable population level.

Kind of makes you wonder what the world government's reasons are for combating climate change, protecting the planet, preventing extinction, preventing millions or billions dying or as they seem to focus on, minimising the cost to the economy.

[Daniel]

Ok, maybe a few things need to be cleared up.

The sun is not the cause of the current global warming trend. This theory has been thoroughly researched and very well debunked. The problem with graphs like the one posted previously is it stops around 10 years ago.

There are some scientists who doubt AGW (man made global warming). But I am yet to find one that has not been paid by exxon or other commercial interests. If you find one please let me know as I would genuinely like to see it.

I am yet to hear of a climatologist still doubting AGW.

It is not just a few economies at risk. If we continue on our path every country will be adversely affected and potentially millions of lives lost. Not to mention the breakdown of entire ecosystems.

It is possible to slow and reverse the effects. We have around 10-15 years to reach peak carbon output.

Hope that helps. And please cut down on the religious rubbish. People can be sensitive about their religion.

Carbon offsets if misused are useless. If used correctly, they are a valuable tool.


What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

Show me where and how the theory of the sun being the cause of the warming trend has been "debunked". Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be. My mum's car once broke down and when it got towed home I said to my dad "has it got fuel in it" and he said "yes" so I said "does it actually have fuel in it?" to which he of course said "yes" so I asked when it had last been filled up and it turned out that it had been filled up two weeks before. My point is that sometimes the obvious things can be the thing that is wrong and sometimes there's no need to look for an insanely complicated and convoluted explanation to something that may be explained by rather simple factors.

I have a lot of time for people who are suggesting that we are causing global warming because it would be stupid not to listen because the stakes are high. But just because the majority of people who get on TV say this is what happening doesn't mean I'll blindly follow. We question the actions of our governments in regards to Iraq and so on. So why not our scientists?

Btw that graph probably stops at 2000 because it might have been made around that time? Hmmmmm. Hardly a reason to consider it inaccurate or misleading.

[Daniel]

As I said peer review does not make something true.

Its not about testing the theory. It cannot be tested as there is only one Earth. It can be modelled and the models are constantly being refined and improving the results. There is nothing else you can do. The ice cores show CO2 and temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. The scientific principles are widely understood. I won't be able to convince you and I shouldn't because I'm not an expert but maybe you need to look at it in another way seeing why the general consensus is true rather just why it isn't and the comebacks to the skeptic argument.

Well previous models (not simulations but what has actually happened over the last 4 billion years) contradict what the scientists model's say. Ice core samples show that temperatures have been high at times while CO2 has been low and quite low while CO2 levels have been high. Exactly the opposite of what's supposed to be going on today.

The thing is a climate is so complicated and fairly static thing which we don't understand so I think we'll only know in 20 years time if the models are accurate. The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

[Andrewmcm]

Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be.

Yeah that's called the weather. Climate is more the seasonal variation over much longer timescales than two days..... :P

[BDunnell]

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

Let's not get het-up about this. I think people are perfectly entitled to use technical terms if they wish without being told to 'stop'. We now know what it means, which can only be a good thing.


The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be.

Neither does it mean that it's automatically wrong, or somehow less legitimate a view on the subject than any of your own.

[BDunnell]

The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

Under what circumstances would you be convinced otherwise?

[Hondo]

Kind of makes you wonder what the world government's reasons are for combating climate change, protecting the planet, preventing extinction, preventing millions or billions dying or as they seem to focus on, minimising the cost to the economy.

Doesn't make me wonder at all. The biggest fear of any government is that the population they govern will figure out that they don't need as much government as they have, much less to allow it to grow larger. Doesn't matter if they are doing good or not, they just have to look like they are trying to do something about anything to sell their bill of goods. Bear in mind these issues you bring up have their roots outside the government. The private sector brought these to the government and the once the issue got big enough and loud enough, then government, while donning it's superman cape, cried "I'll save you!" and jumped on the band wagon and opened the cash flow gates. Thats why governments love social and welfare programs. Generations of voters that owe their very existance to that monthly government check. Make the people believe they need us.

[Flat.tyres]

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

Do you know what's ironic. I was invited by Daniel to view this thread to demonstrate how to debate a point politely and this was the first post I read. Just don't say it's BS whatever you do :laugh:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=339963&postcount=29

Dont worry RAH, I don't find the term Anthropogenic Global Warming (or the global warmin attribitable to us humans) confusing in the slightest.

Daniel does have a good point though in asking for some further evidence to your claim about solar fluctiations not being the cause of recent warming. We seem to be in a particulaly turbulant spell of extreem climatic events and the more contributing factors we can discount allows us to concentrate of the few remaining which could mean AGW.

Similarly Daniel, can you provide some credible sources debunking AGW that are not sponsored or linked to bodies that have a vested interest in debunking these theories.

Either way it is a fascinating bedate and I think we all owe it to ourselves and future generations to maintain an open mind. Afterall, reducing the alledged causes of AGW will undoubtly have benefits but if we're wrong and AGW doesn't exist, we would have conserved some resourses and cleaned up our atmosphere a bit. Not much wrong with that.

Just my 5c AU worth (2p)

[rah]

What a load of rubbish. You talk about it as if it's already been proven. It's not been proven and it's only a theory at this point in time. Stop using terms like AGW as well. It simply confuses the issue and adds unnecessary complexity to this discussion as it's not a commonly used term.

Show me where and how the theory of the sun being the cause of the warming trend has been "debunked". Funnily enough yesterday it was cloudy and today it's not. yesterday it was cold and now it's not. The sun and the amount of energy which reaches the earth's surface has a BIG impact on the average temperature of the planet and someone saying on an internet forum that this has been discounted doesn't mean it can be. My mum's car once broke down and when it got towed home I said to my dad "has it got fuel in it" and he said "yes" so I said "does it actually have fuel in it?" to which he of course said "yes" so I asked when it had last been filled up and it turned out that it had been filled up two weeks before. My point is that sometimes the obvious things can be the thing that is wrong and sometimes there's no need to look for an insanely complicated and convoluted explanation to something that may be explained by rather simple factors.

I have a lot of time for people who are suggesting that we are causing global warming because it would be stupid not to listen because the stakes are high. But just because the majority of people who get on TV say this is what happening doesn't mean I'll blindly follow. We question the actions of our governments in regards to Iraq and so on. So why not our scientists?

Btw that graph probably stops at 2000 because it might have been made around that time? Hmmmmm. Hardly a reason to consider it inaccurate or misleading.

Don't get too aggressive champ. AGW is the best term as what we are talking about is man made global warming. If you don't understand what I mean let me know and I will try to explain further.

Mate, let you fingers do the walking.You never know, a little research might help you out on this subject. A good place to start is http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
Or http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
Or this is one of my favourites http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/
Unfortunately your simple explanations have already been investigated. Funnily enough, the global climate proved not to be simple.

Well why don't you find a newer graph? Maybe because it is used in a context that is misleading. Where did you get the graph from?

[Daniel]

Yeah that's called the weather. Climate is more the seasonal variation over much longer timescales than two days..... :P
Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

[Daniel]

Let's not get het-up about this. I think people are perfectly entitled to use technical terms if they wish without being told to 'stop'. We now know what it means, which can only be a good thing.



Neither does it mean that it's automatically wrong, or somehow less legitimate a view on the subject than any of your own.
Yes but lets just use terms which don't complicate matters :)

If we wanted to have a discussion on teflon I could said "teflon" "PTFE" or "polytetrafluoroethylene". For the sake of discussion I would of course call it teflon on this forum. If most people read AGW they wouldn't know it meant. Just like if I said "PTFE" or "polytetrafluoroethylene" so to make discussion easier a discussion on a forum which doesn't specialise in the topic being discussed should always be conducted in laymans terms ;) It just minimises confusion and makes for easier discussion.

[Mikeall]

Well previous models (not simulations but what has actually happened over the last 4 billion years) contradict what the scientists model's say. Ice core samples show that temperatures have been high at times while CO2 has been low and quite low while CO2 levels have been high. Exactly the opposite of what's supposed to be going on today.

The thing is a climate is so complicated and fairly static thing which we don't understand so I think we'll only know in 20 years time if the models are accurate. The main issue I have is that this climate change malarky is being presented as fact in the media when it isn't :)

It is significantly closer to being fact than the opposition and is a far more widely respected view. I do not believe the media does present it is fact and will generally say things like according to the IPCC etc which is being used as a basis for political decisions.

My personal view is that man made climate change is most likely occurring as it has the weight of scientific opinion behind it. As such the consequences could be catastrophic and action should be taken. While I agree that some theories may be incomplete or flawed disagreeing with them or not acting would be completely illogical. I also believe that the anti man made global warming view should not be presented equally as it has considerably less support.

From a risk assessment point of view the money spent on preventing the risk taking place should be the chance of an event occurring multiplied by the cost of it's consequences. Also factored in should be the chance of detecting it before catastrophic failure and the potential cost after detection relative to the time before catastrophic failure.

[rah]

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period


I think you should have another read of that wiki article. I don't think it says what you want it to say.

[Daniel]

Don't get too aggressive champ. AGW is the best term as what we are talking about is man made global warming. If you don't understand what I mean let me know and I will try to explain further.

Mate, let you fingers do the walking.You never know, a little research might help you out on this subject. A good place to start is http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
Or http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
Or this is one of my favourites http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/
Unfortunately your simple explanations have already been investigated. Funnily enough, the global climate proved not to be simple.

Well why don't you find a newer graph? Maybe because it is used in a context that is misleading. Where did you get the graph from?
Quite possibly. But it was about midnight so I took what first came to hand. That's an honest answer and I didn't intend to mislead anyone if the data suddenly becomes less favourable after 2000 :) Of course it could be used to mislead because it contains data that makes someone's theory seem more plausable but you've not shown any data that contradicts this :)

I have said that global warming may be caused by man but just that it seems like a lot of scientists who disagree with popular views aren't as well funded, aren't publicised as well and if they do get funding from an oil company they're instantly dismissed as being biased which I can understand perfectly well and it may even be justified. All I ask is that there's balance to the discussion and when you see the news it doesn't appear that there is. I also dislike the fact that anything strange that happens is immediately put down to global warming.

[Erki]

would you rather be happy living in a dark cave, happy in the knowledge that the world is flat, that you need to pray for a new sun to come up and that your newborn has just died from measles? :p :

Sure, gimme this today! :) No need to pray for the sun to come up, I know and trust that it will come up. World flat? No problema, I'll just make sure I don't get too close to the edge and I'm safe. :)

Too bad about the newborn really. :( But I don't think it would be very probable to get measles in that cave anyway - it's a contagious disease and only few people are around.

[rah]

Quite possibly. But it was about midnight so I took what first came to hand. That's an honest answer and I didn't intend to mislead anyone if the data suddenly becomes less favourable after 2000 :) Of course it could be used to mislead because it contains data that makes someone's theory seem more plausable but you've not shown any data that contradicts this :)

I have said that global warming may be caused by man but just that it seems like a lot of scientists who disagree with popular views aren't as well funded, aren't publicised as well and if they do get funding from an oil company they're instantly dismissed as being biased which I can understand perfectly well and it may even be justified. All I ask is that there's balance to the discussion and when you see the news it doesn't appear that there is. I also dislike the fact that anything strange that happens is immediately put down to global warming.

Let me help you out on the sun. There has been no increase n solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellites began observing the sun.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
The temperature has change, the sun has not.

Trust me thereis plenty of funding available from companies like exxon if you want to doubt AGW.

[Daniel]

I think you should have another read of that wiki article. I don't think it says what you want it to say.
I should point out that I don't support using wiki links as evidence. I'm at work and I don't have time to do a lot of research because I'm doing my job. I think the evidence of grapes being grown in colder places kind of says a lot of the people who disagree with it.

[Mikeall]

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Good point. When people look at average temperature figures and manipulate results to show 5 year averages, 10 year averages, 100 year averages, 1000 year averages etc, you can get very different results and come to different conclusions. Some people say they saw the "hockey stick" graph and then believed in man made global warming. Some people see a graph over hundred and thousands of years and say that man made global warming isn't happening. Neither of these conclusions can be made from the graphs alone as the former shows that the global temperature is rising and the latter shows that the climate can change. On they're own they prove nothing but in conjunction with other data and theories they can help tell a story.

[Daniel]

Let me help you out on the sun. There has been no increase n solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellites began observing the sun.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
The temperature has change, the sun has not.

Trust me thereis plenty of funding available from companies like exxon if you want to doubt AGW.
I have no bias. I'm simply after balanced discussion. Don't suggest that. If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree. If it turns out you're wrong will you agree or are you to proud to admit you could be wrong?

[Malbec]

Yes but it's science that went "ooh thallidomide!" and certain scientists that said "You don't need to vaccinate your child, it can cause autism plus these illnesses aren't around anymore".

They were wrong and could quite possibly be wrong now. Just like I could be wrong in doubting them.

Errrrr. What can I say to that post?

Thalidomide and Wakefield are both examples of what happens when people decide to shortcut or circumvent standard protocols for introducing a drug or for publishing a research paper.

Thalidomide was released because it wasn't tested on animals sufficiently, had it been tested for teratogenic effects on rabbits as it was after its side effects were found it wouldn't have been released.

Wakefield wrote a paper with no scientific merit whatsoever. Sadly the Lancet saw merit in it and the press and public didn't understand how flimsy the science behind it was. In his case the mainstream scientific and medical community shunned him.

Unfortunately in the case of global warming the mainstream scientific community are all for it. You're quite right in that science is inexact, it is quite possible that in the future something is found that discredits global warming and mankinds effect on it but right now with the evidence we have, there does appear to be a link between CO2 and climate change.

In a sense the science doesn't really matter, just like with Wakefields paper. What does matter is what the public believe, and how that shifts behaviour. Companies and organisations don't have to sign up to climate change and change their products and behaviour but the market will shift away from them. What amuses me is watching the car industry fight legislation against limiting pollution when past history shows that such legislation always gets introduced in the end. The companies that fight it and don't do the relevant research end up having to buy the technology from the companies that just did research into cleaner technologies. Eventually the Americans, Australians and Chinese/Indians are going to have to fork out a lot of money paying licence fees for green tech to European and especially Japanese companies.

[BDunnell]

If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree.

One of the problems is that it's no good if everybody who doubts it comes round to it in 50 years.

[Daniel]

I think it's very sad that you say just because it's not so well supported that it shouldn't be funded and looked into.

If the boot was on the other foot and man made global warming was happening but we were trying to dismiss it as being natural occurences going on would you want me to use that same argument on you? I'd suspect not. I'm not poo-pooing anyone's idea because a lot of people agree with me which is what a lot of people who believe that man is causing global warming are doing.

[Hondo]

I don't think you're going to MAKE China do anything it doesn't want to.

[Malbec]

It kind of reminds me of the Islamic thing. You have a bunch of little suicide zealots running around honestly believing, because of what and how they've been taught or told, that they will find themselves with Allah in paradise and the world's supply of virgins. The people above them suspect the whole thing is a crock and they are in it for the money (see the late Mr. Arafat) and the personal power. You really think Bin Laden is going to strap on a bomb and lead from the front?

Taking the religion thing a step further, a friend of mine once explained it to me in this way.

There are four options regarding God or religion.

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. You're safe

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. You're f@£$ed.

Of course that assumes God is a vengeful God but thats another discussion altogether.

However the comparison with global warming is there, we don't actually lose that much beyond having a lighter wallet if we choose to act to reduce emissions regardless of whether that causes climate change. However we stand to lose a whole lot more if we don't adjust our behaviour and the link turns out to be real.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Thats a Ricky Gervais gag :p

[Daniel]

Errrrr. What can I say to that post?

Thalidomide and Wakefield are both examples of what happens when people decide to shortcut or circumvent standard protocols for introducing a drug or for publishing a research paper.

Thalidomide was released because it wasn't tested on animals sufficiently, had it been tested for teratogenic effects on rabbits as it was after its side effects were found it wouldn't have been released.

Wakefield wrote a paper with no scientific merit whatsoever. Sadly the Lancet saw merit in it and the press and public didn't understand how flimsy the science behind it was. In his case the mainstream scientific and medical community shunned him.

Unfortunately in the case of global warming the mainstream scientific community are all for it. You're quite right in that science is inexact, it is quite possible that in the future something is found that discredits global warming and mankinds effect on it but right now with the evidence we have, there does appear to be a link between CO2 and climate change.

In a sense the science doesn't really matter, just like with Wakefields paper. What does matter is what the public believe, and how that shifts behaviour. Companies and organisations don't have to sign up to climate change and change their products and behaviour but the market will shift away from them. What amuses me is watching the car industry fight legislation against limiting pollution when past history shows that such legislation always gets introduced in the end. The companies that fight it and don't do the relevant research end up having to buy the technology from the companies that just did research into cleaner technologies. Eventually the Americans, Australians and Chinese/Indians are going to have to fork out a lot of money paying licence fees for green tech to European and especially Japanese companies.
I wasn't saying that thalidomide was causing global warming. I'm simply pointing out that scientists can make mistakes. Perhaps it was a bad example but I'm simply saying science whether it be one scientist or 99% of them is not infallible :)

[Malbec]

I don't think you're going to MAKE China do anything it doesn't want to.

Its possible, if large markets were to introduce tariffs that somehow relate to emissions during production and transport or there was a rating system whereby consumers could be made aware of them thus affecting sales the Chinese would face a stark choice, reduce emissions or lose market share.

[race aficionado]

But science is just that, a sciecne. It is neither exact nor always completely correct. For instance, in my field of academic research there are several seminal papers that were published in the 1970s, all in the leading journal in the field (Journal of Fluid Mechanics). These papers, authored by some of the best fluid dynamicists around, discovered something new and interesting and went into great detail about the specifics of the dynamisc of this new discovery. Zip forward 30 years and some of my research has shown that these researchers didn't fully appreciate the subleties of their discovery, and hence some of their assertions were ill-founded. The problem I have is that as these old ideas are so ingrained in the minds of the wider scientific community, it is extremely difficult to convince them otherwise.

I'm not saying that I'm brilliant either, I'll happily admit that since the publication of my thesis, I have found some of it to be slightly wayward and have had to re-perform my simulations to produce better results. Any journal paper, report, or news article is a marker in the sand of the knowledge of the scientist at that time - further research can solidify, contradict, or outright disprove what has gone before.

Producing results from scientific examination is easy - interpreting their results (particularly those from computer simulations) is where the problems begin.....


cool. :cool:

thanks

:s mokin:

[Malbec]

I wasn't saying that thalidomide was causing global warming. I'm simply pointing out that scientists can make mistakes. Perhaps it was a bad example but I'm simply saying science whether it be one scientist or 99% of them is not infallible :)

I didn't suggest you were making a link between thalidomide and global warming, I explained that both thalidomide and Wakefield are examples of cases whereby standard protocols (scientific ones as it were) were bypassed.

The bulk of the research behind global warming conforms to those protocols, published in peer reviewed journals with agreement between many different observers.

Yes its easy for one scientist to make a mistake. You're being charitable there, its also easy for one or a few scientists to be 'bought' too, but its very rare for 99% of the scientists to be wrong or 'bought'. Are you willing to risk so much on the basis that they're wrong?

[Daniel]

One of the problems is that it's no good if everybody who doubts it comes round to it in 50 years.
Which is why I advocate developing renewable energy sources and not ignoring what is possibly a huge problem ;)

It's also why I dislike twonks like this....
http://www.saveourscenery.com/
....publishing pictures which give misleading impressions on the impact of a windfarm which could be a big part of averting a major worldwide catastrophy.

I guess that's my version of not believing in God but still going to church and having that insurance policy in case he does exist and is a mean turd :)

[BDunnell]

Wakefield wrote a paper with no scientific merit whatsoever. Sadly the Lancet saw merit in it and the press and public didn't understand how flimsy the science behind it was. In his case the mainstream scientific and medical community shunned him.

...

In a sense the science doesn't really matter, just like with Wakefields paper. What does matter is what the public believe, and how that shifts behaviour.

These two things are directly linked in this case, because some of the national newspapers decided to run with it and, as so often, lots of people just believed what they had read in the press. All that happened was that a lot of people got scared of something there was no need to be scared about, a perfectly good vaccine was tarnished and a perfectly decent form of preventative medicine not given to lots of children.

The same thing can be seen with global warming. Right-wing columnists like Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson write stuff saying that it doesn't exist on the basis that they choose to believe one argument and ignore the other, and people believe them because they read the paper in question and nothing else.

[Malbec]

Thats a Ricky Gervais gag :p

Is it? I heard it a long time before Gervais became famous, from when I was at school, and that was a very long time ago.

[Hondo]

Taking the religion thing a step further, a friend of mine once explained it to me in this way.

There are four options regarding God or religion.

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. You're safe

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. You're f@£$ed.

Of course that assumes God is a vengeful God but thats another discussion altogether.

However the comparison with global warming is there, we don't actually lose that much beyond having a lighter wallet if we choose to act to reduce emissions regardless of whether that causes climate change. However we stand to lose a whole lot more if we don't adjust our behaviour and the link turns out to be real.

I don't think you are going to reduce anything, anytime soon with out major population reductions, regardless of light your wallet becomes. The need to support our population is the very cause of higher emissions.

Don't forget, before you have God, you have to have hell or something similar to drive the fearful into the hands of God. Fear is what drives that business and to some extant, the man-induced global warming business.

[Daniel]

I didn't suggest you were making a link between thalidomide and global warming, I explained that both thalidomide and Wakefield are examples of cases whereby standard protocols (scientific ones as it were) were bypassed.

The bulk of the research behind global warming conforms to those protocols, published in peer reviewed journals with agreement between many different observers.

Yes its easy for one scientist to make a mistake. You're being charitable there, its also easy for one or a few scientists to be 'bought' too, but its very rare for 99% of the scientists to be wrong or 'bought'. Are you willing to risk so much on the basis that they're wrong?
Of course it's rare and that's why I don't totally discount the arguments for man made global warming :) But like I said the world is flat! Or at least it was 500 years or so ago :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Which is why I advocate developing renewable energy sources and not ignoring what is possibly a huge problem ;)

It's also why I dislike twonks like this....
http://www.saveourscenery.com/
....publishing pictures which give misleading impressions on the impact of a windfarm which could be a big part of averting a major worldwide catastrophy.



Before
http://www.saveourscenery.com/View%20fr%20Prom%20before.%20(Small).jpg

After
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/85/41/22834185.jpg

[Mikeall]

I think it's very sad that you say just because it's not so well supported that it shouldn't be funded and looked into.

If the boot was on the other foot and man made global warming was happening but we were trying to dismiss it as being natural occurences going on would you want me to use that same argument on you? I'd suspect not. I'm not poo-pooing anyone's idea because a lot of people agree with me which is what a lot of people who believe that man is causing global warming are doing.

Most of those people who agree with you are non scientists influenced by pressure groups funded by interested parties. I hate saying that because its a bit like a conspiracy theory but unfortunately seems to be true. All I can say is look at the bigger picture.

[Mikeall]

Taking the religion thing a step further, a friend of mine once explained it to me in this way.

There are four options regarding God or religion.

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. You're safe

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. You're f@£$ed.

Of course that assumes God is a vengeful God but thats another discussion altogether.

However the comparison with global warming is there, we don't actually lose that much beyond having a lighter wallet if we choose to act to reduce emissions regardless of whether that causes climate change. However we stand to lose a whole lot more if we don't adjust our behaviour and the link turns out to be real.

Alternatively

1 - you believe in God, there is a God. God is angry that you believed in Him despite the lack of evidence

2 - you believe in God, there is no God. Didn't lose anything there

3 - you don't believe in God, there is no God. Again, didn't lose anything

4 - you don't believe in God, there is a God. He appreciates that you weighed up all the information available and came to a reasonable conclusion and rewards you.

[Erki]

Don't worry kids, God loves you anyway. :)

In German, the word God should be Liebgott, not Hassgott. (Lieb=love, Hass=hate)

[Malbec]

Which is why I advocate developing renewable energy sources and not ignoring what is possibly a huge problem ;)

It's also why I dislike twonks like this....
http://www.saveourscenery.com/
....publishing pictures which give misleading impressions on the impact of a windfarm which could be a big part of averting a major worldwide catastrophy.

I don't see how renewable resources really solve the problem especially since the ones being looked at will compete with land set aside for agriculture, not a problem in places with a massive food surplus like Europe or the US but not viable for poorer areas. They won't reduce emissions either although arguably they reabsorb much of the CO2 produced in their burning.

The website you have a link to does have a point, few people in places like Europe which are relatively cramped will tolerate huge noisy unsightly wind turbines which will also rely on the windstrength which can be variable.

Nuclear to me seems to be the way ahead, it is safe in properly designed and maintained reactors and is zero emissions, silent and relatively compact. Its a pity that the green groups have helped give nuclear power such a bad name that many people dismiss it out of hand.

Another option is that the Middle Eastern countries currently producing oil will push for a fuel cell based economy, the reason being that they have lots of desert in which they can build solar farms without upsetting anyone which can then be used to produce H2 which can then be shipped to the west using logistics currently used for oil, ie pipes and ships.

[Daniel]

I don't see how renewable resources really solve the problem especially since the ones being looked at will compete with land set aside for agriculture, not a problem in places with a massive food surplus like Europe or the US but not viable for poorer areas. They won't reduce emissions either although arguably they reabsorb much of the CO2 produced in their burning.

The website you have a link to does have a point, few people in places like Europe which are relatively cramped will tolerate huge noisy unsightly wind turbines which will also rely on the windstrength which can be variable.

Nuclear to me seems to be the way ahead, it is safe in properly designed and maintained reactors and is zero emissions, silent and relatively compact. Its a pity that the green groups have helped give nuclear power such a bad name that many people dismiss it out of hand.

Another option is that the Middle Eastern countries currently producing oil will push for a fuel cell based economy, the reason being that they have lots of desert in which they can build solar farms without upsetting anyone which can then be used to produce H2 which can then be shipped to the west using logistics currently used for oil, ie pipes and ships.
The sea off LLandudno is of no importance when it comes to food and neither is the land on which the llyn alwen windfarm is based. I know because I live in this part of Wales. The turbines off the coast where we live aren't noisy and the wind is not as "variable" as they make it sound and most days the turbines are spinning along generating power.

Projects like the proposed Gwynt y mor windfarm have little or no impact upon food production because little or no fishing happens just off the coast of North Wales.

Seems like you've been brainwashed by a pressure group funded by an interested party ;)

I do agree on Nuclear power though :up:

[Malbec]

The sea off LLandudno is of no importance when it comes to food and neither is the land on which the llyn alwen windfarm is based. I know because I live in this part of Wales. The turbines off the coast where we live aren't noisy and the wind is not as "variable" as they make it sound and most days the turbines are spinning along generating power.

Projects like the proposed Gwynt y mor windfarm have little or no impact upon food production because little or no fishing happens just off the coast of North Wales.

Seems like you've been brainwashed by a pressure group funded by an interested party ;)

That may be so for that particular site, but given how cramped Europe is you'll struggle to build enough windfarms to supply a significant proportion of our energy needs without disrupting agriculture and/or fishing or causing a major blight on the landscape. Not every part of Europe is identical to Wales.....

[race aficionado]

I do agree on Nuclear power though :up:

I don't have a link to reference this to but I have read and heard that we are not even aware of how much damage nuclear energy pollution does to our planet and to our health.
It is said that mental deseases, alzheimers for example, are on the rise because of levels of radioactivity that our 'geiger" detectors can't even sense and that are out there creating havoc.

I don' have a graph or an expert's quote but I look forward to the time when we can get our energy from the sun, that big red hot power generator in the sky.


:s mokin:

[Daniel]

Yes but there are areas where tidal power is practical and could provide a good chunk of power. In fact the 200 turbines that are proposed will provide roughly enough power for up to 40% of the homes in Wales and lets be honest that's a lot of power in one go.

Roughly equivalent to taking almost 600,000 cars off the road.

Surely you can't believe in a problem but not actually want to solve it? If Nuclear is part of the solution then surely wind power is part of the solution as well.

Wales is admittedly not densely populated but if 30 or so miles of coast can provide 40% of the power needed for residential needs then if the coast is 750 miles long then you do the maths! everyone needs to do their bit surely!

[Daniel]

Me too. In Australia most people have solar hot water systems on top of their roof and this helps a lot with not needing to burn stuff to heat water :) The problem with solar is that it's not constant enough. I suspect we'll never see a time when we don't burn fossil fuels or use nuclear energy but we can lessen the need for it!

[Malbec]

I don't have a link to reference this to but I have read and heard that we are not even aware of how much damage nuclear energy pollution does to our planet and to our health.
It is said that mental deseases, alzheimers for example, are on the rise because of levels of radioactivity that our 'geiger" detectors can't even sense and that are out there creating havoc.

Thats not true, in fact its what is called pseudoscience, sounds plausible if you're not trained in that field but if you know then its obviously bs.

There are three types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma. We have equipment to detect all three though alpha travels such a short distance its really irrelevant.

Alzheimers isn't a mental disease, its a neurological one and there was some talk about a link with electromagnetic radiation ie from mobile phones and masts etc which is probably what you're getting confused with. No significant study has shown a link between Alzheimers and any type of radiation btw.

In actual fact the amount of radiation you get from nuclear power stations if you live in a country which has them is barely detectable and nothing compared to from natural sources like radon, cosmic radiation and the sun.

In fact you'll get more radiation from a one way flight to Spain than you would from a lifetime living next to a nuclear power station (from that power station only).

[Malbec]

Yes but there are areas where tidal power is practical and could provide a good chunk of power. In fact the 200 turbines that are proposed will provide roughly enough power for up to 40% of the homes in Wales and lets be honest that's a lot of power in one go.

Roughly equivalent to taking almost 600,000 cars off the road.

Surely you can't believe in a problem but not actually want to solve it? If Nuclear is part of the solution then surely wind power is part of the solution as well.

Wales is admittedly not densely populated but if 30 or so miles of coast can provide 40% of the power needed for residential needs then if the coast is 750 miles long then you do the maths! everyone needs to do their bit surely!

You've answered the points you've raised in your own post. Supplying electricity to 40% of a sparsely populated area is vastly different to supplying the Ruhr or London.

Also tidal power is not the same as wind power so the comparison is irrelevant.

Human nature being what it is, if you build wind turbines on or near land you WILL get opposition from NIMBY parties. That is going to be a major limiting factor with wind power whether you like it or not.

[Daniel]

You've answered the points you've raised in your own post. Supplying electricity to 40% of a sparsely populated area is vastly different to supplying the Ruhr or London.

Also tidal power is not the same as wind power so the comparison is irrelevant.

Human nature being what it is, if you build wind turbines on or near land you WILL get opposition from NIMBY parties. That is going to be a major limiting factor with wind power whether you like it or not.
Yes. The good old NIMBY :) The problem with Llandudno is that it's full of old farts and they don't like change. Thing is if the turbines had been there before they wouldn't want them taken down ;)

Why does the fact that tidal power is not like wind power make it irrelevant? Surely if it can generate power without emitting greenhouse gases then it's good?

Every journey starts with a small step as they say. You recognise that there is a problem yet you don't want to sort it out? You're even nuttiier than me if this problem exists because you recognise that it exists but don't seem to want to sort it yet I don't think it exists but still advocate moves to lessen the future effects of this supposedly human induced problem.

[Malbec]

Why does the fact that tidal power is not like wind power make it irrelevant? Surely if it can generate power without emitting greenhouse gases then it's good?

Tidal power is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make and you were trying to rebut, ie that the appearance and noise of the machines would push people to oppose them being placed near where they live. Tidal power units are not nearly as intrusive as wind farms are.


Every journey starts with a small step as they say. You recognise that there is a problem yet you don't want to sort it out? You're even nuttiier than me if this problem exists because you recognise that it exists but don't seem to want to sort it yet I don't think it exists but still advocate moves to lessen the future effects of this supposedly human induced problem.

It would appear the problem is that you are attacking positions I am not holding. Some would describe your arguments as being strawman.

For example in your previous post you bring up tidal power stations which were not previously mentioned in this thread and which were irrelevant to the point being discussed at that point as I explained above.

If you really think I'm not interested in proposing solutions I suggest you read my posts regarding nuclear power and fuel cells/hydrogen. Its courteous to read other peoples posts properly before replying to them.

[Daniel]

Tidal power is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make and you were trying to rebut, ie that the appearance and noise of the machines would push people to oppose them being placed near where they live. Tidal power units are not nearly as intrusive as wind farms are.



It would appear the problem is that you are attacking positions I am not holding. Some would describe your arguments as being strawman.

For example in your previous post you bring up tidal power stations which were not previously mentioned in this thread and which were irrelevant to the point being discussed at that point as I explained above.

If you really think I'm not interested in proposing solutions I suggest you read my posts regarding nuclear power and fuel cells/hydrogen. Its courteous to read other peoples posts properly before replying to them.
Huh? We're talking about global warming and you were saying that renewables would impact upon our ability to produce food

According to you global warming is caused by CO2
Common sense tells us that power generation is a primary source of CO2 emissions.
We were talking about alternative means of power generation (renewables)
Tidal power unless I'm very much mistaken is an alternative means of power generation which doesn't emit CO2 in it's day to day operation.
You talked about renewables taking up farming land
Tidal power generally doesn't impact upon farming land.

What are you on about?

[Malbec]

Huh? We're talking about global warming and you were saying that renewables would impact upon our ability to produce food

Errrr I thought my point was pretty easy to grasp. At the moment the main renewable energy source worldwide is biofuel.

If we switch to using renewable energy sources on a large scale, then poorer countries that are already running the risk of starvation will be at greater risk as they start shifting land from agriculture to growing renewable energy sources because they would generate more income.

As I explained in my original post which I hope you read, that isn't a problem for Europe or America which already have a food surplus but few other places are that lucky without having to grow renewable energy sources.

I am discussing the pros and cons of each potential future energy source, something that might just be relevant to this thread. I thought you were too.


Tidal power unless I'm very much mistaken is an alternative means of power generation which doesn't emit CO2 in it's day to day operation.
You talked about renewables taking up farming land
Tidal power generally doesn't impact upon farming land.

What are you on about?

Read posts no 118 and 119.

My points were regarding WIND POWER and the fact that many people don't want ugly noisy turbines near where they live which limits their uptake which you took exception to by claiming that tidal power units aren't obtrusive. Last time I looked tidal power is different from wind power......

[Andrewmcm]

I don' have a graph or an expert's quote but I look forward to the time when we can get our energy from the sun, that big red hot power generator in the sky.

Almost right. Earth-bound nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission, which is what we have now) will solve the problem of fossil-fuel power stations. Shame it's so bloody difficult to get working on Earth though.....

[Daniel]

Errrr I thought my point was pretty easy to grasp. At the moment the main renewable energy source worldwide is biofuel.

If we switch to using renewable energy sources on a large scale, then poorer countries that are already running the risk of starvation will be at greater risk as they start shifting land from agriculture to growing renewable energy sources because they would generate more income.

As I explained in my original post which I hope you read, that isn't a problem for Europe or America which already have a food surplus but few other places are that lucky without having to grow renewable energy sources.

I am discussing the pros and cons of each potential future energy source, something that might just be relevant to this thread. I thought you were too.



Read posts no 118 and 119.

My points were regarding WIND POWER and the fact that many people don't want ugly noisy turbines near where they live which limits their uptake which you took exception to by claiming that tidal power units aren't obtrusive. Last time I looked tidal power is different from wind power......

Congratulations tidal power is different to wind power.

Post 118 I said that the Gwynt y mor wind farm will not impact food production (you said it would), that the wind supply is not as variable as you said it was and you said it was noisy (it isn't)

Post 119 - You agreed with me but stated that it's not the correct solution for the whole of Europe and mentioned that not all of Europe is like North Wales. Funny that!

Post 120 - I stated that in addition you could have tidal power and that by themselves the gwynt y more turbines will generate 40% of the household power needed for Wales and said that Wales is not densely populated. On looking at the statistics it's actually more densely populated than Europe on average.

Post 124 - Some sort of magic mushroom slipped into your tea and the hallucinogenic effects caused you to imagine that I was comparing wind power and tidal power in some way which I never did.

I never took offense to it by saying that tidal power isn't obtrusive. I merely stated that I live near a freaking windfarm and it doesn't dominate the freaking scenery and it isn't freaking noisy.

[Captain VXR]

The suns radiation is increasing to a solar maximum in 2011. It was on perfect disaster a few months back about a potentially devastating solar storm

[Daniel]

The suns radiation is increasing to a solar maximum in 2011. It was on perfect disaster a few months back about a potentially devastating solar storm
See that's the thing. It was said before that solar irradiation was not high and then a program says it is? Who is correct?

[Mikeall]

See that's the thing. It was said before that solar irradiation was not high and then a program says it is? Who is correct?

Solar radiation is high but so are greenhouse gases. According to the models greenhouse gases are having significantly more of an effect at the present time. Anything that gets brought up on a forum or a TV programme has already been considered by climatologists.

[Malbec]

Congratulations tidal power is different to wind power.

Post 118 I said that the Gwynt y mor wind farm will not impact food production (you said it would), that the wind supply is not as variable as you said it was and you said it was noisy (it isn't)

Post 119 - You agreed with me but stated that it's not the correct solution for the whole of Europe and mentioned that not all of Europe is like North Wales. Funny that!

Post 120 - I stated that in addition you could have tidal power and that by themselves the gwynt y more turbines will generate 40% of the household power needed for Wales and said that Wales is not densely populated. On looking at the statistics it's actually more densely populated than Europe on average.

Post 124 - Some sort of magic mushroom slipped into your tea and the hallucinogenic effects caused you to imagine that I was comparing wind power and tidal power in some way which I never did.

I never took offense to it by saying that tidal power isn't obtrusive. I merely stated that I live near a freaking windfarm and it doesn't dominate the freaking scenery and it isn't freaking noisy.

I think you've proven my point that you didn't read my posts properly.

In post 117 paragraph 1 I was referring to renewable energy resources in general. Since you're clearly interested in this topic I'm sure you understand that biofuels such as oilseed rape are the most important renewable energy resource. Tidal/wind are nowhere near as significant globally. Hence my point about the impact on food production (of course I'm assuming you know the controversy about third world countries switching land from food to energy source production).

In paragraph 2 I then referred to local opposition to the presence of wind turbines as a subtype of renewable energy sources. Hence your point in 118 regarding food production was irrelevant. I never claimed that wind turbines would significantly impact food production but renewable sources in general would.

Regarding your last paragraph, that is YOUR opinion. Plenty of people disagree which is why websites such as the one you posted were made.

Would you still be so pro-wind turbines in your area if you realised that their presence would cut the value of your house by several percent, the same as that of living near an airport? YOU may not mind them but plenty of people do.

I'm finding this exchange rather tedious and your inability to understand rather clear posts painful to watch. There won't be any further responses from me on this matter.

Andrew, fusion power seems to be the answer to all our prayers, its such a pity that it keeps being delayed by new problems encountered in its development.

[Hondo]

Renewable biofuels means more farmland, which if I understand a previous post, increases methane, a greenhouse gas while at the same time increasing the starvation rates because we're growing fuel, not food, so the populations would drop thereby also having the effect of lowered emissions due to fewer people.

Yeah, could work.

Nature, nature.

[BDunnell]

Nuclear to me seems to be the way ahead, it is safe in properly designed and maintained reactors and is zero emissions, silent and relatively compact. Its a pity that the green groups have helped give nuclear power such a bad name that many people dismiss it out of hand.


I very much agree. Given that this view is largely based on a 20-plus-year-old accident in the Soviet Union, it doesn't exactly bear up to much scrutiny in the West today.

[BDunnell]

I don't have a link to reference this to but I have read and heard that we are not even aware of how much damage nuclear energy pollution does to our planet and to our health.
It is said that mental deseases, alzheimers for example, are on the rise because of levels of radioactivity that our 'geiger" detectors can't even sense and that are out there creating havoc.

Well, someone had better come up with some proof of this damn quick if they have any. It's not as if scientists haven't had the time to examine this one over the years.

Personally — and this is similar to my view on global warming, in that I have an opinion but am no scientist — I have my doubts as to the veracity of such claims.

[BDunnell]

You've answered the points you've raised in your own post. Supplying electricity to 40% of a sparsely populated area is vastly different to supplying the Ruhr or London.

Also tidal power is not the same as wind power so the comparison is irrelevant.

Human nature being what it is, if you build wind turbines on or near land you WILL get opposition from NIMBY parties. That is going to be a major limiting factor with wind power whether you like it or not.

I know only two things about windpower. One is that it can never be enough to meet our energy needs. The other is that it is an anagram of 'downwiper'.

[Hondo]

I very much agree. Given that this view is largely based on a 20-plus-year-old accident in the Soviet Union, it doesn't exactly bear up to much scrutiny in the West today.

Do I remember reading somewhere that the technology used in the Soviet reactor was considered risky and not used in the west?

[tinchote]

Duh, came from work to find several more pages in this thread. Good stuff, by the way :up:

So, I'll depart a little from the current subtopic (you Europeans are sleeping, anyway ;) ) and I'll say this: the thing that puzzles me the most about the "consensus" on GW is the catastrophes predicted. One has to deduce from that, that warming of the planet is a bad thing (hard to convince me, when we get -40 in the Winter here ;) ); in any case, does that mean that global cooling would be a good thing? Or, does that mean that the current temperatures are "perfect". I stuggle with that :confused:

[rah]

I should point out that I don't support using wiki links as evidence. I'm at work and I don't have time to do a lot of research because I'm doing my job. I think the evidence of grapes being grown in colder places kind of says a lot of the people who disagree with it.

The reason I said check the wiki, is because much of it is correct. But you have to read all of it.

As for grapes growing in Britain in the medieval warming period, so what? There are plenty of vineyards in Britain at present. I think there may even be one in Scotland, but I am sure the owner is mad.

[rah]

I have no bias. I'm simply after balanced discussion. Don't suggest that. If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree. If it turns out you're wrong will you agree or are you to proud to admit you could be wrong?

I wasn't saying you were biased. I was saying research paid for by oil companies usually is.

In 50 years it will be too late. In 20 years it will be too late.

[rah]

Renewable biofuels means more farmland, which if I understand a previous post, increases methane, a greenhouse gas while at the same time increasing the starvation rates because we're growing fuel, not food, so the populations would drop thereby also having the effect of lowered emissions due to fewer people.

Yeah, could work.

Nature, nature.

Biofuels are not much of an answer at the moment. When they are made our of grasses or other easier plants then it could work. It will have to work anyway after peak oil.

No single renewable power source is the key. All of them combined can do it.

Germany is agreat example of what can happen with Govt backing. They are the world leaders in utilising solar power.

[rah]

Duh, came from work to find several more pages in this thread. Good stuff, by the way :up:

So, I'll depart a little from the current subtopic (you Europeans are sleeping, anyway ;) ) and I'll say this: the thing that puzzles me the most about the "consensus" on GW is the catastrophes predicted. One has to deduce from that, that warming of the planet is a bad thing (hard to convince me, when we get -40 in the Winter here ;) ); in any case, does that mean that global cooling would be a good thing? Or, does that mean that the current temperatures are "perfect". I stuggle with that :confused:

The problem isn't that the world is warming. The problem is that the world is warming too quickly. If the world was cooling that would be fine, as long as it happened slowly and naturally. Many species on the planet can addapt to a changing temperature, as long as it happens over a few thousand years.

[Camelopard]

I'm trying not to get too involved in this however an interesting article in the guardian regarding the melting of the Artic Ice Cap here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/04/climatechange

A couple of small quotes:

Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.

Changes in wind and ocean circulation patterns can help reduce sea ice extent, but Dr Serreze said the main culprit was man-made global warming.
"The rules are starting to change and what's changing the rules is the input of greenhouse gases."

[Hondo]

Duh, came from work to find several more pages in this thread. Good stuff, by the way :up:

So, I'll depart a little from the current subtopic (you Europeans are sleeping, anyway ;) ) and I'll say this: the thing that puzzles me the most about the "consensus" on GW is the catastrophes predicted. One has to deduce from that, that warming of the planet is a bad thing (hard to convince me, when we get -40 in the Winter here ;) ); in any case, does that mean that global cooling would be a good thing? Or, does that mean that the current temperatures are "perfect". I stuggle with that :confused:

The simple short answer is that we adapt to the changes that come, be they man made or natural. Like everything else, some will benefit from and enjoy their new climate and others will have to seek new homes and livelihoods elsewhere. Some will stick it out in place and proclaim it as no big deal. Then 500 years from now, when the climate starts changing back to the way it is now, the same debate and predictions of doom shall start anew.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero, many of the same people were saying we were doomed for an ice age back in the 70's. I don't know what we can do if we are the cause, and short of stopping life as we know it, it likely should have been done 30 years ago. There is no way of knowing exactly what is causing it, but climate modelling is a bit of a joke IMO, and I say that after taking 2 climatology credits in University and having an weather observors certificiate at one point in my life. I know how the weather is forcasted and collected, and I can tell you, there is a great unknown out there on what will happen 2 days from now. To forecast 10 years or 50 years hence is a lot more of a crap shoot....

[Daniel]

The problem isn't that the world is warming. The problem is that the world is warming too quickly. If the world was cooling that would be fine, as long as it happened slowly and naturally. Many species on the planet can addapt to a changing temperature, as long as it happens over a few thousand years.
Or course. But as I said and you seem to have ignored. Not so long ago there were vineyards in the north of england and as we know vineyards tend to prefer warmer climates which the north of england still to this day doesn't really provide.

There is also the hockey stick controversy. How long has world temperature been shown to be rising so rapidly? How long have we been accurately measuring termperature? Roughly the same amount of time!?!?!?!?!?!?

As I said I do not doubt that there is warming happening. But I feel that climate study is in it's infancy and although we have lots of tools at our disposal do we nearlly know what the data means? Typically the more complicated an experiment the more data you need to draw a conclusion. Now if we were simply seeing if we could make gold our of plastic and you did whatever you did and made gold out of plastic then that's proof enough. But we're talking about something that's infinitely more complex than our level of current understanding and even if we have computer models they're only interpreting data in a way that we instruct them to.

A lot of theories that seem perfectly reasonable and have data to back them up have been disproven. Up until recently it was said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Guess what! A few weeks ago this was said to have been broken. Of course it could all be smoke and mirrors but I suspect it's probably right.

As I think Mark said previously Einstein was considered a nut back in the 20's and then suddenly he turned everything on it's head and is now considered one of the great minds of the 20th century. Food for thought?

[BDunnell]

Do I remember reading somewhere that the technology used in the Soviet reactor was considered risky and not used in the west?

I don't know anything about the technology used, I'm afraid, but what was clear was that it was poorly run and maintained.

[Mark]

There is no use crying over spilt milk. Warming is happening and we can't stop it. Adapt and survive.

[Daniel]

I wasn't saying you were biased. I was saying research paid for by oil companies usually is.

In 50 years it will be too late. In 20 years it will be too late.
What if in 20 years it doesn't exist?

Have you thought of that possibility?

[Flat.tyres]

I think one of the problems here is that we are still using the term Global Warming instead of Global Climate Change.

The world naturally goes through periods of climate change. Some take many ages and some are rapid and happen over a few hundred or thousand years. These aren't the problem because as RAH says, the ecology of the planet changes over time and adapts to the different conditions so the Romans can grow vines in England.

What the big problem happens to be is when these rapid change events are significant (ie. more than a centigrade or so over a hundred years average) and the dramatic effect they have on the ecology of the planet.

What tends to happen then is that rather than just warming (lovely for the Canuks no doubt ;) ) we get extreem shifts in weather patterns. Droughts, floods, Cat five storms etc. The melting of the ice caps leads to dilution of sea water and possible change in global oceanic currents because of the change in density etc.

There appears to be a change in the severity and extreems of weather conditions that could quite possibly be caused by man. That is the stark reality. What the extent of this change could be and the effects it might ultimatly have is not yet obvious. What is obvious though is that the majority of the scientific community believes we have a big problem and as they are the people that are in the best position to know about this, it might be prudent to listen to them.

After all, if you hear a fire alarm, do you react or are you one of the people that sit there saying "I can't smell smoke so I'll stay here till I can". By then, it may be too late but if you take action immediatly and it's a false alarm, then what have you lost?

[Mark]

After all, if you hear a fire alarm, do you react or are you one of the people that sit there saying "I can't smell smoke so I'll stay here till I can". By then, it may be too late but if you take action immediatly and it's a false alarm, then what have you lost?

In the case of a fire alarm, very little. In the case of stopping all emissions, then we are talking about human civilisation as we know it.

[Daniel]

Biofuels are not much of an answer at the moment. When they are made our of grasses or other easier plants then it could work. It will have to work anyway after peak oil.

No single renewable power source is the key. All of them combined can do it.

Germany is agreat example of what can happen with Govt backing. They are the world leaders in utilising solar power.
I agree. Biofuel is merely another way of releasing CO2. Just like electric cars. Something is burnt to fuel it. So unless the power behind it is clean then it's useless. Biofuels are going to come from Brazil and what are they going to do? Cut down forest (carbon sinks) and create cleared land which when ploughed will absorb more heat from the sun and contribute to the problem. Yeah good one you short sighted environmentalist plonkers! I consider myself someone that cares about the environment. We recycle, compost, have a wormery and recycle when possible even though the local council makes it hard (they don't recycle cardboard ffs!) and I get pissed off when I buy a packet of something and it's sealed in a celophane wrap, has a stiff plastic base and inside the biscuits or cakes or whatever have individual wrapping. I think that by not being wasteful in this way, turning heating on when a jumper could suffice, not buying a new car every three years and so many other things. If there is this problem and it is caused by us we need to really look deeply at the full implications of the technology we are going to use to combat this and not go for the "Lada Samara" solution which is cheap, seems nice at the time but ends up costing more in the long run and doesn't actually solve the problem.

[Daniel]

I think one of the problems here is that we are still using the term Global Warming instead of Global Climate Change.

The world naturally goes through periods of climate change. Some take many ages and some are rapid and happen over a few hundred or thousand years. These aren't the problem because as RAH says, the ecology of the planet changes over time and adapts to the different conditions so the Romans can grow vines in England.

What the big problem happens to be is when these rapid change events are significant (ie. more than a centigrade or so over a hundred years average) and the dramatic effect they have on the ecology of the planet.

What tends to happen then is that rather than just warming (lovely for the Canuks no doubt ;) ) we get extreem shifts in weather patterns. Droughts, floods, Cat five storms etc. The melting of the ice caps leads to dilution of sea water and possible change in global oceanic currents because of the change in density etc.

There appears to be a change in the severity and extreems of weather conditions that could quite possibly be caused by man. That is the stark reality. What the extent of this change could be and the effects it might ultimatly have is not yet obvious. What is obvious though is that the majority of the scientific community believes we have a big problem and as they are the people that are in the best position to know about this, it might be prudent to listen to them.

After all, if you hear a fire alarm, do you react or are you one of the people that sit there saying "I can't smell smoke so I'll stay here till I can". By then, it may be too late but if you take action immediatly and it's a false alarm, then what have you lost?

The thing is are the extreme weather conditions caused by climate change or is it just natural? As I said there are records of extremes of temperature and so on. For instance with the Thames freezing over in the 60's which is a very strange bit of weather indeed. So merely seeing weird things happening and looking for an explanation is the wrong thing. Global warming was used to explain the strange weather in the UK this summer AFTER it happened. If they had said we've seen warming of .25 degrees celsius and we're going to see a lot of rain and then it rained a lot I could understand. But using these models they've not been able to predict any of the weather. They've merely predicted that climate change will result in unpredictable weather which is about as unscientific as you can be!

As for your fire alarm example it's a good one. But it still doesn't confirm that man is causing climate change.

[Flat.tyres]

In the case of a fire alarm, very little. In the case of stopping all emissions, then we are talking about human civilisation as we know it.

My post was looking more at whether mankind is detrimentally influencing Global Climate Patterns which is in dispute on this thread.

What do do about this influence is another matter entirely but it seems that there is a fundemental disagreement about the reality of (for arguements sake) AGW and then some of the people that don't agree in the principle of AGW are proposing solutions to a problem they don't think exists. I find this quite ironic so just decided to post on the thread subject instead :D

[Daniel]

My post was looking more at whether mankind is detrimentally influencing Global Climate Patterns which is in dispute on this thread.

What do do about this influence is another matter entirely but it seems that there is a fundemental disagreement about the reality of (for arguements sake) AGW and then some of the people that don't agree in the principle of AGW are proposing solutions to a problem they don't think exists. I find this quite ironic so just decided to post on the thread subject instead :D
It's not ironic. It's called having doubts about something but not discounting it to the extent that you doom yourself if you're wrong. It's called common sense and it's better than thinking there's no problem and not doing anything to combat any possible issues we may have or realising that there's a problem and choosing silly solutions like electric cars, hybrids and biofuel.

In fact my argument is very much similar to your "fire alarm" argument so you're only disagreeing with yourself here....

[Flat.tyres]

The thing is are the extreme weather conditions caused by climate change or is it just natural? As I said there are records of extremes of temperature and so on. For instance with the Thames freezing over in the 60's which is a very strange bit of weather indeed. So merely seeing weird things happening and looking for an explanation is the wrong thing. Global warming was used to explain the strange weather in the UK this summer AFTER it happened. If they had said we've seen warming of .25 degrees celsius and we're going to see a lot of rain and then it rained a lot I could understand. But using these models they've not been able to predict any of the weather. They've merely predicted that climate change will result in unpredictable weather which is about as unscientific as you can be!

As for your fire alarm example it's a good one. But it still doesn't confirm that man is causing climate change.

Your first sentence is the focal point of the whole debate. Is it natural or not?

We have weather records going back over a small period of time. Of course, things like Ice Core samples can give us a much clearer idea of long term climate patterns but the day to day stuff, the hurricanes, cold spells and floods form 500+ years would have to be on near biblical proportions to have a chance of being recorded.

BUT, there is evidence that the patterns we are seeing are becoming more extreem and from historical evidence, things like CO2 levels are rising.

Interpretation and modelling of this data is in it's infantacy and nobody is really certain of what the long term effects and symptoms will be as we have limited data to base any claims on. It's almost a case of us knowing it's getting worse but untill we've been through it, we wont know how bad it can be. The problem is, if current predictions are accurate, will we be in a position to care?

My Mum told me about when she smoked. it was not considered a problem at the time but people know it make them cough and wheeze. Yet, "There was no evidence it was bad for you" even though it made people feel like hell.

Then, these weirdos said some disgraceful rubbish about it could give you something called cancer which the tobacco companies proved was a load of lies. It got to the point that hundreds of thousands of people were dying of smoking and still there wasn't enough "evidence" around to prove it was linked until a few years ago. I think the tobacco companies still maintain there is no link.

Can we afford to wait 50 years when we have a fairly good idea this stuff is going on but the Oil companies fund more and more slanted research to disprove it or question it through lack of evidence?

[Daniel]

Your first sentence is the focal point of the whole debate. Is it natural or not?

We have weather records going back over a small period of time. Of course, things like Ice Core samples can give us a much clearer idea of long term climate patterns but the day to day stuff, the hurricanes, cold spells and floods form 500+ years would have to be on near biblical proportions to have a chance of being recorded.

BUT, there is evidence that the patterns we are seeing are becoming more extreem and from historical evidence, things like CO2 levels are rising.

Interpretation and modelling of this data is in it's infantacy and nobody is really certain of what the long term effects and symptoms will be as we have limited data to base any claims on. It's almost a case of us knowing it's getting worse but untill we've been through it, we wont know how bad it can be. The problem is, if current predictions are accurate, will we be in a position to care?

My Mum told me about when she smoked. it was not considered a problem at the time but people know it make them cough and wheeze. Yet, "There was no evidence it was bad for you" even though it made people feel like hell.

Then, these weirdos said some disgraceful rubbish about it could give you something called cancer which the tobacco companies proved was a load of lies. It got to the point that hundreds of thousands of people were dying of smoking and still there wasn't enough "evidence" around to prove it was linked until a few years ago. I think the tobacco companies still maintain there is no link.

Can we afford to wait 50 years when we have a fairly good idea this stuff is going on but the Oil companies fund more and more slanted research to disprove it or question it through lack of evidence?

You're suggesting that all people who do studies which don't agree with popular concensus and so on are biased. Is this the case? Who knows!

Is it natural? Is it not? Who knows? No one can say for certain. Not like I can go outside and measure the temperature and say without a doubt that it is 16 degrees celsius exactly. As I said it's a theory and as we all know theories are not fact. We don't know that it's going to get worse. As has been shown many times there really is very little correlation betwen CO2 levels and temperature. There have been times of extreme cold where CO2 levels have been through the roof.

What is an extreme weather pattern? Does weather necessarily follow predefined patterns? We would like it to but it never seems to and these models never seem to predict events such as the hugely abnormal weather patterns in the UK and the rest of Northern Europe. We're not talking a microclimate here. We're talking about a huge part of the world that had totally unexpected weather. Food for thought?

Your body is not a climate. A climate is extremely complicated. If lots of people smoke and have lung problems and the ones who don't smoke don't have problems then that's quite easy to understand. But we don't have another planet to test this theory on ;)

I never said lets ignore a possible problem. You are putting words in my mouth ;)

[Hondo]

In a way the tobbaco example is a good one. Yes people who smoked coughed and many died from lung diseases however, smoking has never been proven to be the exclusive cause of theses diseases. I'm not saying smoking is healthy or that smoking will not harm you. What I am saying is that people that don't smoke are afflicted with these same diseases. Also ignored is that many of the people also spent a life time in heavy industries breathing chemicals, coal dust, ash, and silica particles, etc. In the US, the tobbaco companies didn't lose the lawsuits over health issues, they lost them when it was proved they were "juicing" their products to make them more addictive. I don't think anybody here disputes the climate is changing, the dispute is over whether we are the cause, a factor in the cause i.e., speeding up what would occur anyway, or completely innocent of all charges. If additional taxes are to be taken to deal with climate change I feel the money would be better used to help people and animals adapt to the changes as they come instead of trying to prevent what you can't stop. China is often cited as a major emissions player and they are going to do what they want. They are large enough and militarily strong enough to pretty much shrug off any sanctions you may care to hit them with.

[Mikeall]

Fiero, many of the same people were saying we were doomed for an ice age back in the 70's. I don't know what we can do if we are the cause, and short of stopping life as we know it, it likely should have been done 30 years ago. There is no way of knowing exactly what is causing it, but climate modelling is a bit of a joke IMO, and I say that after taking 2 climatology credits in University and having an weather observors certificiate at one point in my life. I know how the weather is forcasted and collected, and I can tell you, there is a great unknown out there on what will happen 2 days from now. To forecast 10 years or 50 years hence is a lot more of a crap shoot....

Those same people you mention were the minority who chose to speak out to the public at that time. At that time most climatologists knew they were just identifying the factors and weren't willing to issue public warnings. It was all part of the process of reaching where we are today, with an actual consensus.

Its not forecasting weather its completely different and you should know that. Whether or not you have 2 climatology credits at University the actual climatologists are significantly more qualified than you to judge whether climate modelling is a joke or not...

[Daniel]

Weather is the effect of the climate on us. So climate and weather are related and therefore if you know what's going to happen to the climate you should still be able to predict what the weather's going to be like within reason of course. Yes there are microclimates and places that will buck the trend. But when scientists are telling us that the planet is warming and then there are stupid amounts of rain in Northern Europe that they didn't predict then that suggests that they possibly have it wrong.

Climate modelling is a joke if they can't predict a MAJOR event like the wet weather in July. That wasn't a mere blip. It was a speedbump which they should have seen if they actually know what's going on.

[Andrewmcm]

Climate modelling is a joke if they can't predict a MAJOR event like the wet weather in July. That wasn't a mere blip. It was a speedbump which they should have seen if they actually know what's going on.

Again, climate and weather are two different things. Climate is the long-term average - weather is an event like we say in July.

[Daniel]

Just because you say that doesn't mean it's true.

Weather IS the way that the climate manifests itself to us. I can't walk outside and see the climate. If the climate gets warmer then it has an effect on the weather. To say that the climate doesn't manifest itself in the weather is to totally disagree with the climate change arguments.

As I explained we're not talking about a microclimate or an event like flooding in one particular city. We had an event which affected the whole of Northern Europe which these people failed to predict........

If climate doesn't influence weather that much then why are scientists so worried about the effect of climate change on the weather? :rotflmao:

[rah]

Or course. But as I said and you seem to have ignored. Not so long ago there were vineyards in the north of england and as we know vineyards tend to prefer warmer climates which the north of england still to this day doesn't really provide.

There is also the hockey stick controversy. How long has world temperature been shown to be rising so rapidly? How long have we been accurately measuring termperature? Roughly the same amount of time!?!?!?!?!?!?

As I said I do not doubt that there is warming happening. But I feel that climate study is in it's infancy and although we have lots of tools at our disposal do we nearlly know what the data means? Typically the more complicated an experiment the more data you need to draw a conclusion. Now if we were simply seeing if we could make gold our of plastic and you did whatever you did and made gold out of plastic then that's proof enough. But we're talking about something that's infinitely more complex than our level of current understanding and even if we have computer models they're only interpreting data in a way that we instruct them to.

A lot of theories that seem perfectly reasonable and have data to back them up have been disproven. Up until recently it was said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Guess what! A few weeks ago this was said to have been broken. Of course it could all be smoke and mirrors but I suspect it's probably right.

As I think Mark said previously Einstein was considered a nut back in the 20's and then suddenly he turned everything on it's head and is now considered one of the great minds of the 20th century. Food for thought?

I did not ignore it. As I said in a previous post, there are vineyards right now in England. Evidently (I am still searching for confirmation) there is even one in Scotland.
This is a link to some vineyards in England and Wales. http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html

It is possible to grow grapes in cooler climates, however it is not commercially viable.

What hockey stick controversy? You need to do a little research on the hockey stick graph. If you do you will see that the results come from a wide variety of data.

[rah]

What if in 20 years it doesn't exist?

Have you thought of that possibility?

Sure, but it is happening now. I am pretty confidant. There are a few issues that might slow it down, such as peak oil or a large volcanic eruption.

[Mikeall]

You're suggesting that all people who do studies which don't agree with popular concensus and so on are biased. Is this the case? Who knows!

Is it natural? Is it not? Who knows? No one can say for certain. Not like I can go outside and measure the temperature and say without a doubt that it is 16 degrees celsius exactly. As I said it's a theory and as we all know theories are not fact. We don't know that it's going to get worse. As has been shown many times there really is very little correlation betwen CO2 levels and temperature. There have been times of extreme cold where CO2 levels have been through the roof.

What is an extreme weather pattern? Does weather necessarily follow predefined patterns? We would like it to but it never seems to and these models never seem to predict events such as the hugely abnormal weather patterns in the UK and the rest of Northern Europe. We're not talking a microclimate here. We're talking about a huge part of the world that had totally unexpected weather. Food for thought?

Your body is not a climate. A climate is extremely complicated. If lots of people smoke and have lung problems and the ones who don't smoke don't have problems then that's quite easy to understand. But we don't have another planet to test this theory on ;)

I never said lets ignore a possible problem. You are putting words in my mouth ;)

Nuclear physics is a theory but it doesn't stop it nuclear power stations working. There comes a time when a theory is significantly ratified for it to be used as a fact. The theory of man made global warming HAS reached this level. If it is proven wrong then that is OK but any alternative theories have a long way to go before reaching this level. Another thing is that carbon dioxide levels are only causing the climate to change this time, other times it was other things. I cannot understand why can believe that factors can change the climate yet not believe that greenhouse gases can despite the fact that of all the known factors it is the one rising significantly at a rate that would cause a temperature rise similar to the one that is occurring even with all other factors considered. Scientists and Governments are so sure about this that they are willing to invest large amounts of money. The only reason you don't know for sure is that you have not critically examined every relevant study in detail. Considering the interdisciplinary nature of climate research it is beyond the means of any one person to do that as no one really posesses all the necessary knowledge. The discovery and acceptance of man made climate change one of the greatest scientific achievements in mankinds history. Its a shame that the main opposition seems to be one that promotes a disbelief in the scientific method and of scientists as well as the idea that of promoting ideas for the current global warming that are generally ignorant.

[rah]

I agree. Biofuel is merely another way of releasing CO2. Just like electric cars. Something is burnt to fuel it. So unless the power behind it is clean then it's useless. Biofuels are going to come from Brazil and what are they going to do? Cut down forest (carbon sinks) and create cleared land which when ploughed will absorb more heat from the sun and contribute to the problem. Yeah good one you short sighted environmentalist plonkers! I consider myself someone that cares about the environment. We recycle, compost, have a wormery and recycle when possible even though the local council makes it hard (they don't recycle cardboard ffs!) and I get pissed off when I buy a packet of something and it's sealed in a celophane wrap, has a stiff plastic base and inside the biscuits or cakes or whatever have individual wrapping. I think that by not being wasteful in this way, turning heating on when a jumper could suffice, not buying a new car every three years and so many other things. If there is this problem and it is caused by us we need to really look deeply at the full implications of the technology we are going to use to combat this and not go for the "Lada Samara" solution which is cheap, seems nice at the time but ends up costing more in the long run and doesn't actually solve the problem.

Biofuels is more a solutions for a liquid fuel crisis (peak oil). However it is less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. That is of course if fossil fuels are not used to make the biofuels. The best options for biofuels are not the ones involving food crops. That plan is just shortsighted.

[Andrewmcm]

Just because you say that doesn't mean it's true.

Weather IS the way that the climate manifests itself to us. I can't walk outside and see the climate. If the climate gets warmer then it has an effect on the weather. To say that the climate doesn't manifest itself in the weather is to totally disagree with the climate change arguments.

As I explained we're not talking about a microclimate or an event like flooding in one particular city. We had an event which affected the whole of Northern Europe which these people failed to predict........

If climate doesn't influence weather that much then why are scientists so worried about the effect of climate change on the weather? :rotflmao:


Try reading that again to see if it makes any sense now that it's written down.

Climate is the long term average and variations of the weather. We know that this is the wettest summer "on record" as we have measuring systems and records that go back about 400 years in the UK. Now tell me how we can infer whether or not the UK had rain/weather events such as we recently have experienced before records began? Tree rings / C14 records only tell us about the climate, i.e. how the seasons or the yearly "average weather" or climate affected the living beings at that time. It doesn't tell us that all the rain in that particular year fell in one day and it was beautiful sunshine for the rest of the year, nor does it tell us that it drizzled non-stop for 365 days. They're called "weather forecasts" and not "climate forecasts" for a reason.

Back to my original point - climate modelling is just that - simulating changes in the parameters that define air temperature, sea temperature and so on in order to better understand what happens if such events were to occur. These simulations do not account for the day-to-day variations in climate, i.e. what we defined as the weather, and only give mean estimates within certain percentage errors. Modern supercomputers can barely forecast the weather for a week in advance as the parameters that affect the development of weather systems are inordinately complex. Climate modelling, in contrast, is much easier due to the recorded information that we have, and our (reasonable) understanding of the local (i.e. Earth-bound) parameters that affect the climate.

[Daniel]

I did not ignore it. As I said in a previous post, there are vineyards right now in England. Evidently (I am still searching for confirmation) there is even one in Scotland.
This is a link to some vineyards in England and Wales. http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html

It is possible to grow grapes in cooler climates, however it is not commercially viable.

What hockey stick controversy? You need to do a little research on the hockey stick graph. If you do you will see that the results come from a wide variety of data.
Wide variety of data. So you're saying that it's a different set of data to the set of data that we're basing historic "observations" on? We once had different scales for carbon dating which we used and then we discovered that these were wrong. As I said we've only been measuring the temperatures with exact instruments for a historically short period of time....... It's not good science to base historic observations on what we "think" of course it's better than nothing but it's not fact.

[Mikeall]

Just because you say that doesn't mean it's true.

Weather IS the way that the climate manifests itself to us. I can't walk outside and see the climate. If the climate gets warmer then it has an effect on the weather. To say that the climate doesn't manifest itself in the weather is to totally disagree with the climate change arguments.

As I explained we're not talking about a microclimate or an event like flooding in one particular city. We had an event which affected the whole of Northern Europe which these people failed to predict........

If climate doesn't influence weather that much then why are scientists so worried about the effect of climate change on the weather? :rotflmao:

Climate is the probability of something happening. For example when people talk about 10 year floods or 100 year floods.

[Daniel]

Nuclear physics is a theory but it doesn't stop it nuclear power stations working. There comes a time when a theory is significantly ratified for it to be used as a fact. The theory of man made global warming HAS reached this level. If it is proven wrong then that is OK but any alternative theories have a long way to go before reaching this level. Another thing is that carbon dioxide levels are only causing the climate to change this time, other times it was other things. I cannot understand why can believe that factors can change the climate yet not believe that greenhouse gases can despite the fact that of all the known factors it is the one rising significantly at a rate that would cause a temperature rise similar to the one that is occurring even with all other factors considered. Scientists and Governments are so sure about this that they are willing to invest large amounts of money. The only reason you don't know for sure is that you have not critically examined every relevant study in detail. Considering the interdisciplinary nature of climate research it is beyond the means of any one person to do that as no one really posesses all the necessary knowledge. The discovery and acceptance of man made climate change one of the greatest scientific achievements in mankinds history. Its a shame that the main opposition seems to be one that promotes a disbelief in the scientific method and of scientists as well as the idea that of promoting ideas for the current global warming that are generally ignorant.
The thing is like I said if the number of dachshunds increased at the same rate as the rate of increase in temperature then we could reasonably assume that dachshunds are the cause of global warming.

The argument that sceptics use is that we don't truly understand the climate yet so we can't just come out and say it's CO2 and not look into other possible causes. That's all I'm trying to put across.

[Mikeall]

Daniel, scientific fact implies an element of doubt you don't need to keep repeating it. A scientific fact must be capable of being proved wrong otherwise it isn't science.

[Mikeall]

The thing is like I said if the number of dachshunds increased at the same rate as the rate of increase in temperature then we could reasonably assume that dachshunds are the cause of global warming.

The argument that sceptics use is that we don't truly understand the climate yet so we can't just come out and say it's CO2 and not look into other possible causes. That's all I'm trying to put across.

Therefore the sceptics are portraying climatologists wrongly, as the have looked into other possible causes and have quantified the warming effect of CO2 on a basic level and the predictions match the current level of warming.

[Hondo]

computer modelling of anything uses formulas and conclusions allowed to it by it's human programer. In short, if a certain conclusion is never programmed in as a possibility, then it can never be reached.

[rah]

In a way the tobbaco example is a good one. Yes people who smoked coughed and many died from lung diseases however, smoking has never been proven to be the exclusive cause of theses diseases. I'm not saying smoking is healthy or that smoking will not harm you. What I am saying is that people that don't smoke are afflicted with these same diseases. Also ignored is that many of the people also spent a life time in heavy industries breathing chemicals, coal dust, ash, and silica particles, etc. In the US, the tobbaco companies didn't lose the lawsuits over health issues, they lost them when it was proved they were "juicing" their products to make them more addictive. I don't think anybody here disputes the climate is changing, the dispute is over whether we are the cause, a factor in the cause i.e., speeding up what would occur anyway, or completely innocent of all charges. If additional taxes are to be taken to deal with climate change I feel the money would be better used to help people and animals adapt to the changes as they come instead of trying to prevent what you can't stop. China is often cited as a major emissions player and they are going to do what they want. They are large enough and militarily strong enough to pretty much shrug off any sanctions you may care to hit them with.

The tobacco example is a great one. In fact some of the PR firms involved with shedding doubt onto health effects of smoking are involved with shedding doubt about climate change.

How do people or animals adapt to climate change? Look at some of the effects:
If the sea levels rise as predicted we will see many millions of people driven off their land by the ocean. Where do these people go? How do you replace the valuable crop lands that will be submerged? A few nations are already feeling the effects of the rising sea levels. Not to mention what it will do to many cities and infrastructure.

The ocean is getting more acidic. This is a direct result of increasing CO2 levels. What does this mean? any invertebrate sea creature will have a much harder time calcifying its exoskeleton once the PH of the ocean drops to a certain level. This is not something that corals or shellfish can readily adapt to. It just does not chemically work. So thats an entire ecosystem destroyed.

Bad news to for you anyone living in the UK. AGW predictions show you getting much much colder.

Just some of the bad news.

[Daniel]

Try reading that again to see if it makes any sense now that it's written down.

Climate is the long term average and variations of the weather. We know that this is the wettest summer "on record" as we have measuring systems and records that go back about 400 years in the UK. Now tell me how we can infer whether or not the UK had rain/weather events such as we recently have experienced before records began? Tree rings / C14 records only tell us about the climate, i.e. how the seasons or the yearly "average weather" or climate affected the living beings at that time. It doesn't tell us that all the rain in that particular year fell in one day and it was beautiful sunshine for the rest of the year, nor does it tell us that it drizzled non-stop for 365 days. They're called "weather forecasts" and not "climate forecasts" for a reason.

Back to my original point - climate modelling is just that - simulating changes in the parameters that define air temperature, sea temperature and so on in order to better understand what happens if such events were to occur. These simulations do not account for the day-to-day variations in climate, i.e. what we defined as the weather, and only give mean estimates within certain percentage errors. Modern supercomputers can barely forecast the weather for a week in advance as the parameters that affect the development of weather systems are inordinately complex. Climate modelling, in contrast, is much easier due to the recorded information that we have, and our (reasonable) understanding of the local (i.e. Earth-bound) parameters that affect the climate.
Well it's not been confirmed that this has been the wettest summer because there are different ways of measuring. Rainfall is measured in more places now than ever before. But it is up there with the wettest summers ever. So was it wetter now than in the past? Quite possibly. All we know is that is was wet!

As I said the climate manifests itself in the weather that we experience. Why is it that scientists used climate change to explain the summer when you're saying that there's no relationship?

I'll be perfectly honest and say that I don't think scientists really know how a climate operates and what triggers, tipping points and factors we're dealing with. Something is happening and CO2 has been latched onto as an indicator because it seems to be rising sharply at the same temperature is rising.

[Hondo]

I'd hate to see the polar bears have a rough time of it.

[Andrewmcm]

As I said the climate manifests itself in the weather that we experience. Why is it that scientists used climate change to explain the summer when you're saying that there's no relationship?


That is not my point at all. A change in climate necessarily points to a change in the average weather. I'm suggesting to you that having a "wettest summer on record" may be a spike in the overall average for the year - look at April, it was 27 degrees and everyone thought we were in for a major drought. Wait until the figures come out for 2007 to see if it was a "wet" year or a "hot year", and how that correllates to the overall climate in the past 10-20-50 years and then we can start to compare this year with the overall change in the planet's climate.

[Daniel]

Nuclear physics is a theory but it doesn't stop it nuclear power stations working. There comes a time when a theory is significantly ratified for it to be used as a fact. The theory of man made global warming HAS reached this level. If it is proven wrong then that is OK but any alternative theories have a long way to go before reaching this level. Another thing is that carbon dioxide levels are only causing the climate to change this time, other times it was other things. I cannot understand why can believe that factors can change the climate yet not believe that greenhouse gases can despite the fact that of all the known factors it is the one rising significantly at a rate that would cause a temperature rise similar to the one that is occurring even with all other factors considered. Scientists and Governments are so sure about this that they are willing to invest large amounts of money. The only reason you don't know for sure is that you have not critically examined every relevant study in detail. Considering the interdisciplinary nature of climate research it is beyond the means of any one person to do that as no one really posesses all the necessary knowledge. The discovery and acceptance of man made climate change one of the greatest scientific achievements in mankinds history. Its a shame that the main opposition seems to be one that promotes a disbelief in the scientific method and of scientists as well as the idea that of promoting ideas for the current global warming that are generally ignorant.
The thing is you can observe nuclear physics. You can have a reactor and you can monitor it and you can understand the substance at work and what is being done to it and how it will react. Just like you predict what goes on in a microclimate when you know what factors are being applied. The thing is that the earth is not as simple as one mountain range and the effects that it will have on a nearby deep valley. It's complex and to think that we've got it right with our first assumption of how it works with only a few years of data is a bit presumptuous. That's all I'm suggesting. It's amazing the strength with which the enviro-stazi put their views across as being near enough to being proven fact.

[Daniel]

Therefore the sceptics are portraying climatologists wrongly, as the have looked into other possible causes and have quantified the warming effect of CO2 on a basic level and the predictions match the current level of warming.
Yes but that's my point. We've not been studying it for long enough to actually draw any reasonable data from it.

Scientists simply seem to "debunk" theories by simply proving that another theory seems to be explaining it better.

[rah]

Wide variety of data. So you're saying that it's a different set of data to the set of data that we're basing historic "observations" on? We once had different scales for carbon dating which we used and then we discovered that these were wrong. As I said we've only been measuring the temperatures with exact instruments for a historically short period of time....... It's not good science to base historic observations on what we "think" of course it's better than nothing but it's not fact.

Wide variety means the data comes from a variety of sources. I understand that you are raising issues that you feel are not understood by scientists, but maybe if you do a little research into the matter it might help you better understand the situation we are in. At the moment it just feels as though every time I reply on a subject you move on to the next one without acknowledging the point made. Maybe with a little research you can find the answers yourself.

[Hondo]

The tobacco example is a great one. In fact some of the PR firms involved with shedding doubt onto health effects of smoking are involved with shedding doubt about climate change.

How do people or animals adapt to climate change? Look at some of the effects:
If the sea levels rise as predicted we will see many millions of people driven off their land by the ocean. Where do these people go? How do you replace the valuable crop lands that will be submerged? A few nations are already feeling the effects of the rising sea levels. Not to mention what it will do to many cities and infrastructure.

The ocean is getting more acidic. This is a direct result of increasing CO2 levels. What does this mean? any invertebrate sea creature will have a much harder time calcifying its exoskeleton once the PH of the ocean drops to a certain level. This is not something that corals or shellfish can readily adapt to. It just does not chemically work. So thats an entire ecosystem destroyed.

Bad news to for you anyone living in the UK. AGW predictions show you getting much much colder.

Just some of the bad news.

They didn't shed doubt, they merely pointed out, correctly, that smoking was not the exclusive cause of these diseases. Thats not doubt, thats fact.

This reminds me of the cell phone radiation thing. Some researchers belive the increased radiation is dangerous and some say it isn't. I guess what you chooses to believe is based on how much you love your cell phone. Of course, as more people start falling over dead with brain tumors, the backlash against the cell companies will start, just like it did on tobbaco.

[Daniel]

That is not my point at all. A change in climate necessarily points to a change in the average weather. I'm suggesting to you that having a "wettest summer on record" may be a spike in the overall average for the year - look at April, it was 27 degrees and everyone thought we were in for a major drought. Wait until the figures come out for 2007 to see if it was a "wet" year or a "hot year", and how that correllates to the overall climate in the past 10-20-50 years and then we can start to compare this year with the overall change in the planet's climate.
Yes but scientists have come down and said that the wet summer was down to climate change. Now if we knew that CO2 was having this effect and if we know the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and what the effects of climate change will be then surely we know the implications of this "change" then surely there's a cycle there. We know there's an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature rises because of it and this causes something. Now if so soon after the event we can put it down to global warming then why did models not at least suggest this as a possibility? Why not? Because we don't know how the atmosphere works.

[rah]

They didn't shed doubt, they merely pointed out, correctly, that smoking was not the exclusive cause of these diseases. Thats not doubt, thats fact.


They were not pointing out holes in the science. They knew from research conducted themselves from the 40's that smoking was bad for you and caused many health problems. They are criminals responsible for many deaths and counting.

[Mikeall]

Yes but that's my point. We've not been studying it for long enough to actually draw any reasonable data from it.

Scientists simply seem to "debunk" theories by simply proving that another theory seems to be explaining it better.

1st paragraph I simply think you're wrong. You haven't been studying it. Climatologists have. You are not qualified to decide whether its been studied long enough (neither am I), climatologists and statisticians are.

2nd paragraph: Yes that is how scientific progress works.

[Hondo]

They were not pointing out holes in the science. They knew from research conducted themselves from the 40's that smoking was bad for you and caused many health problems. They are criminals responsible for many deaths and counting.

I smoke and don't view them as criminals nor do I hold them responsible for me starting smoking. I started smoking because I tried it and liked it, and yes the warnings were on the packs then. The only person responsible for my smoking habit is me.

[Mikeall]

The thing is you can observe nuclear physics. You can have a reactor and you can monitor it and you can understand the substance at work and what is being done to it and how it will react. Just like you predict what goes on in a microclimate when you know what factors are being applied. The thing is that the earth is not as simple as one mountain range and the effects that it will have on a nearby deep valley. It's complex and to think that we've got it right with our first assumption of how it works with only a few years of data is a bit presumptuous. That's all I'm suggesting. It's amazing the strength with which the enviro-stazi put their views across as being near enough to being proven fact.

I take that as a compliment ;)

[Daniel]

Wide variety means the data comes from a variety of sources. I understand that you are raising issues that you feel are not understood by scientists, but maybe if you do a little research into the matter it might help you better understand the situation we are in. At the moment it just feels as though every time I reply on a subject you move on to the next one without acknowledging the point made. Maybe with a little research you can find the answers yourself.
As I said I'm at work doing a job and I barely have time to reply to your posts and even less time to go around the internet and gather evidence and verify it's authenticity and consider any possible bias.

The thing that irritates me is that I point out that scientists have been wrong in the past and I merely suggest that they could be wrong now and there are certain patterns like historic high levels of CO2 and lows in temperature that conflict with this and rather than actually prove this incorrect you merely go on about why you're right rather than proving that you're not incorrect. DO you see my point? I'm merely trying to say that it's possible that CO2 is not the only factor in the warming of the planet that is currently occuring.

[Andrewmcm]

Yes but scientists have come down and said that the wet summer was down to climate change. Now if we knew that CO2 was having this effect and if we know the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and what the effects of climate change will be then surely we know the implications of this "change" then surely there's a cycle there. We know there's an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature rises because of it and this causes something. Now if so soon after the event we can put it down to global warming then why did models not at least suggest this as a possibility? Why not? Because we don't know how the atmosphere works.

Sky news, ITV news and newspapers may say that the rain is due to climate change but dig a bit deeper and you'll find that it's due to the fact that the Gulf Jet Stream moved too far South this year, giving the UK and Northern Europe lots of rain, and Southern Europe scorching temperatures. It's happened before, and it'll no doubt happen again.

As to whether or not it's due to climate change - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6911918.stm and http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR6880.asp, with Reading's meteorolgy department being one of the best in the UK (having known a few PhD students from there).

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Daniel"]Well it's not been confirmed that this has been the wettest summer because there are different ways of measuring. Rainfall is measured in more places now than ever before.


you're having a laugh, aren't you, by any standard it has officially been the wettest summer ever.

[Daniel]

1st paragraph I simply think you're wrong. You haven't been studying it. Climatologists have. You are not qualified to decide whether its been studied long enough (neither am I), climatologists and statisticians are.

2nd paragraph: Yes that is how scientific progress works.

No that's not how science works :rolleyes: If a scientist says that oranges are a factor in global warming and you prove that apples are a factor in global warming it doesn't mean that oranges don't have an effect on global warming.

I actually worked for a statistics company in Australia in a part time role and got to see the results of the project I was working on and told about the meanings and implications even though I wasn't involved in interpreting the data and conclusions that were drawn from the project in the first month weren't imediately held up as fact until the project had run for a good year or so and a full cycle of data had been gathered and studied. Do scientists have data gathered from weather balloons from the last ice age? Or the last period of warmth from ocean buoys? No they don't! We didn't just survey people from one part of the city on one weekend of the year and claim that this was accurate data and in a climate sense that's what scientists are doing at the moment.

[Daniel]

I take that as a compliment ;)
You'd be wrong.

[Daniel]

Well it's not been confirmed that this has been the wettest summer because there are different ways of measuring. Rainfall is measured in more places now than ever before.


you're having a laugh, aren't you, by any standard it has officially been the wettest summer ever.
No. The metoffice site said that they are currently trying to confirm against records at the moment :)

[rah]

As I said I'm at work doing a job and I barely have time to reply to your posts and even less time to go around the internet and gather evidence and verify it's authenticity and consider any possible bias.

The thing that irritates me is that I point out that scientists have been wrong in the past and I merely suggest that they could be wrong now and there are certain patterns like historic high levels of CO2 and lows in temperature that conflict with this and rather than actually prove this incorrect you merely go on about why you're right rather than proving that you're not incorrect. DO you see my point? I'm merely trying to say that it's possible that CO2 is not the only factor in the warming of the planet that is currently occuring.

How about this: I acknowledge that scientists in the past have been wrong. I also acknowledge that scientist could be wrong with the present situation. However science of the past and science today are two different animals. Comparing scientist now to the scientist who thought that the world was flat or that Einstein was crazy are completely unfair and laughable.

And before you go on about CO2 not being the only factor in the warming of the planet, I completely agree with you. There are many other gases such as methane, cfc's, hfc's that are affecting AGW. CO2 is just the primary one. And it is a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. In fact CO2 concentrations are higher n ow than in the last 30,000 years.

[Daniel]

How about this: I acknowledge that scientists in the past have been wrong. I also acknowledge that scientist could be wrong with the present situation. However science of the past and science today are two different animals. Comparing scientist now to the scientist who thought that the world was flat or that Einstein was crazy are completely unfair and laughable.

And before you go on about CO2 not being the only factor in the warming of the planet, I completely agree with you. There are many other gases such as methane, cfc's, hfc's that are affecting AGW. CO2 is just the primary one. And it is a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. In fact CO2 concentrations are higher n ow than in the last 30,000 years.
Well I don't know if AGW is the right term because we don't yet know whether it is caused by us or not. Yes you can reasonably draw the conclusion by drawing parallels between CO2 and temperature as the graphs seem to match but as I said it doesn't prove it because long term observations which means gathering data through the same methods to prove the thesis.

The original point of my thread was that scientific explanation seems to follow a strange bit of weather these days rather than preceding it. I understand that climate and weather are not going to track in exactly the same way but if scientists are going to claim that climate change is caused by CO2 and that this is going to have specific effects on the weather that we have then these events should to a certain extent be "easy" to predict and I'm not one of these people who blames the weatherman because I go somewhere for a weekend and it rains because he didn't get it right. I understand from doing meteorology for a year at university that it's a complex thing and not easy to predict.

I know the reason for the unseasonal weather was the movement south of the jet stream which is usually much further north. I just find it funny that IF this is caused by global warming then why didn't they know it was going to happen? The jet stream doesn't just go south on a whim. There are factors at work here and if I'm being told that the weather in the world is going to change in dramatic and scary ways because of global warming but they can't predict such behaviour in what is a relatively stable atmospheric current. I think people want it to rain a certain amount of days in a year and be warm for a certain amount of days and cold for a certain amount of days and if it doesn't fit into this then there's something wrong :)

[Mikeall]

Sky news, ITV news and newspapers may say that the rain is due to climate change but dig a bit deeper and you'll find that it's due to the fact that the Gulf Jet Stream moved too far South this year, giving the UK and Northern Europe lots of rain, and Southern Europe scorching temperatures. It's happened before, and it'll no doubt happen again.

As to whether or not it's due to climate change - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6911918.stm and http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR6880.asp, with Reading's meteorolgy department being one of the best in the UK (having known a few PhD students from there).

This doesn't count in any way as a valid argument but I'm sitting in their 24hour computer room at the moment because the library just shut. I should be doing work really not discussing this...

Everyone should read this skeptic or not:

http://www.earthlights.org/skeptical.html

[BDunnell]

I know the reason for the unseasonal weather was the movement south of the jet stream which is usually much further north. I just find it funny that IF this is caused by global warming then why didn't they know it was going to happen?

I would presume that climate change predictions are not intended to be any use for forecasting a summer's weather in that way.

[Andrewmcm]

This doesn't count in any way as a valid argument but I'm sitting in their 24hour computer room at the moment because the library just shut. I should be doing work really not discussing this...

Everyone should read this skeptic or not:

http://www.earthlights.org/skeptical.html

Is the use of my post in highlighting that article to do with the links I had provided and how they do not pass through the peer-review process, or are you suggesting that I do not understand scientific method?

The academic peer-review system is not as well-balanced and as fair as some people may suggest. As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, attempting to publish ideas that contradict your reviewer's work does not go down very well. I know of a few academics who have established their own journals in order to get information out, as other journals would not touch it. Whether that was due to their work being garbage or innovative I don't know, but it has happened.

[Daniel]

I would presume that climate change predictions are not intended to be any use for forecasting a summer's weather in that way.
But if one of the keystones of the belief in global warming and it's effect is unseasonal weather then surely if global warming markers are there then it goes into long term forecasting..... I'm not talking day to day stuff like the fog I had this morning. I'm talking major weather events.

Surely if they can in retrospect put it down to global warming then there were indicators before the event happened?

[Andrewmcm]

But if one of the keystones of the belief in global warming and it's effect is unseasonal weather then surely if global warming markers are there then it goes into long term forecasting..... I'm not talking day to day stuff like the fog I had this morning. I'm talking major weather events.

Surely if they can in retrospect put it down to global warming then there were indicators before the event happened?

How successfully can we predict the onset of hurricanes?

[Mikeall]

Is the use of my post in highlighting that article to do with the links I had provided and how they do not pass through the peer-review process, or are you suggesting that I do not understand scientific method?

The academic peer-review system is not as well-balanced and as fair as some people may suggest. As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, attempting to publish ideas that contradict your reviewer's work does not go down very well. I know of a few academics who have established their own journals in order to get information out, as other journals would not touch it. Whether that was due to their work being garbage or innovative I don't know, but it has happened.

That link wasn't my words its just something to think about.

[Andrewmcm]

That link wasn't my words its just something to think about.

Ah, my apologies, I took the use of my post as some kind of rebuttal of my points. My mistake :)

[BDunnell]

But if one of the keystones of the belief in global warming and it's effect is unseasonal weather then surely if global warming markers are there then it goes into long term forecasting..... I'm not talking day to day stuff like the fog I had this morning. I'm talking major weather events.

Surely if they can in retrospect put it down to global warming then there were indicators before the event happened?

But 'they' haven't put it down entirely to global warming, if my reading was correct.

[Rollo]

Yes but that's my point. We've not been studying it for long enough to actually draw any reasonable data from it.

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

[Hondo]

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

[BDunnell]

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

I would generally agree with that. The lack of smog in major Western cities is one indication of how we have cleaned up our act. Aircraft, too, are more fuel-efficient, less smoky and noisy.

[Daniel]

Then your point contradicts itself.

If there isn't enough useful data, then you can't really draw a conclusion either way. If what we are doing with regards CO2 is in fact buggering up the place, and we do nothing, then that's irresponsible.
On the other hand it it matters not a damn, haven't we just been prudent in the first place with resources?
You've not been reading every second post of mine which basically says that I doubt CO2 is the major contributor to the problem BUT I advocate being more efficient. Eh? Eh? Eh?

I also think that if places like the US and UK were to take up renewable energy sources that it might be a bit easier to compete economically with China which is still going to the effort of mining coal and burning it and dealing with the consequences of that.

[Hondo]

You've not been reading every second post of mine which basically says that I doubt CO2 is the major contributor to the problem BUT I advocate being more efficient. Eh? Eh? Eh?

I also think that if places like the US and UK were to take up renewable energy sources that it might be a bit easier to compete economically with China which is still going to the effort of mining coal and burning it and dealing with the consequences of that.

Coal can easily be burned without billowing black clouds of smoke using precipitator units prior to the stacks. You can also control the s02 and nox gasses, but you still have the co2 that you're going to have when you burn anything.

[Camelopard]

This may have been mentioned before, if so, my apologies. This system uses bouys and as they sway they operate pumps to send high pressure water to shore and spin turbines for power. Sounds good.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/newwave-technology-offers-power-from-the-deep/2007/09/02/1188671797016.html

[rah]

Considering the rapid growth of machine powered industry once it started which I peg at about 1880, our technology levels, and the need to provide for our populations, overall I think we've done a fair job of being prudent. In the US, the EPA really started getting involved in emission and pollution matters in the early 1970's. Many foreign cars disappeared from the American markets during the 70's because they couldn't meet emissions standards. Freon 12 was banned in the US because of the hole in the ozone layer controversy, although it was still availabe in much of the world. Chemicals that powered products in spray cans were banned or heavily restricted for use for the same ozone hole. Much of Europe went nuclear for power generation. Yeah, I think we've done a pretty good job as our technology allows us to understand the problems. We cannot reasonably foresee every consequence to every action.

Much of what you say is true however, a few points: Many cars were banned from the US in 70's because of emissions standards and fuel economy legislation. Unfortunately these laws were scrapped by Reagan and now the average US car is less fuel efficient than a model T (because of the popularity of SUV's).

I think you will also find that most of the power supplied in Europe is still coal fired. Nuclear energy is too expensive to produce most of the power needed in Europe or the rest of the world.

[Pawprint]

I feel strongly about climate change and environemtal issues, I dont know what has been said in the thred so far, but I think its genuine, and a potentiall hugely destructive problem. Just my op.

[Hondo]

I feel strongly about climate change and environemtal issues, I dont know what has been said in the thred so far, but I think its genuine, and a potentiall hugely destructive problem. Just my op.

Go back and read the thread. It's actually been a pretty good one for us.

[BDunnell]

Go back and read the thread. It's actually been a pretty good one for us.

So you are now dismissing the sincerely-held views of others on the grounds of some perceived superiority in a thread on an internet forum?

It had generally been quite polite up until that point.

[Hondo]

Much of what you say is true however, a few points: Many cars were banned from the US in 70's because of emissions standards and fuel economy legislation. Unfortunately these laws were scrapped by Reagan and now the average US car is less fuel efficient than a model T (because of the popularity of SUV's).

I think you will also find that most of the power supplied in Europe is still coal fired. Nuclear energy is too expensive to produce most of the power needed in Europe or the rest of the world.

I was under the impression that Europe and especially France had quite a few nuclear plants. Your coal plants should be or could be burning pretty clean though.

There are other environmental/health issues I left out like getting lead out of paints and gasoline.

Reading back, I should also have pointed out that most European auto manufacturers could have met the emissions standards, but to do so and put the stuff in cars that Americans want, like air conditioning, would have required investment in larger engines. Considering the Japanese were beginning their sweep of the American market, it probably didn't make financial sense for the European companies to compete. American manufacturers started loading cars up with all kinds of devices that killed gas mileage. Honda came in with their beautiful little CCVC engine and got low emissions and great mileage without all the gimmicks.

I do think that once a consensus is reached on an issue, the industrialized nations do a pretty good job in dealing with them.

[Hondo]

So you are now dismissing the sincerely-held views of others on the grounds of some perceived superiority in a thread on an internet forum?

It had generally been quite polite up until that point.

No. What I meant was that for us, a collective group, you, me and everyone involved, it has been a good, polite thread, with honestly exchanged views on both sides.

In other words, it hasn't broken down into one of our furniture-smashing bar room free-for-alls.

I meant it as a compliment to all those who have participated.

Even you, my friend.

[Malbec]

Considering the Japanese were beginning their sweep of the American market, it probably didn't make financial sense for the European companies to compete. American manufacturers started loading cars up with all kinds of devices that killed gas mileage. Honda came in with their beautiful little CCVC engine and got low emissions and great mileage without all the gimmicks.

I think you're giving the European car makers too much credit with the exception of the Germans. In the 1970s, the era you're talking about, the British, French and Italian car makers were in no position to catch the Japanese in terms of clean burn technology either financially or technologically. Also most of them were facing such big problems with industrial action that merely getting cars out of the factory door was a major triumph let alone getting them past US emissions standards. End result? Possibly billions of dollars worth of lost sales after having to pull out of the US market and being locked out for the last three decades. Not all major industries are capable of reacting quickly enough to changes in legislation, however far ahead they learn of them.

[BDunnell]

No. What I meant was that for us, a collective group, you, me and everyone involved, it has been a good, polite thread, with honestly exchanged views on both sides.

In other words, it hasn't broken down into one of our furniture-smashing bar room free-for-alls.

I meant it as a compliment to all those who have participated.

Even you, my friend.

Ah, forgive me. Apologies, and no hard feelings.

[BDunnell]

I think you're giving the European car makers too much credit with the exception of the Germans. In the 1970s, the era you're talking about, the British, French and Italian car makers were in no position to catch the Japanese in terms of clean burn technology either financially or technologically. Also most of them were facing such big problems with industrial action that merely getting cars out of the factory door was a major triumph let alone getting them past US emissions standards. End result? Possibly billions of dollars worth of lost sales after having to pull out of the US market and being locked out for the last three decades. Not all major industries are capable of reacting quickly enough to changes in legislation, however far ahead they learn of them.

A very good assessment.

Your mention of Germany (West Germany, to be more precise) is very worthwhile, because the same could be said of many of the small environmental initiatives to do with recycling, alternative energy, etc that would be seen as revolutionary in many other countries, like the UK, but which became commonplace in West Germany years ago. They are now a part of life there, and no great burden on anyone. Many other nations would do well to go some way towards embracing Germany's all-round environmental awareness, which is in no way obsessive — this is, after all, a country that certainly used to have one of the highest rates of car ownership per capita in Europe. Yet, still, people often choose to take the train...

[Hondo]

Ah, forgive me. Apologies, and no hard feelings.


One of the drawbacks of communicating in text is that lack of voice tone that gives one an insight into how a comment is meant.

Aside from a few absolute, fulltime knotheads that used to be here all the time, I don't have any hard feelings for anybody on this forum. I even like Eki.

No problems Mr. Dunnell and what it's worth I'm begining to explore the CO2 kind of thing. I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to look with an open mind.

[Hondo]

I think you're giving the European car makers too much credit with the exception of the Germans. In the 1970s, the era you're talking about, the British, French and Italian car makers were in no position to catch the Japanese in terms of clean burn technology either financially or technologically. Also most of them were facing such big problems with industrial action that merely getting cars out of the factory door was a major triumph let alone getting them past US emissions standards. End result? Possibly billions of dollars worth of lost sales after having to pull out of the US market and being locked out for the last three decades. Not all major industries are capable of reacting quickly enough to changes in legislation, however far ahead they learn of them.

America wasn't real sharp on clean burn either. thats why when you popped a hood in 1974 on an American car all you saw were hoses, cannisters, filters, and tubing running everywhere. You almost couldn't see the engine. They piled on so many anti-pollution devices that gas mileage dropped like a rock.

One reason SUVs even came about was the absolute lack of regulation on them. There were regulations for pickup trucks and passenger cars but none for SUVs. What the hell is an SUV? Now, slowly, SUVs are also growing regulations. Next we'll have PTCs, personal transportation craft, to avoid more regulations.

It's a big dog chasing it's tail.

[BDunnell]

One of the drawbacks of communicating in text is that lack of voice tone that gives one an insight into how a comment is meant.

Aside from a few absolute, fulltime knotheads that used to be here all the time, I don't have any hard feelings for anybody on this forum. I even like Eki.

No problems Mr. Dunnell and what it's worth I'm begining to explore the CO2 kind of thing. I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to look with an open mind.

Just as I have come to understand that the opinions regarding global warming of pretty much everybody, including myself and those that think this way, who isn't a climate scientist has to be based on some form of opinion or belief rather than hard facts, because the whole thing is bloody difficult to digest. I don't think I'm about to change my view, but I do believe that panicking isn't the best way forward, because certain things simply will not change. Thankfully, industry does have a habit of finding ways round this and moving technology on.

[Daniel]

A very good assessment.

Your mention of Germany (West Germany, to be more precise) is very worthwhile, because the same could be said of many of the small environmental initiatives to do with recycling, alternative energy, etc that would be seen as revolutionary in many other countries, like the UK, but which became commonplace in West Germany years ago. They are now a part of life there, and no great burden on anyone. Many other nations would do well to go some way towards embracing Germany's all-round environmental awareness, which is in no way obsessive — this is, after all, a country that certainly used to have one of the highest rates of car ownership per capita in Europe. Yet, still, people often choose to take the train...
A good example of how far the UK is behind is recycling in Australia. Australia is supposed to be a backwards country with kangaroos in every backyard and so on.....

But we've been recycling anything with a recycling logo on it plus paper and tins and so on for 15 years at least where I lived and for about 12 or so of those years you haven't even had to sort it out into glass, paper, plastic and so on.

Yet here in Denbighshire (Denbigh****e I like to call it) you have to sort it out and they don't even accept cardboard and they've only been recycling for a few years :crazy: Now of course there will be places that do a better job but I think this sort of "attempt" at recycling is pitiful at best. Then there's the fact that they only supply a small rubbish bin and because of the fact that they don't recycle cardboard and only collect the rubbish every fortnight two people like Caroline and myself sometimes end up with a bin that can't close :mark: I hate to think of how families cope.......

[Malbec]

Your mention of Germany (West Germany, to be more precise) is very worthwhile, because the same could be said of many of the small environmental initiatives to do with recycling, alternative energy, etc that would be seen as revolutionary in many other countries, like the UK, but which became commonplace in West Germany years ago. They are now a part of life there, and no great burden on anyone. Many other nations would do well to go some way towards embracing Germany's all-round environmental awareness, which is in no way obsessive — this is, after all, a country that certainly used to have one of the highest rates of car ownership per capita in Europe. Yet, still, people often choose to take the train...

I know a lot of countries prefer to fight against efforts to fight global warming citing the cost etc but I think they're missing a trick in a way. As you said the Germans and Scandinavians embraced environmentalism a long while back and some of their companies have developed technology that is instrumental in reducing pollution. Payback will come when they get to sell or licence their products to allow countries like the UK or US to get them to meet future emissions regulations.

[Malbec]

America wasn't real sharp on clean burn either. thats why when you popped a hood in 1974 on an American car all you saw were hoses, cannisters, filters, and tubing running everywhere. You almost couldn't see the engine. They piled on so many anti-pollution devices that gas mileage dropped like a rock.

There's a fantastic story about Lee Iacocca who revered Mr Honda and went to do a deal with him over CVCC. Ford, Iacocca's then employer, would agree to buy several hundred thousand CVCC units to be installed in a compact FWD Ford. In return Ford would buy a large stake in Honda. The deal was set up, the Ford engineers started work then Iacocca took the plans to Ford Jr, then running the company, to sign. On realising that the cars would have Honda engines, he is supposed to have said "I ain't having Jap engines in my cars" and cancelled the deal.

Imagine an alternative history where Ford, not Honda, introduced lean burn engines to the US, where the Civic never existed and where Honda ended up as a subsidiary of Ford.....

[BDunnell]

I know a lot of countries prefer to fight against efforts to fight global warming citing the cost etc but I think they're missing a trick in a way. As you said the Germans and Scandinavians embraced environmentalism a long while back and some of their companies have developed technology that is instrumental in reducing pollution. Payback will come when they get to sell or licence their products to allow countries like the UK or US to get them to meet future emissions regulations.

On a minor level, can you imagine the outcry if the UK brought in rubbish separation? Quite a lot of people would be up in arms about it, yet it is simple and doable. I know that some councils do insist on separating different goods for recycling, but I also know that some then lump it all in together (or at least used to), which is really pathetic. So too is not allowing businesses to recycle, because of the cost, as was (and maybe is) the policy of the council local to a former workplace of mine.

[Hondo]

Since most of us agree that the climate is changing, the main argument is about whether man is speeding it up, causing it, or innocent. Since we all accept that the climate has changed before man's influence I would suggest the majority of any funding and technology in the short term be directed at identifing exactly who and what will be affected and preparing for them to move from or adapt to the changes. I doubt whats happening now can be stopped but if we can ease the transition over this bump, then we can focus on the future.

[Hondo]

There's a fantastic story about Lee Iacocca who revered Mr Honda and went to do a deal with him over CVCC. Ford, Iacocca's then employer, would agree to buy several hundred thousand CVCC units to be installed in a compact FWD Ford. In return Ford would buy a large stake in Honda. The deal was set up, the Ford engineers started work then Iacocca took the plans to Ford Jr, then running the company, to sign. On realising that the cars would have Honda engines, he is supposed to have said "I ain't having Jap engines in my cars" and cancelled the deal.

Imagine an alternative history where Ford, not Honda, introduced lean burn engines to the US, where the Civic never existed and where Honda ended up as a subsidiary of Ford.....

I believe it was Ford Jr. that blew the deal to buy Ferrari also when he refused to promise Enzo that Ford would keep the racing division operational. Honda should feel lucky Ford didn't buy them out, although I believe Ford did help Jag very much with their quaility control.

Dylan, you connected with Honda or just a big fan? Don't answer that if it's going to land me, you, or both of us in an Italian courtroom.

[BDunnell]

I believe it was Ford Jr. that blew the deal to buy Ferrari also when he refused to promise Enzo that Ford would keep the racing division operational.

That is my understanding. Of course, without this there would probably have been no GT40.


Honda should feel lucky Ford didn't buy them out, although I believe Ford did help Jag very much with their quaility control.

They did. They should feel doubly lucky, because the tie-up with Rover produced some of the most memorable cars of all time. Sorry, I think I had a temporary blackout while writing the last sentence.

[Malbec]

Dylan, you connected with Honda or just a big fan? Don't answer that if it's going to land me, you, or both of us in an Italian courtroom.

Nah, I read a book called 'six men that changed the car industry' or something similar that had plenty of anecdotes of incidents that could have changed the course of automotive history. There's plenty more stories where that came from and I'd definitely recommend it.

[rah]

Since most of us agree that the climate is changing, the main argument is about whether man is speeding it up, causing it, or innocent. Since we all accept that the climate has changed before man's influence I would suggest the majority of any funding and technology in the short term be directed at identifing exactly who and what will be affected and preparing for them to move from or adapt to the changes. I doubt whats happening now can be stopped but if we can ease the transition over this bump, then we can focus on the future.

But it can be stopped. Realistically it must be stopped. To let it go as is poses too many risks.

I believe the latest IPCC AR4 report has some regional predictions if you are after it.

[Captain VXR]

Scientists in the salary of tax hungry goverments and/or environmental groups are just as biased as those paid by exxon mobil etc :mad:

[Malbec]

Scientists in the salary of tax hungry goverments and/or environmental groups are just as biased as those paid by exxon mobil etc :mad:

State funding for scientific research is nothing compared to industrial funding for research in just about every field. The difference is so great there isn't much point comparing the two.

[BDunnell]

Scientists in the salary of tax hungry goverments and/or environmental groups are just as biased as those paid by exxon mobil etc :mad:

So, what is your view as to whether global warming exists based on? This alone?

[Captain VXR]

I dont really know what it is but the suns radiation levels affecting climate seems more convincing. Im not anti-green just reckon the co2 stuff is overhyped. Recycling in Bath is crap they take cardboard and garden waste on different days to paper, metal and plastic and have no incentives and few facilities to recycle

[Erki]

Maybe the GW isn't so bad after all? :) My proposal is to pump out that oil and dig out all the resources and then freeze that cap again. You heard it here first. :p

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hv8V944nM6Ezqeav_OYpstqCHZgA

[Robinho]

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2990161.ece

actually Erki, maybe he isn't? check out this little spot of news, even if it is a crock, the worlds leaders are at least finally agreeing to make an effort to do their bit, few other interesting stories on here

http://environment.independent.co.uk/

i have no doubt that it won't do anything to convert the sceptics, but a decent source of info at least, and for me i find the independent to be some of the best journalism around

[rah]

Maybe the GW isn't so bad after all? :) My proposal is to pump out that oil and dig out all the resources and then freeze that cap again. You heard it here first. :p

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hv8V944nM6Ezqeav_OYpstqCHZgA

Terrible news that.

[Flat.tyres]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7010522.stm

very interesting

[Mark in Oshawa]

But it can be stopped. Realistically it must be stopped. To let it go as is poses too many risks.

I believe the latest IPCC AR4 report has some regional predictions if you are after it.

You my friend have to not believe everything you saw in the Movie "Inconvenitent Truth".

IT CANNOT BE STOPPED. Mother Nature will do what she does. The fact the earth was warm in the past without our help says to me that the climatic cycle is still part of the Earth's future, and I suspect we like to think we can do something, but as the dinosaurs found out, we cannot.


It is human conceit in our abilities (and maybe a lack of faith in something larger than ourselves) that leads us to believe that we are the source of this global warming and that we can stop it. A realist would look at the effects, and try to change human behaviour and where we live to take either advantage of it ( farming farther north ) or to mitigate its effects. There is so much propaganda about how this is all caused by CO2 but when no one is paying attention, the sun is the source of all heat and energy on this planet, and if its effects are up by 1 %, it has HUGE ramifications to our climate. Maybe someone should take note that Mars is reportedly warmer now too....and there are no SUV's there.

[tinchote]

There is so much propaganda about how this is all caused by CO2 but when no one is paying attention, the sun is the source of all heat and energy on this planet, and if its effects are up by 1 %, it has HUGE ramifications to our climate. Maybe someone should take note that Mars is reportedly warmer now too....and there are no SUV's there.


The fact that there is no geological correlation between CO2 levels and temperature should be enough evidence, but then something that does not characterize our society is objectivity :s

[Daniel]

The fact that there is no geological correlation between CO2 levels and temperature should be enough evidence, but then something that does not characterize our society is objectivity :s
But Tinchote. Look at the graphs they post showing correlation!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGG GGGGGGGGGH!!!! We're all going to die! Die I tell's ya!

[Malbec]

The fact that there is no geological correlation between CO2 levels and temperature should be enough evidence, but then something that does not characterize our society is objectivity :s

Except that the graph posted earlier in this thread regarding atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature shows an overall upward trend....

I would like to see a coherent argument on this thread regarding WHY the evidence concerning global warming is flawed and point out flaws in the methodology of the research done instead of regressing to junior school science.

[Daniel]

tinchote posted a graph which showed extremely high levels of co2 in the atmosphere and low temperatures

[tinchote]

Except that the graph posted earlier in this thread regarding atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature shows an overall upward trend....

I would like to see a coherent argument on this thread regarding WHY the evidence concerning global warming is flawed and point out flaws in the methodology of the research done instead of regressing to junior school science.

Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton university, is an expert in examining climate records from the distant past. He has said:



There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years... On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?


There is also an article from him here (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=1). He mentions something I've been thinking since I first met the terms "climate change":



Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

[Daniel]

Argh Tinchote! I bet he's paid by Exxon, Shell and BP. He doesn't agree with what other scientists say so I'm going to suggest that he is biased with no evidence whatsoever because I'm part of the Eco-Cult.

[Erki]

Daniel seems to become more and more cultivated, post by post. :-)

[Blancvino]

Global Warming is likely a fact ... what causes it? THE SUN!

In order to know what part of GW is caused by man you MUST know what is caused naturally.

[BDunnell]

Global Warming is likely a fact ... what causes it? THE SUN!

In order to know what part of GW is caused by man you MUST know what is caused naturally.

Again, I would suspect that the climatologists who come down on the side of man-made global warming haven't forgotten to factor this in to their calculations.

[Blancvino]

Again, I would suspect that the climatologists who come down on the side of man-made global warming haven't forgotten to factor this in to their calculations.

Prove it ...

I can be convinced with REAL evidence. So show me. It's not to much to ask if I am to be totally inconvenienced by radical programs to cut greenhouse gases. I'll be a strong supporter if you can show me we are in extreme peril AND we can do something about it. But I think it's kind of hard to turn down the Sun's thermostat.

Should we do things now to curb greenhouse gases? Yes, just not in some crazed obsessive manner.

Aluminum + gallium + water = Hydrogen on demand.
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html