...could it be that the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes?
Might it be that the earths climatic changes are due to both natural AND anthropogenic factors?
Might it also be that we aren't faced with impending armageddon, but the life may merely change a bit in the next couple of hundred years?
I know it's an unorthodox idea, but you know something, I think I might be onto something here. 
armageddon prophecies get more headlines and more funding.
Aye, not much potential for raising taxes with my theory is there? Maybe a fence sitting tax? Or a middle ground land tax?
Personally I'm all for a bit overreacting if it means that a couple of billion people's lives are not destroyed by rising water, failing crops etc
We already consume and emit more than our fair share of this planets resources and pollutants, why is it such an issue to work towards redressing this inequity and being less wasteful of what we have, even if there was no such thing as climate change that surely would still be right thing to do, wouldn't it?
Nick - you appear to be confusing the resource depletion and climate change debates.
all linked, as is population growth
No Shit? THey're not all that closely linked
But running out of resources would be a good thing for climate change surely? If there's no oil, coal or gas etc - you'd be a bit **** for producing CO2
Climate change seems to happen every october, and again about march, dark nights,or lighter nights,and it gets warmer or colder.
Just a load of people making a fuss,going to an all expenses junket,and making themselves seem important on the media,thus keping themselves in a well paid job.
Climate change seems to happen every october, and again about march, dark nights,or lighter nights,and it gets warmer or colder.
Just a load of people making a fuss,going to an all expenses junket,and making themselves seem important on the media,thus keping themselves in a well paid job.
When I was young the trendy impending armageddon was nuclear war.
Now it's climate change.
Quelle fromage?
Might it be that the earths climatic changes are due to both natural AND anthropogenic factors?
I don't think you'll find many sane climatologists who would claim that climate change is PURELY due to man and that all natural cycles of the climate has somehow stopped.
What's strange to me is that you can find folk that believe climate change is PURELY down to natural cycles and that man can't possibly have any impact on the world.
GrahamS - That's not the way the evidence is presented though is it?
Here's the question though - if climate change could be solved overnight, would the human race be guaranteed a long and happy future with no change to our current habits? If not, isn't climate change just a symptom of the real issue we need to deal with?
Goan can you reference to ANY scientist who claims it is only man made climate change ...we have all heard of ice ages ?
Can you only reference opinionated journos?
Junkyard - can you reference any that says its both?
I had to laugh at the news the other day - a bunch of the great and pious unwashed had built an Ark in Copenhagen, and called it Plan B ( as in if the conference failed, we would all need an ark, just like Noah did ).
Made me wonder what sort of Hummer Noah and his mates were driving back in the day.
the ipcc concluded
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
that gives me 620 authors and 113 governments iirc
list of authors here
Do you want a quote from a biologist who supports evolution, a doctor who thinks smoking causes cancer... I might know a cosmologist who thinks the solar system is heliocentirc if you really push me 
Now can you give one that puts a decent amount of weight onto the natural factors - the use of the word "most" is a wee bit woolly for my liking.
Trying to give up on these threads, but as you ask a reasonable question Goan:
Might it be that the earths climatic changes are due to both natural AND anthropogenic factors?
Yes, I think you're right. I think we are currently going through a period of natural cooling that is mitigating the worst of the anthropogenic factors.
the use of the word "most" is a wee bit wooly for my liking.
Methinks anything GrahamS and Junkyard say might just be a little too factual for the woolly jacket you choose to pull on when you set about trolling in such obvious manners.
Anyway, my ecological science hero is James Lovelock and he reckons we're all screwed anyway for messing about with Gaia too much - the climate wars will be tough - I'm hoping I'll be dead and buried before they start.
DD - care to explain that comment?
I haven't trolled in months.
Do you know anything about Gaia, because your last comment makes it look like you dont have a clue.
Most clearly means not all therefore i have proivided you with a list of scientist who do not believe that climate change is ALL man made. They presented the evidence as such and they accept , as you proposed, originally
Might it be that the earths climatic changes are due to both natural AND anthropogenic factors?
What you arguing for?
No scientist [ nor even any journalist actually]I am aware of is claiming that natural weather cycles have suddenly ceased.
If you know of any please feel free to post up
Most is a woolly concept. I would argue that if they had a clue what they were talking about they would not use that word. Is it most as in 50.1%/40.9% split or 99.9%/0.01%? Woolly.
Feed the troll, tuppence a bag.
RPRT - constructive post that - well thought out. Just like your opinion on climate change...
DD - care to explain that comment?
Goan, Smee, whatever you're choosing to call yourself these days, there's nothing you like more than a bit of trolling which you seem to think is cunningly disguised as "debate". You know it, I know it, we all know it. But hey, here I am suckered in to it, and for that, at least, you can be pleased. I've bitten. Nom nom nom.
I haven't trolled in months.
You could have fooled me matey. But if you say you haven't, then fair enough....but I'll let the forum decide. Making a statement along the lines of "most is a bit wooly for me" is simply stringing along the argument which GrahamS and Junkyard always put to you in these threads. How much fact can you handle Goan? The deniers of mans influence on climate change make up a tiny minority of the scientific community (and a fair few of them are far from scientists anyway). But hey sorry, is "tiny" too "wooly" a description for you.
Do you know anything about Gaia
Well, I dunno, do you think that the fact that I'd named the chief proponent of the theory as my "ecological science hero" might mean I just might know a thing or two about the Gaia theory...rather than just throwing out a comment without the background knowledge? I mean, who'd do something like that? Do you know anybody who would do something like that Goan?
In the last interview that Lovelock gave on radio (Simon Mayo's show on 5live IIRC), he stated that he felt we were beyond rescuing the situation completely - and that in the not so far future, the area's between the tropics will become more or less uninhabitable and that there will be mass northerly migration of the peoples displaced by climate change...leading to the creation of new cities in the far northerly regions of the world. Whether you choose to believe him or not is up to you - he's one of those guys that seems to predict the future quite well, though I don't quite hold with some of his more apocalyptic views.
Tell me, was it the "climate wars" thing that got you going? Glib comment?...well of course.
there's nothing you like more than a bit of trolling which you seem to think is cunningly disguised as "debate". You know it, I know it, we all know it.
Wrong - I like sex and riding bikes more than trolling.
Making a statement along the lines of "most is a bit wooly for me" is simply stringing along the argument which GrahamS and Junkyard always put to you in these threads. How much fact can you handle Goan? The deniers of mans influence on climate change make up a tiny minority of the scientific community (and a fair few of them are far from scientists anyway). But hey sorry, is "tiny" too "wooly" a description for you.
As for Lovelock - I like the guy and found him to be approachable if a little eccentric when I met him.
Goan: It works like this: there is good historical data that gives climatologists an idea of the existing natural cycles. Then as they get towards present day they notice that the observed changes in global temperature appear to be happening faster than they have seen in the historical data.
So the fundamental question is "is this ADDITIONAL change due to us"?
It may be (personally I think it is), it may not be, but the vast majority on both sides agree that the climate is changing and that natural cycles still occur.
GrahamS - I know perfectly well how it works thanks - better than most/the vast majority or more accurately 99% of people on here including you.
Could you share your wise words with the ignorant masses so we can also be led into the light of enlightement your radiance shines into every corner of confusion.....like you did when explaining to us the odds of your second child being a girl?
GrahamS - I know perfectly well how it works thanks - better than most/the vast majority or more accurately 99% of people on here including you.
Don't troll and then get defensive Goan.
I summarised to make the point that the climate change debate is really over what is causing that "extra little bit". And that debate can be as stark as 100% manmade versus 100% natural, but that doesn't mean that the natural cycles are ignored by either party.
Goan,
I'm quite happy to spend lots of my free time having generally fruitless discussions with the staunchest of climate deniers, provide that they want to have a proper debate.
But if you want to make something of someone's use of the word "most" then my friend, you are a troll.
Maybe you should lay off thinking about climate change for a while and ask yourself some more fundamental questions about your approach to life?
GrahamS - I know perfectly well how it works thanks - better than most/the vast majority or more accurately 99% of people on here including you.
Well, in that case, use the brain you, and only you think you have, and stop posting pointless threads. Most is a perfectly acceptable word in this context, seeing as pretty much any environmental science situation is never 100% due to one sole variable. In actual fact, we may have started warming the planet about 5000 years ago when we started intensively farming rice, causing a huge increase in anaerobically-sourced methane from waterlogged paddy fields*. However, given the wanton destruction since the industrial revolution, that's a bit of a moot point...
*Ruddiman, W.F. and J.S. Thomson. 2001. The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH4 over the last 5000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:1769-1777.
Instead of attacking me, try reading and at least giving my point some consideration. My point is that most as a quantifier gives a range of almost 50%. "Most" is crap science.
One other request is that you show me a paper or two that investigates the relationship between natural and anthropogenic causes and tries to quantify it in some way. Not many of those about....
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
