I think the reason is it is such a highly debated subject is that no one can prove it either way. 😉

At the end of the day the world may or may not be getting warmer and human activity may or may not be causing some or all of any warming. However what we do know is that fossil fuels will definitely run out and a lot of what's left is under geopolitically unstable or potentially unfriendly regions. Makes sense to me to switch to a low carbon/renewables economy for energy security reasons alone.

The next 10 – 50 years;

– Compassion fatigue towards CC kicks in very soon on a large scale.
– Fuel prices go nuts, people go mad.
– Nuclear fusion capability realised, electric revolution.
– Population explodes on back of unlimited energy.
– Human population on earth destroys itself.

The end.

You could cut out points 3 and 4 and still get the same answer there Jimmy!

as previously noted, terms such as 'likely' and 'very likely' aren't wooley, as within IPCC reports they represent a range of values (such as the 90% for 'very likely')
of course, if you'd actually bothered to read it you'd know that…

secondly, i went to a climate change debate a couple of days ago where a climatologist was explaining how the climate science reported in the media is actually "about 20 years behind cutting edge climateology".

unfortunately i cannot remember the exact reasons for this difference in the science, as at the time i was formulating a question for an international relations professor regarding the securitization of climate change and how it relates to direct governmental action (e.g. ozone depletion causing a direct and visible damage to populations becoming a security issue)

needless to say that within genuine science circles its now taken as given that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

the reason there is still a debate in the media is;
a) because their science is still behind the times and
b) debate sells papers (which is often given as a reason as to why 'doom' stories are printed)

the whole debarcle in the media a while ago about those leaked emails from 10 years ago make no real difference to the science. even if you disregarded any research by that department EVER the strength of climate science globally would not be significantly affected, and the same conclusions, with the same strength of accuracy would still be evident now. (thats coming from another climate scientist at the debate)

at the end of the day now, the debate as to whether anyone does anything about it is no longer 'well, it is real?' (because as far as science is concerned, IT IS), but more, 'do we care?'

which a lot of people don't.

I don't think it is proven either way. No one can offer any hard evidence to say so. Now, if the question is whether we should rape and pilege our planet the way we are, the answer is quite clearly, no.

I am bugged by being taxed to within in an inch of my life in the name of green taxes when its clearly not fully understood. Why should i pay for my petrol when some people on this planet insist on eating meat every single day of their lives? If everyone stopped eating meat for at least one day a week then that would more than likely have a bigger impact.

I don't think it is proven either way. No one can offer any hard evidence to say so

Really?

We know that NOx, CO2 and CH4 all decrease the amount of solar radiation leaving the atmosphere. We also know that over the past 150 or so years we've exponentially increased the amount of these gases emitted into the atmosphere. It really isn't rocket science…

Your point about meat vs 'green tax' on fuel is an interesting one, but seeing as so much rainforest is destroyed for soya production for tofu-eaters, I'm confused of its relevance. If you're stating we should only stop burning fossil fuels because they'll run out, as opposed to the impact on climate, I'm not sure how your argument holds up. One thing's for sure, we won't run out of cows….

Why should i pay for my petrol when some people on this planet insist on eating meat every single day of their lives? If everyone stopped eating meat for at least one day a week then that would more than likely have a bigger impact.

There's a name for this and I can't remember what it's called but it's something along the lines of "Why should I change if others don't syndrome"?
It's the reason why I shoplift. If other people stopped murdering and raping people it would have a far bigger impact than if I stopped shoplifting 🙂

oh, and one of the panel mentioned that they are far more concerned with methan and especially NOx as GHGs as they are far less understood and monitored, and yet have a far higher effect on the greenhouse effect than CO2.
furthermore (and this is admitedly something i don't really understand) there was something about the amount of CO2 being saturated with the radiation to the effect that at some point the amount of radiation, of the wavelength that is absorbed by CO2, is nearly at saturation point – i.e. no more can be absorbed and therefore no further warming from CO2 could be achieved – and therefore we need to look at the wavelengths (and GHGs) that are not at saturation.

this was explained well, but i can't remember the details to be honest. at some point though (mid/long term) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will stop making a difference, however the amount of other GHGs WILL matter, and WILL continue to change the climate.

Sorry, should be more specific

Its not proven either way that man or natural causes is responsible for the warming trend at the moment.

Our meat production, i.e. cows, is one of the biggest contributors to gas production in the atmosphere. When i say cut down on meat in take, i don't mean eat tofu. There are other food groups! Something that people seem to completly miss.

Ian, whilst your reply was informative it didn't really capture the point did it. If for example our over-indulgance on meat in this world is far more responsible for harmful gases in the atmosphere than fuel, then why is it not taxed at the same rate as fuel?

Ah, I see your point now. So you're not objecting to the tax, just that the tax isn't equitably applied to all carbon footprints. Fair enough.

Yes, exactly.

Just popping my head in:

Remember folks that there is only one branch of science that can be 'proved'. You cannot prove chemistry, physics, biology, necromancy 😀

The only truly provable science (if you can call it that) is maths, as it is abstract. Unfortunately people who demand 100% proof of climate change being part driven by man will never be satisfied as there will always be room for philosophical doubt. Every chart will have error bars. My personal belief is that you shouldn't piss in your own bathwater.

The thing that sort of bugs me is that we weren't having these kinds of mad arguments regarding acid rain or the ozone hole. We saw something, came up with a plan and are sorting it out. I guess though that to fix the issues we face will involve people changing their lives pretty drastically. Though I do wish that idiot governments would use more carrots (tax breaks) instead of sticks (taxes).

Unless that's a bogeyman by the right wing, who keep repeating the phrase 'communist world government' at the moment…

Yes but with Acid Rain and the Ozone Layer you could actually see the effects, it was measurable against something we had NEVER seen before.

Climate change has historical evidence of huge natural cycles where they have +/- 5degC temperature rises, multiple times the level of CO2 that we have to date, and times where Greenland was a lush green country with forests and mammals roaming about.

At the moment we have sea level rises of 1.8mm per year and temperature rise of something like 0.6degC apparently down to mankind!

I am not sure anyone can say there is proof. A theory, yes, proof no.

Ah, I particularly enjoy the Meat/CO2 debate.

Eating less of which meat is going to save the planet?

Chicken raised in intensive indoor heated units?
Intensively reared pork and beef, fed on assorted grain product?
Extensively reared grass fed cattle, on land used as part of a crop rotation system?
Sheep, raised on open moorland/grassland, with little other agricultural value?
Venison and Rabbit meat, wild shot?

The debate is all the wrong way round.

People think the technology we have nowadays is normal, and doing without it is abnormal.

Zulu-Eleven – the planet does not need saving – it's been through all this and more. It's just our arrogant little species that's not been around very long but has still managed to mess things up in all sorts of ways that needs saving. The cockroaches will be fine.

I would say any meat, but primarily Cows.

Hainey – of course there will never be proof. You cannot prove anything completely apart from math (read the message above). It then comes down to 'balance of probabilities' backed up by evidence. Same thing with 'creationists' who state that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that: a theory.

I imagine that there may have been acid rain around areas of volcanic activity (production of H2SO4).

Of course Greenland at some time was lush (ignoring the name green). From what I hear about 500,000 years ago or thereabouts. Anglesey was once part of a volcano too, though I have no idea what this has to do with anything. If you mean the name then I suggest you check wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology.

According to your argument we can compare what is happening now with what has happened before. I think that was the main thrust, no? We are seeing something that we have not seen before – a much more rapid change and people started to think 'why?'.

Another thing that people forget (just like the people who did 'Primeval') was that if the level of CO2 was to be multiple times of what we have today we'd all die, I believe. The body uses CO2 as a regulator for breathing. The level would confuse it (I think it is called 'hypercapnia').

The next 100 years are going to be 'interesting'. I'll be dead by then and I have no kids. I think it is a bit bizarre that those with kids are quite happy to pollute as if it were going out of fashion. Oh, perhaps it is! 😀

The atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as
determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide
concentration growth rate was larger during the last
10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than
it has been since the beginning of continuous direct
atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4
ppm per year) although there

and that

The primary source of the increased atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial
period results from fossil fuel use,

Hainey please reference what you say you cannot just make unsubstantiated assertions you must actually try and back them uyp with some evidence…go on break the habit of alifetime on these threads and give some evidence

I assume you will explain why this relationship has now broken down with some evidence rather than just an assertion

Junkyard, you have been proven wrong a number of times on these threads, i don't think you should start again.

Have you also noticed on that graph that CO2 lags behind the temperature?

Have you noticed they follow each other?
Have you noticed that C02 is rising?
What do you think will happen next?
EVIDENCE Please

Junkyard, on that graph is temperature following CO2 or CO2 following temperature? From what i see the red line (temp) is leading the blue line (CO2) Would you agree?

Oooooh! A Graph-off!

Also noted that temp lags behind CO2, however in JY's graph, CO2 was never recorded anywhere near today's values. One might suspect that such a rapid increase in CO2 is unprecidented, but as CO2 and temp are closely linked, it doesn't take much to presume what might happen next.

I love it when people cant read graphs to save themselves. 😀

Junkyard has a habit of putting his foot in it! 😉

Hainey – you appear to be making a lot of assertions without any backing. Are you a troll?

Just thought I would ask. Just so I can put you in the 'troll' bucket that I shouldn't respond to, like.

AdamW, its easy to label everyone a troll who doesn't agree with your opinion isn't it?

I have merely pointed out a number of facts:

1. Climate change historically has been HUGE compared to anything we are seeing today
2. There is no conclusive proof that climate change at the moment is man-made
3. Our over-indulgence on meat farming has a huge impact on harmful gases released into the atmosphere
4. The graph that Junkyard put up showed CO2 lagging behind temperature rise.

Here you go: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

2. There is no conclusive proof that climate change at the moment is man-made
3. Our over-indulgence on meat farming has a huge impact on harmful gases released into the atmosphere

What's wrong with those two sentences then? If (in your view) there is no conclusive evidence that contemporary climate change is anything to do with anthropogenic activities, how can you then assert that intensive farming of cattle (a lot of which are used for dairy produce) is? Surely intensive agriculture is a human phenomenon?

Hainey, take a chill pill. All I mentioned is that you keep stating stuff without backing. And now you misrepresent me. Anyone can make assertations, here let me try:

1. All trees are made out of cheese.
2. Global warming is due to the friction of the knees of christians praying.
3. Erm. Coronation Street has been known to bring about epileptic seizures in Dachshunds.

But seriously, to your points:

1. So what? At one time the majority of the atmosphere was intert gases and carbon dioxide. We wouldn't survive then and if CO2 was multiples of today within a short geological time we won't survive then.
2. See my point above. There never will be on one side or the other. People with strong views will reject all evidence, both pro and anti.
3. Possibly, I used to be a veggie (before working in Germany/Denmark for a while). It does appear to be quite wasteful of resource. No opinion – I don't have the evidence in front of me. I try not to eat so much as it is expensive for a start.
4. But then what does that mean? Another mechanism for earth warming previously? It doesn't discount anything. I just did a search on that. From 'the New Scientist' (I think you have to be a subscriber, as I am):

"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."

Ref: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

The problem is that both sides are entrenched. The only question to ask yourself would be 'What would change my mind?' (to both sides). The answer for those of limited thought would be '100% proven'. This will never happen so the conversation here may as well be closed.

There are more types of harm than those related to climate change perhaps?

There are more types of harm than those related to climate change perhaps?

In what context?

Re: C02:global temperature lag.

Here you go:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

the other reason why so much stuff against the science of CC in the media is that the media believes it has to present a balanced view.
if the ratio of pro Vs anti CC science was presented in the correct ratio the anti CC lobby would get about 5 mins coverage per year. on one channel. and it wouldn't be a very credible channel either.

i don't understand why so many punters seem to think they know more about the climate than climateologists, paeleoclimatologists, climate scientists, chemists, biologists etc etc etc…

To be honest i am bored and in need of a xmas drink. I don't understand why people seem so aggressive in jumping down those who disagree with man-made global warming.

I stand by my original statement is that you can not prove it either way.
As I have said many many times before i don't think we should be raping and piliging the planet as we are. Whether man made CO2 has anything to do with global warming or whether it is a natural cycle, we should be doing our utmost to reduce our emissions. If our money is going to be stolen in the name of green taxes then lets at least tax things fairly. If we tax based on most polluting then a Steak would cost double the price, people would only eat it once a week, our demand would decrease and the harmful gases from agriculture would decrease.

i still don't understand why people think they know more than the scientists who spend years of their lives researching it…

you can't prove evolution, but its taken as a given… (unless you're a religious nutcase of course)

anyways, i'm white, middleclass and live in a 'developed' country. save for a few million environmental refugees, i'll be fine. 😐 🙄

Interesting little argument over global warming