The BBC were not saying that there would be no ice caps by 2013. They said that some science done by some scientists suggested there might not be.

Northwind – Member
..he still thinks economics is a science.

Out of interest, does anyone apply for this…

http://www.postgraduate.hw.ac.uk/sml/economics/

or would that be a waste of money and effort? 😉

We offer a range of awardwinning courses and departments, some of which have “science” in the title and some of which don’t 😉

Lucky we’ve got an environment secretary that’s taking the science of global warming seriously.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/30/owen-paterson-minister-climate-change-advantages
http://www.skepticalscience.com/paterson-on-climate.html

Not read the whole thread but I’m guessing this graph has already made an appearance?

Im just glad the debate was over in 2007

Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer.

😯

have we slain all the zombies yet?

Out of interest, does anyone apply for this…

http://www.postgraduate.hw.ac.uk/sml/economics/

or would that be a waste of money and effort?

Mate you can do a BSc/MSc in Chirpractaring in Bournemouth…that doesn’t make Chiropractoring a science

Gwaelod, it’s a bit more of an in joke!

New Scientist article

Hundreds of thousands of words will be written about the latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here, in 10 words, is the bottom line: we have to leave most fossil fuels in the ground. It really is that simple.

In view of this, I presume that a large number of posters to this thread will immediately be getting rid of their cars and reliance on fossil fuel powered electricity.

If they don’t, how can we believe anything they say? 🙂

Here, in 10 words, is the bottom line: we have to leave most fossil fuels in the ground. It really is that simple.

The political reality in 4 words: not going to happen.

The political reality in 4 words: not going to happen.

The environmental reality, in three words: It has to

In view of this, I presume that a large number of posters to this thread will immediately be getting rid of their cars and reliance on fossil fuel powered electricity. If they don’t, how can we believe anything they say?

Well, I cycle to work, and my wife uses public transport. Our energy bills regularly demonstrate that we as a couple are using less than half the energy the average single occupancy unit does in our area. South Australia (where I live) now produces over 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, and this is steadily growing. And, if we owned, rather than rented, we’d have a PV array on the roof too.

Oh, and most of our food is local too.

I suspect that leaves me somewhat above the average.

yep. local food where possible, solar hot water, lower energy bills than a smaller household, 1 car, trying to do more.

If we all decide the problem is too big and give up then nothing would have be done, with that attitude we would not have put man on the moon, have a permanent presence in space, have crossed the oceans or many of the feats that we now take for granted.

The environmental reality, in three words: It has to

Of course it doesn’t. Easter Island is a good example.

Of course it doesn’t. Easter Island is a good example.

Care to expand?

Really? A quick summary. Humans changed the environment because of their lifestyle. The environment didn’t get a say in it. The local population was all but wiped out as a consequence.

The is no environmental reality. There’s only politics.

The is no environmental reality. There’s only politics.

Yeah, I’m all right Jack.

That’s fine on a global scale for a small island. It’s less fine on a global scale when it’s global. Ultimately environmental reality beats political reality. Whether this is an adverse or a positive outcome is very much related to how soon the political reality realises it’s number 2.

zokes – Member

I suspect that leaves me somewhat above the average.

really?

there are about 7billion people alive today, most of them don’t have the same material wealth/level of consumption that you/we enjoy.

it’s nice to think that one is a good person, part of the solution, but if one is reading this, in a comfy chair, with a variety of electrical appliances within an arms reach, a short walk away from a kitchen stocked with food and hot+cold clean running water, then one is probably in possession of more than one’s fair share.

Yeah, I’m all right Jack.

No, that would be personal opinion. Not politics.

That’s fine on a global scale for a small island. It’s less fine on a global scale when it’s global. Ultimately environmental reality beats political reality. Whether this is an adverse or a positive outcome is very much related to how soon the political reality realises it’s number 2.

That makes it more difficult. There is no strategic advantage to adopting the policies needed to reduce climate change for any country. The opposite in fact.

Short of a single totalitarian world government I can’t see how it would be possible to do anything meaningful.

No, that would be personal opinion. Not politics.

It is the attitude of the self serving politicians who could effect changes. Now stop trying to manufacture an argument for the sake of it. You knew what I meant.

It is the attitude of the self serving politicians who could effect changes. Now stop trying to manufacture an argument for the sake of it.

Self-serving politicians don’t come into it. The whole worldwide democratic system is set up on 4-5 year cycles. Tackling climate change is a 100+ year project which will make living standards drop (you may have noticed some complaints about living standards recently).

Any party who tackles climate change will be kicked out in the next election. Self-serving or not, it just isn’t possible.

You knew what I meant.

I do. It’s clear you don’t understand the magnitude of the problem, or even what the problem is.

Well, as long as we all acknowledge that there IS a problem – that’s a start, right? 🙂

It’s clear you don’t understand the magnitude of the problem, or even what the problem is.

Only if you wilfully misinterpret what I write, which you seem to be keen on doing for some reason.

The effects of climate change won’t wait until politicians wake up. The sad bit is that its those who’ve done the least to cause it that are likely to feel the worst of it.

It is true though that the problem will never be solved in our lifetimes no matter what is done……as there is still a big debate on what the actual cause of the problem is!

Plus we are such a small percentage of the planet that if we shut down tomorrow, no one would notice any effect.

Reckon 5thElefant has hit the nail on the head!

as there is still a big debate on what the actual cause of the problem is!

er

no there isn’t

zokes – Member
…I suspect that leaves me somewhat above the average.

I’d say it does.

Member of the ATA by any chance? I reckon it has the most practical approach on these issues for the non-scientist.

The reality is the first world has shat in its nest, and instead of fixing the problem has simply exported our pollution to 3rd world countries.

Anyone who has lived in the 3rd world out of the cities, eg African bush will have seen how little most people have to get by on. Even our poorest are incredibly wealthy and wasteful in comparison.

… as there is still a big debate on what the actual cause of the problem is!

Have a shufty at this if you’re not sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_09_13_ipccsummary.pdf

Doom and gloom! And doom! With gloom!
We’re lucky to not be sweltering all day every day in 2013

scare·mon·ger (skârmnggr, -mng-)
n.
One who spreads frightening rumours; an alarmist.
scaremonger·ing n.

Doom and gloom! And doom! With gloom!

As was said to you when you first raised this – the BBC reported what some scientists said. The clue’s in the first line of that screen grab actually. I really don’t understand quite why you’re struggling to separate what someone told them and they reported from something they made up and reported off their own bat.

Also, returning to repost something that doesn’t demonstrate your own arguments is a pretty ineffectual way of avoiding the questions I and others raised when you last spouted rubbish on the previous page. Either answer them or go away and stop being a tedious troll.

I wonder if it’s the last time he’ll bring it up. I doubt it somehow. “Sceptics” love a short term anomaly.

6079smithw you seem to have confused by how a reporter presents research to grab attention as apposed to what the research actually says .

Does your dictionary include a definition of the word “could”

I suggest you steer clear of the daily mail as their ability to scaremonger by miss presenting science is legendary.

that forecast wasn’t even that far off.

2012 saw the area of arctic ice drop to 3ish million square kilometers. Which sounds a lot, but it’s half the (1979-2006) average.

the summer-just-gone (2013) has seen the ice area ‘recover’ – it went all the back to 4.5ish million sqkm. Which is still waaay below the average.

anyone who thinks this year’s ‘recovery’* is a sign of global cooling has completely missed the point.

(it’s not even a recovery, it’s just not as spectacularly bad as last year)