Just read it´s been the hottest October in recorded history (70 years)down here in Malaga. We should have had cooler weather & rainy days but so far it´s still Summer. Something is not right.
I am not sure there are many experts that still deny things are getting warmer.
I thought the main arguement now is whether the actions of humans are actually causing this or whether it is just a natural cycle that the planet goes through, that it has done for millions of years before we arrived and will probably be doing millions of years after we leave.
the definite points, the planets climate changes, global warming may mean local cooling, and CO2 should raise the temperature.
Issues, do the actions of humans, small insignificant specks on such a big planet, have an affect.
my view is that global warming is irrelevant, more important is energy, food and water resources and population levels.
I dont deny global warming but things like a "recorded history of 70 years" make me laugh. That is insignificant when the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
...because there's so much bullsh1t about it?
Don't forget global warming is a benefit to some countries, especially UK and north which will have their weather patterns of 1,000 years ago restored.
Don't forget global warming is a benefit to some countries, especially UK and north which will have their weather patterns of 1,000 years ago restored.
You mean apart from all the coast we will lose with rising sea levels?
Firstly, you're confusing the weather with climate, and secondly, experts (at least, ones with any kind of expertise in climate science) don't deny that man is contributing to climate change.
Because its a natural cycles. remember the Romans could grow vines in northern england and during the middle ages we had a mini ice age.
Basically a scientist can apply for a grant to prove that it is happening but will not get a grant to say that its not.
cos most scientists [url= http://listverse.com/2009/06/02/10-truly-bizarre-scientific-studies/ ]waste their time doing sh*t like this[/url]
Basically a scientist can apply for a grant to prove that it is happening but will not get a grant to say that its not
An oft-repeated assertion that isn't backed up with evidence.
We know that the earth undergoes natural cycles. This isn't news. For example, the output of the sun is low at the moment, so the earth should be colder than normal. It isn't, because of anthropogenic emissions.
Anyway, if you're so sure that it's all due to natural cycles, I await your paper with interest.
Dont read my papers read the many PHD's
😆
We need dissent and disagreement among the scientific community. It helps us refine are theories and make better models. Those that dissent on global warming are equivalent to defence lawyers defending the guilty; without them we would not have a robust judicial process.
For all those that go with the more convenient view that it either ain't happening or that man is not causing it - why would the vast majority of scientists in the field be so sure about it? What is their motive?
Scientists in denial are in the minority.
Some time soon people in certain parts of the world are going to start getting killed either directly or indirectly, and we in the west will be the ones killing them. This can only be tolerated because of the relentless process by which our own propaganda tells us that other people are not worth the same as us.
For the inevitable glut of myths that will get repeated, see here:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Dont read my papers read the many PHD's
You have a PhD in climate science?
No that was to tell YOU to read. Where did i even imply that i had a Phd? Fail.
FFS 😆
Glenp: motive is funding.
No that was to tell YOU to read. Where did i even imply that i had a Phd? Fail.
So you told me to "read the many PHDs"? How will reading a title help? Scientific papers are generally produced by people with PhDs. I would've thought that you would know that.
If you're referring to scientific papers, I have read them. That's why I have a reasonable understanding of climate science. If the best you can manage is repetition of old objections that were put to bed years ago, you have no argument at all.
Glenp: motive is funding.
Indeed, there are huge financial interests in denying anthropogenic climate change.
Funding for what? Are you suggesting that governments all around the world have been duped into the climate change agenda because some scientists want to carry out research? Incredible. Literally.
If there are "many PhD (papers)" that deny man made climate change there are many many more that declare the opposite. All that will happen is that some people will prevaricate and dodge the question because they don't feel that the case is proven… until it is too late. That's when people will die.
Its not my argument its between the PHD's
Why are you even falling for this clear Trolliage?
So you're trolling, and even stating that you are trolling, guido? Nice one.
If there are "many PhD (papers)" that deny man made climate change
There aren't! See http://www.grist.org/article/position-statements-hide-debate/
Because this thread content has been done about four-five times already?
Besides what diffrence can we make if India, china etc are geeting more destructive?
OK, that's why I used the word "if".
So the climate changes and some animals plants etc., maybe even us humans become extinct, so what? The only thing that's constant in this world is change. We've been what we are for seconds, if that, in the day of the life of the planet and I dare say it won't remember us as much more than a skin infection it got once. Who cares if some people die? We're not the most important thing in the universe. If we're disrupting things, I'm sure the planet will find some way of restoring it's equilibrium.
Ok we are most probably harming the planet and most of it is being done out of greed or other self interested motives but that it just part of life's natural struggle - survival of the fittest or he with the most money/influence gets the best looking girls and has the healthiest most successful kids.
It wouldn't be the end of the world if the Earth managed to find a way to get rid of us, I mean we don't add anything to the world do we?
We're just parasites.
For a lot of years Einstein's theory of relativity was held up as being perfect and able to describe the universe. Now it is shown that it breaks down when taking black holes into account. The moral of the story - just because the majority of scientists believe something to be correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct.
Speeder - your pretty much right, humans have not learned the lessons of our own distructive history so eventually we'll pay the price. If we we have some much influence on the planet and do nothing then we deserve it. Sad thing is those things we will destroy while killing ourselves. The story of Easter Island is a very good lesson that we are ignoring.
whether or not humans can influence the climate, cleaning up after ourselves and not throwing sh1t into the air/rivers/seas is just basic tidyness.
Being green, as in not wasting finite resources, so our children can enjoy some of them too, is just consideration for others. Morally we should look after the planet not waste it.
I kind of like the coastline where it is, if the sea rises 10m I'll be living in a beachside property...
£0.02
and another thing: Einstein's theories of relativity (general and special) have never been held to be perfect, there's always been argument. That's what science is.
the planet's fine, WE're fncked, it's our fault and it's getting worse.
see israel/palestine? - basically a war over water.
see darfur? - basically a war over water.
see the maldives? - not for long you won't...
if any of you are so sure that global warming is a myth/conspiracy, all you've got to do is gather some evidence, write it up with some graphs and stuff, and present it to nature/life/scientific american.
and you'll have your paper politely rejected, cos you've written a paper where you've already assumed your conclusion. and that's crap science. you've assumed global warming is a myth, and gone looking for evidence that agrees with you.
proper scientists - with white coats, glasses and everything, gather evidence, check it, look for more evidence from a different source, check that too, and then try to explain it all with a hypothesis. they then use the hypothesis to predict where they might find more evidence, if they find it, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
if global warming is a myth, why is it that although the sun is at the bottom of a 50 year cooling cycle, the north pole has nearly melted?
have a nice day 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
If we have caused such a great catastrophe putting in measures now to reduce our impact will be like cleaning up after a volcano with a dust pan & brush
The sad thing is, if you so much as question any of the details of climate change you get labelled a Climate Change Skeptic, which apparently is up there with Holocaust Denial.
This thread and the links in it being a perfect example..
There's a suspicious tendency for some people to deny it, not because they've read some authorative paper, but because it may cause some change to their wasteful, consumerist lifestles. Its much easier to believe that man made global warming is an evil 'socialist' conspiracy invented by governments to rob us of our taxes, and much more reassuring to accept ( often corporate/petrochemical sponsored)research that shows that the juries out.
I'm kind of worse than anyone, I think it IS a reality, but think its a lost cause, in fact it might be a good thing for the Earth to be rid of mammals and get back to more efficient fauna.
oops, I've just outed myself as a misanthropic paleontologist 😈
The climate change debate (TM) isn't about science anymore. Is doesn't matter to the politicians whether the climate is changing or what is responsible. Antropogenic climate change is a discursive fact in the eyes of the majority who reproduce it without understanding the science. Unfortunately this view is now increasingly used not for the sake of humanity, but for the political and economic ends of the most powerful countries and companies in the world.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
there is no clear evidence for or against at the moment It needs further review and better modelling and before anyone starts with the "what do you know routine" 10 years as an environmental consultant to heavily polluting industries focusing on the reduction and management emissions to atmosphere, so f*ck all compared to the folks that just belive the hype.
"Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact, OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
Any scientific analysis or prediction is only as reliable as the data on which its founded.
Is the data on which current analysis is based reliable? Very, very questionable - the amount of data set selection and data manipulation (corrections and extrapolation) along with missing data, changes in collection method, unknown and unrecorded variables from a change in the paint used on stevenson screens, to change in thermometer from manual to electronic, through to urbanisation of the surroundings, has made it impossible to make a proper, reliable analysis of the data.
Because I really don't believe in following the hype and finding out for yourself, and having a fairly good scientific background, I've got data sitting on my computer for two rural weather stations that I know the surroundings have not significantly changed at (one that I did the records for for about 6 months in the early nineties), with (almost complete) daily records from 1959 through to present, that appears to indicate a mean temperature rise of about a degree (interestingly, the average minimum daily temp has not changed, but the average max daily temp has, bringing up the mean by a degree) - However so far I've been unable to ascertain the date of changes in thermometer or the calibration regime, which could easily throw things out...
When one generations data is mainly from (patchy) surface station records, another generation from satellite analysis, and historical data from a variety of small sample extrapolated ice core/tree growth records, it becomes very difficult to compare like with like with reliability, and when the differences are essentially small, a minor error or bias in the data can cause significant data problems,
epicyclo wrote:"Don't forget global warming is a benefit to some countries, especially UK and north which will have their weather patterns of 1,000 years ago restored."
We have absolutely no idea what would happen to our weather due to climate change. We can't even model the effect on ocean currents from predicted desalination, never mind all the other factors, but if the gulfstream shifts that'll change our climate a lot, never mind if it stalls which is conceivable. Rapid climate change, if you believe the theory anyway, is mainly notable for unpredictability. Droughts and blizzards, wars and rumours of wars... F
just goes to show it's all political rather science based, give it another 1000 years or so and we'll be able to see what's going on. The only thing that upsets me/gets on my nerves is when you hear young kids convinced that their world is ****ed beacuse of what they've been told rather than giving them a more balanced view.
for those that talk about china/india etc... being more polluting compared to the uk it is because a lot of large uk industries realised that they couldn't comply with uk regs so moved their factories to china, india and eastern europe where health, safety and environmental legislation are much slacker. Before we in the uk get all holier than tho we need to look at uk owned compaines do as a whole not just at what they do in this country.
top posting tazzy i have been convinced we are doomed and soon for the last few years but i am seeing more and more stuff which makes me realize i shouldnt stress about stuff i know relatively little about.
Excellent post tazzy. I've copied that and put it into my notes on my phone to refer to in future; it's a succinct somethingion of things I've read in a number of places previously, including something along those lines in the latest issue of Wired UK.
Before we in the uk get all holier than tho we need to look at uk owned compaines do as a whole not just at what they do in this country.
Yep, and all those power stations China is building; they are needed to power the factories making crap for us (including products such as energy saving lightbulbs!).
tazzy - the oregon institute petition isn't a peer-reviewed document, this might not sound like a big deal, but in the world of science (evidence first, then hypothesis, then check, repeat, never stop asking questions), a document that isn't peer-reviewed isn't worth a bean.
(it's been widely panned by anyone who's followed up the sources of the data - it's very guilty of cherry picking some really shonky and irrelevant data)
you do make a very good point tho' - a large proportion of China's polution is OUR pollution.
i've been drinking, time for the honesty:
i think global warming is irrelevant. clearly we don't care about it. - oh, right, you might meet people who say they care, who talk about how serious an issue it is... i'm probably guilty of this, but we've known about this for decades, if we cared, we'd have done something about it.
Oil is far too usefull to leave in the ground, we're going to burn all that we can.
The real problem, is that we're not sure what to do when the oil runs out, we make noises about hydrogen, and solar power, and etc. but all of that still leaves us a long way short of the energy we increasingly demand.
we're not going to reduce our CO2 emissions because we care about the polar bears, and unfortunate foreigners losing their homes to rising sea levels, we don't care enough (if we did, we'd do something about it) - we're going to reduce our CO2 emissions when the high price of oil forces us to stay at home, car share, buy less stuff, turn lights off, visit friends to use their heating.
the question i want answered is: 'how much oil do we have left?' - only, the arabs aren't telling...
(sorry for the long post, i did say i've been drinking)
If politicans were truly concerned about global warming they would have realised that CO2 is not the prime global warming agent.
Data published by Dr. James Hansen and others show that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. Though this may sound like the work of global warming skeptics, it isn’t: Hansen is Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has been called “a grandfather of the global warming theory.” He is a longtime supporter of action against global warming, cited by Al Gore and often quoted by environmental organizations, who has argued against skeptics for subverting the scientific process. His results are generally accepted by global warming experts, including bigwigs like Dr. James McCarthy, co-chair of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.
The focus solely on CO2 is fueled in part by misconceptions. It’s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth’s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. When taking into account various gases’ global warming potential—defined as the amount of actual warming a gas will produce over the next one hundred years—it turns out that gases other than CO2 make up most of the global warming problem.
Even this overstates the effect of CO2, because the primary sources of these emissions—cars and power plants—also produce aerosols. Aerosols actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures, and the magnitude of this cooling approximately cancels out the warming effect of CO2. The surprising result is that sources of CO2 emissions are having roughly zero effect on global temperatures in the near-term!
This result is not widely known in the environmental community, due to a fear that polluting industries will use it to excuse their greenhouse gas emissions
why would a petition need to be peer reviewed?
if there is a problem with CO2 the world is doing very badly at coming up with solutions, carbon sequestration and buying a prius are two of my faves. we like expensive and wastefull technology that has no benefit. businesses are making money from gullible people on the green ticket.
we could do with using less energy and finding an alternative to fossil fuels because we will be sitting in the dark and cold long before even the worst climate change hypothesis makes any tangible difference to the parts of the world that have power and money. renewables as we know them are not the way forward.
a petition should be peer reviewed when it makes scientific claims...
Tazzy,If CO2 emissions aren't the cause of atmospheric warming, what, then is the cause of ocean acidification which seems to be happening at a similar rate and is affecting calcification rates of coral on even remote reefs?
tazzymtb,
I've only got as far as reading your first post.
All of what you say there is rubbish.
You clearly know virtually nothing yourself about this and I assume you are just cutting and pasting from somewhere.
I'm not going to try to pick you up on the science, but I'll just point out one irrefutable, but fairly significant FACT that you have got wrong. It doesn't prove anything about the science either way, but it does prove that you don't know what you are on about.
You say
But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate...
Actually the IPCC's latest report was in 2007. So not only are you regurgitating rubbish, it's not even up to date rubbish.
Leave the room immediately and hang your head in shame.
I realise climate change is science with almost universal consensus like phrenology had, but I have a few questions:
Can someone explain to me why we had a warmer climate 1,000 years ago? What were we doing that caused that? For example Viking and Irish explorers were able to sail to North America north of recent ice line 1,000 - 1,200 years ago?
If a warmer climate causes sea levels to rise, how come there have been townships submerged in England in the period when the climate has got colder?
Epicyclo - the mistake you're making is to let inconvenient things like physical evidence get in the way of computer modelled extrapolated data and green dogma
Thats a slippery slope - next thing, you'll be suggesting that the fossil record is evidence that man descended from apes, when we all know the truth!
Problem is I'm almost a fossil myself, and I have lived through several generations of apocalyptical scares about the end of the world.
The most convincing was how close that megalomaniac war monger Kennedy came to getting us all fried.
BTW what's happened to the hole in the ozone layer?
Thing is Zulu - a vast majority of the worlds experts agree that teh world is warming and at least part of it is due to man made gasses being emmitted into the atmoshpere.
How big the rise will be is very debatable - but the scientific concensus is clear.
CO2 is higher now than for a very long time - and in previous warm periods the level of CO2 lagged behind the rise in temperatures.
Still - don't let real science get in the way of your deluded dogma
Epicyclo - there have always been fluctuations in the temperature associated with changes in the levels of gasses. However what is happening now is a sharper rise in temperature than in previous warmings and the CO2 level rise is ahead of the temp rise whereas in previous warmings it lagged.
Can someone explain to me why we had a warmer climate 1,000 years ago? What were we doing that caused that? For example Viking and Irish explorers were able to sail to North America north of recent ice line 1,000 - 1,200 years ago?
Correlation does not prove causation. In the case you mention (if what you say is right - I don't know much about vikings) I guess it was natural climate variation.
If a warmer climate causes sea levels to rise, how come there have been townships submerged in England in the period when the climate has got colder?
Do you mean Llanwddyn?
BTW what's happened to the hole in the ozone layer?
It's still there, but not getting any bigger, thanks to international agreement to regulate the use of CFCs. Which is a good demonstration that coordinated international action can be effective in dealing with global problems.
...assume you are just cutting and pasting from somewhere...
Quick Google search suggests that it came from here:
[url= http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/11548/February_2003_Eight_Reasons_Why_Global_Warming_Is_a_Scam.html ]The Heartland Institute[/url]
These guys really know what they are talking about; [url= http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/ ]smoking isn't really that bad[/url]!
Nicked from [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute ]Wikipedia[/url]:
In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[8] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [9]In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list.
Might be worth saving that on your phone as well.
ha ha ha....
that's quite funny.
tazzmtb, why didn't you bother to cut and paste the other 4 points?
Is anyone who has commented in this thread a climatologist, or work on climate change issues?
Is anyone who has commented in this thread a climatologist, or work on climate change issues?
I work on climate change issues. I'm not an expert, because I don't carry out original research, but I do have a good understanding of the science.
Anyway, as I predicted early in this thread, many of the denial myths are being repeated. There's nothing wrong with scepticism - that's healthy - but to just regurgitate nonsense that five minutes on google would disprove isn't worthy of serious discussion.
If you're not convinced by the science, have a look at this:> http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
/p>
And then lets have a more serious discussion about the issues.
[i]Thing is Zulu - a vast majority of the worlds experts agree that teh world is warming and at least part of it is due to man made gasses being emmitted into the atmoshpere.
How big the rise will be is very debatable - but the scientific concensus is clear.[/i]
TJ - I think you'll find that the scientific consensus is that the [b]data[/b] currently distributed shows a warming trend. As a scientist, its a perfectly fair question to ask if that data is reliable before drawing a conclusion. Its also a fair to go back after that conclusion and question anomalies in the data, such as the validity of the pine tree cores used to data match.
Consensus in science has never, and should never be taken as evidence in itself, proven by everyone from Galileo to Darwin through to Einstein.
[i]CO2 is higher now than for a very long time - and in previous warm periods the level of CO2 lagged behind the rise in temperatures.[/i]
Then why the slowdown in the warming trend, possibly even a temperature drop, over the past decade?
Thats not an allegation that its not connected, but a fair question on the data!
Science is about questioning and testing a theory, not about accepting things on face value. Science is all about grey areas, and when we're talking about global temperature changes of a level that is close or lower than the level of +/- variability in the records or forecasts then its dangerous to draw hard conclusions.
Then why the slowdown in the warming trend, possibly even a temperature drop, over the past decade?
Because 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, so if you choose that as your baseline, you'll get an apparent drop. As a scientist, you'll see the problem with choosing 1998 as a baseline, and drawing conclusions from the result.
Secondly, the output of the sun is very low at the moment, so it's in part mitigating anthropogenic warming.
In short, the last decade was warmer than the one that preceeded it, and it warmed at a rate consistent with the IPCC prediction.
My view - Is the earth warming? Maybe, maybe not. Are we to blame? Maybe, maybe not. Can we realistically do anything about it? Not a chance in hell.
Why do very few people give a shit about what the "experts say"? Because the "experts" are too evangelical in the way they communicate their message, and the don't give a balanced view.
Why do people always slag off the intellect of the sceptics in this debate? Just because you choose to question the consensus, it doesn't make you thick....
Ransos -So, you're saying that someone could crop a selection of data to reflect bias? 😉
[i]Secondly, the output of the sun is very low at the moment, so it's in part mitigating anthropogenic warming.[/i] - the words chicken, egg and causation come to mind... So, you're also saying its not [i]necessarily[/i] about human activity/CO2, but there are other factors in play that we're not entirely sure about, and we may have to adjust our calculations and predictions to fit the physical evidence...
I work on climate change issues. I'm not an expert, because I don't carry out original research, but I do have a good understanding of the science.
Cool - what do you do? I research stuff on the politics/economics of climate change (or rather the debate).
I think people too often conflate the issue of the Earth's temperature change and future predictions. The latter is much less certain than the former. I have colleagues who work on cold climates and the role of snow/ice in climate change; the stuff the models can't capture because of mechanisms we don't understand is incredible.
Ask prof David Nutt if going against his grant payers wishes was a good idea !
Hard to take it seriously while our political leaders still drive around in big fuel guzzling cars, jets and helicopters.
When Gordon Brown starts regularly cycling I'll believe in global warming. Until then, it's probably just a scam.
Always remember back doing Geography A Level I had a graph from some text book of global temperatures (this was long before Global Warming was a public issue). The graph showed a clear 400 year cycle and guess what? We're on the rising edge of that cycle at the moment, thus it is getting warmer.
In fact I believe we are technically leaving or just left a mini ice age.
However, I don't deny that man has some impact on the climate. What I do have an issue with is the conclusions that are drawn from this impact. They are based on running models that do not (and perhaps cannot given the complexity of the planet Earth) account for all factors. The more media and politically orientated groups generalise and exaggerate the impact. It drives funding for research and more importantly drives political ambition for changes that benefit certain countries (e.g. those who cannot sustain their consumption of oil).
For example the melting of the ice caps. We're only just now getting it through to the public and governments that melting of the Arctic sea ice actually makes virtually no difference to sea levels. The same goes for the sea ice in the Antarctic. We've had the big scare images of great big Antarctic ice sheets breaking up, but this really has little impact on earth and no rise in sea levels. Rising sea levels comes from ice melt on land falling into the sea. Most of the dramatic footage of ice falling into the sea actually comes from glaciers doing exactly what coastal glaciers do, slide into the sea! (and have been for thousands or millions of years). The question is the rate of flow, which in some cases is shown to be accelerating, but there's little accounting for the way glaciers "top up" (noting that increased precipitation as a result of recent climate change causes more snow fall which can turn to ice).
Then there's the ice shelf in the Antarctic itself. Some of the more sensational scientific papers, media reports and government reports presents us with an image that it will all melt and we'll have massive rises in sea levels. However take a look at the predicted temperature rises, then consider that much of the Antarctic sits at temperatures of -40C and is covered in ice nearly 3 miles deep. This isn't going to melt. Even if it could, the place is mountanous and much of it will form lakes, not just all fall into the sea. The reality is that we may get melt on the coastal regions, though this has been shown to be true of western Antarctic but actually the reverse in the east.
There are too many anomalies. Not reported so much, but the Antarctic ice melt has recently been shown to now be at the lowest amount in recorded history, and possibly overestimated in previous years.
I don't deny climate change. Climate changes and is changing. I don't deny it's warming up in places. It is (as a skier I'm only too aware of this!). I don't deny we have some influence. It's how much that influence is and how devastating it is that I have an issue with. I don't even deny it could be quite devastating, but I am not convinced anyone really has an accurate prediction. It's all theories and they keep changing.
Besides, if somewhere like Yellowstone (big super volcanoe) blew up, we can forget about our influence as this would dwarf it 😀
Oh, and cows are the biggest polluter anyway 😉
TZF
Why do people always slag off the intellect of the sceptics in this debate? Just because you choose to question the consensus, it doesn't make you thick....
But it does make you very very lazy. It shows that you haven't actually bothered to go and look at any of the original sources.
Anyone can choose not to believe the science (especially if they've not actually bothered to try and understand any of it), and clearly lots of people do. Unfortunately climate change is complicated and difficult. I don't pretend to understand all of the science from first principles, but I've read enough about it, and talked to enough real scientists, who are actually working on this full time, to know that it is real and a massive problem.
I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.
Next questions:
Has anyone got a chart of the output of the sun for the last 200 years.
Has anyone got the figures for the output of volcanic action for the last 200 years.
Has anyone got the figures for CO2 released by bush fires (Australia will do) compared to that country's industrial output.
[i]But it does make you very very lazy. It shows that you haven't actually bothered to go and look at any of the [u]original sources.[/u][/i]
Hmm, and what happens when anyone asks for the original source? - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
[i]and talked to enough real scientists, who are [u]actually working on this full time[/u], to know that it is real and a massive problem.[/i]
And you cannot see the problem there? Just why might someone working on it full time, on a grant paid for by the government &/or university, choose to support the consensus view, let alone say it was a huge, really important issue that definitely needed research funding?
I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.
Sorry, but this really does take the level of debate to a new intellectual low.
Can you try to explain what you think we are supposed to infer from this? What mechanism do you think is in place to link subsidies for alternative energy (which subsidies are you talking about BTW?) to the issue of global warming.
Your comment is psychobabble.
rightplacerighttime - you have just proven my point.
You automatically assume that anyone who questions the scientific consensus hasn't bothered to research it very well.
Personally I have a degree in the subject, have read a **** load of research and from what I can see, there is no definitive proof that any of it is happening, or more importantly that we are the cause of it.
I challenge you to show me that unquestionable truth. I'll even give me all my bikes if you can do it.
epicyclo - Member
I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.
Ok so you think the powerfull lobby of solar panelists combined with windmill makers were able to convince the vast majority of the world scientists , governments[even Bush eventually], and then convince the oil and car manufacturers in order to make some money.
Does that sound a little foolish/unrealistic?
If not can I see some proof
I don't believe in gravity, I reckon those scientists only push that theory for funding purposes
And you cannot see the problem there? Just why might someone working on it full time, on a grant paid for by the government &/or university, choose to support the consensus view, let alone say it was a huge, really important issue that definitely needed research funding?
Well, strangely as it may seem, most of the scientists that I know work on things because they are interested in the subject and are actually motivated by making discoveries and building on their personal understanding of a subject.
The reason they wouldn't spend their entire working careers producing results they know to be false is because they have morals and a conscience. Most people do.
Nobody is saying that people are producing false results. What people are saying is that research is directed into areas that people want to pay for. Not many people want to pay for research into proving that it has bugger all to do with us....
[i]Not many people want to pay for research into proving that it has bugger all to do with us.... [/i]
Eh? You mean apart from Shell, Esso, BP, Texaco and other vested interests?
though to be fair the money isn't going into research
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jul/01/bob-ward-exxon-mobil-climate
[i]I don't believe in gravity, I reckon those scientists only push that theory for funding purposes[/i]
Do you reckon Einstein would get a grant to disprove Newtons law of Universal Gravitation nowadays?
Seeing as he's dead I'd hope not
TZF
Personally I have a degree in the subject, have read a **** load of research and from what I can see, there is no definitive proof that any of it is happening, or more importantly that we are the cause of it.I challenge you to show me that unquestionable truth. I'll even give me all my bikes if you can do it.
What's the point of this challenge? If you are a scientist then you know that I can't PROVE anything. I can point you towards lots of research done by people that I believe to be experts in their field, that I believe to be working independently and that I believe to have no bias towards a particular point of view, who say that climate change is happening, that it is man made and that it is going to be a massive problem. I can also point you towards books that I have read, by people that I have no reason to mistrust, that have studied more of the original science than me who also conclude that climate change is happening.
But, no, I can't prove it.
Like most things in life, at some point one has to trust the experts. One of the problems today though is that the internet gives equal weight to the opinions of experts and non-experts. It's hard sometimes to work out which is which, but in this case I've seen enough to make up my mind.
BTW - I have not PROVEN your point. See above.