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/
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.
TZW
Not many people want to pay for research into proving that it has bugger all to do with us....
You don't seem to understand the concept of research.
Basspine put up a nice diagram on the first page that shows how it works, why don't you have a look at it?
Not sure that I get what you're saying there Dave. Why would fuel companies want to prove that humans don't cause climate change? They want to keep the amount of oil that they have, for as long as possible, thereby driving up the price. Getting individuals to think of oil as a precious yet damaging commodity and to use less would seem to be a good way of doing that.
TZF
Is this the full half hour argument?
I understand the theory of research very well. I also understand the practicalities of research too though. I have seen many very good papers fail to get into a journal simply because they dont fit with the editor's standpoint on a subject. Research isn't free and people need to get published to get more funding to stay in their jobs.
Also, of course I know that neither you nor anyone else can prove anything. If we all know this to be the case, why is the scientific consensus always represented as proof?
TZW,
We seem to be getting off the point (unfortunately). However, you say...
...why is the scientific consensus always represented as proof?
Well, actually I don't think it is. And I don't think you will hear many scientists talking like that (they always talk in terms of probabilities when talking about future events). Maybe some journalists or politicians will but probably only as shorthand, and I don't think that politics is in any way leading the science.
Just think back over the last few years at how the world's governments have done anything they could to delay taking serious action on climate change. They've had to be dragged to the point where they are really considering doing anything because they know that action on climate change will make them unpopular. Our entire economy is based on continuous growth to service debt, but action on climate change will stall the world economy. That is why governments don't want to act. The trouble is that it is now becoming so obvious what is happening that if they don't act now, then things will be even worse later. Unfortunatley for all of us the choice we have is tough times now, or even tougher times later.
Personally I think one of the problems of climate change is that the scientists are too conservative when they talk about it. I would like more scientists to be more definitive about what is going on, because I know that those I've that spoken to are actually more pesemistic than they are prepared to put down on paper.
.. So, you're also saying its not necessarily 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...
No, I'm telling you that the natural cycles that affect the climate are well researched and understood, which is why we know that the output from the sun is low at the moment. Natural factors are used in the models, which show that the earth is still getting warmer, bang in line with the IPCC prediction.
Of course predictions are refined in the light of new evidence - why would they not be?
Not sure that I get what you're saying there Dave. Why would fuel companies want to prove that humans don't cause climate change?
Because a shift away from fossil fuel use could damage their interests.
We know that Exxon have invested a great deal of time and money in trying to deny anthropogenic climate change.
ransos - would it damage their interests? I'd say running out of oil would do more damage.
deadkenny wrote, "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."
The shelf ice doesn't have to melt to change ocean levels, it only has to move. The West Antartic Ice Shelf is the best example of this- it's unstable, and contains 10% of all the antartic ice, which means if it was all to melt ocean levels would rise by 4.8 metres (not to mention that it would significantly alter ocean salinity) As it stands, the ice flow from the 3 biggest WAIS glaciers is demonstrably much greater than the ice growth- they're not melting but they're flowing to the ocean faster than they're being replaced by snowfall. In this exact situation, ocean levels will rise- ice is moving from supported to unsupported, and not enough water is returning to the ice. Antartic ice loss shows short-term signs of increasing, which might not continue of course but doesseem likely to.