[Closed] Global Warming - Not our doing?

The UK contributes 3% of global emissions

We do now, I wonder how much we contributed 30 years ago and I wonder how much China contributes to global emissions now that we have most of our manufacturing done there.

I'd rather believe him than people given money by a government to provide figures to back up policies that allow said government to increase taxation.

I always find it amusing that people think that Governments just love to tax us.

Who are these people given money by the government to back up their policies? In my experience it certainly doesnt work like that. Would you rather have the scientist paid by big business instead? Having been involved in eaxamples of both at the frontline I know which I think is better.

How do explain Mars heating at the same rate ...?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[img] [/img]

Well I prefer the option of reducing the negative effects on people but then some people say I'm idealistic.

As far as I'm aware, this will never be the case, AFAIK this is a catastrophic event, like a nuclear reaction - once "tipped" it cannot be lessened, like tempering a nuclear bomb by placing a few sandbags over it(only over a lot longer duration!).

Would that help or would the western world just increase its consumption.... also who would make the cheap crap we need for us?

Doesnt matter, it'd average out lower anyway in a few decades. Cheap crap wouldnt get made, people would create things of value and craft again, only things they needed and only things that helped. People would be forced to find new and ingenious ways of deriving energy from the earth etc (assuming we've run out of oil too).

Just another option, not suggesting it as the way forward, but certainly makes me think about it more!

I always find it amusing that people think that Governments just love to tax us.

I just knew when we got some snow that some folk would jump up and down and say "Look, snow, all that nasty science must be wrong."

Of course it's not like the anthropogenic global warming disciples would ever use slightly warmer than normal local weather conditions as evidence to support their religious position, is it?

They don't generally, no.

"As far as I'm aware, this will never be the case, AFAIK this is a catastrophic event, like a nuclear reaction "

But are you a climate scientist?

"Of course it's not like the anthropogenic global warming disciples would ever use slightly warmer than normal local weather conditions as evidence to support their religious position, is it? "

I've never seen any remotely credible climate commentator use such things as individual hurricanes as eveidence they would only suggest it could be part of a pattern. Not like so many ****tards who are happy to go on telly or radio or into print laughing, at what I can only assume is their own stupidity, and saying how global warming cant exist look at all the snow we've had... really grips my shit that sort of thing.

They don't generally, no.

I've never seen any remotely credible climate commentator use such things as individual hurricanes as eveidence they would only suggest it could be part of a pattern.

The Earth was hotter -measured the CO2 content in polar caps is proportional to the temp and the CO2 concentration was much higher.

We could mimic the conditions and raise temps etc.

We could argue all day...

One thing I personally learned is that we should look after our planet and each other anyway regardless if global warming exists.

Bloody cold and wet though.

But are you a climate scientist?

Nope, I'm repeating the words of climate scientists who tell us it is imminent - they claim we will reach a tipping point (or a series of points of no-return-within-a-sensible time), after which the processes are totally out of our control and will spiral into hell - things like ice sheets melting which therefore prevents snow falling in that area, which means higher moisture content in the air=higher greenhouse effect, meaning no ice returns etc. Which is why they consider it so urgent that we act NOW to stop it happening, not just lessen the effects. Which makes perfect sense - once we pass a certain level we have a sequence of events such as ice caps melting, frozen methane deposits thawing and being released etc, that will have a far greater effect than all of our contributions put together. Hence nothing we do will stop it once it has passed this point.

I've been involved in a fair few discussions about these things and spend a good while reading the arguments and evidence on both sides but I dont profess to know the answers on the climate science - if I did I'd be being paid for that, rather than designing solutions to the problem 🙂

they claim we will reach a tipping point

If they do they are idiots, I'd suggest they might claim "we may reach a tipping point". Its all prediction they cannot know. Which is the language that causes the second type of idiotic climate comment that arrives on my tv or newspaper that is likely to make me want to kill someone as they do not have the necessary itntelligence to comment "even the scientists dont know exactly what will happen"... makes my ****in blood boil.

I do like the fact that people are really interested in this subject. I thank that alone is really important.

“must admit, while the arguments for and against global warming being a man made/accelerated issue are quite strong and contradictory, and both sides have their own motivations for arguing those points.”

This really shouldn’t be an argument anymore (I realise this is a simplistic statement) The fact is the 110 countries have agree on a series of basic assumptions – the key one being a 90 per cent certainty that climate change was being caused by mankind. Agreed by smarter people than me!

they claim we will reach a tipping point

If they do they are idiots, I'd suggest they might claim "we may reach a tipping point". Its all prediction they cannot know. Which is the language that causes the second type of idiotic climate comment that arrives on my tv or newspaper that is likely to make me want to kill someone as they do not have the necessary itntelligence to comment "even the scientists dont know exactly what will happen"... makes my **** blood boil.

What also angers me is that even up to last year scientists claimed that global warming science was settled. How arrogant do you have to be to claim that? Thankfully they've retracted the statement from recent documents on climate change and also because the planet is not playing ball with their predicitions and climate models. In fact satellite data shows no global temperature increases since around 2001 and over the past 2 years there's been a small decrease.

I'm also glad that people are paying attention to this but we are no where near a tipping point (if there's even going to be one) and there is still no conclusive data that man made emissions are visible in current C02 levels.

Yetiman: that sounds like [url= http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6778 ]Misleading argument number 4[/url]

If they do they are idiots, I'd suggest they might claim "we may reach a tipping point". Its all prediction they cannot know. Which is the language that causes the second type of idiotic climate comment that arrives on my tv or newspaper that is likely to make me want to kill someone as they do not have the necessary itntelligence to comment "even the scientists dont know exactly what will happen"... makes my **** blood boil.

You're reading far too much into the way I wrote it, I was not quoting directly obviously. "They claim we will reach a tipping point [if things go as per predictions, obviously]" - lets not argue semantics, as this isnt the point and the subtleties never reach the masses. The point is that according to all the current predictions we will/are soon crossing several points of no return. If this happens, it is predicted (by not so great models, but the best we have) that things will rapidly get worse in a non-recoverable (in reasonable time) manner.

While I see why you are arguing semantics, it does little but distract from the general discussion. If climatologists cannot agree on this, the general public have little chance either.

I'm also glad that people are paying attention to this but we are no where near a tipping point (if there's even going to be one) and there is still no conclusive data that man made emissions are visible in current C02 levels.

Not entirely sure where you're getting your figures from, and no the planet isn't playing ball with the predictions, because the predictions are based on relatively poor models that ignore large factors. However I dont think we are well placed to make such calls, as we are not the originators of the data or the science.

I can't be bothered to debate the science on this. As other ppeople have pointed out, there is a clear consensus but there are always going to be people saying the opposite while powerful vested interests support them.

What I find pretty amazing is that people are prepared to argue in defence of activities that increase CO2 production when most of them have contributed massively to the poor quality of life that many people experience.

Yes, if everyone started using public transport tomorrow it wouldn't make that much of an impact compared to the entire industrial output of China. However it would mean that more people could leave their houses without having to worry about being run over or getting asthma.

Personally, I'm convinced that MMCC has snow-balled from a theory of an individual, grown through genuine interest by other climatologists in papers/journals, and finally been pushed, bullied force fed to us as scientific fact in order to justify all kinds of political and commercial agendas.

We are convinced of a threat thorugh the publication of countless research projects, if not funded by an organisation with a particular point to prove in order to achieve a commercial goal, then funded by a researcher trying to make a living by publishing headline-grabbing work.

The argument of the gubberment wanting to use MMCC as an excuse to raise revenue is dubious; I do believe however that it is being used to change consumer behaviour, to reduce dependancy upon imported fossil fuel for example.

I have faith that they have foreseen a far bigger, more imminant challenge ahead of the western world than global warming; they know that there are economic and humanitarian challenges on the horizon which could make the UK a very nasty place to be indeed and that we [b]do[/b] have the ability to avoid (if managed correctly).

And if they come to fruition, none of us will be worried about the weather 🙂

A key point that many people miss is that most academics are tenured - i.e. they get paid whatever they say. So on the one hand, we have virtually all academics with a research record in the subject saying the same thing, and on the other, a powerful and well funded denial lobby with a clear conflict of interest. I know who I believe.

There's a list of the denial myths here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

and here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

I could go mental replying to this

Spongebob and anyone else who questions the science of Climate, Please read:

Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The Hot Topic - Gabrielle Walker and David King
The Gaia Series of books - James Lovelock
The Party's Over - Richard Heinburg

and view the following

Synopsis of Stern Review - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/30/economy.uk

The economics of climate change:

http://www.climatechangeecon.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=27

History of climate change research:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

The late medieval warm period

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

What we learned in 2008:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html

And then come back with your opinion. Ill-informed opinion is blighting the whole climate issue - I could lecture people all day on this issue but unless they are informed its completely pointless.

Energy security goes hand in hand with climate change as the biggest thing humanity has to face. War and terrorism are just side-lines

Deny that Anthropengic Atmopheric warming is occurring all you like - you have to see that we still must cut down on fossil fuel use and move to alternative energy ASAP regardless if we are to continue out modern society in a recognisable form to what it is now. When the oil runs out, or we cant afford to buy it anymore, we cant eat, travel, heat or light ourselves.

And please learn the difference between Climate and Weather, and Global Warming and Climate Change

Ransos - good links!

I don't think the government would use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes. That would not make sense, really. The government has a vested interest in the status quo so they would really love to encourage us to consume more goods, petrol, energy and all the rest. That way, the economy grows easily, they get loads of tax revenue from fuel etc. That's why the Bush administration were in denial for so long.

And you should also know that the government doesn't keep the money it makes from taxes. So it's not greedy like you say. They have to take the tax they need to run the country, and their own personal wealth is not affected by how much tax they raise.

So the theory that governments are using CC as an excuse to get money is nonsense on two counts.

The governments have a vested interst in oil as it is the currency of the west - oil supplies reduce, the dollar goes tits up and the west goes medievil

As ever, The Daily Mash summed it up brilliantly last year with an article quoting the planet as saying "It will be fine", but the humans may suffer a bit.

Liked this:

[img] [/img]
[size=1][url= http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html ]Credit: Marc Roberts, Nature[/url][/size]

A key point that many people miss is that most academics are tenured - i.e. they get paid whatever they say. So on the one hand, we have virtually all academics with a research record in the subject saying the same thing, and on the other, a powerful and well funded denial lobby with a clear conflict of interest. I know who I believe.

There's a list of the denial myths here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

While I'm not a skeptic, or a believer, as it were. I am fairly sure we have change afoot, I'm not sure how much, if anything, we can do about it, not that thats a reason to do nothing of course. I just refuse to be slotted nicely into a box of "its happening, its entirely our fault, we must stop everything now!".

Though most academics are indeed paid no matter what they say, they dont get project funding regardless of outcome, they get it based on a) current perceived needs (i.e. they'll get a call for proposals in the "climate change" field, and this will be reviewed by 3 or 4 other academics who will have their own opinions and b) industrial and government funding. They may get their wages paid regardless, but their work would cease if they didnt get project funding from the government and big business, both of whome steer the process. If you don't conform and show track record that follows the reviewers thoughts, they'll simply discount you for funding.

The thing that throws a spanner in the works is that there are academics who disagree, and quite a few of them. These tend to be people working in fields close enough to give a reasoned opinion on the situation, but not in the field itself - possibly due to the fact that they know they wouldnt get funding for going against the grain - remarkable how fast your position can be replaced when you're not bringing in research grants.

Your list of myths simply reads as a list of counter arguments, such as the "there is no concensus"...

We agree some things are happening
We disagree over small details
So we agree in general.
......though there are some people who disagree, but we'll ignore them...

This really shouldn’t be an argument anymore (I realise this is a simplistic statement) The fact is the 110 countries have agree on a series of basic assumptions – the key one being a 90 per cent certainty that climate change was being caused by mankind. Agreed by smarter people than me!

I have no problem at all with limiting consumption and doing our best to limit our impact on the environment - we should do more than we do. But basing all our decisions on such flawed science as is still being used to support the case for AGW is extremely dengerous.

I have no problem at all with limiting consumption and doing our best to limit our impact on the environment - we should do more than we do. But basing all our decisions on such flawed science as is still being used to support the case for AGW is extremely dengerous.

Why is it dangerous?

AGW-aside, we still have a very finite amount of oil, so we need to move to something else very soon anyway

They may get their wages paid regardless, but their work would cease if they didnt get project funding from the government and big business, both of whome steer the process. If you don't conform and show track record that follows the reviewers thoughts, they'll simply discount you for funding.

Okay, but given that I suspect most big businesses and indeed the government, would probably prefer a position where scientists said [i]"There is nothing to worry about, keep on with the economic expansion and large scale industrialisation"[/i] then how is it that the "consensus" appears to be in the other direction?

Why is it dangerous?

aracer - Member

Why is it dangerous?

Because you make the wrong decisions if the reasoning for those decisions is flawed.

True, but what is dangerous about reducing fossil fuel use and the associated emissions?

Argh.......................................................................
I give up. In summary scientist make predictions, they suggest what could happen.

What also angers me is that even up to last year scientists claimed that global warming science was settled.

This is the ****tard comment of a moron.... scientits didnt claim that global warming was settled no scientist worth the title would. They may well have claimed that there is a general concensus that climate is happening and its being at best accelerated by us they are not wizards they cannot see into the future or predict the almost limitless variables involved in global processes, some of which we no doubt dont even know exist yet. This is why I get het up by semantics. Scientists say something and argue/debate with other scientist then a moron journalist picks up on it and low and behold puts it entirely wrong and sends it out to the genral public who dont understand enough of the language of science much less the process to realise that the journalist got it more wrong than a wrong thing on a mistake filled day.

Sience doesnt produce answers it just generates ever more questions.

True, but what is dangerous about reducing fossil fuel use and the associated emissions?

Nothing in itself. In fact that's something I'd encourage if it involves walking or riding a bike instead of using a car, having more efficient cars, or turning down the thermostat. The trouble comes when reducing the use of fossil fuels has other impacts - such as destroying a whole ecosystem in order to generate tidal energy.

Is that any different from destroying a whole ecosystem digging up oil (threats to develop reserves under the artic tundra), or a whole country (Iraq)?

Sadly, all we are doing is moving the problem elsewhere - NIMBYism on a national scale

"The thing that throws a spanner in the works is that there are academics who disagree, and quite a few of them. These tend to be people working in fields close enough to give a reasoned opinion on the situation, but not in the field itself - possibly due to the fact that they know they wouldnt get funding for going against the grain - remarkable how fast your position can be replaced when you're not bringing in research grants."

Got any evidence to support that, CoffeeKing?

What really shows ignorance is that way that people think the term 'scientists say x' means that there's one single body of scientists that issues some kind of definitive statement on matters. There is no such single body. That's just like saying 'cyclists do this or that'. Scientists have no more obligation to each other than cyclists do. Just because you ride a bike doesn't make you a red-light runnign hooligan does it? And we don't like being all lumped together.

So why lump scientists together?

"The thing that throws a spanner in the works is that there are academics who disagree, and quite a few of them. These tend to be people working in fields close enough to give a reasoned opinion on the situation, but not in the field itself - possibly due to the fact that they know they wouldnt get funding for going against the grain

So some scientists, who havent done any of the research into the matter dont agree with those who have done the research...... I know who I'd believe, especially when you consider the rigorous levels of peer review that most research goes through and not just by those directly involved in similar research.

Any long term aims are pointless while we allow the population to grow uncontrolled. We should stop adding people to a full planet.

A useful link for the denialists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/12/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-climate-change

Well if the only way fanatics can support their case is to pick apart obviously flawed articles by others, you do wonder just how good their evidence is. I love the way he points out that short term fluctuations can't be used as evidence, then proceeds to do exactly that himself. There's a certain irony to the fact he reports the warmest years ever recorded - but records only go back 150 years which is a miniscule timescale in global terms and renders such stats effectively meaningless.

Trimix has made THE most pertinent point of the whole thread. Population!

If every person in the world had the same CO2 producing capability of Westerners such as the Americans, we would be in deep trouble.

We need to control numbers, but the population isn't growing much in the developed world - we can't afford kids easily.

The planet probably has more people than it can support already, but due to economic hardship in developing countries, these people don't get enough food, let alone CO2 burning luxuries.

Children are viewed as pension providers in the developing world. Producing as many children as possible offers a better chance of secure retirement as there is such a high rate of attrition - poor healthcare, nutrition isses etc.

We do live in a sheltered corner of the world!

Spongebob, the alternative answer to that problem lies within your very own words, read them again and think really, really, really hard about what your saying. You could argue the world is not overpopulated.

Children are viewed as pension providers in the developing world.

They are in the developed world too. One of the reasons for the pension crises in the UK is the shrinking working population. Obviously more children would help to alleviate that problem.