There is never absolute certainty in science, but that is not a reason to not act on the best and increasing evidence of human impact on climate.
I am not in a position to analyse the science so I have to analyse those that can. What is the credibility of those making the arguments, what is the proportion of informed debate on either side, what are the motivations of the speakers. As has been offered in the discussion earlier, the overwhelming majority of those that are experts in climate science believe that human impact is driving change - for me that is persuasive, rather than uninformed editorial in the newspapers or talking heads without the necessary scientific background to undertake their primary, or even secondary analysis of the evidence. I don't argue that there are not exaggerated claims on the climate change side - but that does not undermine the consensus argument
Change macro economic policy to reflect the benefit to society of energy saving and the harm caused by fossil fuels, and you can create an economic boom while cutting CO2 emissions.
I'm sorry I don't understand.
Please educate me Edukator.
If you make it cheap to do the right thing and expensive to do the bad thing then the good thing happens.
Tax Fuel
Tax Inefficiency
Tax Waste
Subsidise Efficiency
Subsidise Energy Saving
Subsidise Recycling
MORE
http://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html
Study the Permian and tell me claims about the extent of change are exaggerated. Scientists tend to err on the side of caution when making predictions and also fear being ridiculed. I won't post my own predictions for two reasons: I won't be around to know if I was right and I don't wish to be ridiculed. I'll just say that you can expect a rapid rise in the number and intensity of extreme weather events in your lifetime.
Simple, gobuchul. Make it cheap to insulate business premises and expensive to buy gas to heat them and firms will employ people to insulate using material that have to be manufactured. More people working creating more fixed assets increases economic activity and wealth.
gobuchul
This is not new thinking. The Stern report covered some of this ground, but more recently Jacobs and his mates ate the The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP)at Leeds Uni and LSE have published stuff on this. The argument runs that the market does not price in the full impact of environmental degradation, including climate change. If it did then the market would re-orientate towards environmentally sustainable activity. Their argument is that you would not only minimise the impact of climate change but also maintain economic growth.
Others think this is over optimistic - but you pays your money and takes your choice
Edukator - Troll
Scientists tend to err on the side of caution when making predictions and also fear being ridiculed.
Presumably why they dump their raw data, and only keep their manipulated copies?
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind-Phil Jones head of UEA CRU
Oh good, another one who thinks the increase in extreme weather events is not happening, that places are not smashing temperature records year on year and that it's all just fine.
No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.
An example is a professional I know. His house is well insulated because he is cost conscious with his own money. However, he knows that all of the expenses of his business premises are deductible and he's a lot less worried about keeping costs down. The result is that he invests a lot less in the efficiency of his business premises than his own home. One person responding to two different sets of economic conditions.
When in business the electricity I consumed at home cost me 110% more than the electricity I consumed at work.
Cost at work: price on the bill minus VAT.
Cost at home: price on the bill including VAT paid for with money subjected to social security payments and tax.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.
That is some foresight right there!
No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.
Since records began or since the formation of the planet? November 1 was the hottest since records began in Paris. Records are being broken all the time if we consider the period since records began, and with increasing frequency.
Mike.. lets leave 'cherry picking' of data to alarmists and deniers. You can't just decide when the records start from to suit your claim.
Are we not allowed to use ice core data in the study of climate change? Alarmists and deniers constantly choose which info they want to use.
Mike.. lets leave 'cherry picking' of data to alarmists and deniers. You can't just decide when the records start from to suit your claim.
Not alarmist at all, just seem more extreme weather events in the last 10 years than I care to repeat, 2013 was an incredibly hot year in Australia, one of the countries that will be most ****ed by rising temperatures. Reality isn't alarmist, when you are starting to hit 40c+ for over a week then something is broke, it's happening more and more.
Who says 'we' aren't allowed to use ice core data?
Use ice core data if you wish. It shows that rises and peaks correspond to natural orbital and solar cycles. The current ones don't. CO2 didn't cause the post-glacial or medieval warm periods, the mechanisms that caused those aren't responsible for current warming.
Unscientific opinions are important to understand as are so often constructed from a combination of the individual's existing prejudices, political inclinations and psychological projections.
Us humans can be fascinatingly self-centred don't you think? So often the climate change debate sounds like a televangelist-style Creationist debate.
theocb - Member - Block User
No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.
You really need to use your brain / google (preferably both) before you open your mouth
me or him Zokes 🙂
Unscientific opinions are important to understand as are so often constructed from a combination of the individual's existing prejudices, political inclinations and psychological projections.Us humans can be fascinatingly self-centred don't you think? So often the climate change debate sounds like a televangelist-style Creationist debate.
In the US the issue is a party-political one. Republicans deny climate change specifically and reject science generally. The general rejection of science is simply becuase scientists are typically liberals so they're people you have to disagree with on principle. They deny climate change specifically because republicans believe in small government and individual liberty. If you accept climate change you accept that government [i]has[/i] to do something about it and that means growing government and increasing government regulation - which would be diametrically un-republican.
U! S! A!
U! S! A!
[img] 
[/img]
'Anti-environmentalists' 😐
I agree that 'human' opinions are very interesting and agree with your point.
You have fallen into the trap yourself though. I assume you state 'unscientific opinions' to try to place a scientist above an 'ordinary' human.. much like the religious believers do. Science is a simple subject matter open to all, if you start pretending Scientists are special then it is a slippery slope.
Edukat. Yes I wish to use the best data we have in a discussion about climate. No records have been broken regarding temperature. Agreed? If a denier said the temp has stalled or dropped since 97 you would mock him.. not sure why you think an alarmist using short term climate data is okay.
I agree that different forcings were responsible for previous records.. doesn't make them irrelevant when alarmists start using short term temp. data.
What happens long term if milankovitch cycles are balanced against different forcings (i.e exaggerated human influence)? We have zero data to understand that occurrence. agreed?
try to place a scientist above an 'ordinary' human.. much like the religious believers do. Science is a simple subject matter open to all, if you start pretending Scientists are special then it is a slippery slope.
Except science has qualifications and real training, is reviewed by peers and tested by others. If the lay person has spent the time, educated themselves in the methods of research and the science, then studied the data, and examined it with an open mind, conversed with others subjected their work to scrutiny and challenges and do what if for the common good not fame or ideology then I reckon they can challenge "science"
If I want an opinion on fitting a toilet I'll ask a plumber, fitting a mech a bike shop. Climate change a climate change scientist.
Classic whatabouterry.If the climate does change then starvation, poor water and sanitation could be something that we all face.
We won't in the UK. The north is set to become more economically prosperous under even the extreme ends of the climate change projections, as it opens up more land viable for heavy agriculture. Eg Russia, Norway, Canada etc.
What it will do is cause billions of people in equatorial regions to starve, forcing them to migrate North or South. And we here in Britain will be happy to vote UKIP and watch them all starve to death on TV whilst telling them to sort their own countries out, climate change isn't real you indolent fools, you're just lazy...coming here because of a benefits system! They will be shot at trying to cross borders, lynched if they get to their destination or left to drown at sea if their boats capsize.
That or we'll round them up in internment camps and gas them and carry on not giving a shit like good Europeans do.
But climate scientists know that temp records haven't been broken Mike. That's what alarmists and deniers do.. they cherry pick data and research.
So which ones haven't been broken, what's your take on the Australian ones then?
But climate scientists know that temp records haven't been broken Mike. That's what alarmists and deniers do.. they cherry pick data and research.
You still realize that the trends mean that a lot of the planet will be unequivocally ****ed in terms of economic output though?
Even if it was technically hotter 60 million or whatever years ago.
But climate scientists know that temp records haven't been broken Mike.
So doesn't the Bureau of Meteorology (from Mike's links) count as "climate scientists"?
Because they were the ones saying that 2013 was the hottest year on record for Australia.
Or are you making the technical point that the Earth was hotter than that before the continents drifted apart?
I assume you state 'unscientific opinions' to try to place a scientist above an 'ordinary' human
You assume wrongly. Anyone employed as a scientist may also have 'unscientific opinions', scientists are human after all. Bad science is bad science wherever it comes from, and I don't think many (any) of us would claim not to be arguing from our existing prejudices/political beliefs to some degree or another. That was kind of my point. Admittedly I'm not the most effective writer. Like many of us I too have been following the climate debate for over 20 years and observe that it is of course like so many debates - ie immigration, economics etc in that we humans are emotional and tribal and fit the facts to suit our inclinations and comfort levels. Not saying emotions are bad per se as empathy is often all that stands between us being ruthlessly 'efficient' and horribly shortsighted - yet emotionalism and tribalism can destroy debate - from half-cogent cherry-picking down through 'us vs them' - bolstered by dishonesty via denial and propaganda. We seem to be more invested in being 'right' - which in itself is egotistical along with any opinions arising from such a mindset. That is what I mean by 'unscientific opinion'. I'm sure there is a more suitable phrase available but I'm coming up short.
the climate change debate
It isn't really a debate. There is scientific consensus and there are shouty people who want to not listen for whatever reason.
a lot of the planet will be unequivocally **** in terms of economic output though?
a lot of it will be enhanced too (crops grow better for example, or different crops can be grown instead) and other pieces of land which currently have very poor economic activity will come into use, cereal crops will grow further north for example, warmer water may see changes in plankton growth and more fish
though if we talk about plants growing better in warmer climes or raised levels of CO2, they we're in danger of getting into feedback cycles and their moderating effect on warming 😉
Had to find out more about that CNN screen grab.
Only in America [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal ]Rolling Coal[/url]
Rolling coal is a form of conspicuous pollution. Targets of rolling coal often include owners of hybrid vehicles as well as bicyclists and pedestrians
don't sea levels rise on a warmer globe if so a lot of northern agricultural land is going to be a tad aquatic?
Ninfan, see my previous post. What your talking about will happen, it will just cause widespread emigration whilst the North/West get's richer at the expense of everyone else....again.
don't sea levels rise on a warmer globe if so a lot of northern agricultural land is going to be a tad aquatic?
I doubt Russia and Canada are going to be swamped any time soon.
a lot of it will be enhanced too
a lot is a strange way of saying the minority. Imagine a sceptic cherry picking the data to make a terrible point
warmer water may see changes in plankton growth and more fish
Apart from all the ones who die form the acidity it will indeed be brilliant for example.
I do so love the it wont really be bad argument.
Why not mention vineyards in Bristol or something ?
FWIW the cost of preventing climate change are less than the costs of dealing with it
Few if any economic benefits have been shown to occur.
plants growing better in warmer climes or raised levels of CO2
Let's hope so because currently we're not exactly doing very well on that front either:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
So perhaps we ought to put our efforts into mitigation and robustness to deal with the problems of climate change (whatever the cause) instead of hoping that a few windmills might make it go away?
So perhaps we ought to put our efforts into mitigation and robustness to deal with the problems of climate change (whatever the cause) instead of hoping that a few windmills might make it go away?
+1
so continue with fossil fuels until they run out then knock up an alternate energy solution overnight or put some effort in early doors and get it sorted before it's £15/l for petrol.
I guess if you keep your head in the sand it's probably OK.
Only in America Rolling CoalRolling coal is a form of conspicuous pollution. Targets of rolling coal often include owners of hybrid vehicles as well as bicyclists and pedestrians
there was a well known bike magic forum member IIRC from the lake district who claimed to do this to cyclists in his landrover if he felt they had slowed him down (riding 2 abreast).
bike magic forum member IIRC from the lake district who claimed to do this to cyclists in his landrover
I bet he didn't spend $5000 modifying his LR to do this, remove the particle filter, or post videos on You Tube or start a Facebook page.
Like I said only in America.
or boast about it on a cycling forum 🙄
[quote=TooTall ]It isn't really a debate. There is scientific consensus and there are shouty people who want to not listen for whatever reason.
Consensus that the climate is changing. I'm not sure there is any unanimity on the extent of the change, how the driving mechanisms work, what we should do about it, or whether we should just do what we can to cope with the changes. Sure there's a debate.
Copenhagen: The world must stop almost all greenhouse gas emissions through a phased elimination of fossil fuels by 2100 if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a new United Nations report says. And the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged companies to disinvest from fossil fuel-based industries.
There are "multiple pathways" that will keep global warming below 2 degrees, according to the IPCC's "synthesis report" released on Sunday.
However, all of these pathways require "substantial" cuts to greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades, and "near zero" emissions by the end of the century, the report's authors concluded.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-panel-warns-opportunity-to-stop-climate-change-fading-fast-20141102-11fmmq.html#ixzz3I6yIgq3X
Do you mean among the scientists and experts in the field or politicians, big business and the public?
