Forum menu
Well I'm not sure 'could' is a very scientific word 😯 (but I'm not very bright either to be fair.) Proven Science needs to use a word like 'will' and then there is less debate (within the boundaries of beyond reasonable doubt.)
This whole debate is based on lot's of Scientific theory but very little proven Science (very difficult to prove something that generally takes thousands and thousands of years when you only have 50 years of limited knowledge and poor data.)
The scientists keep uncovering more and more info and it all points towards their assumed theories being correct but they are and have been unable to prove these theories leaving huge black holes in their Science. (Science needs facts,data and working models not consensus and assumptions)
The IPCC cannot explain the last 15 year stalling without using another unproven assumed science.
If a Scientist tells me a Solar eclipse is going to happen tomorrow and it doesn't I'm going to question his theory.. how the hell does that make me a crackpot! It means we are right to question the Science behind the theory.
The IPCC press release for the forthcoming report is a bit odd IMO so looking forward to reading the full report and trying to understand why and how the new unproven theories work.
I have no issue with living a low impact lifestyle making common sense decisions based on waste and resource use while sharing wealth and power with humans all around the world but there is no such thing as a balanced climate that fits Humans forever and ever so don't use that card to convince people of some unproven doomsday predictions (If we behave like good boys and girls we will go to Heaven. Sound familiar!)
Has anybody mentioned the multidecadal oscillations yet?
And you pay £150 a year for that crap...
No I don't
Like you say, the actuality of whether man-made activity is making the planet warmer is simply not a democratic process - the truth is what it is.
Which is why it's about time the selfish minority of this planet woke up and did something about it. I congratulate you if you regularly win at 20-1 odds, but I'd rather we didn't do it with the only planet we have.
but there is no such thing as a balanced climate that fits Humans forever and ever so don't use that card to convince people of some unproven doomsday predictions
But, the big thing that's changed is that never before have so many humans relied on so few species for food, quite a lot of which are increasingly picky about which conditions they'll grow in in return for increased yields.
The trouble with this argument is that by the time it becomes the highest priority, it will already be far too late
It's not an argument, it's a comment on democracy. When an elected term is 4-5 years, how can any democratic party in any country make strategic decisions that's won't come into play for 20, 50, even 100 years that put their country at a disadvantage immediately?
They'd get voted out.
Climate was big news before the crash. It rarely gets more than a passing mention now.
You made a reasonable post so I will address it reasonably. You don't seem to understand the scientific process very well. In an area like this, all you can do is learn and try and understand. What scientists are trying to say is like this:
"We know for sure that CO2 makes the planet warm. We are emitting a lot of CO2 nowadays, so we want to figure out if this is going to cause a problem. We've done a shitload of research and we think it IS going to cause a problem."
No-one's claiming to know what WILL happen. This is all just a best guess. But it makes no sense to ignore what they say just because they MIGHT be wrong. Not when it's this important.
Climate scientists know that the earth has been colder and warmer throughout history. But they are saying that given our current world, a rapid change would cause a lot of problems, and we should try and avoid them.
I'll not pretend to have read all this however I have a feeling the first few pages give a reasonable feel for the debate.
Ultimately what we think is fairly irrelevant, none of the major political parties has much of a difference in policy and are very unlikely to make it an election issue so we as voters will have little say. It we are worried we can do a small amount to cut consumption - but that generally goes along nicely with financial prudence in a time of constraint anyway - and is at the margins.
Ultimately, even if the UK govt did suddenly decide to go all out for reducing greenhouse gas production, what it could do would be limited without dragging a big chunk of the developed world (at least EU) along or risk becoming uncompetitive. Not likely on back of biggest economic collapse for 80years. ... and exporting manufacturing production to China and SE Asia then kicking off about their growth in CO2 does not count.
My view is that hope lies in technology - ultimately fossil fuels will become increasingly more expensive as easy sources are exhausted and considerations of energy security kick in. I'm hoping there will be a step (or series of step changes) in nonCO2 producing energy that will allow much increased supply at reduced cost. There are big economic incentives in doing this and being first, so fingers crossed that will drive change.
No amount of half arsed policy or hand wringing will make any difference. Economics or nothing will drive change
Ironically, even being optimistic this is going to take no short amount of time, so we will have, I suspect, decades of data on increasing levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and climate data to argue over.
For what it's worth I think man-made climate change is a reality, we do not know the speed or impact yet, but potential is big so action is prudent
Ps doing this on my phone so sorry for poor typing, but can't be bothered with faff of editing
[url= http://www.chasingice.com/ ]Go this this[/url].
Whatever you think of causes, it seems pretty apparent that [b]something's[/b] happening.
Well I'm not sure 'could' is a very scientific word (but I'm not very bright either to be fair.) Proven Science needs to use a word like 'will' and then there is less debate (within the boundaries of beyond reasonable doubt.)
If you smoke we dont know for certain you will get cancer but we know you could - is that proper science?
Science rarely uses will as it deals in a language based on statistical anaylysis to a degree of certainty typically 0.05. most of the problems of perception are that lay people expect absolute certainty and science rarely speak like this. Some people have fallen from planes and lived so would you say you die if you do this or that you are very likely to die?
This whole debate is based on lot's of Scientific theory but very little proven Science (very difficult to prove something that generally takes thousands and thousands of years when you only have 50 years of limited knowledge and poor data.)
The greenhouse effect has been know for well over a century. What you mean is we dont know the effect of realising more beyond saying it gets warmer. There is some merit in saying we cannot say exactly what will happen- exact sea level rise, exact temp rise, "weather events etc.
If we treble the number of smokers we cannot say exactly what will happen beyond saying more will get cancer. we cannot say what age, what countries etc just the braod outline and a prediction. FWIW this is more recent science than greenhouse gases.
The last 50 years has the best data as thousands of years ago we need proxy measures as we did not have a worldwide grid of temperature sensors including ones in space- you criticise the best data.
The scientists keep uncovering more and more info and it all points towards their assumed theories being correct
Science generates data, data generates theories. Science did not "predict" AGM we observed it from the data.
but they are and have been unable to prove these theories leaving huge black holes in their Science. (Science needs facts,data and working models not consensus and assumptions)
I would rather not take a science lecture from you and what black holes?
You want will cause but you dont want a consensus? How does that work then?
Any scientist would know there is rarely a consensus and when there is - such as smoking causing cancer - it not a critique to point this out. There is a consensus on the world being round as well - is that bad? Poor argument as consensus means most experts think this lay person is wrong and you use this to attack them - Interesting tactic though ill advised
The IPCC cannot explain the last 15 year stalling without using another unproven assumed science.
Its partly an artefact from the 1998 el nino year being the warmest in history and the upward trend is still there. How many of those years were in the top 15 of all time?
Its true to say the models did not predict this but we could get a hiatus in cancer from smoking or results that did not mirror prediction but it would not make the basic science false only incomplete , which no one denies.
If a Scientist tells me a Solar eclipse is going to happen tomorrow and it doesn't I'm going to question his theory
It's more like it did not last quite as long as predicted though rather than it did not happen so a poor analogy
I think the problem here is in some respect the report would be better saying climate is changing because of C02 and the likely effect are combinations of raised sea levels, sever weather events etc. Then you would just complain it was vague though.
To some degree we are making assumptions as we are predicting the future and that is quite hard when we have no control and no prior "experiment " with the globe and C02. it remains the case it stores radiation and it is a greenhouse gas. I have yet to hear a creditable scientific theory as to why stored energy wont raise temperature- do you have one as robust as you are demanding of the IPCC?
(If we behave like good boys and girls we will go to Heaven. Sound familiar!)
Yes it sounds like a lazy straw man to suggest that the IPCC is somehow like the fiction of religion. Why not present your certain science that proves its all BS - you have none hence we get this as a "science" debate.
Whatever one's views, isn't the most striking thing about this latest IPCC report seems to be the lack/downgraded coverage given in the media? Given the importance of the conclusions reached and the exhaustive efforts to reach consensus/accuracy, I would have expected more front page and more enduring analysis etc. Even the cynics haven't bothered that hard this time.
I've been a Climate Change Officer for 10 years and if there's one thing I've learnt it's that Jeremy Clarkeson is a tosser.
There's peer-reviewed consensus by a large body of scientific experts working over a long period of time and then there's subjective opinion and vested interests.
The fact that the insurance industry gets it should be enough.
I've been a Climate Change Officer for 10 years and if there's one thing I've learnt it's that Jeremy Clarkeson is a tosser.
I'm fairly sure that you don't need professional qualifications to come to that conclusion.
Even the cynics haven't bothered that hard this time.
there is little new though and you either follow the evidence and believe or you deny it and attack.
I dont think anyone will change their view as one is factual and based on a sound understanding of the science/subject. The other is lay people sniping.
I know where i place my "faith".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.htmlThe true scientific method is founded on empirical observation. When a theory – whether embedded in a computer program or not – produces predictions that are falsified by subsequent observation, then the theory, and the computer models which enshrine it, have to be rethought.Not for the IPCC, however, which has sought to obscure this fundamental issue by claiming that, whereas in 2007 it was 90 per cent sure that most of the (very slight) global warming recorded since the Fifties was due to man-made carbon emissions, it is now 95 per cent sure.
This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists.
Hear hear
This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists.
You're going to need a reference better than the torygraph for that assertion to stick.
You keep believing. Keep the faith. Because that's all it is - climate deniers have about as much credibility as religion. The only reasons they think otherwise are 1) the media's obsession with balancing an unbalanced argument, and 2) the huge amount of money spent to cloud the issue by those who would, in the short term, be disadvantaged by legislation to attempt to mitigate GHG emissions. These are nice organisations such as the oil giants, big coal companies, etc. Lovely people to side with I'm sure.
I'm hesitant to take scientific advice from Nigel Lawson, as he still thinks economics is a science.
What's ridiculous about the deniers' stance is their supposed motives. They claim that governments just want to raise lots of money from us poor fools (how dare they? But that's another debate obv since tac money gets spent on us but never mind), but it would actually be far more profitable for governments to ignore the whole thing, since sustainable economic growth is far harder to achieve than non.
Suppressing AGW science would be a far more plausible conspiracy.
Wow people are actually still arguing the denier line? FFS. 🙄
You can't fool everyone
[img] 
[/img]
Hear hear
one is factual and based on a sound understanding of the science/subject. The other is lay people sniping.
you do realise which side of the divide Lawson sits?
In passing, it is worth observing that what these so-called green groups, and far too many of the commentators who follow them, wrongly describe as 'pollution’ is, in fact, the ultimate in green: namely, carbon dioxide – a colourless and odourless gas, which promotes plant life and vegetation of all kinds; indeed, they could not survive without it. It is an established scientific fact that, over the past 20 years, the earth has become greener, largely thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
FFS he must have been smoking some green what an idiot.
Perhaps we should give him it a 100% dose - that would be a pretty green move as that's one less oxygen thief to worry about 😈
And just out of interest, 6079smithw, what do you do for a living?
The reason I'm interested is that presumably there'll be some website or media I can read on the topic and immediately become an expert on it, or at least more of an expert than you. Because that is, in effect, what your argument is based upon.
You're the one believing and keeping the faith in the scaremongering nonsense and hockey sticks, proven to false - and criminally so with the Climategate scandal.zokes - Member
You keep believing. Keep the faith. Because that's all it is - climate deniers have about as much credibility as religion. The only reasons they think otherwise are 1) the media's obsession with balancing an unbalanced argument, and 2) the huge amount of money spent to cloud the issue by those who would, in the short term, be disadvantaged by legislation to attempt to mitigate GHG emissions. These are nice organisations such as the oil giants, big coal companies, etc. Lovely people to side with I'm sure.
You continuing to be a worshipper of authority is like taking sides with the likes of the BBC (proven paedophile protectors) and other propaganda outlets with a penchant for eugenics. They're not a nice bunch so you should reconsider.
1) The media is not interested in balanced arguments. Especially on this issue. Wow, how have you not even noticed this? When have you ever seen Fiona Bruce or whoever go "and now to xxyy for the argument that the IPCC are biased fraudsters"???
2) All that seems to happen are attempts to strangle poor people.
When they introduce a tax on breathing, I hope you'll be happy with yourself.
lol, you can mind your own business.zokes - Member
And just out of interest, 6079smithw, what do you do for a living?
You continuing to be a worshipper of authority is like taking sides with the likes of the BBC (proven paedophile protectors) and other propaganda outlets with a penchant for eugenics. They're not a nice bunch so you should reconsider.
Just came in for an idle browse but PMSL at that one 🙂 I'd wager Zokes is more of an ABC man in reality.
I'm happy to stick with the science and the fact that the overwhelming majority of those working in the field of climate change - ie scientists who are studying it are on board with the general trend that something is happening.
There is an attempt for media to need to balance out stories the issue is there are so few credible ones it's hard not to get a nutter. (I will also take a small leap that Zokes watched this 🙂
Anyway enough of the science as this debate is mostly fueled by the anecdotal evidence that is going around.
We are seeing more and more extreme weather events each year, most would be described as 1 in 100 or 1000 year events but they are happening year on year.
Burning Oil is the single most stupid thing we can do with it. The resource that it is can be used to create an amazing range of chemicals and products and produce way more than we currently do.
Burning oil/coal produces CO2 if you don't reckon that is bad then the other stuff that comes out is, it caused a huge amount of death and illness over history and the likes of India & China are repeating the history of the west. It will leave another generation crippled.
The first people to be impacted will not be people in their cosy homes in the UK it will be people on low lying islands in the pacific, but thats ok because they are poor and have no good PR department.
Even if the arguments still don't grab your attention there is a sensible economic basis for moving from a carbon based economy as the resource is becoming scarce. What happens when there is not enough oil output to go round, who gets invaded next?
#Edit - Process Improvement Consultant by day, with an interest in what is going on in the world.
I'd wager Zokes is more of an ABC man in reality.
Y' think? 😉
Though soccer before sex (SBS) can also be a good watch.
The media is not interested in balanced arguments. Especially on this issue.
It tries to be (it shouldn't), but there cannot be a balance when the evidence for one argument is so strong, and the evidence for another is so weak. As someone else has said, it would be like having a discussion about the dangers of smoking and giving equal weight to both the medical profession and tobacco companies' views.
All that seems to happen are attempts to strangle poor people.
Well, I suppose it makes a change to starving and drowning them, which is what you're advocating. If ever there was a more unintentionally ironic post on this topic I'd like to see it.
lol, you can mind your own business.
If that's your level of argument, then please butt out of mine. Trust me, you are not the expert in climate science you seem to think you are (at least by inference, since you're claiming to know more than many other, highly qualified and respected people). Climate science, and more the impact of a changing climate on our ability to sustainably produce food and for ecosystems to function [i]is[/i] my business, and a topic I do happen to know a considerable amount about. I'd wager you don't quite have that level of experience in this topic.
So, to ensure balance, I was just wondering what you did, then I could become an armchair 'expert' in it and tell you that you're doing it all wrong. This is, in effect, what you're doing to me.
In case you didn't read it, the BBC were saying how the ice caps could be non-existent by 2013.
Well seeing as they can't ever get the weather forecast right I doubt i'll believe there polar ice cap forecast!
You're the one believing and keeping the faith in the scaremongering nonsense and hockey sticks*, proven to false - and criminally so with the Climategate scandal**.
That is either a lie or wrong depending on whether you are just ignorant or deceitful.
Amazingly that was the most rational part of your post which was frankly all over the place, illogical, emotive and utter BS.
We wont be having a data based science chat will we 🙄
*
An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.
Different proxy measures using say coral has also seen the same pattern - FFS no one is actually debating that it is getting warmer though some seem to clutch at straws as to what the "real" cause may be
**
Liar liar bums on fire - I hop i pitched that response at the right level for you.Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15]
The BBC were not saying that there would be no ice caps by 2013. They said that some science done by some scientists suggested there might not be.
Northwind - Member
..he still thinks economics is a science.
Out of interest, does anyone apply for this...
http://www.postgraduate.hw.ac.uk/sml/economics/
or would that be a waste of money and effort? 😉
We offer a range of awardwinning courses and departments, some of which have "science" in the title and some of which don't 😉
Lucky we've got an environment secretary that's taking the science of global warming seriously.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/30/owen-paterson-minister-climate-change-advantages
http://www.skepticalscience.com/paterson-on-climate.html
Not read the whole thread but I'm guessing this graph has already made an appearance?
[img] 
[/img]
Im just glad the debate was over in 2007
Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer.
😯
have we slain all the zombies yet?
Out of interest, does anyone apply for this...http://www.postgraduate.hw.ac.uk/sml/economics/
or would that be a waste of money and effort?
Mate you can do a BSc/MSc in Chirpractaring in Bournemouth...that doesn't make Chiropractoring a science
Gwaelod, it's a bit more of an in joke!
[url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24299-ipcc-digested-just-leave-the-fossil-fuels-underground.html#.UkvGshZAijM ]New Scientist article[/url]
Hundreds of thousands of words will be written about the latest report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here, in 10 words, is [b]the bottom line: we have to leave most fossil fuels in the ground. It really is that simple.[/b]
In view of this, I presume that a large number of posters to this thread will immediately be getting rid of their cars and reliance on fossil fuel powered electricity.
If they don't, how can we believe anything they say? 🙂
Here, in 10 words, is the bottom line: [b]we have to leave most fossil fuels in the ground. It really is that simple.[/b]
The political reality in 4 words: [b]not going to happen.[/b]
The political reality in 4 words: not going to happen.
The environmental reality, in three words: [b]It has to[/b]
In view of this, I presume that a large number of posters to this thread will immediately be getting rid of their cars and reliance on fossil fuel powered electricity. If they don't, how can we believe anything they say?
Well, I cycle to work, and my wife uses public transport. Our energy bills regularly demonstrate that we as a couple are using less than half the energy the average single occupancy unit does in our area. South Australia (where I live) now produces over 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, and this is steadily growing. And, if we owned, rather than rented, we'd have a PV array on the roof too.
Oh, and most of our food is local too.
I suspect that leaves me somewhat above the average.
yep. local food where possible, solar hot water, lower energy bills than a smaller household, 1 car, trying to do more.
If we all decide the problem is too big and give up then nothing would have be done, with that attitude we would not have put man on the moon, have a permanent presence in space, have crossed the oceans or many of the feats that we now take for granted.
The environmental reality, in three words: It has to
Of course it doesn't. Easter Island is a good example.
Of course it doesn't. Easter Island is a good example.
Care to expand?
Really? A quick summary. Humans changed the environment because of their lifestyle. The environment didn't get a say in it. The local population was all but wiped out as a consequence.
The is no environmental reality. There's only politics.
The is no environmental reality. There's only politics.
Yeah, I'm all right Jack.
That's fine on a global scale for a small island. It's less fine on a global scale when it's global. Ultimately environmental reality beats political reality. Whether this is an adverse or a positive outcome is very much related to how soon the political reality realises it's number 2.
zokes - MemberI suspect that leaves me somewhat above the average.
really?
there are about 7billion people alive today, most of them don't have the same material wealth/level of consumption that you/we enjoy.
it's nice to think that one is a good person, part of the solution, but if one is reading this, in a comfy chair, with a variety of electrical appliances within an arms reach, a short walk away from a kitchen stocked with food and hot+cold clean running water, then one is probably in possession of more than one's fair share.
Yeah, I'm all right Jack.
No, that would be personal opinion. Not politics.
That's fine on a global scale for a small island. It's less fine on a global scale when it's global. Ultimately environmental reality beats political reality. Whether this is an adverse or a positive outcome is very much related to how soon the political reality realises it's number 2.
That makes it more difficult. There is no strategic advantage to adopting the policies needed to reduce climate change for any country. The opposite in fact.
Short of a single totalitarian world government I can't see how it would be possible to do anything meaningful.
No, that would be personal opinion. Not politics.
It is the attitude of the self serving politicians who could effect changes. Now stop trying to manufacture an argument for the sake of it. You knew what I meant.