[Closed] 'No such thing as climate change'

It sometimes seems that:

Weather = any weather we are happy with

Climate change = [s]the earth warming up[/s] / [s]getting colder[/s] / [s]cold winters[/s] / [s]dry springs[/s] / [s]wet summers[/s] / [s]dry summers[/s] / wet winters / *

* E and OE, answers subject to change at a moments notice

cranberry are you saying that climate change is just the latest in a long line of moany horse poop, a bit like the millennium bug (remember that?!!)

Climate change is just like the boogie man, Bigfoot and Santa, just something made up to scare children

A common question in A level geography exams - Discuss the relative importance of physical and human factors in causing flooding

We continue to remove vegetation, restrict river channels and increase the area of impermeable surfaces. This, along with the increased energy in the atmosphere brought by human induced acceleration of global warming guaratees that flooding will continue to increase and governments need to take 'managed retreat' seriously. The expansion of the warming oceans raises sea levels faster than melting ice - another less well understood fact.

Climate change is just like the boogie man, Bigfoot and Santa, just something made up to scare children

and me! 😉 I have to admit I'm starting to feel a bit 'edgy' about he whole thing. Am I being a bit daft? My logic goes like this: Scientists know more about this stuff than me. The overwelming concensus of scientific opinion is that things are going waaay wrong and we are doing far too little about it. Therefore shermer75 gets all 'the end is nigh!' and 'run for the hills' on the internet. Hmmmmm....

We should have been taking it seriously decades ago, even just solely on the grounds of improving sustainability.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-11/adelaide-sets-summer-record-for-extreme-heat/5252482

Nothing to see here

The climate [i]never[/i] stops changing.

The climate never stops changing.

We are just hurrying it along

The climate never stops changing.

ah the eric pickles approach, "we take [s]man made[/s] climate change seriously".

No we're not Piggie. I read it in the Telegraph.

And confusing 'weather' with 'climate'

It's not that long since the Thames used to freeze up every winter and there was a 'mini ice age' a few hundred years ago. In Saxon times the British climate was closer to that of Southern France. It happens.

We may hear a lot more about it, now that the Londoners are starting to be affected!

Climate change denial is just a made up comfort blanket for the hard of thinking.

The climate never stops changing

If you go to Orkney there are the remains of a 4500 yr old settlement. Now it seems to be widely agreed that the climate in that region at that time was a lot warmer and generally much more pleasant.

So what caused the change? It was hardly the greenhouse gas emissions of neolithic man was it?

We may hear a lot more about it, now that the Londoners are starting to be affected!

The Somerset floods have been headlines for a couple of weeks!

Datchet isn't really London either. Geography fail!

Meanwhile in Canada we're digging up thousands of square KM's of bitumen laced sand and using vast quantities of natural gas, via fracking, to 'upgrade' the tarsands bitumen to ship to China for deregulated burning of the stuff.

However, even if the worlds largest energy project was shelved tomorrow it would make little difference. The climate is already in runaway mode.

It needs a celebrity endorsed 'i believe in Climate Change' ad campaign. Clooney, Chris Martin, Paltrow et al all holding hands emotionally declaring 'we believe in Climate Change'. If that doesn't get even the most hardened cynic on side, nothing will.

Oh dear god are people really still debating this?

Yes the climate changes naturally but the scientific consensus is that man is contributing significantly to it - which is the best informed view available at the moment.

[img] [/img]

I am fully aware of where London is Mr Winston.

The news yesterday was plastered with reports of the Thames flooding, perhaps you missed it?

It's all black magic and witch craft. Mother earth will do what she wants.

Now, flooding - well that's all our fault but not due to greenhouse gases and all that other scare mongering.

Over years a river will silt up
Over years a river will try and get wider
A river usually is protected by flood plains, nice big bits of grassy goodness to soak up and regulate the water flow.

Restrict the width, concrete over the grassy goodness and still let the silt build up - you get a problem. It's not difficult!

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/bollocks-is-britains-first-language-2013013158149 ]we talk bollocks[/url]

The news yesterday was plastered with reports of the Thames flooding, perhaps you missed it?

Ahh, the longest river in England that starts in Gloucestershire.

great summing up Grum, but still if you can go 0-60 in 4s who cares.
When you look at the future wouldn't it be good to be the ones who didn't need carbon fuel first....

I am fully aware of where London is Mr Winston.

The news yesterday was plastered with reports of the Thames flooding, perhaps you missed it?

You might know where London is but you obviously don't know the path of the Thames.

Grum - maybe change that bubble to "what if it is just a big hoax and we tie ourselves up in pointless regulation, destroy all our industry and export all of our jobs to china for nothing?"

My point was not the path of the Thames but how the media go into more of a frenzy when it affects London directly.

I have canoed quit a bit of the Thames on my side if the country.

Grum sums it up well, there is enough evidence to say that man is causing the climate to change beyond natural variability and the rate of change is faster than ever before. The counter argument seems to be to say 'no it's not'.

Skeptical Science has a credible section on climate change evidence and myths, worth a read before posting up that it's the sun or volcanos - [url= http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ]http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/url]

Grum - maybe change that bubble to "what if it is just a big hoax and we tie ourselves up in pointless regulation, destroy all our industry and export all of our jobs to china for nothing?"

I'm not sure there's any signal strong enough to get people doing something different, just doesn't appear to be in our nature.

I like Birmingham!

but how the media go into more of a frenzy when it affects London directly.

It hasn't affected London directly.

I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks there's "no such thing as climate change." The argument is as to whether it's man-made. Far as I can gather, the climate's changing anyway, but we're making it worse rather than trying hard enough to mitigate it.

Climates (and weather) change constantly
Seas erode and deposit constantly (ditto rivers, glaciers etc)
The coastline changes - rises and falls over time

Man's activities are one of a host of factors that affect the above
We can (and have over time) attempted to manage this process
We have only be partially successful

Nothing really new in any of this.......

My brother is a soil scientist and does some work in the field. He's a bit sick of the bandwagon as he feels the debate is about the wrong questions giving the worng answers. So in trying to be "better" we end up making things "worse".

Examples might be where for environmental reasons we penalise the running of old cars when it makes more sense to maximise the life of them. Or where manufacturing moves out of one country because of environmental rules, only to have the polution created in a less enlightened country and then extra transport involved in transporting goods to market.

Examples might be where for environmental reasons we penalise the running of old cars when it makes more sense to maximise the life of them.

Mars.... now that's climate change 🙂

He's a bit sick of the bandwagon as he feels the debate is about the wrong questions giving the worng answers. So in trying to be "better" we end up making things "worse".

Not much new in any of this either old bloke! 😉

Climate change couldn't have been much fun for the Broze Age farmers on Dartmoor, and I doubt they cared too much why it happened.

These "theres always been climate change so get used to it" arguments are a smug rich westerners point of view. We've got lots of money, so it won't affect us will it?

Well if your half million pound house in Staines is about to go under it will affect you.

Just less so than if you were a subsistence farmer in Bangladesh.

cranberry are you saying that climate change is just the latest in a long line of moany horse poop, a bit like the millennium bug (remember that?!!)

What? That WAS a problem, but WE FIXED IT which is why there wasn't a problem in the end. Had we done nothing there would certainly have been a problem. Unlike climate change we were able to test with certainty if a system would be affected by putting its clock forward and testing it. And we did, and they crashed, so we sorted it. Absolutley gigantic top quality logic fail in assuming that because nothing went wrong there was no problem in the first place!

Anyway.. yes the climate has changed a lot in the past, on its own. How many people died because of it? Do you even know? How many should die with this current climate swing, caused by our pollution?

There is a consensus beyond science on the impact of man on climate. Pretty much every international organistion (UN, IMF, World Bank, OECD etc etc) accept the reality. Governments pretty much understand and accept this but have to live within a 4/5 year election window so have to be cautious. So the odd Pickles nonsense keeps the sceptics onside. Also, without international cooperation significant progress will be hard. That said, China is pushing v hard on green tech unilaterally, partially because of market demand and partially because of immediate pollution issues locally.

It is true that (a) weather happens, (b) climate changes over time naturally - but neither of these are arguments against manmade impact. Equally, we will not be able to assess the degree to which manmade impact has driven climate change until years more data. However, the evidence is very strong and consequences are very serious, failing to take action is foolhardy in my opinion.

My brother is a soil scientist and does some work in the field.

Well, he would.

That WAS a problem, but WE FIXED IT which is why there wasn't a problem in the end.

Well said. That sort of ignorant comment makes me quite cross. The reason the Millennium Bug was a non-event was because a lot of people worked bloody hard to ensure that it wasn't. Whilst most other folk were off partying I saw in the Millennium new year in an otherwise deserted office in the arse end of Warrinton. We should be lauding the Millenium Bug as a massive achievement, it's a great success story.

Visibility is a big issue in IT. If you've got a good IT department no-one notices, if you've got a shit one [i]everyone[/i] notices. You know how you get to the end of the day and everything's worked all day? You're welcome.

In the strange and pointless mixing of science with political leaning, people on on both 'sides' are missing the point.

Yes, the climate will change anyway, nothing we can do about that, the Earth in the long run will be fine. It's just that Humans are rather nicely adapted to how it is at the moment. We won't ruin the planet, we'll ruin the planet for us.

People seem to forget this.

The debate isn't whether climate change is real or not*, but whether it is man made or not and the current floods prove nothing**

*The Earths climate is constantly changing (ice ages as a prime example) and this is fairly well documented and pretty much all scientists agree!

**Although if the religious nutters are right the floods may indicate a much higher homosexual population than I expected in somerset!!

What? That WAS a problem, but WE FIXED IT which is why there wasn't a problem in the end. Had we done nothing there would certainly have been a problem.

Well said. That sort of ignorant comment makes me quite cross. The reason the Millennium Bug was a non-event was because a lot of people worked bloody hard to ensure that it wasn't. Whilst most other folk were off partying I saw in the Millennium new year in an otherwise deserted office in the arse end of Warrinton. We should be lauding the Millenium Bug as a massive achievement, it's a great success story.

Nope. Countries that spent almost nothing on the Y2K bug suffered no more problems than the countries that spent a fortune.

Eg Russia spent a fraction of the money the US did and didn't suffer any consequences.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/jan/09/y2k.observerbusiness

Cougar +1. If you are brilliant and solve a difficult problem easily, everyone assumes it was easy. If you make a meal of it and have to put in loads of hours and get loads of other people involved, you get congratulated on your hard work.

Countries that spent almost nothing on the Y2K bug suffered no more problems than the countries that spent a fortune.

Am I the only one who can see some massive flaws in that argument?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-11/adelaide-sets-summer-record-for-extreme-heat/5252482

Mike, tell me about it..... 😕

As for the debate as to whether it's real or not.... Well, there is no sensible debate. Climate change, and the influence of humans upon it is about as well as established as the fact that the planet is round and that gravity stops you from floating off it. If you think otherwise, then please float the **** off what I presume you think is a flat earth, made in seven days, by a magical bloke with a beard.

And frankly, wgaf if it's humans or not, the fact is that it is changing, and adapting to do something about it rather than arguing about it like we've several other earths to go to would be a bloody good idea.

Am I the only one who can see some massive flaws in that argument?

Go on then...

The mini ice age that led to the Thames freezing can be traced to a single short term event. As can many other historical fluctuations. The new factor is that instead of a volcano or meteor strike pumping tons of junk into the atmosphere which then falls to earth over a few tens of years we are now continuously pumping into the at an increasing rate so causing climate change that is more gradual but has no end unless and untilled we stop. The dificulty is that There is believed to be a tipping point at which the climate c hange will become self fueling .

The countries that didn't spend much - why didn't they spend much?

A site we developed a few years ago caused loads of problems "downstream". It was a big commercial park and was sold with "free flow" into a brook across the road. Cue several 100k sq ft of development and the ea stuck their boot in albeit too late. All development on site now has to have water attenuation.

molgrips - if you want to make a point, how about you make a point - perhaps after reading the article I posted a link to.

You say there are massive flaws - point them out, rather than asking endless trolly 'devil's advocate' questions.

I imagine you're suggesting those countries didn't have many computers - Russia and Italy had plenty of computers.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2881/was-all-that-money-spent-on-y2k-wasted

The climate is changing and man must be adding to it.

However, I fell like we are being conned by buying into some of the crap that gets sold to us as green.

Hybrid cars - How can lugging around a load of batteries that are heavy and expensive be "green"?

Offshore wind - Utter nonsense.

Car scrapping scheme - Scrap working machines to buy brand new ones that are slightly more efficient.

There are plenty more examples.

There's a lot of 'greenwashing' certainly winston_dog - I'm interested to know why offshore wind farms are utter nonsense? Can't say I've seen much evidence in support or against.

i thought the car scrappage was more about improving air quality
https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clearing-londons-air/air-pollution-and-public-health

(and boosting the uk car market)

pictonroad - Member
Yes, the climate will change anyway, nothing we can do about that, the Earth in the long run will be fine. It's just that Humans are rather nicely adapted to how it is at the moment. We won't ruin the planet, we'll ruin the planet for us.

People seem to forget this.

Wise words. Unfortunately, they do not suit our (the human race's) over-riding sense of self-importance and arrogance. If human beings fail to feel responsible and/or in control they begin to feel insignificant and impotent in the world in which they live. Recent events merely highlight all too clearly how real both factors are - not surprisingly it is the politicians who struggle with this reality more than most.

We are marginal players and passive responders to the current flooding. Nothing new there.

Offshore wind takes huge quantities of steel, concrete, carbon fibre, oil, ships and manpower to build. It is doubtful that the vast majority will be carbon neutral at the end of their working lives.

At the heart of the problem, apart from their construction, is you are putting a complex electro mechanical system a few metres above the North Sea and expecting to be reliable. EG There are numerous gearbox failures which are incredibly expensive and resource hungry to fix. Even a simple problem that would require one man in a van to fix onshore, requires several people and a boat to fix.

Human activity has raised atmospheric CO2 from around 280ppm to around 400ppm. The effect of this hasn't settled down yet.

(this Earth's climate has a HUGE amount of lag)

the change in global climate over the last few decades can be measured, but it's not always obvious - and often easy to ignore. life as i/we know it can continue largely unaffected with the current 'amount' of climate change.

and the opening up of shipping lanes through the arctic will prove very handy if you're interested in that kind of thing.

the threat of man-made climate change deserves to be taken seriously because we just don't know what will happen after we've raised atmospheric CO2 to 500ppm, and then 600, and then 700, and eventually over 1000 - which is going to happen.

we can have a go at predicting what will happen, and it looks catastrophic.

The weather certainly keeps you on your toes. But half an hour ago it was peeing it down and I was worried about flooding behind our house, yet now the car is completely covered in snow. At lunchtime I'll be out sun-bathing 😆

Hybrid cars - How can lugging around a load of batteries that are heavy and expensive be "green"?

The batteries don't actually weigh that much. And the cars overall generally weigh less. But yes of course there is a lot of greenwashing which certainly causes more harm than good because people start to get cynical. If people paid attention to science then that wouldn't be an issue of course 🙁

Grum - maybe a lot of money was spent in places where it wasn't needed - but that doesn't mean none needed to be spent. Maybe the countries who spent less were just more efficient?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox[/url]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Ooh! can I play too?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation[/url]

ahwiles - Member

(this Earth's climate has a HUGE amount of lag)

and of course, there's a difference between lag, and settling time.

and now i'm arguing with myself, so i'm out.

Hybrid cars - How can lugging around a load of batteries that are heavy and expensive be "green"?

Car scrapping scheme - Scrap working machines to buy brand new ones that are slightly more efficient.

We won't ruin the planet, we'll ruin the planet for us.

Ecosystems cope well with change but not the rate of change that is occurring because of human activity, so it think that statement is a little too human-centric. Read the State of Nature report from last year to see how UK nature is already being affected.

load of old bollocks, not driving a car quite so much would be better

Of course, but the two aren't exclusive. You can drive a hybrid car less too. But you are right, most private car journeys are needless, really.

I thought it was already well established that there is no credible argument to this whole global warming thing. I think we all know who to blame for the floods…..

[img] [/img]

[url= http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7-new-climate-hubs-help-rural-areas-adapt ]Even the yanks seem to have worked it out...[/url]

Nope. Countries that spent almost nothing on the Y2K bug suffered no more problems than the countries that spent a fortune.

Eg Russia spent a fraction of the money the US did and didn't suffer any consequences.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/jan/09/y2k.observerbusiness

The article states that Russia started to deal with it much later and spent much of their money on consultation fees.
Presumably that meant little R&D expenditure was needed as they we're able to take advantage of the work done and knowledge gained elsewhere.

It also says they just trained operators to ignore the glitches rather than fixing them, which is a very cheap solution!

I don't deny that the reaction over here was possibly out of proportion but that doesn't mean it was a total waste of time, money and effort.

Of course, but the two aren't exclusive

*early technology presumably will get a lot better, my cynical side does wonder whether they will get incrementally better so they can sell you 10% better then 3 years later 15% then 3 years later 20% etc etc ie intentionally slowing the improvements to fit in with new models for more sales.

A good article on why people like myself are fed up to the back teeth of these non-debates with deniers

http://theconversation.com/dont-let-denial-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-science-story-22496?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+4+February+2014&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+4+February+2014+CID_eae12123dd4c0baf12e08a50

We need to reduce our overall consumption on everything not just cars.

Everything we have now is bigger and more powerful. Look around a modern house and there is just loads of stuff that wasn't there 30 years ago. Look at how big things like fridges are, wifi routers on all the time, numerous "boxes" in your living room when you used to have 2 max.

"Back in the day" a car with 130hp was considered powerful, a XR3i only had 105hp and that was considered fast, it did only weigh about a tonne though. A current Foucs ST has 220hp and weighs nearly 1.5t. It probably has similar fuel consumption as well.

Everything we have now is bigger and more powerful. Look around a modern house and there is just loads of stuff that wasn't there 30 years ago. Look at how big things like fridges are, wifi routers on all the time, numerous "boxes" in your living room when you used to have 2 max.

All this is true, but a lot of it is far far more energy efficient. Fridges and TVs in particular...

"Back in the day" a car with 130hp was considered powerful, a XR3i only had 105hp and that was considered fast, it did only weigh about a tonne though. A current Foucs ST has 220hp and weighs nearly 1.5t. It probably has similar fuel consumption as well.

But, the vast majority of modern cars have fuel economies that were unthinkable 10-15 years ago

But, the vast majority of modern cars have fuel economies that were unthinkable 10-15 years ago

True. But why not combine it with lighter and smaller vehicles and get more benefit?

Cars are just getting bigger all the time, take a current BMW 5 series, it is the size of a 7 series of only a few years ago. Also, have you noticed how tight old 60's and 70's multi storey car parks are for modern cars?

But why not combine it with lighter and smaller vehicles and get more benefit?

Whilst not true in all cases, increased safety. The Golf GTI is a perfect example of this.

However, I fell like we are being conned by buying into some of the crap that gets sold to us as green.

A lot of what is happening has nothing to do with alleviating climate change and everything to do with business as usual, consumerism.

Tell people the solution is not to drive and **** that it is Chinas fault!!!!! Tell people the solution is a shiny new car and yippee!!!
Boeing tells us their new planes are more fuel efficient, but they still use shed loads, so what is the more environmentally friendly? Drive a car at 55 or 80, which uses more fuel for a journey? so which makes more sense, so do we hear about reducing the speed limit for those reasons, or just to increase capacity so we can drive more!

Hear politicians say we have reduced co2 cleaned up industry, watch them explain we haven't really reduced it just off shored it to China.

Mind you one decent volcano going pop and everything will change.

windfarms definitely have some benefits

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26135345

True. But why not combine it with lighter and smaller vehicles and get more benefit?

They do. You can buy a small car that does 70 or even 80 mpg nowadays, AND has 4 or 5 star safety.

The fundamental problem we have is that pollution is linked to consumption, and our entire economic model is based on consumption. So we either need to figure out how to grow the economy based on things that don't need to be physically made, or we need to find out how to make them without raping the planet.

It's not easy. And we're all complicit in this.

Maybe if it turns out the world isn't warming up as quickly as the models previously claimed it was - then we should refocus the erection of wind turbines and solar panels etc. on places like India and Africa, where they would begin to transform peoples lives immediately?

We could then concentrate on phasing out and replacing our currently perfectly serviceable fossil fuel facilities more gradually, without the sense of moral panic caused by 'climate alarmism'?