[Closed] 'No such thing as climate change'

You know, zulu, you were going really well, up until:

without the sense of moral panic caused by 'climate alarmism'?

Pity, the rest of what you wrote makes perfect sense

'If'

What's the worst scenario- were all the waters that presently ice become water, how high would sea level be and who's taking a dip?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

zokes - Member

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

to a certain degree...

but, i 'inherited' my grandads diesel fiesta, it was [i]old[/i] ten years ago.

70mpg was easy. It wasn't even *that* slow - i can only guess that it weighed less than a shopping trolley.

perhaps it might be just as accurate to say that modern cars have fuel economies that no-one gave a hoot about 10-15 years ago.

To be fair, diesel Fiestas weren't popular 20 years ago, but they are now. Safe to say that there are many more actual cars on the road that are currently doing 70mpg.

Is it just me or is the interactive map not very interactive?

What's the worst scenario- were all the waters that presently ice become water, how high would sea level be and who's taking a dip?

Is it just me or is the interactive map not very interactive?

Saw enough to work out theres going to be less land, combine that with much of the remaining land being un-inhabitible and a growing population, suggest our kids better learn to share and not expect much in the way of a garden.

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

this

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

Yep. And why one of the science journals websites no longer has a readers forum. There is a limit to the value of going back and forth in a way that cannot lead to any resolution.

OP. Don't be afraid of Climate change. It is 100% natural and a beautiful thing.

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

Not really, I can happily get 65mpg from my 2000 pug diesel estate on a run. That's about what friends get from their similarly sized diesels of today. Some of the extremes have changed, I'll give you that, but there are not many outliers. There have been no massive advances since commonrails were introduced ~15 years ago, only a handful of smaller lighter cars which naturally win on that front.

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

Not exactly something to use to ignore the issues though. We could have an asteroid impact next month and kill us all, why not let anarchy rule? 🙂

I refer to Neil Armstrong, who has said that his and his two fellow Astronauts lives were entirely dependant upon knowing what every switch and button did on their space craft.

He realised, as they were returning to Earth, that our colourful and radiant planet and it's Astronaut's, was no different. "Until we know and understand the buttons and switches, we are likely to hit the wrong one's" (Or words to that effect).

As for the flood's - that's why rivers have flood plains and then we decide to build or farm them. Larger, more economical fields also produce more run-off with no tree's or hedgerow's to slow the run off.

IanW - Member
What's the worst scenario- were all the waters that presently ice become water, how high would sea level be and who's taking a dip?

Have a walk around the wonderful Fife coastline - the raised beaches and other features illustrated just how much higher the sea has been (in geog terms not that long ago) and where the old coastlines have been. Many inhabited areas today would be 10-45 meters underwater not that long ago.

Of course there is climate change. Our climate changes ALL THE TIME.

Ever been in the Peaks? It used to be all ice. Loads of places were under water etc etc. Its happening all the time, everywhere.

What next? The Tories say we need new green taxes?

The storms are coming from SOMEWHERE ELSE. Its like monkeynomics, scare the populace with terrorism and we are ****ing up the weather whilst they hide their crass incompetence.

The flooding is not just a result of climate change, in fact I bet in reality its a very small part of it. I reckon the flooding is more to do with, and in no particular order:

Building houses where you shouldnt (maybe only 1 in 100 year events, but it still happens)

Our obsession with turning everything to a man made substances that doesnt hold water ie roads, buildings, carparks, housing estates

Digging up trees to make way for agricultural land.

All that has way more effect than climate change.

Anyhow wasnt the last climate change forecast that we are in fact heading for a mini ice age?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Channel_floods,_1607

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.

Posted 5 hours ago #

There's a simple fix to this.

Ban the sale of goods produced in China or India. 😈 However, I gusess they would then limit our access to rare earth materials further.

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.

Well to me the magnitude and rate of change from around 1910-1940 looks similar to the change between between 1980 and 2000 which started the man-made warming panic. Despite vastly higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

I can remember when scientists were predicting global cooling back in the 1970s when the global temp had been going down for a few years.

[img] [/img]

Is man affecting the climate? Of course. The debate is how much compared to natural variation. I'd say that natural variation is more important hence the stable temperatures for the last 15 years.

I'd also say that there is a problem with our climate models as they have a poor record at predicting future temps. In 1990 the IPCC predicted future temps for 3 scenarios, best guess, high emissions, and low emissions. Nearly a quarter of a century later how have they done?

[img] [/img]

Maybe we don't need to worry that much and adaption to cope with slow climate change (however caused) is a better way to spend money than far more expensive CO2 reduction.

Well to me the magnitude and rate of change from around 1910-1940 looks similar to the change between between 1980 and 2000 which started the man-made warming panic. Despite vastly higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

I can remember when scientists were predicting global cooling back in the 1970s when the global temp had been going down for a few years.

Because the industrial revoloution totally started in 1980....

This is why you aren't a scientist and why most people aren't scientists - because most people are utterly incompetent at forming logical conclusions from data.

I can remember when scientists were predicting global cooling back in the 1970s when the global temp had been going down for a few years.

Wrong! They weren't, a few papers did. This was blown out of proportion by the media.

Is man affecting the climate? Of course. The debate is how much compared to natural variation. I'd say that natural variation is more important hence the stable temperatures for the last 15 years.

I'd also say that there is a problem with our climate models as they have a poor record at predicting future temps. In 1990 the IPCC predicted future temps for 3 scenarios, best guess, high emissions, and low emissions. Nearly a quarter of a century later how have they done?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829114.500-climate-modellers-vindicated-as-forecast-comes-true.html

[img] [/img]

Easy to cherry-pick a graph to support a point, but worth looking for more information

[url= https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-1.html ]https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-1.html[/url]

[img] [/img]

Well to me the magnitude and rate of change from around 1910-1940 looks similar to the change between between 1980 and 2000 which started the man-made warming panic.

What a shame that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists disagree with your laymans view - I feel ceetain this wont deter you
Despite vastly higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

I can remember when scientists were predicting global cooling back in the 1970s when the global temp had been going down for a few years.*

The debate is how much compared to natural variation. I'd say that natural variation is more important hence the stable temperatures for the last 15 years.

Calling the last 15 years - what is it 12 of the 15 hottest years ever recorded after an el nino record year stable is an interesting spin

I'd also say that there is a problem with our climate models as they have a poor record at predicting future temps. In 1990 the IPCC predicted future temps for 3 scenarios, best guess, high emissions, and low emissions. Nearly a quarter of a century later how have they done?

This is true if i took 100 million people worldwide and got them all to smoke cigarettes my model of who gets cancer, what date, when, what type etc would also be rather poor/ inaccurate
However smoking still causes cancer and we can still make a broadly accurate picture of what will happen in both scenarios. Models are poor we all know this but the science remains robust and this fact does not disprove the science,

* My mates sons said this to me- I pointed out he was not borne until 1995 but he still remembers it - how old are you BTW to remember this?

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 find it quite amusing that there are people who still believe that around 7bn of us on the planet with all our activities aren't doing anything to the climate, and further, find it equally perplexing that people are still willing to advocate no action be taken because of possible economic consequences, perhaps they should view the economic consequences in the same light they view the Climate change...It might never happen?

The view is simple: Economic and climate issues can no longer be viewed as mutually exclusive. Those who deny are simply greedy capitalists who view climate change as a means to block their appropriation of more wealth to the detriment of everyone else.

]

What a shame that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists disagree with your laymans view - I feel ceetain this wont deter you
Despite vastly higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

Junkyard....Global warming, also known as Climate Change, is a STUPID theory by a bunch of tree-hugging liberal hippies that states unless we go back and live in caves, the polar ice caps will melt and life as we know it will cease to exist. This theory comes from a bunch of idiotic scientists who really have no clue what they're talking about...after all, they're only scientists, who ever wants to listen to them? I mean sure, I admit they were right about the world being round...and the planets going around the sun... and lightning being caused by opposite charges between the earth and the sky, not Zeus...and worms and rats not appearing out of nowhere...and stars being balls of gas burning millions of miles away, not holes in heaven...and the brain being the center of the nervous system, not the heart...and lead poisoning being able to kill you...and cigarettes being bad for you, and everything else ever discovered or invented, but still! They're wrong!

They're all a bunch of liberal crackpots who have a political agenda, so who wants to listen to them? It is almost exclusively believed by left wing bleeding-heart Democrats who are influenced by rich environmental lobby groups and opposed to the economy and anyone with a job. One of these bleeding heart socialist Democrats, Al Gore, has made a propaganda video regarding global warming entitled An Inconvenient Truth which uses heartless fear-mongering, and all kinds of heartless, cruel, un-American facts in an attempt to get people to consume less and sabotage the American economy, culminating in Ford going out of business, which will mean that the terrorists will win. Republicans/Ukip would never use this type of fear mongering for political gain, never! So stop criticizing us, after all, you don't want the terrorists to come get you, right? These global warming people are the same tree hugging hippies that said DDT was bad for the environment back in the 70s and 80s!

[img] [/img]

And there gentlemen is why I advocate that right-wing crackpots should be eliminated to save the rest of us.

unkyard....Global warming, also known as Climate Change, is a STUPID theory by a bunch of tree-hugging liberal hippies that states unless we go back and live in caves, the polar ice caps will melt and life as we know it will cease to exist

I did not read after that point as its obvious you are a bit "emotional" on this issue and its some way short of a factual/rational debate

I did not read after that point as its obvious you are a bit "emotional" on this issue and its some way short of a factual/rational debate

oh dear
😯

I thought it was genius.

I dont know I literally dipped in for one minute and replied - i have not really read the thread

I guess 😳

I assumed it was a piss take and

These global warming people are the same tree hugging hippies that said DDT was bad for the environment back in the 70s and 80s!

would confirm it

Junkyard - lazarus
I dont know I literally dipped in for one minute and replied - i have not really read the thread

I guess

Another entry in the log book of 'JY not reading threads' 🙂

Ban the sale of goods produced in China or India. However, I gusess they would then limit our access to rare earth materials further.

Two easy to read books I recommend if you are just getting into this and are an AGW sceptic:

WaterMellons by James Dellingpole
Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway

Neither contain any real science but cover many of the usual topics that get thrown up when these sorts of threads appear.

Dellingpole 😆

If only they could present their views in the moderate way you do

I did not read after that point as its obvious you are a bit "emotional" on this issue and its some way short of a factual/rational debate

Sea levels are actually rising because the USA is sinking under the immense weight of 300 million fat people.

Look...correlation.

[img] [/img] [img] [/img]

The decrease in the number of pirates has also been cited by these stupid, tree-hugging hippies as proof that humans are irreversibly raping our planet. This does not mean anything though, as temperatures have been known to be bouncing around constantly and reached record highs since the hottest period of mankind, the Ice Age. Of course, these "bouncings" were all minor and had natural causes, but so does this! I'll get back to you later about what the natural cause is, but I assure you that there is one! Humans aren't the cause of global warming! They also aren't the cause of deforestation, or pollution of any kind! I read in the Daily Mail that pollution is actually good and we should actually make more of it! So there's nothing to worry about!

Even if global warming is true, which it probably isn't, the Bible clearly states that we can not put animals and the environment ahead of human beings. Bleeding heart left wing socialist flag-burning hippies claim that global warming will have a profound impact on Earth. Some even say that Slough will be underwater, but why would anyone not want that to happen? It'll make a great place to take a submarine! Some other bleeding heart socialist child-burning tree huggers insist that the melting polar ice caps will permit tropical diseases to thrive. But who cares? We need less people on Earth anyway! There is some evidence that fanatics across Britain may be jumping on the environmental bandwagon, but our brave leader "Call me Dave" is helping to put an end to that by branding any environmental issue as "Green Crap".

Neither contain any real science

😆 Dellingpole 😆

Don't worry CO2 is naturally occurring and only makes up 3% of the atmosphere.

So nothing to see here.

Jesus Saves

In response to Nurse's question as to whether he(delingpole) had read any peer-reviewed papers, he maintained that as a journalist "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but be "an interpreter of interpretations".

mystic meg

And there gentlemen is why I advocate that right-wing crackpots should be eliminated to save the rest of us.

[img] [/img]

I'm enjoying this thread.

Loving the Michele Bachmann non-science there.

"Hey it's natural and it's only 3% so it can't possibly do any harm"

Really, okay, can you drink this glass of water please?
3% of it is naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide...

That's the trouble with the [i]non-man-made[/i] argument - the genuine intelligent criticisms and arguments get drowned out by the nutters.
And it is too easy to lump them all together - which would be a mistake.

I love these threads 🙂

My mates sons said this to me- I pointed out he was not borne until 1995 but he still remembers it - how old are you BTW to remember this?

I was old enough to vote in 1979 is that old enough to remember the 70s? Here's some of the stuff that was in the news in the 70s

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near

LMFAO. 2 scientists! Great!

That link doesn't reference any peer reviewed journal articles, it wasn't science that was wrong. It was the media.

Let's see what Time thinks.

. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

Read more: TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake | TIME.com http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/#ixzz2t2NFoL2U

[img] [/img]

Here's a question: why does it matter to us that we make the world nicer for future generations?

I'm not saying we don't care about our nearest and dearest, but what about the distant future generations that you have no emotional attachment to?

Not trolling, just wondering why there is such worry placed on the future by a species that, for the most part, lives for themselves in the present or the immediate future.

Usual STW lefty liberal/green vs common sense thread.
Keeps it going guys. 🙂

Putting nasty gases into the air can't be good.
Cutting down all the forests can't be good.
Wasting resources can't be good.

Surely everyone agrees on that so the man-made vs natural argument is almost moot. 😕

Usual STW lefty liberal/green vs [b]common sense[/b] thread.

Common sense is the ability of commoners to "sense" what is true and what is untrue, without having to think about it.

Here's a question: why does it matter to us that we make the world nicer for future generations

Here's a question: why does it matter to us that we make the world nicer for future generations?

I'm not saying we don't care about our nearest and dearest, but what about the distant future generations that you have no emotional attachment to?

How many generations down your own "nearest and dearest" line do you get before you don't care any more?

I'd like my kids to have a decent future.

I'd like my grandkids to have a decent future.

I probably won't meet my great-grandkids, but my kids probably will so, yeah, I'd like them to have a decent future too.

Those three generations could cover the next ~90-120 years (assuming nice middle-class kids that follow my example and don't breed till they are in their mid-30s).

Yes, but after that and after that?
Does anyone honestly care about life on earth after they and the people they know and care about are dead?

It seems to go against the current secular, nihilistic way most of us see our place in the universe.

I would think 120 years would do it at the current rates 😀

It seems to go against the current secular, nihilistic way most of us see our place in the universe.

I may decide that I'm never going back to a particular hotel - but it doesn't mean I'll shit in the pool before I leave. 😀

. Yes, but after that and after that?
Does anyone honestly care about life on earth after they and the people they know and care about are dead?

It seems to go against the current secular, nihilistic way most of us see our place in the universe.

Good post, I don't give a f*** about the planet when I'm dead. Future generations will adapt to their environment, as they have always done. Sorry, Guardian readers if you have difficulty understanding this concept! 🙂

Yes, Dellingpole. He did a great job pulling all the usual sceptic agw claims into a book which then goes on to say that the science behind passive smoking is weak, and that DDT should never have been banned and Carson is responsible for thousands of Malaria related deaths.

Pretty much every argument he makes is what you see on threads like this and each one is demolished in the second book recommended.

Do you see what I did there, I gave people a couple of easy to read books that can help people understand the nature of these debates and the all usual crap that gets spouted.

It seems to go against the current secular, nihilistic way most of us see our place in the universe.

That is both insulting and pessimistic!

Secularism is not a perjorative; relying on unchanging, old, religious views of the world will not help move us on to any future, never mind any bright, hopeful, optimistic one.

If you want to be nihilistic, be my guest, but I'll be dancing on the event horizon.

If you want to be nihilistic, be my guest, but I'll be dancing on the event horizon.

Interesting perspective there and great image in my head now! 😀

😀

It would be good to be still debating religion and belief in another 2000 years.

Good post, I don't give a f about the planet when I'm dead. Future generations will adapt to their environment, as they have always done. Sorry, Guardian readers if you have difficulty understanding this concept!

By the same notion, why give a f about millions dying of poverty and disease right now? Not me I'm fine. If anything I'm better off because they are dying. Genocide in a foreign country? Dictator murdering civilians? Who cares, I don't know anyone there. etc etc

If you are happy with that attitude to life then fair play to you.

I'm just disappointed that all the hot air on this thread hasn't been added to my 'Global Warming update' thread. I clearly missed a trick not resurrecting it for the current climes! 🙁

I think the big question is to ask who believes in Climate Stability? 🙂

Dellingpole is hilarious.

i particularly love the way he can swing effortlessly from

a) the climate hasn't changed since 1997*
and
b) the climate changes all the time - we've got nothing to do with it.
and
c) no-one's arguing that humans aren't affecting the climate, but it's only a tiny amount.
and
d) d'y'know why David Cameron isn't popular with the electorate? - he's just too damn liberal.

(*which is a) bollocks and b) shite science even if it were true**, why is it always 1997? never 1995, or 1999?)

(**which it isn't, not even nearly)

GrahamS - Member
By the same notion, why give a f*** about millions dying of poverty and disease right now? Not me I'm fine. If anything I'm better off because they are dying. Genocide in a foreign country? Dictator murdering civilians? Who cares, I don't know anyone there. etc etc

If you are happy with that attitude to life then fair play to you.

Unless we are devoting our lives and efforts 100% to addressing all of these issues eg. working directly to alleviate poverty/disease, protecting the vulnerable from their oppressors etc, than are we not all guilty of "that attitude to life", albeit to different extents? Step forward those who want to cast the first stone......

Unless we are devoting our lives and efforts 100% to addressing all of these issues eg. working directly to alleviate poverty/disease, protecting the vulnerable from their oppressors etc, than are we not all guilty of "that attitude to life", albeit to different extents? Step forward those who want to cast the first stone......

Fallacy, you cannot devote 100 percent of your life to addressing all of these issues. You can probably spend 15 percent of your life addressing one issue, that does not mean that you cannot care about the other problems.

You're guilty of intellectual laziness.

On a side note, oldboys train of thought is a symptom of psychopathy.

Of course not, but equally we should be less willing to condemn others. Most of us feel concern about matters but are equally happy to relegate them well below our more immediate concerns. Hell, we even waste time on forums instead of doing something tangible about them.

We go for rides on bikes instead of helping others, we could all so more, but we chose other priorities. Attitudes towards AGW are a prime example of this conflict every day. I am as guilty as the next guy....

I am as guilty as the next guy....

Guilty of what...?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/192930-was-wetter-in-southern-england/

😈

On a side note, oldboys train of thought is a symptom of psychopathy

I just don't like seeing wonderful things destroyed.

The military industrial banking complex have free energy technology hidden away so even if AGW were real it's their fault anyway for being such total psychopaths

are we not all guilty of "that attitude to life", albeit to different extents?

Absolutely!

But the "different extents" is the key bit. No one can devote themselves 100% to addressing all these causes all the time. They'd be dead from stress within a week! But I think caring [i]a bit[/i], weak as that may be, is far preferable to wasting our hands and deciding not to care at all because it's just not our problem.

I agree Graham, but at the end of the day, our actions speak louder than words

Tom_W1987

That link doesn't reference any peer reviewed journal articles, it wasn't science that was wrong. It was the media.

Well the media were quoting scientists. Like Prof Hubert Lamb of the University of East Anglia. Who is Sept 1972 said "the last 20 years of this century will be progressively colder"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ASRHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u_MMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1081,1308250

Of course he later changed his mind as per his wiki entry.

". At first his view was that global cooling would lead within 10,000 years to a future ice age and he was known as “the ice man”, but over a period including the UK's exceptional drought and heat wave of 1975–76 he changed to predicting that global warming could have serious effects within a century"

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

I agree Graham, but at the end of the day, our actions speak louder than words

I never thought I'd say this, but Bwaaarrrraaarrraaarrraaapppp, I like your work 😈

Doesn't it just.

climate sceptics' biggest problem is that dellingpole has emerged as their spokesperson

The military industrial banking complex have free energy technology hidden away

Y'know I really don't think they do. But please do offer us some conclusive YouTube based evidence 😀

I agree Graham, but at the end of the day, our actions speak louder than words

Yep. So if those actions are to support green measures, do a bit of recycling, think a bit about how to minimise our carbon, energy use and waste, avoid certain products and only [i]ever[/i] buy the free range organic hummus ?

Those things aren't enough on their own. But that doesn't make them invalid.

And, for me, weak as they are, they are a far better choice than the "f*** it! it's not my problem is it?" approach suggested above.

Perfectly summed up Graham.

We get energy and water bills that compare us to the average 1-4 person households. When things were going right our energy bill was lower than the 1 person average.

Simple thins make a small difference, if everyone does them it makes a big difference.
Solar hot water, panels, small scale turbines etc. will all help to reduce demand on carbon based energy.
When it's time to change your car not going for the one that does 25mpg because anything else just doesn't drive "proper"

The bottom line is money is going to be the biggest influence on change. Look at the supermarkets that now have their fridge sections behind doors, yep they can claim green credentials but they did it to save money. Next time people want to complain about energy prices try reducing use.

Next time people want to complain about energy prices try reducing use.

I suggested this on one of the endless borefests that is arguing about the carbon tax on the ABC's facebook pages.

I was met with genuine bafflement about how that could be done, despite most having huge houses with no insulation, and air-con set to 20....

We get energy and water bills that compare us to the average 1-4 person households. When things were going right our energy bill was lower than the 1 person average

You may as well spend all your money on oil and set fire to it.