Another Heated Debate - Climate Change, Reality Or Propaganda?

[walshawwhippet]

Have the manners to explain what was incorrect with my comments. To say "This is the biggest load of tosh i've read in a long time." is a crude statement, to which I would suggest is unworthy of you.

Comment on whether ice in parts of Antartica are growing.

Comment on my point that it is sea ice that is predominantly melting.

Comment on my point that Ocean temperatures are rising and explain the proof that CO2 emissions are causing this.

Comment on my statement that the Earths temperature has not risen in the last 15 years.

Comment on my point that the Experts on climate change do not all agree on the causes.

You dont need to comment on my gut feelings as they are personal to me.

Did I suggest that the Global scientific community are involved in a conspiracy? Well did I? I suggested they are cherry picking data to prop their personal beliefs, this happens all the time with 'scientific experts' If we took what they said without question we would all have been wiped out by SARS, Bird Flu, AIDS, BSE etc, the Millenium Bug would have wrought disaster on humanity.

I welcome a constructive reply but dont bother if it's another rant.

Ice thickening in antarctica:- As the temperature rises this leads to more precipitation, because the average temp of continental antarctica is way below freezing this falls as snow, so you are correct more ice. But as a direct effect of rising temps not falling temps. The same cannot be said about the ice shelves though, thay are diminishing rapidly, some on the brink of collapse. Read the antartic ice survey readings if you don't believe me. This is a result of rising sea temps. So what is causing this?

Your third point:- I have never claimed that rising sea temps were down to co2 emmissions. Rising sea temps are largly down to the albido effect. Less ice means a darker surface area means more heat is trapped by the sea which leads to less sea ice. Again the question is why was the ice melting in the first place? Rising global temps maybe ?

Point four:- I'll come to cherry picking later. You have to look at the bigger picture. Global average temps have risen by more than a degree since 1900, and the rate of that increase has doubled in the last fifty yrs. Again i suggest reading the nasa site, i keep refering to the nasa site bacause they are funded by the US government the most climate sceptic government there is. If they're worried perhaps you should be.

Point five:- Of course they don't, but the consensus is that humans and our use of fossil fuels is a major contributary factor. I will refer you to my post to Snelly, and the cancer scenario. Make your own mind up.

Your final paragraph:- Cherry picking ? Now thats rich. On every post i've asked you to look at the evidence, evidence based sometimes on thousands of yrs of data, not what happened last week or 1998. How many times have i said you need to look at the bigger picture? Climate change is a global not localised.
As for the conspiracy charge perhaps that was a little strong and for that i appologise. But if you refuse to believe the over-whelming scientific consensus that we are currently experiencing a largly man-made climate change, then what do you think they're upto?
Not a rant i hope, but i was typing loudly :mmm:

 

[walshawwhippet]

I replied twice to this post with a reasoned reply but both have not been posted. Can someone explain why?

I have replied Socket but i to am being modded. Perhaps they think a bit passionate debate might brake out:rofl:

 

[SocketRocket]

I have replied Socket but i to am being modded. Perhaps they think a bit passionate debate might brake out:rofl:

Seems like we are on the naughty step.

 

[walshawwhippet]

Seems like we are on the naughty step.

now its appeared and makes my last post look like i'am hallucinating.

 

[ScienceBoy]

We have been on a temperature rise now as a planet for many thousands of years, yes there have been periods of cooler and periods of warmer local and world average temperatures.

We cannot dismiss that this is happening, it is part of a cycle that extends beyond time we can barely compare to our brief time on this planet. Yet it is clear that the last handful of generations, going back to the industrial era up to now, we have contributed to a slight acceleration of the change.

The icecaps would have reduced, precipitation would have increased and CO2 levels would have risen if us as a species had been here or not, that is part of a cycle we cannot interrupted, just affect slightly.

Rather than discussing the facts of things we cannot control we SHOULD be addressing and debating methods of how to undo our acceleration and even look at ways to make this planet hospitable for many generations to come. That would be a far better use of our scientists time for us alive now and the grandchildren of those we are raising now.

If we do not act then we may just be creating, in a few million years of course, a haven for plants, and not even useful food plants, just another era where the strongest survive and evolution will return this world to a state of equilibrium.

In the short term we will probably just bring global food shortages and a wave of pandemic diseases as we overcrowd this earth and consume its resources.

Actions now, even the smallest such as saving electricity, gas and water can make a huge difference. Nothing is going to happen in an instant, the inevitable future will creep up on us and take us unawares in an unpredictable number of generations. I firmly believe we are living in the most influential period of our species and decisions we make over the next few generations could shape the future and make or break out next million years.

 

[walshawwhippet]

We have been on a temperature rise now as a planet for many thousands of years, yes there have been periods of cooler and periods of warmer local and world average temperatures.

We cannot dismiss that this is happening, it is part of a cycle that extends beyond time we can barely compare to our brief time on this planet. Yet it is clear that the last handful of generations, going back to the industrial era up to now, we have contributed to a slight acceleration of the change.

The icecaps would have reduced, precipitation would have increased and CO2 levels would have risen if us as a species had been here or not, that is part of a cycle we cannot interrupted, just affect slightly.

Rather than discussing the facts of things we cannot control we SHOULD be addressing and debating methods of how to undo our acceleration and even look at ways to make this planet hospitable for many generations to come. That would be a far better use of our scientists time for us alive now and the grandchildren of those we are raising now.

If we do not act then we may just be creating, in a few million years of course, a haven for plants, and not even useful food plants, just another era where the strongest survive and evolution will return this world to a state of equilibrium.

In the short term we will probably just bring global food shortages and a wave of pandemic diseases as we overcrowd this earth and consume its resources.

Actions now, even the smallest such as saving electricity, gas and water can make a huge difference. Nothing is going to happen in an instant, the inevitable future will creep up on us and take us unawares in an unpredictable number of generations. I firmly believe we are living in the most influential period of our species and decisions we make over the next few generations could shape the future and make or break out next million years.

Whilst i largly agree with your statement SB there are a few things that i might add.
Inaction isn't down to the scientists, but down to the politicians. Politicians who need the financial support of big business. If certain measures are going to effect the profit margins of these businesses then they're going to cry foul and turn to the ramblings of nutters like james delingpole. The knack is to engage with these people and show them money can be made by being green as well. Lets face it SB unless there's money to be made then the corporations that really matter aren't going to be interested.

Of course your right about the worlds natural cycles of warming and cooling, but what worries me is the 20%+ rise in co2 levels over the last 60 yrs. This rise is unprecedented over the last 650k yrs. I don't really believe in coincidences SB something has changed to affect this change. That change i believe is the industrialisation of our planet and the massive consumption of fossil fuels.
As a planet we can't continue to stick our heads in the sand like some frightened ostrich. We need to wake up and remove the sleep from our eyes. Unfortunatly thats going to be made much harder whilst deniers like delingpole get totally inproportionate column space commenting on a subject they know nowt about, (indeed are unwilling to converse with the very scientists who do)
because they are worried action may cost them a few bob.

 

[mikevet]

I accept that climate change exists, but cannot accept the concept of man-made global warming as thrown at us by the media - neither can a whole heap of highly credible scientists. One of the best books I've read, which gives a very reasoned view, is 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton. Yes. it's a novel, but it is extremely well researched and a huge chunk of the book is given over to references that are relevant. It certainly makes me seriously consider the possibility that we are being influenced by corporations and governments that have a vested interest in scaring the pants off us so that they can pursue their agenda.

 

[ScienceBoy]

I accept that climate change exists, but cannot accept the concept of man-made global warming as thrown at us by the media -

We have contributed a little in a short space of time but you are right, nowhere near as much as the scaremongering media might want us to think.

However scaring us straight might be the only way to influence some people into conserving what needs to be conserved for the benefit of future genrations, I am not talking our kids but more like the great grandchildren of your kids!

 

[walshawwhippet]

We have contributed a little in a short space of time but you are right, nowhere near as much as the scaremongering media might want us to think.

However scaring us straight might be the only way to influence some people into conserving what needs to be conserved for the benefit of future genrations, I am not talking our kids but more like the great grandchildren of your kids!

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 yrs is attributable to human activities".

This statement was released by the IPCC (the intergovernmental panel on climate change). It is interesting to note that No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting position to this statement. The last dissenting voice to this statement was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who revised their opinion tp non committal in 2007.

These are not "scaremongering" media types SB. These are bodies made up of the worlds leading scientists on the subject.
No journalists, no ecconomists and certainly no authors of popular fiction were involved in the drafting of this statement.

 

[Snelly]

To paraphrase someone you may have heard of Snelly(Sir Paul Nurse) lets talk about "consensus".
If, god forbid you are one day diagnosed to be suffering from cancer and the general consensus of the worlds leading oncologists is that this or that is the best regumine to achieve a favouable outcome. Do you (A) take their advice, trusting in their expertise, or (B) lie under a pyramid hoping for the best? After all, all scientist are left wing loonies intent on ruining my profit margins.
It may not be all the scientific community Snelly, but its certainly the major CONSENSUS.

For those interested search bbc horizon for paul nurse/james delingpole.
I believe mr delingpole complained to the bbc later for being "intellectually raped" by mr nurse. Interesting phrase "intellectually raped".

Mr Delingpole is an ultra right wing libitarian concervative with absolutly no scientific qualification of any kind, who has managed to find an audience of like minded right wingers who read the telegraph.
"There is simply no evidence for a left wing conspiracy to over-tax, over regulate the populace to make us all poorer.Whereas there is an abundance of evidence for a right wing agenda to under tax, under regulate industry, to make a few much richer.

The only people really interested in baubles and dollors Snelly, are Mr Delingpole and his accolites.

You're a watermelon too.

 

[tarmac]

whether its 'global warming' or 'climate change' it doesnt matter,what i think most of us agrees is that finding 'greener' ways of powering our world is not a bad thing.yes stop burning fossil fuels and cutting down rainforests if it helps and find alternatives.

what i know is that the earth has been around for a while now and its not likely to dissapear in the near future so instead of forcing unreliable and useless wind farms,dim light bulbs and endless endless taxes on us to pay for it.why not take sum time and develop sum technoligy that works and is cost efective and will keep the lights on,then introdce it and then when we see it works we can pay for it.

its like this'we're all in it together recession' we're workin an suffering to an end that no-one can tell us when it ends,when is all the oil an gas running out? 20yrs,50yrs,100yrs,1000yrs? when ?tell us give us a figure 1000yrs not one of us is gonna give two hoots!!

once we get a time scale,work to a deadline and introduce effective and cost efficient procedures that will slow or halt the implied damage we are doing .as there is still not enough proof that we are doing the damage and this is not just natural .

god a wish i had the brains to make this speel more cohesive!!!

 

[walshawwhippet]

You're a watermelon too.

If that makes me the antithesis of everything that James Delingpole stands for, then thats probably the nicest thing that anyone has said to me in a long time. Thank you Snelly, thats made my day :thup:

 

[Mr_T]

There are quite a few misconceptions around climate change, it is a natural process, as is the greenhouse effect, there are many long term causes of climate change such as sun spots and the milankovitch theory which cause periods of differing climates such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

The problem lies in the enhanced greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is something that earth requires, but human activity has intensified the process so that more CO2 is being trapped than is normal, so governments trying to cut emissions is not a ploy to get more money out the taxpayer (I accept it's difficult to see sometimes what they're doing with the money) but we are trying to cut back and slow down the increasing rate at which the greenhouse effect is taking place at the moment. The animal kingdom can adapt to change, but they struggle to adapt to change that is happening at a much faster rate than would normally happen, hence the problems faced by animals such as the polar bear.

I would say most of the people on this forum will not really ever feel any significant impacts this in their lifetime, but I worry for my children and grandchildren as I feel that not enough will be done and that too big a problem will be left to them.

To simply say that nothing is happening or that there is no problem is very naive.

 

[ScienceBoy]

These are not "scaremongering" media types SB. These are bodies made up of the worlds leading scientists on the subject.
No journalists, no ecconomists and certainly no authors of popular fiction were involved in the drafting of this statement.

I was thinking more along the lines of the "day after tomorrow" crowd, we could carry on as we are and things wont be noticeably different from now in our lifetime or maybe our kids lifetime BUT think a few generations on...

Strong statements are required but there is a line between mass panic inducing headlines and the truth that if we are not careful, the problem is going to creep up on us.

 

[walshawwhippet]

I was thinking more along the lines of the "day after tomorrow" crowd, we could carry on as we are and things wont be noticeably different from now in our lifetime or maybe our kids lifetime BUT think a few generations on...

Strong statements are required but there is a line between mass panic inducing headlines and the truth that if we are not careful, the problem is going to creep up on us.

We appear to be working towards a consensus SB.
There is nothing more dangerous than an evangelist/fundamentalist when it comes to constructive debate.
On the left you have the "day after tomorrow" crowd, who look at the evidence, note the worst case scenario and double it, because the research was funded by either government or private buisness so there must be a hidden agenda not to panic the populace and big buisness. Where as on the right you get people like Mr Delingpole who completly ignore the evidence, apart from the bits they think will help their agendas, because the research was funded by government/ private corporations whose aim is to supress private enterprise, regulate biusness over tax the wealthy and in worse case scenario bring about the downfall of western civilisation. Both extremes equally dangerous to constructive debate and/or effective action.

You are a professional scientist SB, were as i am only a recent graduate, thanks to the educational marvel that is the OU, but we have both been taught to use the scientific method. It is when this method brakes down/ignored that we tend to get these polarizing views. All i ask SB is that people look at the evidence from reputable scientific bodies/journals like nature. the new scientist, usgs/bgs, the ipcc, nasa etc.. and look at the big picture, not the attention grabbing headlines in the populist media.

As you state the chances are changes to our climate in our lifetimes may be negligable, but we are both aware of the concept of tipping points, and lets hold our hands up here, science does'nt really know when these will be reached. As a generation we have an obligation to future generations to slow down this inexorable rise towards these tipping points, because once they are reached there is no going back.
I can't speak for you SB or any other poster on this thread, but if my paying a few quid extra a week in "green" taxes help to make my grand/greatgrand childrens futures more secure then i'am all for it. Of course we can't be sure these extra taxes will go to were they're needed, but that is whole other thread.

 

[ScienceBoy]

I can't speak for you SB or any other poster on this thread, but if my paying a few quid extra a week in "green" taxes help to make my grand/greatgrand childrens futures more secure then i'am all for it.

I am definitely in this boat!

I never claim to be right on things, us scientists rarely are! We usually look at the evidence in front of us and conclude what we can (if anything. I am always happy to be proven wrong but I do hate to see people strung along by over hyped things, it happens so often that a paper says something, the media immediately take it as the truth and suddenly its set in stone. The fact is most of the time the scientist would accept being proven wrong if they are presented with the evidence.

My degree being heavily lent towards the study of the environment, Ok it is more about pollution than climate, means I am fairly aware of what is going on. I do admit I never read the attention grabbing headline stories, instead looking at established theory.

I must admit I am probably now at least 5 years out of date on climate issues as I have been focussing on my work but I agree with what you have said.

 

[tallpaul]

When I studies climatology, it was all about the enhanced greenhouse effect. We were taught that the key to long-term harmony was sustainable development. At some point after that, it all became a lot of jingoistic dogma and the message was lost. Largely due to a complete misrepresentation by the media and the subsequent (willful?) failure of successive governments to do anything to address the publics misconception over anything to do with the 'environment'.

 

[walshawwhippet]

Thank you SB, coming from you sir that means a lot. :thup:
You are right of course, the concept of being proved wrong, being just as important as being proved correct, is often alien to most people.
As for headlines: "the climate may warm by 2 - 5 c over the next century" isn't going to sell many newspapers. Where as "Scientists predict 5c rise across the globe in the near future" will. So annoying and completly unhelpfull.

 

[ScienceBoy]

As for headlines: "the climate may warm by 2 - 5 c over the next century" isn't going to sell many newspapers. Where as "Scientists predict 5c rise across the globe in the near future" will. So annoying and completly unhelpfull.

It almost instils the "its too late anyway" mentality, which is not true. The shock effect will make some act and others not. We have had an impact and we can work to reduce/reverse it. Sadly efforts in recycling are hindered by profitability but we do live in a world driven by money.

I do think little bits do add up, if everyone contributed a little bit each day over their lifetime then we could make a big difference down the line, not for our generation but for our species! One off big hits are not the answer, its a wholesale change over a long period of time.

And BTW, my approval doesnt mean much, I am out of date on the issues really, its just a module or two from university, A level in geography and a couple of bits of reading around when I was younger. A proper climatologist or student could do a FAR better job.

 

[walshawwhippet]

It almost instils the "its too late anyway" mentality, which is not true. The shock effect will make some act and others not. We have had an impact and we can work to reduce/reverse it. Sadly efforts in recycling are hindered by profitability but we do live in a world driven by money.

I do think little bits do add up, if everyone contributed a little bit each day over their lifetime then we could make a big difference down the line, not for our generation but for our species! One off big hits are not the answer, its a wholesale change over a long period of time.

And BTW, my approval doesnt mean much, I am out of date on the issues really, its just a module or two from university, A level in geography and a couple of bits of reading around when I was younger. A proper climatologist or student could do a FAR better job.

Hey i'll take whatever general agreement is out there. After all the the counter view is a reference to my apparant likeness to the citrullus lanatus.
I do think there's hope though SB. Remember what happened to atmospheric lead levels? One simple change to unleaded petrol and the levels nose dived.
Of course our climate is a much more complicated issue, but it shows what can be achieved when we accept there's a problem, and we work together to fix it.