Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

for the record, i am no Green Freak - i drive a pretty quick and high emissions car, i commute long distances to work, i take foreign holidays, i love motorsport, but i try to be careful and i'm happy to try and offset my emissions if possible and support "green" initiatives.

if it all turns out to be a crock then i'm happy to look foolish, whilst at least having made an effort to save some energy/resources, which is still useful regardless of the motive. however, if it is proved that the science is right, and that we are at least partially reposnsible for a phenomenon that will play havoc with many highly populated and relatively poor areas of the globe that are already lving on the edge of marginally hospitable climates, then i don't wan to think i couldn't be arsed, or chose to belive it was all a conspiracy - i've got a daughter who i want to have a decent life, if making a few sacrifices helps then great, if they don't, then no great loss.

---

I should maybe add to what I've been saying that while I may become a bit vehement on this topic, I wouldn't class myself as being a 'green freak' either. Some people seem to relish the fact that global warming gives us the excuse to bash X or Y, and some, I would say, are martyrs to being green. I'm not. I also believe that a balanced approach to tackling environmental problems is necessary, because people are not suddenly going to stop flying, or wanting goods delivered to them the day after ordering them, and so on.

Furthermore, I believe that saving energy and being environmentally aware is a very good thing under any circumstances.

i'm glad there are two sides to the scientific community on this one, it only pushes them harder to get closer to reality with their predictions.

there are always things that are proved wrong, to jump on thallidomide and MMR vaccines is no more than a knee jerk, "science can be wrong, so science is bad". you might have easily picked penicillin and telescopes, but they wouldn't have fitted. but science came up with them so i put my faith in the guys who sday global warming is happening and is contributed to by man made carbon emissions! ;)

would you rather be happy living in a dark cave, happy in the knowledge that the world is flat, that you need to pray for a new sun to come up and that your newborn has just died from measles? :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

i'm glad there are two sides to the scientific community on this one, it only pushes them harder to get closer to reality with their predictions.

there are always things that are proved wrong, to jump on thallidomide and MMR vaccines is no more than a knee jerk, "science can be wrong, so science is bad". you might have easily picked penicillin and telescopes, but they wouldn't have fitted. but science came up with them so i put my faith in the guys who sday global warming is happening and is contributed to by man made carbon emissions! ;)

would you rather be happy living in a dark cave, happy in the knowledge that the world is flat, that you need to pray for a new sun to come up and that your newborn has just died from measles? :p :

---

She's not dead. She's sleepin' :p

Facinating debate this time around (the last time this topic hit the board, it got a little heated), with some new voices, for which I appreciate.

Here is a few things that I think should be added. Whenever the supporters of Global Warming spout off that "the majority of the World's Scientests believe in this", I take note. IPCC is a UN funded convention of world's scientests, and yes, they all got together and said we are all doomed as an industrialized society because of global warming and we must make changes. Science isn't a democracy my friends. If only ONE scientest disputed this, and in the end was proven right, wouldn't that just say it all?

The fact is though that more than one scientest is disputing that man is the cause, and there are some disputing there is any global warming at all. Remember, the majority of scientests thought that German Jew Einstein was an idiot in 1905 with his theory, but by the 20's came along, they handed him the Nobel prize. So I am very glad no one has dug up that argument that more scientests are buying into this theory argument, because it isn't good science.

Just remember, the greatest influence on temperature on the earth is that big ole ball of gas that we call the Sun. It has been noted that solar changes have changed the average temperatures on Mars, about the same rate as what was changed on Earth. Are we supposed to believe that the Sun has no effect? Pretty foolish science to not take note of the biggest source of all heat on our world......

We may have global warming, but I refuse to buy into the religious fervour to go to "Carbon Offsets". You see people offsetting flying on their Business Jets by buying trees......as if these rich types ever thought about actually just cutting back instead of jetsetting around telling the rest of us to cut back. Al Bore...are you listening?? YA...Talking to you fat boy!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

i'm glad there are two sides to the scientific community on this one, it only pushes them harder to get closer to reality with their predictions.

there are always things that are proved wrong, to jump on thallidomide and MMR vaccines is no more than a knee jerk, "science can be wrong, so science is bad". you might have easily picked penicillin and telescopes, but they wouldn't have fitted. but science came up with them so i put my faith in the guys who sday global warming is happening and is contributed to by man made carbon emissions! ;)

---

Well of course they wouldn't have fitted. I was trying to show that science can be wrong so listing the 100 greatest science successes wouldn't be the best move ;) I'm not suggesting that science is always wrong. Merely just that it can/could be wrong :)

I'm glad there are two sides to the scientific argument and the one on this forum and that even if we disagree on the cause of the increase in temperature we agree that conserving energy is a good thing :)

Climate change has happened before and the only reason man made climate change was discovered was because scientists from a variety of disciplines began to look into why ice ages happened and the factors affecting weather and climate. As they began to understand the causes they began to realise that the global climate was very delicate and that it could flip from one state to another and enter a period of rapid cooling or heating at the slightest provocation.

Another topic scientists were looking into was about why the earth was the temperature it was yet Venus and Mars were so different and made the discovery of the greenhouse effect where gases effect the amount of heat energy reflected back into space. CO2, water vapour, methane and many oither gases all contribute to the "greenhouse effect".

Scientist then researched whether humans were effecting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I can't remember the exact story but using ice cores and other methods it was possible to see that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were increasing year on year. However not by as much as produced by industry. Much was absorbed by carbon dioxide sinks, mainly the oceans and plantlife.

Various calculations and models were produced to see of the increase in CO2 could lead to a change in climate. Most predictions tended towards a rise in global temperatures. There is no known natural way of absorbing this extra CO2 so increased production will lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect. As it is not known exactly how much CO2 will be produced or when the positive feedback effects (such as the death of algae, melting of icecaps etc) the exact temperature increase and when time when the climate will flip to another state is not known.

That is pretty much the theory there are other things I have probably missed out.

In practice the rise in global temperatures recently has matched the predicted rise in temperatures due to green house gas levels more than any other cause. Most climatologists, politicians and even polluting industries do seem to agree with the idea of man made climate change. I'm not quite sure if there is the will to change things and there is always the chance that things will be worse than is predicted.

While people are entitled to their opinion I do find it worrying when the general public are skeptical of the general consensus on global warming. Skeptic scientists may put forward persuasive arguments but they are the minority and it makes more logical sense to agree with the majority as in probability they are right, particularly as the skeptical opinion is pretty much the same as before any research was done. However the idea of a world without man made climate change would make me feel better about myself and the rest of the industrialised world, I just can't lie to myself like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

We may have global warming, but I refuse to buy into the religious fervour to go to "Carbon Offsets".

---

Me neither — although I do not share your antipathy towards Al Gore. Carbon offsetting is, at present, almost totally pointless, and little more than a means of trying to salve one's conscience. It also provides ample scope to rip people off, and shouldn't be in the hands of organisations trying to make money out of it, which of course they all must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well of course they wouldn't have fitted. I was trying to show that science can be wrong so listing the 100 greatest science successes wouldn't be the best move ;) I'm not suggesting that science is always wrong. Merely just that it can/could be wrong :)

I'm glad there are two sides to the scientific argument and the one on this forum and that even if we disagree on the cause of the increase in temperature we agree that conserving energy is a good thing :)

---

There are many more than two sides to the scientific argument. Every study that lead towards the current view of man made climate change was peer reviewed and most likely had opponents questioning the quality of the work and even though it was approved some will still question it's validity. However as a paper is peer reviewed it can be considered valid, but that's not saying its true. Whether man made climate change is happening in general is not a scientific argument but is one of belief and disbelief and is more like a religious argument.

Ok, maybe a few things need to be cleared up.

The sun is not the cause of the current global warming trend. This theory has been thoroughly researched and very well debunked. The problem with graphs like the one posted previously is it stops around 10 years ago.

There are some scientists who doubt AGW (man made global warming). But I am yet to find one that has not been paid by exxon or other commercial interests. If you find one please let me know as I would genuinely like to see it.

I am yet to hear of a climatologist still doubting AGW.

It is not just a few economies at risk. If we continue on our path every country will be adversely affected and potentially millions of lives lost. Not to mention the breakdown of entire ecosystems.

It is possible to slow and reverse the effects. We have around 10-15 years to reach peak carbon output.

Hope that helps. And please cut down on the religious rubbish. People can be sensitive about their religion.

Carbon offsets if misused are useless. If used correctly, they are a valuable tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I should maybe add to what I've been saying that while I may become a bit vehement on this topic, I wouldn't class myself as being a 'green freak' either. Some people seem to relish the fact that global warming gives us the excuse to bash X or Y, and some, I would say, are martyrs to being green. I'm not. I also believe that a balanced approach to tackling environmental problems is necessary, because people are not suddenly going to stop flying, or wanting goods delivered to them the day after ordering them, and so on.

Furthermore, I believe that saving energy and being environmentally aware is a very good thing under any circumstances.

---

Out of curiosity, as your belief seems to gravitate to the man-induced theory via elimination of forests (for lumber, construction, etc.) and emissions of all types(by transportation of goods, food, and people, power generation, manufacturing, and farm lands, etc), what will be your solution if the root cause of the problem is overpopulation. If these significant bodies of scientists decide the earth can only support and sustain 980 million people without damage to the planet, who do you plan to eliminate? Here again the simple solution to cause and effect. Why are emissions higher? Because we have more people, needing more food, using more energy, requiring more homes, requiring more jobs, requiring more transportation, etc.

Who decides who stays and who goes? If this is the great emergency that so many like to portray it is, cutting the world population by 2/3rds immediately should drop emissions like a rock overnight. Who wants to get off? Volunteers?