Climate Change, real or codswallop?

DonDaddyD

Prompted by LiT

Do you believe in climate change, global warming etc?

Do you think its a plausible theory but only theory waiting to be disproved?

Do you simply think its yet another means of scaremongering?

Do you cycle because you fear climate change and want to do your bit?

With everybody's favorite, a Poll.

Discuss.

gtvlusso

LOL

More importantly, I think DDD is LiT's b1tch!

Coriander

I think climate change is universally accepted now; the debate is how much, if at all, human activity has contributed to it.

FWIW, the Royal Society thinks man has made a large contibution.

cjw

15 pages of this already...

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12665232

CiB

The poll is missing the salient point - that climate change is happening, but to what extent can the cause be pinned to human activity (compared to naturally occurring geographical factors, sun spot activity, displeasure amongst the horse gods etc), and - accepting that human activity plays some part in it all - how much of that activity needs to be changed to make a substantial difference that moves us from where we are to some unspecified target?

The reporting & understanding of GW is entirely driven by the need to reduce it to simple one or two line answers, with simple fixes - viz the 2 degrees reduction in average temperatures, this poll, the govt response which is to tax behaviour in the right direction, etc.

It's not a one line solution, or a radio buttons poll (with three options), or even a case of being called a flat-earth denier just for wanting to know more. We don't get enough info to know, and I suspect that we'll get less not more as time goes on. This and other governments have shown themselves to be less than reliable when it comes to being open and honest with information. I'll stick to my untrusting cynical nature before I'm convinced that it's all down to me running a Land Rover instead of a Gee Whizz thing.

Wallace1492

We will destroy ourselves.... mark my words.

There are too many of us for the resources that the planet has, we will use it up before we can help it.

We will be Easter Island gone large. Maybe 150 or 200 years, but we will do it.

Harsh decisions will be made, and the longer it is left, the harsher they will need to be, like reducing the population by 50%

Anyway, have a lovely xmas!!

ince

The climate is always changing 8)

I don't however believe we have as big impact on it as we like to think.

I do think there is limited resources on this planet and it would be dumb to use it with little or no regard for the future.

Irrespective of weather its real or not it would be silly to do nothing.

Do nothing + no global warming = poor environment and in the end no resource
Do nothing + real global warming = planet is screwed
Do something + no global warming = better environment
Do something + real global warming = better environment

simple view I know but it works for me.

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

We will destroy ourselves.... mark my words.

There are too many of us for the resources that the planet has, we will use it up before we can help it.

We will be Easter Island gone large. Maybe 150 or 200 years, but we will do it.

Harsh decisions will be made, and the longer it is left, the harsher they will need to be, like reducing the population by 50%

Those will have to be western people - europeans and americans - if you want to make a difference - most most people in undeveloped countries - where the population is rising fastest - have almost zero carbon footprints.

Wallace1492

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

We will destroy ourselves.... mark my words.

There are too many of us for the resources that the planet has, we will use it up before we can help it.

We will be Easter Island gone large. Maybe 150 or 200 years, but we will do it.

Harsh decisions will be made, and the longer it is left, the harsher they will need to be, like reducing the population by 50%

Those will have to be western people - europeans and americans - if you want to make a difference - most most people in undeveloped countries - where the population is rising fastest - have almost zero carbon footprints.

I did say 150 - 200 years, so those with the rising population will catch up fast with carbon footprint.

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

We will destroy ourselves.... mark my words.

There are too many of us for the resources that the planet has, we will use it up before we can help it.

We will be Easter Island gone large. Maybe 150 or 200 years, but we will do it.

Harsh decisions will be made, and the longer it is left, the harsher they will need to be, like reducing the population by 50%

Those will have to be western people - europeans and americans - if you want to make a difference - most most people in undeveloped countries - where the population is rising fastest - have almost zero carbon footprints.

I did say 150 - 200 years, so those with the rising population will catch up fast with carbon footprint.

If the orthodox theory is correct they won't get a chance - either civilisation will have collapsed or we'll have gone carbon neutral by then. I do think the whole populaiton reduciton thing is such a red herring, really.

Wallace1492

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

We will destroy ourselves.... mark my words.

There are too many of us for the resources that the planet has, we will use it up before we can help it.

We will be Easter Island gone large. Maybe 150 or 200 years, but we will do it.

Harsh decisions will be made, and the longer it is left, the harsher they will need to be, like reducing the population by 50%

Those will have to be western people - europeans and americans - if you want to make a difference - most most people in undeveloped countries - where the population is rising fastest - have almost zero carbon footprints.

I did say 150 - 200 years, so those with the rising population will catch up fast with carbon footprint.

If the orthodox theory is correct they won't get a chance - either civilisation will have collapsed or we'll have gone carbon neutral by then. I do think the whole populaiton reduciton thing is such a red herring, really.

In what way? Surely we can only support a finite number of humans. We are using the resources far faster than they can be replaced. Destroying many eco systems and species.

I believe it is just a matter of time, and it will not have a happy ending.

Aguila

There is little doubt about it, frankly it amazes me that anyone doesn't beleive it's true, I think this is largely down to selfishness, not wanting to make changes to lifestyles.

I brought this up in the discussions about someone getting a big SUV as a car and was met with arguments that were 100% bile/sarcasm/insult and 0% facts, almost eyeryone on that thread was anti CC.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=40

See in particular some delightful comments from greg66, a real intelectual collosus.

As someone else has said it has to be us who change in order to make a difference, it really is time to take some personal responsibility for what is happening.

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

We will destroy ourselves.... mark my words.

There are too many of us for the resources that the planet has, we will use it up before we can help it.

We will be Easter Island gone large. Maybe 150 or 200 years, but we will do it.

Harsh decisions will be made, and the longer it is left, the harsher they will need to be, like reducing the population by 50%

Those will have to be western people - europeans and americans - if you want to make a difference - most most people in undeveloped countries - where the population is rising fastest - have almost zero carbon footprints.

I did say 150 - 200 years, so those with the rising population will catch up fast with carbon footprint.

If the orthodox theory is correct they won't get a chance - either civilisation will have collapsed or we'll have gone carbon neutral by then. I do think the whole populaiton reduciton thing is such a red herring, really.

In what way? Surely we can only support a finite number of humans. We are using the resources far faster than they can be replaced. Destroying many eco systems and species.

I believe it is just a matter of time, and it will not have a happy ending.

It's a red herring as far as climate change is concerned and is not required immediately, nor will it be in the distant future.

As for other resources, well I've yet to see a compelling argument for population reduction. Developed nations have lower populaiton growth anyway - and we are moving into a period of population reduction in Europe.

Western over-consumption is the problem. If the west can consume less and more sustainably then the undeveloped world can be allowed to come up to wetsern standards without compromising the planet's survival...and the world population can be allowed to level off - or reduce as it is in Europe. That sounds a lot better to me than a mass slaughter of half the world's population - any ideas how you would carry that out?

It's quite telling to me that this is soemthing that environmentalists never call for, and yet comes up in climate sceptic arguments nearly all the time.

Wallace1492

Porgy wrote:

That sounds a lot better to me than a mass slaughter of half the world's population - any ideas how you would carry that out?

It's quite telling to me that this is soemthing that environmentalists never call for, and yet comes up in climate sceptic arguments nearly all the time.

Well, we have all these Nuclear Weapons that we pay billions for and never use.....
Or do you think we might need then to deflect the Meteor that will no doubt be heading right for us at some point in the future......


I just think that we have a superb capability for destroying not just ourselves, but talking a lot of other species with us. I do hope i am wrong, and we come to oursenses, but for the longer term I am quite pessimistic.

Wallace1492

Aguila wrote:

There is little doubt about it, frankly it amazes me that anyone doesn't beleive it's true, I think this is largely down to selfishness, not wanting to make changes to lifestyles.

I brought this up in the discussions about someone getting a big SUV as a car and was met with arguments that were 100% bile/sarcasm/insult and 0% facts, almost eyeryone on that thread was anti CC.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=40

See in particular some delightful comments from greg66, a real intelectual collosus.

As someone else has said it has to be us who change in order to make a difference, it really is time to take some personal responsibility for what is happening.

We cannot help it, as a species we rarely learn from mistakes. We are selfish. We want all we can have. For example, we should stop using aircraft, but who wants to forego a foreign holiday? Not me. We should use public transport all the time, but who wants to give up their nice car? Not me.

I think we will be forced to at some point, but lets enjoy it while we can, it is our decendents that will pay for it!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Collapse_of_the_ecosystem

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

That sounds a lot better to me than a mass slaughter of half the world's population - any ideas how you would carry that out?

It's quite telling to me that this is soemthing that environmentalists never call for, and yet comes up in climate sceptic arguments nearly all the time.

Well, we have all these Nuclear Weapons that we pay billions for and never use.....
Or do you think we might need then to deflect the Meteor that will no doubt be heading right for us at some point in the future......

I assume you're being flippant there. Unfortunately we realise we live in an extremely dangerous universe, and I guess we'll face each challenge as it arrives. I can't say I can really think of a very good reason for keeping nuclear weapons - theri use would more or less guarantee the end of civilisation, and maybe the planet altogether. as for meteors - I have no firm grasp on how they could be deflected as I'm not really a fan of Hollywood films.

I just think that we have a superb capability for destroying not just ourselves, but talking a lot of other species with us. I do hope i am wrong, and we come to oursenses, but for the longer term I am quite pessimistic.

The way I see it - there's no point in being pessimistic - nothing can be gained that way...other than depression and apathy.

Sewinman

Porgy wrote:

It's a red herring as far as climate change is concerned and is not required immediately, nor will it be in the distant future.

As for other resources, well I've yet to see a compelling argument for population reduction. Developed nations have lower populaiton growth anyway - and we are moving into a period of population reduction in Europe.

Western over-consumption is the problem. If the west can consume less and more sustainably then the undeveloped world can be allowed to come up to wetsern standards without compromising the planet's survival...and the world population can be allowed to level off - or reduce as it is in Europe. That sounds a lot better to me than a mass slaughter of half the world's population - any ideas how you would carry that out?

It's quite telling to me that this is soemthing that environmentalists never call for, and yet comes up in climate sceptic arguments nearly all the time.

What your describing is the theory of 'contraction and convergence' and is actually very popular among 'environmentalists'.

always_tyred

Anthropomorphic global warming is like a religion.

You can't prove it, you can't disprove it.

Any given event can be interpreted by believers as evidence that it exists, and by non-believers as evidence that it does not.

No matter what we do, we will never be sure we caused it, no matter what we do, we will never be sure it did any good.

Comment.

Porgy

Sewinman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

It's a red herring as far as climate change is concerned and is not required immediately, nor will it be in the distant future.

As for other resources, well I've yet to see a compelling argument for population reduction. Developed nations have lower populaiton growth anyway - and we are moving into a period of population reduction in Europe.

Western over-consumption is the problem. If the west can consume less and more sustainably then the undeveloped world can be allowed to come up to wetsern standards without compromising the planet's survival...and the world population can be allowed to level off - or reduce as it is in Europe. That sounds a lot better to me than a mass slaughter of half the world's population - any ideas how you would carry that out?

It's quite telling to me that this is soemthing that environmentalists never call for, and yet comes up in climate sceptic arguments nearly all the time.

What your describing is the theory of 'contraction and convergence' and is actually very popular among 'environmentalists'.

yes - but i was talking in more general terms.

UndercoverElephant

I believe there is climate change, though I'm less convinced by the cult of CO2.

A lot of the climate change, I believe is actually more to do with the clean air policies of the 50's and 60's. Back in the day, when we had huge clouds of pollution over the industrialised world, less sunlight got through, the world was cooler. We cleaned up the skies, the world got warmer.

Now we're seeing a little cooling, thanks to the Chinese factories belching out more and more shite into the atmosphere. If we get them to clean up their act, what hope is there?

Oh, and any advert which tells me to "Save the world by buying a brand-new car" make me weep. Of all the stupid... A vast amount of this precious CO2 is created by actually building any car, surely the best way is keep them running, within reason?

For the record, I do actually care about the environment, and work hard to reduce my use of resources in many, many ways.

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

Anthropomorphic global warming is like a religion.

You can't prove it, you can't disprove it.

Any given event can be interpreted by believers as evidence that it exists, and by non-believers as evidence that it does not.

No matter what we do, we will never be sure we caused it, no matter what we do, we will never be sure it did any good.

Comment.

you could disprove it by showing that the evidence that supports AGW is flawed, or by providing evidence for an alternative theory.

It's the 'sceptics' that behave like creationists recycling the same old discredited arguments and, while claiming scepticism, actually swallowing any old twaddle without requiring proof.

Porgy

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Oh, and any advert which tells me to "Save the world by buying a brand-new car" make me weep. Of all the stupid... A vast amount of this precious CO2 is created by actually building any car, surely the best way is keep them running, within reason?
.

I agree - environmentalism is being hijacked by corporations and politicians. I wouldn;t believe a word they say. But while 60/70% of the people refuse to engage with the evidence and deny what is obviously true - they have free reign to do what they like.

Sewinman

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I believe there is climate change, though I'm less convinced by the cult of CO2.

A lot of the climate change, I believe is actually more to do with the clean air policies of the 50's and 60's. Back in the day, when we had huge clouds of pollution over the industrialised world, less sunlight got through, the world was cooler. We cleaned up the skies, the world got warmer.

Now we're seeing a little cooling, thanks to the Chinese factories belching out more and more shite into the atmosphere. If we get them to clean up their act, what hope is there?

Oh, and any advert which tells me to "Save the world by buying a brand-new car" make me weep. Of all the stupid... A vast amount of this precious CO2 is created by actually building any car, surely the best way is keep them running, within reason?

For the record, I do actually care about the environment, and work hard to reduce my use of resources in many, many ways.

Re - cars. The manufacturing stage for an average car is about 10% of its lifetime emissions.

always_tyred

Porgy wrote:

you could disprove it by showing that the evidence that supports AGW is flawed, or by providing evidence for an alternative theory.

That's merely the problem stated in the form of a solution.

It's the 'sceptics' that behave like creationists recycling the same old discredited arguments and, while claiming scepticism, actually swallowing any old twaddle without requiring proof.

Proof is such a strong word. We can't even "prove" that there is gravity. We can only postulate its existence and show a large number of phenomena consistent with its existence.

Climate is such a fiddly thing. We can't even predict whether or not it will snow at Edinburgh airport 24 hours from now.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but "proof" is just about as appropriate when applied to either side of the argument.

always_tyred

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I believe there is climate change, though I'm less convinced by the cult of CO2.

A lot of the climate change, I believe is actually more to do with the clean air policies of the 50's and 60's. Back in the day, when we had huge clouds of pollution over the industrialised world, less sunlight got through, the world was cooler. We cleaned up the skies, the world got warmer.

Now we're seeing a little cooling, thanks to the Chinese factories belching out more and more shite into the atmosphere. If we get them to clean up their act, what hope is there?

Wasn't the world colder before the industrial revolution? If so, how is that consistent with your theory?

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

you could disprove it by showing that the evidence that supports AGW is flawed, or by providing evidence for an alternative theory.

That's merely the problem stated in the form of a solution.

It's the 'sceptics' that behave like creationists recycling the same old discredited arguments and, while claiming scepticism, actually swallowing any old twaddle without requiring proof.

Proof is such a strong word. We can't even "prove" that there is gravity. We can only postulate its existence and show a large number of phenomena consistent with its existence.

Climate is such a fiddly thing. We can't even predict whether or not it will snow at Edinburgh airport 24 hours from now.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but "proof" is just about as appropriate when applied to either side of the argument.

Proof in everyday sense just means balance of evidence. Clearly the science behind climate change is particularly complex - but the same principle applies. As the evidence improves, as our models improve, the likelihood of AGW being wrong is reducing.

I've studied science, engineering and philosophy so i'm aware of the problems of 'proof', but to equate climate change science with religious belief is absolutely rediculous as I'm sure you well know.

as for getting weather forecasts mixed up with climate predictions...I would have expected better from you, really!

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I believe there is climate change, though I'm less convinced by the cult of CO2.

A lot of the climate change, I believe is actually more to do with the clean air policies of the 50's and 60's. Back in the day, when we had huge clouds of pollution over the industrialised world, less sunlight got through, the world was cooler. We cleaned up the skies, the world got warmer.

Now we're seeing a little cooling, thanks to the Chinese factories belching out more and more shite into the atmosphere. If we get them to clean up their act, what hope is there?

Wasn't the world colder before the industrial revolution? If so, how is that consistent with your theory?

that theory is just silly. Only a few bits of the world were smoggy back in 40s and 50s, not enough to cause a global affect. Also - prior to the 50s and 60s, the world had been warming since the industrial revolution. So it just doesn't add up.

TheStone

I've gone from 'probably' to 'maybe'.

The more I read into it and see the actual data I become less sure.

Global warming: 0.7C in 250 years???
Ice caps melting: Very slight decrease in north, increase in south.

Seems that glaciers that have been lost (Kilimanjaro etc) are due to localised
deforestation.

CO2 makes up less than 3% of greenhouse gas. We produce 2-4% of it.

Doesn't mean to say it's not humans, or that some of the 'solutions' will be bad, but I don't
like things being described as facts when they are not. The shouting down of the
sceptics is dangerous at this stage.

The media, governments and 'climate change' scientists have their own vested interests,
which should not be ignored.

Porgy

TheStone wrote:

Global warming: 0.7C in 250 years???
Ice caps melting: Very slight decrease in north, increase in south.

Seems that glaciers that have been lost (Kilimanjaro etc) are due to localised
deforestation.

CO2 makes up less than 3% of greenhouse gas. We produce 2-4% of it..

as a sceptic - I assume you have rock-solid evidence for your assertions.

TheStone

Porgy wrote:

I've studied science, engineering and philosophy so i'm aware of the problems of 'proof', but to equate climate change science with religious belief is absolutely rediculous as I'm sure you well know.

For me it's science, but a very early theory. Could be like evolution where it's gets
proven beyond doubt over the next couple of decades, but it might not be.

They've collectively failed to predict the cooling in this century and struggle to explain
the medieval warm period. Doesn't mean they're wrong, but it means they don't have
a full understanding of a very complex system.

UndercoverElephant

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Wasn't the world colder before the industrial revolution? If so, how is that consistent with your theory?

that theory is just silly. Only a few bits of the world were smoggy back in 40s and 50s, not enough to cause a global affect. Also - prior to the 50s and 60s, the world had been warming since the industrial revolution. So it just doesn't add up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4880328.stm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09 ... institute/

More than one cause? Perhaps.