Global Warming?

Jez mon

The problem with just saying, don't worry, it's the early stage of such a complex subject is that if the various models do turn out to be correct, it would be disastrous. The trouble with saying x amount of peer reviewed theories were proven to be incorrect, is that it's an extremely blanket statement. For a start how incorrect were they.

Just saying that claiming scientists are frequently wrong isn't a particularly good argument. I mean, they could be wrong the other way too, it might be far too late to do anything to stop humans having a grave impact on the environment.

Either the current peer reviewed scientific theories are correct, and we can attempt to limit our emissions, and dependence on fossil fuels. Or, the theories are wrong, and we still have to make an attempt to limit our dependence on fossil fuels, just slightly later down the line.

Sirius631

If climate change exists, whether or not it's man made, and we do nothing about it, we are screwed.
If we do something about it, we might survive.
If it doesn't exist, and yet we act as it did, we will survive.

Would it not be logical, and in our best interests, to believe in climate change and act accordingly. I mean, there might be a financial cost to acting, but that is not the worst case scenario.

finchy

TheStone wrote:

However, I feel it's important not to drown out alternative theories at such an early stage of such a complex subject. The word 'denier' is deliberately used to do this.

There is a difference between someone who genuinely has constructive criticism to add to the subject (a sceptic) and someone who just slings a load of mud (a denier, of which James Delingpole is the best example)

TheStone wrote:

Scientists, on mass, with plenty of peer review are often wrong. They mentioned on the radio some study into the most peer reviewed theories and over half of them were later shown to be incorrect ...

That is why one study is not accepted as being sound science. Findings have to be independently replicated.

mrc1

Putting aside the scientific debate and the who is right and who is wrong (Should point out this is a genuine interest in knowing the answers rather than goading).

What are those of you that have argued strongly in favour of taking immediate action doing yourselves? Ie are you not buying imported clothes, food, bike bits, not using the national grid (or perhaps on a green energy tariff), not buying mass produced meat, not using air travel etc?

How about jobs? If you work for a big company you are almost certainly complicit in the wasting of resources? Have you left a job on the basis of your employers impact on the environment?

Cars, have you sold your car/stopped using it?

As for me, regardless of who is right and wrong I recognise that using up resources unneccessarily isn't a good thing to do, so I do think about what I do and try to reduce my wastage, but Il admit that a lot of that is cost driven rather than for any more noble reason.

Anyway interested to hear your thoughts.

TheStone

If I could take out flights with work, I think my 'footprint' would be quite low.

rick_chasey

mrc1 wrote:

Putting aside the scientific debate and the who is right and who is wrong (Should point out this is a genuine interest in knowing the answers rather than goading).

What are those of you that have argued strongly in favour of taking immediate action doing yourselves? Ie are you not buying imported clothes, food, bike bits, not using the national grid (or perhaps on a green energy tariff), not buying mass produced meat, not using air travel etc?

Not doing much.

To take a freakanomics view - humans do stuff for incentives.

I currently lack incentives to do so.

For example - my bin man doesn't even punish me for not recycling. Any rubbish I have gets picked up twice a week.

In Cambridge I pretty much had to, else my rubbish wouldn't be picked up.

I need a higher power to give me incentives to be green. Whether that's outlawing excessive packaging and bad recycling, to making green stuff cheaper - whatever. As long as it works.

pb21

I have an energy efficient house, and try to use as little as possible.
I don’t own and car and haven’t flown in four years.
I don’t eat much meat, maybe once or twice a month.
I recycle pretty much everything that can be recycled.
I don’t buy stuff I don’t need, and I try not to waste anything too.
I am a sustainable design engineer and my company is ISO 14001 accredited and not just for the badge.

What I am not so good at is buying things local to me. Clothes, bike components and food are all quite hard to source and/or expensive. I think transport and energy use in the home for heating and hot water etc make up the vast majority of CO2 emission you are responsible for.

mrc1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surely just for a let's-save-humanity-just-in-case perspective, you'd want to address it.

You know, just in case there is climate-geddon.

Isn't this reason enough?

finchy

mrc1 wrote:

Putting aside the scientific debate and the who is right and who is wrong (Should point out this is a genuine interest in knowing the answers rather than goading).

What are those of you that have argued strongly in favour of taking immediate action doing yourselves? Ie are you not buying imported clothes, food, bike bits, not using the national grid (or perhaps on a green energy tariff), not buying mass produced meat, not using air travel etc?

How about jobs? If you work for a big company you are almost certainly complicit in the wasting of resources? Have you left a job on the basis of your employers impact on the environment?

Cars, have you sold your car/stopped using it?

As for me, regardless of who is right and wrong I recognise that using up resources unneccessarily isn't a good thing to do, so I do think about what I do and try to reduce my wastage, but Il admit that a lot of that is cost driven rather than for any more noble reason.

Anyway interested to hear your thoughts.

I use my car as little as possible, buy local when I can, eat less meat than I used to, don't fly unless necessary - I have taken 2 flights for non-work purposes in the last 10 years, one of which was for a family wedding and the other was to see my Dad in Spain.

I don't have a television. I don't buy clothes which were made in the UK, because they are very difficult to get hold of, but I buy new clothes very rarely - apart from my underpants and socks, I've bought very few new items of clothing over the last 10 years.

Our flat is rented, and to be honest is really poor in terms of energy efficiency, but we are looking to move into our own home soon, and when we do, we will try to get somewhere better in this respect.

I have 2 computers - I bought a Mac because I needed a computer for work. 2 years later, when I started my engineering degree, I needed a PC to run the software.

For me, though, it's not just about global warming, it's about looking after our planet better in general. I would love to get rid of our car (a massive waste of money), but I don't know if that's going to be possible anytime soon.

verylonglegs

pb21 wrote:

I have an energy efficient house, and try to use as little as possible.
I don’t own and car and haven’t flown in four years.
I don’t eat much meat, maybe once or twice a month.
I recycle pretty much everything that can be recycled.
I don’t buy stuff I don’t need, and I try not to waste anything too.
I am a sustainable design engineer and my company is ISO 14001 accredited and not just for the badge.

What I am not so good at is buying things local to me. Clothes, bike components and food are all quite hard to source and/or expensive. I think transport and energy use in the home for heating and hot water etc make up the vast majority of CO2 emission you are responsible for.

Now, not disagreeing with your actions, but this is where it really affects our way of life, not in terms of climate but economics. Since it was no longer necessary for the majority of the population to work the land many peoples jobs are dependent on consumption and our desire for material goods. If we all quell that desire a lot of people become unemployed, there are not enough productive jobs to go round.

TheStone

verylonglegs wrote:

Now, not disagreeing with your actions, but this is where it really affects our way of life, not in terms of climate but economics. Since it was no longer necessary for the majority of the population to work the land many peoples jobs are dependent on consumption and our desire for material goods. If we all quell that desire a lot of people become unemployed, there are not enough productive jobs to go round.

I don't agree with this. It's a left wing argument to continue to centrally employ people doing nothing or stuff that no-one wants or needs.

We'll never run out of jobs to do. We don't have to waste so much time on the survival stuff, but and endless set of things to do.

If people no longer want to buy your product or service, you have to do something else.

We're in a slump now, but that's caused by the excess of the previous decade. Too much debt borrowed against the future which now has to be paid back.

Alain Quay

Utter nonsense. You do not understand how science or universities work.
Besides, there exists no internationally accepted science or scientific institution that
supports the 'denier' stance. To think you have a this unique, game changing insight
is beyond laughable. The time you spend posting these nonsense 'arguments'
could be spent reading Nature or some other credible, respected science.
You need to do some reading.

TheStone

Alain Quay wrote:

You need to do some reading.

What should I read? There seems to be many, many funded bodies producing stuff now. Which ones are best?
Someone told me to read the IPCC stuff, which I did. I wasn't convinced that anything was anything close to certain.

I'm not trolling. My questions and slight scepticism is serious.

neilo23

What makes me laugh is the fact that most climate change deniers will trust and believe scientists in most other aspects of their lives but for some reason don't when they are giving us a grave warning about the state of our planet. Anyone who goes to the doctor, drives a car, uses a computer etc trusts the people and / or the products which they, through scientific research and development, use and produce to improve our lives. Why be selective when it comes to which scientists one listens to?

The evidence is there for us to see: melting polar caps, warming seas, melting glaciers, an increase in tornadoes, extreme weather, floods, changing animal activities etc. The climate has changed before but never at this speed. It doesn't take long for a person to die from inhaling car exhaust fumes or smoke. You would have to be blind not to believe that the millions upon millions of cars, farting animals which we breed, factories and so on are not rapidly poisoning the atmosphere.

If I had kids I would be very worried about their future. Hopefully God will send a flotilla of Arcs to rescue us all when our cities are under water :roll:

neilo23

TheStone wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Now, not disagreeing with your actions, but this is where it really affects our way of life, not in terms of climate but economics. Since it was no longer necessary for the majority of the population to work the land many peoples jobs are dependent on consumption and our desire for material goods. If we all quell that desire a lot of people become unemployed, there are not enough productive jobs to go round.

I don't agree with this. It's a left wing argument to continue to centrally employ people doing nothing or stuff that no-one wants or needs.

We'll never run out of jobs to do. We don't have to waste so much time on the survival stuff, but and endless set of things to do.

If people no longer want to buy your product or service, you have to do something else.

We're in a slump now, but that's caused by the excess of the previous decade. Too much debt borrowed against the future which now has to be paid back.

It's a left-wing argument? Well, looking at the right-wingers in the US, many of whom support the Creationist (ie reality denial) argument, you could be right. I'm pleased I'm a "leftie", if that's the case.
Glad to see that the ruling right-of-centre Christian Democrat Party in Germany is the world leader in alternative and renewable energy. Not all right-wing parties are blinded by the pseudo-science of the deniers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... renewables

Jez mon

neilo23 wrote:

What makes me laugh is the fact that most climate change deniers will trust and believe scientists in most other aspects of their lives but for some reason don't when they are giving us a grave warning about the state of our planet. Anyone who goes to the doctor, drives a car, uses a computer etc trusts the people and / or the products which they, through scientific research and development, use and produce to improve our lives. Why be selective when it comes to which scientists one listens to?

People are happy to trust empirical evidence:
They trust doctors, because hospitals are full of people who go in ill and get better. They trust cars and computers for similar reasons.

Imaging going back a few hundred years, with an A380, meeting Isaac Newton, and explaining to him the rudimentary fluid mechanics to him, he agrees that it will fly and tells a load of people. I doubt that people are going to believe him that something that massive and heavy will fly.

ddraver

Sorry, what?

What I think you re arguing is that scientific laws acted differently in the 1800's. No, they were exactly the.same, A380s would still fly and CO2 would still warm the atmosphere.

Science works by accumulating theories over time, it does nt mean those laws did not exist before someone worked them out! You think everyone was weightless before "the apple landed on Newton's head"?

Jez mon

ddraver wrote:

Sorry, what?

What I think you re arguing is that scientific laws acted differently in the 1800's. No, they were exactly the.same, A380s would still fly and CO2 would still warm the atmosphere.

Science works by accumulating theories over time, it does nt mean those laws did not exist before someone worked them out! You think everyone was weightless before "the apple landed on Newton's head"?

Sorry, that wasn't my argument at all. The point (which i felt was so obvious it didn't need stating) is that the A380 will still fly. Despite the fact that (I would assume) most of the general population would assume otherwise, having never seen a plane before.

Many people don't put their faith in science, but rather experience. Deniers are unwilling to put faith in the various scientific models which predict climageddon , without first seeing climegeddon with their own two eyes. Is this sensible, of course not.

Hopefully my point is a bit clearer now.

daviesee

neilo23 wrote:

It doesn't take long for a person to die from inhaling car exhaust fumes or smoke. You would have to be blind not to believe that the millions upon millions of cars, farting animals which we breed, factories and so on are not rapidly poisoning the atmosphere.

All very well and good. But do you really believe that the majority of developed Countries are going to do away with cars, meat and factories?

Hypothecate all you want but you are just farting into the wind.

TheStone

neilo23 wrote:

The evidence is there for us to see: melting polar caps, warming seas, melting glaciers, an increase in tornadoes, extreme weather, floods, changing animal activities etc. The climate has changed before but never at this speed. It doesn't take long for a person to die from inhaling car exhaust fumes or smoke. You would have to be blind not to believe that the millions upon millions of cars, farting animals which we breed, factories and so on are not rapidly poisoning the atmosphere.

Real questions ...

melting polar caps - hasn't the southern hemisphere grown?
warming seas - tiny amounts. Have the oceans actually risen more than normal?
melting glaciers - hasn't this been shown to be localised deforestation?
an increase in tornadoes, extreme weather, floods - I didn't think anyone was even arguing that?
changing animal activities etc - haven't we wiped out more than we breed for food, reducing methane? (although all fairly insignificant levels anyway).

pb21

TheStone wrote:

changing animal activities etc - haven't we wiped out more than we breed for food, reducing methane? (although all fairly insignificant levels anyway).

Have we?
What would be a significant level and why?

Anyway I think the point he was trying to make was, for instance, species of animals that only used to be found close to the equator are being found continually further north.

TheStone

pb21 wrote:

Have we?
What would be a significant level and why?

Anyway I think the point he was trying to make was, for instance, species of animals that only used to be found close to the equator are being found continually further north.

Is this a recent thing or over thousands of years?

pb21

TheStone wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Have we?
What would be a significant level and why?

Anyway I think the point he was trying to make was, for instance, species of animals that only used to be found close to the equator are being found continually further north.

Is this a recent thing or over thousands of years?

Its a recent thing.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... lished.pdf

What do you think would represent a significant rise in CO2 and/or methane emmisions? Would 1% be significant? If not why not?

EKIMIKE

Possibly the most important issue we have is deforestation. No one has mentioned it yet from what i can see!

It has significance in both climate change and direct environmental degradation (and let's not forget the habitats/animals).

In fact, slash and burn farming alone contributes more carbon emissions than all air and road travel combined.

So you're probably thinking right now 'christ, what a hippy' or 'typical, shifting the blame' but i can assure you neither apply. I see it from an economic point of view - firstly, we can't blame the (poor) slash and burn farmers because we are the ones who rely on and buy their crops (particularly Palm Oil and Soya); secondly, the practice of slash and burn is making the land infertile which can only be bad for efficient production. If you then add on the dire environmental consequences you've got quite a beast.

So whilst it's unlikely we can do without air travel or cars (afterall they are hugely beneficial), we can actually do without slash and burn farming. That's because there are viable alternatives. We just don't care (yet!) because we are geographically detached from the reality and consequences (for the time being!).

Check out this these items:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/up-in-smoke/4od
http://www.ingafoundation.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inga_alley_cropping

ddraver

TheStone wrote:

Real questions ...

*melting polar caps - hasn't the southern hemisphere grown?

It's a little more complicated than that (Goldacre, 200X).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... rming.html

*warming seas - tiny amounts. Have the oceans actually risen more than normal?

This is actually simple - Yes!

*melting glaciers - hasn't this been shown to be localised deforestation?

eh? Never seen a forest on a glacier....Most glaciers are shrinking though, as anyone who has been skiing alot will tell you.

*an increase in tornadoes, extreme weather, floods - I didn't think anyone was even arguing that?

Good

*changing animal activities etc - haven't we wiped out more than we breed for food, reducing methane? (although all fairly insignificant levels anyway).

first part answered above

Second part - I don't know about you but the shelves still appear to be pretty well stocked with bits of cow/chicken/lamb etc to me suggesting that we are replacing the animals we ve eaten thereby having nio effect on methane levels. In fact, we re breeding animals specifically for food, therefore, as population rises, we are INCREASING the number of animals on the planet.

(@jez - understood)

Jez mon

With respect to the wiping out more animals than we breed for food, I'm guessing The Stone is weighing up the balance between the GHGs produced by the animals whose natural habitats mankind has destroyed, and those produced by the farm animals which are breed for the purpose of keeping mankind well fed.

Without actually looking at any numbers :oops: my gut feeling is no. Intensive farming means far more animals per unit area than would occur naturally. Which means far more methane, surely. Plus (I read on wikipedia, again :oops: ) the feed which cows are given, leads to more methane than would otherwise be emitted.

What we need is some kind of way of capturing all that methane which is after all a fuel not just a GHG, and using it to run CHP systems/solid oxide fuel cells. Which can be far more efficient than a standard coal fired power station. Plus they would emit CO2, which has a far lower global warming potential than CH4...

(GHG, green house gas)
(CHP, combined heat and power systems)

ddraver

Linked to that Jez is that there are few animals that produce Methane, we re replacing gas free parrots and monkeys with gas factories....

verylonglegs

TheStone wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Now, not disagreeing with your actions, but this is where it really affects our way of life, not in terms of climate but economics. Since it was no longer necessary for the majority of the population to work the land many peoples jobs are dependent on consumption and our desire for material goods. If we all quell that desire a lot of people become unemployed, there are not enough productive jobs to go round.

I don't agree with this. It's a left wing argument to continue to centrally employ people doing nothing or stuff that no-one wants or needs.

We'll never run out of jobs to do. We don't have to waste so much time on the survival stuff, but and endless set of things to do.

If people no longer want to buy your product or service, you have to do something else.

We're in a slump now, but that's caused by the excess of the previous decade. Too much debt borrowed against the future which now has to be paid back.

Yes the current slump is due to people reining in spending to pay off debt but if you change that reason for not spending to one of less consumption as you persuade people it will save the planet the outcome is still the same. I'm not sure why you think it's political, it's just a fact of economics..since the industrial revolution empolyment has been due to demand for new goods and technologies. Isn't that why governments offered money so people could change their cars in 2008? It was all about keeping people employed. Saying something will just turn up for people to do is really rather vague....just what exactly?

lycraholic

As someone who studies climate at Cambridge, I cannot tell you how much this thread is making lose the will to live.

Jez mon

Lycraholic wrote:

As someone who studies climate at Cambridge, I cannot tell you how much this thread is making lose the will to live.

Care to highlight anything in particular?