# Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is



## RMCF

There was a guy just on Matt Cooper show (missed 1st name but surname Kerry) talking about climate change, and he was the first to really tell it like it was.

Apparently the Gov is going to spend €15 million on educating us about how bad global warming is. Now unless you have been under a rock for the last 5 or 6 years you could not have missed the amazing hype about this.

I have always said we are wasting our time (added to the fact that I think a lot of it is overhyped just to get money out of us) as long as other countries make no effort.

Think how small Ireland is. And we have the likes of the US, India and China who couldn't care less about climate change. I read that China finish a new COAL powered power station EVERY DAY. How will anything small countries do change if the BIG countries continue to do whatever they want?

If the stories of our imminent doom are true (which I believe they aren't) then we are all hammered as long as these 3 nations continue their ways.


----------



## Teabag

Are you saying that India & China has no right to an industrial revolution like the west had ? 
The per-capita car ownership ratio in China is currently 30 cars to every 1000 people.


----------



## badabing

RMCF said:


> There was a guy just on Matt Cooper show (missed 1st name but surname Kerry) talking about climate change, and he was the first to really tell it like it was.
> 
> Apparently the Gov is going to spend €15 million on educating us about how bad global warming is. Now unless you have been under a rock for the last 5 or 6 years you could not have missed the amazing hype about this.
> 
> I have always said we are wasting our time (added to the fact that I think a lot of it is overhyped just to get money out of us) as long as other countries make no effort.
> 
> Think how small Ireland is. And we have the likes of the US, India and China who couldn't care less about climate change. I read that China finish a new COAL powered power station EVERY DAY. How will anything small countries do change if the BIG countries continue to do whatever they want?
> 
> If the stories of our imminent doom are true (which I believe they aren't) then we are all hammered as long as these 3 nations continue their ways.



We are one of the worst. We can't say we care more than China or US regardless of Kyoto, lets clean up our own mess before getting on about the others


----------



## RMCF

Teabag said:


> Are you saying that India & China has no right to an industrial revolution like the west had ?
> The per-capita car ownership ratio in China is currently 30 cars to every 1000 people.



Not at all.

Let them lash away, but I was saying that there is little point in the massive drive in tiny countries like Ireland when huge countries don't care about emissions and pollution.


----------



## room305

The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't enough (easily recovered) oil left in the world to satisfy the global warming doomsters predictions for 50 years from now.

The global warming movement is about Marxism rather than environmentalism. Hence the dismissal of carbon sequestration as a solution.


----------



## Dowee

"Be the change you want to see in the World." 

- Gandhi


----------



## extopia

Elphaba said:


> by the time the big countries get around to doing anything about it, we'll be having nice hot summers in Ireland, so make the most of it and worry about your own back yard!



Ireland is on a latitude with Newfoundland. Our climate is temperate, thanks to the gulf stream. The likelihood is that the gulf stream will radically change as the Arctic icecap melts, to the extent that Ireland would be in real danger of losing its temperate status.

Skiing the Sugar Loaf, anyone?


----------



## extopia

room305 said:


> The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't enough (easily recovered) oil left in the world to satisfy the global warming doomsters predictions for 50 years from now.



The problem is the "tipping point" - we're at the point where there's a danger of irreversible change. 

There is a long lag between oil consumption and environmental effect. The "doomsters" are not predicting anything really - the effect has been there for the last 100 years, and oil reserves have nothing to do with it.



room305 said:


> The global warming movement is about Marxism rather than environmentalism. Hence the dismissal of carbon sequestration as a solution.



That's what George Bush has been saying for years. And even he's coming around now.

In response to the other posts, the fact that we're only a small country and there's only so much we can do is obviously correct - but you could take that argument down to the micro level in any of the big countries too. ("North Carolina is only a small state, so nothing we do here will make a difference" - that kind of thinking)

It's about behaviour change on a human level, an individual level. The good news is that it's not that hard, once you educate yourself as to what's happening and what's required.

It's almost too late to fix this problem.

Almost.


----------



## ubiquitous

Significant climate change has happened in every century in the past millennium. Oil and carbon emissions were hardly the cause of climate change in the 14th/15th/17th/19th centuries - why is it being attributed as such this time around?


----------



## Teabag

RMCF said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Let them lash away, but I was saying that there is little point in the massive drive in tiny countries like Ireland when huge countries don't care about emissions and pollution.



Thats a terrible viewpoint. Shouldn't we lead by example ? We have huge largely untapped renewable energy potential in Ireland (wind, water, solar) - if we can show that these clean energy sources can work, then perhaps the larger countries will follow suit. 

The likes of Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Finland, Germany have already shown the way. Why cant we ?


----------



## diarmuidc

room305 said:


> The global warming movement is about Marxism rather than environmentalism.


It's not a "movement" it's science, and hence any reference to Marxims, Islamism, Capitalism or any other -ism is ridiculous.



ubiquitous said:


> Significant climate change has happened in every century in the past millennium. Oil and carbon emissions were hardly the cause of climate change in the 14th/15th/17th/19th centuries - why is it being attributed as such this time around?


Yes, you are right, maybe we should get some people who could study the science of these climate changes, "scientists" if you will, and ask them to form some committe and discussion groups and come to some conclusion as to the cause of these climate changes.


----------



## elefantfresh

I think the point that the OP is trying to make is that it seems futile us making a change when the largest contributers in the world are seeming to make little or no change.


----------



## RMCF

Teabag said:


> Thats a terrible viewpoint. Shouldn't we lead by example ? We have huge largely untapped renewable energy potential in Ireland (wind, water, solar) - if we can show that these clean energy sources can work, then perhaps the larger countries will follow suit.
> 
> The likes of Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Finland, Germany have already shown the way. Why cant we ?



Sorry but although I realise your argument is all very admirable, the likes of China and India couldn't care less what small countries do, even if we set great examples. They are going to batter on building coal-fired power stations whether anybody likes it or not. And thats not my viewpoint - its whats actually happening now, every single day.

So if the likes of Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Finland etc have already shown the way, then why isn't the big polluters sitting up and taking note?

And by the way, where is all the solar potential in Ireland - I never see much of it


----------



## RMCF

extopia said:


> Ireland is on a latitude with Newfoundland. Our climate is temperate, thanks to the gulf stream. The likelihood is that the gulf stream will radically change as the Arctic icecap melts, to the extent that Ireland would be in real danger of losing its temperate status.
> 
> Skiing the Sugar Loaf, anyone?



There is a possibility that you may be correct, but the effect you talk about (if it ever happens) will not happen over the next decade or two - it will take hundreds of years.

I have seen several very good documentaries that counteract all the doom and gloom stories, and basically the planet has cycles that happen over THOUSANDS and TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. Many very clever scientists believe that we are now just entering another cycle. And bear in mind that this cycle is incredibly gradual - it will take hundreds of years to show, so us and all our children and children's children will be long gone. 

I think that too many people believe all the hype and scare stories that they are told too easily. Personally I think it is being hyped so much because of one simple thing -*there's money in it *!!!!

I have always had this thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if 'An Inconvenient Truth' is correct (and all the scare stories we are told) and the planet faces a pivotal point in the next 50 years, then why aren't draconian measures being taken *RIGHT NOW* to save us all? Why aren't all cars above 1.1 being banned from being produced, why are producers still allowed to fly spuds around the world when we can buy them locally, why are buildings allowed to be lit up like Xmas trees when empty ..... I could go on. Some will say "but you can't force people to drive small cars" etc, but if the future of this planet depended on it in the next 50 - 75 years, YES YOU CAN.

And thats why I believe the Gov's let us continue, but just to tax us more on our SUVs, our petrol, allow us to fly to Pargue for a weekend to get taxes off us, etc.


----------



## annR

> Think how small Ireland is. And we have the likes of the US, India and China who couldn't care less about climate change. I read that China finish a new COAL powered power station EVERY DAY. How will anything small countries do change if the BIG countries continue to do whatever they want?


 
That's like saying who cares if I litter, there is so much litter around what difference does it make.

I would prefer to live in a country which takes responsibility for itself.  I would prefer to take responsibility for myself.
Even the big countries could sit back and find some excuse to do nothing, let's hope they don't take that attitude.


----------



## ubiquitous

diarmuidc said:


> It's not a "movement" it's science, and hence any reference to Marxims, Islamism, Capitalism or any other -ism is ridiculous.


Oddly enough the link you quote says "The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena."

How then can its work be classed as science?



diarmuidc said:


> Yes, you are right, maybe we should get some people who could study the science of these climate changes, "scientists" if you will, and ask them to form some committe and discussion groups and come to some conclusion as to the cause of these climate changes.



If this analysis hasn't already been done (and I have yet to hear any satisfactory account that it has) it really makes one wonder about the anount of "science" behind the IPCC.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science



> science
> 
> sci·ence  (sns)
> n.
> 1.
> a. The *observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.*
> b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
> c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
> 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
> 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
> 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


----------



## MOB

This debate is not going to change the view of either side, but here's my tuppence worth anyway:

1.  The existence of Global warming may now be said to be an agreed mainstream scientific consensus.

2. The IPCC is a scientific body;  it does not carry out research; it does, among other things, review and evaluate scientific research carried out by others.  I think its work can be classed as science, but I don't see that anything hangs on it.  Its work is well known and easily researchable.

3.  What - if anything - we can (or should) do to stop or moderate Global Warming is a far more vexed question.   In a world where a substantial minority still dispute its existence, we clearly have a long way to go.


----------



## ubiquitous

MOB said:


> In a world where a substantial minority still dispute its existence, we clearly have a long way to go.



I don't think it is true that a substantial minority dispute the existence of climate change. I certainly don't, even though I am strongly sceptical of what I see as the climate change industry. It is an accepted fact that the earth is currently getting warmer. What tends to be missed is that the earth is continually either getting warmer or colder, and that nature adapts accordingly. The big concern in the 1970s was the perception at the time that the earth was getting cooler. Temperatures have fluctuated so profoundly in Ireland during the last 500 years that it is hard to understand today how Oliver Cromwell could have died in the 1650s from malaria that he contracted in Ireland. If current global warming trends continue to the extent that malaria returns to Ireland, we will still only be at the same point of the cycle that we were at in 1650.


----------



## MOB

Sorry - I should have been clearer about what I meant.  What I intended to convey is that there is a substantial minority who do not agree that the current warming is  something outside the parameters of the 'normal' cyclical and other fluctuations which have occurred in the past, and who do not agree that it is of a wholly more serious nature.


----------



## michaelm

ubiquitous said:


> I don't think it is true that a substantial minority dispute the existence of climate change. I certainly don't, even though I am strongly sceptical of what I see as the climate change industry.


Ditto.  Apparently Mars is warming too, without help from us.  I find the ice-core data interesting - it apparently shows that there is a definite correlation between carbon levels and temperature, but that fluctuations in carbon levels lag about 400 years behind fluctuations in temperature.


----------



## room305

michaelm said:


> Ditto. Apparently Mars is warming too, without help from us. I find the ice-core data interesting - it apparently shows that there is a definite correlation between carbon levels and temperature, but that fluctuations in carbon levels lag about 400 years behind fluctuations in temperature.


 
Correlation does not prove _causation_, a fact any scientist should be aware of.


----------



## extopia

Nobody doubts that the earth goes through "natural" warming and cooling cycles that last for millions of years. Such cycles cause slow change, to which the earth can adapt, continuing to sustain life. 

The problem right now - and this is what the vast majority of scientists seem to agree on - is that carbon emissions are affecting our climate to such an extent that the planet cannot adapt fast enough to compensate. 

There is huge consensus within the scientific community that (a) warming is currently happening on an unprecedented scale, and (b) the acceleration in global warming is caused by carbon build-up, for which human activity is responsible - destruction of forest,  intensive farming, fossil fuels, etc. etc.

If we are to avoid the tipping point (where the sun will take over, despite anything we do) we need behaviour change and/or a technological solution. The fact that business opportunities will arise as a result of this is inevitable - but irrelevant in the long run.


----------



## RMCF

annR said:


> That's like saying who cares if I litter, there is so much litter around what difference does it make.
> 
> I would prefer to live in a country which takes responsibility for itself.  I would prefer to take responsibility for myself.
> Even the big countries could sit back and find some excuse to do nothing, *let's hope they don't take that attitude*.



But they have already taken that attitude I'm afraid, and there is zero chance of them changing their ways now.

Could you imagine if the President of the US told all those hundreds of millions that the day of the 4, 5 and 6 litre SUVs is over and they all have to drive small cars like those wacky Europeans. And that they have to pay £4.25/€5.50 PER GALLON instead of £1.50/€2. 

He will NEVER do it. 

And the Chinese Government isn't going to stop what they are doing because their economy is booming as fat-cat bosses from the West move all their manufacturing to the East because it maximises profit. And this is what the world runs on I'm afraid. The people in power don't give a toss about climate change, only money.


----------



## room305

extopia said:


> Nobody doubts that the earth goes through "natural" warming and cooling cycles that last for millions of years. Such cycles cause slow change, to which the earth can adapt, continuing to sustain life.
> 
> The problem right now - and this is what the vast majority of scientists seem to agree on - is that carbon emissions are affecting our climate to such an extent that the planet cannot adapt fast enough to compensate.
> 
> There is huge consensus within the scientific community that (a) warming is currently happening on an unprecedented scale, and (b) the acceleration in global warming is caused by carbon build-up, for which human activity is responsible - destruction of forest, intensive farming, fossil fuels, etc. etc.
> 
> If we are to avoid the tipping point (where the sun will take over, despite anything we do) we need behaviour change and/or a technological solution. The fact that business opportunities will arise as a result of this is inevitable - but irrelevant in the long run.


 
I'm not going to get into the science of global warming (something I'm less than convinced of) but you have to wonder why Al Gore, the leading global warming advocate, won't accept that we could simply suck excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it without damaging the economic growth of developed or developing nations. Instead he advocates a system that involves purchasing indulgences from his own company. Purchases that can probably only be afforded by the already wealthy.


----------



## rabbit

RMCF said:


> Think how small Ireland is. And we have the likes of the US, India and China who couldn't care less about climate change. I read that China finish a new COAL powered power station EVERY DAY. .


 
Our pollution in Ireland is now higher per head of population than these countries.   Nearly all our electricity is got by burning fossil fuels.  We have no atomic energy, which many environmentalists now advocate because it is is kinder to the environment than importing + burning precious oil reserves.  As long as we in the west continue to want to import cheap clothes and cheap sports goods and cheap bags and cheap everything from places like China and Thailand, they will produce them ....and having visited some countries like that it is obvious they do not worry too much about the environment....people there have other priorities


----------



## Elphaba

room305 said:


> Instead he advocates a system that involves purchasing indulgences from his own company. Purchases that can probably only be afforded by the already wealthy.



Always thougth Al Gore was a bit too good to be true, can you explain what you mean about 'purchasing indulgences,' this is somethong my Granny used to do, to ensure a place in heaven!


----------



## CGorman

RMCF, what do you think of this view point. The figures are made up, but are quite possible.

_Today_

Power a persons energy needs (transport, heat, light etc.)
by Oil/Coal etc. - Cost X per annum

Power a persons energy needs (transport, heat, light etc.)
by largely Renewables - Cost 1.25X per annum

_10yrs from now_

Power a persons energy needs (transport, heat, light etc.)
by Oil/Coal etc. - Cost 2X per annum

Power a persons energy needs (transport, heat, light etc.)
by largely by Renewables - Cost 0.75X per annum

So imagine this happens, renewables continue to get cheaper as they become more efficent, whilst oil and coal doubles in cost due to soaring prices and onerous regulation and penalties.

Ireland's energy Cost - has fallen
China & Indias - doubled

Who now has cost advantage? Who is cleaner? Who is more competitive? Who is ultimately richer? If your selfish enough to adopt "he litters, so therfore so can I", then at least take a good captialist look at this and see it from an economic point of view!

We in the West, and particularly in the small European countries have a massive opportunity to bolster our competitiveness and become the world leaders in energy efficency and renewables - when China and India do cop on - which they will do as soon as it becomes economically viable - we chould be the ones selling them the know-how to catch up with us! 

It looks like Airtricity may be sold soon, but it is an example of how enormous the opportunity is for us. Think of your wallet RMCF!


----------



## room305

Elphaba said:


> Always thougth Al Gore was a bit too good to be true, can you explain what you mean about 'purchasing indulgences,' this is somethong my Granny used to do, to ensure a place in heaven!


 
Like anyone he has his own agenda to push.

Indulgences = carbon credits


----------



## extopia

Carbon credits are not a bad thing. And Gore would be stupid to purchase his cabon credits from another company, I don't think that's such a big deal - as long as he's purchasing them from somewhere, and the company is putting the  money to good use, i.e. really is using it to create carbon offsets.

To those posters above who dispute the urgency of this issue on the grounds that there will be no disaster in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime, well that's pure self interest at work.


----------



## z104

Climate change has been happening since time began. If you give enough grants to researchers to come to a "concensus" that global warming is caused by man then you will get a "concensus" that global warming is caused by man.

I'm sceptical that man is the cause of this problem and that it's a problem of the magnitude being put forward. Mother nature has been regulating it's own temperature since time began and I just don't buy that human beings are that powerful. Volcanoes and cows create more carbon dioxide than man, The oceans absorb carbon dioxide, Plankton feeds on carbon dioxide. Fish and whales feed on the plankton. It's a cycle. 30 years ago we were about to go through global cooling. 

How about everybody gives up beef and milk and do your bit for the planet this way and reduce the demand for cows. It makes about as much sence as raising taxes.

And think about this too, If the oil is about to run out then what are we worried about. No oil will mean less carbon emmisions. so , you can all rest easy.


----------



## GeneralZod

Niallers said:


> Mother nature has been regulating it's own temperature since time began and I just don't buy that human beings are that powerful. Volcanoes and cows create more carbon dioxide than man, The oceans absorb carbon dioxide, Plankton feeds on carbon dioxide. Fish and whales feed on the plankton.



Humans will burn through much of the fossil fuel in about a thousand years. This took millions of years to accumulate through natural processes. We're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere much faster than volcanoes release it. 



Niallers said:


> 30 years ago we were about to go through global cooling.



A few scientists speculating in the 70s about cooling isn't a fair comparison with the global consensus of thousands of scientists about climate change.




Niallers said:


> And think about this too, If the oil is about to run out then what are we worried about. No oil will mean less carbon emmisions. so , you can all rest easy.



So should we just do nothing and accept the worst effects of climate change? We're only about half way through the easily exploitable oil so if we don't wean ourselves off it before then we'll have pumped a hell of a lot more CO2 into the air. The IPCC is saying we need to take urgent action to limit the effects.


----------



## z104

I just think the government should provide public transport before they punish motorists for driving.
If there was an alternative mode of transport to the car ( For those outside Dublin) then tax away. 
A car is not a luxury, it's a neccesity. As it stands, public transport does not exist in Ireland. Create the public transport infrastructure then ok, increase tax or tax on consumption. Increasing taxes when people do not have an alternative is like shooting fish in a barrell and grossly unfair.


----------



## extopia

Niallers said:


> I'm sceptical that man is the cause of this problem...



Many posters have expressed this view. However thousands of scientists, who have actually studied this issue, believe that man actually is the cause.


----------



## z104

They believe or have concensus. They cannot proove.

Does God exist? It is belived by Billions that he/she does.


----------



## ubiquitous

The head of the IPCC was interviewed on the "Lunch with the FT" feature on Saturday's Financial Times weekend magazine. The interview was a largely informal one, concentrating more on the guy's personality, background etc than on his work with the IPCC. 

The one thing I found particularly revealing was the fact that this man has been an environmental activist for decades, long before he ever got involved in the "science" of climate change. This leads me to suspect that if the upper echelons of the IPCC are/were populated largely by people with a background in "green" politics and/or environmental campaigning, it is no surprise that the IPCC's conclusions would have a particular bias in that direction. The bias would of course have been in the opposite direction, had it been dominated by free-market conservatives.

One would expect, in an Irish context, that any advisory group headed by the likes of Roger Garland or Joe Higgins would be radically different in its approach to issues, compared to a parallel group run by Charlie McCreevy or Michael McDowell.

I think there this more than one side to the climate change story, despite what the IPCC and environmental campaigners tell us.


----------



## GeneralZod

The IPCC was actually set-up with US support as a means of preventing environmental activists controlling the policy agenda. 

The scientific consensus could be viewed as a global conspiracy of activist scientists no longer concerned with scientific truth suppressing all descent amongst their colleagues for fear of losing funding. Or more probably the enormous degree of international consensus is due to increasingly strong supporting evidence.  We're at the point where the onus of proof is on the skeptics to show that climate change is not being caused by human activity.

I've yet to hear a new skeptic argument beyond the existing easily countered ones that there isn't a more plausible response to.


----------



## ubiquitous

GeneralZod said:


> We're at the point where the onus of proof is on the skeptics to show that climate change is not being caused by human activity.
> 
> I've yet to hear a new skeptic argument beyond the existing easily countered ones that there isn't a more plausible response to.



Okay then, please cite 2 reputable sources that can explain how human activity caused the changes to the Irish climate between the warmer climate that caused Oliver Cromwell's death from malaria in the 1650s and that of today.


----------



## z104

Planet earth is over 4.5 billion years old.

Do you really believe human activity over the past 100 years is having such a drastic effect. Are we conceited enough to believe we are this powerful.

Green house gases such as co2 amount to 0.038% of the earths atmosphere and this figure has been been much higher in the past ( as in pre history ) .


----------



## GeneralZod

ubiquitous said:


> Okay then, please cite 2 reputable sources that can explain how human activity caused the changes to the Irish climate between the warmer climate that caused Oliver Cromwell's death from malaria in the 1650s and that of today.



Human activity on the planet in the seventeenth century was insignificant as the industrial revolution had not started yet. Therefore clearly there won't be any reputable sources arguing human activity was causing climate change at that stage.

You've also referred to a highly localised change. Please supply any reputable evidence that such a change actually occurred. Cromwell's death by Malaria is not a proven fact as the medical knowledge of the time was not advanced. It is also claimed he picked up a malaria like ailment while in Ireland commanding the army crushing Irish resistance. Traipsing around the countryside might do that.



			
				Niallers said:
			
		

> Do you really believe human activity over the past 100 years is having such a drastic effect. Are we conceited enough to believe we are this powerful.
> 
> Green house gases such as co2 amount to 0.038% of the earths atmosphere and this figure has been been much higher in the past ( as in pre history ) .



Isn't the conceit to think that we can over a the space of 100 or so years increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by a large percentage without upsetting the existing environmental systems that led to the current concentrations?  The planet is not an infinite system what we do has real impacts. For example acid rain caused by coal fired power stations.


----------



## ubiquitous

GeneralZod said:


> Human activity on the planet in the seventeenth century was insignificant as the industrial revolution had not started yet. Therefore clearly there won't be any reputable sources arguing human activity was causing climate change at that stage.
> 
> You've also referred to a highly localised change. Please supply any reputable evidence that such a change actually occurred.


There is no such thing as a highly localised climate change. That is a contradiction in terms. Its well known, and scientifically proven, that climate and temperatures have fluctuated over the centuries. Its also commonly accepted that previous fluctuations in temperatures have been due to natural causes, up to and including the sharp global warming trend that occurred in the 1930s. No explanation has been given for the global cooling trend that occurred for a period of decades up to the 1970s. 

Yet we are led to believe that the present global warming trend is a departure from the previous fluctuations, in that it is solely as a result of human actions. The people who are unable to explain previous global climate fluctuations except in terms of wholly natural phenomena are now trying to tell us that "this time its different". We've heard this one before...


----------



## MOB

I think people are slightly missing the point here.  There have always been long, cyclical changes in climate, based on the milankovic cycles, based on the rise of different species (for example, the plants which evolved and made this an oygen rich atmosphere) and other variables acting over the long or very long term.  


There have always been relatively quick fluctuations, for example changes induced by asteroid impact or volcanic activity.

These are things about which we can do nothing.  

The present debate and the present 'Global Warming' concerns observed changes and predicted changes which are largely postulated to have been created by man. There are really three debates:
1.   'is this happening?'.  
2.   'Did we cause it?'.  
3.    'what if anything should we be doing?'   

The problem here is that while many people are trying to conduct the third debate; many others are still at either No. 2.  A few are still  at No. 1.


----------



## z104

Do we go back to the happy clappy days of pre industrial revolution.
Nice thought but not realistic.

The world population is growing at a massive rate.
Technology and further advancement is the way to go.

Either that or a good old world war to cull the excess population.


----------



## GeneralZod

ubiquitous said:


> No explanation has been given for the global cooling trend that occurred for a period of decades up to the 1970s.



A possible explanation has been proposed.  In those decades there was an increased level of volcanic activity and there was also aerosol pollution from human activities. As there was a reduction in the volcanic activity and clean air acts came into effect the warming effect became more apparent. During the early 90s there was also a cooling period that's been attributed to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. After that the warming trend became apparent again.



ubiquitous said:


> Yet we are led to believe that the present global warming trend is a departure from the previous fluctuations, in that it is solely as a result of human actions. The people who are unable to explain previous global climate fluctuations except in terms of wholly natural phenomena are now trying to tell us that "this time its different". We've heard this one before...



We've never heard this one before with such strong evidence. The vast majority of climate scientists have proposed an internally consistent theory that explains the observed warming. The skeptics have not proposed an alternative natural process that accounts for the same observations.


----------



## ubiquitous

The problem is that "theory" and "possible explanations" (your words) have been postulated as fact.


----------



## GeneralZod

ubiquitous said:


> The problem is that "theory" and "possible explanations" (your words) have been postulated as fact.



Not by the scientists of the IPCC.


----------



## ubiquitous

GeneralZod said:


> Not by the scientists of the IPCC.



Why then are the IPCC proposing radical shifts in human social & economic development strategies as a reaction to their "theory" and "possible explanations"? 

It makes no sense in my book to sacrifice economic development (particularly in the third world) on the basis of unproven theory.


----------



## room305

extopia said:


> The skeptics have not proposed an alternative natural process that accounts for the same observations.



Yes they have. Theories based on the alignment of planets - particularly Jupiter and Saturn (predicting a cooling period that began in 1996 and will begin to affect us as early as 2010), others theories have been posited and published in respectable journals such as _Nature_. Gore has yet to answer why he himself got the temperatures wrong in his movie (it is now believed that 1934 was probably the hottest year on record), nor has he accounted for the known lag involved in ocean temperatures, roughly 800 years worth or so.



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> Carbon credits are not a bad thing. And Gore would be stupid to purchase his cabon credits from another company, I don't think that's such a big deal - as long as he's purchasing them from somewhere, and the company is putting the money to good use, i.e. really is using it to create carbon offsets.



There are some unsettling quirks to the carbon trading regimes that actually increase the amount of greenhouse gases produced (e.g. China switched prior to the baseline to an extremely toxic way of manufacturing fridges to reduce carbon dioxide but maintain a high credit base to sell). However, this ignores [broken link removed] in carbon trading.



> So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore's spokesperson said Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
> 
> Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said...
> 
> Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
> 
> And it is not clear at all that Gore's stock purchases - excuse me, "carbon offsets" purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ "greenhouse gases" - into the atmosphere.


----------



## extopia

It should be noted that the quote above is from the communications director of the Nashville Republican Party.

Nevertheless, Gore, along with the IPCC, was the joint recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## GeneralZod

ubiquitous said:


> Why then are the IPCC proposing radical shifts in human social & economic development strategies as a reaction to their "theory" and "possible explanations"?
> 
> It makes no sense in my book to sacrifice economic development (particularly in the third world) on the basis of unproven theory.



The IPCC are proposing options for climate change mitigation. It is for policy makers to look at the arguments including the economic ones and attempt to come up with the best compromise and most efficient use of resources. It is by no means a given that economic growth and sustainable development are mutually incompatible. The recent Stern report indicates this.

As for the term "theory" (possible explanation is mine not the IPCC's so I will not discuss it) this is simply the language of science. Scientists don't talk of anything as being fact, contradictory evidence may arise. They will express a degree of confidence in a theory however and they're very confident about man made climate change occurring.


----------



## ubiquitous

Just because Hicks (the author of the Gore item quoted above) is a Republican party activist (which he explicitly states on his blog), does not mean automatically that his allegations are baseless.

In fact Generation Investment's own site confirms the facts cited by Hicks. [broken link removed]

The Wikipedia feature on Generation Investment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management links to the following article that echoes Hicks' criticism "Al Gore's Inconvenient Profit"
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/03/03/al-gore-inconvenient-profit.php


----------



## extopia

ubiquitous said:


> Just because Hicks (the author of the Gore item quoted above) is a Republican party activist (which he explicitly states on his [/url]



True, but neither does it mean that just because Al Gore buys his carbon credits from a company of which he is chairman that his motives are suspect.

Should he buy such credits from a competing company? Should shareholders of Diageo drink Murphy's instead of Guinness? 

Anyway, discussion of Al Gore is a distraction at best. He is just an activist (albeit a high-profile one).


----------



## ubiquitous

GeneralZod said:


> As for the term "theory" (possible explanation is mine not the IPCC's so I will not discuss it) this is simply the language of science. Scientists don't talk of anything as being fact, contradictory evidence may arise. They will express a degree of confidence in a theory however and they're very confident about man made climate change occurring.



Fair enough, but it makes me wonder what basis Al Gore had for saying "The debate on global warming is over."... back in 1992. 



extopia said:


> True, but neither does it mean that just because Al Gore buys his carbon credits from a company of which he is chairman that his motives are suspect.
> 
> Should he buy such credits from a competing company? Should shareholders of Diageo drink Murphy's instead of Guinness?



Would you apply the same logic to Dick Cheney


----------



## GeneralZod

ubiquitous said:


> Fair enough, but it makes me wonder what basis Al Gore had for saying "The debate on global warming is over."... back in 1992.



Back in 1992 I was a climate change skeptic myself as the evidence wasn't strong enough then.  Al Gore also famously invented the Internet.


----------



## ubiquitous

GeneralZod said:


> Back in 1992 I was a climate change skeptic myself as the evidence wasn't strong enough then.


Gore didn't make that statement as a global warming sceptic... His full statement was 

“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/category/junk-science/



> “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
> 
> So said Al Gore … in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.





GeneralZod said:


> Al Gore also famously invented the Internet.


Indeed


----------



## GeneralZod

ubiquitous said:


> Gore didn't make that statement as a global warming sceptic...



I didn't say he was.




ubiquitous said:


> Indeed



That was a joke. Are you deliberately misunderstanding by any chance?


----------



## ubiquitous

GeneralZod said:


> That was a joke. Are you deliberately misunderstanding by any chance?



No 



> "During my service in the United States Congress, *I took the initiative in creating the Internet*"  Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.


----------



## GeneralZod

Ok. Ready to resume sensible debate..


----------



## extopia

ubiquitous said:


> Would you apply the same logic to Dick Cheney



No, because at least Gore is spending his own money.


----------



## extopia

Ah no, let's not have the old Gore and the internet smear again...

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp


----------



## MOB

"it is now believed that 1934 was probably the hottest year on record"

Factcheck required;  I think this quote may well be misleading, though I am open to correction.  I googled it and it appears that this statistic relates only to the weather in the 'lower 48' United States - not global average temperature and in particular not polar regions.


----------



## room305

MOB said:


> "it is now believed that 1934 was probably the hottest year on record"
> 
> Factcheck required;  I think this quote may well be misleading, though I am open to correction.  I googled it and it appears that this statistic relates only to the weather in the 'lower 48' United States - not global average temperature and in particular not polar regions.



The correction from 2005 to 1934 directly corresponds to the dataset Gore used in _An Inconvenient Truth_. However, there are plenty of other major flaws with Gore's film. He has already freely admitted to the necessity of using exaggeration to provoke a motivated response.



> Gore shows a chart purporting to be actual temperatures since the Civil War. (Note that the film doesn’t expose the dependent axis. If he did it would emphasize how small the changes in temperature were.) Gore states: “_These are actual measurements of atmospheric temperature since our civil war. In any given year it might look like it’s going down, but the overall trend is extremely clear. In recent years it is uninterrupted and it is intensifying. In fact, if you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record, they have all occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was 2005._“
> He can be forgiven for having been misled by a close advisor, Dr. James Hansen who heads the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Hansen has recently been forced to admit that errors were made in correcting raw data and that the hottest year was 1934. Here is the new ranking: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.


  For a detailed critique of the abundant flaws in this movie and the above quote, this link is very interesting.


----------



## annR

I'm not a scientist and I cannot follow who has the strongest scientific argument.  However if I look around at human's impact on the planet I don't really need much persuasion that we are changing the climate.  We have altered the entire planet in an extreme way in a very short space of time.  We are deforesting it and overfishing the oceans, burying our tons of rubbish, polluting the air, land, rivers, lakes and sea.  We have majorly altered and often destroyed ecosystems nearly everywhere.  It's not that much of a leap for me to believe that we are also changing the climate.  To be honest I don't really care either, anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing in my book.


----------



## ubiquitous

annR said:


> I'm not a scientist and I cannot follow who has the strongest scientific argument.  However if I look around at human's impact on the planet I don't really need much persuasion that we are changing the climate.  We have altered the entire planet in an extreme way in a very short space of time.  We are deforesting it and overfishing the oceans, burying our tons of rubbish, polluting the air, land, rivers, lakes and sea.  We have majorly altered and often destroyed ecosystems nearly everywhere.  It's not that much of a leap for me to believe that we are also changing the climate.  To be honest I don't really care either, anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing in my book.



Emotion has unfortunately played a big role in generating the current climate change hysteria, usually at the expense of hard facts, analysis and (sometimes) common sense. Of course pollution, overfishing and deforestation are to be condemned. However despite what you say, it is a massive (and imho unsustainable) leap of faith to conclude for example that overfishing or landfills are creating global warming. You might as well try to argue that there is a direct link between drunkedness or petty crime and mass murder.

The "anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing" apologia for the global warming hysteria is all very well in itself until you remember that at least some "anti global warming" initiatives are themselves causing deforestation and other environmental damage. The ITV news on Monday night showed how farmers in Indonesia and other countries are clearfelling large areas of rainforest so that they can grow biofuels, in response to the West's demands for "ecofriendly" fuels. I could go on...


----------



## ubiquitous

posted in error


----------



## room305

ubiquitous said:


> The "anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing" apologia for the global warming hysteria is all very well in itself until you remember that at least some "anti global warming" initiatives are themselves causing deforestation and other environmental damage. The ITV news on Monday night showed how farmers in Indonesia and other countries are clearfelling large areas of rainforest so that they can grow biofuels, in response to the West's demands for "ecofriendly" fuels. I could go on...



Well said. I think the "well it's not going to cause harm to switch to a *greener* or more *sustainable* lifestyle" argument needs to be challenged. A lot of green policies seem to be based around a very idealistic notion of subsistence living. The reality is much different and the benefits that we in the West have enjoyed from industrialisation should not be denied to Asia and Africa.

People also need to think more clearly about what being "green" or living a "sustainable" lifestyle really means (both of which I wholeheartedly support). Anyone who imagines it involves using corn-based ethanol instead of petroleum or buying a brand new Toyota Prius needs to wake up.


----------



## annR

> course pollution, overfishing and deforestation are to be condemned. However despite what you say, it is a massive (and imho unsustainable) leap of faith to conclude for example that overfishing or landfills are creating global warming


 
Of course neither of those things by themselves would create global warming. But if you were to take the entire effect that humans have had on the planet since the industrial age, and the sheer scale of our continuing impact, I don't think it's such a big leap of faith for a non scientist like myself to make. Are you a scientist?



> The "anything which would make us clean up a bit is a good thing" apologia for the global warming hysteria is all very well in itself until you remember that at least some "anti global warming" initiatives are themselves causing deforestation and other environmental damage. The ITV news on Monday night showed how farmers in Indonesia and other countries are clearfelling large areas of rainforest so that they can grow biofuels, in response to the West's demands for "ecofriendly" fuels. I could go on...


 
Yes I'm sure you could go on and cite all the reasons why we shouldn't be doing anything to clean up. You refer to apologia for the global warming hysteria. I view a lot of the cynicism as apologia for not bothering to do anything at all, as this is the only thing being proposed, which I don't agree with. Do you think we should do anything at all then, or just continue the way we are? 



> A lot of green policies seem to be based around a very idealistic notion of subsistence living. The reality is much different and the benefits that we in the West have enjoyed from industrialisation should not be denied to Asia and Africa.


 
Just because I think we should try harder does not mean I think we should be living at subsistence level, that is putting words in my mouth.  If more research instead of cynicism had been put into it in the first place, our green policies would probably be a lot more sophisticated by now.  I also did not imply that economic progress should be denied to developing nations.  Again if more effort had been put into all this before we would have also figured out long ago how both we and developing nations can prosper in a more environmentally friendly way.

Ok so the replies to my 'green' post talk about being emotional, well meaning but ultimately destructive, promoting subsistence living, and wanting to deny developing countries their progress.   I suppose this thread was started by someone who thought green initiatives are completely pointless so I shouldn't be surprised at the tone of the rest of the discussion.  Can I ask, are there any environmental scientists here or anyone with enough expertise to actually understand the evidence or lack thereof?


----------



## ubiquitous

annR said:


> Of course neither of those things by themselves would create global warming. But if you were to take the entire effect that humans have had on the planet since the industrial age, and the sheer scale of our continuing impact, I don't think it's such a big leap of faith for a non scientist like myself to make.



Another poster addressed this question already in this discussion, far better than I ever could
_


Niallers said:



			Planet earth is over 4.5 billion years old.

Do you really believe human activity over the past 100 years is having such a drastic effect. Are we conceited enough to believe we are this powerful.

Green house gases such as co2 amount to 0.038% of the earths atmosphere and this figure has been been much higher in the past ( as in pre history ) .
		
Click to expand...

_


annR said:


> Yes I'm sure you could go on and cite all the reasons why we shouldn't be doing anything to clean up. You refer to apologia for the global warming hysteria. I view a lot of the cynicism as apologia for not bothering to do anything at all, as this is the only thing being proposed, which I don't agree with. Do you think we should do anything at all then, or just continue the way we are? Why is cleaning up after ourselves such an difficult notion for people to deal with?



With respect, this is nonsense, and offensive nonsense at that. You are trying to slur those of us who don't agree with you, in relation to global warming hysteria, by claiming that we don't care about the environment. You should only have to look at the record of someone like David Bellamy who has dedicated his working life to environmentalism, to realise that environmentalism and scepticism of global warming are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## room305

annR said:


> Of course neither of those things by themselves would create global warming. But if you were to take the entire effect that humans have had on the planet since the industrial age, and the sheer scale of our continuing impact, I don't think it's such a big leap of faith for a non scientist like myself to make. Are you a scientist?



Making leaps of faith is precisely what scientists should not be doing. I cannot categorically say that global warming theory is bunk, but I am confident that nobody else is sure either. However, it would appear that the people behind the politicized global warming movement have decided that the theory of man-made global warming is beyond criticism and actively shout down anyone who contradicts this. This is unscientific and I question their motivation for behaving in such a manner.



annR said:


> Yes I'm sure you could go on and cite all the reasons why we shouldn't be doing anything to clean up. You refer to apologia for the global warming hysteria. I view a lot of the cynicism as apologia for not bothering to do anything at all, as this is the only thing being proposed, which I don't agree with. Do you think we should do anything at all then, or just continue the way we are?


 
You are setting up a strawman argument here. I am sceptical about man-made global warming, I never suggested it does not matter if we destroy the environment. Natural resources are finite, it behoves us to use them as efficiently as we can. The ecosystem upon which we ourselves and all life relies upon is both incredibly complex and often quite fragile. We should strive neither to destroy its beauty or its many remarkable lifeforms of which we are one.

However, this is at least an ocean's depth away from the Church of Al Gore, which maintains with monstrous egotism, that mankind can regulate the temperature of a four and half billion year old planet by remembering to switch off the lights when we leave a room.



annR said:


> Just because I think we should try harder does not mean I think we should be living at subsistence level, that is putting words in my mouth.  If more research instead of cynicism had been put into it in the first place, our green policies would probably be a lot more sophisticated by now.  I also did not imply that economic progress should be denied to developing nations.  Again if more effort had been put into all this before we would have also figured out long ago how both we and developing nations can prosper in a more environmentally friendly way.



I didn't mean to imply that greens wish to have everyone living at subsistence level, just that a romanticism of the life it entails suffuses their policies. Hence why they might oppose the setting up of a Nike 'sweatshop' in Cambodia but favour the subsidising of small farms in the same region.



annR said:


> Ok so the replies to my 'green' post talk about being emotional, well meaning but ultimately destructive, promoting subsistence living, and wanting to deny developing countries their progress.   I suppose this thread was started by someone who thought green initiatives are completely pointless so I shouldn't be surprised at the tone of the rest of the discussion.  Can I ask, are there any environmental scientists here or anyone with enough expertise to actually understand the evidence or lack thereof?



I am a scientist but not an environmental one. I've only met one scientist working in the area of global warming and he was convinced that we are seeing a warming cycle beyond the usual fluctuations based on ice core data from the North pole.

However, what alarms me about the theory is the most basic and fallacious of logical mistakes that seems to permeate it. _Cum hoc, ergo prompter hoc_ - to assume that correlation implies causation. If a dataset shows that a rise in CO2 correlates with a rise in temperature, this in no way proves that the temperature rise was caused by the rise in CO2 or that a subsequent increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature. This is a fairly basic scientific error - secondary school level stuff. Yet worryingly it appears to be practically the basis of Gore's movie. Nor have I heard anything from anyone within the movement that would lead me to believe they have recognised the error, or why it might not be relevant in this instance.


----------



## extopia

room305 said:
			
		

> I've only met one scientist working in the area of global warming and he was convinced that we are seeing a warming cycle beyond the usual fluctuations based on ice core data from the North pole.



Not a very big sample of course, but 100% in the anthropogenic camp then?



			
				room305 said:
			
		

> This is a fairly basic scientific error - secondary school level stuff. Yet worryingly it appears to be practically the basis of Gore's movie. Nor have I heard anything from anyone within the movement that would lead me to believe they have recognised the error, or why it might not be relevant in this instance.



Since when is the global warming thesis the sole preserve of Al Gore? With respect, whether his movie is overly populist or logically flawed (and I've no idea whether it is or not) is irrelevant, surely? 

Can we really dismiss the IPCC as a "politicised global warming movement"? The levels of consensus among scientists working in this area should be taken seriously surely? The oft-quoted argument that such scientists are afraid to "buck" the "establishment" is insulting to scientists everywhere, I would imagine.

Ultimately, non-scientists, including governments, other policy makers, and the general public, can either trust the science, and the bodies that collate and review scientific findings, or dismiss the whole thing as politicised conspiracy bunkum.

Believe me, I realise that it's possible that billions of people will ignore the science. There are many examples of such delusion in the history of human experience, religion being of course the prime example.

But I suspect that anthropogenic global warming theory can be more robustly defended than the widely believed but ultimately indefensible theories that have been foisted on us for countless generations by druids, creationists and other zealots, for instance.


----------



## ubiquitous

extopia said:


> Can we really dismiss the IPCC as a "politicised global warming movement"? The levels of consensus among scientists working in this area should be taken seriously surely? The oft-quoted argument that such scientists are afraid to "buck" the "establishment" is insulting to scientists everywhere, I would imagine.
> 
> Ultimately, non-scientists, including governments, other policy makers, and the general public, can either trust the science, and the bodies that collate and review scientific findings, or dismiss the whole thing as politicised conspiracy bunkum.



The same could have been said a decade ago about the then impending "millennium bug" crisis.


----------



## michaelm

room305 said:


> I've only met one scientist working in the area of global warming and he was convinced that we are seeing a warming cycle beyond the usual fluctuations based on ice core data from the North pole.
> 
> However, what alarms me about the theory is the most basic and fallacious of logical mistakes that seems to permeate it. _Cum hoc, ergo prompter hoc_ - to assume that correlation implies causation. If a dataset shows that a rise in CO2 correlates with a rise in temperature, this in no way proves that the temperature rise was caused by the rise in CO2 or that a subsequent increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature.


Does the ice core data not in fact show that increases in CO2 levels lag circa 400 years behind rises in temperature? Thus suggesting that it's temperature driving CO2 rather than the other way around.


----------



## room305

michaelm said:


> Does the ice core data not in fact show that increases in CO2 levels lag circa 400 years behind rises in temperature? Thus suggesting that it's temperature driving CO2 rather than the other way around.



He never actually ventured an opinion on the cause of the warming period he believed we were entering. This was a few years ago and there wasn't quite the same hoopla about CO2, although people were starting to become aware of the issue. I'd love to meet him again to see if he has refined his view in any way.

If I remember correctly, he looked at ice core samples that were millions of years old and based on the melting and refreezing of the ice they could posit in what periods the Earth was gradually getting warmer or cooler. They could compare this with their own measures of how much the ice was melting now and from this he came to the conclusion that we were entering a period of warming that would greatly exceed any of the previous warming periods in recent history.

Incidentally, it is always wrong to look at two isolated variables that are correlated and presume causation. Imagine I could show a correlation between an increase in the number of monuments built in Dublin and a decline in the overall crime rate. Then I could argue that we should build ever greater numbers of monuments to make the city safer. However, you also looked at the data and interpreted it differently, noticing that an increase in the number of monuments built followed a decline in the overall crime rate with a lag. Thus you would say, it was the decline in crime that prompted local authorities to build new monuments. In all likelihood most people would assume we were bonkers.

I believe I read a similar argument ridiculing global warming by showing that the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere almost directly correlated with a decline in worldwide pirate activity.


----------



## diarmuidc

Out of curosity has anyone here read the [broken link removed]Third and Fourth Assessment Reports? 

And secondly of all the sceptics here, (who I assume are not climatologists, correct me if I am wrong) where or from whom are you taking you scientific view points?


----------



## ubiquitous

diarmuidc said:


> And secondly of all the sceptics here, (who I assume are not climatologists, correct me if I am wrong) where or from whom are you taking you scientific view points?



Does one have to be an IT technologist to have an opinion on the Millennium Bug?


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> Does one have to be an IT technologist to have an opinion on the Millennium Bug?


Well to diagnose if one exists in a piece of software you do. 
You can say that you don't believe that one exists but your credibility might not be too high if you don't know jack about software


----------



## Guest127

I thought all the emissions from cars/power stations etc were sending up particles that were _blocking_ heat from entering the earths atmosphere. but maybe thats too simple. sort of a catch 22 situation.


----------



## room305

diarmuidc said:


> Out of curosity has anyone here read the [broken link removed]Third and Fourth Assessment Reports?



Not the entire reports - I have a life to live! I have read the summaries however (not ideal I know) and what always strikes me is two things

(1) Temperature comparisons are almost always made against very near term data, rarely earlier than 1750. This doesn't seem long enough when you are making claims that the warming occuring is unprecedented in the planet's history.

(2) Neither the temperature rise nor the sea level rise predictions point to the "immediate and irreversible" consequences outlined by the likes of Al Gore (I use him as a useful figurehead for the more extreme views on climate change). Most of the predictions are charted out decades or even one hundred years away, making the exercise pointless even if their models are accurate, because we'll run out of oil long before this point.



diarmuidc said:


> And secondly of all the sceptics here, (who I assume are not climatologists, correct me if I am wrong) where or from whom are you taking you scientific view points?



I am definitely not a climatologist but feel compelled to comment on what is clearly a very politicized movement arguing that we block Asian and African industrialisation on the basis of the more extreme views of one theory on the cause of an observable climate change.

I find that http://www.realclimate.org is a good source but I rarely get very involved in the complex scientific issues. My main objection is with those who wish to use the _possibility_ of anthropogenic climate change as an excuse to push a Marxist agenda. 

Why for example can global warming only be tackled by governments introducing legislation? Why is the United States always cited as a barrier to progress when it produces less greenhouse gases per unit of oil consumed than almost any other industrialised nation?  Why the support for bio-fuels (these produce just as much CO2 as petrol)? Why is it acceptable for wealthy global warming advocates to purchase "carbon credits" instead of making the same lifestyle changes they wish to enforce on others (an option denied to the less well-off)? What's wrong with just capturing CO2 as it is produced - say from coal fired electricity plants - and burying it?


----------



## room305

diarmuidc said:


> Well to diagnose if one exists in a piece of software you do.
> You can say that you don't believe that one exists but your credibility might not be too high if you don't know jack about software



I am not aware of many global warming sceptics who deny the possibility that:

1. The Earth has been getting warmer in the past few decades.
2. The warming _could_ be anthropogenic in nature.

However, many remain sceptical that:

1. _Anybody_ is certain what is causing the Earth to get warmer.
2. It is warmer now and/or temperatures are rising faster than they ever have in the planet's history.
3. That this warming will continue indefinitely unless we reduce CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions.
4. The effects of a rise between 1 and 6 degrees Celsius in the global average temperature will be devastating for mankind.


----------



## RMCF

Another very interesting debate today on the subject on the Matt Cooper show.

Another cynic like myself had a great rant to an Irish minister, who didn't answer one single question properly that he was asked.

Like why they all have to fly to exotic locations like Bali, Rio etc for the Kyoto conferences? I guess its something to do with the first class flights and 5 star hotels in the sun !!

And the fact that since all the Kyoto conferences started, that global warming and emissions have got worse - so they do NOTHING to help.

And the fact that over 50% of ALL first class flights out of New York are taken by Government officials.

They all preach change, but continue to live the high life.

Hypocrites.


----------



## room305

extopia said:


> Since when is the global warming thesis the sole preserve of Al Gore? With respect, whether his movie is overly populist or logically flawed (and I've no idea whether it is or not) is irrelevant, surely?



It's not his sole preserve but he is its champion. He has popularised the theory, on the basis of a movie with flaws and exaggerations few credible scientists would be willing to support. He is also a staggering hypocrite.

When people talk of an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of global warming, the possible extinction of the polar bear or the idea that we are very shortly moving into some irreversible feedback planet warming loop unless we immediately decrease our carbon dioxide output - all false by the way - they are usually basing this on Gore's movie.

Since I haven't heard any major criticism of Gore from within the global warming movement, I can only conclude that they consider him a suitable representative.



extopia said:


> Can we really dismiss the IPCC as a "politicised global warming movement"? The levels of consensus among scientists working in this area should be taken seriously surely? The oft-quoted argument that such scientists are afraid to "buck" the "establishment" is insulting to scientists everywhere, I would imagine.



Let's be clear. The IPCC is _absolutely_ a political advocacy body with a political agenda. That some scientists, or indeed even many scientists, may support their views does not automatically make them objective.

Many of Gore's 'truths' such as the "hockey stick" graph, the islanders supposedly evacuated from an island off New Zealand and many others have been proved false or have been thoroughly discredited. Despite this the IPCC was happy to jointly accept a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. This doesn't sound like the actions of an independent, objective panel of scientists investigating climate change. 

If the panel is willing to accept someone who has admitted using exaggerated claims to advance his cause as their chief spokesperson, it tells me they care more about the message than scientific accuracy.



extopia said:


> Ultimately, non-scientists, including governments, other policy makers, and the general public, can either trust the science, and the bodies that collate and review scientific findings, or dismiss the whole thing as politicised conspiracy bunkum.



Or the public can remember that doom-mongering and dire predictions of mankind's imminent demise happens at least once a decade and adopt a sceptical approach.



extopia said:


> But I suspect that anthropogenic global warming theory can be more robustly defended than the widely believed but ultimately indefensible theories that have been foisted on us for countless generations by druids, creationists and other zealots, for instance.



You are indeed right to lump anthropogenic global warming theory in with such quackery.


----------



## diarmuidc

room305 said:


> Let's be clear. The IPCC is _absolutely_ a political advocacy body with a political agenda.


Let's be clear here. When a person is so set against a theory no matter how strong the evidence is they will argue black is white not to accept said theory. (as an excercise for the reader, spot the ad hominen attacks, red herrings and strawman arguments in the last post)


----------



## room305

diarmuidc said:


> Let's be clear here. When a person is so set against a theory no matter how strong the evidence is they will argue black is white not to accept said theory. (as an excercise for the reader, spot the ad hominen attacks, red herrings and strawman arguments in the last post)



I have already said that I fully accept the _possibility_ of anthropogenic global warming. Nobody - not even the IPCC - has any strong evidence in its favour. I'd question why then, if nobody knows for sure, we are being urged to make radical changes to how we live our lives. This is the equivalent of abandoning computers entirely based on the possibility of the "millenium bug".

If you think pointing out some of the falsehoods perpetuated by or making reference to Gore's hypocrisy discredits me in some way then so be it.


----------



## extopia

room305 said:


> You are indeed right to lump anthropogenic global warming theory in with such quackery.



Now, now. It's quite clear that I said the exact opposite. I believe that there is a scientific basis to global warming theory, as opposed to the other forms of quackery that humans often believe despite the complete absence of scientific evidence.

I think scepticism is a good thing, but some of the views expressed above, in my opinion, are beyond scepticism and into antagonism and outright hostility. If there is evidence for a global warming "consipiracy", I'd like to see it. In the absence of such, I'll go with the science.


----------



## ubiquitous

extopia said:


> I believe that there is a scientific basis to global warming theory, as opposed to the other forms of quackery that humans often believe



There is a scientific basis of some sort underlying almost all theories, even those on the quackery end of the scale. Some of this science is ludicrous beyond belief and much of it is mutually contradictory. More of it is also clearly compromised by the agenda and background of those propounding it. 

You only have to look at the early history of the AIDS epidemic to see the extent to which science was manipulated and misused in order to justify the positions of various agenda-driven groups, and how much of the contemporary scientific consensus was later shown to be wrong or incomplete to the point of meaninglessness.



> If there is evidence for a global warming "conspiracy", I'd like to see it. In the absence of such, I'll go with the science.



I agree that there may be not much evidence of any concerted "global warming consipiracy" _per se_. That said, huge levels of money and power have been invested in the global warming industry, and a lot of money and power will be lost if the global warming theories eventually lose credence. In this context, I would suggest that it is naive to assume that "the science" on global warming is all in one direction, and that it is somehow immune from exploitation and manipulation by vested interests. As Lou Reed says "Don't believe half of what you see And none of what you hear"


----------



## Firefly

Hi,

My own view is simply this:

It's gonna come down to the supply and demand of fossil fuels. As these run out (by countries such as USA and China) the prise will rise so high that people will have to use less. This imo will happen before all of this environmental doom and gloom takes place. A much bigger problem I feel is the enevitable "wars on terror" that will take place to secure these precious fossil fuels.


----------



## Godfather

Guys, as long as US doesn't join the Kyoto agreement I think that those summits are just an occasion for people to meet on the streets and have a chat or dance together as it happened in Bali... Or am I too pessimistic?


----------



## Purple

Godfather said:


> Guys, as long as US doesn't join the Kyoto agreement I think that those summits are just an occasion for people to meet on the streets and have a chat or dance together as it happened in Bali... Or am I too pessimistic?


No.
You can lump China and India in there as well. 
China, India and the USA are the only countries that matter. Our green party is utterly irrelevant in a global context… and it’s not called Global Warming for nothing.
I think that the Billions that the Green lobby want to spend on this would be better spent on AIDS and poverty relief.


----------



## RMCF

Godfather said:


> Guys, as long as US doesn't join the Kyoto agreement I think that those summits are just an occasion for people to meet on the streets and have a chat or dance together as it happened in Bali... Or am I too pessimistic?


 
No you're 100% right (imho).


----------



## diarmuidc

Purple said:


> I think that the Billions that the Green lobby want to spend on this would be better spent on AIDS and poverty relief.


They people dying from AIDS and poverty are the .


----------



## Purple

diarmuidc said:


> They people dying from AIDS and poverty are the .


Right so, lets ask them what they would like the money spent on. 
I bet I know the answer.


----------



## diarmuidc

Purple said:


> Right so, lets ask them what they would like the money spent on.
> I bet I know the answer.



Come on, Purple, you're around here long enough to know that's a straw man argument.


----------



## Purple

No I’m not!
Don’t start flattering me, it won’t work I tells ya’ !

I just think it’s a total waste of time for a little island like us to even think that we can have any effect on global warming. We may as well worry about a meteor strike (as opposed to a strike in Meteor).


----------



## ubiquitous

diarmuidc said:


> They people dying from AIDS and poverty are the .




Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" rebuts this particular argument in an excellent talk (btw downloadable in Mp3) here: 
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" rebuts this particular argument in an excellent talk (btw downloadable in Mp3) here:
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62


If you know about the Skeptical Environmentalist then you know that numerous scientists and organisations found  Lomborg's book to be misleading and flawed including:
[broken link removed]
Scientific American


----------



## ubiquitous

diarmuidc said:


> If you know about the Skeptical Environmentalist then you know that numerous scientists and organisations found  Lomborg's book to be misleading and flawed including:
> [broken link removed]
> Scientific American



Why not listen to the talk and make up your own mind on its merits or otherwise? That's what I did.


----------



## diarmuidc

Purple said:


> I just think it’s a total waste of time for a little island like us to even think that we can have any effect on global warming. We may as well worry about a meteor strike (as opposed to a strike in Meteor).


Sure, but as a member of the EU we (EU) has a lout of clout. We buy in about 190bEuro from China and 170bEuro from the US last year. That's a good starting point for some bargaining.


----------



## ubiquitous

diarmuidc said:


> Sure, but as a member of the EU we (EU) has a lout of clout. We buy in about 190bEuro from China and 170bEuro from the US last year. That's a good starting point for some bargaining.



Really? Our government didn't even have the cojones to raise human rights concerns with the Chinese when they organised a trade delegation to China some time ago.


----------



## Purple

ubiquitous said:


> Really? Our government didn't even have the cojones to raise human rights concerns with the Chinese when they organised a trade delegation to China some time ago.


Indeed, they probably didn’t want to be laughed at on an international stage.
What’s the line about politics being the art of the possible?


----------



## extopia

ubiquitous said:


> I would suggest that it is naive to assume that "the science" on global warming is all in one direction



That, in fact, is precisely what it is. There is almost complete consensus among scientists that (a) global temperatures are increasing, and (b) the reason for this is human activity, rather than natural phenomena.


----------



## room305

Godfather said:


> Guys, as long as US doesn't join the Kyoto agreement I think that those summits are just an occasion for people to meet on the streets and have a chat or dance together as it happened in Bali... Or am I too pessimistic?



You are being far too hard on the US. According to the Pew Center when measured on a per-unit-of-oil-consumed scale, the US produces less greenhouse gases than any other nation in the world except Japan. 7 years ago China consumed 6.5% of the world's oil but produced 15% of the world's greenhouse gases. Equally, when the US is compared in terms of greenhouse gases to GDP (so the economic yield delivered from greenhouse gas emissions) the US was found to consume fossil fuels more effectively than any other industrialised nation excepting Germany and Japan. It produces nearly 650% more dollars from its greenhouse gas emissions than the equivalent emissions from China. That was in 2000, the last year in which China consumed _less _coal than the US so the statistics will be even more skewed by now.



Firefly said:


> It's gonna come down to the supply and demand of fossil fuels. As these run out (by countries such as USA and China) the prise will rise so high that people will have to use less. This imo will happen before all of this environmental doom and gloom takes place. A much bigger problem I feel is the enevitable "wars on terror" that will take place to secure these precious fossil fuels.



This is perhaps the most salient point made on the thread. Ireland and the rest of the world would be far better to expend the same time and money preparing for a world without cheap oil than it would developing some fictional carbon dioxide trading scheme.



extopia said:


> That, in fact, is precisely what it is. There is almost complete consensus among scientists that (a) global temperatures are increasing, and (b) the reason for this is human activity, rather than natural phenomena.



You have made this assertion repeatedly without providing any evidence to back it up. Would you care do so? As a scientist I am aware how rarely consensus is arrived at and how hard fought it generally is. As a result I am automatically suspicious when I hear of blanket consensus for something so recent, complicated and controversial as anthropogenic global warming.


----------



## extopia

room305 said:


> You have made this assertion repeatedly without providing any evidence to back it up. Would you care do so?



_Sigh..._

The consensus is clearly evident in the reports of the IPCC (which despite the above claims, is not, in fact, "a political advocacy body with a political agenda."  The IPCC's brief is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, rather than make policy itself. You could argue that it is in a strong position to influence policy were it to be taken over by individuals with a political agenda. If there is compelling evidence for this, I'd like to see it.)

But the IPCC is not alone. Countless other scientific bodies (National Academy of Sciences;  American Meteorological Society; American Geophysical Union; American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many, many more) have issued statements concluding that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is compelling.

The notion that there is a lack of consensus is repeatedly promoted by the sceptics. But there is more evidence for consensus than there is for a lack of consensus. Even the theory that opposing scientists are afraid to speak out _against_ the global warming theory for fear of losing funding and grant research (a theory which insults the integrity of all scientists) is very much in dispute - [broken link removed] New Scientist article suggests that the opposite is more likely to be the case, i.e. that there is more pressure on scientists to deny that a problem exists.

It seems more likely to me that the political agenda lies with those who dismiss the whole anthropogenic global warming argument as nonsense.


----------



## ubiquitous

extopia said:


> The notion that there is a lack of consensus is repeatedly promoted by the sceptics.



Er, if consensus did exist, surely there would be no sceptics?

Reminds me of the saying, "These stories about homelessness are just rumours put about by people with nowhere to live."


----------



## diarmuidc

extopia said:


> _Sigh..._
> ....
> It seems more likely to me that the political agenda lies with those dismiss the whole anthropogenic global warming argument as nonsense.



well said. 



> Er, if consensus did exist, surely there would be no sceptics?


There has been and always will be skeptics. Usually a "general"  consensus is reached and science moves on to the next challenges. Biology wouldn't have got very far in the last 200 years if they were still trying to convince each last skeptic of Darwinism.


----------



## extopia

ubiquitous said:


> Er, if consensus did exist, surely there would be no sceptics?



I would have thought my point was obvious, but let me make it clear - I'm talking about consensus among scientists. The sceptical group (although it indeed includes a small minority of scientists) is largely made up of non-scientists.

Obviously, I'm not in the sceptical group myself. But believe me, this is one issue where I'd love to be proved wrong. Time will tell.


----------



## Purple

extopia said:


> Obviously, I'm not in the sceptical group myself. But believe me, this is one issue where I'd love to be proved wrong. Time will tell.


 It doesn't bother me; if is all goes according to plan I'll end up with a sea front property. Cha-Ching!!


----------



## extopia

Purple said:


> It doesn't bother me; if is all goes according to plan I'll end up with a sea front property. Cha-Ching!!



Yes, but the sewers won't work. Uh-oh!


----------



## RMCF

There's probably another great Gov initiative on the way next year, and thats the banning of old style light bulbs. From a certain point in the near future only the new Eco-friendly bulbs will be allowed to be sold in RoI.

Now I personally have an issue with this.

Firstly, I actually have one at home and they are rubbish. They do a very poor job of what they are made for i.e. light up a room. The light off them is crap. Very similar to the light you would get from a frosted/coloured bulb now.

So thats the 1st bad point, and probably the main one for me.

Next is the fact that they are a whole lot more expensive. If you could buy a pack of 10 ordinary bulbs for the price of 1 new bulb, I know what I'd pick.

And then they don't work with dimmers. I think they are working on this problem, but that rules them out from an awful lot of homes as we stand.

The Gov try to sell it to us by telling us we could save €100 per year if we switched the entire house to these. Well thats false economy cos its going to take at least €100 to replace all your bulbs. And lets be honest, in todays Ireland, whats €100 per year? Sure I'd save more than that if I sat in for an extra night each year !!!

All people will do is stock up on old bulbs now. Thats what I intend to do. The old bulbs are dirt cheap so I think I'll buy a 100 or so to last me a while when they start their old nonsense next year.

No doubt there's money in it for them somewhere.


----------



## Teabag

Re Energy Saving Lightbulbs :

Yes I do find the light off them is weaker than the old bulbs. To account for this I buy a higher wattage than they equate to : For example if I am replacing a 60 watt old bulb, I buy a 75 watt (really 22 watt).

I am replacing my old bulbs as they 'go' so the financial outlay is not really noticeable. And is it me or do all the old bulbs seem to be expiring a lot more often than they used to ? 

Some of them have a short delay before they light but others dont. Just pick the ones that suit you. Dimmerable energy saving lightbulbs are available at the moment as far as I know.

Dunnes do a good deal at the moment - 2 75/100watt (22/25 watt) for €10. 10 year lifetime. Not bad. They also make a very good Christmas present at the moment. Its win-win.

Your children may thank you. Hope that helps.


----------



## Purple

Ah yes, the paddies using more energy efficient light bulbs; that will really make all the difference as China opens a new coal powered power plant every week.


----------



## Caveat

Teabag said:


> They also make a very good Christmas present at the moment.


 
Well intentioned though it may be, I can't imagine too many people would thank you for a christmas present like this?


----------



## Teabag

Purple said:


> Ah yes, the paddies using more energy efficient light bulbs; that will really make all the difference as China opens a new coal powered power plant every week.



But there is a hole in the bucket Dear Liza, Dear Liza - we are back to the first post !


----------



## Teabag

Caveat said:


> Well intentioned though it may be, I can't imagine too many people would thank you for a christmas present like this?



Au contraire !! Parents and Grandparents would be delighted. It is saving them money, they feel like they are climate change 'aware', they have made their 'one' change etc etc....Better than socks IMHO. Win-Win.


----------



## Purple

Teabag said:


> But there is a hole in the bucket Dear Liza, Dear Liza - we are back to the first post !


Yep, but it had to be said. Again.


----------



## RMCF

Teabag said:


> But there is a hole in the bucket Dear Liza, Dear Liza - we are back to the first post !



Yeah we may be going round in circles, but it won't change my attitute to the whole thing.

I know that people have said 'forget about what the rest of the world os doing, recycle yourself and let them worry about themselves etc', but if you click on that NYTimes link and check out the graphic on the lefthand side, it just shows how pointless anything we do is, in real terms.

US, China and India are over 66% of the worlds carbon dioxide production, and they aren't going to change. Millions of people in Ireland and Europe changing their lightbulbs, recycling their papers etc isn't going to make enough of a dent. Fact.


----------



## ubiquitous

Teabag said:


> Au contraire !! Parents and Grandparents would be delighted...  they feel like they are climate change 'aware', they have made their 'one' change etc etc.... Win-Win.



Ten or twenty years ago, we would laugh behind our backs at a priest or nun who would suggest prayer as a solution to war, famine or the AIDS crisis. Now we are supposed to take seriously the notion that the "global warming problem" (yes the same problem that we are told is based on scientific fact) will somehow cure itself once we are all "aware" and "making one change"


----------



## Teabag

OK RMCF, I was just trying to help with your lightbulb issues.

I dont want to change your outlook or attitude.


----------



## Teabag

ubiquitous said:


> Ten or twenty years ago, we would laugh behind our backs at a priest or nun who would suggest prayer as a solution to war, famine or the AIDS crisis. Now we are supposed to take seriously the notion that the "global warming problem" (yes the same problem that we are told is based on scientific fact) will somehow cure itself once we are all "aware" and "making one change"



My point here was that they (energy/money saving light bulbs) make great Christmas presents...IMHO


----------



## Purple

RMCF said:


> Yeah we may be going round in circles, but it won't change my attitute to the whole thing.
> 
> I know that people have said 'forget about what the rest of the world os doing, recycle yourself and let them worry about themselves etc', but if you click on that NYTimes link and check out the graphic on the lefthand side, it just shows how pointless anything we do is, in real terms.
> 
> US, China and India are over 66% of the worlds carbon dioxide production, and they aren't going to change. Millions of people in Ireland and Europe changing their lightbulbs, recycling their papers etc isn't going to make enough of a dent. Fact.


Spot on. It might make you feel nice and fuzzy inside but it'll make bugger all difference to the big picture. Them's the facts, boo-hoo if they don't sit well with the sandal wearers amongst us.
If anyone disagrees try going to Ning-Bo (China's second biggest port) and have a look at the open sewers the size of a river that flow, untreated, into the sea. If you're feeling adventurous pop out to the Gobi desert and have a look at the old-style chemical and power plants that they are building there in order to reduce the pollution in the cities. Note that they are not building more efficient plants, just moving them.


----------



## ubiquitous

> My point here was that they (energy/money saving light bulbs) make great Christmas presents...IMHO



My wife would divorce me if I bought my mum a bloody CFL for Christmas. Giving CFLs to elderly people (who as a group tend to have problems with eyesight) is a joke imho.


----------



## stir crazy

Teabag said:


> Re Energy Saving Lightbulbs :
> 
> And is it me or do all the old bulbs seem to be expiring a lot more often than they used to ?




Its the new bulbs which are definitely not lasting me the 10 years which is sometimes claimed . I am changing my energy efficient lightbulbs once  a year lately. In one case I've replaced my energy efficient lightbulb 2 times this year already. So since january theres been 3 bulbs in the socket !
I started using these bulbs early on when they first came out as I have a green streak. However I am very skeptical through experience about the long life claims for these bulbs.




Teabag said:


> Dimmerable energy saving lightbulbs are available at the moment as far as I know.



Yeah but are they even more expensive ?


----------



## RMCF

stir crazy said:


> Its the new bulbs which are definitely not lasting me the 10 years which is sometimes claimed . I am changing my energy efficient lightbulbs once  a year lately. In one case I've replaced my energy efficient lightbulb 2 times this year already. So since january theres been 3 bulbs in the socket !
> I started using these bulbs early on when they first came out as I have a green streak. However I am very skeptical through experience about the long life claims for these bulbs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but are they even more expensive ?



One of the biggest selling points of these bulbs that they try to ram down our throats is that they last you 10 years.

Well its time they stood by this claim. Why don't they print the production date on the bulb/base and then if it fails you can return it within 10yrs (or whatever guarantee they put on it) and get a new one FREE.

I am very skeptical about the entire GW debate (as you may have guessed!!) but for me there seems to be an awful lot of money to be made from it. And getting the world to change all their lightbulbs is just another part of it.


----------



## Purple

What, snake oil salesmen in the Green industry?!  Never!

Now I have a range of Environmentally friendly snake oil, if you are interested...


----------



## Teabag

Purple said:


> Spot on. It might make you feel nice and fuzzy inside but it'll make bugger all difference to the big picture. Them's the facts, boo-hoo if they don't sit well with the sandal wearers amongst us.
> If anyone disagrees try going to Ning-Bo (China's second biggest port) and have a look at the open sewers the size of a river that flow, untreated, into the sea. If you're feeling adventurous pop out to the Gobi desert and have a look at the old-style chemical and power plants that they are building there in order to reduce the pollution in the cities. Note that they are not building more efficient plants, just moving them.



You're right Purple, using energy effecient lightbulbs wont fix the China pollution/emmissions problem.


----------



## Purple

In the context of global warming us using energy efficient light bulbs is like trying to bail out the Titanic with an eggcup.


----------



## RMCF

Purple said:


> In the context of global warming us using energy efficient light bulbs is like trying to bail out the Titanic with an eggcup.



Totally correct. 

Is it just me, or is GW like a new religion? You can't turn on the TV or radio, or open a paper now without hearing about it. It is getting to 'really annoying' levels, and we have another 50 years to listen to it.


----------



## Purple

No, it's not just you. We should shut up about it and once a month have a one line report in the media saying "Chine, India, USA: still doing F-all about global warming, oh well" or something like that.


----------



## Teabag

Purple said:


> In the context of global warming us using energy efficient light bulbs is like trying to bail out the Titanic with an eggcup.



Are we the Titanic ?

I suppose the first step is the hardest. But maybe improved energy efficiency (on many levels) by each and every one of us combined with viable and cheaper alternative energy sources (wind, water, solar, nuclear, biofuel...whatever) will reduce our need for burning of fossil fuels. Would this be a bad thing ?? Are you against wind generators too ?

I dont want to argue about it. Its too late and too fruitless for that.


----------



## Purple

Teabag said:


> Are we the Titanic ?
> 
> I suppose the first step is the hardest. But maybe improved energy efficiency (on many levels) by each and every one of us combined with viable and cheaper alternative energy sources (wind, water, solar, nuclear, biofuel...whatever) will reduce our need for burning of fossil fuels. Would this be a bad thing ?? Are you against wind generators too ?
> 
> I dont want to argue about it. Its too late and too fruitless for that.


 I'm not against any of that stuff I just want the woolly jumper brigade to acknowledge that it will make feck all difference to global warming. If it makes to feel good or if it improves the local environment then go for it but don't pretend that it makes any impact on the global scale.
…and no, it won’t set an example for the Chinese, Indians or Americans.


----------



## ivuernis

It is now obvious that average global temperatures (for whatever reason) are on the increase, the human population continues on its exponential rise putting ever increasing pressure on the (finite) planetary resources we use and consume. Whatever side of the fence one sits on w.r.t. Climate Change it is pretty hard to argue against all these converging phenomena not resulting in a positive outcome during the course of the 21st century and possibly within the lifespan of most people alive today.


----------



## Purple

ivuernis said:


> It is now obvious that average global temperatures (for whatever reason) are on the increase, the human population continues on its exponential rise putting ever increasing pressure on the (finite) planetary resources we use and consume. Whatever side of the fence one sits on w.r.t. Climate Change it is pretty hard to argue against all these converging phenomena not resulting in a positive outcome during the course of the 21st century and possibly within the lifespan of most people alive today.


yep, but there's nothing us Paddies can do about it other than a bit of tolkenism.


----------



## HighFlier

I went mad a few weeks ago and replaced every bulb in the house with energy saving bulbs. (€200+)

My observations so far:

The wattage equivalent figures they quote don't work out and you need to go at least one size up again to get the same light.
Even then some (but not all) of the bulbs give out a cold watery colour light which is most unattractive

Some types, especially the ones for recessed miniature downlighters, take an age to warm up to full light so they tend to be left lighting all the time.

I have now gone back to the old bulbs in our main living room and the colour quality with the ability to dim them seems fantastic.

They need to do a lot more work on these products even if the range is already better than a few years ago.

If all incandescent bulbs are banned the retail, hotel etc industries who use lighting to cteate a "mood" will be up in arms.


----------



## redstar

Look on the bright side - we'll be able to enjoy wine from the Chateau Wexford vineyards, and make lots of dosh from all the tourists fleeing the super-hot summer weather in the Mediterranean countries


----------



## ivuernis

Purple said:


> yep, but there's nothing us Paddies can do about it other than a bit of tolkenism.



I agree. However, we should not use that as an excuse to not change our ways. On a nationalistic level (for many nations) I think the debate will (and should) eventually move away from "solving the global climate change problem" as the realisation dawns that change on such a scale is unlikely to happen in a manner that will achieve any meaningful results. If you accept this then the next step is how on a nationalistic level do you best manage the potential adverse effects of a deteriorating biosphere to ensure as favorable an outcome as possible for a given nation state? To me the obvious answer would be to become as self-sufficient as possible. Given our (Ireland's) relatively small population and density, the fact that we have ample land for such population if it can be kept on such a sustainable level and the potential of our off-shore wind and wave energy (along with our small but dwindling fossil resources) it would seem that Ireland has a chance to weather the storm more favorably than many other nations. This should be our aim and if the by-product is a reduction of our "carbon footprint" will then even better - we've done our bit whilst at the same time hopefully securing some sort of future for future generations on this island. Off course many things could scupper such a goal - resource wars will probably be a staple diet of the 21st century. Somebody with their finger on the button may be crazy enough to "push the button" and visit nuclear armageddon on the world. What would happen if southern Europe became a desert due to GW and tens of millions of EU citizens exercised their right to move freely to other (northern) EU states that had more favorable climate conditions? 

I don't wish to come over all fatalistic but unless we think long and hard about where this "human project" is going we are only going to walk blindly into a future we may not like and that future may not like us either. Sometimes (ok, a lot of the time) I think I may be becoming a little unhinged from reality thinking and reading about all these things as most people seem to be oblivious to such things. It's not exactly conducive to a positive outlook on life although I still manage to be relatively happy, but I look around me a lot at what we perceive to be normality but most of the time all I can see is a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a plan and I ask myself it it just me or I am losing the plot? (I have to go now - the men in white suits have just arrived!)


----------



## RMCF

Teabag said:


> Are we the Titanic ?
> 
> * I suppose the first step is the hardest. But maybe improved energy efficiency (on many levels) by each and every one of us combined with viable and cheaper alternative energy sources (wind, water, solar, nuclear, biofuel...whatever) will reduce our need for burning of fossil fuels. Would this be a bad thing *?? Are you against wind generators too ?
> 
> I dont want to argue about it. Its too late and too fruitless for that.



Sorry but I'm with Purple on this.

Your argument is perfectly logical, but I'm afraid it simply doesn't work.

It doesn't matter one bit if everybody else improves energy efficiency and starts to use wind, water, solar etc AS LONG AS USA, CHINA, INDIA continue burning fossil fuels -which they will for decades to come.


----------



## michaelm

Teabag said:


> I suppose the first step is the hardest. But maybe improved energy efficiency (on many levels) by each and every one of us combined with viable and cheaper alternative energy sources (wind, water, solar, nuclear, biofuel...whatever) will reduce our need for burning of fossil fuels. Would this be a bad thing ??


I'm all for this, but to the end that Ireland should become self-reliant in relation to our energy needs (and food).  But in relation to Climate Change I fully agree with Purple.


----------



## annR

Is anyone actually arguing that anything we do will change anything in US, China and India?  It seems to be constantly repeated but I don't recall anyone making that claim.  Surely if we can improve things here, it will make a difference to *us*?  Maybe we feel that if we make an effort then there'll still be some fish around this island and a few green spaces left in 50 years?
Frankly I don't care if it's because people think they will make a difference to global warming or not.  Maybe people aren't stupid and know that we would make a very small difference, but still choose to do that.   The whole idea of this being a conspiracy so people can make money out of it ...  .. newsflash we're already there a million times . . .our whole society is a conspiracy to make people spend more money.  *Any* trend in the marketplace will be exploited to make money.  It doesn't mean this particular trend is made up by conspirators.
It's hard to imagine any alternative way of living than we are already in which pressures you to spend more money than we already do. Living more environmentally gives the opposite message from what I can see, for example re-use instead of consume .  There are loads of ways of living more sustainably which actually work out cheaper than the mind boggling consumerism we have now, but of course the sceptics will never accept that point never mind give it a go.


----------



## Purple

eeehhhh, but the Thread is about climate change.


----------



## annR

Fair enough.  It's just that sceptics on the climate change topic seem to be sceptical about anything environmentally related, for instance you referring to the sandel and woolly jumper brigade.  I can't help feeling that that scepticism mixed with lack of political will and short term vision is at least partly to blame for so far stopping us so far putting some proper money and research into greener technologies.  With the result that we haven't really made much progress in this area.   This drives more scepticism on that people feel that they can't make much difference with their attempts at recycling etc while nothing much on a larger scale has changed.  I just feel that scepticism acheives nothing and in this discussion doesn't seem to have anything else to offer except, let's all continue the way we are as it's pointless doing anything different.  I disagree with that whole attitude.


----------



## Purple

annR said:


> let's all continue the way we are as it's pointless doing anything different.  I disagree with that whole attitude.


 Yes it is pointless, utterly pointless, to do anything unless the big three do it as well. Our actions will not stop sea level changes around our coast, they won't effect how the Gulf Stream moves, and they won't effect temperature change or any local climate change. We are one sore on a sick body, the whole body has to be treated for us to get better.
And don’t for a moment think that Ireland will ever lead the charge in any area of technology, especially one that is engineering driven, so we ‘aint going to come up with any “silver bullet” StarTreck style global fixes either.


----------



## Teabag

Purple said:


> I'm not against any of that stuff I just want the woolly jumper brigade to acknowledge that it will make feck all difference to global warming. If it makes to feel good or if it improves the local environment then go for it but don't pretend that it makes any impact on the global scale.
> …and no, it won’t set an example for the Chinese, Indians or Americans.



You know, the Chinese might surprise you yet.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/13/content_6317280.htm

Where there is a will there is a way. Agreed, the US need to get the finger out. I thought Hurricane Katrina was the wakeup call they needed but maybe not.

We all need to do our bit, especially the first world nations. We need to lead by example. If you find it easier to be a pessimist, then so be it.


----------



## ivuernis

Purple said:


> And don’t for a moment think that Ireland will ever lead the charge in any area of technology, especially one that is engineering driven,


 
What about wavebob? An Irish company leading the way in wave power generation.



Purple said:


> so we ‘aint going to come up with any “silver bullet” StarTreck style global fixes either.


 
We came close with the Steorn hype machine


----------



## Purple

ivuernis said:


> What about wavebob? An Irish company leading the way in wave power generation.


 It int gonna save the world


----------



## RMCF

I'll tell you what will happen.

They will continue to prattle on about GW, fossil fuels et al for a decade or so, until we are so worn down that we won't even complain when they tell us the only way is to build nuclear power stations.

Then they will.


----------



## diarmuidc

RMCF said:


> I'll tell you what will happen.
> 
> They will continue to prattle on about GW, fossil fuels et al for a decade or so, until we are so worn down that we won't even complain when they tell us the only way is to build nuclear power stations.
> 
> Then they will.


I can only hope. For a responsible, grown up society, nuclear is the clear and obvious energy source. Huge energy density, tiny amounts of waste and no greenhouse gases.

But no. Not going to happen.


----------



## Teabag

RMCF said:


> I'll tell you what will happen.
> 
> They will continue to prattle on about GW, fossil fuels et al for a decade or so, until we are so worn down that we won't even complain when they tell us the only way is to build nuclear power stations.
> 
> Then they will.



We have to consider all options and yes I am in favour of nuclear. We already import energy from the UK, some of which is nuclear generated.

One nuclear station in Ireland would provide all our energy needs. Just one.
We could then close all the fossil fuel burning stations.


----------



## ubiquitous

Teabag said:


> One nuclear station in Ireland would provide all our energy needs. Just one.
> We could then close all the fossil fuel burning stations.



Some chance of that happening in this country  Least of all with the Greens in charge. Eamon Ryan has even banned a company from exploring for plutonium in Donegal, because he says its illegal!


----------



## ivuernis

Teabag said:


> One nuclear station in Ireland would provide all our energy needs. Just one. We could then close all the fossil fuel burning stations.



After building this single nuclear power station and closing all the fossil fuel power stations what would we then do when this single (point-of-failure) nuclear power station has to close temporarily for whatever reason? We're going to need at least two aren't we.


----------



## ivuernis

Purple said:


> It int gonna save the world



Never said it would/could save the world, it was just a riposte to you saying no Irish company would ever lead the way in any engineering field related to the issue.


----------



## ubiquitous

ivuernis said:


> After building this single nuclear power station and closing all the fossil fuel power stations what would we then do when this single (point-of-failure) nuclear power station has to close temporarily for whatever reason? We're going to need at least two aren't we.



Why do planes carry more than one engine?


----------



## ivuernis

ubiquitous said:


> Why do planes carry more than one engine?



Wasn't that what I was just pointing out. Do you think we can/could/should/subsidise build 2 nuclear power stations?


----------



## michaelm

ivuernis said:


> Wasn't that what I was just pointing out. Do you think we can/could/should/subsidise build 2 nuclear power stations?


Probably (to become energy independent or to cut CO2, take your pick).  Three or four, for redundancy; surpluses could be sold into the European grid.


----------



## diarmuidc

ivuernis said:


> Wasn't that what I was just pointing out. Do you think we can/could/should/subsidise build 2 nuclear power stations?


Well oil prices are (long term) only going one way and coal isn't very clean or healthy (aside from the CO2 climate change issue) so we might not have a whole lot of options?


----------



## Teabag

ubiquitous said:


> Some chance of that happening in this country  Least of all with the Greens in charge. Eamon Ryan has even banned a company from exploring for plutonium in Donegal, because he says its illegal!



Nobody said it would be easy. Its an option among many. It's easier to give up and blame 'tokenism'.

But as I said, we already import energy from the UK, some of which is nuclear generated. So that makes many of us hypocrites.

My preferred option is offshore windfarms. The potential here is enormous.


----------



## ubiquitous

Teabag said:


> Nobody said it would be easy. Its an option among many. It's easier to give up and blame 'tokenism'.


Indeed, but why then did Eamonn Ryan (the darling of the Green Party) make the decision he did?


Teabag said:


> But as I said, we already import energy from the UK, some of which is nuclear generated. So that makes many of us hypocrites.


Indeed. More specifically it makes hypocrites of Ryan and his fellow travellers who turn up their noses at the very mention of nuclear power.


----------



## Teabag

ubiquitous said:


> Indeed, but why then did Eamonn Ryan (the darling of the Green Party) make the decision he did?
> 
> Indeed. More specifically it makes hypocrites of Ryan and his fellow travellers who turn up their noses at the very mention of nuclear power.



Yes, he is wrong to rule it out. I am not a member of the Green Party.


----------



## ivuernis

diarmuidc said:


> Well oil prices are (long term) only going one way and coal isn't very clean or healthy (aside from the CO2 climate change issue) so we might not have a whole lot of options?



I know and I agree but have you checked the price of Uranium over the last couple of years? It's gone up as much as all the other fuels and will (long term) only continue to rise especially if any large scale nuclear build programmes are announced.


----------



## ivuernis

ubiquitous said:


> Indeed, but why then did Eamonn Ryan (the darling of the Green Party) make the decision he did?
> 
> Indeed. More specifically it makes hypocrites of Ryan and his fellow travellers who turn up their noses at the very mention of nuclear power.



Didn't he also say we need a debate in this country. Granted, he's basically said he would not be for it but at least he's called for a debate in this country to be had on the issue which most politicans will not touch with a barge poll. And we do need such a debate. 

If nuclear is be an option for power in this country we'd better get the finger out. In an ideal situation we should have had this debate 10 years ago but then I guess oil was cheap then thus making any point for nuclear power seem futile. If we are to go down this road though we need to be starting now as even if the go ahead was given tomorrow it is hard to see a nuclear power station being up and running before 2020.


----------



## ubiquitous

ivuernis said:


> Didn't he also say we need a debate in this country. Granted, he's basically said he would not be for it but at least he's called for a debate in this country to be had on the issue which most politicans will not touch with a barge poll.



Calling for a debate is one thing. Actually doing something is another thing entirely. And calling for a debate while at the same time forbidding even the exploration of plutonium reserves seems to me to be trying to have it both ways.


----------



## Teabag

ubiquitous said:


> Calling for a debate is one thing. Actually doing something is another thing entirely. And calling for a debate while at the same time forbidding even the exploration of plutonium reserves seems to me to be trying to have it both ways.



Yeah we definitely need a debate but it will be long, tedious and tough. It would be like the smoking ban debate except with a lot more crazy people talking crazy talk. It will be in the law courts for years too. In the meantime, we need to develop the alternatives....


----------



## diarmuidc

ivuernis said:


> I know and I agree but have you checked the price of Uranium over the last couple of years? It's gone up as much as all the other fuels and will (long term) only continue to rise especially if any large scale nuclear build programmes are announced.


The cost of uranium is about 25% of the cost of nuclear power. And even then you can reprocess 97% of nuclear waste and use that in the generation of more energy.


----------



## room305

extopia said:


> _Sigh..._



Less of the sighing now please. There has been a concerted effort in recent years to portray the idea of a global consensus among climatologists about the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Yet even among the scientists who support the theory (the majority I am happy to accept), there is much disagreement about the severity of the problem, the likely consequences and the possible solutions. Al Gore for example, would be regarded as representing the extremist and largely discredited viewpoint (relying on the flawed "hockey stick" theory of warming). However, it is his proposed solution that is the most prevalent - a drastic decrease in CO2 emissions by industrialised nations.

Consider, for example this excerpt from Carleton University paleo-climatologist and Professor of Geology Tim Patterson's testimony to Canada's Commons Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development in 2005:



> _There is no meaningful correlation between CO2  levels and the Earth's temperature… In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2  levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?_





extopia said:


> The consensus is clearly evident in the reports of the IPCC (which despite the above claims, is not, in fact, "a political advocacy body with a political agenda."  The IPCC's brief is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, rather than make policy itself. You could argue that it is in a strong position to influence policy were it to be taken over by individuals with a political agenda. If there is compelling evidence for this, I'd like to see it.)



It is its continual portrayal of a consensus view that makes me suspect that the IPCC has a political agenda. This is furthered by their evident support for Al Gore, who has himself has admitted to making exaggerated claims to further his cause.

There have been a number of allegations by scientists that their views were misrepresented by the IPCC or that their peer-reviewed papers were edited by the panel _after_ the peer-reviewing process. However, many of these allegations are from people who are very much biased against the idea of anthropogenic global warming (I don't consider myself in this group - I fully accept it may be true, my concerns lie with the proposed solution).



extopia said:


> But the IPCC is not alone. Countless other scientific bodies (National Academy of Sciences;  American Meteorological Society; American Geophysical Union; American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many, many more) have issued statements concluding that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is compelling.



Do all of these organisations believe that we can reverse the Earth's temperature trend by lowering our CO2 emissions?



extopia said:


> The notion that there is a lack of consensus is repeatedly promoted by the sceptics. But there is more evidence for consensus than there is for a lack of consensus. Even the theory that opposing scientists are afraid to speak out _against_ the global warming theory for fear of losing funding and grant research (a theory which insults the integrity of all scientists) is very much in dispute - [broken link removed] New Scientist article suggests that the opposite is more likely to be the case, i.e. that there is more pressure on scientists to deny that a problem exists.



I think you might be making too much of the integrity of scientists ;-) But I agree, it is hard to imagine, given the current US administration that there is serious political pressure being applied to force support for climate change (although note how Bush has taken advantage of the theory to support the largest farm subsidy programme since Roosevelt's New Deal).

Also, is there fundamentally any difference between global warming sceptics receiving funding from Exxon Mobil and Al Gore's involvement with Generation Investment Management?



extopia said:


> It seems more likely to me that the political agenda lies with those who dismiss the whole anthropogenic global warming argument as nonsense.



Agreed. However, I think you do a disservice to the sceptics to portray them all as dismissing anthropogenic global warming out of hand. Even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a direct correlation with warmer temperatures, the solution of diverting fossil fuel resources away from countries that use them the most efficient manner (US, Germany and Japan) towards the countries that use them in the least efficient way (China, India and Russia) seems completely illogical.

Lest I be guilty of moving the goalposts mid-debate, here is a summation of my four main beliefs regarding global warming theory.

1) There is no overwhelming consensus among climatologists regarding anthropogenic global warming theory. It enjoys majority support but there are many disagreements even within this.

2) The Earth has experienced a number of cooling and warming periods throughout its long history. Most of these occurred before humans inhabited the planet. Thus far, global temperatures do not appear to have exceeded the bounds of these older periods of climate change.

3) There is a huge amount of money to be made by supporting a particular set of solutions to the global warming problem. Namely, the reduction of CO2 emissions and the use of non-fossilised fuel sources. These are supported hugely by those who lean to the left of the political spectrum, hence the calls for government subsidisation of every possible *green* initiative and the inherent anti-American bias.

4) Even if reducing the amount of CO2 we produce _will_ reverse the global warming trend, it is absolutely pointless to spend vast amounts of money trying to enforce changes now when hitting peak oil in the next two decades will drastically reduce our emissions regardless.


----------



## ivuernis

room305 said:


> 4) Even if reducing the amount of CO2 we produce _will_ reverse the global warming trend, it is absolutely pointless to spend vast amounts of money trying to enforce changes now when hitting peak oil in the next two decades will drastically reduce our emissions regardless.



Not necessarily if we start ramping up the use of coal to offset declines in oil and gas. And there is still plenty (~half) of the oil and gas left in the ground to burn. Even if we do attempt to reduce the CO2 output (of the world's current 6.5 billion inhabitants) the likelihood is that any gains in that area will be largely offset by the CO2 output of the extra 2-3 billion people who are projected to be around by 2050. Herein lies the real crux of the issue - unsustainable human population growth in a finite world. Too many people, not enough planet/resources. Extrapolate out the consequences depending on which side of the fence you sit w.r.t. where it's all heading.


----------



## shnaek

ivuernis said:


> Herein lies the real crux of the issue - unsustainable human population growth in a finite world. Too many people, not enough planet/resources.


I'm not sure this is true. Have you read Kevin Cahill's book? You can hear him speak about it here:

He points out that there are 5acres of land for every human being on the planet, and that the scarcity of land is a myth. 
Of course your point on the scarcity of resources is another issue, and I'd have to agree with that from the information I have at the moment.


----------



## ivuernis

shnaek said:


> I'm not sure this is true. Have you read Kevin Cahill's book? You can hear him speak about it here:
> 
> He points out that there are 5acres of land for every human being on the planet, and that the scarcity of land is a myth.
> Of course your point on the scarcity of resources is another issue, and I'd have to agree with that from the information I have at the moment.



Never heard of Kevin Cahill but am aware of the land area per person breakdown. Of the surface land how much is actually useable in a real human sense once you take away desert, high altitude regions, forest regsions, etc. These regions can only sustain a very low density population and I would say you're looking at ~1 acre per person once you discount these uninhabitable or low-density habitable areas. Do we just keep increasing the population until we get to a certain level of X people per acre? That's what yeast in a petri dish would do - are humans smarter than yeast? I figure we'll find over the course of this century.


----------



## shnaek

ivuernis said:


> I would say you're looking at ~1 acre per person once you discount these uninhabitable or low-density habitable areas.



Is this just a guess though? Kevin Cahill actually has the research done. And that is a common thread in the debate here on climate change - how much of it is 'I would say' and how much of it is well researched?


----------



## ivuernis

shnaek said:


> Is this just a guess though?


 
No, there was a chapter about it in a book I read a while back but I was recalling from memory. Here is a link to some info on the topic. 
http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm
Not proclaiming it to be truth, if you doubt it, google it. 



shnaek said:


> Kevin Cahill actually has the research done.


Granted he may have and I'll try to listen to the mp3 you linked if I get around to it but (and I don't mean to come across as sarcastic here) coming up with 5 acres per person is simple math derived from dividing the earth's land surface by human population, both numbers well established.


----------



## Purple

room305 said:


> Less of the sighing now please. There has been a concerted effort in recent years to portray the idea of a global consensus among climatologists about the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Yet even among the scientists who support the theory (the majority I am happy to accept), there is much disagreement about the severity of the problem, the likely consequences and the possible solutions. Al Gore for example, would be regarded as representing the extremist and largely discredited viewpoint (relying on the flawed "hockey stick" theory of warming). However, it is his proposed solution that is the most prevalent - a drastic decrease in CO2 emissions by industrialised nations.
> 
> Consider, for example this excerpt from Carleton University paleo-climatologist and Professor of Geology Tim Patterson's testimony to Canada's Commons Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development in 2005:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is its continual portrayal of a consensus view that makes me suspect that the IPCC has a political agenda. This is furthered by their evident support for Al Gore, who has himself has admitted to making exaggerated claims to further his cause.
> 
> There have been a number of allegations by scientists that their views were misrepresented by the IPCC or that their peer-reviewed papers were edited by the panel _after_ the peer-reviewing process. However, many of these allegations are from people who are very much biased against the idea of anthropogenic global warming (I don't consider myself in this group - I fully accept it may be true, my concerns lie with the proposed solution).
> 
> 
> 
> Do all of these organisations believe that we can reverse the Earth's temperature trend by lowering our CO2 emissions?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you might be making too much of the integrity of scientists ;-) But I agree, it is hard to imagine, given the current US administration that there is serious political pressure being applied to force support for climate change (although note how Bush has taken advantage of the theory to support the largest farm subsidy programme since Roosevelt's New Deal).
> 
> Also, is there fundamentally any difference between global warming sceptics receiving funding from Exxon Mobil and Al Gore's involvement with Generation Investment Management?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. However, I think you do a disservice to the sceptics to portray them all as dismissing anthropogenic global warming out of hand. Even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a direct correlation with warmer temperatures, the solution of diverting fossil fuel resources away from countries that use them the most efficient manner (US, Germany and Japan) towards the countries that use them in the least efficient way (China, India and Russia) seems completely illogical.
> 
> Lest I be guilty of moving the goalposts mid-debate, here is a summation of my four main beliefs regarding global warming theory.
> 
> 1) There is no overwhelming consensus among climatologists regarding anthropogenic global warming theory. It enjoys majority support but there are many disagreements even within this.
> 
> 2) The Earth has experienced a number of cooling and warming periods throughout its long history. Most of these occurred before humans inhabited the planet. Thus far, global temperatures do not appear to have exceeded the bounds of these older periods of climate change.
> 
> 3) There is a huge amount of money to be made by supporting a particular set of solutions to the global warming problem. Namely, the reduction of CO2 emissions and the use of non-fossilised fuel sources. These are supported hugely by those who lean to the left of the political spectrum, hence the calls for government subsidisation of every possible *green* initiative and the inherent anti-American bias.
> 
> 4) Even if reducing the amount of CO2 we produce _will_ reverse the global warming trend, it is absolutely pointless to spend vast amounts of money trying to enforce changes now when hitting peak oil in the next two decades will drastically reduce our emissions regardless.



Superb post Room305.


----------



## Teabag

Broadcast: 07/03/2005
Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight
Reporter: Tony Jones


TONY JONES: Now to our guest. Author and journalist Ross Gelbspan has taken on the global-warming sceptics in a series of books and articles. His latest book is called The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-Up and The Prescription. I spoke to him just a short time ago in Boston.

TONY JONES: Ross Gelbspan, thank you for joining us. 

ROSS GELBSPAN: My pleasure, Tony. Thank you for having me on. 

TONY JONES: Now, no matter how many scientists or governments sign up to the idea that the planet is getting dangerously hotter, you still find there's a hard core of committed sceptics, many of them reputable scientists like Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT. Can I ask you first: what if they're right?

ROSS GELBSPAN: If they're right and catastrophic future, then we still, I think, would be doing the right thing by changing away from coal and oil to clean energy. That would clear the air, it would do away with a lot of lung diseases, it would create lots and lots of jobs, especially in developing countries, so I really see it as a no-lose situation. If they're right, we are still going to run out of oil in another 40, 50 years, the world will be, and we'll still need to make this transition, albeit without the same amount of urgency. 

TONY JONES: The sceptics try to make the point that global warming is nothing but a theory. I mean, can you counter that? Is it more than a theory now, at this point? 

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, first of all, step back for one second, and what we know about the climate comes from more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries, reporting to the UN in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history. This is about as close to truth as we can get. If you want to go beyond the science and look at the very visible impacts, we can see that we are heating the deep oceans, we have reversed the carbon cycle by 400,000 years, we're seeing a big increase of violent weather all over the world, we've altered the timing of the seasons. All over the world, fish, insects birds, plants and animals are migrating toward the poles in search of temperature stability. So if you put together all the evidence, the scientific evidence, the field evidence, it really seems like a very open-and-shut case. 

TONY JONES: Why, then, are the sceptics so passionate about the arguments they're putting forward, and they are putting them forward with incredible passion. Richard Lindzen, who we just mentioned, for example, compares global warming to eugenics as an abuse of science. 

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, Mr Lindzen does, but Mr Lindzen is really sort of out there on a limb. I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world. 

TONY JONES: Is it also becoming a little hip to be sceptical? I mean, we've now seen Lindzen's influence creeping into popular culture. We have, for example, Michael Crichton's new novel, State of Fear, in which the hero is a global warming sceptic who roams the world for a secret US agency defeating evil environmentalists. I mean, this is so turning on its head the kind of popular mythology that we've seen in the past that you wonder where it's coming from. 

ROSS GELBSPAN: You do. I think Dr Lindzen, with whom I've met, has just a streak of contrarianism in his personality, and it could be that Michael Crichton does, too. I don't know Michael Crichton. I do know that the science that's advanced in Michael Crichton's book is really bogus and it simply does not hold up to examination at all. There's a very good web site that a number of climate scientists put together called realclimate.org to show where all the flaws in Crichton's thinking are. 

TONY JONES: One of the things the sceptics have in common is an incredible passion, it seems to me, and they seem to match the passion of some environmentalists. Recently we had on our program President Putin's reputed economic adviser, Andre Illarionov, who claims that global warming science is nothing but propaganda and the scientists who put it forward are a dangerous totalitarian sect. Now, how influential are people like Illarionov? 

ROSS GELBSPAN: I gather he's not that influential, even in Russia, because President Putin did sign on to the Kyoto protocol. I know he is a darling of the right-wing institutes like the Kato Institute and others in the United States that are fighting against action on global warming. But in the big picture, I really don't see them having very much influence on what's going on, especially with the world having signed Kyoto and moved forward. Again, to put this in context, if I can, while the US is dragging its heels because the Bush administration is certainly lined up with coal and oil interests, look at what's happening in Europe. Holland has just finished a plan to cut her emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years; Tony Blair has committed the UK to cuts of 60 per cent in 50 years; the Germans have committed to cuts of 50 per cent in 50 years; and about two weeks ago, President Chirac of France called on the industrial world to cut their emissions by 75 per cent in 45 years, and clearly, these leaders would not be taking these wrenching policy pronouncements if they did not - if they had any real confusion about the science. 

TONY JONES: Whose advice, then, is the Bush White House taking on major scientific issues like this, and in particular on global warming? What is the US Academy of Sciences saying, for example, and do they have any influence in the White House? 

ROSS GELBSPAN: The National Academy of Sciences, it's very interesting. Several years ago, President Bush said he did not want to accept the findings of this intergovernmental panel because it represented foreign science, so he wanted the United States' own scientific body to weigh in. The National Academy of Sciences then came out with a report saying not only is the IPCC right, they're actually underestimating some of the impacts that we'll be feeling down the road. So clearly, the President did not take that advice. The President's policies on climate and energy are essentially being dictated by Exxon-Mobil, Peabody Coal and some of the other large coal and oil interests. For example, the previous head of the intergovernmental panel on climate change was Dr Robert Watson. He was an Australian-born scientist. Watson was very, very highly regarded, both for his own scientific expertise and the way he ran this whole IPCC, and when President Bush was elected, Exxon-Mobil sent him a memo saying, "Please get rid of Watson. We don't want Watson in there." In fact, President Bush decided not to support Watson's re-election and he got bumped out of that job. So that's a quick example of the kind of influence that we're seeing of the oil and coal industries in the Bush administration. 

TONY JONES: What do you make of the argument that's going on within the environmental movement that the situation is so pressing, we are so close to a tipping point, that the only way of actually saving the planet is to move quickly to nuclear energy on a large scale? 

ROSS GELBSPAN: Nuclear waste, as you know, needs to be protected for at least 10,000 years, and that is a promise we cannot in good conscience make to future generations. There is no known way of really storing nuclear waste. And in fact, there is not very many people in the environmental community who are promoting this. But I think it's important, Tony, to go back to one thing you said. This sense of urgency is not coming first from the environmental community; it is coming from the scientific community, and Dr Rajendra Pachauri, an energy expert who is head of the intergovernmental panel said recently we have a 10-year window in which to make severe cuts in our carbon uses if "humanity is to survive". That science is based on a very simple fact. It's based on the measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For 10,000 years we had the same amount, 280 parts per million, until the world began to industrialise about 150 years ago. That 280 is now up to 380. That is a level this planet has not experienced for 420,000 years. In another 10 to 20 years, at current rates of emissions, we will surpass the 400 part per million mark, and that for many scientists is a real point of no return, because that will raise the planet's temperature by two degrees celsius from pre-industrial levels and that is the temperature at which all kinds of planetary systems really begin to change and sort of spiral out of control until they snap into a new equilibrium. So we are a very small distance away from really seeing things, sort of, get out of control in ways we can't even predict. 

TONY JONES: Just to once again look at the sceptics' argument, just to get your impression of it, Illarionov's central argument is that the present period of global warming - he admits there is a period global warming - is nothing more, he claim, than a normal fluctuation as we've seen throughout the world's history, and this is a view put by sceptical geographers, if you like. 

ROSS GELBSPAN: That's true, and that is indeed a central question. And in 1998 - I'm sorry, in 1988, the United Nations set up this panel of scientists to address precisely that question. The UN said, "Look, the temperature's going up, we don't know if this is due to natural variations or whether this is due to human activities." The scientists worked very hard, they performed a number of experiments by which they distinguished greenhouse warming from our burning of fossil fuels from natural warming, and they concluded in 1995 that this was due to human activity and those findings have only become more strengthened and I won't bore you with a lot of the science but I'd love to give you one quick experiment that's very, very telling and that's this: that climate scientists have discovered that as earth's temperature is rising, the night-time low temperatures are rising twice as fast as the day-time high temperature. That's because the carbon dioxide and the other greenhouses gases are trapping the heat in overnight. That is an indisputable fact. If it were natural warming, the highs and lows would rise and fall in parallel. I think there's a rather tragic consequence of that finding, and we saw that in the summer before last, where we had 35,000 heat deaths in Europe, and I think the reason for those fatalities lies in the fact that when a person's body becomes heat stressed during the day-time and they don't get the normal night-time cooling to allow them to recuperate, it takes this terrible toll on people's bodies. So that night-time low finding is one of about 8 or 9 what are so-called signature experiments that have distinguished greenhouse warming from natural variability. 

TONY JONES: Let me can you one final question and it is a critical one, because once again, it's something the sceptics claim doesn't really exist. And that is: scientific consensus on this issue of global warming. How do you measure scientific consensus? 

ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, I think the issue of peer review is critical. And if you look at all the peer-reviewed work of people who are researching various aspects of the climate, there is virtually no research that has been peer reviewed that says this is not happening. And so there is a very strong consensus, and as I say, this IPCC looks at the work of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries, and they conclude that there is really no challenge to the larger trends. There are disputes about a lot of second-level questions. There are disputes about the rates of future warming, about specific impacts in geographical regions, about the role of clouds, for example, some clouds reflect heat, some clouds trap in heat, but in terms of the larger trends, there is a consensus, there is no dispute among any real credentialed scientists about what is happening and even Dr Lindzen acknowledges it's happening. He just sort of dismisses it as being negligible.


----------



## tyoung

The politicalisation of GW has really hampered any kind of rational debate. The Left instinctively agree with it as any remedies with have to occur through centralised action. The Right are suspicious that it's being used as a Trojan Horse by the Left to exert centralised control.
 Scientific proof of Global Warming is impossible. Rather than endlessly debate the evidence which most of us are ill equipped to judge, I think we should move on to assess the risks/rewards of action versus inaction.
 If you agree that Global Warming is a possibility, what actions might ameliorate/prevent it? What are the cost/analyses of such action? Is it worth taking action even in the face of uncertainty?
 Personally I think that a number of actions taken by the first world in particular would be relatively painless and show leadership on this issue.


----------



## ubiquitous

Teabag said:


> Broadcast: 07/03/2005
> Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight
> Reporter: Tony Jones



What's the point in posting this lengthy piece, without even bothering to give any perspective on its source and the backgrounds of the individuals quoted therin? 

You might as well be talking about Wallace and Gromit for all I know of Tony Jones, Ross Gelbspan etc


----------



## room305

ivuernis said:


> Not necessarily if we start ramping up the use of coal to offset declines in oil and gas.


 
Even the US automakers, whose long and chequered history contains some rather baffling decisions, are unlikely to try and roll-out a coal-fired automobile. 

Nor do I think Boeing or Airbus have ever given much serious thought to coal-driven commerical aircraft ...


----------



## room305

tyoung said:


> The politicalisation of GW has really hampered any kind of rational debate. The Left instinctively agree with it as any remedies with have to occur through centralised action. The Right are suspicious that it's being used as a Trojan Horse by the Left to exert centralised control.
> Scientific proof of Global Warming is impossible. Rather than endlessly debate the evidence which most of us are ill equipped to judge, I think we should move on to assess the risks/rewards of action versus inaction.


 
This is an interesting point. The angle the Cato Institute tends to adopt in respect of the global warming debate is that even if the IPCC is correct, the economic damage entailed by such drastic declines in CO2 output is simply not worth it. They also (rightly in my opinion) point out that the Chinese are far more likely to become concerned about the issue when they are in a similar position of wealth as industrialised countries. Equally, developing countries will be better able to deal with the problems presented by climate change when they are fully industrialised.


----------



## room305

Teabag said:


> Broadcast: 07/03/2005
> Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight
> Reporter: Tony Jones


 
For anyone who couldn't be bothered to read through that diatribe I will summate it in one sentence.

_Global warming advocate claims sceptics are in the pay of Exxon Mobil._


----------



## ivuernis

room305 said:


> Even the US automakers, whose long and chequered history contains some rather baffling decisions, are unlikely to try and roll-out a coal-fired automobile.
> 
> Nor do I think Boeing or Airbus have ever given much serious thought to coal-driven commerical aircraft ...


 
I meant it in the context of increased coal use for power generation (as is already happening) rather than the some type of mass Fischer-Tropsch process for the transport sector.

Although the idea of a coal(derived)-powered aircarft may not be as outlandish as it sounds...
[broken link removed]

I wouldn't bet against on a whole host of increasing dirty power sources being used to power national/regional economies (as opposed to the "world economy") once the oil/gas decline starts to really bite and the climate be damned.


----------



## diarmuidc

room305 said:


> For anyone who couldn't be bothered to read through that diatribe I will summate it in one sentence.


Thanks for the objective summary. room305,


----------



## room305

diarmuidc said:


> Thanks for the objective summary. room305,


 
Teabag posted an entire unreferenced interview between two people nobody has ever heard of, verbatim, without even an introductory comment. The interview itself is filled with some fairly outlandish claims, none of which are backed up by any references to source material.

Given the context, I felt my summary was quite balanced.


----------



## extopia

room305 said:


> Given the context, I felt my summary was quite balanced.



It's a summary of a radio interview - hardly going to contain detailed references and sources. It takes a few clicks of any search engine to investigate Gelbspan's credentials. While I haven't personally heard of him before, I can't immediately find any good reason to question his motives. The quoted interview is really a pretty basic summary of the debate so far and contains little that hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far.

The feedback effect of greenhouse gases on climate is not, in fact, disputed by any credible scientists - it's a measurable physical effect, and was predicted long before global warming theories became "fashionable". 

Neither is it disputed that human activities such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture etc make a significant contribution to the increase in greenhouse gases.

What is disputed by sceptics is whether the (measurable) greenhouse gases produced by human activity are in fact responsible for the global warming that correlates to this activity. It's fair enough to dispute that, as of course an observed correlation is not proof of anything.

No other credible theory has emerged, however. Many alternative theories have been put forward (e.g. "what we are  seeing is part of the natural temperature cycles experienced by the earth"; "changes in the earth's magnetic field are responsible"; "it's caused by solar radiation," to name just a few).

None of these alternative theories have survived the intense peer review processes of organisations such as the IPCC, and in fact the anthropogenic CO2 theory is the only credible theory to have emerged so far.

Hopefully the experts are all wrong.


----------



## room305

extopia said:


> It's a summary of a radio interview - hardly going to contain detailed references and sources. It takes a few clicks of any search engine to investigate Gelbspan's credentials. While I haven't personally heard of him before, I can't immediately find any good reason to question his motives.


 
Really? You can't see how anyone wrote a book entitled "_Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis--And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster" _could have a vested interest in maintaining that anthropogenic global warming sceptics are in the pay of Exxon-Mobil?



extopia said:


> The quoted interview is really a pretty basic summary of the debate so far and contains little that hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far.


 
I doubt anyone could accuse the interview of balance but I thought this quote was a little suspect if nothing else:



> If you want to go beyond the science and look at the very visible impacts, we can see that we are heating the deep oceans, we have reversed the carbon cycle by 400,000 years, we're seeing a big increase of violent weather all over the world, we've altered the timing of the seasons. All over the world, fish, insects birds, plants and animals are migrating toward the poles in search of temperature stability. So if you put together all the evidence, the scientific evidence, the field evidence, it really seems like a very open-and-shut case.


 
Irrespective of whether the Earth's warming trend is anthropogenic in nature or not, it must take at least 100 years or more to heat the deep ocean. Yet CO2 output has only been increasing significantly since the post world war II industrialisation. Surely this would work against the thesis of CO2 emissions being the cause?


----------



## room305

extopia said:


> None of these alternative theories have survived the intense peer review processes of organisations such as the IPCC, and in fact the anthropogenic CO2 theory is the only credible theory to have emerged so far.


 
So even though as you admit the theory of CO2 led anthropogenic global warming is far from certain, you are comfortable with governments making potentially catastrophic changes to how we live our lives, "just in case"?

As David Evans of _Science Speak_, a former global warming advocate but more recent sceptic, wrote in this article:



> The case for carbon emissions as the cause of global warming now just boils down to the fact that we know that it works in the laboratory, and that there is no strong evidence that global warming is definitely *not* caused by carbon emissions. Much the same can be said of cosmic rays -- we have laboratory evidence that it works, and no definitely contradictory evidence.


----------



## Teabag

ubiquitous said:


> What's the point in posting this lengthy piece, without even bothering to give any perspective on its source and the backgrounds of the individuals quoted therin?
> 
> You might as well be talking about Wallace and Gromit for all I know of Tony Jones, Ross Gelbspan etc



Sorry, my apologies to you and room305. I posted that interview without perspective and I have been offline a while.
Ross Gelbspan is an american writer. I read one of his books 'The Heat Is On: Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up & the Prescription' and found it very interesting. I saw him being interviewed and he seemed to know his stuff. I have no idea who Tony Jones is. I just thought the questions and answers were relevant at this point in the discussion even though room305 disagrees.

One thing though. I went for a jolly swim in Galway Bay on Christmas Day and I could find no evidence of the oceans heating up...


----------



## room305

Teabag said:


> One thing though. I went for a jolly swim in Galway Bay on Christmas Day and I could find no evidence of the oceans heating up...


----------



## extopia

room305 said:


> You can't see how anyone wrote a book entitled "_Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and Activists Are Fueling the Climate Crisis--And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster" _could have a vested interest in maintaining that anthropogenic global warming sceptics are in the pay of Exxon-Mobil?



I would only call it a vested interest if it could be proven he just wrote the book to make a few bob. I think it's more likely he actually believes what he's writing about.


----------



## room305

extopia said:


> I would only call it a vested interest if it could be proven he just wrote the book to make a few bob. I think it's more likely he actually believes what he's writing about.


 
I don't doubt that he is genuine in his beliefs, just that his claims must be viewed in light of these beliefs. 

So he claims that Exxon-Mobil have the ear of the Bush administration. Fair enough, I don't doubt that the world's most profitable corporation can exert influence on a government if it wishes. 

However, is he likely to be as vehement in his condemnation of the massive government subsidies provided by that same administration to the Archer Daniels Midland company?


----------



## room305

ivuernis said:


> I meant it in the context of increased coal use for power generation (as is already happening) rather than the some type of mass Fischer-Tropsch process for the transport sector.
> 
> Although the idea of a coal(derived)-powered aircarft may not be as outlandish as it sounds...
> [broken link removed]
> 
> I wouldn't bet against on a whole host of increasing dirty power sources being used to power national/regional economies (as opposed to the "world economy") once the oil/gas decline starts to really bite and the climate be damned.


 
I think it is only the developing countries that are increasing their coal-generated electricity use, simply because it is cheap, plentiful and there are less regulations regarding air pollution. These may increase in the future as oil and gas become harder to come by but it will still result in a huge overall reduction in CO2 emissions. Especially if carbon sequestration or scrubbing technologies are used in chimney stacks.

That plane sounds fantastic - perhaps there is some hope for Ryanair afterall!


----------



## redstar

"Ireland has warmest year on record"

[broken link removed]


----------



## z104

Less people dying from Hypothermia . Climate change should be good for homeless/people who cannot afford to heat their homes.


----------



## extopia

Niallers said:


> Less people dying from Hypothermia . Climate change should be good for homeless/people who cannot afford to heat their homes.



The triumph of short-term thinking!


----------



## GeneralZod

room305 said:


> These may increase in the future as oil and gas become harder to come by but it will still result in a huge overall reduction in CO2 emissions. Especially if carbon sequestration or scrubbing technologies are used in chimney stacks.



CO2 (and CO, Sulphur Dioxide, Mercury and particulates) emissions are significantly greater from coal fired power stations per unit energy output than from oil and natural gas.  There's currently no large scale power plant in operation with a full carbon capture and storage system and the long term storage of CO2 in for example geological formations is an unproven concept.


----------



## ivuernis

carbon sequestration is a chimera


----------



## extopia

ivuernis said:


> carbon sequestration is a chimera



Not really. Carbon sequestration is a natural phenomenon. It's simple physics.

If you're talking about "artificial carbon sequestration" however, I suppose the jury is still out. But there's a lot of promising work going on in this field. It's too early to tell which methods are going to be the most viable (and the least damaging, as sequestration itself has unproven consequences).

It's probably going to be one of the most important elements of a global CO2 reduction policy.


----------



## ivuernis

extopia said:


> Not really. Carbon sequestration is a natural phenomenon. It's simple physics.
> 
> If you're talking about "artificial carbon sequestration" however, I suppose the jury is still out.


 
Of course I meant artificial or non-natural (outside nature) carbon capture and storage.


----------



## extopia

Nevertheless, to describe it as a "chimera" is to do a disservice to the good work being done in this field.


----------



## z104

Climate change is the new green religion, Thou shalt not talk about climate change in vain. All ye who speak about it being cyclical or natural phenomenom are heretics and shall be beaten down until you agree with the concensus. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has had many heating and cooling cycles .  Do you seriously believe our input during the last 100 years out of the earths 4.5 billion years is causing climate change.


----------



## johnwilliams

room 305
that aircraft is already flying .the united states airforce fitted one of those engines to a b 52 bomber  and on the 17 december were due to fit one to a c17 globemaster transport aircraft for a trans continental flight. 50/50 fuel mix  jp-8  and this syntheteitc fuel blend ,they are also trying to get nato to change over as well


----------



## extopia

Niallers said:


> The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has had many heating and cooling cycles .  Do you seriously believe our input during the last 100 years out of the earths 4.5 billion years is causing climate change.



Uh, yeah, many of us do. That's what this discussion is all about. The possibility that the current position could be down to a cyclical heating phase has been taken into account in the research. The science suggests that this particular comfort blanket is merely wishful thinking.


----------



## ubiquitous

Such apparently blind faith in "the science" would tend to support the charge that "climate change is the new green religion".

Max McGuinness has a very interesting article in the Christmas issue of _The Dubliner_ where he notes that "scientific evidence" can be used to support a range of patently ludicrous theories, for example that members of particular race groups are smarter/stupider than members of other races. He concludes that science should never be a replacement for common sense.


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> He concludes that science should never be a replacement for common sense.


Ah, I'm guessing Mr Mc Guinness has not studied science. His common sense is going to go haywire when he hears about:
Wave Particle Duality
Uncertainty principle
General Relativity
Quantum Tunnelling 
And they are just a few off the top of my head from my physics lectures 15 years ago... 

How about Mr McGuinness take some of Alexander Pope's advice.


----------



## ubiquitous

But the "science" of climate change is represented by its proponents, not as a massively complex theory or paradox such as the matters you list, but as a simplistic mantra, along the lines of "the earth is hotting up and mankind is to blame". Those who take the view that science is rarely THAT simple or straightforward have been branded as heretics.


----------



## ivuernis

extopia said:


> Nevertheless, to describe it as a "chimera" is to do a disservice to the good work being done in this field.



Ok, fair enough, but I doubt it's going to be the silver bullet some hope (and are saying) it will be. 



Niallers said:


> The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has had many heating and cooling cycles.



Climatologists do take these natural cycles into account when modeling.



Niallers said:


> Do you seriously believe our input during the last 100 years out of the earths 4.5 billion years is causing climate change.



Outside of the dispute as to what is causing temperature changes there are many other examples of humans making vast (and largely negative) changes in the last 150 years, e.g. deforestation, habitat destruction, wildlife extinction, ozone depletion (thankfully averted). There are 6.5 billion of us after all and we do use up a lot of resources and emit quite a bit of emissions. We (as a species) can and are causing change on a global scale, if you want to argue that this does not or cannot extend to global temperature then that's your call.


----------



## ubiquitous

... But deforestation and habitat destruction are sadly not new phenomena. The biggest case of deforestation in Ireland happened with the clearing of the native woodland that covered the country in the middle centuries of the last millennium.

Deforestation and the destruction of habitats do not explain the patterns of global cooling from the late 1930s until the 1970s.


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> But the "science" of climate change is represented by its proponents, not as a massively complex theory or paradox such as the matters you list, but as a simplistic mantra, along the lines of "the earth is hotting up and mankind is to blame". .



Are you kidding?. It is your misrepresentation of the scientific position that claims that it is a simplistic mantra. 

[broken link removed](of three) working groups of the Fourth IPCC report. About 11 sub-sections of scientific analysis, with one average sub section weighing in at 234 pages.


----------



## ubiquitous

> The time for debate is over. The science is settled.



Al Gore, 1992.



> We owe a great debt to ... the former US Vice-President, Al Gore, for (his) efforts in helping us understand man-made climate change and laying the foundations for the measures needed to counteract such change.



Pat Breen, TD for Co. Clare [broken link removed]



> Green TD Dan Boyle pointed to Ireland's disgraceful record on greenhouse gas emissions *the direct cause of global warming*



www.independent.ie/national-news/liam-collins-487657.html


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> Al Gore ... Pat Breen, TD ...
> Green TD Dan Boyle


How about taking the *scientists  *quotes and research papers when trying to deny climate change *science*?


----------



## ubiquitous

Because it is the likes of Gore and other non-scientists who have tried to suppress debate by claiming that there is nothing to debate. Hence their "the earth is hotting up and mankind is to blame - end of story" mantra. 

By your book, no-one has the right to challenge this view unless they are a scientist?


----------



## ivuernis

ubiquitous said:


> ... But deforestation and habitat destruction are sadly not new phenomena. The biggest case of deforestation in Ireland happened with the clearing of the native woodland that covered the country in the middle centuries of the last millennium.



I know. 



ubiquitous said:


> Deforestation and the destruction of habitats do not explain the patterns of global cooling from the late 1930s until the 1970s.



I never said they explained global temperature fluctuations - they were just examples of how we are changing the planet on a global scale and how with 6.5 billion people it is not a great leap to deduce that with these numbers we are unlikely to not affect global temperature to a certain degree.


----------



## z104

Is this the same Al Gore that lives in a 10,000sq foot home, jets around the world willy nilly and consumes like it's going out of fashion.
It pays to convert/preach the new green religion.

Do you think he still would have been a lean green leader of the free green world had he been president of the USA.


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> Because it is the likes of Gore and other non-scientists who have tried to suppress debate by claiming that there is nothing to debate.?


Ok. So here is the conclusion of the fourth IPCC report:
_Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."_
_"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is __very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."_
_Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate __very likely means over 90% _

Sounds very much like the scientific debate is over to me.



ubiquitous said:


> By your book, no-one has the right to challenge this view unless they are a scientist?


You can challenge it all you want, however without anything solid ( ie scientific fact,research & reasoning) to back up your claims they are not worth a whole lot, IMHO. (if my car is broken I value the opinion of a car mechanic a lot more than a dentists)



Niallers said:


> Is this the same Al Gore ......


This is called an ad hominem argument. It's a fallacy and holds no water in a climate change discussion


----------



## z104

It shows that the man who preached the new religion and won a nobel prize for his preaching of the new religion is a hypocrite.

It's his inconvenient truth.
There are thousands of people like him out there (scientists included) who are making vasts amount of money or grants from this new religion.



Argumentum ad populum


----------



## diarmuidc

Niallers said:


> There are thousands of people like him out there (scientists included) who are making vasts amount of money or grants from this new religion.


Please show me the scientists making vast amount of money? You are still not dealing with what is wrong with the science and just attacking (without any proof) some people involved.


----------



## z104

Just google it.  You will see thousands of grants under different guises. It pays/motivates (some) to push the climate change agenda.


----------



## extopia

Niallers said:


> I
> There are thousands of people like him out there (scientists included) who are making vasts amount of money or grants from this new religion.



I think this "religion" comparison is funny. The anthropogenic global warming argument is based on science, not religion. One post above even refers to "blind faith" in the science. What about blind faith in the belief that the science is wrong? 

Religion is the opposite of science. Many "sceptics" on this thread are quoting "gut feelings" and "common sense" - that sounds more like religion to me.

Attacking Al Gore (or the science) is just shooting the messenger.


----------



## extopia

Niallers said:


> Just google it.  You will see thousands of grants under different guises. It pays/motivates (some) to push the climate change agenda.



So what? Does this mean that scientists are taking the money and just making up the research?


----------



## ubiquitous

extopia said:


> What about blind faith in the belief that the science is wrong?



I wouldn't term it as blind faith, more as scepticism. Maybe the science is correct. Maybe its not. I have my doubts about it. That does not mean that I have blind faith in my own beliefs, nor am I incapable of adapting or changing my views on the issue in the light of new information. In fact, 6 or 7 years ago, I was a firm believer in the "science of global warming" and was disgusted by George W Bush's failure to observe the Kyoto Protocol. In the meantime my views have evolved as I have learned more about the issue. How you can equate such a position to religion is beyond me.


----------



## extopia

This is turning the argument around. I am trying to get away from the "religion" comparison, not promote it.

I also am prepared to evolve my position. What was it that changed your mind, I'm interested to know?

Hopefully there's more to it than seeing some people trying to make money out of the so-called GW industry.


----------



## ubiquitous

extopia said:


> What was it that changed your mind, I'm interested to know?



Its a bit hard to say if there was one particular issue that has changed my mind on the subject,  bearing in mind that my position on climate change has evolved from on of support for the GW lobby towards the opposite perspective over a period of 5 or 6 years.

My current scepticism is based largely on t
(1) a suspicion that the claimed scientific consensus is nowhere nearly as comprehensive as the GW lobby make out. The failure of the GW lobby to accept any dissent against the so-called GW consensus and the existence of contrary viewpoints would deepen this suspicion.

(2) a realisation that, even if manmade global warming is taking place, there is significant doubt over whether we can do anything to stop it, hence there is little point in sacrificing economic development and resources in attempting to do so - particularly in the Third World.

(3) a belief that there are far more immediate & important issues out there,that threaten our planet and its people, such as global poverty, AIDS, malaria and nuclear proliferation, that are being largely ignored or relegated in prominence amid the current GW policymaking frenzy.

(4) a (possibly misguided) belief that if we as a race spend the 21st century getting rid of world poverty and ensuring a peaceful, healthy and economically sustainable existence for all the world's inhabitants, the resulting benefits in terms of technological advancement can mitigate or eliminate many of the problems that will arise if global warming continues to be a severe problem in the decades ahead. To take one possible parallel, the citizens of the Netherlands have quite successfully dealt with their own issues in combatting tidal flooding by making themselves rich, not by abandoning economic development in an effort to keep the tides away.


----------



## michaelm

ubiquitous said:


> (3) a belief that there are far more immediate & important issues out there,that threaten our planet and its people, such as global poverty, AIDS, malaria and nuclear proliferation, that are being largely ignored or relegated in prominence amid the current GW policymaking frenzy.


Must agree with the above statement.  Some interesting documentaries in relation to climate, amongst other things, here.


----------



## autumnleaf

ubiquitous said:


> Its a bit hard to say if there was one particular issue that has changed my mind on the subject, bearing in mind that my position on climate change has evolved from on of support for the GW lobby towards the opposite perspective over a period of 5 or 6 years.


 

I've gone the other way: starting out as a skeptic and gradually came to believe that global warming was happening and it was probably mainly due to humans burning of fossil fuels.

I came to this belief for various reasons:
1) We know C02 is a greenhouse gas. We know that human activity has increased the net amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. We know that the temperature has, on average and on a worldwide scale, been increasing. Correlation does not equal causation, but sometimes it is a pretty good indication, especially if you have no other likely causes.
2) The experts are remarkably consistent in their acceptance of the basic facts, even if they disagree about total effects and implications.
3) The skeptics keep bringing up the same arguments even after they have been disproved. Sunspots and solar cycles, for example (see RealClimate.com). 
4) There is more to be gained for new researchers from denying AGW that there is from confirming it. It is argued that some established scientists have staked their reputations on a pro-AGW stance and would be reluctant to abandon it, which is probably true. However, other scientists who are not so well established would get a LOT of renown and remuneration if they upset the applecart with a REAL alternative theory. 

I would be prepared to change my mind again if the evidence pointed that way, e.g. if peer-reviewed, replicated experiments done by reputable establishments showed a huge increase in volcanic activity that overwhelmed the effect of human-produced CO2.
Equally, if medical researchers showed conclusively that viruses and bacteria did not cause disease, I would take that seriously, but until then I'll keep washing my hands when necessary.

Question to the skeptics: what would make you change your mind?


----------



## ubiquitous

autumnleaf said:


> Question to the skeptics: what would make you change your mind?



1. A convincing scientific explanation for previous climate change patterns (global warming and global cooling) that pre-date the alleged greenhouse effect. 

2. Convincing evidence that so-called man-made climate change is reversible or preventible. Otherwise, then there is little point worrying about it.

3. Convincing evidence that climate change presents risks of such gravity and urgency to mankind that warrants its current prioritisation at the expense of issues such as global poverty, AIDS, malaria and nuclear proliferation.


----------



## Teabag

autumnleaf said:


> I've gone the other way: starting out as a skeptic and gradually came to believe that global warming was happening and it was probably mainly due to humans burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> I came to this belief for various reasons:
> 1) We know C02 is a greenhouse gas. We know that human activity has increased the net amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. We know that the temperature has, on average and on a worldwide scale, been increasing. Correlation does not equal causation, but sometimes it is a pretty good indication, especially if you have no other likely causes.
> 2) The experts are remarkably consistent in their acceptance of the basic facts, even if they disagree about total effects and implications.
> 3) The skeptics keep bringing up the same arguments even after they have been disproved. Sunspots and solar cycles, for example (see RealClimate.com).
> 4) There is more to be gained for new researchers from denying AGW that there is from confirming it. It is argued that some established scientists have staked their reputations on a pro-AGW stance and would be reluctant to abandon it, which is probably true. However, other scientists who are not so well established would get a LOT of renown and remuneration if they upset the applecart with a REAL alternative theory.
> 
> I would be prepared to change my mind again if the evidence pointed that way, e.g. if peer-reviewed, replicated experiments done by reputable establishments showed a huge increase in volcanic activity that overwhelmed the effect of human-produced CO2.
> Equally, if medical researchers showed conclusively that viruses and bacteria did not cause disease, I would take that seriously, but until then I'll keep washing my hands when necessary.
> 
> Question to the skeptics: what would make you change your mind?



At the risk of appearing to be point-scoring, I have to say that above is an excellent post.

I wish that global warming wasn't happening but I feel I have to accept it now based on the evidence I have seen/heard. I dont think my life will be affected so much by the resultant climate change but at the same time I feel responsible to future generations including my own children. We often look back on previous generations critically and think 'How could they let such and such happen ?'. What will they think of us if we destroy out planet in 50-100 years ?

"We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children".


----------



## z104

I think there is alot of smoke and mirrors used by government to deflect against the real issues of ( as was pointed out above) war, malaria, hiv/aids, hunger, education and the real elephant in the room of nuclear power. It will probably work out being a master stroke where the greens will eventually lobby gvernment for nuclear power stations.

It's like -keep the fools busy worrying about global warming and the'll forget the real issues that effect far more people on a day to day personal level.

Put resources into sorting out theses issues first.


P.S. People talk about the planet being destroyed, the planet will be fine and will be there long afetr us.!!
So, should people refer to the human race being destroyed and not the planet?


----------



## ubiquitous

People were talking in the 1980s about the planet being destroyed by nuclear power and nuclear weapons. I remember around 1985 reading an interview with Mick Jagger (of all people!!) who was worrying at the time that the planet would be destroyed before his (then small) children would grow up. Such pessimism was widespread at the time. _Plus ca change..._


----------



## z104

Can you list the end of the world is nigh newspaper selling stories over the past few years? In no particular order

Hiv/Aids- The world will be wiped out - We're still here
Bird Flu - The world will be wiped out - We're still here
Global Cooling - We're still here
Global warming - 
Rising seas- We'll all be flooded/drowned - We're still here
Nuclear war- This was around for a long time - We're still here
Obesity- We'll be too heavy and the world will collapse. 
The world is flat and you'll fall off the edge or be eaten by sea monsters.

Can anybody add to this list or make up new end of the world scenarios?


----------



## extopia

Niallers said:


> I think there is alot of smoke and mirrors used by government to deflect aga
> P.S. People talk about the planet being destroyed, the planet will be fine and will be there long afetr us.!!
> So, should people refer to the human race being destroyed and not the planet?



Absolutely - global warming of any kind will not destroy the planet. It will, however, destroy in the short term the resources mankind needs to survive. Once we wipe ourselves out (if we don't take our heads out of the sand), the planet will recover.


----------



## ubiquitous

extopia said:


> It will, however, destroy in the short term the resources mankind needs to survive.



That's a very sweeping statement. Have you evidence to support it? 

btw, how long is the "short-term"?


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> Max McGuinness .... He concludes that science should never be a replacement for common sense.



I thought of Mr McGuinness when I read this quote:
_Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen._ - Albert Einstein


----------



## ubiquitous

diarmuidc said:


> I thought of Mr McGuinness when I read this quote:
> _Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen._ - Albert Einstein



Did you read his article?


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> Did you read his article?


No I don't have access to _the Dubliner_ (I don't live in Ireland). I assumed that your summary of his conclusion was accurate. ("_He concludes that science should never be a replacement for common sense._") If you misrepresented his position, I apologise to Mr McGuinness.

Edit:I see they have a website but couldn't find the article


----------



## ubiquitous

I didn't misrepresent his position. His article wasn't actually about climate change, but was a more general discussion of how people tend to blindly accept scientific conclusions as fact, even when the conclusions don't make sense. (He cited "scientific studies" that claimed for example that African-Americans were less intelligent, and Jewish Americans were more intelligent, than US citizens as a whole.) 

I just wondered why you seemed to take such a jaundiced view of the article, and its author, as it was a reasonable and interesting article. Now that you admit that you haven't even read it, I'm still wondering.


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> I just wondered why you seemed to take such a jaundiced view of the article, and its author, as it was a reasonable and interesting article. Now that you admit that you haven't even read it, I'm still wondering.


Well post a link and I will read it.

Like I said if the article follows the conclusion then I feel justified in my skeptical view. It's the standard journalistic approach to take a relatively inconsequential opinion that was recently hyped in the press and use that as a hammer to bash science. 

"oh look some scientist claims black people are dumb, hence we can't trust science." The fact that the majority of other scientists decried Watsons claims and that the man himself denies making such claim ("More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.") , did not influence the conclusion (and I paraphrase ubiqitous) that common sense should trump science.

From my original post I stand by my claim that common sense, gut feelings, personal dislike for certain public figures, religious faith  or any other prejudice should not influence science. We have had enough of that in our past


----------



## michaelm

The Global Dimming documentary here (Environment -> Climate -> Global Dimming) is interesting.  It suggests that clean air measures adopted in recent years have accelerated global warming.


----------



## Remix

I remember a priest visiting my school (many) years ago saying to the class something along the lines: "Seek out a perfect church. Join that church and realize from that day forward that church will be less than perfect"

Same thing I suppose for science. For as long as there are areas of science which contain uncertainties and require interpretation and for as long as there are humans in the loop, science will be less than perfect!


----------

