Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is

[diarmuidc]

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]

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]

... 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.

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]

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.

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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?