Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is


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

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.
 

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.
 
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. .
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Niallers said:
I'm sceptical that man is the cause of this problem...
Click to expand...

Many posters have expressed this view. However thousands of scientists, who have actually studied this issue, believe that man actually is the cause.
 
They believe or have concensus. They cannot proove.

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

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.
 
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 ) .
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register