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)
Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is
- Thread starter RMCF
- Start date
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
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.
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"
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.
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.
No.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 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.
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).
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.
Come on, Purple, you're around here long enough to know that's a straw man argument.
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).
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Why not listen to the talk and make up your own mind on its merits or otherwise? That's what I did.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.