The Environment Bandwagon.

[IBM]

I gotta say that I'd rather believe global warming is our fault and play it safe, than ignore the warnings and be wrong about it.

I've got kids, and it terrifies me to think that their generation, or the one after it, will have to suffer simply because we don't make enough effort.

I've heard a lot of statistics regarding emissions, especially the one regarding the % of emissions which are our fault, and the % produced by the natural world. It should be pointed out that we have no idea how delicate the balance is on earth, and what percentage increase could result in a very negative reaction. Personally I say we should hedge our bets and play it safe. A lot of the efforts to reduce emissions and protect the environment seem sensible, and even seem to be good for us in the long run.

I read somewhere that around 85-90% of scientists actively involved in the field agree that we're damaging the environment and the results could be catostropic. That's enough to persuade me.

[JPreston]

I thought all the conspiracy theorists liked to follow the money;

In this case we have the assembled armies of lobbyists and influence bought from the proceeds of the largest and most profitable industry ever to enter the field of human endeavour - an industry that is entirely dependent on the extraction from the ground and subsequent combustion of billions of tons of fossil fuels, and in the opposite corner we have....who exactly?

Corrupt Blue Peter presenters with a mysterious and unfounded pro-recycling agenda?

Scheming politicians who imagine that by limiting consumption and economic activity by legislation, they will somehow increase tax revenue?

That adds up even less than the graphs used in that (widely debunked) Channel 4 'documentary'...

[Funkstar]

There is a lot to this argument. I saw the C4 documentary the other week, there was a program on BBC2 a couple of time over the last couple of years called "The Sceptical Environmentalist". It's along the same lines as the C4 program.

I'm really into good environmental practices (re-cycling, reducing usage, etc.) but i believe the media and the government is going at it in the wrong way.

We should definitely be carful what we use and reduce, re-use and re-cylce as much as possible. However, i don't think this should be because of climate change, it should be because we are running out of natural resources. I work in the oil industry and i see the reduction in production all the time.

Global worming is an argument the will rage for years to come (the medias sesationalist stories do little to persuade me they are right), but there is no doubt we are spending more of the worlds capital than is being created every year.

[[GSV]Trig]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...dled/#more-414

If there's any questions from the documentary you don't think that answers, let me know via PM and I'll do my best.



Latest research gives you a 1/10 chance or worse of being right. Latest broadsheet articles give you no chance of being right (distortion one way) and TV shows like the C4 one on Sunday want you to believe the whole thing is some massive conspiracy because, frankly, that's more entertaining (distortion the other). All those statements come with an 'in my opinion' clause.

I have done this to death in other threads, but go and chase up the full scientific reports first hand (from the IPCC, or wherever) if you're interested in this because the information that finds it's way into the public domain is, frankly, a damning indictment on the state of the press to communicate science.

Explain the last ice age.
We weren't around, neither were all these nasty cars and airyplane thing's.
Its a simple fact that scientists do not have enuf data to accuratley tell us whats happened in the past or predict what will happen in the future.

[TiG]

Byatt,

Very interested in the link thanks. So much data on there its going to take time to get back you you with a proper response.

But answer me this in the meantime, should the green scientists who argue against this not get together and counter argue all of these things in their own show.

Last thing the planet needs is the mass public getting confused over the mixed messages.

The documentary put out was credible, well edited and seemed to have people that had a good set of backgrounds.

Thats all most people need.....

TiG

[Byatt]

Its a simple fact that scientists do not have enuf data to accuratley tell us whats happened in the past or predict what will happen in the future.

I disagree.

For a start, an ice age timescale isn't applicable to the current rate of increase in temperature we're seeing. The last ice age had a global average temperature only 5C different to now, and global temperature rose roughly 0.6C in the last century, and will almost certainly rise more than double that in the next.

Now, we could argue that global temperature may spike like this every once in a while for, well, if it's not our actions, then by natural 'forcing'.

The problem is that we would expect to see some evidence of this in the temperature records that we have - and there isn't any at all. Now, you argue that these are insufficient.

Where this argument falls down somewhat is that scientists will never have all the evidence, and thus they have to do calculations on possible errors from existing evidence and also on how much evidence they have in their hands.

The 1/10 figure doesn't come from scientists being uncertain about their models, it comes from the very fact that there is the sparsity of evidence you mention.

But answer me this in the meantime, should the green scientists who argue against this not get together and counter argue all of these things in their own show.

A televised version of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net) column wouldn't be a bad start, but really, the controversy is always going to attract attention than the rebuttal.

The best (and probably only) way to solve it is for people to take more of an interest in the subject and go and find stuff on their own.

Essentially, it's always going to remain an issue of trust:

The issue is the uncertainty is not rooted in the data, but deliberate political efforts to create uncertainty in the public by mischaracterizing the data.

People don't look at the data, they look at what people who are looking at the data are saying. The issue is that some of those people have demonstrable vested interests in saying something other than what the data does.

The issue is basically that the people you're paying attention to are mischaracterizing what the data says, and lacking the training to interpret the data yourself, you can't tell when they're doing that.

[badass]

I have done this to death in other threads,

We both have done this to death. I just think I'll point out in this one that your arguments for man made climate change all came from IPCC reports, whilst all of mine questioned the motives and methods of the IPCC.
We didn't reach agreement and unanaswered questions were left on both sides of the argument.

I shall now bow out of this thread since my thoughts can easily be found with a search, as can yours and both are backed up with links to sources, something this thread lacks in its entirety.

I will add one thing to this though. I think we are concentrating on the wrong problem.
If you take the total usable energy produced by this planet, per year, and compare it to how much energy man is using, per year, you will see a more obvious problem thats has a much more solid base than man made global warming.

the ratio is 400:1
Man is using resources 400 times faster than this planet can produce them. Concentrate on energy, rather than carbon emmisions and the carbon emmisions will be reduced anyway. The only emmisions we should be worriying about and acting upon now are those that are poisonous or those that wreck the local environment.

[Byatt]

We both have done this to death. I just think I'll point out in this one that your arguments for man made climate change all came from IPCC reports, whilst all of mine questioned the motives and methods of the IPCC.
We didn't reach agreement and unanaswered questions were left on both sides of the argument.

I shall now bow out of this thread since my thoughts can easily be found with a search, as can yours and both are backed up with links to sources, something this thread lacks in its entirety.

I don't disagree with anything here. I think I will also take the sensible option and bow out now, if anyone is interested, incensed or just fancies a chat, PM me.

[[GSV]Trig]

I disagree.

For a start, an ice age timescale isn't applicable to the current rate of increase in temperature we're seeing. The last ice age had a global average temperature only 5C different to now, and global temperature rose roughly 0.6C in the last century, and will almost certainly rise more than double that in the next.

Now, we could argue that global temperature may spike like this every once in a while for, well, if it's not our actions, then by natural 'forcing'.

The problem is that we would expect to see some evidence of this in the temperature records that we have - and there isn't any at all. Now, you argue that these are insufficient.

The records we have go back a few hundred years at most.
Just because scientists say its out fault and the government agree doesnt make it so, scientists once said the world was flat, scientist said we were the center of the universe and everything revolved around us, scientist said a lot of things which quite frankly prove nothing but the arrogance of man.
The Earths rotation around the Sun isnt the same all the time, it alters slightly, the Earth's rotational axis also varies, these 2 simple things will throw any data that we have well off even if these 2 simple rotations change by as much as a single degree, add to that the Earth tilting on its own axis and there you have 3 simple things that will really screw up the eco-system of this planet, then theres the moon, change its rotation and bang the tidal system on the planet goes too pot...

[Byatt]

the arrogance of man.

+Lots of really obvious stuff that scientists won't have considered but Trig has

I'm going to agree to disagree with you at this point.

[JPreston]

Do not underestimate the power of armchair climatology...

[[GSV]Trig]

I'm going to agree to disagree with you at this point.

Lucky me, the fact is the data we have doesnt cover enough in the grand scheme of things to predict anything with any sort of decent acuracy, christ we cant even predict the weather outside of a few days acuratly so how the hell can scientists say that they know whats happening with this big ball of water and land were on?

[phoenixmystic]

hmmm, I intended to kick start a debate not get a bunch of people insulting me and belittling me.. Yes I was concerned about people trying to poke fun. If your attempt was to upset and offend me, you have succeeded.

Everything I have said has been proven and is backed up by research. No I do not have a GCSE, it is a P.H.D. some thing that has to be earned through relevant research with a sound conclusion independent from any political or social motivation, well this P.h.d anyway.

I do not mind criticism but attempts at what is practically bullying is wrong and unethical and the comments form these particular people demonstrate a lack of understanding on the matter.

[Byatt]

No I do not have a GCSE, it is a P.H.D. some thing that has to be earned through relevant research with a sound conclusion independent from any political or social motivation, well this P.h.d anyway.

In what field, and from what establishment? What was the title of your thesis? I'm curious rather than attacking.

Everything I have said has been proven and is backed up by research.

You've got a PhD, so you should be able cite this research, rather than just saying "hey, guys, I know my stuff, OK", the perceived arrogance of which sets you up for the ad hominems. You should also be able to write considerably more accurately than you do, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're probably not trying, because it's a forum, or perhaps english isn't your first language, or you're exceptionally angry.

A couple of points to mention from your original post, since it wasn't just a rant and run:

The problem is in the rate of growth of air travel. (source)

Equally, the vilification of air travel is perhaps due to it having a RFI of 2.7 (Explained in the previous link, which cites it's original location).

I fundamentally agree with your points that a sea change of how people live their lives is how we solve this problem, the problem is convincing the general public that the following is true:

The sacrifices required to reduce emissions will be balanced out by the lack of, for want of a better phrase, 'climate catastrophes' that would occur without those sacrifices.

[phoenixmystic]

My comments were directed at kezzer and kalniel which are contradictory and off key.

Byatt your comments are fair and I bear you no will. I did avoid research in the interest of speed, and i did not expect people to sift through it all.

SO to answer the others: -

Yes a plane gives out more emissions than a car however er head it is less due to the much larger capacity, so all those people driving to another country would be far more damaging and Carbon Monoxide is not the only factor, and where did you get monoxide from? I never mentioned it.

"Perhaps you need to actually look at what the Govt are actually doing. No-one in their right mind could suggest they are trying to stop or even reduce the numbers of people using planes - that's a frankly absurb idea."

I never said they were trying to stop air travel, read it again.

"Hang on, I thought you were argueing that the govt had no clue.. isn't it actually the govt who were suggesting using nuclear power.."

Yes I was, and yes it was the Goverment that suggested it, I do not recall saying otherwise.

"Good thing virtually every town now has a pretty good recycling facilities then eh?"

No it does not, in fact there are plenty with only green recycling facilities or are too far away from the nearest to be reasonable, so I suggest that you look into it again, properly.

"And how much of climate change is due to the small minority of 4x4s in families with children? I think you need some perspective, something you're claiming others don't have"

Cumulatively quite a lot, and road traffic is a major issue and is increasing, there are millions of cars on the road after all. So the perspective is quite large. And 4*4 families was an example of a need for attitude change, a 20 min walk is nothing really so why use a car, or at least use a smaller one.

"Of course, emerging nations aren't a problem at all are they? And if others are bad it's ok for us to be bad as well isn't it? We lead by example, not be constantly waiting for someone else to act first."

No it is not ok for us to be bad, emerging nations are a problem however the U.S.A is a bigger problem. And actually within industry and law the U.K does lead by example. Something else for you to look into. That comment may soud contradictory to my original post but consider the topic of the post. Jumping on the common bandwagon to win PR points while not getting too involved, and looking at the branches rather than the root problem.

"Again, where has anything been said about stopping planes? Last I heard they were quite fine with the expansions to UK airports that are currently happening. It's about time the govt jumped on the environment."

No one said they were stopping planes, I said it was easier to stop planes, so look at it again,....again. About time? It's almost too late, the fly wheel has almost reached the no return point. I am not sure about the following statement but at best recall from memory the prediction for that point was 2010, made in 2006 I think. I may be wrong on that.

To the more polite and better mannered posters:-

Yes the human co2 contribution compared to the planet but nature is a fine balance the smallest changes upset it, and with deforestation that balance will get more out of synch. EVen if this was supposed to happen to the earth naturally, he change is gradual unless there is something like a volcano eruption, man's actions to accelerate the process will cause too quick a change for nature to adapt in time to reduce the damage. The small change will have an effect.

Global warming may be a theory but acid rain, soot, landfills, methane, sulphur, noise, and developers etc etc, are not theories but actual common knowledge facts, The government focuses too much on the carbon emission in the public domain, no surprise there as that is the most well known.

Considering I was trying to discuss if the government was just jumping on the band wagon some of these replies are a bit off topic. I disagree with the tax bit, if it was all about tax my opinion is that it would have been done sooner, also to a government that wants to stay in power votes are more important I believe the taxes were to serve as an example of the government trying to discourage it, though I am sure they find the extra pocket chink a nice bonus.

[kalniel]

Well I apologise if you took offense at my post - some of my points were made in a sarcastic manner as a response to your overly self-qualifying manner without actual facts to back them up.

"Perhaps you need to actually look at what the Govt are actually doing. No-one in their right mind could suggest they are trying to stop or even reduce the numbers of people using planes - that's a frankly absurb idea."

I never said they were trying to stop air travel, read it again.

ok..

so when they stop everyone using planes

hmm..

"Hang on, I thought you were argueing that the govt had no clue.. isn't it actually the govt who were suggesting using nuclear power.."

Yes I was, and yes it was the Goverment that suggested it, I do not recall saying otherwise.

So.. how can you reconcile the two? Aren't you saying that nuclear power is a viable option? If you are, then you're in agreement with the govt., so it seems odd to be using something that the govt is 'good' at while at the same time saying they have no clue.

"Good thing virtually every town now has a pretty good recycling facilities then eh?"

No it does not, in fact there are plenty with only green recycling facilities or are too far away from the nearest to be reasonable, so I suggest that you look into it again, properly.

Ok, I've looked into it - all my nearby towns have very good recycling facilities. Maybe yours don't, but please present the evidence to back up your statment.

"And how much of climate change is due to the small minority of 4x4s in families with children? I think you need some perspective, something you're claiming others don't have"

Cumulatively quite a lot, and road traffic is a major issue and is increasing, there are millions of cars on the road after all. So the perspective is quite large. And 4*4 families was an example of a need for attitude change, a 20 min walk is nothing really so why use a car, or at least use a smaller one.

I still don't see any evidence other than anecdotal stuff here. Think about it logically - most traffic occurs to get people to and from work, in a small band of time. Cumulatively I don't believe the small proportion (based on own personal experience, not anything else - please do feel free to show the evidence that it's actually a large propotion) of people using 4x4's to drop kids of to school is a major part of the problem.

I understand that it's representative of *one* change we can make to improve things, however I'd like to see the facts that say it's a major contributor.

"Of course, emerging nations aren't a problem at all are they? And if others are bad it's ok for us to be bad as well isn't it? We lead by example, not be constantly waiting for someone else to act first."

No it is not ok for us to be bad, emerging nations are a problem however the U.S.A is a bigger problem. And actually within industry and law the U.K does lead by example. Something else for you to look into.

That was actually my point, so I'm glad we're in agreement here.

"Again, where has anything been said about stopping planes? Last I heard they were quite fine with the expansions to UK airports that are currently happening. It's about time the govt jumped on the environment."

No one said they were stopping planes,

so when they stop everyone using planes