IPCC busted lying again (global warming)

[Whiternoise]

I think that realistically, there's nothing wrong with assuming the worst case scenario. I'm not qualified to make any assumptions, and no offense, but i doubt most of the people here are either. As such, i think it's worth taking arguments from both sides with a large pinch of salt. I'm personally inclined to err more on the side of caution - i'd much rather waste money being safe than save money and end up screwed.

Regardless of whether global warming and/or climate change is a reality (they're two very different things), a lot of the things that are being developed to counter the effects have lots of real world benefits. The most obvious, and one that Funkstar mentioned, is the increasingly diminishing amount of resources the Earth has to offer. As a result, there has been a push for efficient power generation and "free" energy sources. The more independent we can become with regards to power generation, the safer we'll be in the future.

The general push for higher efficiency systems means a lot too - electronics require less power to operate, electrical storage is always improving so devices can stay on for longer. Rechargable batteries are pretty much the norm and of course, remember that you'll save on your bills too. Cars are getting more miles to the gallon and are pumping out less CO2.

I reckon that in the next 10 to 20 years we will have a clear picture who was right about climate change. There's no denying that in the past couple of years the weather has been changing - we've had some strange weather cropping up all over the world. Of course it'll take time to see if this is just a blip or if it looks like it'll keep up.

Mexico City is a pretty good example of why cutting back emissions is damn good idea!

Either way, i don't see any reason to stop the efforts we're already taking.


edit: Whoaaaa thread resurrection a bit!

[badass]

I think that realistically, there's nothing wrong with assuming the worst case scenario. I'm not qualified to make any assumptions, and no offense, but i doubt most of the people here are either. As such, i think it's worth taking arguments from both sides with a large pinch of salt. I'm personally inclined to err more on the side of caution - i'd much rather waste money being safe than save money and end up screwed.

Regardless of whether global warming and/or climate change is a reality (they're two very different things), a lot of the things that are being developed to counter the effects have lots of real world benefits. The most obvious, and one that Funkstar mentioned, is the increasingly diminishing amount of resources the Earth has to offer. As a result, there has been a push for efficient power generation and "free" energy sources. The more independent we can become with regards to power generation, the safer we'll be in the future.

The general push for higher efficiency systems means a lot too - electronics require less power to operate, electrical storage is always improving so devices can stay on for longer. Rechargable batteries are pretty much the norm and of course, remember that you'll save on your bills too. Cars are getting more miles to the gallon and are pumping out less CO2.

I reckon that in the next 10 to 20 years we will have a clear picture who was right about climate change. There's no denying that in the past couple of years the weather has been changing - we've had some strange weather cropping up all over the world. Of course it'll take time to see if this is just a blip or if it looks like it'll keep up.

Mexico City is a pretty good example of why cutting back emissions is damn good idea!

Either way, i don't see any reason to stop the efforts we're already taking.


edit: Whoaaaa thread resurrection a bit!

The total energy consumption by humans on this planet is 400 times that created by biomass.

If you want to err on the side of caution, buy a very large farm, a lot of ammunition, some kick arse security and prepare for the apocylipse.

Taxing things isn't the solution. Carbon footprints and other such bull**** aren;t either.

[Whiternoise]

The thing is, carbon footprints and general "how much do you consume and waste" schemes do work - the problem is that very few people (including myself) are willing to make the sort of changes required to make a difference. If you tell people to cut back on x or y, they'll give you a million and one reasons to get out of it. It's sort of like building a pc that actually meets your needs - all those people that come onto .hardware with rig plans and ££££ budgets, only to be told politely by staffsmike that actually no, they'd be fine with £400.

The main one is cost - and it's a vicious circle. People don't buy organic, local, eco, fairtrade, whatever products because they cost more than "normal" brands. If they bought them, demand will increase and cost will decrease (basic economics). The same goes for a lot of technology - great stuff, but if no one's going to make the initial jump, we'll never get anywhere.

The principle behind carbon footprints is pretty sound (and very basic) - we only have so many resources, how much should everyone cut back until things become sustainable.

But I agree with you in principle, though i think it's the same old case of "if everyone did it, it would work". However, i disagree about taxation - it's hitting people where it hurts (though the government that tries to pull it at the moment would get lynched) and would certainly get people interested. The fact is, half the country doesn't really know anything, about 5% are really clued up and are doing everything they can and the rest are lulled into this false sense of security that recycling will save the world "oh well i re-use my carrier bags, every little helps, ho ho ho".

And yeah i'm totally building a bunker when i have a large house in the country Of course, i'd call it a "lair" and put a big room with a large map of the world (or perhaps a large projector and a pc with bots playing Defcon).

[SeriousSam]

You hear a lot about tipping pints and how we need to do this and that to avoid reaching them. The stark reality is that we blew past some of them years ago and that nothing we will do now will stop the inevitable planetary backlash, or socio-collapse. The human race has been conditioned to consume in order to fuel our global economies and as such we are addicts to "consuming". So its no wonder that few people are willing to do what is necessary to mitigate the problems we will face. In the end it will probably take a real global crisis to get us to change.

I don't dissagree that anything we can do now to prepare us is a good idea, clean energy sources etc. but a lot of what is being being mooted is poorly promoted or just plain arse about face. Carbon footprints for example are not the way forward, as they mean nothing if you continue to destroy carbon sinks which are far and away more important (countries making a quick buck now cutting down rainforests etc. are in for a big shock when they find out that (a) their economic growth is boom and bust and (b) their local weather patterns change radically. Hybrid cars are worse than petrol ones due to the amount of energy and ecological damage required to manufacture their batteries. The list goes on...

More than that there are quite a few things that governments are totally unwilling to talk about due to fear of political backlash from their populations. Top of the list is population control.. the plain fact is that there are far too many of us on this planet for it to be able to sustain us in the long term. We've only been able to get away with it so far due to scientific and technological advances. But they cannot keep up with the increasing demand for raw materials as there are limits to what we can achieve. You can only grow so much food crop per unit area for example, and the more you grow in that area the more energy you have to keep putting in to get the same output. A conservative estimate for maximum population is 3billion planet wide by end of century and we have over 6billion. (When Sir David Attenborough joins the OPT [check out their website - can't post URL's yet] you know something is up as he's not one for being wildly radical about things).

So lets face it we are up sh** creek without a boat or paddle and we were daft enough never to learn to swim

[Funkstar]

Dredging an old thread I know, but I think it is still relevant

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01...ster-Melt-Away

"VOA News reports that leaders of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have apologized for making a 'poorly substantiated' claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Scientists who identified the mistake say the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to have misquoted a scientific paper — which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035. Jeffrey Kargel, an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona who helped expose the IPCC's errors, said the botched projections were extremely embarrassing and damaging. 'The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority — as indeed they should — and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact.' Experts who follow climate science and policy say they believe the IPCC should re-examine how it vets information when compiling its reports. 'These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected,' write the researchers."

[jim]

There was another IPCC cock-up reported this morning in the Metro, although I can't remember exactly what it was they're meant to have done this time.

[Funkstar]

Which IPCC though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipcc



The only recent article on the Metro website is about the Independent Police Complaints Commission

[Saracen]

The oft-quoted and much-vaunted IPCC, who seem to provide the basis for claims of climate being "accepted" scientific opinion, based some of their report on news accounts??? And ones that misquoted a scientific paper at that???

Sounds a bit like an "authoritative" dossier on Iraqi WMD being based on a decade or thesis, or a "45 minutes" claim to me.


If you catch someone in a stone cold lie once, do you believe what they say afterwards? If you catch a supposedly authoritative body making that type of mistake once, what does it do for their credibility on the rest of what they say and claim?

This is not to say that one mistake (though it's far from the only controversy over the IPCC) makes them either liars or wrong, and it certainly doesn't make the IPCC some kind of global conspiracy, but it does damage their credibility.

[ajones]

I'm tempted to sit on the fence here. Yes the weather is FUBARd, but there does seem to be a headlong rush gathering momentum that global warming is the cause. I remember when I was a lad (why do I always use a Yorshire accent when writing that?) we had snow every winter. We have a bit of snow now and that's it, the ice age cometh!

What I do believe however, is that we human beings are being total retards in the way we live on this planet. There is no need (in most cases) to purchase a 4x4 to take little Johnny to school every morning. It is possible to run a single car family in a city. There are things we can do more efficiently (but don't because deep down we're becoming lazier by the minute). If all this fanboy global warming stuff can make a difference in the way we live our lives for the good of the future, then I don't see how that could be bad.

Oh, I when I said I'd sit on the fence, it was the "all this global warming stuff is boo-lox" side of the fence.

[Saracen]

Well, weather and climate are, of course, rather different.

As for climate change, whatever gets done needs to get done on a global basis or it's pretty meaningless. I can understand the point of view of the developing world, especially China and India (because of the size of their populations) that the West has already achieved a good standard of living and that they're entitled to do it too, but if we're expected to go all hair-shirt while they (and especially China) are going all out for growth, and building dirty coal stations hand over fist, then anything, and I mean anything we do as a country, let alone I do as an individual, is like farting against a hurricane.

So guess what? Given that I'm not at all convinced of the climate change argument (not so much that climate isn't changing, but about what and to what degree the causes are) I'm not going to go all hair shirt. I'll do what I reasonably can, such as recycling, but I'm not giving up the car, or going on holiday, or spending huge sums on environmentally friendly power generation etc., because of it.

The Chinese and Indians are right that the West developed and if the climate change argument is correct, caused much of the damage, but that was before the effects were (if indeed they are yet) understood. As their attitude seems to be that they now want theirs regardless of the further damage it causes, then so do I. And if the planet can't support human life in 500 years because of it? Well, I won't be here then.

If the world's governments can put selfish interests aside and actually :-

a) really convince us of the problem, and
b) really convince us they mean to and actually can do something about it ...

.... I'll re-evaluate my own personal stance. But meantime, cobblers to it. Now what did I do with that 2010 holiday brochure? I think I left it in the 4x4.

[badass]

But meantime, cobblers to it. Now what did I do with that 2010 holiday brochure? I think I left it in the 4x4.

I hope your 4x4 has a dirty great v8 in it.

Otherwise it wouldn't be that fast

[Saracen]

I hope your 4x4 has a dirty great v8 in it.

Otherwise it wouldn't be that fast

Poetic licence, actually.

I don't have one, and don't want one. But it's the fact that I don't like them that stops me, not that they're fuel guzzlers or that they're dooming the planet.

[[GSV]Trig]

Gnnn, global warming again eh..

We live on a dynamically changing planet that, before we were driving cars and having industrial revolutions had ice ages and all other sorts of climatic things going off.
We have neither the range of data to cover the life of the planet to say what kind of effect what we are doing is having for certain. The whole universe is changing so what were doing, while it might be damaging the planet isnt as far reaching as these global warming scaremongers would have us believe.
Scientists once thought the world was flat, now there telling us its round and warming up and its all our fault..

[badass]

Poetic licence, actually.

I don't have one, and don't want one. But it's the fact that I don't like them that stops me, not that they're fuel guzzlers or that they're dooming the planet.

I don't either. Just don't enjoy driving one. However having a 5 or so litre V8 will make one bearable to me

[scaryjim]

Scientists once thought the world was flat, ...

If this was QI, there's be klaxons and flashing lights right now.

I don't think anyone you could genuinely call a "scientist" has ever believed the world was flat, and in fact the vast majority of normal people throughout history haven't, either (although there've been some odd variations on roundness, inluding one train of thought that it was piriform!).

The bottom line is that you can track changes in climate and environment (like the reduction of the polar icecaps), and while they might not be entirely man-caused, you can also track and model factors by which man may be, at the very least, contributing to those changes. The reason people go on about Carbon Dioxide is because, while it's not a potent "greenhouse" gas, it is produced in massive quanities, far outweighing every other pollutant we churn out.

So, if the climate is changing - the polar icecaps *are* melting, for instance - the question is what we do about it. Do we actually take note and plan for the worst, or do we just sit back and stick two fingers up at the whole thing? Personally, I'm on the planning for the worst side of that argument, and I sincerely hope you all get to say "I told you so" to me in 50 years. The alternative doesn't really bear thinking about...

[Saracen]

.....

The bottom line is that you can track changes in climate and environment (like the reduction of the polar icecaps), and while they might not be entirely man-caused, you can also track and model factors by which man may be, at the very least, contributing to those changes. The reason people go on about Carbon Dioxide is because, while it's not a potent "greenhouse" gas, it is produced in massive quanities, far outweighing every other pollutant we churn out.

So, if the climate is changing - the polar icecaps *are* melting, for instance - the question is what we do about it. Do we actually take note and plan for the worst, or do we just sit back and stick two fingers up at the whole thing? Personally, I'm on the planning for the worst side of that argument, and I sincerely hope you all get to say "I told you so" to me in 50 years. The alternative doesn't really bear thinking about...

One question is whether plan for the worst or "just sit back", but others are :-

- does the data on which you're making plans stack up?
- how credible is it?
- do the people producing or backing it have a vested interest?
- what degree of risk is there, and what will the "plans" imply and cost?

I don't know about you, but I don't assume that any and every risk will happen, or that it's necessarily worth insuring against or acting on the basis of it. People get killed in car crashes all the time, but do we all refuse to get in cars? Nope - we just take sensible precautions, wear our seat belts, drive carefully (I hope) and take our chances. Sometimes, we lose, and we lose through no fault of our own.

Planes crash, yet do we all refuse to fly to go on holiday? Is a few days in the sun worth risking getting killed for? Doesn't it depend on quite how big the risk is?

I could go on, but that logic would end up with us never getting out of bed. We certainly wouldn't risk going downstairs, because we might trip and fall down them .... if we didn't freeze to death because we don't dare run the boiler in case we get a gas explosion or a fault gives us carbon monoxide poisoning. Or we'd starve to death because we don't dare risk getting cancer from the pesticides sprayed on our shop-bought tomatoes or grow extra appendages because someone screwed up with genetically modified crops.

Life is one long risk, and it's a risk we all lose sooner or later. The real question is how we evaluate those risks, and which ones we simply take (like getting out of bed, or using a car), and which ones we take active steps against (like insuring against getting burgled or your house burning down), and what cost we are prepared to put up with to insure against or prevent/reduce risks.

For instance, planning for and taking action to prevent fire or burglars ... do we :-

- take out an insurance policy? Probably, yes.
- put locks on doors and windows? Yup.
- join the Neighbourhoood watch scheme? Maybe.
- install an smoke detectors, CO detectors and a burglar alarm system? Perhaps.
- pay to have that alarm system monitored 24/7? Perhaps, but most of us don't.
- pay for a security service to regularly patrol the area? Doubtful, unless you're wealthy
- install underfloor gas-based fire-surpesssion systems and a safe room in case you get home invaders? Very unlikely, I'd have thought.
- pay for a permanent 3-shift 24/7/365 security team, CCTV and guard towers? Doubtful, though it'd pretty much guarantee no opportunistic burglaries.



With climate change, as with all things, we have to assess the risk, the potential consequences and the expected effectiveness of any precautions we take in relation to their cost, and act in proportion.

Even if we accept that the climate is changing, and it probably is, we still have to assess :-

- how much and which elements man is affecting
- can we change what's already been done
- what data do we have and do we trust it, and those interpreting it

Many researchers have careers based on researching climate change, many companies have huge profits tied up in expensive technologies that are only likely to take off with an "environmental" justification, because the cost/benefit argument sure is a loser. And governments see a wonderful wheeze for changing the basis of taxation.

So do we assess, and plan? Yes. But that doesn't mean swallowing the bait as well as the hook, line and sinker.

Do we take action? Again, yes. But what action?

Do we see governments banning private cars? Grounding planes? Shutting down power stations, even if it means banning computers and televisions? After all, if the planet is doomed and we're all going to drown, surely loosing our computers and TV sets is a small price to pay?

But no. We don't even see many government buildings turning off their lights at night, for pities sake.

We're expected to economise, to watch our carbon footprint, to recycle everything we can, to spend a fortune insulating our homes or replacing old but serviceable boilers with new ones. But councils only offer recycling if it's cost-effective, and governments don't have the balls to take electorally unpopular decisions, and certainly not where it causes them inconvenience, yet they're only to happy, together with environmental pressure groups, to fly all over the world for conferences.

So to answer your question, personally, I'm taking what steps make sense to me, but not over-reacting with the fervour of a newly-converted religious zealot, and certainly not convinced by the IPCC, with all the issues there have been, without even getting to dodgy emails or "fixing" figures. And if 45,000 climate change blowhards can justify going to Copenhagen, and .... where was it, Mexico .... in a few months, I sure as hell can justify going on holiday if I feel like it.