Arctic ice sheet melting at alarming rate check here :(

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by spikegifted
I'm afraid I have a slight different approach to life than you've... Just because something is hard doesn't mean that I would give up without trying. If difficult things are not attempted, human race would never have explorer beyond our own back-water, nevermind space. Throughout the ages, humans, having an adaptive body and mind and an intuitive approach to things in life have over come one obsticle after another. You comments not only reflect poor on you but also of all humans ever existed.

Oh dear! Spikey forgot his sense of humour hat and left his 'Serious hat' on!

[Butuz]

Interesting debate!

Ok i am no expert on this topic, i have read none of the links posted above regarding evidence etc. I will say a couple of things though.

There is a difference between proving that the earth is suddenly getting hotter, and proving that that is due to the last couple of hundred years of industrial revoloution. We have only recently been in a position to measure any of this, how do we know this doesnt happen randomly, or regularly at some stage in the life of the earth? I see lots of graphs and stuff with lots of numbers, but i don't know where those numbers came from or how accurate they are. Im pretty sure Jesus Christ didnt have an accurate thermometer, and hadnt measured the hole in the ozone layer 2003 years ago... someone explain to me how we have data from then?

Secondly, what use is data taken over 2000 years in helping us to see whats going on? Sureley we would need data taken over tens of thousands of years, in order to make an accurate measurment of what is going on around us at this time, and whether it is any different to what has been going on before we were here?

I dunno, call me a dull nubins or whatever but i dont know how we can come to any conclusions or come out with blanket statements like "we are killing the earth" etc.

Butuz

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Butuz
Interesting debate!

Ok i am no expert on this topic, i have read none of the links posted above regarding evidence etc. I will say a couple of things though.

There is a difference between proving that the earth is suddenly getting hotter, and proving that that is due to the last couple of hundred years of industrial revoloution. We have only recently been in a position to measure any of this, how do we know this doesnt happen randomly, or regularly at some stage in the life of the earth? I see lots of graphs and stuff with lots of numbers, but i don't know where those numbers came from or how accurate they are. Im pretty sure Jesus Christ didnt have an accurate thermometer, and hadnt measured the hole in the ozone layer 2003 years ago... someone explain to me how we have data from then?

If you look at the graph I posted, you can see that the serious acceleration in warming occured at a time when we would have had very accurate thermometers. This also co-incides with an explosion in the use of internal combustion and jet engines, aerosols, CFC's etc. Man was in space in 1959; I think we were able to measure the temperature of our back gardens by then.

Originally posted by Butuz

Secondly, what use is data taken over 2000 years in helping us to see whats going on? Sureley we would need data taken over tens of thousands of years, in order to make an accurate measurment of what is going on around us at this time, and whether it is any different to what has been going on before we were here?

I dunno, call me a dull nubins or whatever but i dont know how we can come to any conclusions or come out with blanket statements like "we are killing the earth" etc.

Butuz

If it only takes us another 200 years to kill the planet, what use is it waiting tens of thousands, just so that we can get an accurate picture?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
No, but I don't believe it blindly, it is not conclusive PROOF that we are the causes of global warming.

Would it be fair to say that scientific evidence is not going to persuade you? What would you suggest is conclusive proof?

Secondly, do you think it might be a little reckless to assume that the evidence is wrong, that this is a natural phenomenon, and that everything is going to be OK? Do you not think that when you are 80 years old and your great grandson asks what people thought about global warming 60 years ago you have a duty as a human being to assume the worst?

[spikegifted]

I think it is safe to say that we (that's including the climatologists) all agree that the Earth is warming up. However, the point of the scientific debate is the rate of change in temperature. If the change takes place over long period of time (like a couple of thousands of years), organisms, eco-systems and the planet itself has time to adjust to it. However, if the change is rapid (like that hinted by DaBeeeenster's graph, it becomes worrying as nothing can adapt to such rapid change.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Would it be fair to say that scientific evidence is not going to persuade you? What would you suggest is conclusive proof?

Secondly, do you think it might be a little reckless to assume that the evidence is wrong, that this is a natural phenomenon, and that everything is going to be OK? Do you not think that when you are 80 years old and your great grandson asks what people thought about global warming 60 years ago you have a duty as a human being to assume the worst?

I haven't assumed that the evidence is wrong. I have assumed that it could be flawed for many reasons, but I do not dismiss it out of hand.

I do think we should be more careful with this planet, as we really have no where else to go if we bugger it up. Also I think that if it isn't our fault and is a natural phenomenon then all we can do is sit back and learn to tread water, unless we invent a magic machine that can change the climate dramatically back to what it used to be.

[spikegifted]

You may or may not be interested in this piece of news...

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
I haven't assumed that the evidence is wrong. I have assumed that it could be flawed for many reasons, but I do not dismiss it out of hand.

I do think we should be more careful with this planet, as we really have no where else to go if we bugger it up. Also I think that if it isn't our fault and is a natural phenomenon then all we can do is sit back and learn to tread water, unless we invent a magic machine that can change the climate dramatically back to what it used to be.

Do you not think it is somewhat perverse and dangerous to assume that the reason for the warming is due to some form of natural phenomena, and not human actions?

Do you not think it might be a better idea to assume that it is down to the actions of human beings?

I mean, if it is naturally occuring, you are correct, there's nothing we can do about it. But if it is due to human actions, do you not think the idea of "sitting back" is somewhat ignorant?

If it is due to human action, what are you going to tell your grandchildren? "Oh, yeah, sorry about that, we weren't sure if it was due to us driving around in cars all the time, or if it was a natural phenomena, so we just assumed it was a natural phenonema and sat back." ?