Global Warming - We could be in big trouble...

[iranu]

act on the information we do have.

The simple fact remains that the information we do have is inconclusive and there is no point in acting on inconclusive information.

I have a rock in my garden that keeps zombies away. I haven't seen any zombies ever so the rock must be working. No-one can disprove that the rock has this effect and no-one can prove it. Does that mean that everyone should be made to have a rock in their garden just to be on the safe side? The rock costs £100,000 and is available from Iranu enterprises - hey it really works! Wot no zombies. But really it's just a waste of money.

There are 6 billion people on the planet and there is not a chance that those people can be told how to live. If the consequences of global warming are millions die then so what? If it means extinction of fluffy seals and cuddly polar bears then so what? Creatures on this planet will either adapt or die and that includes us. It will always be this way and there is nothing that you, nor I, can do about it. If man becomes extict then so what? There is hardly going to be a funeral service held by aliens on Alpha Centuri.

Even if global warming was proved to be drastically affected by mans actions without a shadow of a doubt, nothing would change. People are not going to give up their dishwashers, playstations, holidays, cars, tvs, deepfreeze, cooker, microwave, heating, dvd, ipod, phone, pc, lighting. People are not going to stop buying goods. Whatever you buy has a "carbon cost", doesn't matter whether it be cheap shoes from China or strawberrys from Spain in December. I want my MTV pretty much sums it up.

What are you going to do? Destroy all the power stations? Plough up all the runways in the world? Dismantel the petrochemical industries? If you think that the effects of global warming might be bad consider the effects of removing our current way of life and going back to how we lived 500 years ago without electricity and the modern way of life. Millions would die in the social chaos and millions more would die of disease and starvation. What there's no petrol or oil to power the water treatment works, no way to provide clean drinking water to people? Cholera anyone?

The only way to combat this proven global warming would be through the rapid expansion of nuclear power (there are no other technologies available now, this minute, that come close) and future technology. Then we would have to ride out the consequences.

We are so self important and believe that we are the pinnacle, the sole centre of everything. The fact remains that we are a bunch of piss ants who are occupying a blink of an eye in geological time whilst scurrying about the planet. No one mourned the passing of the dinosaurs and no one will mourn the passing of man. We will either succeed or fail. There is no way that we can be controlled, we are simply an animal that does and as such we will simply have to await our fate.

[Byatt]

Whilst the body thats only justification for its existence (The IPCC) is Global Warming may bang on about it, I chose to see the data for myself and have concluded that the strongest evidence for it (the results from monitoring stations all over the globe) is shaky at best and much of the data suggests that it is nowhere near as bad as made out, and that the link to mans activity is pretty much non existent.

That's very convenient for you, I trust you'll be taking advantage of the decreasing property prices in East Anglia then, then submitting papers for peer review which actively reject the findings of the IPCC?

I've done some snipping here, apologies.

The simple fact remains that the information we do have is inconclusive and there is no point in acting on inconclusive information.

Snip stuff about zombies

There's no real need to be quite so patronising, and it's a poor analogy anyway, unless you add in a not inconsiderable number of knowledgeable folk who will testify to the existence of zombies, and the potential life threatening effects of zombies to you.

mass extinction, etc

I don't really see how this is relevant, yes, if mankind becomes extinct no-one will care, I agree, however, I struggle see how it's relevant, although if I'm missing something please do expand on this.

I want my MTV pretty much sums it up.

So therefore you levy taxes upon such luxury items based upon their carbon footprint, and use that money to transform the way electricity is generated.

Going back 500 years

I wasn't advocating this, my apologies if that's how I came across.

The only way to combat this proven global warming would be through the rapid expansion of nuclear power (there are no other technologies available now, this minute, that come close) and future technology. Then we would have to ride out the consequences.

I'd love to disagree with you here, but given the level of efficiency savings you'd need from Joe Public (read: Badass) and the complete lack of a coherent public transport strategy (in this UK, at least) to run entirely from renewables I sadly can't.

There is no way that we can be controlled, we are simply an animal that does and as such we will simply have to await our fate.

No way of controlling the behaviour of human beings? I can't believe someone as cynical as myself (as you appear to be) could believe that, except for an exceptionally tight definition of control.

[badass]

That's very convenient for you, I trust you'll be taking advantage of the decreasing property prices in East Anglia then, then submitting papers for peer review which actively reject the findings of the IPCC?

The IPCC have already seen the same data. They chose to ignore the weather baloons and satellite data, and use the data from the monitoring stations instead.
Of course if global warming is not happening, then they have no job to do.
Incidentally, the data from the monitoring stations in the developed world indicates no warming, whilst the ones in third world countries do.
There are incredibly strong arguments that the data in the 3rd world is not corrected properly.

[badass]

I dont care what these so called scientists think. EVERY SINGLE model they have tried to create has been wrong and has failed to predict accurately what will happen to the global climate.
Funnily enough everyone thought that the world was flat once, including respected "scientists"
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_measuretemp.htm
Some interesting reading about the satelite data.
Why should I listen to some people that have need appointed by a bunch of politicians? Politicians are the kind of people that will put this person in charge of government E-commerce policy.

[chuckskull]

Nevermind glabal warming, we need more tubes.

[Byatt]

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_measuretemp.htm
Some interesting reading about the satelite data.
Why should I listen to some people that have need appointed by a bunch of politicians? Politicians are the kind of people that will put this person in charge of government E-commerce policy.

That refers to the 1995 report. Find me something refuting the findings of report 3 and I'll start listening (although report 4 will be out eventually).

Of course if global warming is not happening, then they have no job to do.

:tinfoil-hat:

I dont care what these so called scientists think. EVERY SINGLE model they have tried to create has been wrong and has failed to predict accurately what will happen to the global climate.
Funnily enough everyone thought that the world was flat once, including respected "scientists"

There's some cracking graphs in report 3 which combine natural and human forcing of climate which look like a pretty good model to me. Of course, it could be a peer reviewed conspiracy (ANY scientist can contribute and review the IPCC reports during the review process, get in quick and you can help with report 4), but then if we're going to reject peer review we might as well go back to living when the earth was thought to be flat. I think your history's a little off there as well, or so reckons wikipedia.

[badass]

That refers to the 1995 report. Find me something refuting the findings of report 3 and I'll start listening (although report 4 will be out eventually).



:tinfoil-hat:

So you either:
1. Believe a bunch of people that have a history distorting, misrepresenting the truth or just lying or
2. Take anything people with said history with a pinch of salt and only believe what they say when it has been confirmed by another more reliable source?

There's some cracking graphs in report 3 which combine natural and human forcing of climate which look like a pretty good model to me. Of course, it could be a peer reviewed conspiracy (ANY scientist can contribute and review the IPCC reports during the review process, get in quick and you can help with report 4), but then if we're going to reject peer review we might as well go back to living when the earth was thought to be flat. I think your history's a little off there as well, or so reckons wikipedia.

The flat earth comment was not researched as it was simply used as a comparison.
How about I replace that with "pre Copernicus, everyone (including most respected scientists thought the earth was the centre of the universe"
You point out that these models look convincing, however they are still only tested on past data.
Why would that be wrong?
Pre Copernicus, lots of pieces of evidence appeared that countered accepted theory on the earth ebing the centre of the universe. Evidence such as the fact some planets would actually stop moving across the sky, go back and then forwards again in relation to earth.
The clever people of the time invented "epicycles" to explain that and observed data once again reflected scientific theory.
Now, we all know thats rubbish. Its easy to continuously adjust a flawed model to make it fit past data. That does not make it an accurate model of "whats actually happening" however.
The fact remains that every time theories/predictions of the IPCC have been tested, they have been wrong.
Why do you believe an organisation that has been wrong with everything so far, is right this time?

[jharne]

So you either:
1. Believe a bunch of people that have a history distorting, misrepresenting the truth or just lying or
2. Take anything people with said history with a pinch of salt and only believe what they say when it has been confirmed by another more reliable source?

That is the exact nature of history. It always writen by the people who come out on top, and have an agenda to protect.

Sorry for deflecting from the thread abit, but many countries still twist the past for their own concens.

[Byatt]

So you either:
1. Believe a bunch of people that have a history distorting, misrepresenting the truth or just lying or
2. Take anything people with said history with a pinch of salt and only believe what they say when it has been confirmed by another more reliable source?

The fact remains that every time theories/predictions of the IPCC have been tested, they have been wrong.
Why do you believe an organisation that has been wrong with everything so far, is right this time?

I'll move to two if you can show me significant evidence of scientific discord on this issue, and give solid examples where the IPCC has been flat out wrong in the past. Even the link you specified from NASA linked to a paper, the goal of which was to reconcile (not conflict) with the findings on surface temperature from the IPCC.

Equally - wait for a more reliable source? Who, and for how long? Equally, given the scientific nature (which I would require) of the source surely you'll just shoot them down with a similar argument of bias, if you disagree with what they say (because what source, given the scale of the project involved, would be able to prepare such evidence without outside funding)? Equally, do you really think keeping a job is inspiring every single scientist involved in the IPCC to distort the current theory?

Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past, they've also been right, and the potential consequences (even if these reports are exaggerated/distorted as you say) of waiting for confirmation from some unknown deus ex machina that climate change is occurring because of our actions are not inconsiderable.

What (be specific) would it take for you to acknowledge the climate change exists and is in no small part due to man's actions?

[badass]

I'll move to two if you can show me significant evidence of scientific discord on this issue, and give solid examples where the IPCC has been flat out wrong in the past. Even the link you specified from NASA linked to a paper, the goal of which was to reconcile (not conflict) with the findings on surface temperature from the IPCC.

Equally - wait for a more reliable source? Who, and for how long? Equally, given the scientific nature (which I would require) of the source surely you'll just shoot them down with a similar argument of bias, if you disagree with what they say (because what source, given the scale of the project involved, would be able to prepare such evidence without outside funding)? Equally, do you really think keeping a job is inspiring every single scientist involved in the IPCC to distort the current theory?

Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past, they've also been right, and the potential consequences (even if these reports are exaggerated/distorted as you say) of waiting for confirmation from some unknown deus ex machina that climate change is occurring because of our actions are not inconsiderable.

What (be specific) would it take for you to acknowledge the climate change exists and is in no small part due to man's actions?

Can I just say 2 things:
1. I am hugely impressed with both your debating style, and your open mindednes, despite the fact that what you believe goest against everyting I am telling you.
2. I am currently faaaaaaaar too drunk to respond to this properly.

I mean no saracsm or anything by the above, but it is rare to find someone that does not just resort to insults when they think you are talking balls

I shall respond in a more researched manner hopefully tomorryw, when more sober and I dont have work to do.

Thankyou for remaining level headed

[jharne]

I'll move to two if you can show me significant evidence of scientific discord on this issue, and give solid examples where the IPCC has been flat out wrong in the past. Even the link you specified from NASA linked to a paper, the goal of which was to reconcile (not conflict) with the findings on surface temperature from the IPCC.

Equally - wait for a more reliable source? Who, and for how long? Equally, given the scientific nature (which I would require) of the source surely you'll just shoot them down with a similar argument of bias, if you disagree with what they say (because what source, given the scale of the project involved, would be able to prepare such evidence without outside funding)? Equally, do you really think keeping a job is inspiring every single scientist involved in the IPCC to distort the current theory?

Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past, they've also been right, and the potential consequences (even if these reports are exaggerated/distorted as you say) of waiting for confirmation from some unknown deus ex machina that climate change is occurring because of our actions are not inconsiderable.

What (be specific) would it take for you to acknowledge the climate change exists and is in no small part due to man's actions?

I wasn't doubting the fact that global warming is happening, or that unless we change very quickly we're ...... (just checked - no swearing allowed).

Just that history is distorted by those who write it. I'm more inclined to the beleive that there are those who would use this to their advantage to get gullible people to beleive that global warming isn't happening.

[SteveC]

I think we can never know for sure whether global warming is taking place, or if it's taking place, how bad it might get, and whether humans are responsible.

All we have is evidence to suggest that it might be taking place, as a result of human activity, and the consequences could potentially be quite serious.

We will only know what's happening for sure when the forecasts either prove to be accurate, or inaccurate, over their respective timescales.

But then, in the worst case scenario (where global warming and its effects equal or exceed current forecasts, as a result of human activity), we're all going to endure a much lower standard of living.

So what to do? Either nothing, or a reduction in carbon emissions proportional to how bad we think the situation really is. In the absence of global warming, the economics would favour doing nothing, of course.

So we need to decide whether the risk involved in doing nothing, and encountering the worst case scenario, is sufficiently bad to warrant taking the economic hit incurred by reducing carbon emissions.

I think this kind of consideration of risk is useful irrespective of the exact likelihood of the forecasts being correct i.e. 'if the possible consequences (which may or may not happen) are really that bad, perhaps we should do something just in case'.

I tend to think that assuming the chances of the forecasts being correct aren't negligibly small (due to some serious and demonstrable error, or logical contradiction) we should at least consider taking action to mitigate the seemingly substantial risk.

[Fabula]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-change/dn9903

"Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline. "

The world is warming up. This can no longer be reasonably disputed due to lack of evidence anymore.

Global warming will cause severe problems if it continues as it appears it will.

A significant part of the warming caused is from anthropogenic sources. The exact extent is unknown still. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Ben_]

who cares?

[pollaxe]

who cares?

Ooh? Are you President Bush?????

[Ben_]

yes. and no.