[article] Climate researchers say 'less of the Apocalypse stuff thankyou'

mike65

BBC story

Two leading UK climate researchers have criticised those among their peers who they say are "overplaying" the global warming message.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

They think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6460635.stm

Speaking of hysteria Sunday Times magazine story

RED ALERT

If global warming continues at the current rate, we could be facing extinction. So what exactly is going to happen as the Earth heats up? Here is a degree-by-degree guide

1c Increase

Ice-free sea absorbs ?more heat and accelerates global warming; fresh water lost from a third of the world's surface; low-lying coastlines flooded

2c Increase

Europeans dying of heatstroke; forests ravaged by fire; stressed plants beginning to emit carbon rather than absorbing it; a third of all species face extinction

3c Increase

Carbon release from vegetation and soils ?speeds global warming; death of the Amazon rainforest; super-hurricanes hit coastal cities; starvation in Africa

4c Increase

Runaway thaw of permafrost makes global warming unstoppable; much of Britain made uninhabitable by severe flooding; Mediterranean region abandoned

5c Increase

Methane from ocean floor accelerates global warming; ice gone from both poles; humans migrate in search of food and try vainly to live like animals off the land

6c Increase

Life on Earth ends with apocalyptic storms, flash floods, hydrogen sulphide gas and methane fireballs racing across the globe with the power of atomic bombs; only fungi survive

Chance of avoiding six degrees of global warming: zero if the rise passes five degrees, by which time all feedbacks will be running out of control

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, by Mark Lynas, is published on March 19

Mike.

Lennoxschips

This is why we have the IPCC report.

jawlie

It's impossible to have a logical discussion with lennoxchips.....she is a believer and convert to the new religion which is golbal climate change doomsday prophesies...

Lennoxschips

I'm a he.

I'm still waiting for your explanation for the observed warming between 1975-2006. Let's discuss that, why don't we. I think it's CO2 that is causing it, what do you think it is?

jawlie

Ok. So you are a he. Apologies. It's apparent you think man's nastiness is causing global warming and climate change. Think is the operative word as, to me, it seems some people think that, just as some people think God is in his heaven and controlling everything, others think man is responsible for climate change. You may be right. You may not be right. If you are right, how do you explain how the earth has warmed and cooled before?

I have to say I remain to be convinced.

Lennoxschips

Yes, the Earth warmed and cooled in the past. Climate science is all about finding out why. All the possible natural causes which caused changes in the past (obliquity, precession, eccentricity, solar output, volcanic activity, the alignment of the continents, you name it...) cannot, by process of elimination, explain what has been going on since we started pumping stuff into the atmosphere. CO2 does explain why it has been getting warmer.

But you don't think it's CO2. So there must be another reason, right? Far from not wanting to hear your reason or clutching steadfastly to what you think is wrong, I really would like to engage in a discussion with you regarding the climate science. But, for that I need an alternative reason, not baseless tirades about my perceived stubbornness. Once again, what natural process do you think has caused global warming between 1975 and 2007? I mean, if it's not us, then what do you think it is? I'd love to know. Over to you.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote:

I really would like to engage in a discussion with you regarding the climate science. But, for that I need an alternative reason, not baseless tirades about my perceived stubbornness. Once again, what natural process do you think has caused global warming between 1975 and 2007? I mean, if it's not us, then what do you think it is? I'd love to know. Over to you.

To be fair, thats a completely unreasonable question.

Science lives and dies on the concept of falsifiability, not on the notion that a theory is wrong only when something better comes along.

If jawlie wants to question existing theory, then what he needs to do is show what falsifiable test is failed by the existing theory. He doesn't need to be able to explain what is right if existing theory is wrong...he needs to be able to explain why the existing theory is wrong.

Taking jawlie's own "has warmed and cooled previously" theory, we can apply a simple falsifiable test which says "the current rate of warming or cooling should be comparable to previous rates". The "its all just more of the same" theory fails this test, and fails it spectacularly. Thus, we must reject the "just more of the same" theory, and accept that additional factors are at play.

Current theory has identified a number of additional factors - aerosol-based cooling, greenhouse-gas warming, particulate-induced dimming, and so on. We have considered the impact of these factors and found that with our best models, the combination of these factors suggests an incredibly strong correlation between the net warming effect they should have and the warming observed.

Our climactic models are furthermore sufficiently advanced that we know "global warming" doesn't mean that you will experience warmer temperatures uniformly across the globe, so record cold winters in places, advancing glaciers in others, etc. are consistent with our model, rather than being the falsification that jawlie needs.

So...what reason do we have to reject this theory? This is the question we need to ask of skeptics. if the theory is wrong, then the theory is wrong. If it being wrong means we're back to square one with our explanation, so to speak, then so be it.

But lets be fair about this. Jawlie doesn't need an alternate theory. Jawlie needs to falsify existing theory.

Not being able to falsify something doesn't mean you have to accept it. I mean - people are entitled to believe what they like. However, lets not undermine the very platform that global warming stands on by setting unscientific challenges to skeptics. Rather, lets show the confidence we have in the methodology which has given us the model we trust and ask jawlie the right question.

What falsifiable prediction does the current model fail with sufficient certainty to merit its rejection???

Lennoxschips

I don't think it matters how we phrase questions, because the only answers I seem to get are constant accusations of a personal nature.

However, lets not undermine the very platform that global warming stands on by setting unscientific challenges to skeptics

Well, it's pretty undeniable that the Earth is warming. I just want to know what reason people think is causing it if not greenhouse gases. I don't think that's an unreasonable question, and I don't think it undermines existing science. It undermines skeptics because it shows they have no platform of their own to stand on. That's the reason they can't answer the question.

TheBigLebowski

Lennoxschips wrote:

Well, it's pretty undeniable that the Earth is warming. I just want to know what reason people think is causing it if not greenhouse gases. I don't think that's an unreasonable question, and I don't think it undermines existing science. It undermines skeptics because it shows they have no platform of their own to stand on. That's the reason they can't answer the question.

Maybe it's the same thing thats causing Mars to heat up. For three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress. This could point to something possibly from elsewhere in the sloar system, such as the Sun, causing climate change by a variable energy output.

bonkey

Lennoxschips wrote:

Well, it's pretty undeniable that the Earth is warming. I just want to know what reason people think is causing it if not greenhouse gases. I don't think that's an unreasonable question, and I don't think it undermines existing science.

Its not an unreasonable question, as long as you accept "I haven't got a notion" as a perfectly valid answer.

It undermines skeptics because it shows they have no platform of their own to stand on. That's the reason they can't answer the question.

There is where we disagree.

From my perspective, they have a platform which is "the theory of significant influence on global warming is wrong". Thats a perfectly valid platform. It doesn't need to offer an alternative.

A supporter of this ideal doesn't need to have the first suggestion as to what might be causing it as long as they have a valid reason for rejecting the theories which show human influence to be significant. Indeed, if they have an alternative but still can't show why the human-contributive model is at least a worse fit then you seem to be suggesting that they have a platform where I would suggest that they have failed to meaningfully challenge the prevalent theory at all.

The only rebuttal to critics which holds water is that they are not scientifically challenging a scientific model. Now, while I accept that there's the completely seperate war for public opinion, I don't believe that undermining the scientific position can help anyone supporting the theory in the long run. "You don't understand or are misrepresenting science" ceases to have any benefit as an accusation to level at critics when the supporters of global warming are abandoning scientific methodology in order to defend their position.

If you won't accept that a theory can be challenged and thrown out without offering an alternative, then thats what you're doing. You're abandoning the scientific position in order to defend it.

Lennoxschips

If you won't accept that a theory can be challenged and thrown out without offering an alternative, then thats what you're doing. You're abandoning the scientific position in order to defend it.

Oh, people are perfectly within their rights to say what they want about anthropogenic global warming and I'll discuss whatever points they have to bring up, as I have done before. I'd love to do this with jawlie, but nothing like that has happened yet.

jawlie

Lennoxschips wrote:

Oh, people are perfectly within their rights to say what they want about anthropogenic global warming and I'll discuss whatever points they have to bring up, as I have done before. I'd love to do this with jawlie, but nothing like that has happened yet.

I also enjoy discussing and learning, but as I have said before there seems little point in discussing with a scientist who seems to accept, without question, the current orthodoxy, and whose position seems to be to want to defend that orthodoxy and rubbish anything which may contradict it.

For example, I have given evidence, in other threads, from eminent scientists who have posed questions about the basis on which this orthodoxy depends. Lennoxchips response was to make personal attacks on their credibility and speculate where the funding for their research might or might not have been coming from, rather than considering their arguments.

How can anyone debate with such a person?

Lennoxschips

If you'd care to reproduce those arguments then I'd gladly point out their glaring weak spots (again).

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

For example, I have given evidence, in other threads, from eminent scientists who have posed questions about the basis on which this orthodoxy depends.

An eminent scientist would understand that "posing questions" does not underimine a theory.

jawlie

bonkey wrote:

An eminent scientist would understand that "posing questions" does not underimine a theory.

I'm glad we are agreed its a theory.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

I'm glad we are agreed its a theory.

I'd be glad if we agreed on what a theory is.

I understand a theory to reflect the current best that science can offer. It is something which has stood up to falsifiable test after falsifiable test and which has passed each and every one. It is the closest thing to a fact that science can offer.

What do you understand it to be?






To clarify....for anyone who is interested in the not-so-short response...

I'd like to tell you that its a fact the sun will rise tomorrow, but I can't. Such an assumption is based only on countless scientific theories.

I'd like to tell you for certain that you won't float off into space in the next few minutes, but I can't. I can only say that the theory of gravity says you won't.

I'd like to tell you definitively that the earth isn't 6,000 years old, and that the biblical flood didn't occur sometime within that 6,000 year timeframe, but I can't...because its only scientific theory which says otherwise.

A theory is not just "some idea".
It is not a conjecture.
Its not a hypothesis.

Its also not definitively right.
It neither needs be definitively accepted.

There are scientists out there today who believe that the theory of gravity is wrong.

There probably isn't a scientific theory out there that some scientist somewhere is questioning as being not fully correct and therefore - in the strictest sense - wrong.

I accept that global wamring is a theory, as is the anthropogenic effect thereof. I accept that it being a theory, I should be open to the possibility that someone will show it to fail a falsifiable test of its own prediction, therefore requiring a refinement of the theory, or in the extreme a complete abandonment of same.

However, as with the theory of gravity, I'm confident that a refinement is what will result from any falsifiable test and not any outright abandonment. Perhaps, like Newtonian physics, it will be a clearer understanding of the limits of applicability.

I'm as confident of these things as I am that the earth isn't a mere 6,000 years old, nor that gravity won't suddenly "switch off".

Why am I that confident? Because its a theory.

I trust my life to theory every day. I ride to work in a train. I work in a multi-storey building. I work with a computer. If theory isn't trustworthy, I should live in fear that these things could kill me, because its "only" theory that stops the train from derailing, the building from collapsing and the pc from electrocuting me.

Do I go and find the remotest spot I can, away from all the threats that the adoption of these theories pose? No, I don't. Why? I don't because I understand and respect the scientific method and know that the best odds I have are to put my faith in scientific theory.

If someone wants to challenge a theory - to argue that its not a theory, then let them do so scientifically. Let them show the falsifiable predictions that are failed with sufficient unambiguity to reduce theory to hypothesis. Let them show that their failed tests cannot be addressed by a refinement of the theory, or that they can offer a model which is a better fit which passes the tests.

If someone wants to argue that it shouldn't be a theory at all let them make their case why...but let them make it scientifically and not with appeals to common sense, to gut feeling, to our cheque-books or our prejudices. Let it not be fear of the implications which causes us to want to doubt something, but rather genuine reason for doubt.

So I ask again...

What do you understand a theory to be?

jawlie

I loved your clever reply. We've all had quite a laugh over it.

My understanding is that theory relates to something unproven, and theorem relates to something proven.

Of course its possible to argue philosophically, rather in the way that you did, that nothing can be categorically proven. However, I think we have to use our common sense and judgement, together with whatever evidence we have, to decide for ourselves whether or not something is proven. Consequently, I have decided that the sun will, indeed, rise tomorrow and that gravity will still decree that i am heavier than I would like when I step onto the scales. I don't have to be able to prove something to know that its true.

I didn't have to be able to prove that CJD was not going to to kill the tens of thousands we were told it would kill, or to be sceptical at the scaremongers in the scientific community who told us HIV would mutate into a virus that we could catch much like a cold or influenza virus, and was even confident enough to laugh at, but not able to actually disprrove, the scientists who told us that most eggs contained salmonella and were potentially lethal.

It may be the scaremongers have got it right this time, and that it is the fault of us naughty, wicked, irresponsible and bad humans. but if that is true, as you suggest, then we are doomed to live with it because the remedy is so drastic no one is prepared to go down that road. As mentioned eralier, I still laugh at rthe idea of all those middle class people driving to the bottle banks in their chelsea tractors!

Lennoxschips

I don't have to be able to prove something to know that its true.

I think the point bonkey made was that you have to be able to disprove something to show it to be false.

jawlie

I'm not sure Bonkey needs someone to translate for him! He seems more than capable of making his points eloquently.

In any case, I'm not sure one can always disprove something. Take, for example, homoeopathy. To anyone with half a brain its obvious that the theory behind the science of homoeopathy is bogus. But can you actually disprove it?

Lennoxschips

So you're saying nothing can be disproved or proved, yet you have no problems attacking climate science?

jawlie

I'm not sure why, if I were saying nothing can be proved or disproved (which is neither what I wrote or think), that should preclude one from questioning climate science, or anything else, as you seem to imply.

How you can make the leap from me saying "I am not sure one can always disprove something" to suggest that I have stated that nothing can be proved or disproved, is a mystery.

As I have said before, it seems not possible to argue this with you as you seem more comfortable ignoring the arguments made, misconstruing what is said, and attacking those who you think disagree with you or attacking those who you imagine might be funding those who disagree with you.

Lennoxschips

You keep accusing me of ignoring arguments, but you hardly ever put any arguments forth for me to ignore. The few times you do, I have been more than willing to engage in a debate about the science. Yet you keep accusing me of not listening and attacking people.... by yourself attacking my integrity.

It reminds me of Bush's tactic in 2004 to criticise John Kerry's war record when Bush himself had no war record to speak of. Worryingly, it worked.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

I loved your clever reply. We've all had quite a laugh over it.

I'm glad to be so entertaining.

My understanding is that theory relates to something unproven, and theorem relates to something proven.

Ah, I see. Your understanding is flawed.

Theorems are mathematical constructs, not scientific.

Of course its possible to argue philosophically, rather in the way that you did, that nothing can be categorically proven.

No. Its not only possible but necessary to show you understand science to accept that nothing scientific can ever be proven.

Its not philosophy. Its science. If you don't accept it, then you don't understand science. If you don't understand science, then thats fine, but lets not try and hide that fact whilst trying to criticise or challenge scientific findings.

However, I think we have to use our common sense and judgement, together with whatever evidence we have, to decide for ourselves whether or not something is proven.

Only if we wish to abandon science. If you want to abandon science, then thats fine...but I'd ask that you make it clear that your criticism of scientific findings is exactly that - a criticism of science based on an abandonment of science.

Consequently, I have decided that the sun will, indeed, rise tomorrow and that gravity will still decree that i am heavier than I would like when I step onto the scales. I don't have to be able to prove something to know that its true.

And yet you have the gall to say that scientists should be faulted for not keeping an open mind about theories that they hold to be equally true!!! Yet again, you are abandoning science in order to criticise it!! Its ok for you to ignore the very tenets that you preach, but for others, its just downright wrong.

See - the scientific method doesn't draw a line and say "well, you know, this theory....yeah...you don't really have to accept that its just a theory. You can think its true. But this other one....doing the same would be a fatal flaw".

I didn't have to be able to prove that CJD was not going to to kill the tens of thousands we were told it would kill,

If anyone told us it would kill tens of thousands, they based their statements on a rejection of science on par with that you've admitted to engaging in yourself. THe scientific position at best could have said that was a likely outcome. In reality, it didn't even go that far, just like scientists didn't predict avian flu would kill millions, or in the seventies that global warming was happening. These are just misrepresentations of scientifically evaluated possibilities that critics love to jump on when its convenient.

but if that is true, as you suggest, then we are doomed to live with it because the remedy is so drastic no one is prepared to go down that road.

I beg to differ. There are no shortage of people prepared to go down that road. Its also not as drastic a road as you wish the undecided to believe.

I'm not the one engaging in scaremongering here.

I'm not the one abandoning science so I can play on people's fears. I'm not the one repeatedly misrepresenting science past and present in order to serve my own wishes.

I'm also not the one engaging in these tactics and then accusing others of engaging in personal attacks.

Those traits, sir, belong to you.

As mentioned eralier, I still laugh at rthe idea of all those middle class people driving to the bottle banks in their chelsea tractors!

And these well-intentioned idiots are representative of whom, if not people like who abandon education and awareness in favour of doing what feels right?

And yet you would have others here believe that going by your gut feeling is the right way to do things, and science be damned if it doesn't agree with you.

Bravo. I salute you.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

In any case, I'm not sure one can always disprove something. Take, for example, homoeopathy. To anyone with half a brain its obvious that the theory behind the science of homoeopathy is bogus. But can you actually disprove it?

If it doesn't make falsifiable predictions, its not scientific.
Therefore, if its not falsifiable, its not scientific.

This is a basic concept of science. Its a basic tenet against which you are railing.

Science is not proveable.
Science must be disproveable.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

I'm glad we are agreed its a theory.

Coming back to this point...

Given that you mistakenly believe a theory may be proven, may not be falsifiable, and can be anything from a downright certainty to something thats obviously wrong, unlike common sense which is "obviously" a better bet....

What exactly is it you think we agree on, other than the spelling of the word?

jawlie

Alas, I don't have fixed views on the subject, and you may well be completely right. I am mindful that, in the past, science has often got it right and also has not got it right. Quite a few issues where there has been a scientific consensus have eventually been proved to be wrong, very often by maverick scientists who have usually been ostracised and scorned by the consensus until the evidence became so overwhelming. But that is not important now.

Lets accept you are right, (which you may well be) and on this occasion the global warming is caused by the addition of greenhouse gases largely produced my man on the planet.

We than have to decide how we can stop the increase or, better still, reverse it.

This is where I am sceptical as the steps we need to take are so drastic I really don't think anyone would be prepared to take them.

And when I say "we" , I meant the whole population on the planet. The west doesn't want to stop driving their beautiful cars (especially to take their bottles to the bottle banks!), doesn't want to stop flying off for "weekend breaks" and doesn't want to turn off the central heating. It's all very well to put cardboard and paper into a green bin (which then uses fossil fuel to collect it ) and to have a compost bin in the garden, but when it comes to taking the real action which is necessary, we really are not prepared to give up our luxuries, which we view as necessities in any case.

To try to get Africa, China, India, Russia and South America to agree to do anything meaningful seems unlikely. If global warming is the problem which you say it is, what is the solution?

Of course, the other fly in the ointment is that the world population is exploding. Since the second world war, the world population has increased three fold to 6 billion people. It is estimated, by the WHO, that by 2050 the population will increase to 9 billion people.

It seems that 6 billion is more then the world can sustain already. How we can reduce greenhouse gases to the level necessary while the world population continues to explode and grow, is a circle that seems, from this viewpoint, almost impossible to square.

What do you suggest?

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

Alas, I don't have fixed views on the subject, and you may well be completely right.

Its not me who'd be right.

I'm saying our best bet is to listen to the experts when they say they have reached a certain level of surity. Ignore the pundits, the politicians, those who believe "get feeling" trumps everything, or those who basically insist science is wrong for any reason other than a scientific one.

I'm not being pedantic here....this is a very important point. Hopefully you'll see why before the end of this post.

I am mindful that, in the past, science has often got it right and also has not got it right. Quite a few issues where there has been a scientific consensus have eventually been proved to be wrong, very often by maverick scientists who have usually been ostracised and scorned by the consensus until the evidence became so overwhelming. But that is not important now.

Actually, it is important now. Its very important, because its the only possible reason for suggesting that listening to the experts mightn't be the smartest thing to do. So here's what I propose: Tell me what some of these "quite a few issues" are that you refer to and lets look at who got what wrong, how wrong they were and why. Lets look at how significant an issue we're talking about. So for example, while you could argue that Einstein showed Newton was wrong, I could counter by saying Newton was sufficiently correct that his methodologies are still used for many purposes, because within a very broad frame of reference, Newtonian physics are close enough and far, far simpler to work with.

So seriously...if you honestly think modern science has gotten theories badly wrong, then lets have a look at a case or two to establish your credibility. I think you'll find that in general science has either learned that theories are only applicable within certain bounds as opposed to universally (e.g. Newtonian physics), or that it is not the scientists who got it wrong at all but rather the media portrayal of them.

In this latter case fall things such as the current claims regarding scientific opinion on global warming/cooling in the 70s, the scientific position on avian flu, BSC, and other such issues. In each of those cases, you had a small number of scientists putting forward a possibility (a hypothesis) which ultimately failed to materialise. In no such case was there a theory at stake.

Lets accept you are right, (which you may well be) and on this occasion the global warming is caused by the addition of greenhouse gases largely produced my man on the planet.

I'd rather we accept that the scientists are right.

We than have to decide how we can stop the increase or, better still, reverse it.

And if we can neither stop nor reverse it, we have to figure out how best to minimise the impact. Agreed?

This is where I am sceptical as the steps we need to take are so drastic I really don't think anyone would be prepared to take them.

Back in the 80s, the same was said about banning CFCs. They weren't really the cause behind the holes in the ozone layer, we couldn't really afford to just stop using them overnight, and no-one was willing to pay the costs.

You do remember CFCs, don't you? They were banned 20 years ago and, well, life has continued merrily on its way.

Now...here's the thing. The people who told us that modern life was so dependant on CFCs it was impossible to phase them out so quickly....they weren't the scientists. They were the people with vested interests. People like duPont, major users of CFCs, lobbyists, politicians who listened to lobbyists.

Who have I been saying to listen to? Not these people.

The west doesn't want to stop driving their beautiful cars (especially to take their bottles to the bottle banks!), doesn't want to stop flying off for "weekend breaks" and doesn't want to turn off the central heating.

They didn't want to face the end of the world that was supposedly going to result from withdrawing the use of CFCs. They didn't want to face the costs of safe disposal of existing CFC-using stuff either. 20 years on, and amazingly, most people probably haven't even noticed.

but when it comes to taking the real action which is necessary, we really are not prepared to give up our luxuries, which we view as necessities in any case.

See...this is where we differ. You say "we", but I say "you". I am willing. I'm willing to not be able to go home to Ireland to see my family because I can't afford the carbon tax on airfare. I'm willing (and do) take public transport (electrically powered, mostly from hydro) to work rather than drive a car. Two top criteria for the car I'm currently looking for are CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency.

To try to get Africa, China, India, Russia and South America to agree to do anything meaningful seems unlikely.

Well, thats mostly because whats being demanded of them is that they make sacrifices that the West doesn't have to make. "You can't have coal stations", they're told. That we have the capability of doing something else, which they lack...thats just their tough, but hey....we'd be willing to sell them some alternative for a reasonably massive profit on our part...

If global warming is the problem which you say it is, what is the solution?

The solution is to ask the people who are best qualified to tell us how to deal. These are, unsurprisingly, not the nay sayers - be they those with vested interests or not. Nor are they the unqualified - people like myself.

The solution is to listen to what these people have to say and to find a better balance. No-one seriously thinks we can just turn everything around in the next 6 months. No-one is seriously suggesting it either. We need to find what we can do and how quickly we can do it.

If you think that we won't do what it takes, then fine...start proclaiming the end of modern civilisation, because thats what the alternate effectively is. We or our children are not going to be spared the hardships that ensue from not being willing to take action.

If you think we'd be better off running for the hills (and ignoring the problems that this will cause) then advocate that. Its not going to be any cheaper, but if thats what you think is best, then really...shout out to people that what we need to do is abandon our way of life and start a new one.

Me....I'll say that what we need to do is to listen to the people who actually know best what they're talking about and to get such people from the various fields talking to each other. We need to elect politicians who will listen to these people too, rather than the ones who are in the back pockets of the major corporations.

It seems that 6 billion is more then the world can sustain already.

Thats entirely dependant on what you mean by "sustain". If you mean "have the American lifestyle", then the last figures I saw suggest we'd need the resources of 7 earths to do that. If you mean something else...then we absolutely can sustain 6 billion if we're smart about it.

What do you suggest?

I suggest that the people qualified to answer such questions are who we should listen to, lest we become those well-intentioned yuppies, driving our 4x4s halfway across the country to deposit a bag of empty bottles, or the fools who put the bottle banks in the wrong place in the first place.

Here, in Switzerland, you know what they did? They asked themselves where people are likely to be driving anyway with spare carrying capacity. They concluded that supermarket car-parks were an ideal place to put bottle-banks. So thats where they put them.

Those are the people I want to listen to. The people who look at a problem who think about minimising impact and who are qualified to know the issues they're looking at.

jawlie

bonkey wrote:

Its not me who'd be right.

They didn't want to face the end of the world that was supposedly going to result from withdrawing the use of CFCs. They didn't want to face the costs of safe disposal of existing CFC-using stuff either. 20 years on, and amazingly, most people probably haven't even noticed.

I suggest the real reason they have not noticed is that technology found a solution and all those who want to use hairspray etc etc continued to do so without interruption.

If your argument is that technology can solve the current problems, then I hope so too. In fact, many think that technology will have bigger part to play than individual action.

I use the word "we" meaning the whole population of the earth. It's great you do all you can on a personal choice basis, although if you are suggesting we leave it up to 6 billion individuals to take the necessary action, I think its pretty obvious that the result is unlikely to be that which is desired.

"The solution is to ask the people who are best qualified to tell us how to deal."

I'm not sure that merely telling us how to deal is going to do it. I don't think either the governments or the people of China, or Korea, or Russia, or Africa or even Ballyfermot or Ballydehob are merely going to take the quite drastic action necessary without coercion. I'm not sure the governments of a lot of countries are willing to take this action which they see as depriving them of economic advancement. It simply isn't enough that some middle class individuals in the west can afford the choice between a Toyota Prius or a Fiat Punto.

"We need to elect politicians who will listen to these people too, rather than the ones who are in the back pockets of the major corporations."

While I couldn't agree with you more, in Ireland the more corrupt the politician is proclaimed to be, the higher his vote seems to be at the time of general elections. In general, the political process is now viewed so cynically that people of the right calibre simply do not put themselves forward for political office, and modern politics is more about news management and image rather than actually doing anything. While we may well need to elect different types of politicians, we also have to live in the world as it is rather than as we might like it to be.

In Ireland, too, bottle banks are often located at supermarkets. I'm not sure their location prevents people driving their gas guzzlers to the bottle bank, though.

You mention 4 x 4's as if they are much worse environmentally that other cars. I know that people talk of 4 x 4's as if they have something intrinsic in their make up which makes them so. I have a 2.0l 4 x 4 and I have to say it is much more fuel efficient and economocal than my wife's audi coupé. What is it about 4 x 4's that makes people think they are environmentally worse than many other cars?

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

You mention 4 x 4's as if they are much worse environmentally that other cars.

That would be because on average they are....and they're becoming ubiquitous.

I have a 2.0l 4 x 4 and I have to say it is much more fuel efficient and economocal than my wife's audi coupé.

I may be wrong, but I would guess that you'll see far more 4x4s on the road than you will cars comparable to audi coupés.

What is it about 4 x 4's that makes people think they are environmentally worse than many other cars?

The fact that they are environmentally worse then many other cars. And they're ubiquitous to the point that the manufacturers are trying to build "4x4-esque" versions of everything from a Micra upwards.

The vast, vast majority of people who buy such vehicles do so as a style choice, not a "meets my needs" choice. Big...heavy...far more likely to kill other people if you get in an accident, but not giving the occupants commensurate safety to offset it...generally less fuel efficient, space-inefficient...there's just little to recommend them to be honest.

Don't get me wrong...you may be one of those few people who actually have a valid reason for driving one. I have no issue with those people. But if you don't need the capabilities that only a 4x4 will provide, I can literally guarantee that there's a more efficient car that would fit your needs.

Also - a lot of the hatred for them stems from the US system, where 4x4s are classed as trucks, and thus are exempt from the emissions controls applied to consumer vehicles. As a result, they are the polluting monsters that many make them out to be....and given that the US is key to any "clean up" strategy....well....

jawlie

bonkey wrote:

The fact that they are environmentally worse then many other cars. And they're ubiquitous to the point that the manufacturers are trying to build "4x4-esque" versions of everything from a Micra upwards.

The vast, vast majority of people who buy such vehicles do so as a style choice, not a "meets my needs" choice. Big...heavy...far more likely to kill other people if you get in an accident, but not giving the occupants commensurate safety to offset it...generally less fuel efficient, space-inefficient...there's just little to recommend them to be honest.

By definition, every car in the world, with the exception of one, is environmentally worse than other cars. I still don't understand why the whole group of 4 x 4's should be singled out as "bad" and 6 litre luxury cars exempted, simply because they are not 4 x 4's. However, it is a minor point and is really not important.

The other points I made are much more important, and I notice you do not comment about how easy it is to force draconian measures on the whole 6 billion people in the world without causing uprisings and revolt, or what measures you think necessary now to impose on the whole populations of the world. For instance, can you tell us how many of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol will actually reach the targets agreed, without having to resort to the slight of hand of buying carbon credits? And if we can't even reach those targets, what hope have we of imposing much tougher targets on the 6 million people in the world?

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

I notice you do not comment about how easy it is to force draconian measures on the whole 6 billion people in the world without causing uprisings and revolt,

Look jawlie...you basically said "lets assume you're right and we're causing our own doom. I still don't think we can do anything".

Why should I comment to you on what we can do to convince others when you've said that even if you accepted we're to blame, you don't think its worth trying to fix things?

I've also told you that my position is simple - we listen to the experts. Thats what I recommend everyone do. We stop listening to doom-criers, nay-sayers, politicos, people who want their humvee, well-intentioned laymen, and all the rest of them. I am not one of the experts we should be listening to so I've already commented on how we convince others....we get the experts to address the problem and we give them our support.

For instance, can you tell us how many of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol will actually reach the targets agreed, without having to resort to the slight of hand of buying carbon credits?

Probably none. Whats your point? Are you saying you'd rather go out in a blaze of glory and just tell your kids that you're sorry but you couldn't be arsed trying to make their future the least worst you can becauise you're too busy caring about your own well-being? Because thats the implication of your argument. **** the future...we can't save it so why waste time and money trying to make it anything but the worst we can.

But here's the thing...the Americans rejected Kyoto because they said it would destroy any nation's economy to try and meet it. Of the nations who have done something, the most aggressively "green" include the Scandinavians and Switzerland. You know what - they're consistently ranked amongst the best places in the world to live, with the most competetive economies and unlike the Irish, they don't complain that they've been overrated. Maybe this whole "we can't afford to do anything" argument is bunk, made up by those same corporates who are just worried about tomorrow's bottom line.

Kyoto was before its time. Even most of the signatories knew it was doomed before it started. The thing is that it helped kick-start something. Had we all said no to Kyoto, we'd be worse off today than we are. And tomorrow. And the day after. We're better off having had it. We're not fixed, but we're better off.

Its a concept called damage minimisation. Its called the least worst option. Its an idea you just don't seem to want to get. If we can't fix the world, we can still influence whether its bad, or really bad or somewhere in between.

And if we can't even reach those targets, what hope have we of imposing much tougher targets on the 6 million people in the world?

So you've given up hope. Thats fine. But that's no excuse to persue the active discouragement of others who haven't.

TheBigLebowski

TheBigLebowski wrote:

Maybe it's the same thing thats causing Mars to heat up. For three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress. This could point to something possibly from elsewhere in the sloar system, such as the Sun, causing climate change by a variable energy output.

Could this Martian climate variation be influenced by the eleven year sunspot cycle and has this effect been observed on any other planet and do these variations coincide with those observed on Earth.

Could the sun be getting "hotter", it would only need a small change in change in output (relativly speaking) to have a huge impact on the Earths ecosystem.

The sun after all is the primary cause of global warming!

jawlie

Dolanbaker, it's very unfair of you to bring up the point made by TheBigLebowski and ignored by everyone since. No doubt there is a good reason why Mars is heating up too. It can't be as simple as that otherwise the whole industry, which has built up around the dire predictions so beloved by the climate change industry, will collapse.

Bonkey, I did not say that we are causing our own doom and lets go out in a blaze of glory. Frankly, I am surprised at the tone of your post, and have no idea what you mean by "the most competetive economies and unlike the Irish, they don't complain that they've been overrated." I am Irish and have never complained about being overrated, and have simply no idea what you mean by this.

My point was, and is, simple. We are told that we (we meaning everyone on the planet) must take drastic action to avoid catastrophe. I question how we can force all 6 billion (soon to be 9 billion) people to, essentially, reverse their behaviour which causes excess greenhouse gas emissions.

So far, no one has said how this can be achieved. You may well recommend all 6 billion of them to listen to "the experts", and I question if this is enough.

The first thing all 6 billion will have to do is agree with you. Then they have to decide which experts they should listen to, as experts disagree quite widely. They they will have to interpret what the experts are saying, and change their behaviour accordingly.

My judgement is that simply listening to "the experts" will not work. Maybe I will be proved wrong. I certainly hope so.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

Bonkey, I did not say that we are causing our own doom and lets go out in a blaze of glory.

No, you said firstly you neither accept nor believe the science that says we are causing our own doom and also that you were pretty convinced we could do nothign about it so would be wasting our time.

Then you said "lets assume you're right" and still took the "but it doesn't look like we can do anything about it" track.

So whether or not you accept that we are causing it, or if its even happening, you don't think we can do anything about it.

So your logic says we're screwed. Unless you want us to believe that it will magically fix itself before that point is reachd.

Frankly, I am surprised at the tone of your post,

Really? YOu're surprised that I'm frustrated at someone who shows a complete lack of knowledge about the basics of science, but argues that we can reasonably reject science? At someone who argues that even if we accept scientific thinking in terms of cause, we shouldn't bother listening to scientific thinking in terms of mitigation? At someone who argues time and time again against the notion that we should do anything, even when supposedly accepting the "assumption" that we need to do something???

My point was, and is, simple. We are told that we (we meaning everyone on the planet) must take drastic action to avoid catastrophe. I question how we can force all 6 billion (soon to be 9 billion) people to, essentially, reverse their behaviour which causes excess greenhouse gas emissions.

No,. thats not what you question. You question whether we need to do it or not, whether or not it can make a difference, whether or not we should bother trying, and only when you get past all of those objections, you question whether or not anything can really be done anyway.

I am of the opinion that if we can mitigate things by 1%, then thats 1% better than if we do nothing. If we can get that to 2%, then thats twice as good. I'm the type of guy who looks for the least worst option, rather than saying "well, they're all bad, so what's the point".

So far, no one has said how this can be achieved. You may well recommend all 6 billion of them to listen to "the experts", and I question if this is enough.

Its not enough. Its the necessary start. Right now, you're firmly in the "don't listen to the experts" camp, favouring your common sense over scientific expertise, favouring the "well, how can we force everyone else to do it too" line of reasoning when that fails.

Maybe we can't force everyone. Maybe we can only force those who drive progress. Maybe we can only limit the disaster to being "really bad" instead of "really, really bad".

But you know what....why should I address the question of how to get the rest of the world on board before I address the question of how to get Doubting Thomases like you on board???

The US produces over half the worlds pollution today. Surely it makes sense to concentrate on them - and the rest of the developed west - today. India and China...they're tomorrow's problem. We can tackle them mroe readily once we have solved the most pressing needs, ebcause that buys us more time.

The first thing all 6 billion will have to do is agree with you.

No, thats the final thing I need. When we get that far, then we're there.

Time Management International have (had?) a great description in relation to time-management and problem-solving in general.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

You, sir, are looking at an elephant and telling me that until I have it all eaten, there's no solution. I'm telling you that we have to start with the first bite. Then the second, and third. We continue from there.

My judgement is that simply listening to "the experts" will not work. Maybe I will be proved wrong. I certainly hope so.

And this explains why you've gone to great lengths to argue repeatedly why we shouldn't listen to them at all? Because you hope listening to them will work and that you'll be wrong?

Please....

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

No doubt there is a good reason why Mars is heating up too.

Yes, there is.

It took all of 30 seconds to find it using google. Interestingly, it was the article which concluded that there was global warming on Mars in the first plce which also explained what was causing it.

(Edit to add:

It should be pointed out that the earlier study suggested Mars might be warming, based on the melting of ice-caps. However, this earlier study did not establish that there was globalwarming on Mars, no more than the climactic conditions of Europe can be be considered to be representative of the earth. Whilst billed as a theory in the popular media, the earlier study was far from a theory. It was a hypothesis based on limited observation....lest jawlie care to argue that its "proof" of science getting things badly wrong..

end edit)

But seeing as we're making allegations of people ignoring posts, allow me to reiterate this one:

Tell me what some of these "quite a few issues" are that you refer to and lets look at who got what wrong, how wrong they were and why. Lets look at how significant an issue we're talking about.
...
So seriously...if you honestly think modern science has gotten theories badly wrong, then lets have a look at a case or two to establish your credibility


I'm still waiting.

jawlie

I'm not interested in going off on a tangent and discussing thalidomide, or Copernicus, or the heretic scientists who were put to death when they suggested, against the scientific consensus, that the earth might not be the centre of the universe and all those other wonderful things. Science does not always get it right and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

The problem with science in this arena is that when it starts to make predictions about the future, it moves from the purely scientific and heads towards the speculative. History is littered with "scientific" predictions which got it wrong. Here's a link to a site if you want to amuse yourself with some of them, but it's straying from the point in here. http://www.foresight.org/News/negativeComments.html#anchor1540018

It's interesting to read in your post what it is I think and, I have to say, some of it has been a revelation to me!

At the risk of repeating myself, I have never said that we can't do anything about it, as you claim. I have never argued that we can reasonably reject science. I have never said that we shouldn't bother listening to scientific thinking in terms of mitigation.

What i have said is that it's not easy to see how to tackle what we are told is looming catastrophe. Not only that, but we are told that we can't put off urgent action, and we do so only at mankind's peril.

It is true that the old maxim suggests that the best way to eat an elephant is bit by bit, and the other old maxim which springs to mind is that of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning.

The circle we have to try to square here is that we are told time is running out. Perhaps your 1% mitigation might be in time to avoid catastrophe. I don't know, but certainly it doesn't seem to be the advice of any of the experts which you would like us all to listen to.

They say catastrophe is looming and we need drastic action NOW to avoid it. My point is that we are not ready to take the action that is necessary voluntarily, (we being 6 billion people, rising to 9 billion soon). 250million people, or so, taking partial action will not solve the problem.. So the only way to achieve the drastic action seems to be by coercion with governments first agreeing the action is necessary, and secondly forcing people to take the action. I'm not sure the governments of the world are quite ready for that yet. And, even if they were, I'm not sure the peoples would accept their coercion and it might lead to civil unrest on a large scale.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

I'm not interested in going off on a tangent and discussing thalidomide, or Copernicus, or the heretic scientists who were put to death when they suggested, against the scientific consensus, that the earth might not be the centre of the universe and all those other wonderful things.
[/qjuote]

So not one example of a modern theory. Some cases pre-dating modern science, and some cases where analysis and/or methodology rather than theory got things wrong.

Science does not always get it right and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

I didn't pretend otherwise. I wanted to show that you cannot identify a single theory of modern science which has been shown to be categorically wrong.

You can't....but you're willing to spend apparently endless time arguing that its ok to cast doubt on the imlpications of a theory because, well, I'm at a loss as to why you think its ok actually.

I have never argued that we can reasonably reject science.

But rejecting science is pretty much all you're doing. You can't show any reasonable, scientific challenge to the theory. You've shown you don't quite know what being a theory is. You've shown that you don't understand the concepts of non-provability and falsifiability with respect to science. And yet throughout all of this, you're constantly knocking theory as "just theory" or "mightn't be right, you know".

What is that, if not a rejection of science?

Or have I misread you, and you're now admitting that your rejection of science is not reasonable???

I have never said that we shouldn't bother listening to scientific thinking in terms of mitigation.

You won't accept that the causes science has identified are the causes and argue that they may well not be.

How can that imply that you support the implementation of mitigation to causes you don't accept???

What i have said is that it's not easy to see how to tackle what we are told is looming catastrophe.

No-one said it was easy. But the first thing you have to do is accept that there is a looming catastrophe, and that we know what it is to a sufficient degree of certainty that we can at least idfentify potential avenues of mitigation.

Do you accept that there is a looming catastrophe, and that we know what it is to a sufficient degree of certainty that we can at least idfentify potential avenues of mitigation????

It is true that the old maxim suggests that the best way to eat an elephant is bit by bit, and the other old maxim which springs to mind is that of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning.

Nero fiddled because he wanted Rome to burn. Are you suggesting that the global-warming advocates are knowingly trying to destroy the world??? If not, then what are you suggesting? If its the "it mightn't help anyway" line, then its because we might fail to do enough, not because we don't know what direction to go.

If we fail to do enough, then fine....but if we decide to do nothing then we really are comparable to Nero fiddling. And so far, all I've seen you do is oppose any thinking that leads to the "do something" conclusion....suggesting that you want us to do nothing.

If thats not the case then what do you think we should do???? You've asked me, and I've given you my best asnwer. Now you tell me...if thats not good enough for you, what is your preferable course of action? Do nothing? Sit around, fiddling, while we wait to see if Rome really is on fire?

The circle we have to try to square here is that we are told time is running out.

And yet all you do is argue against the suggestion that we take action and argue against the suggestion that we know enough to pick a direction to head in.

How is that helping?

Perhaps your 1% mitigation might be in time to avoid catastrophe. I don't know, but certainly it doesn't seem to be the advice of any of the experts which you would like us all to listen to.

Thats not what I said. I said if 1% is all we can achieve, its better than 0%. If 2% is all we can achieve, its better than 1% or 0%. Do you disaree? Are you saying that damage minimisation and risk minimisation are not good strategies to advocate??? If so, what strategy are you advocating?

And please note...if you want to suggest that you don't have a strategy to advocate, then consider why it is you are opposing certain strategies and casting doubt on them at every turn....based on little more than a lack of understanding of what it is you are attacking.

They say catastrophe is looming and we need drastic action NOW to avoid it.

Who's they? That sounds like a political statement to me.

My point is that we are not ready to take the action that is necessary voluntarily,

So? A child of 2 isn't ready to run a marathon. That doesn't mean they shouldn't start learning how to run.

250million people, or so, taking partial action will not solve the problem

It will mitigate the problem. If those 250 million are the American people, it will greatly mitigate the problem and add a massive impetus to the rest of the developed and developing world to follow. If those 250 million people include the majority of the western policy formers for the world, it will give leverage almost beyond imagining to convince other nations to follow.

I'm not sure the governments of the world are quite ready for that yet. And, even if they were, I'm not sure the peoples would accept their coercion and it might lead to civil unrest on a large scale.

So you're saying what? Sit around fiddling until half of Rome is burning and then start thinking about setting up a fire brigade because people won't object to it at that point?

Thats a great plan. Thats much better than setting up a fire brigade for the rich and waiting for the poor to insist they be given one too.

jawlie

I'm not really interested in embarking on a sort of pantomime oh-yes-you-did-oh-no-i-didn't sort of thing.

You seem to have it in your head that I somehow reject science and, even though I say I don't, you still claim I do. What i have said speaks for itself and I'm not really interested in a slanging match.

bonkey

I'm not really interested in embarking on a sort of pantomime oh-yes-you-did-oh-no-i-didn't sort of thing.

Thats not what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to explain how your misunderstanding of science coupled with your refusal to accept scientific theory is not a rejection of science.

Unless you're suggesting that you haven't misunderstood science, or that you accept scientific theory, there is no punch-and-judy here.

But I accept that it may be easier to miscast my questions in that light than it is to answer them, just as you foudn reason not to answer the tough questions that Lennoxchips asked you.

Its telling that one side of this discussion is willing to deal with the tough questions and offer what answers they have, while the other side (that being you) says "I'm not really interested" and walks away.

What i have said speaks for itself

Yes. It most certainly does.

jawlie

I just don't see it a one side versus the other side. My point is simple, insofar as I think the problem is to get the 6 billion people to take the action we are told it is urgently necessary so to do.

That it is irritating to be told what I think is a minor issue.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Yes, there is.

It took all of 30 seconds to find it using google. Interestingly, it was the article which concluded that there was global warming on Mars in the first plce which also explained what was causing it.

Yes, I just couldn't be arsed to look it up myself yesterday, but it got people thinking

Doesn't solve the original problem, but eliminates another (or at least reduces it's impact) cause of global warming.

Don't forget that in the 1970's the forcasts were for a new "ice age", with all the ensuing panic that was projected to cause with people being forced to migrate towards the equator, etc

A quick google shows that some still believe it

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Don't forget that in the 1970's the forcasts were for a new "ice age",

No, they weren't. This is a misrepresentation of what happened in the 70s and 80s.

There was uncertainty as to whether aerosol-based cooling effects would or would not, in the long run, outweigh greenhouse-gas effects. Let me say that again, to make it clear. There was uncertainty. There were some who said they believed cooling would win. There were some who said they believed greenhousing would win. Virtually all agreed that what was needed was further research to be able to determine with any reasonable accuracy which position was correct.

There was also a long-term (20k-year long-term) prediction towards cooling.

These two issues got combined, confused, and misreported. There was never scientific consensus that a new ice-age was "around the corner", except in the sense that a 20k-year timeframe is around the corner when one considers it is 4% of the existence of modern man, which is in turn around .01% of the timeframe within which life has existed on earth.

with all the ensuing panic that was projected to cause with people being forced to migrate towards the equator, etc

There was no ensuing panic. There were a handful of sensationalist articles in non-scientific and non-peer-reviewed scientific publications which misrepresented the current state of scientific thinking at the time.

I am constantly arguing that the people we need to listen to are the scientists. Not what The Economist may tell you they're saying. Not what CNN is telling you they're saying. Certainly not what politicians are telling you they're saying.

This very thread is a perfect indicator of that.

Jawlie is on about the massive corrective action we are being told we need to take in order to avoid disaster, in a thread who's very title makes it clear that the Climate researchers - the people I'm saying we should be listening to - are asking for their "supporters" to stop with the gross exaggerations because it is as unhelpful as the FUD being used to suggest we need to do nothing.

A quick google shows that some still believe it

There are always some who will believe / refuse to believe. Is Hecht's work peer-reviewed?

This, in my opinion, is a pretty-good summation of what is constantly being misrepresented regarding teh global-cooling issues of the 80s. It refers to actual scientific work done at the time. It refers to the actual misrepresentative articles. It gives you most, if not all, of the information you need to verify its claims for yourself.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

My point is simple, insofar as I think the problem is to get the 6 billion people to take the action we are told it is urgently necessary so to do.

We don't need 6 billion people to change their ways. We need the overall impact of 6 billion people changed. There is a significant difference.

If you take 100 people, 90 of whom are poor, 8 of whom are getting by ok, 1 of whom is well off and 1 of whom is filthy rich and you're told that you need to change the impact these 100 people have....do you honestly believe that we need to concentrate on all 100?

Do you not think that if, perhaps, the top 10 are responsible for 90% of the impact, that it would make sense to concentrate on those 10? That the most savings in the shortest time can be made by addressing any gross inefficiencies there?

If the numbers are different, and the top 10 are responsible for 40%, the next 30 are responsible for another 40%, and the remaining 60 for 20%, do you still believe we need to concentrate on all 100 equally, rather than concentrating first on the top 10, then on the next 30, and so on?

Even if your "we need everyone" argument were right, and if all of the 100 people were equally responsible, and only 50 could be convinced to change their ways, would it still not be better to have those 50 change their ways than to have none change because some wouldn't???

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Its called damage minimisation.

When hospitals get overloaded, they don't close down because they're incapable of helping everyone. They implement triage systems, prioritising the allocation of resources as effectively as they can, to make the most effective difference.

An estimated 50% of the world's greenhouse emissions are originating from a nation of 300 million people. Over 90% of the problem originates from less than 50% of teh population. By what possible logic can one argue that even if we are overwhelmed we should ignore the established concepts of damage minimsation / triage???

Trying to recast the solution to being one that must involve everyone before it can do anything, and arguing that we're all utterly doomed otherwise is exactly the type of "Apocalyptic stuff" mentioned in the title of this thread that we can do less of.

jawlie

Of course you are right. At the risk of being accused of beinga moaning minnie, there is still the little problem that all the while we are all getting richer and richer and the soon to be 9 billion will consume much more than the current 6 billion. Especially when one sees the sort of industrialisation of russia, china and the Indian Sub continent.

For instance, Indians are eating more meat from the cow every day, and it is said cattle account for 30% of CO2 emissions already?

It would be good to know exactely how much we would have to reduce emissions to now, and how mch over the next 50 years to gauge.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

At the risk of being accused of beinga moaning minnie, there is still the little problem that all the while we are all getting richer and richer and the soon to be 9 billion will consume much more than the current 6 billion.

Indeed. There's also the problem that to support all 6 billion at the consumption rates of the average American would require the resources of approximately 7 earths (although that figure is slightly out of date, so it might only be 6 or 5 now).

The question in this regard is related, but seperate - whether we have hte resources to allow the population to continue expanding and/or continue prospering. This, to me, is perhaps an even harder question. On the other hand, it is additionally an established trend that as wealth and education increase in an area, birth-rates tend to drop.

Overall its undeniably a complex issue. I don't pretend to have the answers to all of it. I don't think anyone does. But none of that suggests that we shouldn't do our damndest to choose the least worst available option going forwards.

For instance, Indians are eating more meat from the cow every day, and it is said cattle account for 30% of CO2 emissions already?

But cattle are eating foodstuffs which have fixed CO2 from the atmosphere, right?

It would be good to know exactely how much we would have to reduce emissions to now, and how mch over the next 50 years to gauge.

As much as we can.

That might sound glib, but the reality is that its the truth. I am not aware of any model which would allow us to have too few emissions....so if there's an improvement, we take it.

Like anything, there comes a balance point where improvements simply aren't practical. For example, if no-one could break 10mph, it would be almost impossible to have a driving fatality, but its just not practical. So we have speed-limits that half the people on the roads seem to complain are too low, whilst others try and figure out what we can do to reduce road-deaths caused from high-speed.

Its all a balancing act.

The days where we can just thoughtlessly use energy should be as much a part of our past as the days when driving without a seatbelt should be. When mandatory seat-belts were introduced, it was consider draconian. So many people thought it was a crazy, unenforceable idea. Then they made them mandatory in the back too...and many people today still think thats just nuts. Give it a generation, and maybe they won't.

Its the same story here. No-one seriously believes that every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to become an energy-conscious perfectionist overnight. Indeed, Tom will still want his speedy car, Dick will still insist on leaving the lights on in every room, and Harry isn't going to let any tree-hugging hippy tell him that he should be more conscious about sorting and recycling his waste.

So we give Tom a more energy-efficient hybrid-engined car running on bio-gas, we give Harry energy-efficient instant-on light-bulbs with smart motion-sensors to make sure they're on when he walks into a room, and we give Harry bio-degradeable, efficient packaging. We live with the inefficiencies of each, but gain even more from Tom and Harry turning their lights off, from Dick and Harry for driving even more economical cars, and from Tom and Dick for recycling. And maybe we get lucky and each of their kids do all three, shaking their heads at what a neandertal dad is because he just doesn't get it.

The days of not having to think about our future our over...if indeed they were ever really here. If they were here, it isn't the first time they've been here. I would recommend to anyone to read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. While far from perfect, its an interesting and sobering read to hear about how many societies before us have walked to the brink of collapse with the evidence as clearly in front of their eyes as it should be in front of ours.

Some of these societies toughed it out and survived. Some toughed it out, survived, and flourished. And the others? They weren't willing or able to make the sacrifices necessary and were relagated to the annals of history.

Global warming will not wipe out mankind. Its not "the end of the world". It may, however, be the end of the era of so-called Western Civilisation. It may be the end of a global era.

How much is enough? Only future generations looking back will be able to answer that question.

jawlie

Having checked with a colleague, the problem with cattle is their voluminous production of methane gas, which is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 ( which of course they also produce), and it is this which is responsible for their enormous contribution of around 30% of all greenhouse gases. (To put this in context, the airline industry is responsible for a mere 2% of all greenhouse gases)

Surely if we were to ban cattle farming, problem solved?

Lennoxschips

So you now admit that the greenhouse effect is real? Because before you said we weren't causing it.

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

Having checked with a colleague, the problem with cattle is their voluminous production of methane gas, which is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2

Yes, I knew that. It was clear from your CO2 comment, however, that you didn't know that. I'm glad to see that you've added to yoru knowledge in teh meantime

and it is this which is responsible for their enormous contribution of around 30% of all greenhouse gases.

As a matter of interest, where are you getting this 30% figure from?

The figures I can find put it slightly over 30% of methane production, but at under 20% of all human-originating greenhouse-emissions when taken in CO2 equivalencies....and thats for all livestock combined, not just cattle.

Note - I'm not suggesting that there isn't a problem here...I'm just wondering how accurate your figures are. After all, its only in the last 24 hours you've learned that its not CO2 from cattle thats the real problem.

As to the solutions....I have already answered that question. I don't have the solutions. I've never claimed to have the solutions. What I've said is that we need to look for and find solutions, and we need to keep looking and keep improving and give up the idea that our lifestyle is sustainable.

I see it as a very positive sign that you've shifted stance from decrying the whole man-made contribution to Global Warming as being unproven and something thats just going to negatively impact our lives for no good reason are now looking at the serious issues within it and saying "what can we do to fix or alleviate this".

Surely if we were to ban cattle farming, problem solved?

I'm sure if we were to do that, were able to enforce it, were able to handle the >1 billion people who's livelihoods rely on livestock farming, the resultant loss of income, and all the other knock-on effects...sure...the problem would be solved for a while.

On the other hand, if we were to cut down the quantities of meat we eat (which would be good for our diet in the first place), refine our livestock rearing practices,etc. we may be able to offset an amount of this particular problem. After all, if your numbers are correct and we could gain a 7% improvement, that would be the equivalent of removing all planes from the sky.

Incidentally, its interesting that you should focus on this issue. Some of the societies in Collapse managed to survive their impending doom by making dietary sacrifices on a scale that would match your proposal.

jawlie

Perhaps we should talk less about "carbon footprint" and concentrate more on "methane footprint", although the mental image of bovine methane footprint is not entirely a happy image.

Perhaps we should give up eating broccoli and cauliflower, two vegetables which I am reliably informed lead to excessive methane production in humans?

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

Perhaps we should talk less about "carbon footprint" and concentrate more on "methane footprint", although the mental image of bovine methane footprint is not entirely a happy image.

I don't think it really matters what you call it. CO2 is used as a baseline, but anything else could take its place. I'd agree, though, that it was poorly chosen.

After all, it led to those ridiculous ads in the US arguing that CO2 isn't pollution at all because its a natural part of the atmosphere, essential to life, and all the rest of it.

Perhaps we should give up eating broccoli and cauliflower, two vegetables which I am reliably informed lead to excessive methane production in humans?

Only after we stop growing beans, eating undercooked onions, and drinking copious amounts of Guinness

jawlie

I agree that beans are the root of all evil (apart from those wonderful frozen petit pois), eating undercooked onions are a scourge which should be stamped out, and Guinness is overrated. It seems we are of one mind, after all. Let's celebrate!