Climate Skeptics on Kevin Myres Last night

Tim Robbins

Anyone see the climate skeptics on Kevin Myres last night?
It wasn't a bad debate. I'd wonder what motivates the skeptics, they didn't come across as people bribed by BP and Shell.

Nolanger

They're just honest people who can think for themselves. Maybe they're fed up with all the one-sided greenhouse effect, ozone hole, global warming, climate change warnings?

Macha

Nolanger wrote: »

They're just honest people who can think for themselves. Maybe they're fed up with all the one-sided greenhouse effect, ozone hole, global warming, climate change warnings?

Yes, don't you just hate scientific consensus?

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, don't you just hate it scientific consensus?

There is vastly varying consensus among the community regarding the supposed effects of climate change. That in itself causes a huge amount of scepticism.

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

There is vastly varying consensus among the community regarding the supposed effects of climate change. That in itself causes a huge amount of scepticism.

Of course there is doubt about the exact effects of climate change - it is an unprecedented global change. But there is consensus on the causes.

Denerick

Kevin Myers is not one to admire. I follow that mantra with great enthusiasm.

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

Of course there is doubt about the exact effects of climate change - it is an unprecedented global change. But there is consensus on the causes.

To make important data-driven decisions though; decisions that will impinge on the lifestyle of millions and millions of people; one needs to accurately predict the effects and have some sort of consensus.

In my opinion anyway.
But I'm an engineer and that's how our brains work!

catbear

This thread will probably go on for ages but "Climate skeptics" as a title doesn't make sense. Climates change and have done for millennia but what is not certain is the science around the measurement of the anthropomorphic influence.

Perhaps the title should read "Climate Change Consensus Skeptics".

I still remember the drip drip feeding of Climate change stories in the eighties about how the next ice age was only around the corner.

Anyway Fianna Fail will be happy if it distracts anyone while they continue robbing the nation, I can attest to their influence having an effect upon my financial well being. That is not speculation but fact!

Heroditas

Can we get it moved to where it belongs? i.e. the Sustainability and Environmental Issues forum?

Denerick

Heroditas wrote: »

To make important data-driven decisions though; decisions that will impinge on the lifestyle of millions and millions of people; one needs to accurately predict the effects and have some sort of consensus.

In my opinion anyway.
But I'm an engineer and that's how our brains work!

Maybe. But...

If there is a 20% chance that climate change will result in massive floodings, and fundamental changes to the distribution of rainwater and agricultural land across the globe, causing massive misery for billions, perhaps it would not be a bad idea to look at reducing carbon emmissions across the board?

Whats more, reducing carbon emmissions is good anyway as fossil fuels are finite, carbon emmissions damage both our environment (Take for example coal mining in West Virginia, which has devastated the appalachian environment and scenery) and our health (Bronchitis)

In short, whats to lose? Even if we're wrong and climate change is a hoax, we'll benefit from cleaner and domestic sources of energy. Our physical environment and health will improve. If we're right... Well... We've just saved civilisation.

I really don't understand the sketpics lethargy.

Heroditas

Denerick wrote: »

Maybe. But...

If there is a 20% chance that climate change will result in massive floodings, and fundamental changes to the distribution of rainwater and agricultural land across the globe, causing massive misery for billions, perhaps it would not be a bad idea to look at reducing carbon emmissions across the board?

I'd need more than a 20% argument to persuade me.
However, what gets me is the varying in the consequences - some say sea levels will rise a few inches, others would have us believe it's a few metres.

Denerick wrote: »

Whats more, reducing carbon emmissions is good anyway as fossil fuels are finite, carbon emmissions damage both our environment (Take for example coal mining in West Virginia, which has devastated the appalachian environment and scenery) and our health (Bronchitis)

Sulphur and other elements in compounds damage the environment, e.g. Sulphur dioxide. Carbon is not dangerous! Every living creature on this planet consists of carbon.
I do agree with the effect on the scenery though

Denerick wrote: »

In short, whats to lose?

Lots of money for a potential reduction in living standards

Denerick wrote: »

we'll benefit from cleaner and domestic sources of energy.

True. However, there are drawbacks to even this "clean" energy. Scenery is being torn up to obtain the precious metals used for a lot of renewable generating equipment.

Denerick wrote: »

I really don't understand the sketpics lethargy.

The problem is when one sees people like Al Gore as a climate change spokesman.
It's a bit like being convinced that trade unions are looking after the industrial worker when you have the likes of Begg and O'Connor on massive wages and sitting on boards of directors. The real message gets lost.

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

Can we get it moved to where it belongs? i.e. the Sustainability and Environmental Issues forum?

Meh, there's already an open thread on this - there's always one person or the other who thinks they can prove that anthropogenic climate change isn't true. It would just get locked/merged.

RichardAnd

taconnol wrote: »

Of course there is doubt about the exact effects of climate change - it is an unprecedented global change. But there is consensus on the causes.

Climate change happens on earth ever few centuries. It happened before we were here and it will happen after we are gone. Go back 600 years and you'd find yourself in the Medieval Warm Period. This, in turn, led to the little ice age 300 or so years later. There were no cars back then yet this happened.

Climate change is real, whether (good opportunity for a pun there ) or not it is being cause by humans is unknown. Scientists are not united on Global Warming at all and several years ago, thousands of them signed a statement to refute it. Someone might know what it's called, I can't seem to find it.

What is certain, at least to me, is that Climate Change is being used by governments in an effort to get more tax out of people. I'm all for Green Energy and if I ever build a house, I will fill it full of solar panels and wind mills.

This reminds me of tax on cigarettes. They get taxed and the government and anti-smoking nazis will claim it's simply to discourage people from smoking. This is, of course, absurd because if they really didn't want people smoking, they would raise the cost of a box of fags to 100 euro. Instead, it's high enough to make money but low enough to be affordable. It's the same thing with Petrol though it is true that the Green Rangers of this world would love to see us paying 5 euro a litre for fuel.

So to anyone who blindly believes in Climate Change propaganda I advise them to do a little reading from other sources and not rely on the 6:01 news to paint reality for them.

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

Meh, there's already an open thread on this - there's always one person or the other who thinks they can prove that anthropogenic climate change isn't true. It would just get locked/merged.

Can we get it moved to the Sustainability and Environmental Issues Forum?

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

To make important data-driven decisions though; decisions that will impinge on the lifestyle of millions and millions of people; one needs to accurately predict the effects and have some sort of consensus.

In my opinion anyway.
But I'm an engineer and that's how our brains work!

They have been as accurately predicted as possible. We're not talking about a maths theorum here so if you're looking for 100% certainty, I assume you also are skeptical about the theory of gravity?

For those who are interested:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

They have been as accurately predicted as possible.

Like glaciers disappearing within the next 20-25 years?

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

Like glaciers disappearing within the next 20-25 years?

*sigh* this has been discussed ad nauseum:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055746390

Heroditas

Anyway, seeing that we're in the Irish Economy section of Boards, I'll say one thing.
Whether I believe in climate change or not, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to be very busy for many years to come in my career due to the various legislations and initiatives being brought in.
So, eh, thank you to all the greenies out there. It's certainly helping my own personal economy and I'm going to do very well out of it.

Road-Hog

Heroditas wrote: »

Anyway, seeing that we're in the Irish Economy section of Boards, I'll say one thing.
Whether I believe in climate change or not, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to be very busy for many years to come in my career due to the various legislations and initiatives being brought in.
So, eh, thank you to all the greenies out there. It's certainly helping my own personal economy and I'm going to do very well out of it.

you are the smug one aren't you.......

amacca

Heroditas wrote: »

Anyway, seeing that we're in the Irish Economy section of Boards, I'll say one thing.
Whether I believe in climate change or not, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to be very busy for many years to come in my career due to the various legislations and initiatives being brought in.
So, eh, thank you to all the greenies out there. It's certainly helping my own personal economy and I'm going to do very well out of it.

would now be a good time to bring up my utter loathing of the green party in general and spineless gormless and clown face ryan in particular?

ask a stupid question I suppose, nevertheless....

I wish the whole consensus was found to be nonsense, if for no other reason than the return of the "greenies" to their rightful eco friendly biodegradable habitats could be expedited.

corduroy wearing, bicycle riding nitwits.....

fontanalis

Didn't Myers fall for that idiotic Turks creationist book? I also remember reading one of his articles where he was talking about birds finding their way north when migrating or something like that. the last sentence was; explain that scientists. Very childish so I'd take any science coverage of his with his chip sized pinch of salt.

Brussels Sprout

Heroditas wrote: »

Anyway, seeing that we're in the Irish Economy section of Boards, I'll say one thing.
Whether I believe in climate change or not, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to be very busy for many years to come in my career due to the various legislations and initiatives being brought in.
So, eh, thank you to all the greenies out there. It's certainly helping my own personal economy and I'm going to do very well out of it.

wow, what a dickhead

djpbarry

Heroditas wrote: »

So, eh, thank you to all the greenies out there.

amacca wrote: »

I wish the whole consensus was found to be nonsense, if for no other reason than the return of the "greenies" to their rightful eco friendly biodegradable habitats could be expedited.

Funny how, when science tells us something we want to hear, or delivers something that improves our lives, those responsible are recognised for their contribution to humanity and often become household names, e.g. Alexander Fleming, Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur.

But when science tells us that we may need to change our behaviour, those responsible, employing the same scientific method as those mentioned above, are lumped in with lunatic fringe groups, such as “the greenies”.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote: »

Funny how, when science tells us something we want to hear, or delivers something that improves our lives, those responsible are recognised for their contribution to humanity and often become household names, e.g. Alexander Fleming, Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur.

But when science tells us that we may need to change our behaviour, those responsible, employing the same scientific method as those mentioned above, are lumped in with lunatic fringe groups, such as “the greenies”.

you are slightly misrepresting this. A comparable situation would be "science" telling us that a large Asteroid will hit the earth in 50 years time, head in the sand would not be a good strategy.

Here we are dealing with models, assumptions and a green lobby that are not unbiased. Given that this is an economy forum , I dont think the irony will be lost on anyone that another science, economics which has wait for it, models, assumptions and a government that is not unbiased is currently wrecking the global economy.

sponsoredwalk

Global warming/climate change has no parallel to talking about a comet coming towars earth other than the possibility of species extinction.

With a comet/asteroid we have a very real chance of deflecting/destroying it & knowing extremely accurately how things will pan out years and years in advance.

Example 1

Example 2

etc...

With global warming there is no clear view of the future, no clear view of the present & a barely visible picture of the past.
The amount of variables here is staggering, the definitive cause is up for debate even though there is plenty evidence that it is occuring.

The charicatured view is that of the loony left, or liberal greenies trying to impose some sort of morality on the world
by getting people to cut down on destroying mother earth.
This is pitched against the rich fatcat's trying to continue to cut costs & stress by freely polluting away.

The more accurate view is that of human beings from all walks of life completely nonplussed about our environment & our effect on it.
So much evidence points to the ravaging of our environment, be it ice melting, species extinctions etc...
& we don't know whether it's all of the megatons of pollutants we put into the atmosphere or whether it's just natural & to what extent each contributes...
This is pitched against the rich fatcat's trying to continue to cut costs & stress by freely polluting away.

:rolleyes:

I think the question people should be asking themselves is, even if we contribute @ a 5% rate to the denigration of the earth
& bring the annihalation of the human species closer that small 5% faster, is that something we want to approve of...?

Whatever model we choose to enact has the potential to destroy the entire human species &,
unlike economics models, there exists an independent truth about the current situation.
There either will be the end of humanity or wont be the end of humanity,
and our current policies could be the deciding factor in this question.

Boskowski

I think whatever way we look at particular symptoms and the exact cause and effect I think there can be very little doubt that the human race is acting irresponsibly with the planet and all it's lifeforms and it's a no-brainer that if we continue on the route we've chosen as a species we will destroy the very foundations of our existence and that of countless species that are unfortunate enough having to share this planet with us.

djpbarry

silverharp wrote: »

Here we are dealing with models, assumptions and a green lobby that are not unbiased.

Models are what virtually all physical science is based upon. As for the green lobby, unless they're producing peer-reviewed literature on the subject, they're largely irrelevant.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

With global warming there is no clear view of the future, no clear view of the present & a barely visible picture of the past.

No clear view of the present? We have thermometers, don't we? In fact, we've had reasonably accurate thermometers for about 150 years.

sponsoredwalk

djpbarry wrote: »

No clear view of the present? We have thermometers, don't we? In fact, we've had reasonably accurate thermometers for about 150 years.

Luckily science is based on more than a thermometer reading

My point is that for skeptics to just throw away the credible - evidence of global warming because of huckster practices by some climate scientists is a bad idea.

Personally I don't know enough of the science behind any of this so I refuse to make a definitive judgement & have decided to leave it to "the experts", for now.

sponsoredwalk

link (with links to original studies).

edit: counter-arguments (read the comments sections too! )

silverharp

djpbarry wrote: »

Models are what virtually all physical science is based upon. As for the green lobby, unless they're producing peer-reviewed literature on the subject, they're largely irrelevant.
No clear view of the present? We have thermometers, don't we? In fact, we've had reasonably accurate thermometers for about 150 years.

But unless the final book has been written on all the interaction of climate variables, then I'm wary of the green lobby running with this on the political side.
And to be honest there are plenty of enviomental issues that affect the quality of life of people on this Island without getting tied into carbon credits and all the other hysterical proposals which in most likelyhood will have little to 0 mitigating effects on the climate even if the planet does warm over the next century.

Macha

silverharp wrote: »

But unless the final book has been written on all the interaction of climate variables, then I'm wary of the green lobby running with this on the political side.

What exactly does that mean? Show me any modern democratic government that denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change. And if we were to wait until we knew everything there is to know about an issue before we act, we would still be sitting around in caves banging rocks together.

silverharp wrote: »

And to be honest there are plenty of enviomental issues that affect the quality of life of people on this Island without getting tied into carbon credits and all the other hysterical proposals which in most likelyhood will have little to 0 mitigating effects on the climate even if the planet does warm over the next century.

Please explain why carbon credits are "hysterical" and why they will have no impact. Of course there are other environmental issues that are important but climate change is a biggie and the idea that we are incapable of multi-tasking in our efforts is crazy.( I really wish I would never have to hear the phrase again "shur there are more important things for us to be worrying about".

RichardAnd

taconnol wrote: »

What exactly does that mean? Show me any modern democratic government that denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change. And if we were to wait until we knew everything there is to know about an issue before we act, we would still be sitting around in caves banging rocks together.


Please explain why carbon credits are "hysterical" and why they will have no impact. Of course there are other environmental issues that are important but climate change is a biggie and the idea that we are incapable of multi-tasking in our efforts is crazy.( I really wish I would never have to hear the phrase again "shur there are more important things for us to be worrying about".

You hear that because there are more important things to be worried about, depending on your point of view. An unemployed man with two kids will probably not give a crap about climate change because he has bigger things to worry about and this is utterly understandable. It's very easy for a professor on 100k a year to tell people to do X, Y and Z when he doesn't have to worry money.

As to how we affect the planet, well I can't disagree that we are a cancer on this lovely blue marble and that earth would be better off without us. However, I do not for a second believe that Carbon Tax will halt climate change because, as I've said before, it happened long before we started burning away all the oil.

As to what you said about us sitting in caves. Well you know, sometimes I think our species and the planet would be better off if we were still doing that.

Brussels Sprout

Michele Bachmann is a member of the house of representatives from Minnesota. A lot of people are starting to mention her as being a possible candidate for the Republican parties nomination in the 2012 presidential election. She makes George Bush and Sarah Palin look like tree hugging hippies. Here's what she has to say about climate change

Bachmann has claimed that global warming is a hoax[49] and has been a vocal skeptic of climate change.[50] She has asserted that since carbon dioxide is "a natural byproduct of nature", it is actually a beneficial gas required by plant life. She stated that because life requires CO2 and it is part of the life cycle on Earth it cannot be harmful. In a statement she made on the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Bachmann stated she was against the cap and trade climate legislation stating: "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful.... We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth."

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

RichardAnd

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Michele Bachmann is a member of the house of representatives from Minnesota. A lot of people are starting to mention her as being a possible candidate for the Republican parties nomination in the 2012 presidential election. She makes George Bush and Sarah Palin look like tree hugging hippies. Here's what she has to say about climate change



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

I've heard of her before. Her views may not be what many will hold but the fact that she is willing to state, clearly and in public, what she believes shows a stark contrast between American statesmen and our own home grown brand. But let's not start all that again.

I'm of the opinion that Obama will not be elected again in 2012 for a number of reasons. Unless the is a considerable upturn in employment and prospects over the pond, it's very possible that we'll see a republican president in the white-house again. Maybe this will be the first female president, we shall see.

amacca

djpbarry wrote: »

Funny how, when science tells us something we want to hear, or delivers something that improves our lives, those responsible are recognised for their contribution to humanity and often become household names, e.g. Alexander Fleming, Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur.

But when science tells us that we may need to change our behaviour, those responsible, employing the same scientific method as those mentioned above, are lumped in with lunatic fringe groups, such as “the greenies”.

Oh im perfectly willing to listen to this particular scientific consensus and even if there wasnt one I think as a species us humans can be incredibly wasteful and destructive...we seem to be not that different from locusts or parasites at times...most of us certainly don't live in any sort of harmony with our environment so its not that surprising to me that we could be in the process of upsetting the natural balance and possibly destroying the place we live in.

my post was puerile and probably off topic, I don't dispute the message (think the jury may still be out to an extent - but dont see any harm in becoming less wasteful, more in step with the natural order, less destructive etc) I just object to the message in this country being spearheaded by the likes of gormley and ryan. I think it might just be the grinning with ryan, I can imagine him calling to my door telling me a close relative of mine had just died with that idiotic rictus of a grin still adorning his face.

I think they are just not great figureheads to deliver the message and they have miscalculated badly with some of their proposals.

Macha

RichardAnd wrote: »

You hear that because there are more important things to be worried about, depending on your point of view. An unemployed man with two kids will probably not give a crap about climate change because he has bigger things to worry about and this is utterly understandable. It's very easy for a professor on 100k a year to tell people to do X, Y and Z when he doesn't have to worry money.

This A or B attitude is directly derived from western humanism that sees humans as separate from nature. We depend on ecosystems for our economies and our ability to live. I recommend you look up the recently released TEEB report on the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:

http://www.teebweb.org/

RichardAnd wrote: »

As to how we affect the planet, well I can't disagree that we are a cancer on this lovely blue marble and that earth would be better off without us. However, I do not for a second believe that Carbon Tax will halt climate change because, as I've said before, it happened long before we started burning away all the oil.

How will pricing carbon not help in reducing carbon emissions? Before you talked about carbon credits, now you're talking about carbon tax - do you object to both (they are different methods)? I don't think a single climatologist has said that the planet's climate has never changed in the past. What's different now is the rate at which it is changing and the fact that we are the ones causing it. Evolution normally happens over a long time and rapid changes in climate and in turn habitats and ecosystems means less time for humans to evolve to deal with it. Plus the changes that are happening are effectively reducing the carrying capacity of the planet.

RichardAnd wrote: »

As to what you said about us sitting in caves. Well you know, sometimes I think our species and the planet would be better off if we were still doing that.

I personally believe we can have a sustainable, prosperous society but we need some serious changes. Unfortunately, huge opposition is being experienced but ultimately it is up to all of us.

dan_d

Actually, I think climate change is a massive problem, but the idea of carbon credits is ridiculous.

Someone, somewhere has calculated an amount of carbon that can be released into the air every year to minimise damage. In theory, on paper...great. The idea that if we release too much we can "offset" our credits against somewhere like...I don't know, Africa?

Ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that you're still releasing too much carbon, regardless of what it's offset against. The earth is not an equation there to be balanced scientifically. It's a living system, that gets damaged beyond repair. To be quite honest (and maybe a bit insulting) you'd want to be living under a rock if you believe climate change is a myth. Look around you.

Boskowski sums it up very well. It doesn't matter what scientist said what, and who refuted what claims. Humans are vastly exploiting natural resources at an unsustainable rate. We now have to go out into the oceans, at deeper and deeper depths, to find oil. Initially oil could be found on land, in pockets of certain types of rock. We've exploited all of those. We cannot continue at the rate we are going.The old saying "Everything in moderation" is there for a reason...we proved it ourselves, here in Ireland, with our recent housing and construction boom.

Gas and oil are finite resources. We are fast coming to the end of them. Climates are changing - it doesn't take scientists to tell us that. And at the end of the day, nature is a power that is far beyond the control of any humans, regardless of what we're arrogant enough to think. Personally I think it's time we had some respect for it - the question is whether or not our greed will allow it.

Hazlittle

I hold zero beliefs on climate change. This is how I saw the debate.

Deniers presented an argument. Believers laugh at them but couldnt argue against them. Deniers won that round.

Believers presented their argument. In fairness to the weather man he seemed to know what he was saying comparison to the gay feller in the purple shirt. The deniers debunked them. The believers couldnt respond. Deniers won again.

I havent come across a climate change believe to convince to worship their bizarre religion. Thats how I see. A religion. Faith without facts. Same way I think Catholicism is a dumb religion, I believe this climate change religion is ridiculously fanatical.

So who's benefiting from Al Gores carbon credit idea? Not the same people that financed Hitler and Stalin?

Ridiculus.

Anyone has proof, please send me a quick and easy to understand documentary. Otherwise I'm going to treat environmentalists with the same contempt I do with communismsts.

Brussels Sprout

Fact: We have a Greenhouse effect on earth. Atmospheric gases (including CO2) trap certain amounts of sunlight heating up the planet. This is a good thing as otherwise we'd be a frozen lump of rock with no life on it like Mars.



Fact: Since the industrial revolution in the 1800s we've been pumping vast amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate each year



Fact: CO2 levels in the atmosphere as well as average global temperature have steadily risen throughout this period. As time has gone on the rate of increase of both has actually increased in direct comparison with the increased rate of man-made CO2 production.



To say that man made global warming is a myth is to say that it's a massive coincidence that this upward surge in global temperature and CO2 is entirely unrelated to the upward surge in consumption of Oil, Gas and Coal in the same time period.

amacca

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Fact: We have a Greenhouse effect on earth. Atmospheric gases (including CO2) trap certain amounts of sunlight heating up the planet. This is a good thing as otherwise we'd be a frozen lump of rock with no life on it like Mars.



Fact: CO2 levels in the atmosphere as well as average global temperature have steadily risen throughout this period. As time has gone on the rate of increase of both has actually increased in direct comparison with the increased rate of man-made CO2 production.



To say that man made global warming is a myth is to say that it's a massive coincidence that this upward surge in global temperature and CO2 is entirely unrelated to the upward surge in consumption of Oil, Gas and Coal in the same time period.

right, ill probably get slaughtered but im really not a skeptic, just unconvinced (oh wait I suppose that does make me a skeptic doesn't it).


isn't there a possible alternative explanation for the above graph, ie: increasing temperatures leads to more Co2 being released....the warming is not as a result of the co2 but rather the co2 is a result of the warming....or has that been debunked, is that just crazy talk?...... as another poster has said this has been done ad nauseum but I look forward to your smackdowns nonetheless:)


when geologists have looked at ice cores/rock strata from millions of years (before the internal combustion engine) ago isnt there evidence that shows earth heating up over short enough timescales followed by massive increases in carbon dioxide levels or if it didn't happen in that order then at least the two events roughly coinciding?

for that matter arent some ice ages preceded by short term (on the scale of ice ages) fluctuations in temperature (including increases) before the big freeze?

basically Ive come to distrust beliefs that large numbers of my species hold dear at any one time, extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds etc

Scarab80

For any climate change skeptics can i recommend you watch this presentation.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

It's a scientists reply to Christopher Mockton - a leading climate change skeptic. It addresses many of the concerns that skeptics have in relation to anthropomorphic global warming.

Hazlittle

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Fact: We have a Greenhouse effect on earth. Atmospheric gases (including CO2) trap certain amounts of sunlight heating up the planet. This is a good thing as otherwise we'd be a frozen lump of rock with no life on it like Mars.



Fact: Since the industrial revolution in the 1800s we've been pumping vast amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate each year



Fact: CO2 levels in the atmosphere as well as average global temperature have steadily risen throughout this period. As time has gone on the rate of increase of both has actually increased in direct comparison with the increased rate of man-made CO2 production.



To say that man made global warming is a myth is to say that it's a massive coincidence that this upward surge in global temperature and CO2 is entirely unrelated to the upward surge in consumption of Oil, Gas and Coal in the same time period.

Whoa dont those graphs look pretty. Riddle me this. How did they measure C02 emissions before they discovered carbon? Do you not find it little odd that you have stats from a period of time when they obviously didnt have the technology.

I'm not a climate change denier. But i have done science in college. I'm not an environmental scientist so I cant debunk climate change. But I do understand physics. As far as I am aware they havent invented a time machine yet. If you want to start a debate on how to build a time machine I can argue for and against certain theories.

Science shouldnt be used a political tool.

Hazlittle

Scarab80 wrote: »

For any climate change skeptics can i recommend you watch this presentation.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

It's a scientists reply to Christopher Mockton - a leading climate change skeptic. It addresses many of the concerns that skeptics have in relation to anthropomorphic global warming.

Thanks for that. I'll watch it when I find Mocktons view on this so I can compare arguments.

amacca

Hazlittle wrote: »

Whoa dont those graphs look pretty. Riddle me this. How did they measure C02 emissions before they discovered carbon? Do you not find it little odd that you have stats from a period of time when they obviously didnt have the technology.

I was under the impression you could know how much co2 was being emitted (from whatever source) by finding out how many ppm co2 was in the atmosphere at the time.....and that you could find out this ppm concentration for millions of years in the past by conducting chemical analysis on ice cores....the further down you go the older the ice is so this gives you a way to plot those pretty graphs accurately?


I was also under the impression you could conduct this kind of analysis on preserved fossil remains in rock strata?

Hazlittle

amacca wrote: »

I was under the impression you could know how much co2 was being emitted (from whatever source) by finding out how many ppm co2 was in the atmosphere at the time.....and that you could find out this ppm concentration for millions of years in the past by conducting chemical analysis on ice cores....the further down you go the older the ice is so this gives you a way to plot those pretty graphs accurately?


I was also under the impression you could conduct this kind of analysis on preserved fossil remains in rock strata?

I havent any climate change denier arguments yet but I would imagine they could point that the person above hasnt stated where they got the graph from. So stating there is a way to record it and presenting a graph doesnt mean the graph represents the method someone else has stated.

Example if I said there is 8 people the room. And person B said you can find out how many people are in the room by counting them. It doesnt mean I have counted the amount of people in the room. I may or may not have.

You have mentioned one method. Nowadays there is funny devices they can measure it. The question is how was this graph measured?

djpbarry

amacca wrote: »

isn't there a possible alternative explanation for the above graph, ie: increasing temperatures leads to more Co2 being released....the warming is not as a result of the co2 but rather the co2 is a result of the warming...

It’s highly unlikely that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a direct result of the burning of fossil fuels. This can be determined by analysing the changing concentration of different carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Whoa dont those graphs look pretty. Riddle me this. How did they measure C02 emissions before they discovered carbon?

Carbon has been known as an element for at least 200 years? Antoine Lavoisier listed carbon as an element in the late 18th century.

Hazlittle

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s highly unlikely that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a direct result of the burning of fossil fuels. This can be determined by analysing the changing concentration of different carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.
Carbon has been known as an element for at least 200 years? Antoine Lavoisier listed carbon as an element in the late 18th century.

Carbon was discovered somewhere around 1850 but I have no idea how they could have measured it back then. Any device I would have used back in my lab days would have been fairly recently been invented. Like electricity was technically discovered in ancient times but its major usage to make devices is in the late 1800s. I just cant think of people going "bam here's carbon and here's how we can accurately record it." Then there's the degree of uncertainty to work out. Anything I could use today would be more accurate then anything I could have used 20 years ago.


Now again I'm not a climate change denier I'm just automatically skeptic of everything.

Brussels Sprout

Hazlittle wrote: »

Whoa dont those graphs look pretty. Riddle me this. How did they measure C02 emissions before they discovered carbon? Do you not find it little odd that you have stats from a period of time when they obviously didnt have the technology.

amacca wrote: »

I was under the impression you could know how much co2 was being emitted (from whatever source) by finding out how many ppm co2 was in the atmosphere at the time.....and that you could find out this ppm concentration for millions of years in the past by conducting chemical analysis on ice cores

Correct!

Brussels Sprout

Hazlittle wrote: »

I havent any climate change denier arguments yet but I would imagine they could point that the person above hasnt stated where they got the graph from. So stating there is a way to record it and presenting a graph doesnt mean the graph represents the method someone else has stated.

Example if I said there is 8 people the room. And person B said you can find out how many people are in the room by counting them. It doesnt mean I have counted the amount of people in the room. I may or may not have.

You have mentioned one method. Nowadays there is funny devices they can measure it. The question is how was this graph measured?

If you google 'carbon dioxide in atmosphere' and go to the 'images' tab you'll see a lot of similarly shaped graphs. By doing this I got the following answer to your question from this page.

The concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, were measured in the bubbles from an Antarctic ice core from Law Dome near Australia's Casey Station. The Law Dome ice core is at a location where the snow accumulation is much higher than at Vostok. Thus, the time scale for the Law Dome core is expanded and it can provide us with more detailed information about recent climate changes.

nesf

silverharp wrote: »

Here we are dealing with models, assumptions and a green lobby that are not unbiased. Given that this is an economy forum , I dont think the irony will be lost on anyone that another science, economics which has wait for it, models, assumptions and a government that is not unbiased is currently wrecking the global economy.

Finance not Economics is what wrecked the global economy. There's an extremely important distinction between the two.

nesf

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not a climate change denier. But i have done science in college. I'm not an environmental scientist so I cant debunk climate change. But I do understand physics. As far as I am aware they havent invented a time machine yet. If you want to start a debate on how to build a time machine I can argue for and against certain theories.

You most certainly don't understand physics if you doubt that one can estimate carbon content of the atmospheres using ice core data. It's pretty ****ing basic scientific logic to see why it works.