"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

Hitchens

C14N wrote: »

I also tend to wonder why on earth anyone would think it would be in a government's best interest to invest in something like this for any reason besides trying to prevent climate change.

why would anyone think it's in governments best interests to allow the legal sale of tobacco products?..................................TAX, TAX, TAX, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!

C14N

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If they did there would not be this debate would there no one would deny presented with such irrefutable evidence ? But there is no concrete proof it’s all could be probably is hmm what's the difference from the past to now human technology yes so this must be the cause. Don't remember satellites being in orbit of the sun for millions of years to measure the fluctuations over aeons (not years)

The debate is only between members of the public and some politicians. The scientists aren't debating this much more than they're debating evolution.

why would anyone think it's in governments best interests to allow the legal sale of tobacco products?..................................TAX, TAX, TAX, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!

Except if they raise €100 million in taxes and then turn around and spend it on some windmills, they don't really gain much. Besides that, you do know that the government's money is still ours right? You seem to be suggesting that Enda Kenny and a few friends (as well as many other governments) raise taxes and then just pocket the lot which is completely unfounded.

Jonny7

Hitchens wrote: »

why would anyone think it's in governments best interests to allow the legal sale of tobacco products?..................................TAX, TAX, TAX, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!

Surely tax is in your best interests, not the government's.

Unless they are pocketing it?

darkpagandeath

C14N wrote: »

The debate is only between members of the public and some politicians. The scientists aren't debating this much more than they're debating evolution.

So the sun is what about 4.5 billion years old. And there study monitoring observation data is that old as well ? The same people will tell you that core samples of rocks can tell you the earth magnetic poles reverse periodically. But cant give you any idea of how or what causes it. I'm not refuting there is more extreme weather but this may not be effected as much as they think by man. There just banging on about co2 a lot of japan got levelled I'm pretty sure that released a lot of it too same when man made stuff all over gets destroyed. But did man make the earthquake/tsunami “insert natural disaster” ?

Filibuster

C14N wrote: »

The debate is only between members of the public and some politicians. The scientists aren't debating this much more than they're debating evolution.

That's not true, I've linked to peer reviewed studies published in the last few weeks disputing the IPCC claims. Saying AGW is settled is total bull****.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86795551&postcount=188

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86796145&postcount=194

C14N

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So the sun is what about 4.5 billion years old.And there study monitoring observation data is that old as well ? The same people will tell you that core samples of rocks can tell you the earth magnetic poles reverse periodically. But cant give you any idea of how or what causes it. I'm not refuting there is more extreme weather but this may not be effected as much as they think by man. There just banging on about co2 a lot of japan got levelled I'm pretty sure that released a lot of it too same when man made stuff all over gets destroyed. But did man make the earthquake/tsunami “insert natural disaster” ?

In case I gave you the wrong idea: I don't know almost anything about the earth or how it works. The area of science I study (and I'm still just a student) is physics, specifically electronics. I have no idea how they find this stuff out because it's so complex that people who do want to know have to go to a university and get a degree in it.

However, when those people who do study it extensively and who are independently reviewed and criticised by their peers over the course of several decades come again and again to the conclusion that yes, we're causing some serious problems, those are the people I listen to. Science is certainly open to questioning, but it usually requires significant pre-requisite knowledge before your questions are valid. You are just saying "I don't believe them because other disasters happen" and "how could they even know that?" and that's not valid reasoning. Almost nobody who actually does know all of this stuff is saying "I don't think we're doing much damage", the debate is purely among the common people who have, at best, a surface level understanding of the science behind the issue.

darkpagandeath

C14N wrote: »

In case I gave you the wrong idea: I don't know almost anything about the earth or how it works. The area of science I study (and I'm still just a student) is physics, specifically electronics. I have no idea how they find this stuff out because it's so complex that people who do want to know have to go to a university and get a degree in it.

However, when those people who do study it extensively and who are independently reviewed and criticised by their peers over the course of several decades come again and again to the conclusion that yes, we're causing some serious problems, those are the people I listen to. Science is certainly open to questioning, but it usually requires significant pre-requisite knowledge before your questions are valid. You are just saying "I don't believe them because other disasters happen" and "how could they even know that?" and that's not valid reasoning. Almost nobody who actually does know all of this stuff is saying "I don't think we're doing much damage", the debate is purely among the common people who have, at best, a surface level understanding of the science behind the issue.

So your not allowed to Question the data they have collected over a very short period of time relating to something massively important that's been around for about 4.5 billion years. The sun drives the weather no sun no weather end of. Insert 20 years of data into computer model that's missing say conservative 2 billion years of observations to say what the sun does.

kneemos

C14N wrote: »

In case I gave you the wrong idea: I don't know almost anything about the earth or how it works. The area of science I study (and I'm still just a student) is physics, specifically electronics. I have no idea how they find this stuff out because it's so complex that people who do want to know have to go to a university and get a degree in it.

However, when those people who do study it extensively and who are independently reviewed and criticised by their peers over the course of several decades come again and again to the conclusion that yes, we're causing some serious problems, those are the people I listen to. Science is certainly open to questioning, but it usually requires significant pre-requisite knowledge before your questions are valid. You are just saying "I don't believe them because other disasters happen" and "how could they even know that?" and that's not valid reasoning. Almost nobody who actually does know all of this stuff is saying "I don't think we're doing much damage", the debate is purely among the common people who have, at best, a surface level understanding of the science behind the issue.

As a "common"person I would just like to say I would have no problem believing them if their predictions even slightly accurate or vaguely consistent and didn't smack of scaremongering.

bandit600

Money is to blame.As ur man said.Its the root of all evil.Were just the slaves to it.

Akrasia

Filibuster wrote: »

That's not true, I've linked to peer reviewed studies published in the last few weeks disputing the IPCC claims. Saying AGW is settled is total bull****.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86795551&postcount=188

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86796145&postcount=194

One of the articles you linked to was co-authored by Willie Soon.
Soon has been exclusively funded by the oil and gas industry since 2002
http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

Another article you linked to, one was published in 'Energy and Environment' which is not a reputable journal

The other article you linked to I have never heard of the journal or the authors so I can't comment on it's reliability.

One thing that is obvious however, is that you are not looking for the best possible research on the topic. You are looking for any research that you think supports your pre-existing position. This is called cherry picking and it is what lobbiests and science deniers do.

There are zero fields in science where there is 100% agreement by all scientists. This is why we talk about scientific consensus as the measure of what we accept to be true. If you want, you can easily find research articles that deny Evolution, Plate Tectonics, Germ theory of disease etc.

When the vast majority of the highest quality research points to one conclusion, we need to take it seriously. Pointing to fringe studies and then declaring that we can not act because there is still 'debate' and 'uncertainty' is the strategy of the Filibuster. It's about shutting down action by perpetual debate, and that is what you are trying to do on this issue

allibastor

steddyeddy wrote: »

The intergovernmental panel for climate change has agreed that global warming is real and humans are responsible. So are we going to waste time debating with the skeptics forever or are we going to do something about it.

Article below:

If I were you I would not worry about global warming, population growth will affect us first.

Rubeter

allibastor wrote: »

If I were you I would not worry about global warming, population growth will affect us first.

Population growth itself, that is the actual people ourselves aren't a problem, the planet is big enough to fit many many more of us. Population growth results in problems like water and food shortages, and the demand for energy results in guess what? You got it climate change.

What you said there is like saying, Don't worry about the food shortage, population growth will get us first.

donegal__road

we should be more concerned about Fukashima, who's effects are way more immediate and will be devastating... and the BP oil spill which has been out of the headlines in the last 2 years, but their trial has resumed.. and guess what, BP are trying to back out of their own compensation proposal.

Akrasia

donegal__road wrote: »

we should be more concerned about Fukashima, who's effects are way more immediate and will be devastating... and the BP oil spill which has been out of the headlines in the last 2 years, but their trial has resumed.. and guess what, BP are trying to back out of their own compensation proposal.

Unfortunately, Fukushima as bad as it is, is nothing compared to what will happen with climate change.
Fukushima has resulted in some nuclear contamination and will probably leave a part of Japanese coastline uninhabitable

Global warming could raise global sea levels by up to 1 metre by the end of the century.

This will devastate coastal cities all around the world. Even with ridiculously expensive coastal defences, there will be huge consequences for many of the most densely populated places on earth. This is the prediction if global temperatures increase by 2 degrees from the 1900 average temperature. If increases are higher than all bets are off. We could see ocean rises of 2 metres or more within the lifetimes of children that are alive today. And sea levels will continue to rise into the 22nd century. To ignore this problem is absolutely insanely short sighted.

riffmongous

donegal__road wrote: »

we should be more concerned about Fukashima, who's effects are way more immediate and will be devastating... and the BP oil spill which has been out of the headlines in the last 2 years, but their trial has resumed.. and guess what, BP are trying to back out of their own compensation proposal.

But there will always be immediate problems that seem or indeed are more serious,we will have to face up to it at some stage

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

One of the articles you linked to was co-authored by Willie Soon.
Soon has been exclusively funded by the oil and gas industry since 2002
http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

Another article you linked to, one was published in 'Energy and Environment' which is not a reputable journal

The other article you linked to I have never heard of the journal or the authors so I can't comment on it's reliability.

One thing that is obvious however, is that you are not looking for the best possible research on the topic. You are looking for any research that you think supports your pre-existing position. This is called cherry picking and it is what lobbiests and science deniers do.

There are zero fields in science where there is 100% agreement by all scientists. This is why we talk about scientific consensus as the measure of what we accept to be true. If you want, you can easily find research articles that deny Evolution, Plate Tectonics, Germ theory of disease etc.

When the vast majority of the highest quality research points to one conclusion, we need to take it seriously. Pointing to fringe studies and then declaring that we can not act because there is still 'debate' and 'uncertainty' is the strategy of the Filibuster. It's about shutting down action by perpetual debate, and that is what you are trying to do on this issue

Willie Soon is a physicist at Harvard and a editor of a Peer Review Journal. He's not a low grade scientist. Descrediting him due to his funding disregards the whole peer review process and is the stuff of bleating fanatics. If you want to attack him, the best method would be to review the paper I have linked and publish your own findings.

Hitchens

Akrasia wrote: »

Unfortunately, Fukushima as bad as it is, is nothing compared to what will happen with climate change.
Fukushima has resulted in some nuclear contamination and will probably leave a part of Japanese coastline uninhabitable

Global warming could raise global sea levels by up to 1 metre by the end of the century.

This will devastate coastal cities all around the world. Even with ridiculously expensive coastal defences, there will be huge consequences for many of the most densely populated places on earth. This is the prediction if global temperatures increase by 2 degrees from the 1900 average temperature. If increases are higher than all bets are off. We could see ocean rises of 2 metres or more within the lifetimes of children that are alive today. And sea levels will continue to rise into the 22nd century. To ignore this problem is absolutely insanely short sighted.

take up weather forecasting bud

Akrasia

Filibuster wrote: »

Willie Soon is a physicist at Harvard

No he's not
He works as an astrophysicist for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

He's not a low grade scientist. Descrediting him due to his funding disregards the whole peer review process and is the stuff of bleating fanatics. If you want to attack him, the best method would be to review the paper I have linked and publish your own findings.

He has discredited himself when his previous research was shown to have used a corrupt peer review process.
A previous paper that he co-wrote with Sallie Baliunas was so poor that it caused a Mutiny amongst the editorial staff at the Journal Climate research and the article was eventually repudiated by the publisher

He was accused of misrepresenting the research he was using as sources for his conclusion, and many of the original researchers spoke out and confirmed that Soon and Sallie Baliunas had misrepresented the science to force their own conclusions.

Can I ask you on what basis do you think a single journal article by a disgraced researcher is more convincing than all of the evidence reviewed in the IPCC AR5 report?

Akrasia

Hitchens wrote: »

take up weather forecasting bud

what are you on about?

darkpagandeath

Akrasia wrote: »

what are you on about?

Think he is saying words like if/could are used in the weather game they never use proven/defiantly. Just like the wording of the report most lightly/probably. So when there wrong like last time they can say "oh we have tweaked the model again" this time its probably correct.

Turtwig

Where to begin?

Climate and weather are different things. Weather is the day to day and short term events. Climate is the statistical average of the weather of a region over a long duration. It's like the difference between predicting a the exact swirling pattern of cigarette smoke in a room versus analysing the likelihood of the end position of the smoke spiral in the room. If the experiment was repeated for several days with the room conditions being identical. Estimating the weather is like trying to model in real-time where exactly the particles of smoke are. Estimating the climate is just analysing the frequency of distributions of various smoke spirals.

Soon's paper should never have been published. It showed several misunderstandings of basic climate science and proxies. Not only that but several people he referenced were peeved at how he was misrepresenting their work The paper has been thoroughly thrashed and should be forgotten about. But yet, like that hockey stick, it keeps getting dragged up and I don't know why. I really don't.

Finally, someone remarked about if there being refutable evidence why is there a debate? The thing is as hard as it is to say there isn't really a debate. There's a consensus. However, being pedantic for a second a quick look at human history and the nature of people around you will tell you that humans are more likely to believe what they wish regardless of the actual facts. That's why we have science in the first place. The beauty of science, is that even in climate science you must assume every conclusion to be flawed and wrong. That's why I love reading papers actually challenging our current models. A distinction needs to be drawn though between challenging stuff and just cherry picking crap for the sake of it. The latter is generally frowned upon. Put simply, if the tactic is what you see in creationism and tobacco denial then it's not generally good science. John Christy is some I like. Last I checked he didn't agree with AGW hypothesis either.

donegal__road

riffmongous wrote: »

But there will always be immediate problems that seem or indeed are more serious,we will have to face up to it at some stage

how are we going to change the Sun Spot Cycle?

*by the way, we were almost hit by a large asteroid during the weekend*

kneemos

donegal__road wrote: »

how are we going to change the Sun Spot Cycle?

*by the way, we were almost hit by a large asteroid during the weekend*

Fed up with these asteroids.
Bring back the Kardashian's.

riffmongous

donegal__road wrote: »

how are we going to change the Sun Spot Cycle?

*by the way, we were almost hit by a large asteroid during the weekend*

Didn't you ever watch Sunshine?:p

On a serious note, tell me the effects of the sun spot cycle on the radiative forcing? Quantify it for me. (This was already discussed earlier in the thread)

kc90

kneemos wrote: »

The huge temperature increases we were due to experience.

Could I have a link to this?

kc90

IngazZagni wrote: »

Did you just prove your own point wrong there? So he was under no pressure to arrive at a conclusion that the Government would support. However he was fired after publishing findings that the Government couldn't support?

That's a clear message to other scientists that if you don't publish results that suit us then you won't be asked to do research by us again and thus won't get another nice paycheck.

You're missing the point. That is, most scientists have integrity that supersedes financial gain.

kneemos

kc90 wrote: »

Could I have a link to this?

No.

kc90

kneemos wrote: »

No.

Why? I've never seen a prediction with massive temp rises. Would like to have a look.

darkpagandeath

donegal__road wrote: »

how are we going to change the Sun Spot Cycle?

*by the way, we were almost hit by a large asteroid during the weekend*

I already mentioned the sun and got nowhere as it's an inconvenient fact scientist have no clue what it's long-term cycle effect has on the weather (they can tell you the sun makes the weather and weather effects the climate). All they can do is tell you in the past it was hot and cold. They cant tell you if there was a massive sunspot solar storm cycles in the past when it was hot or cold. They only have very limited data on how the sun functions from the satellites that are monitoring it. The shorter time you monitor something and use that empirical evidence to make massive long-term cycle predictions the more you compound the errors it generates.

LordSutch

karma_ wrote: »

So you align yourself with one mans opinions over the 95% of actual climate scientists who tell you otherwise? That's just crazy.

I respect Bellamy, but he's not a climate scientist . . .

Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:

Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .

May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.

I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics )

darkpagandeath

Hate to point his out in a good post but no one ever thought the earth was flat even as far back as the Greeks for example they new the earth was round

FootShooter

For anyone saying it's the sun:

- http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
- http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg
- http://i.imgur.com/Zip5bLN.png
- Overall contributions to climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Contrib50-65.png

The most compelling evidence that climate change is real and caused by humans is the "fingerprints" of climate change. I haven't seen one denialist even close to refuting the fingerprints. Here's a few articles explaining it:

- http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
- http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
- http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-10-07-guilty-as-charged-proof-of-human-fingerprints-on-climate-change/
- http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/17/global-warming-fingerprints-santer-2013
- http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#.22Fingerprint.22_studies

darkpagandeath

All i see are averages and satellite data is only from the 70s the other temperatures are estimated via core samples and so on and only from 100 years ago odd that they only start there to prove somehow it was industrialisation. What are the figures 100 years before that ? Would the averages be the same I wonder why they have not gone back another 100 years or even 1000 or 10000 funny there fixated on industrialisation. Not saying that it has not contributed in some way.

FootShooter

LordSutch wrote: »

Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:

Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .

May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.

I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics )

Darwin had extensive proof and observations. Bellamy has no legitimate evidence that the climate change today is part of the natural cycle. None of the natural causes of climate change can explain the rapid rate of the changing climate today. There is nothing that indicates Earth should be warming now due to natural causes. According to historical trends, Earth should be in a cooling period right now, but because humans have taken over as the dominant forcing of the climate, Earth is warming.

FootShooter

darkpagandeath wrote: »

All i see are averages and satellite data is only from the 70s the other temperatures are estimated via core samples and so on and only from 100 years ago odd that they only start there to prove somehow it was industrialisation. What are the figures 100 years before that ? Would the averages be the same I wonder why they have not gone back another 100 years or even 1000 or 10000 funny there fixated on industrialisation. Not saying that it has not contributed in some way.

What. Some core samples go back several million years. The data is out there.

This study from Stanford says if the trend continues we would experience in the 21st century changes in climate that are comparable in magnitude to the largest changes the past 65 million years, but is orders of magnitude more rapid.

Also data from ice core samples are not estimates, they are reconstructions. Usually by using isotropic analysis. Quite accurate reconstructions as well, ask any paleoclimatologist.

darkpagandeath

Do you also have the data from observation of the sun for that period and not just temperature ? Can you ask a climatologist what happens before an ice age occurs and give you a definitive answer. Remember were overdue one.

I don't want to come across as a denier but overly averaged out data is not the way to prove there point the model was wrong before (Wild temperature changes and sea level) now they have tweaked it will it be tweaked again in another 10 years as they were wrong again.

FootShooter

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Do you also have the data from observation of the sun for that period and not just temperature ? Can you ask a climatologist what happens before an ice age occurs and give you a definitive answer. Remember were overdue one.

Which period and which data? I already linked to data going back to 1880-1900 showing the correlation between temperature and solar activity. It shows that since 1950, like the IPCC says, 100% of warming has been caused by man.
Read more here: http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

No an ice age is not overdue, as we are in an ice age right now evident by the permanent polar ice sheets.

darkpagandeath

fine i was trying to keep it to terms general people had herd of we are in an interglacial phase (warmer smaller icecaps) and not a glacial one (very large could be close to equator caps) people have heard of iceage and know it goes very cold

Turtwig

LordSutch wrote: »

Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:

Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .

May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.

I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics )

Evolution still has a "Debate" it's called creationism. Climate science is around with almost a century. There was the scientific debate a consensus was reached, like in the case of evolution. That consensus may be wrong but Bellamy is never going to be the one prove it. Svensmark, Christy? Maybe but they need to be given credit they're going about it right way. Simply crying from the high heavens that something is wrong is what the Church did on Galileo and Darwin - and that's what Bellamy, Creationists and "hollow earthists" and several others do. There isn't a debate in science because it's really difficult to have one because there is little suggest natural variation can account for the current observed rates of warming.
Earth's orbit? Nope that's stable.
Cosmic Rays? Not enough.
Volcanic eruptions? Not significant enough.
Cloud dispersal? Controversial but no indication as of yet that's it significant. Current thinking is leading towards clouds contributing to warming.
Earth's tilt? Precession is occurring but won't impact climate for at least another 10,000 years.
Solar Cycle? Even if we get a solar minimum for the next century the current projection is it's not going to be enough to stop the planet warming. It may however slow it a bit.
Natural Greenhouse cycle? When compared to the aeons before the industrial age these shouldn't give rise to variation and rapidity of warming we're observing at the moment.
Ocean currents and tectonic plate movements? Currents have changed slightly and plates movement's are a difficult area to analyse that a currently being looked at. Purely from the standpoint of warming, no matter what's causing it, is imparting more energy on the earth and it's not quite clear what impact this may have on earthquake sensitive zones. Currently the hypothesis is that volcanic eruptions will become more likely and frequency of earthquakes will increase but these will be minor earthquakes leading to one ponder if higher magnitude quakes will actually decrease.

As Sherlock would say once you've eliminated all the factors whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is probably the truth? Again the consensus could be wrong but every facet of our climate has been analysed in detail for almost a century now. And the picture that's emerged is that the climate is warming and currently we can't seem to find a fingerprint that implicates that natural variation is the driving factor.

Rubeter

LordSutch wrote: »

Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:

The skeptics here are the ones who would be arguing against Darwin, with the attitude " I don't like it, it must be wrong".
Nobody argued the Earth was flat (the Greeks accurately measured the circumference 1000's of years ago), the only people who might have thought that would have been the "less enlightened" (think peasant playing in the mud a-la Monty Python).

Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .

May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.

I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics )

You are a skeptic not because there is evidence to back up your point (there isn't any), but because you don't like the idea, it is yourself who has attitudes in common with the Church during Galileo's time or Fundie Christians today.
You are the "dissenting voice" alright but not the one you think, you are the voice opposing rationality. That is how you will go down in history, as one of them.

wexandproud

there was a guy on george hook yesterday from the pro side who when questioned about riseing temperatures, had to concede that we mmmm sort of overestimated the temperature rise and when asked about something else, mmmmm we sort of overestimated that aswell. this is a guy who was adament he was right and we were supposed to believe him. also he said they worked with met eireann, i mean fcuk me they cant tell the weather 3 or 4 days in advance

kneemos

wexandproud wrote: »

there was a guy on george hook yesterday from the pro side who when questioned about riseing temperatures, had to concede that we mmmm sort of overestimated the temperature rise and when asked about something else, mmmmm we sort of overestimated that aswell. this is a guy who was adament he was right and we were supposed to believe him. also he said they worked with met eireann, i mean fcuk me they cant tell the weather 3 or 4 days in advance

That guy is a professor apparently.
He was on before with Michael Graham and he sounded like an unruly teenager.Tantrums were had.

CiDeRmAn

I do find the sceptic side of the climate change issue to be, essentially, anti science.
The larger body of statistics worldwide indicate that global warming is real. It is having a real, deleterious effect on the world around us, right now.
The issue then is, are we to blame.
Certainly there have been periods of warming and cooling in the planets history, these have been caused by any number of natural phenomena. One of these has been the effect of increased vulcanism. This results in large amounts of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, changing the degree that it traps heat.
I don't think anyone is going to dispute that that actually happened.
So now, here we are.
For the part century we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, essentially an artificial volcanic source, and having the same effect.

The weight of scientific opinion is behind this.
A more responsible approach to what we pollute the world with would be prudent, even if global warming didn't exist.

CiDeRmAn

kneemos wrote: »

That guy is a professor apparently.
He was on before with Michael Graham and he sounded like an unruly teenager.Tantrums were had.

Graham is a nasty little right wing fear monger, a wanker as our president put it. Let him get get back to his tea baggers.

kneemos

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I do find the sceptic side of the climate change issue to be, essentially, anti science.
The larger body of statistics worldwide indicate that global warming is real. It is having a real, deleterious effect on itthe world around us, right now.
The issue then is, are we to blame.
Certainly there have been periods of warming and cooling in the planets history, these have been caused by any number of natural phenomena. One of these has been the effect of increased vulcanism. This results in large amounts of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, changing the degree that it traps heat.
I don't think anyone is going to dispute that that actually happened.
So now, here we are.
For the part century we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, essentially an artificial volcanic source, and having the same effect.

The weight of scientific opinion is behind this.
A more responsible approach to what we pollute the world with would be prudent, even if global warming didn't exist.

They have ruined their cause by scaremongering.
Why they would do such a thing I don't know.Perhaps self interest.

CiDeRmAn

If a large portion of the planets population seems resolute in it's desire to increase the amount of pollutants being produced, the US, China, developing nations world wide, and you see where the atmospheric models are going to lead us, some urgency is understamdable.

I have a relation who has travelled in and around the Arctic and Antarctic, from his perspective the changes to these regions are undeniable, with ancient ice sheets being eroded and broken away.

I don't think there is much to be gained, economically, with a sensible approach to atmospheric pollutants in particular, this is why so many groups are unwilling to accept it.
Medium and Long term gain has never been humans strong point.
The consequences of global warming, even at the lower end of expectations, are dire, and thats just the effects we can predict.
Then we get on to the Gulf Streams trajectory being diverted by the influx of cold water, if that's the case we'll wish we had global warming.

kneemos

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

If a large portion of the planets population seems resolute in it's desire to increase the amount of pollutants being produced, the US, China, developing nations world wide, and you see where the atmospheric models are going to lead us, some urgency is understamdable.




I have a relation who has travelled in and around the Arctic and Antarctic, from his perspective the changes to these regions are undeniable, with ancient ice sheets being eroded and broken away.

I don't think there is much to be gained, economically, with a sensible approach to atmospheric pollutants in particular, this is why so many groups are unwilling to accept it.
Medium and Long term gain has never been humans strong point.
The consequences of global warming, even at the lower end of expectations, are dire, and thats just the effects we can predict.
Then we get on to the Gulf Streams trajectory being diverted by the influx of cold water, if that's the case we'll wish we had global warming.

Fair enough.You won't be surprised when people don't believe you then.

CiDeRmAn

kneemos wrote: »

Fair enough.You won't be surprised when people don't believe you then.

Why?

kneemos

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Why?

It's the urgency and exaggeration in the message that has lost you public support.Though no doubt Governments will continue to impose carbon taxes.

Rubeter

kneemos wrote: »

They have ruined their cause by scaremongering.
Why they would do such a thing I don't know.Perhaps self interest.

Oh so you would believe them if they said it's happening but no need to worry.
That's not a very intelligent reason whether to believe something or not (actually it's a stupid one), Personally I make my choice based on the evidence given.