"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

LordSutch

I am with the David Bellamy's of this world on this one. Yes we may be eperiencing global warming? (but if so, humans are only partially responsible) for what is the natural warming up and cooling down of the palnet over millennia. Of course, speaking out against the tide can get you into trouble if you are in the public eye, like David Bellamy used to be.

David Bellamy tells of moment he was "frozen out" of BBC. for daring to question "Man made" global warming.

"We’ve done plenty to smash up the planet, but there’s been no global warming caused by man. The UK Met Office this month downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.

Mr Bellamy insisted that he had no regrets about being so outspoken and had not changed his opinions about global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html

wexandproud

there was a very good documentary on the tv last week . i missed the begining of it but there is another group who say climate is realy happening and is just earth going through a natural cycle but is nothing to do with human activity. it is caused by a slight change in the angle of tilt of the earth which happens very slowly. it is caused by a wobble in the earths rotation after a colision with with another planet. they said thats why there has been several ice ages and warmer periods in history , they even had proof that where the sahara is, was once rain forest and they predicted it would be again

inocybe

riffmongous wrote: »

You know there is money in other areas of science too, but somehow it's only the climate physicists who have become corrupted?

And you know there still isn't that many jobs in climate science really, especially compared to standard meteorology, and most of the people working in those jobs could also easily work in other areas of science too

For a long time the best way to get funding in many different disciplines was to tag on something about climate. It's a gravy train, and I see some who travel almost nonstop to conferences, all over the world (but usually really nice places by coincidence). No worries for them about carbon emissions, their worst fear is the hysteria dying down.

Filibuster

inocybe wrote: »

No worries for them about carbon emissions, their worst fear is the hysteria dying down.

The IPCC loves hysteria. After Hurricane Katrina they reported in 07' the world would be inundated with similar hurricanes. Now they've dropped the claim because there was no basis for it. Likewise they reported the Himalayan glaciers would melt away in 30 years on the throwaway remark of a magazine article.

Sh1tbag OToole

Filibuster wrote: »

The IPCC loves hysteria. After Hurricane Katrina they reported in 07' the world would be inundated with similar hurricanes. Now they've dropped the claim because there was no basis for it. Likewise they reported the Himalayan glaciers would melt away in 30 years on the throwaway remark of a magazine article.

Also no fish in the sea by year ____. No set of dire predictions is complete without this thrown in

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

So a large volcanic eruption would be the end of us all then?

Chronic vs acute.

steddyeddy

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

darkpagandeath

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

whitch science the one that says its true
the one that says its not
the one that says it a natural cycle
the one that says its sun spots
the one that says its a coming iceage

i could go on

Filibuster

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

I missed Al Gore's sermon today, what was it about?? The virtues of carbon taxes or "capitalists are bad we need climate justice to repent our sins"??

steddyeddy

Filibuster wrote: »

I missed Al Gore's sermon today, what was it about?? The virtues of carbon taxes or "capitalists are bad we need climate justice to repent our sins"??

Do you see how an increase in CO2 would be a bad thing or do you think it's neutral? What happens when you mix CO2 with water for instance?

steddyeddy

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Also no fish in the sea by year ____. No set of dire predictions is complete without this thrown in

CO2 + H2O (the sea) = what?

Sh1tbag OToole

steddyeddy wrote: »

CO2 + H2O (the sea) = what?

Ballygowan sparkling. The fish don't like that stuff, can't afford it

_Redzer_

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Ballygowan sparkling. The fish don't like that stuff, can't afford it

It destroys the shells of molluscs, severely threatening their numbers. It also causes acid rain, damaging trees and plant life. All the excess CO2 needs to go somewhere. The plants can only absorb so much and they have a limit. They can't just keep taking in more and more CO2 as it rises, no more than we can take more and more vitamin tablets when there's a finite amount we can absorb.

People think more CO2 will be great for the plants, but if you knew anything about them you'd realise that's not exactly true when they can only use a set amount.

steddyeddy

Based on the above post you need to ask yourself has man caused an increase in CO2?

steddyeddy

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Ballygowan sparkling. The fish don't like that stuff, can't afford it

Carbonic acid. Fish don't like that stuff either.

smoking_kills

steddyeddy wrote: »

Based on the above post you need to ask yourself has man caused an increase in CO2?

Yes.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

kupus

Anything humans do, volcanos do better anything humans do volcanos do to. No they cant, yes they can no they cant yes they can
http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm

Akrasia

Global warming denial is so 2001

The debate is over, global warming is real, humans are responsible, we need to figure out a way to solve this problem for our own sake and for future generations.

If you don't believe in global warming, you're not only a global warming denier, you're also a laws of physics denier.
The greenhouse effect is established physics.

The difference between venus and earth is the composition of the atmosphere. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system because the CO2 in it's atmosphere traps the suns heat.

http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/

on earth, we're changing the composition of our atmosphere by adding trillions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere

To all the pea-brains on here who think 'the government' are inventing this crisis so that they can increase taxes, How stupid are you? That makes absolutely no sense. Guess what, if governments want to raise taxes, they raise taxes. They don't need to invent a global conspiracy to justify it.

To all the idiots who think climate scientists are only in it for the money, there are oil industry lobby groups like the heartland institute who will drive a dumper truck of cash to the door of any respected climate scientist who can publish research that disproves global warming. Science does not work the way you think it does.

The conspiracies simply do not make any sense.

Akrasia

Potatoeman

Didnt the whole CFC thing work. People said that wasnt real too. That said its pointless unless you get the major and developing countries to agree.

C14N

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

group of people whose jobs depend on global warming say global warming is a continuing threat?


**** me, that's surprising

Group of people who would have a very hard time dealing with global warming denies it's real? Also very surprising.

It's one of those things where there is a huge public disbelief and I think that consensus causes a lot of people to feel justified in never quite getting on board with the idea, especially since it's not a nice one to deal with. The claims that we're not the problem and such almost always seem to come from armchair scientists and studies funded by conservative lobbies so I'm still having a hard time not believing we're the problem.

kneemos

Been hearing about global warming now for decades.Still no sign of it.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

Been hearing about global warming now for decades.Still no sign of it.

there is none as blind as he who will not see

kupus

Akrasia wrote: »

there is none as blind as he who will not see

YEah do you have one that charts from the beginning of time or do you guys just cherry pick the dates that suit your point.

spank_inferno

Akrasia wrote: »

there is none as blind as he who will not see

Fcuk me!

1 to 2 degrees over 112 years!

Please.... Please somebody fix this by taxing more of my disposable income!

Because a 0.2 degree increase per DECADE will disapper once lobby groups take more of my money.

And I will know that johnny polar bear will sleep soundly as western economies become less competitive as they spend trillions fixing a 1 degree shift over a century.

Kev.OC

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it that you guys don't understand the science or don't believe it?

Neither, actually. I understand the basic scientific principles involved in explaining climate change. And I do think there is a slow change in global temperatures.

Personally, my issue comes with the "global warming is real and it's solely the fault of humans" approach. I remember watching a programme on TV before about the earth. I believe it said something along the lines of;

"If we take the forming of earth as sunrise, and the death of the earth as sunset, it's currently 10:20 am and humans have only been around for one second."

Using the time scale above, if humans have only been around for a second, how long have we been measuring and recording temperature?

I think it is remarkably arrogant of us as a species to think that global warming is all our fault. Are we contributing? Yes, undoubtedly. But if all humans disappeared tomorrow, even though the cycle might slow, it would still go on without us.

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

there is none as blind as he who will not see

Why don't you post a graph of solar activity over the same period with that picture.

Akrasia

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fcuk me!

1 to 2 degrees over 112 years!

Please.... Please somebody fix this by taxing more of my disposable income!

Because a 0.2 degree increase per DECADE will disapper once lobby groups take more of my money.

And I will know that johnny polar bear will sleep soundly as western economies become less competitive as they spend trillions fixing a 1 degree shift over a century.

You really have no clue do you?

Most people would be embarassed to display such a level of ignorance in public

spank_inferno

Filibuster wrote: »

Why don't you post a graph of solar activity over the same period with that picture.

exactly.
If solar activity has also increased marginally over the last century then we have our ball game.

Then apologetic governments can refund all their "carbon" taxes.

Akrasia

Filibuster wrote: »

Why don't you post a graph of solar activity over the same period with that picture.

The full IPCC AR5 report will be published today and they will have a whole section on Solar radiation where they have examined the evidence and concluded that Solar forcing is not the major driver of the global warming experienced so far.

The debate about global warming is over, we seriously need to focus on what we're going to do about it.