Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Climate Change or Global Warming as it used to be called.

13567…12

Comments

  • #62
    banshee_bones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,160 ✭✭✭✭banshee_bones


    Temple_Grandin wrote: »
    My major issue with this is that the research efforts going into anthropogenic global warming could be used to tackle the REAL issues that our world faces. Namely the massive overpopulation problem. This is a measurable threat to world security as there are less and less resources to go around and it doesn't get in the same league of press as AGW.


    The tripling of the world’s population growth since 1960 has received little public attention the past decade and the subject of population growth has all but disappeared from the media in the past 25 years.[FONT=&quot][/FONT] The silence on the subject began at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil in 1992 where the United States administration of George Bush, nervous of the coming election, vetoed references to overconsumption, and the Vatican and the antiabortion lobbies removed references to overpopulation. Some other reasons on this lack of media attention also include: actual fertility decline in the developed countries as well as a number of the developing ones; well justified attention to the impact of high levels of consumption on the environment; an implicit welcome by conservative political and religious forces to reduced needs for family planning; the tragedy of AIDS dominating international health concerns; and the 1994 Cairo conference’s focus on examples of coercive family planning while nearly ignoring the coercion of women forced into unwanted childbearing.
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

    (source:Campbell, M. (2007). Why the silence on population? Population and Environment 28: 237) [FONT=&quot][/FONT]



  • #63
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Bob_Harris wrote: »
    As you said it's a matter of perception on what you would regard a "great war". I personally regard a "great war" as a world wide war which involves many countries, has popular support (masses of people volunteering), and has clear definitions of who is right and who is wrong.

    The wars you are referring to lack some or all of those qualities.


  • #64
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    bleg wrote: »
    I'd be inclined to believe the findings of the scientific community on this. I trust the scientific method has been properly applied and the conclusions drawn from it are correct (i.e. that human activities are causing climate change).

    I fail to see how people can ignore the scientific community's findings on one matter but completely trust them on another (such as healthcare). Honestly people there is not some scientific elite out there that are hiding facts and trying to trick you.
    There is no scientific community consensus on the matter. Some scientists say we're causing climate change just as many say the opposite.
    bleg wrote: »
    I stress again that there is no scientific elite out there that are using cloak and dagger methods to hide the truth. The people working on climate change are ordinary, everyday people just like you and me. The same is true of any scientific field.
    There are many young scientists and companies that are paid to prove this or that. Their constantly contradicting each other because they're not unbiased. If someone pays you to find evidence that we are causing climate change you can quite easily do that, it doesn't make it true because it's not the full picture because you haven't shown the evidence to the contrary.


  • #65
    banshee_bones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,160 ✭✭✭✭banshee_bones


    ScumLord wrote: »
    There is no scientific community consensus on the matter. Some scientists say we're causing climate change just as many say the opposite.

    There are many young scientists and companies that are paid to prove this or that. Their constantly contradicting each other because they're not unbiased. If someone pays you to find evidence that we are causing climate change you can quite easily do that, it doesn't make it true because it's not the full picture because you haven't shown the evidence to the contrary.


    Would you not call the IPCC a scientific community? The scientists for the IPCC also work on a voluntary basis.


  • #66
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭bleg


    ScumLord wrote: »
    There is no scientific community consensus on the matter. Some scientists say we're causing climate change just as many say the opposite. There are many young scientists and companies that are paid to prove this or that. Their constantly contradicting each other because they're not unbiased. If someone pays you to find evidence that we are causing climate change you can quite easily do that, it doesn't make it true because it's not the full picture because you haven't shown the evidence to the contrary.

    National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
    Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    The funniest part of this thread is you can be guarenteed that many of the 'omg ITS ALL A LIEEEEEE' crowd are the same clowns that scoff at america over intelligent design.

    MY HARD-OF-THINKING IS OK BECAUSE ITS NOT ABOUT GOD, OK!">?£?"!£!>£>!"


  • #68
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Lets say it is happening and the climate is warming up? So? The planet has been much wamer in the past with much higher CO2(and O2) levels. We're in quite a cold period at the moment. One of the (many)reasons Jurassic park couldn't happen unless you gave a T rex a woolly jumper and an aqualung.

    Increased CO2 would increase plant growth, crop yields for a start. I agree with pervious posters that population growth is a far bigger issue. That and more noxious stuff than CO2. CO2 is not the boogie man its' made out to be. Water vapour is a bigger engine of the greehouse effect for a start. A much bigger one.

    Some of the stuff talked about this is incredibly unsceintific. The huge numbers re increase in sea levels is one. I watched a programme narrated by David Attenborough last year IIRC and there was much wirnging of hands. Some of it daft. One example. They mentioned that train tracks in britain would buckle with the heat as it increased. Now the hype fuelled increases were talking about heat like southern europe. Well I've been on a fair few trains in southern europe and didnt notice buckled tracks.:rolleyes:

    Lose the hype and concentrate on the real issues and the actual scientific issues. over population, drop in ecological diversity, more dangerous pollution etc.

    Science is wonderful, but science has fashions, memes and well educated idiots too who cant' always see the wood from the trees and defend their patch with vigour. I remember a time when they were worried about global cooling and a new ice age. At a time when the hottest summers on record were being recorded.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #69
    YFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,712 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    El Siglo wrote: »
    We're changing the climate, the correlation is extremely strong so it is, proving causation will decades but simply looking at the graphs between GDP, CO2 & Fossil Fuel Use, there is an inherent link. Also, we're producing more Carbon12, this is an isotope of regular Carbon (atoms are divided into isotopes depending on their neutrons and protons etc...). The data from the post war A-Bomb tests have shown that the level of Carbon14 (this is the final stage of Carbon, last thing carbon becomes, i.e. really old carbon) is being diluted with new Carbon (Carbon12) which is only produced when fossil fuels are used (i.e. fossil fuels are geologic stores of Carbon), thus more of this Carbon produced is directly linked to fossil fuel combustion. Again I would recommend reading the IPCC reports on this. So, what I'm saying is the level of Carbon is increasing, but not the level of natural Carbon (i.e. depleted Carbon like Carbon14) no the level of Carbon12 is increasing and this is directly related to fossil fuel combustion as that is the only way that this carbon is stored. So in fact we're not just getting an increase in Carbon, but an increase in the wrong kind of Carbon. I could recommend readings for ye but I couldn't be arsed. In any case I wouldn't call it climate change anymore, I would call it environmental change and anthropogenic activities are contributing to it, it's that simple.

    Ok I stand corrected
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-7.1.html


  • #70
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    bleg wrote: »
    National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
    Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
    I really can't see an organisation called "the intergovernmental panel on climate change" being all that impartial. It sounds like an organisation set up to prove climate change and our part in it. There is no impartial information on that website, it's whole premise is that climate change is happening and we're responsible. Even if the scientist are working as volunteers the people giving them orders are being paid handsomely and would probably say just about anything to keep there organisation in pocket.

    Any organisation that has government and climate change in it's title cannot be considered impartial. Try again.


  • #71
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Moriarty wrote: »
    The funniest part of this thread is you can be guarenteed that many of the 'omg ITS ALL A LIEEEEEE' crowd are the same clowns that scoff at america over intelligent design.

    MY HARD-OF-THINKING IS OK BECAUSE ITS NOT ABOUT GOD, OK!">?£?"!£!>£>!"

    I don't think a lot of sceptics are saying it's all a lie. I think that they're bemoaning the shoddy science that has so far prevailed. We are all aware of numerous factors increasing CO2 production. The next step is how to cut that with private sector enterprise, decent studies and a calm look at what the problem actually IS and how far reaching it is so it can be fixed. Sensationalising the whole debate and pumping it full of bad science sort of takes away from the whole argument for me. It's a bit like a Michael Moore movie.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I don't think it's an all out lie I just think it's like trying to fix a light switch while the kitchen is on fire.

    CO2 is the least of our worries and I think at this stage putting so much time and effort into something that we know we can't fix is just an attempt to distract the consumer from the real problems.


  • #73
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭bleg


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I really can't see an organisation called "the intergovernmental panel on climate change" being all that impartial. It sounds like an organisation set up to prove climate change and our part in it. There is no impartial information on that website, it's whole premise is that climate change is happening and we're responsible. Even if the scientist are working as volunteers the people giving them orders are being paid handsomely and would probably say just about anything to keep there organisation in pocket.

    Any organisation that has government and climate change in it's title cannot be considered impartial. Try again.


    Try opening the article or actually reading what I quote. It gives a nice long list of the well respected scientific bodies that have similar findings to the IPCC and endorse what they say.

    Try even reading the last line:
    Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.


    As for your final point are you seriously suggesting that there is an elite at the top of the climate change scientific community who are able to dictate to scientists working independently all over the world to come to the same conclusion? Or as you say, ordering them to say this or that. You could be onto something there, I suggest you go talk to these guys: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576


  • #74
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    some people hold that there is a conspiracy surrounding global warming.
    how will governments benefit from this conspiracy?
    what's the point of the conspiracy?


  • #75
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    bleg wrote: »

    As for your final point are you seriously suggesting that there is an elite at the top of the climate change scientific community who are able to dictate to scientists working independently all over the world to come to the same conclusion? Or as you say, ordering them to say this or that. You could be onto something there, I suggest you go talk to these guys: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576
    Not so much the scientific community but government organisations and corporations that fund these scientist certainly have in the past come up with biased scientific data to push their point. The likes of a company like Shell can quite easily get a scientist to say just about anything and while he might not be lying he's just not giving the full picture. It happens all the time even with governments where they want to push an agenda. When scientists do research and hand their data over to the people in charge, those people pick and chose what the media hears.

    You seem to be implying that every scientist in the world agrees that we are causing climate change but your getting all your information from groups that depend on the theory for their finance. It's just not true that every scientist in the world agrees we are causing climate change there are dozens of theories but only one is backed by government and industry. It's the one that results in a tax on a naturally occurring gas that's vital to life on earth and allows us to go on polluting and wiping out every natural environment for commercial gain.

    No matter how many summits or laws or taxes we introduce nothing will fix climate change. Nothing will stop the climate changing and it seems by the time we realise that earth will be a polluted tip that will cost a fortune to grow anything in and where diverse ecosystems have been distroyed to line the pockets of a few.


  • #76
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    If you think our over harvesting of natural resources is not damaging, you are stupid.


  • #77
    indough
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    If it is natural nothing we do will have any effect.

    i dont really understand why you would think this


  • #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    banshee_bones wrote: »
    Would you not call the IPCC a scientific community? The scientists for the IPCC also work on a voluntary basis.

    Just because a group of scientists work on a voluntary basis, doesn't exclude them from having an agenda or prejudices that will influence their findings. Volunteers are often more dedicated because they have the passion that paid reseachers/scientists don't have.


  • #79
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    Scientists are objective, they don't let bias contravene results (results are results), this has been the case for a heliocentric universe, relativity etc... etc... scientists are the last people to have any kind of a bias affect the reality of the results.


  • #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    wudangclan wrote: »
    some people hold that there is a conspiracy surrounding global warming.
    how will governments benefit from this conspiracy?
    what's the point of the conspiracy?


    Carbon Tax!


  • #81
    indough
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    El Siglo wrote: »
    Scientists are objective, they don't let bias contravene results (results are results), this has been the case for a heliocentric universe, relativity etc... etc... scientists are the last people to have any kind of a bias affect the reality of the results.

    this has got to be at least mildly sarcastic


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    El Siglo wrote: »
    Scientists are objective, they don't let bias contravene results (results are results), this has been the case for a heliocentric universe, relativity etc... etc... scientists are the last people to have any kind of a bias affect the reality of the results.

    What? Are you serious? There is no such thing as a paper without bias. I spend most of the time reading scientific papers and it's really really easy to design a study that is inherently skewed to get the results you want. From study design to statistical manipulation to selective information release there are literally hundreds of ways to create a seemingly correct paper that is actually rife with bias.

    In the pharmaceutical industry they sometimes pay to keep studies running indefinitely if they are not getting the desired results. If the study never ends they never have to publish the results, and sometimes that's actually cheaper than the loss of sales.


  • #83
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    El Siglo wrote: »
    Scientists are objective, they don't let bias contravene results (results are results), this has been the case for a heliocentric universe, relativity etc... etc... scientists are the last people to have any kind of a bias affect the reality of the results.
    Are you sure your not thinking of Vulcan's?


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Langston Zealous Skepticism wrote: »
    If you think our over harvesting of natural resources is not damaging, you are stupid.

    It is very damaging to the local environment, that there is absolutly no doubt, in the same way as deforrestation and construction of infrastructure change the local environment.

    The real issue is how much damage is it doing to the global environment - relative to natural events, like solar activity or volcanic eruptions.

    One major volcanic eruption will throw as much matter into the atmosphere as several years of human consumption of fossil fuels, causing major (and reversable) climate change.

    Look up " the year a without summer", a slight dimming of the sun (like the event that appears to be unfolding right now) will put us into a "mini Ice age".

    There are two reasons that I can see for the "climate change" advocates are pushing for changes in our lifestyle, ignoring the "green - treehugger" issue.

    1, to raise taxes - carbon tax to bail out government debt.
    2, to reduce consumption of finite resources - I support this part of the equation.


  • #85
    banshee_bones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,160 ✭✭✭✭banshee_bones


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Just because a group of scientists work on a voluntary basis, doesn't exclude them from having an agenda or prejudices that will influence their findings. Volunteers are often more dedicated because they have the passion that paid reseachers/scientists don't have.

    Im sure that is the case but imo it can't be easy to get thousands of scientists from all over the world to all agree on the one thing.


  • #86
    indough
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    they dont all agree on this though


  • #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    banshee_bones wrote: »
    Im sure that is the case but imo it can't be easy to get thousands of scientists from all over the world to all agree on the one thing.


    The question you need to ask yourself is, what opinion did these scientists hold before they started working on this project, that goes for the "sceptics" as well.

    I believe that many go into this already believing/not believing (delete as applicable) in global warming climate change and will search until they find the "proof" to support their argument without playing "devils advocate" to reduce the risk of being led up the garden path.

    The fact that the phrase global warming had to be replaced by climate change is sufficient proof to me that the original research was flawed.


  • #88
    mmmmmmm.......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭mmmmmmm.......


    what a joke,i cant beleive so many people beleive the mass burning of fossil fuels doesnt affect weather patterns.im not even bothering arguing with this crap.better throw the enviromental engineering degree in the bin as well-ha!!!


  • #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mmmmmmm....... wrote: »
    what a joke,i cant beleive so many people beleive the mass burning of fossil fuels doesnt affect weather patterns.im not even bothering arguing with this crap.better throw the enviromental engineering degree in the bin as well-ha!!!

    No one is saying it doesn't affect the climate, just that it isn't the only thing affecting the climate, in fact I believe the affect of human activity is quite minor. The burning of the Kuwait oil fields in 1992 being the exception.


  • #90
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    El Siglo wrote: »
    Scientists are objective, they don't let bias contravene results (results are results), this has been the case for a heliocentric universe, relativity etc... etc... scientists are the last people to have any kind of a bias affect the reality of the results.

    Unfortunately this is not the case. Many scientists and their studies are ruled by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Parts of results that indicate one thing are often excluded so that scientists can prove what they set out to prove. This notion of the objective scientist hasn't been true for a long time. And even with a dedicated scientist he can just be looking at the wrong thing or at too small or narrow a data set. Dedication does not suddenly imply that somebody is automatically correct. Hell, priests are dedicated.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Carbon Tax!

    this is the bit i don't get.
    a few people have come on here and said the governments are making up stories about global warming to that they can raise taxes.
    presumably,continuing the conspiracy theory,the governments won't spend these taxes on fighting global warming,(because they've made it up).so all these different governments are going to siphon these taxes for other purposes and hope we don't notice.


Advertisement
Advertisement