The Climate Change discussion thread

Hey Nabber

I actually agree with you about people who seem to eager to want to convince you of something, I usually want to walk away from them too. In fact, I normally drive people mad with my cynicism. I am aware of sounding like that about climate change.

However, I disagree with you about it just being a theory etc. The link between lung cancer and smoking is a theory which is widely accepted yet ultimately not proven in fact. However, if a doctor told you to stop smoking or you'll get cancer would you say its just a theory ( an argument presented on horizon program last week)? Climatologists are simply the experts in the field. They can be wrong, but when a scientific consensus is reached its pretty unwise to dismiss it. Equally, do you believe oil companies and lobby groups etc aren't funding research projects to counter act research supporting climate research yet nothing significant to date has really been published ( that I am aware of at least - altho Im open to correction). anyway, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but its unfortunate that people who hold that opinion probably are basing it on gut instincts and non peer reviewed and ultimately unreliable sources

oh and by the way, pictures of polar bears and iceburgs are what the media do, it distracts from the legitimacy of the argument, I'm sure some researchers do it but there's always one really!

cagefan wrote: »

Hey Nabber

I actually agree with you about people who seem to eager to want to convince you of something, I usually want to walk away from them too. In fact, I normally drive people mad with my cynicism. I am aware of sounding like that about climate change.

However, I disagree with you about it just being a theory etc. The link between lung cancer and smoking is a theory which is widely accepted yet ultimately not proven in fact. However, if a doctor told you to stop smoking or you'll get cancer would you say its just a theory ( an argument presented on horizon program last week)? Climatologists are simply the experts in the field. They can be wrong, but when a scientific consensus is reached its pretty unwise to dismiss it. Equally, do you believe oil companies and lobby groups etc aren't funding research projects to counter act research supporting climate research yet nothing significant to date has really been published ( that I am aware of at least - altho Im open to correction). anyway, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but its unfortunate that people who hold that opinion probably are basing it on gut instincts and non peer reviewed and ultimately unreliable sources

oh and by the way, pictures of polar bears and iceburgs are what the media do, it distracts from the legitimacy of the argument, I'm sure some researchers do it but there's always one really!

CageFan alsa it's still a theory tho. It's not fact. Another popular theory that was coined 'The Big Bang' has alos lost it's tag of theory, becuse it is popular science.
Like I said, modern science isn't advanced enough to know the sort of impact that humans are having on the planet. Weather in it'self is so unpredictable that we can only predict 48hours max in advance, even then it's not exact.
I have no problem with the idea of the theory, but if you publicly deny 'Global warming' it's like saying I wish the Nazis won.

I can't take global warming seriously. 90% of the people who advocate it don't rally care about the planet, just about what other people think of them for doing it.

It's a mad world....

Nabber wrote: »

I don't want to hear that cow farts are killing butterflys on Chirstmas Island (no actual reference)

And that’s the fundamental reason why so many people refuse to accept the possibility of human-induced global warming – it requires us to change.

Nabber wrote: »

To sum it all up guys. I don't wanna be shown a picture of an ice-berg and be told that this is a sign of global warming.

Then don’t read tabloid newspapers (or at least, don’t take them seriously).

Nabber wrote: »

I don't wanna see a mother Polar Bear with to cubs and be told my car is melting the ice which she hunts on. It's too far fetched. It can't be proven to be humans.

That depends on what you mean by “proven”. We can never be 100% certain about anything, but, based on the available evidence (for example, increasing global temperatures, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration correlating with fossil fuel consumption) we can be pretty damn certain that (a) the planet is getting warmer and (b) we are responsible.

Nabber wrote: »

I say good effort on the theory, lets leave it as theory untill it's proven as fact.

How, in your opinion, can the theory be “proven as fact”? What evidence need come to light in order for this point to be reached in your mind?

Nabber wrote: »

CageFan alsa it's still a theory tho. It's not fact. Another popular theory that was coined 'The Big Bang' has alos lost it's tag of theory, becuse it is popular science.

The Big Bang Theory is a hotly-disputed topic – there are several competing theories in the world of theoretical physics. The Big Bang could certainly not be considered scientific fact.

Nabber wrote: »

Like I said, modern science isn't advanced enough to know the sort of impact that humans are having on the planet.

To take an example from recent history, humans were advanced enough to realise they were depleting the ozone layer. They were advanced enough to know that the combustion of certain fuels will ultimately result in acid rainfall. Why can’t we be advanced enough to know that burning fuels results in an increase in atmospheric CO2 and, subsequently, an increase in mean global temperatures? Seems like pretty simple physics to me.

Nabber wrote: »

Weather in it'self is so unpredictable that we can only predict 48hours max in advance, even then it's not exact.

Weather ≠ Climate

Nabber wrote: »

I have no problem with the idea of the theory, but if you publicly deny 'Global warming' it's like saying I wish the Nazis won.

Nobody here is calling you a Nazi, but you’re not doing a terribly good job of explaining your case against AGW. Thus far, all I can conclude is that you disagree with the theory because you don’t like it.

Malty_T wrote: »

Just a small little thing. Ireland is not the Earth. Observed Local climate trends are neither proof nor disproof of global warming.

I think perhaps the point was that, if one was so inclined, they could verify the global temperature record for themselves by compiling the necessary (generally publically-available) data. Y’know, if you happened to have a few decades of free time.

Malty_T wrote: »

Just a small little thing. Ireland is not the Earth. Observed Local climate trends are neither proof nor disproof of global warming. Land mass is approximately 29% of this planet's surface, Ireland doesn't even have a full percentage so even though your fact is true, in terms of the global trend it can't really say anything. Global cooling could very well lead to localised cooling in some places and warming in others. Of far more significance is the global mean temperature of Earth which has shown a steady increasing warming trend for the last thirty years.:)

Your absolutely right, however we know from Sweeney et al and sweeney and fealy that modelling projects increased temperatures in Ireland of varying degrees for all time lines. I was just pointing out that you can see a warming trend consistent with these projections in observable data but like you said the global mean temperature is a far more robust method for assessing climate change.

Firstly i just want to say that i'm not trying to come down on either side and would like to apologise if i'm straying a bit off topic. It's just that i'm wondering what actions can be taken and what will be the best outcome.

Just for arguments sake we'll say all countries make efforts to align themselves with the global push to produce less carbon. This would mean smaller cars producing less CO2, perhaps coal burning stations are sidelined in favour of gas or some other cleaner fuel. Does all this not just mean that the global supply of fossil fuels will just last longer but ultimately end up being burnt and releasing their potential carbon into the atmosphere but just over a more protracted period. I can't see anything stopping us from burning fossil fuels short of some miraculous alternative becoming available in the very immediate future.

Basically i'm asking is there an alternative model that would meet energy needs instead of the current one where we produce less carbon but intend to go on producing it nonetheless?