Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
01-04-2012, 09:36   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Eh, yes - I just explained why: the poll doesn't support your claim that many people "no longer believe what the IPCC says".
What interests me about the polling is what it it does show, which is a significant shift in opinion, and that shift says that "48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated"

I don't imagine that those people believe the IPCC but disbelieve everyone else, as the poll doesn't say, but if you want to argue that case then I'll certainly try to facilitate you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
And I'm also wondering why it matters?
As we have seen in Queensland in the last week, the Labour government was annhilated in the polls, attributed largely to its commitment to a carbon tax.

Why it matters is because individuals have votes. And if a large number of individuals, as the polls show, believe that the threat from global warming is exaggerated, then they are likely to do as the voters in Queensland has just done, and kick any political party who wants to impose taxes on them in the name of climate change.

I think I am right to say that Australia is the first country in the world where unpopular environmental policies have become a political game-changer, and that is why it matters.
elmex is offline  
Advertisement
01-04-2012, 16:08   #32
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
What interests me about the polling is what it it does show, which is a significant shift in opinion, and that shift says that "48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated"
Exaggerated by who?
djpbarry is offline  
13-04-2012, 18:02   #33
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Exaggerated by who?
I don't think that question was asked by the pollsters, and I guess you might try mailing them if you want to know the answer to your question.

For me its the fact that so many people now seem to think the case is exaggerated which is the salient point, and how that appears now to be beginning to be translated into using the ballot box to punish politicians who use the issue to raise taxes.

Certainly in Ireland the Green party was more than decimated in the last general election, and in hindsight I wonder did that factor play a part, or whether that has anything to do with the perception in the Irish electorate that the Green Party was seen by some (growing) part of the electorate to be a party not in touch with this apparently growing phenomenon. Certainly in Queensland it seems to have been the major contributing factor to the election results there.

I suppose a partial answer to your question is that the issue is seen to be exaggerated by politicians, but I don't think that's the answer you wanted.
elmex is offline  
17-04-2012, 03:50   #34
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 56,023
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
What I said was that the numbers of those who no longer believe it are increasing. Your doubts seem to contradict the findings of a gallup poll last year, which concluded “…Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question…”

It would be good to hear the argument you say you would argue, given the evidence from Gallup that, since 1997, 17% more Americans believe that the threat is generally exaggerated.
So? 4 in 10 Americans also believe in Creationism, puritanically. We're talking about a question of science here, not whether or not Americans want to allow Gays to marry or Pot to be legalized: those are pretty much down to your personal opinions. Your belief in matters of science is really more of a question of how much attention you're paying. I have few doubts that most of the people who believe climate change is a hoax also believe in Creationism.

Last edited by Overheal; 17-04-2012 at 03:54.
Overheal is offline  
17-04-2012, 07:43   #35
BettyM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 62
What about the English survey I mentioned, or the situation in Queensland in Australia?

Your own doubts are interesting, but not an actual argument either way. When those same americans vote against a government who tries to impose taxes on them in the name of climate change, or green taxes, it will be of little consolation to that ousted government to believe that those same americans do, or don't, also believe in creationism.

This phenomenon is not just happening in the USA, based on evidence, and not just based on personal beliefs.
BettyM is offline  
Advertisement
03-08-2012, 10:37   #36
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Some of you may be familiar with a Prof. Richard Muller - he's definitely been mentioned on this forum in the past. I was familiar with him as a prominent figure who supported the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published criticisms of Michael Mann's work.

Well, it would appear Prof. Muller has done an about turn:
Quote:
A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.

In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."

Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers.

Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

Of course, the important point here is not that a "sceptic" has had a change of heart, but rather that the anthropogenic global warming theory has once again been demonstrated to be valid. This is perhaps even more significant in this case because the aim of the study (or the aim of many of its backers, at least) was to achieve precisely the opposite - to discredit the idea that global warming has been caused by humans.

Last edited by djpbarry; 07-08-2012 at 09:44.
djpbarry is offline  
25-08-2012, 12:07   #37
Tsarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
"Limit is Out of the Window"

A former chair of the IPCC - Professor Watson FRS - has stated that the notion of keeping to the UN-Kyoto Proposed 2C limit is unfeasible. This follows the apparently supportive US spokensman Stern who, a few weeks' ago, suggested that the proposed 2C limit was an obstacle to negotiations.

When someone like Professor Watson says publically that warming will be 3 or even up to 5C, the climate crisis has clearly passed a significant point.

ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194

Last edited by Tsarina; 25-08-2012 at 12:09. Reason: reference added
Tsarina is offline  
09-09-2012, 15:55   #38
dolanbaker
Moderator
 
dolanbaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24,702
After the Warming (James Burke 1989)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0139930450081#
Quote:
1:46:59
An early documentary about global warming. It theorizes and tells facts about the effects global weather has had on our history. It then theorizes a lot more about its effects on our future and especially the way in which we will overcome it's bad effects. If you don't mind some, not proofed, theorizing from a reasonably intelligent guy, and are interested in our climate, this is probably a must see. I like it.
A fascinating "lookback" from the future, but from a current perspective it's interesting to note how much slower things happened than were forecast but also just how much appears to be on track!
dolanbaker is offline  
08-10-2012, 14:32   #39
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
A couple of stories I came across in a recent issue of New Scientist.

First of all, a recent report published by a Spanish organisation (DARA) states that climate change is already harming the global economy:
Quote:
According to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor – a report by Spanish non-profit organisation DARA – in 2010 climate change shaved 1.6 per cent off global gross domestic product. The figure was calculated by adding the harmful effects of climate change to the problems of the carbon-based economy, such as air pollution.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-economy.html

I've not yet read the report in question, but I am sceptical that such conclusions can be made.

In the same issue, more evidence that we may be in a "grand" solar minima:
Quote:
WAITING for solar fireworks to reach a grand finale next year? Um, sorry, looks like you already missed them. Structures in the sun's corona indicate that the peak in our star's latest cycle of activity has been and gone, at least in its northern hemisphere.

...

This bizarre asymmetry strengthens a theory that has been bubbling among sun watchers for the past few years: our star is headed for hibernation. Having the sun's outbursts turned off for a while would provide a better baseline for studying how they influence Earth's climate.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...missed-it.html

If the sun is indeed going to sleep for a time, I'm not sure whether this can be viewed as positive or negative. On the plus side, it should provide some breathing space for us to deal with increasing global temperatures. The downside, however, is that it may foster complacency.
djpbarry is offline  
Advertisement
20-01-2013, 08:49   #40
SiegfriedsMum
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
As the now seemingly annual chaos caused by snowfalls in the south of England is upon us, I turn to my scrap book where I find a headline from 2000's Independent, headlining "“Snowfall now just a thing of the past”, quoting David Viner, of East Anglia’s celebrated Climatic Research Unit, predicting that falls of snow would, within a few years, become “a very rare and exciting event”.

Having followed the debate now for many years, and having read many books, papers and followed many blogs and the like, it's really only possible to come to two conclusions which are;

(i) No one can accurately predict what the temperature will be in 1 month's time, let alone in 100 years time and

(ii) All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.
SiegfriedsMum is offline  
20-01-2013, 09:24   #41
Macha
Moderator
 
Macha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
Having followed the debate now for many years, and having read many books, papers and followed many blogs and the like, it's really only possible to come to two conclusions which are;

(i) No one can accurately predict what the temperature will be in 1 month's time, let alone in 100 years time and
Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures. It is an explanation of temperature changes we are already experiencing. Therefore, the trend is what's important. Also, I don't think anyone is claiming to predict exact temperatures in 100 years.

Quote:
(ii) All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.
By whom?
Macha is offline  
20-01-2013, 09:45   #42
SiegfriedsMum
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macha View Post
Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures. It is an explanation of temperature changes we are already experiencing. Therefore, the trend is what's important. Also, I don't think anyone is claiming to predict exact temperatures in 100 years.

Is your argument that the computer modelling so widely discussed a few years ago did not predict a rise in temperatures? The computer models were not, in fact, set up to explain temperature changes we were already experiencing, but to predict changes in the future. Were you really not aware of that?

I wasn't the person who predicted that snow would be a thing of the past, that was said by someone who was a leading proponent of the computer models, and I came across his prediction in my scrap book and repeated it here for everyone to make up their own mind on the accuracy of that individual prediction.
SiegfriedsMum is offline  
20-01-2013, 17:34   #43
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.
Complete nonsense. The projections detailed in the IPCC's first report back in 1990 have been shown so far to have been largely accurate:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1763
djpbarry is offline  
29-01-2013, 21:53   #44
paddy147
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,349
I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.
paddy147 is offline  
Thanks from:
29-01-2013, 22:01   #45
dolanbaker
Moderator
 
dolanbaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24,702
I still try to keep an open mind on what percentage of the recent warming is manmade, I don't know what that percentage is but it is almost certainly between 20 & 80%, there is absolutely no way that all the changes man has made to the planet & all the pollution have no effects and at the same time there's no way that it could all be down to man!

We still have the solar sunspot count well below average for the last century which is expected to be followed by a "Maunder minimum" type effect to really muddy the waters, that could really screw up the climate over the next couple of decades.
dolanbaker is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet