Climate change - man made?

[Alan Dale]

removed

[ratty]

According to Bill Bryson these things happen every 1 to 2 million years.

Ice Age me up!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> According to Bill Bryson these things happen every

> 1 to 2 million years.>

> Ice Age me up!

Bill Bryson=God...>:D<

[Brendan]

Can anyone please explain to me what anyone has to gain out of climate change being man made? To what end would thousands of scientists over the last 40 years just be making things up?

The only way I can see that you could get the majority of the world?s scientific community to agree with something that is in fact not true or that there is no evidence of is if there was some ulterior motive.

I can however see many quite obvious reasons why a lot of people would not want it to be so.

[jctg]

Anyone who says we aren't making the earth much hotter is denying the patently obvious. We are defeating the earth's systems of equilibrium. Although there are non-man-made changes in the greenhouse nature of the atmosphere we are unarguably changing the earth's atmosphere and its heat retention. This is superimposed on any naturally-occurring atmospheric change and is exacerbating it beyond anything we can see in the earth's past over a very long time scale.

Also, why would all these diligent hardworking scientists want to waste their lives trying to mislead people? I choose not to believe businessmen pretending to be scientists. When an army of geniuses apply their intellects and devote their lives to research, using the resources of the entire scientific community, and after analyzing more data from more perspectives than a sceptic can enumerate, they converge at a consensus, only someone with a commitment to denial for its own sake could say they are all wrong about everything, but me in my living room, I figured it out.

[jctg]

In terms of vested interests Newton's theory of gravitation isn't controversial but Darwin's theory of evolution is. I wonder why?

[louisiana]

One of my exes had a university-friend who set up a 'think tank' (read lobby group), one of whose main strands of work was arguing against climate change and any human involvement therein. He/his organisation were paid massive amounts of money by UK, US companies business/right-wing foundations, and other organisations to argue this case vociferously. Very clever operator and successful in the generalist media (peak-time TV programmes etc.).

He has in the last couple of years disappeared from the face of the earth. I get people contacting me asking me if they know where he is. Strange that.

[Brendan]

jctg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In terms of vested interests Newton's theory of

> gravitation isn't controversial but Darwin's

> theory of evolution is. I wonder why?

Gravity is a myth perpetuated by those profiting from the airline industry. Open your eyes people it?s all a lie.

[skidmarks]

If we?re not responsible for climate change we are certainly responsible for irreversible damage to the environment we live in. The destruction of rainforests, pollution of our seas, decimation of species. We certainly cannot go on like this, that is a good enough reason for us to change even if you don?t believe in climate change?.perhaps we should call in environment change?

[louisiana]

Alan Dale Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Has anyone seen any convincing evidence that

> mankind is responsible for climate change? If so

> then please post the link.

>

> I have seen lots of evidence that it is happening

> but none that proves we are responsible.

>

> I am concerned that causation and correlation are

> being confused.

Why not take a look at 'Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis' IPCC report, which reports on all the modelling that has been done?

I think they put the likelihood of human causation at 99% (while they also do not reject possible natural contribution).

I somehow do not think the consensus of scientific organsiations around the world would confuse correlation and causation. They are not the Daily Mail.

Given that all the modelling to date has shown that possible physical causes explored to date cannot explain the change, an argument that climate change is not anthropogenic would require a new physical cause to be found to explain the change. What would that cause be? This is not to say that such a cause will not ever be found (there is never certainty).

[Jeremy]

Strangely enough, I've heard quite a few global warming sceptics recently.

I agree with what Louisiana said, organisations with vested interests are prepared to pump lots of money into research, trying to debunk the whole thing. But despite this, their position is still in the minority.

Given that the sceptics are going against the mainstream of the scientific community - and that their views are potentially immeasurably destructive - surely the emphasis should be on them to present the evidence to support *their* case?

[Brendan]

It took the better part of 50 years for some people to accept that smoking causes cancer.

[david_carnell]

In their 2007 report the IPCC found that:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century

The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.

*My emphasis in bold*

The IPCC report summary can be found on here

[HonaloochieB]

jctg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In terms of vested interests Newton's theory of

> gravitation isn't controversial but Darwin's

> theory of evolution is. I wonder why?

I hear there are schools in the US where they refuse to teach about gravitas.

[jctg]

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hear there are schools in the US where they

> refuse to teach about gravitas.

...Freudian slip....?

[charliecharlie]

type 'climate change' into Google and there are 49,800,000 web entries...

here are just a few informed views on man's impact on the environment!

it seems totally bizzare to me that there are some that are still doubting....

I'm with Brendan... why on earth would people be 'making it up'? what would be the benefit???

time to get over the conspiracy theory and start doing your bit!!!

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/climatechange/

http://www.climatechange.eu.com/

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironment/Climatechange/index.htm

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CLSy8IS665oCFZpM5QodvFpJBA

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC740&gclid=CPnewpS-65oCFQKhkwodCFm2CA

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4007935

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/uploads/2007/01/manhattan_global_warmingjpg.jpg

[blah]

even on the most basic level, the deforestation of the planet due to clearing of land for agriculture is hardly insignificant. the fields you see are not natural innit

[louisiana]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Strangely enough, I've heard quite a few global

> warming sceptics recently.

>

> I agree with what Louisiana said, organisations

> with vested interests are prepared to pump lots of

> money into research, trying to debunk the whole

> thing. But despite this, their position is still

> in the minority.

Ah but Jeremy, what they don't do is 'research' (either primary or secondary). What they do is lobbying and PR. That is where the money is spent. For 100-200k, you can buy yourself a very competent mouthpiece plus sidekick with very competent marketing skills, who can organise endless events, lobby MPs, write articles in the mainstream media, and so on. Before you know it, you've got a C4 documentary, an op-ed in he WSJ...

>

> Given that the sceptics are going against the

> mainstream of the scientific community - and that

> their views are potentially immeasurably

> destructive - surely the emphasis should be on

> them to present the evidence to support *their*

> case?

It would indeed be interesting to hear any reasonable or science-based argument from this camp (as opposed to a lone talking head hired from India who is not a scientist and who happens to want to create an international profile. Or a lone non-scientifically qualified ex-MP. etc.)

Edited to insert missing '4'.

[bob]

As we head for 2012 and the great alignment it's gona get worse.

Bob S

[louisiana]

By the way, Alan, golf is one of the main causes of water shortages in a number of countries... B)

[Marmora Man]

I'm a sceptic and have posted to say so before. I am only going to post this one time - because the EDF debate will, in all probability, go nowhere.

While scientists arguing in favour of the climate change model are in the majority - that, of itself, does not indicate unanimity and many of their reports are hedged with more "possibles", likely", "most" etc. Once it was "Global Warming" now it's "Climate Change" as, inconveniently, the actual increase in global temperatures isn't matching the predicted increase of the climate models.

However, sceptic or fan of the concept what troubles many of the "deniers" is the vociferous and (I've used this term before - to Sean McG's disgust) almost evangelical nature of the many supporters - whose invariably unscientific approach seems to be unconcerned with facts, the possibility of technology developing solutions and particularly doom laden; many seem more concerned with the creation of costly and inefficient "green" solutions - such as high carbon, intermittent and inefficient windfarms.

jctg's first para of the first post is polemic not argument and an example of much of the level of debate - not a single fact is presented to support the case. The second paragraph is, slightly, more sensible in drawing upon the scientific community's consensus - but ignores that scientific research is subject to fads, fancies and current enthusiasms - as a result the work can become skewed.

For example - if you are a research scientist seeking funds - which area is likely to be in line with current concerns and thus granted funds - "The Consequences of Climate Change" or "How the current change to climate patterns is associated with sunspot cycles" - I suspect the former will garner more funding.

[jctg]

bob Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As we head for 2012 and the great alignment it's

> gona get worse.

> Bob S

Are you being serious? This 'great alignment' is quite clearly nonsense.

[louisiana]

Indeed blah.

In Spain, there has been massive deforestation over the last few hundred years (which is almost like yesterday in climate terms). Areas that were forested are now almost desert.

I wrote a long piece about this back in early 1998 (wow - 11 years ago) which I will try to salvage from old formats/media (windows pre-Windows 98).

[skidmarks]

The inhabitants of Easter Island can tell you all about the impact of deforestation.

*bites into Brazilian beef burger*

[louisiana]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm a sceptic and have posted to say so before. I

> am only going to post this one time - because the

> EDF debate will, in all probability, go nowhere.

>

> While scientists arguing in favour of the climate

> change model are in the majority

100% of scientific organisations worldwide either support it (the vast majority) or do not object to it (a handful)

- that, of

> itself, does not indicate unanimity and many of

> their reports are hedged with more "possibles",

> likely", "most" etc.

That is the cornerstone of scientific method. It is all about probability. There cannot be any certainty, ever. Do you have any training in statistics? That is what it is all about.

90%, 95%, 99% - all have a particular definition. You will always encounter such words.

Once it was "Global Warming"

> now it's "Climate Change" as, inconveniently, the

> actual increase in global temperatures isn't

> matching the predicted increase of the climate

> models.

>

> However, sceptic or fan of the concept what

> troubles many of the "deniers" is the vociferous

> and (I've used this term before - to Sean McG's

> disgust) almost evangelical nature of the many

> supporters - whose invariably unscientific

> approach seems to be unconcerned with facts, the

> possibility of technology developing solutions and

> particularly doom laden; many seem more concerned

> with the creation of costly and inefficient

> "green" solutions - such as high carbon,

> intermittent and inefficient windfarms.

>

> jctg's first para of the first post is polemic not

> argument and an example of much of the level of

> debate - not a single fact is presented to support

> the case. The second paragraph is, slightly, more

> sensible in drawing upon the scientific

> community's consensus - but ignores that

> scientific research is subject to fads, fancies

> and current enthusiasms - as a result the work can

> become skewed.

>

But you don't respond to my posts? (which don't supply you with such ammunition, perhaps?)