Having followed the global warming debate for a number of years. I have to conclude three things.
1)The scientific debate on AGW was over long ago, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus pointing to AGW. I don’t feel the need to debate the science as I am not qualified to and the worlds brightest and best climate scientists have already proven beyond reasonable doubt that AGW is occurring.
2)However no amount of evidence will convince the vast majority of sceptics that AGW is occurring. Without wanting to offending anyone, I think 90% of sceptics are ignorant, they refuse to read and understand the scientific evidence and just stick their heads in the sand and hope it will all go away. The remaining 10 % is made up of people who have taken time to read up on global warming yet actually believe the nonsensical sceptic lies. Within this group is a smaller minority of fundamentally dishonest people who are paid by oil companies and others to disseminate all the false information.
3)As the evidence pointing towards AGW has stacked up over the years, so there has been a gradual retreat by the sceptics. This is a five stage process:
a)GW doesn’t exist b)It might exist but there's not enough proof, so we shouldn’t do anything about it c) OK, it is happening but if so it's nothing to do with us d) Yes, it really is happening, but it's much too late to do anything about it and anyway, nothing you do personally will make any difference e) AGW does exist, let’s blame the Chinese
As they retreat they spout out a series of ever more ridiculous theories such as it’s all caused by cows, we are on the brink of an ice age, it’s a plot to hold back Africa, it’s all a big communist conspiracy blah blah blah.
In the end everyone likes a debate but for those of you that do believe in AGW you are wasting your breath and for those of you that don’t, hmm maybe you need to get out more, try switching off your computer and finding a new hobby. Good luck.
From where i am standing the believers in man made GW are the the ignorant.They have chosen to blindly follow the enviromentalist anti capitalism,the "we hate america brigade". Common sense says the SUN dictates our climate,to believe anything else without conclusive proof is frankly ridiculous. One thing is certain, our world is dying,get over it.*NEWS the sun will burn out one day!!
"nature" created us in the hope we will USE the earths resources to actually save LIFE, by being in a position to vacate this piece of star dust we live on. Poncing around worrying about C02 levels is the least of our worries in the longterm.
Common sense says the SUN dictates our climate,to believe anything else without conclusive proof is frankly ridiculous.
Does it also say that if you forget to turn your gas fire off in your lounge then eventually the lounge will get hot enough to set the settee on fire. If so, then review your "common sense".
quote:
"nature" created us in the hope we will USE the earths resources to actually save LIFE, by being in a position to vacate this piece of star dust we live on. Poncing around worrying about C02 levels is the least of our worries in the longterm.
Well the only way of doing so is to ensure civilisation survives for at least another couple of hundred years. Unfortunately by then we'll be too busy rebuilding our cities on higher ground because Greenland will be melting quite quickly by then.
Does it also say that if you forget to turn your gas fire off in your lounge then eventually the lounge will get hot enough to set the settee on fire
You really believe that ?
Try again, bad response.You should think things through before you post rubbish like that.
Greenland will do well without its ice and the rest of us will cope just fine,being humans we can adapt. Wasting resources and limiting lifestyle choices on the basis of man made CO2 is not the way to go.Its just a shame the whole GW industry has managed to suck so many of you in that we are now stuck with this massive waste for many years to come.
You said that it is common sense that the sun dictates our climate - it may be common sense, but it misses the point. The sun keeps us warm, but hasn't varied much in the last 50 years, so the climate should be stable. However, the climate is not currently stable, and the reason for this is most likely the CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Over the next billion years or so the sun will steadily get hotter to a point when it is too hot for life on earth, but that's quite a long way off.
quote:
Greenland will do well without its ice and the rest of us will cope just fine,being humans we can adapt.
Greenland may do well without its ice, but if all its ice melts, sea levels will rise about 10 metres. So we humans may adapt, but we won't have any time to spend on vacating this planet, as you suggest, because we will be busy relocating civilisation to higher ground.
Dont bother trying to explain your views to me Steve, it is not my intention to convince you of mine. We are both grownup people who can form our own opinions. I will carry on feeling that the world is doing just fine and walk with a genuine smile on my face. You however will be worrying away while our carbon footprints get ever lager over the following years. One day,if you are lucky you may find the proof you seek and feel justified,but my money is on the proof not being of your liking and you realising how you were suckered by the well educated ignorant people. ALT out.
I wonder why people feel the need to have their say on a discussion forum even though they don't care what other people think and they don't care that they're wrong. How many more decades does the information have to be there before people realise that it is not going to conveniently go away. Ah well.
The length of time information is available does not make it more valid,if its wrong, it is wrong. "they dont care that they are wrong" << that gave me the biggest laugh of the day so far, thanks. You really should "wonder" a bit deeper imo, the answer is there for you,you just need a slight change in perspective and all will become clear.
Common sense says the SUN dictates our climate,to believe anything else without conclusive proof is frankly ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but a comment like the above shows you are not interested in finding out any more. The physics behind global warming theory is very, very basic indeed. To assume that it won't happen without conclusive proof is the more ridiculous position to take.
Apologies, JL - please view my comment in the context of the exchange with ALDT. The word "ridiculous" was used because that is what ALDT used, and I was actually trying to draw ALDT into further, more polite, discussion since he has stated that his mind is closed.
I stick by my view stated elsewhere numerous times that the science that says CO2 keeps the planet warm is very basic. It is reasonable and rational to assume that more CO2 equals more warming, and that CO2 is the chief cause of the last 30 years' warming. It is not reasonable to assume it is the sun, because our measurements of the sun are sufficiently accurate.
My position only really differs from yours insofar as I think the "sun influence" theories have not been treated with the same amount of research as the AGW theories. There needs to be research into any possible magnifying effects (equivalent to "positive feedbacks" in the AGW world). In the current climate (saw the pun too late - sorry) I cannot see that this funding would be forthcoming through government sources, and any research funded otherwise would not be believed by the AGW-ers.
I have little doubt that CO2 does contribute (indeed, the planet would be very cold without it!), but the further extent to which it can do so is a matter for some legitimate debate.
What I conclude is that a rise of at most 0.8 degrees Celsius over 150 years is not enough to interest me (and I could rise an argument - purely academically - challenging even the 0.8!). Everything else is speculation based on modelling.
Since statistics and modelling are major parts of my job, I know all too well the limitations of modelling, and I am not going to be panicked by models which leave out quite large, and potentially very important, parts of the system.
By all means spend more money on the research necessary to include these elements in the system - then I might be more open to persuasion!
Steve,the sun has more than just a "warming" effect on the Earth.
Well the cosmic ray theory seems to have been pretty conclusively debunked for now - the guy who promoted it seems to be very quiet about all the criticism it is getting (maybe till he sells a few of his books). So what are you proposing?
Its either conclusive or it isnt? So you think the suns only possible effect on our climate is from the heat it sends us ? I "propose" you have a very simplistic view when it suits you. Can you seriously blame the guy for being quiet ? Im sure he just cba to defend himself over and over again to the usual suspects. I hope he sells many books,because there isnt much money available to look at the alternatives to MANMADE GW theory as it is not the IN thing to do.
I was being polite. Peter Laut wrote a paper in 2004 which when I read I felt he was implicitly accusing Svensmark of scientific fraud, and also provided good evidence to suggest Svensmark's theories had a number of flaws. Laut wrote another paper a year later whose title implies it is more explicit in its accusations, though I've not read it yet. As far as I'm aware, Svensmark has not answered these criticisms and has reserved his efforts to write non-peer reviewed articles in astronomy mags.
My position only really differs from yours insofar as I think the "sun influence" theories have not been treated with the same amount of research as the AGW theories. There needs to be research into any possible magnifying effects (equivalent to "positive feedbacks" in the AGW world). In the current climate (saw the pun too late - sorry) I cannot see that this funding would be forthcoming through government sources, and any research funded otherwise would not be believed by the AGW-ers.
Nobody is claiming the climate models are perfect, they are all about probable outcomes, and even if we don't understand climate as much as we should, wouldn't it be better to minimise our impact to give us more time to study changes.
Originally posted by True Cynic: Nobody is claiming the climate models are perfect, they are all about probable outcomes, and even if we don't understand climate as much as we should, wouldn't it be better to minimise our impact to give us more time to study changes.
My interest in this subject is largely academic - I would actually support a number of the "soft" green things-to-do anyway, but often on other grounds.
I cycle when I can, because it heps me keep fit, not because I think it saves the planet. Likewise I use low-energy bulbs and don't leave apparatuses on standby - because I prefer a lower electricity bill to a higher one!
