On the Channel 4 GGWS website, you can vote on two questions. First, "Is global warming caused by human carbon emissions?"
I checked this out before the programme was broadcast, and as I recall the "YES" vote was somewhere around 80%. The program doesn't seemed to have changed the vote that much; it's now 83%.
Perhaps the balance of opinion in this forum will be different though... But I'll ask a slightly more sophisticated question, giving a range of options.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
I'll signing off now for a week's holiday with a "Very likely" vote. I hope this debate is still going when I'm back.
On the whole my basic understanding of the subject has been confirmed, but I've learnt a lot extra through being forced to respond to some tricky questions, and of course from those more knowledgable of the field.
To those in denial about AGW and to those who are new to the debate, please remember that the scientific understanding is very old and based on very simple and fundamental scientific principles. The message from the IPCC has been very consistent since it started about 20 years ago, and through many changes of government. There are no signs of it changing just yet.
To the deniers, the group of PR-based organisations that propagate information that they know to be untrue to distract the general public, I hope your paymasters finally have a rush of conscience and either withdraw their funding or redirect it into proper research. I don't think you are evil, just greedy and ruthless.
Steve M refers to paymasters. Like the vast majority of people who question whether human activity is the most signirficant driver of the current episode of global warming, I have NO form of financial interest in the outcome of the debate/research - unlike the thousands of scientists who are gainfully employed researching climate change and whose jobs will be lost and gone forever if anyone proves that human activity plays little or no part in global warming and that nothing governments or individuals can do wil change what is happening. That since the ending of the last glaciation - note, I did not say Ice Age: technically, we are still in an ice age - the climate has regularly cycled has been known for years, but the mechanisms of change are still not fully known or understood, but my understanding is that given the pattern of past cycles, we can expect global warming to continue to ca 2050 before it ceases and reverses. My grandchildren's grandchildren may well be asking themselves how we could so succesfuuly create a mountain out of a molehill.
Seeker, you don't appear to have done much seeking on the evidence of this post!
Ive voted very likely because I think AGW acts as a very good vehicle for communicating the damage our hideously bloated population is doing to the otherwise immaculate self sustaining environment that is planet earth.
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Seeker, you don't appear to have done much seeking on the evidence of this post!
Ive voted very likely because I think AGW acts as a very good vehicle for communicating the damage our hideously bloated population is doing to the otherwise immaculate self sustaining environment that is planet earth.
Wrong answer - by misusing the vehicle you damage it and render it ineffective.
Your comment about population and environmental damage is valid, I agree with that and I am sure you would find the vast majority of Britains right there with you if you unwrapped that argument from the highly contentious and vindictive GW debate.
I chose "highly unlikely" although I would have said its impossible that humans are causing global warming. Nothing humans can do will cause or stop global warming and we cant prevent the start of another ice age in the next 30 thousand years.
I've just voted "very likely" - that's what the IPCC said, and since I'm not a climatologist I'll go along with them, the Met Office, the Royal Society and as far as I can tell most other reputable organizations of scientists.
Why don't we have a poll on what next week's weather will be like?
Even on a simple thing like next week's weather, we can put forward all sorts of convincing arguments, but unfortunately we have only a random chance of being right. Either we just don't understand the basic principles, or we are not monitoring the right factors.
The same is even more true of climate change, in my humble submission. The arguments for man being behind climate change look good from a certain viewpoint - but bad from others. But who are we to know?
In spite of that, I'm all in favour of reducing our CO2 emissions and living a more frugal life.
the IPCC cant have possibly said humans are driving global warming... They can only ever say that humans add to the natural global warming process.
I am not even so sure humans are responsible for so much CO2.. The planet has so many natural processes that cause CO2 which makes our contribution look like a drop in the ocean.
Originally posted by Toolz: the IPCC cant have possibly said humans are driving global warming... They can only ever say that humans add to the natural global warming process.
I am not even so sure humans are responsible for so much CO2.. The planet has so many natural processes that cause CO2 which makes our contribution look like a drop in the ocean.
Instead of saying "cant have possibly said" you could see what they actually said. This is all easily available. You can also see what the facts about CO2 are. Summary here and PDFs here
Voted highly unlikely. The science is not certain and will not be for a very long time particularly since it is being warped by the religious belief in GW. History shows such beliefs have been wrong in the past and the same will happen again. GW is also politically motived with politicians (and other GW evangelistic stakeholders) seeing a revenue generating opportunity in GW - don't fall for it, it's a scam.
Originally posted by Wizdom: Why don't we have a poll on what next week's weather will be like?
Even on a simple thing like next week's weather, we can put forward all sorts of convincing arguments, but unfortunately we have only a random chance of being right. Either we just don't understand the basic principles, or we are not monitoring the right factors.
The same is even more true of climate change, in my humble submission. The arguments for man being behind climate change look good from a certain viewpoint - but bad from others. But who are we to know?
In spite of that, I'm all in favour of reducing our CO2 emissions and living a more frugal life.
Some things are easier to predict than others. You can predict with some confidence that July 2020 in England will be warmer than December 2020. Predicting next week's weather is a bit more difficult. Similarly, I think, predicting global climate trends is easier than predicting how that will affect the climate of a particular region of the world.
The trouble with the weather is that many of us think we know a bit about it, which tends to undermine the fact that climatology is a science and a profession for a number of people, people who have been studying it for their entire careers. When the vast majority of those professionals say with 90% certainty that climate change is being driven by human activity, I find that pretty convincing. It seems the arguments for man being behind climate change look good to climatologists.
Similarly, I think, predicting global climate trends is easier than predicting how that will affect the climate of a particular region of the world.
But I keep hearing that it is all going to be a catastrophe, you seem to be implying we don't know.
I think the biggest unknown is how societies are going to respond. The IPCC have different climate projections, determined by the various possible actions we take. If we take no action at all at in fact burn fossil fuels at an incrfeasing rate then the projections are particularly catastrophic, and I guess those are the ones the media are most likely to report, but if we do manage to cut our emissions, if we can prevent the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from going above 500ppm, then the projections are a lot less catastrophic.
