There appears to be a lot of confusion. To me there are three sides to the enviromental argument. There are those who believe like Tony Blair eg. that the human race is 80% resposible for global warming then there are those like the chaps on the swindle programme that dont. Some where in the middle is the truth.
Whether you believe the channel four programme is flawed which it maybe at least we are now having a debate and not accepting one point of view.
Some of the same scientists in the 1970s were saying that we were going into an iceage. They are all protecting their research on both sides dont be fooled and im not impressed by prize giving thats no basis to judge.
Some of the same scientists in the 1970s were saying that we were going into an iceage. They are all protecting their research on both sides dont be fooled and im not impressed by prize giving thats no basis to judge.
In the 1970s scientists realised that soot would cause global cooling, that CO2 would cause global warming and that in a few thousand years orbital changes would push the earth back into an ice age (well technically we're still in an ice age). The media picked up on the ice age strand. My guess is that was probably because ice-ages were a better story and probably because of the cooling that had been caused by the sun. But if you read the original US report, they were only clear on one thing, that the science then was not able to make a clear prediction either way. I've seen a photo of a copy of National Geographic from 1976 that pretty much says this too. So the ice age thing is a bit of a myth.
This debate doesn't just have two sides, it is multifaceted. There are endless possibilities as to what is going to happen in the future, and probably an equal number of possible solutions.
No one side is right or wrong, at least that can be proved yet. Only time will tell, and regrettably none of the current proponents will be around to celebrate/drown their sorrows when the truth is finally out.
No one side is right or wrong, at least that can be proved yet. Only time will tell, and regrettably none of the current proponents will be around to celebrate/drown their sorrows when the truth is finally out.
I'm afraid you are probably wrong. Currently, average summer temperatures in England are the same as a heatwave of 30-300 years ago. It won't be long before we have to start adapting our transport and utilities infrastructure to meet the needs of higher temperatures. Check the Met Office Central England Temperature record.
I have read a lot of messages now it is clear that there are those on both sides of the argument who will never change their view.
It seems that the historical statistics can be twisted to fit either theory.
It is obvious that the planet is warming up.
My own opinion is that it is arrogant to suggest that the activities of humans is 80% responsible for global warming. What is being put forward is that we as a species can terraform. The computer models used to predict are only as good as the information input.
I would like to add that I hate the waste we create we should recycle and find better ways of producing energy. But for me thats a different argument not linked to global warning.
I'm afraid you are probably wrong. Currently, average summer temperatures in England are the same as a heatwave of 30-300 years ago. It won't be long before we have to start adapting our transport and utilities infrastructure to meet the needs of higher temperatures. Check the Met Office Central England Temperature record.
I don't doubt that temperatures are increasing and we are going to need to do something about it. What I meant was that we will never know whether our attempts to do anything about it have really worked. In 1999, the Hadley Centre were saying that they very much doubted that it was possible to reduce CO2 emissions effectively. I have yet to find anything that explains how by reducing CO2 emissions we can reverse the trend, let alone stabilise it.
Trees and plants soak up C02 and bind it in other organic forms. So there is nothing, in principle, that would prevent us from reducing the amount of C02 in the air.
Trees do absorb CO2 they also release it we breathe it out all 6 Billion of us. The essential truth is we are more concerned about ourselves than we let on. The planet will survive with or without us like the dinosaurs we are insignificant.
We all have a view I dont mind this what I do mind is being taxed for some one elses view, That has not been proved either way.
Originally posted by rickyjk: Trees do absorb CO2 they also release it we breathe it out all 6 Billion of us. The essential truth is we are more concerned about ourselves than we let on. The planet will survive with or without us like the dinosaurs we are insignificant.
While I'm addressing the point below I'll make a point on offsetting (bad news). Trees planted out-side the tropics actually make the problem worse.
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: We all have a view I dont mind this what I do mind is being taxed for some one elses view, That has not been proved either way.
I don't mind green taxes since they are avoidable and based on a very real probability of a very signiicant risk for my children. Try Carl Wunsch's page on the Royal Society web-site: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1:
quote:
Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.
- we might be waiting a long time for absolute facts/proof. Mean while the clock is ticking and most main-stream scientists are telling us to act, when normally they always like to just go back and check.
WORD SMITHY...We already have green taxes on flights due to raise 1 billion pounds. This money will go straight into goverment coffers and has not been earmarked for any green issues so in theory it could be alocated to the war in Iraq...
Tell me this why is it that shipping produces more CO2 emmissions than planes and theres hardly a mention.... I guess they dont carry as much human (taxable) traffic..
I would agree with your green tax if it was neutral and used in the correct manner.
To get back the question of Who is telling the truth, those of you who would like to know more about the history of the global warming debate subject can look at the following excellent website from the American Institute of Physics:
I have read a lot of messages now it is clear that there are those on both sides of the argument who will never change their view.
I think it's very important not to hold rigid views on subjects such as this, which are far from proven (that's not to say that there might be substantial evidence for them). I really don't like taking sides, yet there seem to be so many of you out there who believe that to not take sides is worse than taking the "opposing" view to their own. What worries me most about this "debate" is that it has become so polarised, when there are clearly hundreds of standpoints out there. However, it is still possible to take a standpoint on an issue that is unproven (and by unproven, I mean <100%), as long as you are prepared to change your view in the light of new evidence. This is the premise on which science is based. There is very little absolute proof out there; simply different levels of certainty (or uncertainty). It concerns me that so many of you seem to believe in some sort of absoluteness about what are essentially theories.
Originally posted by Lucibee: I think it's very important not to hold rigid views on subjects such as this, which are far from proven (that's not to say that there might be substantial evidence for them).
I agree, but nor should measures be forced on people based on uncertainty, consensus and belief. Because you open the way for bad policies being accepted through fear and ignorance - as is the case with Iraq.
This is the 21st century not the 12th we are supposed to be intellectually more advanced so science must be allowed to play it's part without political interference but unfortunately this is not the case.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of decisions made by governments are made on less than 100% accurate information, since there is very little in this world that is absolutely certain. So, by necessity, most decisions will be made on the basis of "uncertainty", as you put it. That is why we have to take some responsibility in the people we elect to government.
If governments were only allowed to make policy on the basis of things that were known to be "certain", then very little would ever get done! And there certainly wouldn't be any need for democracy. And there might be a great deal of legislation based on the first 400 decimal places of pi...
