Global Warming

[Kosmo]

Climate it's changing now as it always does. It's not staying the same for prolonged periods. Without measuring instruments a life time it's not enough to spot the difference especially as one adjusts with this changes. Now with precise measurements scaremongers can bring the news to an uninformed public.

Maybe the industrial CO2 story it's to calm poeple down. They can promise that they would do things that are seriously above human capabilities. "this is what is wrong and this is how we fix it"

Saying what you Caldrail say will be hopeless and this it's bad for politicians.

Polar bears, Venice and Bangladesh are maybe doomed and there is no political correct way to say that our complex thermodinamic machine it's changing phase.

 

In television reports, magazine articles and chain mails they say that the ice cap it's melting but they don't mention when it started shrinking.

 

Cavewomen? I like more the Mad Max style!

[Silentium]

The fact that the climate is changing is rather undisputed, the question is why? Nature forces, global warming or carbondioxid?

Some say global warming and global dimming.

[caldrail]

Maybe the industrial CO2 story it's to calm poeple down. They can promise that they would do things that are seriously above human capabilities. "this is what is wrong and this is how we fix it"

Saying what you Caldrail say will be hopeless and this it's bad for politicians.

 

Yes - Politicians want our vote, they want us as concerned citizens who believe our politicians are out there saving the planet with our consent, they want our money. In a way I may have overstressed my arguement. The problem we modern humans have is infrastructure. We have these huge conurbations and most of the important ones are adjacent to coastlines for obvious reasons. This means we are trapped by our own development since we can't easily uproot civilisation and move it five miles up the hill. Thats why I say that humanity needs to adapt rather than plug gaps in the dam. Its ok saying that - what I don't want is some sort of eco-tryranny which we're very close to already.

[Kosmo]

Do we know what it's going on and what to do? As Silentium points with global dimming the problem it's more complicated and taking measures before knowing for sure will just make things worse.

 

The greatest amount of human produced Co2 it's made by burning of forests in tropical countries not by the industrial or car emissions, but the blame it's still placed on the old culprits. You know who! Those people that opressed women, made the africans slaves, spreaded their colonial imperialism all over, wiped out populations, exploited Mother Earth and the Third World, destroyed cultures etc. After so many misdeeds they must be used to take the blame, feel ashamed, apologise and pay the price.

 

This models are fantastic estimates rather then scientific works. Some say that global worming will increase temperatures in Europe. Others say that it will shift away the Gulf Stream and this will lead to a drop of temperatures and rains.

 

Maybe it will be better to spend the money on real research rather on useless preventions and scary campaigns. If we know how and when things will change things can be done. After all, parts of Holland are under the sea level since several centuries. That land was recovered from under the sea with medieval technology. For sure we can do better now if we put our mind and resources to it.

[caldrail]

Possibly, but nature can roll right over us any time it wants. We're lucky enough to live in an era of relatively stable climate and earthly peace and quite. Or perhaps the earth is changing again as it has periodically over the last few million years?

[Kosmo]

The opinion of a "specialist" who knows who is to blame. Note this line "last week's discovery that the Antarctic Ocean can no longer absorb CO

[caldrail]

I think the worst thing is the false idea that we can all influence global warming. I really don't think that human arrogance is going to count for much. Sun activity and orbital wobbling are by far the worst culprits of climate change, followed by the much slower tectonic drift. CO2 is well down the scale I'm afraid, and sticking fingers in dams isn't going to stop it. Mind you, human activity does affect the natural balance the same way any other species might when out of balance with the enviroment. Look what happened when some well meaning idiot introduced rabbits into australia. Disaster! Grassy land quickly became sandy. Over grazing... hack-and-burn farming.... pollution... Yes, these do impact on us. Look at the horrendous effects that soviet and chinese schemes have had on their landscapes. The Aral Sea for instance is now the Aral Pond, with huge areas now dry land. Trawlers left rusting on a scrubby plain. But stop and think for a minute. Go back to the Jurassic. Herds of huge sauropods were felling trees at forest edges to get at the foliage they wanted. I know some species like the brachiosaur were adapted for that, but most weren't. Result? Deforestation of the older taller trees, and overgrazing by ever hungry herbivores. It occurs to me they may have had a significant impact over time, not to mention the amount of methane they produced from digesting vegetation. I've already mentioned natural pollution from volcanoes which has had terrible consequences in the past, but all species can destroy their own enviroment if they become too successful, which unfortunately includes us. The only answer to that is fewer humans, and I don't know anyone who wants to consider the ramifcations of that route!

[Northern Neil]

I really don't think that human arrogance is going to count for much.

The converse of this is that human arrogance could cost us, literally, the Earth - or at least our place on it. The arrogance is thus: We accept the minority of scientific studies which deny human involvement, and overlook the fact that these climate changes are not taking place over geological time, but everyday time. And with it, we reject our suspicion that the mainstream research is probably true, but - well, who cares - let our kids and grandchildren deal with the results of our grossly luxurious lives and the mess they are causing.

 

Usually, logically - minded people accept the scientific theory which most fits the evidence. But, just as otherwise intelligent religious believers let their objectivity slip when it comes to authenticity of their Scriptures, or smokers disregard medical evidence because to curb their habits would be too difficult, people who enjoy their luxurious lifestyles search for alternative interpretation of evidence, or marginal yet technically valid scientific studies to justify their lifestyles. And I include most of us here, given that even relatively poor people in industrialised countries are filthy rich in comparison with the remaining two thirds of the planet.

 

The overwhelming weight of evidence is that human activity is warming up our planet. And there are no 'hidden agendas' for the bulk of climatologists subscribing to this theory. What possible agenda could there be for concocting a theory to stop people holidaying abroad? Or from driving over-large 4x4's with comically macho names? I don't particularly like tabloid newspapers, but if I were a scientist, I wouldn't propose a theory to try and stop people reading them. The whole conspiracy theory idea vis-a-vis global warming is just plain fatuous - what possible benefit could the (majority of) climate scientists gain from it, aside from dissuading middle class mums from driving their kids round the block in quasi - armoured vehicles, or reducing the number of flights to Benidorm, Ayia Nappa or Florida? And what purpose would that serve ( If not culturally valid on grounds of taste) if there were no scientfic evidence to suggest it was harmful?

 

I initially started this thread as a spoof ( Read my initial post, and apply the math!) but I had to break my silence with respect to some of the ideas put forward here. The conspiracy theory here holds no water at all, given that there absolutely is nothing to gain from it. All of us, however, would be greatly inconvenienced if we had to alter our lifestyles to curb the findings of the majority of climatologists. And therein lies the real problem - most of us are far too comfortable to be bothered.

 

My view is, if even 1% of the studies show that human activity is to blame, then it is imperative that we curb our habits. To not do so, even with just a 1% probability of success, is negligence to the ultimate degree.

Edited June 5, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Caldrail... your arguments sound almost exactly like a show a recently saw called the Great Global Warming farce, maybe you've seen it? On a serious note a do agree with you, I just don't want to jump head over heels onto the side against global warming after seeing one documentary, no matter how much sense it makes. Reminds myself too much of those idiots who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy or listen to Michael Moore.

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I really don't think that human arrogance is going to count for much.

The conspiracy theory here holds no water at all, given that there absolutely is nothing to gain from it.

 

People who don't believe we are responsible for climate change don't really see it as a conspiracy, we just see it as mass hysterical ignorance. The people who started this panic are the same kind of people who told us capitalism would destroy us all so we should become communists, that a nuclear war was going to kill us all so we should become pacifists, and that eating meat is unhealthy so we should become vegetarians. So forgive me if I look at the source of an argument and have a healthy skepticism

The movement started out as a sincere scientific debate which I personally disagree with but can still respect. It has been hijacked, however, just like these people in the past have hijacked legitimite concerns to things like economic inequality and nuclear proliferation with radical solutions that run contrary to human nature and would work only in their fantasy worlds. It is in human nature to progress, and I honestly believe that we'd have a better chance of colonizing Mars than turning back the clock to a pre-industrial world even if we were responsible for glabal warming.

[Pertinax]

A little item from The Times :

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle1878700.ece

[theilian]

Wow, scientists need to discover this thread and stop worrying about global warming.

[Moonlapse]

...what possible benefit could the (majority of) climate scientists gain from it...

Billions of dollars in funding comes to mind. I don't subscribe to one theory or the other, but I'm surely not blind to the fortunes to be made from carbon regulation and I'm definitely distrustful of anyone telling me I should be afraid. Do you think that a carbon market is the answer? A carbon tax? What about banning the less energy efficient items from public consumption? Buying your guilt away?

 

My carbon guilt only costs $29.95, where's my wallet?

[Northern Neil]

It is in human nature to progress, and I honestly believe that we'd have a better chance of colonizing Mars than turning back the clock to a pre-industrial world even if we were responsible for glabal warming.

The view that people who are in support of the human activity = global warming debate are far from being anti - progress, as I shall demonstrate. Who wants to go back to a pre-industrial world? Not me, for one. It is archaic technologies which are the worst polluters. The incandescent lightbulb, internal combustion engines and coal fired powerplants are all 19th century technology. Hardly progress, one would agree! Motor technology has progressed to the point of using renewables for the past 25 years. I do not see that progress reflected on our roads.

 

I see nothing wrong with using nuclear power as an alternative to coal (along with renewables). I see nothing wrong with making small differences to ones lifestyle to neutralise ones per capita carbon output. What effort does it take to turn electrical appliances off at night, or cycle for journeys of less than a mile? Or to run a low engine capacity second car (If indeed a vehicle built to carry four is needed just to take one person on very short journeys). Apart from anything else, I certainly save a LOT of money, so yes, fortunes can be made! I know some people will say 'Yes, but in our case that wouldn't work because... and so on. If I had more room, I probably would try to make an exhaustive study of everything everyone could do to save money and the planet and not make inroads to their lifestyles. If I had room.

 

I watch the news quite comprehensively, and see nothing of the hysterical anti - carbon lobby referred to, and none who would take us back to a pre-industrial society. Well, apart from the ones who have aways been there anyway, and have just latched on to this debate. Most people in my experience are not 'scared' by this research, they simply say - 'right, what can I / we do about it?' Regarding vested interests pro anti - carbon, I find the arguments rather weaker than the ones that state the massive vested interests of oil companies and business in relegating this debate to the back burner.

 

Like any bad news from the scientific community, this has naturally caused some hysteria - I was guilty of this myself last year, when I gave up smoking in response to the hysteria surrounding the scientific claim that cigarettes cause lung cancer. But really, the bottom line, I think, came in a prior posting of mine, and I repeat it again - even if the climatologists and others were only 1% right, we should be doing something. As it stands, I believe around 75% of the scientific community is behind the 'carbon moderation' lobby in this.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

Wow, scientists need to discover this thread and stop worrying about global warming.

 

Yes, why worry about something that it's out of your power to change

Early humans with stone age tehnology were succesfull in making extinct dozens (if not hundreds) of species of large animals.The begining of agriculture and animal herding changed the landescape in most areas of the Earth. Pollution from Roman mining in Spain left marks on Groenland's ice shelf. Most Europe was a forest 3.000 years ago. Humans tranfered animals and plants from one corner to the other expanding the areals of some destroying that of others. Like it or not we left our mark on Earth since day one. And the Earth was changing even without us.

 

I'm not saying that climate it's not changing (it will be unlikely to stay the same). All I say it's this CO2 thing it's turning into a scare based on flimsy evidence.

 

In the meantime, other ecological problems go unsolved. I'm more interested in the quality of the air that I breathe then if it will be 2 degrees warmer.

 

Lots of money go in this CO2 thing and I don't believe that they are wisely spent.

The solutions are a laugh. Human population it's rapidly increasing and trying to develop. Everyday are more people and each uses more resources. How can you stop this pressure on all resources? Co2 emission reduction in Europe was more the compensated by the growth of asian economies. When you put pressure on european industry they just move it somewhere else where are less restrictions and then the loss of jobs it's mourned.

Greenpeace fights global warming and nuclear powerplants. What's left? Solar panels for the huge cities of the North? In the meantime Naples cant handle his garbage.

Ethanol it's better then gas but the explosion of ethanol production will maybe replace tropical forests with sugarcane plantations.

 

Putting money and brains to good use would be the first step to take even before action (that is something today politicians will be surprised to hear). But now the ball is rolling and even proven wrong it will be very hard to stop.

 

Being a sceptic on climate change will not make a climate scientist popular while anybody knows that studying a fashionable object will bring grants, scholarships, jobs etc.