For those of you that don't believe in global warming

Jonny69

Jonny69

Jonny69

Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
3 May 2004
Posts
17,722
Location
Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
We quite often talk about climate change on here and we have people on both sides of the fence. Some agree global warming is man made and many don't. That is to be expected since we have about a 60/40 split against agw in this this country.

A response that often comes up from the folk who don't agree is that they haven't seen any proof.

My question is: what would be that proof?

I don't want this to turn into a discussion about how much you're being taxed, conspiracies or any of that nonsense, lets keep it on topic as per the question.
 
I'd want statistics in a graph form covering at least a few million years of history, at least a couple of ice ages. If the graph showed an unnatural increase in temperature correlating with the rise in Industry then I would believe it was man made.
 
neodude said:
I'd want statistics in a graph form covering at least a few million years of history, at least a couple of ice ages. If the graph showed an unnatural increase in temperature correlating with the rise in Industry then I would believe it was man made.
Click to expand...

So, essentially, you'll never believe in it, as you already know such proof isn't and won't be available in your lifetime.
 
It's hard to say what sufficient proof would entail since if we knew that, we'd already know what the proof was. Suffice to say it would have to be something irrefutable to convince me, since I believe that there's more than enough plant life to process all the CO2 we could ever throw at the planet and more.

I also don't care if the planet heats up 2 degrees because natural ages have swung temperatures by far more than that anyway.
 
Robbie G said:
It's hard to say what sufficient proof would entail since if we knew that, we'd already know what the proof was. Suffice to say it would have to be something irrefutable to convince me, since I believe that there's more than enough plant life to process all the CO2 we could ever throw at the planet and more.

I also don't care if the planet heats up 2 degrees because natural ages have swung temperatures by far more than that anyway.
Click to expand...

Not really in such a short time though. Its not the potential temperature thats the problem, its the speed of change.
 
Jonny69 said:
A response that often comes up from the folk who don't agree is that they haven't seen any proof.
Click to expand...

A model of the global climate that works. That is all. Until then it's best guess and I just don't think the current single minded approach to whatever challenges the future may pose is justified.

Presenting theories as fact based on an obviously incomplete understanding of the climate model is as short sighted as trying to work out where a car will go next without understanding it has steering and brakes. You just keep finding oddities you can't explain and re-calculating the model to fit.

The human race is quite ingenious and given the opportunity we could engineer our way round the worst effects of climate change. Our current approach though appears to be to knock our society back to the stone age and hope the gods are pleased.
 
We'll only know for sure when we can understand every tiny little process that happens atmospherically, chemically, physically and in the ocean on our planet. Then we can start to investigate exactly what changes additional CO2, CH4 etc will actually make.

And I very much doubt that will happen (in our lifetime at least).
 
ColdAsIce said:
Thought it was possible to get temperatures going way back by drilling into the ice caps and looking at the layers?
Click to expand...

Not really, it is possible to get some idea but the resolution of the data is next to useless to actually prove or disprove man made climate change. When looking at the impact man has had over the last 100-200 years having a temperature/CO2 record which is in 10,000, 1,000 or even 500 year intervals is pointless.

For me I would need for the first stepto be the politics to be taken out of Climate Change, then data to be made freely available, error margins on models to stop being large enough to drive a buss through and any actions that come out of the science to be realistic and useful rather than used as an excuse to raise tax revenue. Journals need to stop having pre-concieved bias (so no more automatically stopping papers that do not share the consensus view just because they do not show the consensus view) and more statisticians need to be involved in climate science.
 
The is a big difference between Climate Change, which is apparent and the reasons for it, too many assumptions are made to support the AGW hypothesis.

Almost all the evidence that points to humans being responsible is based purely on climate models and the fact that we cannot explain some warming between 1970 and 1995 within these models.

It is just as likely that GW is a natural phenomenon we do not yet understand as it us to be related purely to increased carbon emissions.
 
Present me a model that accurately predicts climate within a few years, and I'll accept it might be accurate later on. None of the current models have come close to accurately predicting current temperatures, so they cannot be scientifically trusted.
 
Although I don't agree with global warming I am against the total disregard for the planets natural resources (yes I know thats hypocritical as I work in oil and gas) but atleast the majority of oil and gas majors have to satisfy major green targets for what they are doing.

I think Tele put it right that we can't just keep guessing at what will come next and be taxed against the worst case.

KaHn
 
RDM said:
Journals need to stop having pre-concieved bias (so no more automatically stopping papers that do not share the consensus view just because they do not show the consensus view) and more statisticians need to be involved in climate science.
Click to expand...

The news does this also. There was a journalist being interviewed by Raymond Snoddy that openly admitted that balanced reporting was impossible on things like climate change, because the oposers were so in the minority. I couldn't beleive my ears.

That only angle climate change 'believers' should be taking is one of cleaning up the quality of our air and reducing pollution imo.
 
It always makes me laugh how people cannot predict the weather of next week but we can accuratly say in several years time temperatures will have risen.
 
Climate changes naturally, and to think the human race can effect it is proposterous, we can't even modify the weather, although many countries attempt cloud seeding and the like, and anyone worth their meteorological salt know's weather as a whole makes climate. In 30years or so we'll be panicking about global cooling lol. As for proof of warning, current trends over the last 30years show a slight warming, but whether this is anthropological is another question. Most attempts at linking the two have fallen fowl of greedy individuals trying to falsify graphs etc, hockeystick anyone? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom