Anybody here actually believe in all this Global Warming malarky?
- Thread starter SexyGreyFox
- Start date
Associate
Arcade Fire said:
ah but humans are not bacteria, we are inovative and problem solving beings. we can develop new resources, we can manage population growth and whereas bacteria and most organisms with short gestation periods multiply quickly and have to evolve new species to survive, we have a lot of time inbetween generations to figure out our problems without the sudden apocalypse that you seem to be predicting. that said, current trends are highly unsustainable, but the whole fact that we are able to survive in such unatural population sizes, due to mass agriculture etc echos my point that inovation is our key to survival.
got to be honest and say I havnt read the thread.
It it completely and totally impossible to decide if and indeed to what extent and with what delay human impact on global climate change has. For all we know current 'climate change' could be cause by....
Thinning atmosphere
The sun burning hotter
The sun's mass increasing and us getting closer
Increasing water mass creating greater solar reflection
The earths climate changingof its own accord
human pollution
Trees becoming less effecient at filtering certain gases
Bob in his greenhouse smoking his pipe 4 times a day instead of 3
The initial industrial revolution... (no one knows what time delays could be in play)
...
the list goes on, Everything ANYONE says on the subject is totally best guess... and anyone who says otherwise better have some bloody fantastic proof of how they avoided ANY variable changing during their science experiment....
It it completely and totally impossible to decide if and indeed to what extent and with what delay human impact on global climate change has. For all we know current 'climate change' could be cause by....
Thinning atmosphere
The sun burning hotter
The sun's mass increasing and us getting closer
Increasing water mass creating greater solar reflection
The earths climate changingof its own accord
human pollution
Trees becoming less effecient at filtering certain gases
Bob in his greenhouse smoking his pipe 4 times a day instead of 3
The initial industrial revolution... (no one knows what time delays could be in play)
...
the list goes on, Everything ANYONE says on the subject is totally best guess... and anyone who says otherwise better have some bloody fantastic proof of how they avoided ANY variable changing during their science experiment....
<bangs head on the table>
That is true (Infact the time delay/dependance on some of these factors, such as the lifetime of elements in the atmosphere is a very powerful and as yet unknown parameter). Sure some of his statements are ludicrous, and some are found to not be true. But the argument is hinged on not knowing the relative magnitudes of all possible effects... I thought we had decided that...
Good grief.
Please please tell us what your interest is on this topic conundrum.... ?
Casual browsing of that one site, or rooted in your academic/professional studies/career?
That is true (Infact the time delay/dependance on some of these factors, such as the lifetime of elements in the atmosphere is a very powerful and as yet unknown parameter). Sure some of his statements are ludicrous, and some are found to not be true. But the argument is hinged on not knowing the relative magnitudes of all possible effects... I thought we had decided that...
Good grief.
Please please tell us what your interest is on this topic conundrum.... ?
Casual browsing of that one site, or rooted in your academic/professional studies/career?
Last edited:
Soldato
Conundrum's posts read like those of a krank from the Green Party.
You all make it sound like climate science is some sort of guessing game, a bit of a wheeze when in fact you have all read too much tabloid and hype nonsense regarding it.
Climate science is very scientific in nature and on balance climate change is much more likely to be human made than not be. For some reason you lot seem to want it not to be human made for some reason and cannot handle the fact that at the present time it is human induced. From everything i have read and from what others have said I can see that climate scientists have their work cut out in explaining to anyone who for some reason can think of any reason why it is not CO2 from fossil fuels burning but has to be something else even though the science says it is not.
No one seems to believe the science although it is in fact the same science that has given us everything else.
I am saddened really
Climate science is very scientific in nature and on balance climate change is much more likely to be human made than not be. For some reason you lot seem to want it not to be human made for some reason and cannot handle the fact that at the present time it is human induced. From everything i have read and from what others have said I can see that climate scientists have their work cut out in explaining to anyone who for some reason can think of any reason why it is not CO2 from fossil fuels burning but has to be something else even though the science says it is not.
No one seems to believe the science although it is in fact the same science that has given us everything else.
I am saddened really
Man of Honour
dmpoole said:
I agree wih you, and I have a degree is Geography. I wouldn't say we've had NO impact, but whatever we do, we cannot stop mother nature.
The Earth's climate has always changed. The polar ice caps were not always there ya know
Mal
conundrum said:
Scientists cannot quantify human influence plain and simple. They can speculate, they can hypothesize, they can understand the carbon cycle... But they cant know enough about the entire planet ecosystem and physics of the sun and plasma solar wind to conlcude they know what is down to human influence.
I implore you to answer my questions about your interest in this field.
As far as natural disasters go it doesn't necessarily have much to do with global warming. There are simply more people now and hence more people living in dangerous zones affected by these disaters. Couple that with the more 'efficient' media reporting and it gives the impression of impending doom! For instance the record number of Hurricanes last year is part of a natural cycle of hurricane frequency. That said, it is believed that the 'force' of said hurricanes is near the computer modelled simulations expected from global warming. i.e warmer surface air over the Atlantic causing more evaporation and fiercer storms.
The global warming nay-sayers that have been foremost in the media are on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. They are scientists, yes, but specialising in fields such as Geology rather than Climatology. A fact sadly overlooked by the 'sensationalist' media. One such nay-sayer is Michael Crichton, i'm sad to say, whose recent novel was based on the premise that global warming was exaggerated by governments for their own dubious agendas. Said author is trained in Medicine and nothing more and i'm sad to say that i won't ever be buying another of his books.
In short don't believe eveything you read in the 'media', but instead base your own opinions on common sense and from what you read in reliable, peer reviewed journals such as 'New Scientist'.
For more advanced reading you can't go wrong with a book written by one James Lovelock called 'Gaia'. This was written before the recent explosion of global warming scare mongering but is almost prophetic in it's teachings.
We only have one planet to live on so we must take care of it. If not for our own sakes, then for our childrens!
The global warming nay-sayers that have been foremost in the media are on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. They are scientists, yes, but specialising in fields such as Geology rather than Climatology. A fact sadly overlooked by the 'sensationalist' media. One such nay-sayer is Michael Crichton, i'm sad to say, whose recent novel was based on the premise that global warming was exaggerated by governments for their own dubious agendas. Said author is trained in Medicine and nothing more and i'm sad to say that i won't ever be buying another of his books.
In short don't believe eveything you read in the 'media', but instead base your own opinions on common sense and from what you read in reliable, peer reviewed journals such as 'New Scientist'.
For more advanced reading you can't go wrong with a book written by one James Lovelock called 'Gaia'. This was written before the recent explosion of global warming scare mongering but is almost prophetic in it's teachings.
We only have one planet to live on so we must take care of it. If not for our own sakes, then for our childrens!
Associate
Dirk said:
Another Global Warming fallacy; There has been no long term increase in Hurricanes during the 20th century. There have been periods of high activity and periods of low activity. The 1920's-30s and the 1950's-60s had high activity, the latest high active phase begain in 1995, this windows of high activity is at the moment too short to determine anything other than the normal cycle of Hurricane activity.
Don
marin said:
That's basically what he said, that there's no evidence that it's anything to do with global warming, but merely the natural cycle that's been seen over the past century. But as Dirk and Conundrum point out though, what hurricanes there have been are apparently stronger and that this is as far as I can remember statistically significant to indicate that global warming is driving it.
Also I recall there was a hurricane in the S. Atlantic a year or two ago. The first ever recorded.
Jokester
marin said:
Exactly my point, other than there is a cycle that occurs every 40 yrs or so that determines the 'frequency' of hurricanes over the north Atlantic. It is commonly believed by climatologists that we are in the grip of such a cycle. Without being able to see into the future and study these events with the benefit of hindsight it is impossible to be 100% sure of these facts. Other than the fact that they support the modelling evidence.
Bear in mind that a lot of what we know about historical climate evidence is based upon ice-core and dendrochronology studies that, although providing a useful guide to past climate events, is far from perfect. As a qualified Climatologist i hope that i'm enough up to date to speak with some authority on the subject that matters most to me!