Chris L

I did read in the Sunday Times at the weekend that Al Gore is estimated to have made $50 million over the last 7 years - not bad for a failed presedential candidate

BTW: It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes

OllyK

The Earth has finite resources so it makes sense not to waste them. It also makes sense to keep pollution of any kind to a minimum for the benefit of everybody. Does that mean we should be moving back in to caves? Nope, just don't be wasteful that's all, and with gas and electricity, not being wasteful or improving your insulation will saves you a few quid a year as well.

PeteBrant

I'm not sure where I stand on it. But as far as I can see, reducing carbon emissions cannot be a bad thing. It;s the safe bet.

One thing that does amuse me, is how people will jump at any report that supports thier view that climate change is not man made.

90% of the scientific community is convinced of mans impact. But no, lets ignore those and instead shout fromn the rooftops as soon as a single scientist comes out with a theory blaming it on something else and hail that as conclusive proof that it isn't man made.

Geezer

Where do you get those figures though Pete? It's not clear at all that an overwhelming majority support this view. Alot of the reports that come out are by people who are not scientists at all. The UN churns them out with seemingly little regard for the true meaning of the data behind them.

The "for" lobby cheery pick their facts just as much as the "against" lobby, it's not uncommon.

However, there is no smoking gun either way really. Nothing that would unequivocally sway people. So until someone can convince me otherwise, I'll stick with being against, as there is good proof that the Earths climate changes alot, and sometimes very rapidly, and we have not influenced any of them.

If I'm wrong, well, so what? The earth has much tougher challenges than this before and recovered. We might not be around to see it, but it would be justice of a sort wouldn't it?

Geezer

PeteBrant

See why do you think this? Because you saw some report ot TV programme telling you so?


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no dissenting body that rejects Human influence on climate change. THe "Non-Commital" bodies are the Petroleum Geologists


I mean you can have an opinion on this sort of thing. But really politicians have to listen to the experts. And the experts are telling them that climate change is being helped along by Man.

Do you really think the Goverment should ignore them?

I'm no green campaginer - I doubt I would be on this forum if I was! And I used to be extremely skeptical. But the more I think about it, the more I come round to the idea that we are to blame, at least partially.

Geezer

There are dissenting bodies that have nothing to do with petroleum companies.

Besides, the argument doesn't stack up, if you say that the only people who dissent are those that work for petroleum companies, then the argument is equally valid that the the people who support it are funded by the governments who have a vested interest in perpetuating the story!

Also, the research done on either side is equally as valid, the funder makes no difference. It's like saying that the research into cancer/aids/alzheimers etc. is rubbish because the drug companies will only fund it so they can sell pills!

To suggest otherwise is a huge slight on the credibility of the scientists who actually carry out the research, either way.

The simple fact is that no one knows.

You or I have not done the research either, so we only have an opinion, yours is that it is, mine is that it isn't. However mine is right

Geezer

PeteBrant

Surely you have to go with the accepted thinking? I mean it's all theory, its all unproven. But you have to o with the commonly accepted theory - Which, in this case, is that Climate change has been partially caused by man - I mean its not 50/50, its not even 80/20. Overwhelmingly the scientific community agrees that this is the case.

I mean, the overwhelming opinion is that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old - Thats theory, that isn't proven - But we accept it on the basis that those people that make these assessments know thier stuff. There will be some dissenting voices. Most famously, Lord Kelvin himself went to his death bed adamant that the Universe was no more that 25 million years old.

You have to go with the Majority when something has been as extensively researched as climate change.

EvilBevel

I thought the earth was only 6.010 years old ?

PeteBrant

Wha??!?!?

OllyK

Only if you're a YEC / IDer

Leslie

There is no doubt that the climate is changing but hard to say whether it really is largely due to Man's influence or whether it is cyclical. I am not qualified to say which it is, but I do think we have a duty towards our descendants to not destroy the world for them. Does no harm to conserve energy, but I decry the politicians using it as an excuse as they certainly are doing.

Les

EvilBevel

Why is there no doubt that the climate is changing beyond what can be called "normal" ? (apart from the fact that climate changes per definition). Not a dig, honest question.

Abdabz

I dont think anyone can argue that the earth is warming up a tad... I had a butterfly in my backgraden two days ago and it rained in Gloucester in the summer.
That said, the suggestion that human industrialisation has contributed in any measureable way is absolutely hilarious. We're barely 50,000 years out of an ice age and then with a modicum of temp fluctuation that began way before V8 engines and coal mines in India.
The government and environmental lobbyists have played a blinder with it and I have to applaud them.
For starters a worrying amount of the population believe humans affect climate change and I find that truly disturbing.
There was a guy on the news yesterday from Greenpeace, who pointed to climate change being man made, and he didnt blink, look away or change his posture, suggesting he genuinely believed it... I presume that after bleating about Global Cooling in the 1970's, Acid Rain in the 1980's and CFC's (miraculously cured by a new lynx can design it seems) in the 1990's, this latest comedy myth is here to stay as, IT IS A CONSPIRACY TO RAISE TAXES .
I hope in 100 years when we're all dead and our grandchildren are living off the land with windmills strapped to their heads and solar panels on their behinds to help make them all carbon neutral, that I am sat up high on a heavenly cloud with my family wondering why the gullable ever bothered as it gets warmer and warmer...

PeteBrant

Just out of interest, what qualifies you to debunk the opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community?

I'm not tying to be funny, it's just that anytime anyone says this, that is effectively what they are doing.

I used to think exactly the same way as you, and then I stopped to think about it and realised that the people that have dedicated thier lives to studying this sort of thing, are probably in a much better position to suggest causes than I am with my "common sense" approach.

Abdabz

Just the fact that other scientists have debunked the "evidence" to which you refer with much more believable evidence.
We dont need to get into a debate about who funds which scientists etc... Suffice to say that evidence such as the hockey stick effect are simply daft and disproved.

warrenm2

The other side to this coin is the presumtion that todays climate is "ideal" and any variance from it is "a bad thing". Similarly for CO2 levels. However from a historical point of view its actually quite cold at the moment and fairly scarce in CO2. What is happening could easily be described as reversion to the mean, an entirely unremarkable rebalancing to the planets idea of a "normal". With warmer weather and more CO2 in the atmosphere plant life will be in better shape than ever, growing seasons will be longer, areas such as siberia and greenland will be able to be farmed - bringing online huge amounts of productive land. With the Northwest passage open, shipping will be quicker and cheaper between major markets bringing down costs of goods. People will save money on heating bills.

But you wont hear that arguement from greenies.....

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I think the basic thing is..

Is the climate changing? Probably.. it always has done and always will - as Humans we have always adapted and thats what makes us so successful as a species.

Is the Government making horrific amount of money out of us because of it? Yes.

Is the Government using any of that money to fund MEANINGFUL environmental policies, such as preventing further deforestation of the rain forests (the burning of which produces more CO2 than global transport so the news said last night)? NO.

The argument about "is global warming man-assisted" is pretty irrelevant really - the point is that the government is using it as an excuse to suck us dry of money, making noises about us using our evil cars less, while totally failing to make any attempt at instigating environmental policies that will make a REAL difference. Which is something that should matter to everyone - whatever side of the man-made climate change argument they fall on.

Ted Maul

It is very true from what I've read that a significant majority of scientists believe that man has had some impact on global warming. However they range from negligible impact to very significant impact and NO ONE TRULY KNOWS. It also appears that all the models used to predict have varying degrees of error and assumption in them that again make the results appear almost like an opinion.

So I'm going to try to reduce the waste and pollution I submit to the earth, be conscious of how I use and abuse energy, not get fooled by people with agenda's from both sides of the argument..

and try to avoid paying the taxes!

Anderooo

The planet has changed its climate between warm and cold for millions of years. Why should it stop now because humans happen to live here. Maybe we have helped slightly but the tempreture will continue to rise whether we are here or not.

The problem is we are perhaps the only species to actually understand what is happening and try and stop it. But like millions of other species that have gone before us we likely to get wiped out at some point. But life on this planet will continue and evolve who says it has to be human...

That program on BBC 2 at the moment about Planet Earth is quite interesting, it goes on about different subjects (the Ice one was good). It goes on about the changes in the past and what happened. Yet fails to even come to a conculsion that what is happening now is just as similar to what happend 3 million years ago that they keep going on about. No its all down to cars etc etc hence the government charge us more taxes.

Careful how much air you breath they will charge for that next.

Geezer

I take it you mean you think the funder does make a difference?

Well, even if that is so, it still means the evidence for GW is unsound as it is paid for by agencies that have a vested interest in the global warming theory, so which is it gonna be? You gonna disagree with me and undermine the research for, or agree with me and admit that the dissenters research is just as valid?

As for the Universe, I do agreee with the accepted theory. But unlike global warming, there is not alot of evidence to suggest otherwise, and we don't have loads of other instances of Universe creation that could dispel it.

Global warming has good evidence against it, and we know the climate has changed many times before without our intervention. It simply isn't as clear cut.

PeteBrant

Beleiveble evidence to who? You?

Its a minute percentage that say there "may" be no effect. No single scientific body has come out and said "man has had no effect". Indvidual scientists may have, but no one body of scientists have.

On the other side, the vast majority say man has contributed.

Of course, either side could be right, but for me, you have to err on the side of caution.

Leslie

I am probably a little bit older than you and I can remember when we used to have hard frosts and significant snow falls every winter in the south of the country. We also used to have regular rainfall during the summer months and there were also greater extremes of temperature during the summer. It was quite normal then to have the house windows all iced up in the morning with what we called "Jack Frost" on them.

That hardly happens these days and the winters are much warmer generally than they used to be. It is very noticable believe me. We also get higher temperatures in the summer now for a longer period of time. PS Lewis might be able to remember all that better than I can!

Hope that helps.

Les

Geezer

I too remember colder winters and cooler summers, but so what? My memory is a snaphot in time compared to the earths history.

A billion or so years ago, earth was a complete snowball, for millions of years. The temp then raised 50 degrees in a few centuries, and the earth came out of it. The average temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, but it all sorts itself out. Humans are so short sighted, and arrogant. Just because we have a bit of technology, we assume that we must be shaping the climate, whereas natural cycles and process dwarf anything we can muster.

Even if it were ture, and the small amount we add is the cause, why is there any reason to suppose that the earth will not find equilibrium again? It has done do many times in the past.

Geezer

PeteBrant

Hang about - it['s all about vested interest.

Which organisation that funds research into global warming stands to lose as much as the oil companies?

Its just like the tobacco industry rolling out scientist to say that smoking does not cause lung cancer - something they did regularly.
Global warming has no evidence against it - It's happening, that much is fact. What is "debated" and I use the term loosely, because the term debate implies there is some argument, there isn't really, is what the cause of Global warming is. As far as the Government, and the opposition is concerned, the case is closed.

Geezer

You seem to be very hung up on this vested interest business. Considering what our government pumped out to support going to war in Iraq, I cannot believe you can say that the same government wouldn't talk up GW to rake the money in!

That's not to say that the figures they come up with are wrong (well, the original data, their interpretation is, well, just that).

You quote the example of tobacco companies, I counter with the War on Iraq, how far do you want to take this argument? Private companies and governments have all been quilty in the past of doing this, it does not automatically make a counter view wrong nor new research untrustworthy.

Of course companies have vested interests, as I said before though, it doesn't make the science behind the research any less valid. The example of drugs companies is a case in point, they do it purely for money, but the science is still good. And yes, I realise that helps support the GW people, but it's also valid for the no human influence argument.

Yes, of course it's happening. Not necessarily happening because of us though, I did not make that clear.

MJW

It's not going to make a blind bit of difference if the entire world stopped producing CO² in an instant. We're all going to be extinct soon anyway !
It's just a convenient ploy to raise taxes ...

Martin2005

Another great thread.

I think that the view that scientific opinion is divided is somewhat misleading. As far as I can tell opinion ranges on mans contribution on GW between 'Unproven' to 'Probable' to 'Definite', there is I believe only a tiny minority of scientist (if any) that say 'Definetly not'. Therefore the balance of opinion is is that it's more likely than not.

So how can anyone on here say with certainty that it's not true?

I believe in cause and effect, consequences for our actions, and the fact that there's no such thing as a free lunch

In the last 100 years we have taken billions of tonnes of Co2 our of the ground and pumped it into the atmosphere, you'd have to fairly naive to believe that you can do that without some sort of negative consequence.

jonc

Man made GW is like religion, you either believe in God or you don't. In the days before the industrial revolution and advent of modern technology religion was used pretty much as a form of controlling the population and shaping peoples' behaviour. There are those who believe in miracles and divine intervention and those who believe in fortune and chance. But in either case its always those that have power over "ordinary" people who use it for their own gain. Man-made GW is the new "religion" and if you don't follow/believe it, it's armageddon and your only salvation is to do whatever those in power dictate. Only this time, non-believers aren't burnt at the stake (thereby releasing more CO2 in the atmosphere!). Religious crusades was about spreading the churches' influence power and conquering foreign lands. Today man-made GW is used by powerful governments to leverage economic power and kerb development in less powerful countries.

As already pointed out, the world is warming, but like God there is no irrifutible evidence if it existing likewise whether GW is man-made. I therefore also err on the side of caution and cynical about any government funded research in to GW, I will turn down the central heating, perhaps use the car less and switch my lights off, but not in the belief to save the world but to save money and therefore GW is just a conspiracy peddled by governments to raise so called green taxes!

RB5_245

I have no idea how someone that is obviously intelligent can say that, unless I've misunderstood.

It's fact that a lot of out most dramatic landscape on this planet has been formed by receding glaciers in areas that are now temperate and that previously there were vinyards in britain. Change always happens, it's not something to be stopped, it's normal. These are facts, to attempt to discard them in favor of speculation is very narrow minded.

I'll also add again that I don't sit on either side of the fence on this argument. The 'Man has little or no influence' argument seems more logical and fact based to me however. An article on Wikipedia is certainly not going to persuade me that the scientific community think otherwise.