Climate change

[Pete McCluskey.]

IMHO, the whole problem with this debate is it has become political rather than scientific.
With hard core liberals and hard core conservatives both following the party line like religious Zealots!

I would like to think of myself as a sceptic rather a zealot and I am not convinced the science..Mostly flawed computer models proves anything.

Do I think man is polluting the planet? Yes I do and believe it or not have taken part in projects like Clean up Australia. http://www.cleanup.org.au/au/

I am not convinced however that carbon is bad and I am certain from the science I have seen that it is not causing Climate change.

I am also convinced that Governments in the U.S. Canada, U.K. N.Z. Australia and other countries of the western world, will and are using the Global warming/Climate change bogey man to introduce more and more taxes.

Also many major Corporations, Universities and scientific institutions see this global warming myth as an opportunity to get their noses in the carbon credit trough which will be filled with our tax dollars/Pounds.

Follow the money..Nobody really gives a shit about the Polar Bears!

 

[Gregg]

Chris, you may call yourself a "centrist", but you really are a liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Pete, your comments reveal a man of Great Wisdom and insight. A lot of people do not understand the true issue in these types of posts. I try to avoid these types of discussions for that reason.

Do I believe that mankind is having a negative impact upon the environment. Yes. All one has to do is look at the litter some individuals casually throw out their car windows, in our dump sites, etc.

Do I believe that mankind is responsible for the climate changes. Not as of this writing. If you believe the scientific studies which show a natural cycle of these temperature changes, how can you possibly blame the climate change upon our current carbon footprint? How do you reconcile the scientific study referenced by Penn & Teller that our then carbon footprint was going to bring about the next ice age while now it is causing global warming?

My two cents. I have to go now and cut down some trees and trap baby animals.

 

[Jack]

Right on!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I see all the science pertaining to global warming and it points out that it is a natural phenomonon. Volcanos and Forest fires for the most part are natural phenomonon. The greatest polution comes from the volcanos and forest fires. They don't cause global warming. Human polution and cow farts are minimal polution by comparison. Global warming is however a great way to raise money for bionic spending which by coincidence we have had a bit of lately.Hmmmmmmmmm!!!!

 

[ChrisL]

IMHO, the whole problem with this debate is it has become political rather than scientific.
With hard core liberals and hard core conservatives both following the party line like religious Zealots!

I would like to think of myself as a sceptic rather a zealot and I am not convinced the science..Mostly flawed computer models proves anything.

Do I think man is polluting the planet? Yes I do and believe it or not have taken part in projects like Clean up Australia. Clean Up Australia

I am not convinced however that carbon is bad and I am certain from the science I have seen that it is not causing Climate change.

I am also convinced that Governments in the U.S. Canada, U.K. N.Z. Australia and other countries of the western world, will and are using the Global warming/Climate change bogey man to introduce more and more taxes.

Also many major Corporations, Universities and scientific institutions see this global warming myth as an opportunity to get their noses in the carbon credit trough which will be filled with our tax dollars/Pounds.

Follow the money..Nobody really gives a shit about the Polar Bears!

I don't believe for a moment that you are being open minded with just a touch of skepticism. You seemed obsessed to me given all the posts that you have place on this forum.

But if you want to make this a scientific discussion, then lets do that. But before we can have that discussion, we all need to have a basic understanding of how science works...

1) A scientist proposes a theorem.
2) The theorem is tested with controlled experiments.
3) The experiments yield results which either do or don't support the theorem.
4) A theory is then developed based on this evidence
5) A qualified skeptic (for want of a better word) having examined the results will point out a flaw in the theory and propose a new theorem
6) The new theorem is tested... etc etc ... So the process inherently and continuously guides and refines its theories based on evidence gathered.

You will also notice some important points here. That there are NO facts in the process at all (only evidence and theories), and importantly, that skepticism is fundamentally built into the process.

So since your WHOLE argument is based on the fact that skeptics exist, I would have to conclude that you have no scientific argument at all, but that you instead don't understand some of the basic principals of science. All I see is that you are treating the discovery of a skeptic as a revelation... as though you have managed to uncover some dark secret that everyone wants to hide. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

So to get back to climate change, most scientists understand that the climate change theory has been refined many times and redirected many times to a point where its basic theories are now very robust. Even though there are still some things that have not been fully explained, they are not in the realms of being unexplainable.

So to draw an analogy, most scientists believe that the earth is a globe, even though some skeptics may point out that the existence of gigantic mountains apparently disprove this. The earth however is still basically a globe.

 

[Gregg]

You will also notice some important points here. That there are NO facts in the process at all (only evidence and theories), and importantly, that skepticism is fundamentally built into the process.

Doesn't the "evidence" then become "fact"????

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Well Chrisl seems like I touched a nerve. First I never claimed to be a scientist, nor do I have any knowledge of science other than High school studies and I didn't pay attention then. So thank you for enlightening me.

I assume from your post that you agree that Global warming is just a theory and not fact at all?

If so, thank you for agreeing with me.

Everyone should get very angry that Governments across the world are using a non factual theory as a reason to raise even more taxes.

 

[JackW]

I am with you Pete. Chris to suggest Pete's whole argument is based on the existence of sceptics is quite frankly total BS. Pete isn't denying the climate changes, he just doubts that impact of man and the solutions being put forward.

Pete is right, the climate has been changing forever. To suddenly say reducing carbon emissions of which man produces only a small portion is going to change anything is basically saying that carbon is the key driver of the weather. If this was the case why can't all those computer models predict the temparature just by plugging in some new numbers of carbon? Because really, that is what the reduce carbon emissions 'solution' is suggesting. They have essentially boiled down weather patterns to one factor - Carbon. This is convenient for taxation but not so convenient for reality. Temparture levels do not correlate well with carbon levels in the way the solar activity does.

Why can no one answer these questions? More to the point - why WON'T anyone asnwer these questions?

 

[Al Jones]

Because they can't tax sunspots!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

We as a country are proceeding towards a clean environment. I think the average American and some Australians (just kidding Pete) actually give a damn what happens to the world, and we are making a small difference. But fear mongers like Gore that profit on the spreading of fear while he lives in a house that uses $1,500.00 a month in electric, please!!!. He says he uses Green switch electricity that comes from wind turbines. I was an electric lineman, like he has a separate power line from the wind turbines, give me a break. From the size that Gore has grown to, he probably is to blame for a good deal of greenhouse gases.
It's funny, no matter how many scientist say that global warming is a scam (31,000 in the US), no one in government will listen. Of course they have this bill they are trying to pass that will tax us into oblivion! Fear is a great way to raise money! The sky is falling!!!

 

[JackW]

Al Gore is Emitting some more of the greenhouse gasses he says we should be reducing and flying to Australia next week. At the ripe old age of 34 and never having been particularly motivated or angry enough about something in the past I am now seriously considering attending my first protest.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al Gore is Emitting some more of the greenhouse gasses he says we should be reducing and flying to Australia next week. At the ripe old age of 34 and never having been particularly motivated or angry enough about something in the past I am now seriously considering attending my first protest.

You should attend if only to listen to the pure BS that flows from his mouth. In Japan he told them that the polar ice cap was going to be completely melted in 5 years, he held up one hand, fingers spread and kept saying "5 years". In which case the sky won't be falling but we will be floating up towards it!

 

[colin artus]

One of the great sadnesses of the whole pro AGW 'consensus' has been the corruption of the scientific method, in almost all stages of the process, from observational data to peer review. When proponents of AGW state that there is a consensus and that the 'debate' is over you know that this is not science any longer but politics or religion.

 

[Dave]

I think the issue for government is not whether "climate change" or "global warming" is happening or not..... or for that matter what's causing it. It just matters that there is enough propaganda around to base extra taxation on!!
This issue has changed from a good cause and become a stick to beat people with.

Now what i'd like to know about the "carbon/green tax" is.... what it is being spent on, frankly i think i can guess but i'd like the hear the BS from the politicians anyway.

 

[Al Jones]

I don't know about 'global warming' affecting the rest of you folks(like the extreme heat in Oz last season) but we have broken records here in New England for low temps for the last 3 days,some of which have stood for over 70 years. This whole summer has been in the low 60's to mid 70's (deg F) for highs,40's with some 30's earlier for lows.Just now starting to feel like summer with a couple days just breaking 80. El Nino, El something - this is crazy.

 

[Kev Farrington]

If anyone saw Jonathon Ross last Friday he had Vivian Westwood? on and she gave a little speech asking people to look at www.rainforestsos.com and sign up to do your bit to support Prince Charles etc and help stop destruction of rainforests. They dont blame cars, planes, shipping etc for global warming. They blame destruction of rainforests for it. Greed is the problem here. Anyone who doesnt blame us car enthusiasts gets my vote anytime. See what you think, Kev.

 

[emiel]

maybe I'm a simple guy but for me people are the only treat for the environment.Since ww2 the population on earth has more than doubled.This sounds crude,onpopular and certainly not social but get rid of the overpopulation and we are heading in the right direction.For the governments this is a hard one,how can we tax this?So lets close our eyes get more tax from the people who love cars,planes or whatever is fun and our children don't have (a) place to live and food and water for all of them.Is this a hard opinion ,think about it. By the way there where no cars when the dynosaurs disappeared.!!

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

One of the great sadnesses of the whole pro AGW 'consensus' has been the corruption of the scientific method, in almost all stages of the process, from observational data to peer review. When proponents of AGW state that there is a consensus and that the 'debate' is over you know that this is not science any longer but politics or religion.

Ditto +1

 

[Chris P.]

I do have a question: if someone is going to choose to not believe a scientist who supports global warming and/or our contribution to it, what makes that person believe a scientist who does not support it?

One can choose to listen to a worldwide consensus of atmospheric scientists in peer reviewed studies and publications, or one can pick and choose others that happen to support their own agendas. I get the feeling that many of those who are against the scientific community's findings on global warming were also in support of the Iraq war (at least in the beginning.) Why bring up a seemingly irrelevant political point? Because both center around a "study" put forth by a group of supposedly "knowledgable" people. Many make the argument that these scientists have their own agendas with their climate report. What in the hell would that agenda be? Potentially discredit their entire scientific livelihood? Now look at the Iraq war. :shocked: You don't think they had any agendas? I do see a pattern though. A large group of knowledgeable people around the world had and have an opinion about these two topics, but some chose and choose to ignore the them and stick with the groups that offer support for their own agendas.

Here are some global warming links:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their last report with a summary - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

National Academy of Sciences: National Academy of Sciences Home

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf - this report sums up much of the IPCC data and others.

AMS Home Page and a summary - AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

United States Global Change Research Program and a summary - New Assessment of National, Regional Impacts of Climate Change

Now, I'm not saying "There you go - it's definitive." But this is a lot of knowledgeable information that can't be ignored. This is a VERY slow feedback loop of human activity -> climate change -> measurement -> response -> human activity... what some people are afraid of is the response -> human activity -> climate change part of the loop where the motion of change has already achieved a tremendous head start over any prolonged response (if any) resulting in a situation where mankind will have to then make unbelievably drastic measures and sacrifices instead of taking relatively smaller and more manageable ones now; as long as some people can be convinced to make that small sacrifice now. Hell, some people have paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. But then again, there were many people in this climate change discussion who had no problem believeing the "data" for that one.

 

[John Milmont]

here's a funny little argument...
YouTube - The Stuart Davis Show - Episode 12 - A Foothill in the Mouth