Global Warming

[PJMCC1UK]

Something that truly winds me up.

To say that we are truly that responsible for weather change is so narrow minded. We have ''scientists'' using 100 years worth of records to show a rise in temperature. Yet they ignore the other few million years that the earth has been around.

Watched Question Time last night and Marcus Brigstock quoted that temperatures had beaten records every year for the last 10 years since records began. Completely ignoring the fact that records only began 100 or so years ago.
We even have a fairly good knowledge that over the last century Britain has experienced mass weather change. We have had a climate comparable to a Mediterranean one at one point. And then within 200 or so years we were having weather so cold the Thames froze solid.

Also had a woman on last night who used the recent flooding of Cockermouth as ''proof''. Again totally forgetting facts that Cockermouth had experienced floods 300 years before cars were even invented.

It's as if we all had nice weather before and have created bad weather with our carbon footprints.

There is no doubt that weather changes are happening. But to seriously try and account that change to our activity is highly arrogant.

Any eco warriors out there answer me this. Thousands of years ago Europe was covered in ice over 2 miles thick, what melted that?

Ice melting is just a fact of the cycle. Lets stop being so knee jerk about it.

 

[twinkletoes]

The vast majority of Governments and scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are responsible for the increased levels of greenhouse gases which in turn causes global warming.

Yet certain people take it on themselves to deny this based on some flaky article or ill informed commentator that think they know better.

As soon as these opinions are aired then all the sceptics grab the chance to use it to go against peer reviewed research.

It has been noted that most sceptics are right wing in their outlook and seem to need to take on the "collective" opinions of experts. This could be described as a personality disorder.

 

[PJMCC1UK]

So what should we all do?? Shall we just accept things?
I doubt it's a disorder to question things that are wrong or totally mis-represented.

Only some scientists say it's human doing some say it isn't so where's this evidence? It's something based on propaganda. Not healthy to just sit back and accept it.

 

[bizzbo]

scepticism is natural, and some just don't want to believe it. when it comes to a broad 'theory' as this there is never such a thing as final, absolute proof. the word 'theory' in this context means the best explanation available to science. if you reject it, you are rejecting the consensus of hundreds of thousands of qualified academics each and every one of whom has spent the best part of a lifetime studying the evidence. they reason and argue amongst themselves (peer review) constantly to test and refine their 'theory'. I don't mind people who have doubts, but it's plain shallow to dismiss the efforts of scientists in this matter.

the government and certain lobbies have fucked it up by communicating it in completely the wrong way. those adverts last month made me seethe. all the emotional blackmail is backfiring.

 

[Damocles]

That's also one of the worst posts I've seen in a while. Completely no content or justification, just an insult which, if you would have read my earlier posts, you would realise was completely wrong.



And you are basing this off of what? If the world's top climatologists can't work out what the effects will be globally, then how are you coming to these conclusions?

Let's try to decompose this a bit.

Well, if you are using the HadCM3 computer model, the world's climate won't see the type of hot/dry spells that you are talking about. The CCC2 model might predict this, but has been surpassed by the HadCM3 model as far as the defining AOGCM model goes, and it doesn't predict the extreme weather events that lead to the type of wars you are predicting.

Or have you actually done next to no research in to this, have seen Day After Tomorrow one too many times and have just been found out?

If you ever want a debate about the future effects of climate change, or a discussion about the accuracy of any of the IPCC models (which determine it), feel free to come back. Also, on the off chance that any of the Hadley guys read this, you guys are fucking awesome.

Your conclusions are based on what? A few leaked emails! The whole premise of your argument is that you don't believe the science and anything that helps you to argue against it must be true.

No, my conclusions are based on the science. To be honest, I haven't had time to read the leaked emails fully, yet have seen summaries of them.

My arguments are based on the results and predictions of the computer models that the IPCC use, the reading of scientific papers on climate change over the past few years, and discussions with climatologists. A good mate of mine from secondary school went in to this field, and I got interested in it when I used to go for a beer with him and his Uni mates a few years back. Since then, we've kept in touch and he answers the questions I have that are a bit technical for me, and explains them the best he can.

He is currently on a survey ship out in the Pacific Ocean measuring something or other, so I haven't had chance to speak to him about the emails.

My primary interest focuses on the computer prediction systems, as I am a computer programmer and love to see how they are built to predict the future, and what programming methods they use.

As I put in my first post on the subject, I'd like to think I was pretty well informed on the issue as it is something I actually study, and not just read articles about in the Sun.

 

[ElanJo]

The vast majority of Governments and scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are responsible for the increased levels of greenhouse gases which in turn causes global warming.

Yet certain people take it on themselves to deny this based on some flaky article or ill informed commentator that think they know better.

As soon as these opinions are aired then all the sceptics grab the chance to use it to go against peer reviewed research.

It has been noted that most sceptics are right wing in their outlook and seem to need to take on the "collective" opinions of experts. This could be described as a personality disorder.

A suggestion:

(I'm not right wing nor am I a strong sceptic (or a better term - "denier" ... there's nothing wrong, and everything right, with being sceptical in general) of global warming. I think, judging from the actual science that it's still somewhat up in the air - pardon the pun)

Stop politicising science. If you actually understand global warming/climate change (especially to the point that you deem it "the single biggest threat to humanity") then take on the arguments and debunk them.

 

[urmston]

The vast majority of Governments and scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are responsible for the increased levels of greenhouse gases which in turn causes global warming.

Yet certain people take it on themselves to deny this based on some flaky article or ill informed commentator that think they know better.

As soon as these opinions are aired then all the sceptics grab the chance to use it to go against peer reviewed research.

It has been noted that most sceptics are right wing in their outlook and seem to need to take on the "collective" opinions of experts. This could be described as a personality disorder.

Of course it could, especially by someone with little or no expertise in personality disorders.

Your faith in govenments and the scientist they employ is naive. Throughout history governments have caused wars, deaths, oppression and inequality. In living memory government policies and decisions have cost millions of deaths through crackpot theories. And you trust them on climate change and feel qualified to identify personality disorders in others. If gullibility was a personality disorder you'd have one!

 

[twinkletoes]

The vast majority of Governments and scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are responsible for the increased levels of greenhouse gases which in turn causes global warming.

Yet certain people take it on themselves to deny this based on some flaky article or ill informed commentator that think they know better.

As soon as these opinions are aired then all the sceptics grab the chance to use it to go against peer reviewed research.

It has been noted that most sceptics are right wing in their outlook and seem to need to take on the "collective" opinions of experts. This could be described as a personality disorder.

A suggestion:

(I'm not right wing nor am I a strong sceptic (or a better term - "denier" ... there's nothing wrong, and everything right, with being sceptical in general) of global warming. I think, judging from the actual science that it's still somewhat up in the air - pardon the pun)

Stop politicising science. If you actually understand global warming/climate change (especially to the point that you deem it "the single biggest threat to humanity") then take on the arguments and debunk them.

My opinion has a basis in fact whereas most of the debunkers are mostly bandwagon jumpers that will accept any evidence as long as it matches their particular views.

The only people trying to politicise science are the ones trying to undermine the evidence,
as the latest leaking of emails is a perfect example.

If anyone wishes to give me evidence which supports their view that human consumption hasn't had an influence on global warming then I am quite prepared to debate it with them.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

The vast majority of Governments and scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are responsible for the increased levels of greenhouse gases which in turn causes global warming.

Yet certain people take it on themselves to deny this based on some flaky article or ill informed commentator that think they know better.

As soon as these opinions are aired then all the sceptics grab the chance to use it to go against peer reviewed research.

It has been noted that most sceptics are right wing in their outlook and seem to need to take on the "collective" opinions of experts. This could be described as a personality disorder.

not all politicians are happy to jump on the bandwagon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/australia-liberal-party-climate-change

 

[twinkletoes]

The vast majority of Governments and scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are responsible for the increased levels of greenhouse gases which in turn causes global warming.

Yet certain people take it on themselves to deny this based on some flaky article or ill informed commentator that think they know better.

As soon as these opinions are aired then all the sceptics grab the chance to use it to go against peer reviewed research.

It has been noted that most sceptics are right wing in their outlook and seem to need to take on the "collective" opinions of experts. This could be described as a personality disorder.

Of course it could, especially by someone with little or no expertise in personality disorders.

Your faith in govenments and the scientist they employ is naive. Throughout history governments have caused wars, deaths, oppression and inequality. In living memory government policies and decisions have cost millions of deaths through crackpot theories. And you trust them on climate change and feel qualified to identify personality disorders in others. If gullibility was a personality disorder you'd have one!

I am unable to see how the theory put forward to combat global warming could cause any deaths, I think it's safe to say that the reverse would be true.

If global warming is allowed to increase then there will be wars, deaths, oppresion and inequality, the likes of which we have never seen before.