talkmagic.co.uk

Global what? Climate change? cause it does it's winter, climate changes all year round

Well I think its real and I worry for my childrens future

There's no doubt it's real and very worrying but not necessarily all caused by mankind as there are so many other contributing factors which are outside our control. We're told to turn TVs off standby to save the planet yet we all see public buildings, supermarkets and so on lit up like Christmas Trees 24/7. Leave the car at home sounds good but if that then means reliance on public transport, which in the UK is nothing of the sort it's all privately owned and therefore has to be profit making, then the system simply couldn't cope. Use of bicycles etc also sounds good but not if the journey is of any serious distance. Similarly there's an impression that many of us could stay at home and work from there. OK if the work involves just the telephone or computer but not if it involves any physical work, assembly, packing and despatch - all the things which support the rest of the service industries and which is being continually eroded by overseas competition where pollution is rife, health, safety and respect for life is a sick joke but where the costs are so low they get all the business these days.

In effect those who ought to be leading any action to minimise climate change are merely paying lip service to the idea which gives absolutely no real guidance to the rest of us to make our own changes. At the moment it's a case of 'Do what I say, not do what I do' and that idea just won't hold water these days.

Global warming is a very real thing and having massive effects on some areas of the world, unfortunatly these are usually very poor areas. In my last trip out to North Africa last year we toured around some of the villages in the Sahara and talking to people there you can clearly see it's effect. Most of them don't know anything about Global Warming or climate change but they know that they've not had any rain for over 3 years, the date palms that so many of them rely on for income are dying and not producing fruit and the wells are constantly having to be dug deeper to find water. In one of the villages, a well which 5 years ago was 30m deep has now had to go down to 100m to find water and is only opened for 3 days a week.

If it's all down to us or not I'm pretty sure that we're contributing and anything that can be done to lessen our impact has got to be a good thing. If we can all do a little thing to help then those little things will soon add up.

I completely buy into the notion that human activity is causing rapid climate change but I am also aware that there is nothing we can be arsed to do about it.
We humans are unbelievable selfish and self centred and therefore the general masses are not going to massively alter their lifestyles until the real impacts hit home and by then it'll be far too late.

For example if the cure to all climate woes meant all that had to be done was to get rid of all privately owned cars and rely on public transport do you really think the British public would let that happen? Not in a million years and the changes to be made are far more reaching than that so I'm turning up my heating, lighting a bonfire of rubber tyres, clubbing a seal, not having kids and enjoying it while it lasts.

Also not to mention a large portion of human beings believe in "End Times" so are not really motivated into saving the planet anyway.

I think one of the main reasons this causes so much friction is due to there appearing to be an unfair bias towards the "global warming is correct" camp. There is evidence supporting both sides of the arguement. The modelling used to extrapolate the effects we are having on the climate has been pointed out to be flawed as it would suggest the last century to be much worse than it actually was, therefore giving the impression the future will be much worse.

Global warming is a similar arguement to the existance of God (or the existance of anything for that matter). If it exists then it us up to the "it's real" camp to prove this, not the "no it's not camp" to disprove it, however if there is evidence to the contrary the majority yell at the minority and it is ignored or not released due to the ridicule.

Climate is a longer term change over a large area, anything else is just weather. If we cannot accurately predict the weather over 5 days how can we expected the same people can predict the climate over the next 3650?

Although you could argue if climate change is a 50/50 possibilty that due to the stakes being so high in-action would be a foolhardy course to take.

It's a bit like standing on a railway line and arguing whether or not a train is due to barrel around the corner. Better to get off the track

I have seen that arguement but it's an absurd one due to the inability to do almost anything "just in case", that is why things should be proven. By the same reasoning we should all abandon earth because there is an asteroid heading towards us that will wipe us out next year. Statistically speaking it is more difficult to prove that is not the case than it is due to the degree of sky observation we actually have but by the same notion when you ask "What's the co-ordinates?" you would expect a better answer than "Over there somewhere."

If there are two sides arguing a point inevitably both are wrong but there is normally a correct answer somewhere between the two, human nature would rather argue than allow in even parts of an alternative arguement. I like to think I am not like that and piece by piece an opinion I have formed can be replaced by something that is evidenced appropriately however much of the information that actually makes its way in to the public domain on this issue is not scientific fact it is scientific propaganda. An Inconvenient Lie anyone?

Call me weird but I for one cannot wait for the human race to part of the mass extinction of life on earth just so I can feel smug and say I told you so to a climate change skeptic.
From most of the articles and papers I've read there seems to be little to no serious argument amongst scientists to whether human activity is changing the worlds climate. For sure there is certainly discussion as to what level but the utter denial that 7 billion human beings burning hydrocarbons that have been locked away for millions of years into the atmosphere and affecting the climate is stretching it a bit far.

let's drop the big one and see what happens...

Rajendra Pauchari, the Nobel Prize Winner and huge cheese of the IPCC, when asked if there was any definitive evidence for man made global warming, replied " By the time we get definitive evidence, i think it will be much too late. "

" By the time we get definitive evidence....."

" I think it will be "

I'll take that as a " No."

Or rather, i'll take that as a " No, but we'll carry on saying it's all your fault and wringing the green taxes out of you a little longer until the next tragedy comes along...."

The issue needs to be addressed in multiple parts;

Is the climate changing?
If yes, is the cause man made?
If yes, to what degree?

The climate is changing and will always change, that's a given. It is affected by numerous variables most of which are out of our control eg. the sun, other extra-planetary activity, other "greenhouse gases" (i.e. not CO2), natural emissions eg. volcanoes, termites, cows etc. (although granted, livestock emissions would by default be considered man made due to the "mass production" of cattle).

If you hypothesise that human involvement has a direct impact on global warming it is as a part of these factors, so what effect do we have on this system? This is also based on the hypothesis that it is CO2 which is the primary contributor to the problem not other gases. This has not been proven except in mathematical models. There are no scientifically observed experiments to prove this is the case (to my knowledge).

Most of the information you read will support Global Warming for one of two reasons;

1> (The cynical view) It is a good source of funding for scientists which is always difficult to come by. Wave a little green flag and the money comes rolling in, say the hypothesis is rubbish and be branded a puppy burning eco-terrorist.
2> (The less cynical view) It is the majority view, therefore most material as a matter of course would support this.

More material does not prove something is correct as has been shown time and time again. That is the beauty of scientific hypothesis/theory. It is constantly reinvented to accept new evidence. Global warming has become a closed system that ignores contrarian evidence therefore creating;

Scientists spurned and ridiculed for their evidence based ideas.
Scientists desperate for funding "making numbers fit".
People who have no ability to have an impact on their opinion either way (you and I) disagreeing over information that is sketchy at best, but there is more sketchy information available to support than undermine.

The media do not help this as they thrive on disaster and the good old Global Warming card is a nice one to keep at the back of the pack whenever things get a bit dull or need some extra pep.

I have never read, seen or heard anything that I would consider to be quantifiable method tested evidence in support of human caused global warming and until I do I am unlikely to change my opinion, however if anybody has anything they think fits this criteria I am more than happy to take a look and reassess my opinion.

And finally (sorry for the long winded post) that's what this has really become, an arguement about opinion. No one really seems to care anymore about the issue, just that they are the ones that are right about it, which is a little bit sad.

A_n_t wrote:The climate is changing and will always change, that's a given. It is affected by numerous variables most of which are out of our control eg. the sun, other extra-planetary activity, other "greenhouse gases" (i.e. not CO2), natural emissions eg. volcanoes, termites, cows etc. (although granted, livestock emissions would by default be considered man made due to the "mass production" of cattle).

I've read the same thing. Methane is considerably more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, yet no-one seems concerned with methane.

Poor old Johnny Ball, the popular kids tv presenter ( popular in my day anyway ) was booed off stage the other day for saying much the same. I'm sure all the people doing the boo-ing had read the relevant scientific literature though.

Did anyone else download the Climategate emails? Or am i the only one with a big enough anorak to do so? It was hard to wade through, there was a lot of nothing there, but every now and then you'd read something quite disturbing.

I was actually in the audience when Johnny Ball was booed off stage. It wasnt totally because of what he was saying but because he overran by 15mins past his allotted time.
Obviously the climate denial thing was partly responsible too although to go from singing a George Formby style song about the reaction involved in burning hydro-carbons to a 14 minute rant about climate change being baloney in front of a liberal, science literate, Guardian reading audience was probably not the best course of action if you are expecting a standing ovation.
I was far too involved in my mourning the loss of a childhood hero to boo. He is dead to me now

Thing is, Johnny is no more qualified than any of the audience members, lol.

Still, i'd like to have seen that Formby style ditty.