Is Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon?

[Tormentil]

David Bellamy says it all for me.....

Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air

[ChrisJB]

What a fabulous article. Thanks for sharing that with us Tormentil. I found that really compelling, especially as I have long held a great deal of respect for David Bellamy.

A couple of years ago he led a protest walk over one of our local moors earmaked for silly giant windmills. Unfortunately it didn't make a difference and they are being erected as we speak. More needless habitat destruction.

Sorry, I seem to be hijacking this thread! I'll say no more!

Bye and regards, Chris

[matt_xyz]

In the past David Bellamy has made a number of well publicised gaffs regarding climate change. His exchanges with George Monbiot are also quite amusing (in my opinion Monbiot made Bellamy look daft). To my mind he has very little credibility on this topic, he's by no means a climate scientist.

Matt

[Paul mabbott]

Reptile digestive systems are entirely different from those of ruminant mammals ... and the bit about vegetarians is rubbish!

Originally Posted by Interpreter

..........If cows and vegeterians are to blame for most of the greenhouse gasses being emitted today, what was happening 65 million years ago? How much CO2 would an 80 ton brontosaurus produce at one end and methane at the other and how many of these creatures could the earth support before global warming became an issue?

Just a thought.

[Paul mabbott]

There's an interesting piece on how journalists and judges are helping to confuse matters and how some fascist businessmen are funding anti-scientific propaganda.

Bad Science » Stylish correction from the Observer readers’ editor

Whenever something contentious comes up and 'scientific judgement' is mentioned, it's always worth looking to see if there are any viewpoints on badscience!

[Paul mabbott]

Scientist threatens legal action over The Great Global Warming Swindle | UK News | The Observer

[Strontium]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

This is a little tongue in cheek.

If cows and vegeterians are to blame for most of the greenhouse gasses being emitted today, what was happening 65 million years ago? How much CO2 would an 80 ton brontosaurus produce at one end and methane at the other and how many of these creatures could the earth support before global warming became an issue?

Just a thought.

Well with all that methane in the air, bet that asteroid that smacked into the earth made more of a bang to knock the dinosaurs out..

[Strontium]

David Bellamy wrote this;

"I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests."

I just cannot see how he manages to keep writing after that, surely this must be the most important point. I guess he forgot to remember that burning so much fossil fuels creates the sulphuric acids, and other pollutants that are destroyers of all things biological. Since when did a biologist forget about an ecosystem? OK DAVE, lets go and build a load of coal fueled powerstations, to protect the environment from windfarms, and help us ignore global warming all together!

[The Black Rabbit]

My guess is David Bellamy (although discredited on specifics in the past, as mentioned before) knows a little bit more about the subject than some of his discreditors here? That's just a guess though.

I'll repeat my earlier comment. There's no doubt about the fact in my humble opinion that there are MANY vested interests regarding the subject of "Global Warming TM" (note again the Capital letters and trademark).
Global Warming TM is, make no mistake about this, a massive global economy now - people's wages, jobs and reputations depend on this.

Global Warming TM is very different to the phenomenon of climate change.

We all just need to be sensible about this really, and not become hysterical with the media's sensationalist, un-informed reporting on a very contentious subject.

Doug

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

In the past David Bellamy has made a number of well publicised gaffs regarding climate change. His exchanges with George Monbiot are also quite amusing (in my opinion Monbiot made Bellamy look daft). To my mind he has very little credibility on this topic, he's by no means a climate scientist.
Matt

Agree with you in the main here Matt_xyz.
Not sure though what you mean by your last sentence (highlighted in bold).
Is David Bellamy a climate scientist?
No. He isn't.
Is that important though?
He's effectively been "struck off", for good reasons I suspect... BUT -

Permit me to play "Devil's advocate" here if you will, and I am making assumptions regarding your brief ending gambit, I appreciate that.

Because David Bellamy is no climate scientist (a given), does that make his opinions worthless?
In my humble opinion that is rather like saying Richard Dawkins cannot attack religious faith, per say, because he is not a learned theologist. (I actually believe Dawkins cannot dissect religion with science for other reasons - but lets not get into that!).

Or.... to be slightly more frivolous -
Does one need to be a tailor, to tell us that the Emperor is indeed, wearing no clothes at all?

Just a thought.

Doug

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

My guess is David Bellamy (although discredited on specifics in the past, as mentioned before) knows a little bit more about the subject than some of his discreditors here? That's just a guess though.

and my guess is that there are more than one or two members in the forum who know a little bit more about the subject than David Bellamy

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

and my guess is that there are more than one or two members in the forum who know a little bit more about the subject than David Bellamy

Maybe!
My guess now, is your guess is no guess!
Doug

[Strontium]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

My guess is David Bellamy (although discredited on specifics in the past, as mentioned before) knows a little bit more about the subject than some of his discreditors here? That's just a guess though.

I don't for a moment ignore that David Bellamy has knowledge of something, he has years of experience with ecology, but I am surprised that someone with his experience would try to sum up the current media attention on climate change with branding many of climatologists as doomsayers. He says that he is interested in keeping the rigor of hard science, but then complains that climatology on a large scale is too complex, and not reliable. That is exactly what happens when you look at hard science. The models are complex, because the situation is complex, the system is unreliable because the environment is changing in unpredictable ways.

He talks about the temperatures dipping and global highs but the hottest years have all been in the last decade, and 2005 was the hottest. David Bellamy is wrong because he uses an error bar to conclude that 1998 was the hottest - NASA says they were even. If that is not warping the truth, what is? To quote, "The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis." and that means that the two hottest years in more than a century were in the last ten years. If you look at the data, there is no question that the last decade was hot in comparison to the last 150 years.
link; Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation

According to the MET offices' leading scientist;

"The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years."

In fact, so that anyone can become better aquianted with global warming, than David Bellamy, you should look at these sites;

Met Office: Climate change myths
Met Office: Climate change

Btw, if you look at the pdf and read about wether or not by listening to these people you have the facts presented to you by the highest authority - then you should know the research centres output is peer reviewed, and the centre is at the highest standards technically.

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

I'll repeat my earlier comment. There's no doubt about the fact in my humble opinion that there are MANY vested interests regarding the subject of "Global Warming TM" (note again the Capital letters and trademark).
Global Warming TM is, make no mistake about this, a massive global economy now - people's wages, jobs and reputations depend on this.

This Global Warming TM is a necessary offset created my people in media, politics and business to enable/create/stimulate thinking, on how to deal with global warming issues - or how to exploit it. The media love it, they can talk about it till the cows come home, the politicians have to learn new tactics, and the buisiness people are doing what they have always done, adapt, invest, reduce losses, make money.

If you took all that away what would you be left with, a population that cares less about green issues than it did, an economy that destroys environments faster than it did. Dont you agree that if something isnt done about GW and damage to environments the net expense to peoples lives the world over (not just corporate accounts) will be just a bit bigger than the problems caused by people having to learn to adapt more to a less affluent lifstyle in the west?

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Strontium

This Global Warming TM is a necessary offset created my people in media, politics and business to enable/create/stimulate thinking, on how to deal with global warming issues - or how to exploit it. The media love it, they can talk about it till the cows come home, the politicians have to learn new tactics, and the buisiness people are doing what they have always done, adapt, invest, reduce losses, make money.

If you took all that away what would you be left with, a population that cares less about green issues than it did, an economy that destroys environments faster than it did. Dont you agree that if something isnt done about GW and damage to environments the net expense to peoples lives the world over (not just corporate accounts) will be just a bit bigger than the problems caused by people having to learn to adapt more to a less affluent lifstyle in the west?

Just a point that confuses me with your post above (highlighted in bold type)
What do you mean by your "or how to exploit it" though?
Cheers
Doug

[The Black Rabbit]

Sorry strontium I haven't given you time to respond.
I'm off home soon, and am very tired so probably won't be logging on later.

"Global Warming TM is a necessary offset....".
To quote you.
I guess thats my problem really.
I wish it wasn't "a necessary offset". I really do.
Horses for courses I suppose.

Cheers
Doug

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

Because David Bellamy is no climate scientist (a given), does that make his opinions worthless?
In my humble opinion that is rather like saying Richard Dawkins cannot attack religious faith, per say, because he is not a learned theologist. (I actually believe Dawkins cannot dissect religion with science for other reasons - but lets not get into that!).

no, but if someone is to come to a conclusion that is at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists (as represented by the IPCC position, for instance) then some expertise in the complexities of climate science would be required I would have thought. Bellamy is free to express an opinion but how valuable an opinion is it?

Matt

[The Black Rabbit]

Matt.
I did respond to this, but together with all other posts, it was lost this morning.
All to do with semantics really, but I really cannot be bothered to retype the post.
Cheers
Doug

[MalcolmX]

3 questions

why do we believe this gov and its scientists when they lie most of the time
why do people always disregard history when they talk about climate change
where is all the provenance for all these claims

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by MalcolmX

3 questions

why do we believe this gov and its scientists when they lie most of the time
why do people always disregard history when they talk about climate change
where is all the provenance for all these claims

(1). the science behind climate change is nothing to do with the British govt or 'its' scientists. Instead it stems from a vast body of scientific, peer-reviewed, work undertaken around the world by independent (i.e. not affiliated with govt) scientists.

(2). Analysing historical changes to the world's climate forms an essential part of this work. Why wouldn't it?

(3). For the evidence of climate change see the above vast body of work. Alternatively, see the scientific consensus summaries contained within the IPCC reports.

Matt

[matt_xyz]

there's a lot of talk above about 'vested interests' with the implication being that such interests, typically in the form of governments, are peddling climate change because it is beneficial for them to do so. I find this point confusing.

Firstly, I am aware of no evidence which suggests that governments have lent on academics to produce pro-climate change research. This simply does not happen in established universities (and I speak from experience).

Second, perhaps the most powerful political entity in the world, the US government, is rabidly anti-climate change yet a very large body of respected scientific work providing evidence for climate change has emerged from the US.

Third, the vested interests opposing climate change are immense and hugely powerful. Oil companies in the US directly fund (and even create) pseudo scientific 'think tanks' with the explicit intention of providing, and peddling, anti climate change evidence. This is not conspiracy theory this is documented fact. These oil companies also directly fund the US government as well as individual senators and are largely credited with getting Bush into power in the first place. The individual senators who receive the most funding from oil companies also tend to provide the greatest opposition to climate change. Funny that. Data on sources of political support are directly available so this, again, is not mere conspiracy theory.

In sum, I find it very odd when people believe vested interests are promoting climate change. Having researched this area professionally for many years, I have only ever found the opposite to be true.

Personally, I believe on the balance of probabilities that human activity is influencing climate. I'm not blind to the uncertainties and complexities and bits we simply are yet to understand. But, I believe the scientific consensus. To do otherwise would mean one of the following must hold true; (a) I know better than them (b) I'm insane (c) that I was perhaps unaware precisely what the scientific consensus is or (d) that I'm paid by oil companies to state that climate change isn't happening. I'm always interested to try to work out which category most climate change deniers fall into

rant over. I feel better already

Matt

[crispy]

The way I see things on this issue is by unlocking the amounts of carbon thats been trapped within the earths crust into the atmosphere within a short period of time (200 yrs or so) is undoubtedly changing the composition of the earths atmosphere thus changing its properties. I also believe global warming/cooling is a natural phenomenon and there are many contributing factors (you only have to take a core sample from the ground to get evidence of natural atmospheric changes) but if you look outside and see vehicle after vehicle driving by and then multiply that by all the city's and towns in the world the relentless use of oil in this way has to have some drastic impact.

Taking away our natural CO2 sinks by deforestation together with massive overpopulation and resource consumption I also believe is contributing significantly towards 'man made' accelerated global warming.

We need to invest more into space travel/colonisation instead of war to alleviate some of the stresses on our planet and get some kind of star trek scenaria on the go