Is Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon?

[richardkm]

Originally Posted by excoriate

When the IPCC come out and say its man-made, then its man made.

The "debate" thats still kicking about in some quarters should have ended years ago but you still have the crack pots and exxon funded geologists and biotech zealots with junk science trying to reassure people that everythings fine.

I think you're going to have to eat your words.

No theory on supposed climate change has been proved yet and many scientists are moving away from the idea of the "greenhouse effect" and moving towards more natural phenomena being the cause of any climate change that MAY be happening.

On a local note, there's definitely no global warming going here at the moment!!!

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by richardkm

many scientists are moving away from the idea of the "greenhouse effect" and moving towards more natural phenomena being the cause of any climate change that MAY be happening.

really? Would you care to spell out which of the UK's eminent climate scientists have changed their minds on this issue? None of those that I work with have.

Also, I'm not sure why you've emphasised the word 'MAY'. Does anyone seriously question whether the climate is changing? The only debate I've seen is about the causes of the change.

Matt

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by agrumpycow

What the flip is the arklesezure

its a giant green lizardy thing which sneezed the universe out of it nose - followers of this belief live in fear of the coming of the great white hankercheif ( hitch hikers guide to the galaxy)

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

really? Would you care to spell out which of the UK's eminent climate scientists have changed their minds on this issue? None of those that I work with have.

Also, I'm not sure why you've emphasised the word 'MAY'. Does anyone seriously question whether the climate is changing? The only debate I've seen is about the causes of the change.

Matt

I suspect that thats "many scientists" as in those paid by the oil industry

( do you ever get the feeling that this thread is going round in circles ? )

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I suspect that thats "many scientists" as in those paid by the oil industry

( do you ever get the feeling that this thread is going round in circles ? )

Yip.

[gfilmsuk]

'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth'.

Don't know about the scientists you work with Matt, but there's a petition here signed by 19,000 scientists who support the above statement.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

There's another 500 here. 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: List with Study Citations - by Dennis T. Avery - Global Warming Facts

You may also want to take a look at the Heidelberg Appeal which has been signed by 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. These scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry


To me, the daily growing proof, and those willing to put their name to it, can only say that people are getting sick and tired of hearing these scaremongers and profit-seekers.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth'.

Don't know about the scientists you work with Matt, but there's a petition here signed by 19,000 scientists who support the above statement.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

There's another 500 here. 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: List with Study Citations - by Dennis T. Avery - Global Warming Facts

actually i think you will find that that is 19,000 people some of whom may or may not be scientists - having a phd does not automatically make you a scientist you get phds (which means doctor of philosophy ) in every academic pursuit - also not every scientist, even a nobel prize winner, is an expert on global climatic change.

I certainly havent seen any evidence of scientists who are acknowledged experts in the field such as those on the IPCC changing their minds about global warming

also i think you will find that there are very few profit seekers on this side of the debate - there are however numerous profit seekers with a vested interest in selling oil, cars, flights , etc who are seeking to deny anthropogenically acellerated global warming and who are happy to fund petitions and junk science websites in order to do so

[matt_xyz]

these 'petitions' are well known but quite simply DO NOT reflect the scientific consensus. Also, you really do have to look at the quality of those signing it and not just the quantity. Count the professors on the petitions from US Ivy League universities and English Russell Group universities. It won't take you long. The groups organising these petitions really do have an agenda and before anyone sides with them they need to look at some of the other issues they campaign on. You then start to get a feel for their motivation.

Furthermore, one well known German petition argued quite vociferously that 'up to' 20% of climate scientists had doubts about the human impact on the climate. (a) I would question whether this really is 20%, but (b) even if it is, that still leaves 80% who do, on the balance of evidence, agree that we're influencing the climate. Surely we have to base policy on the scientific consensus? It would be madness to do otherwise.

I am no longer contributing to this debate since it is indeed going around in circles. I simply do not understand the logic or reasoning of those non-scientists who do not accept the scientific consensus on this topic. I can only question the objectivity with which they are approaching the issue.

Matt

[gfilmsuk]

All sorts of experts make all sorts of statements and predictions without enough evidence or proof. And yes this does go both ways for and against man-made global warming. We are the only creatures on the planet that have been blessed with the gift of choice, or do we all have to just sit back and believe all we are told.

Scientists once taught us that the sun, the moon and the other planets orbit Earth. Galileo believed planets orbit the sun in perfect circles since circles are perfect mathematically.
Experts told us that Laotian Rock Rats went extinct more than 11 million years ago but have now been found alive and well.

Years ago we all believed that the earth was flat and if you sailed your ship too far you'd drop off the edge. (However, If you've lived in the Fens all your life and never gone anywhere you may still believe this).

The Coelacanth is a rare species of fish, which the world of science said was extinct and existed only in fossil records, and was said by the 'experts' to have lived some 50 million years ago. Joseph Éduard Lemaître spent a lifetime observing the heavens and declared that the universe was expanding. Albert Einstein refused to believe it, saying that the universe was stagnant. The list goes on....
I don't claim to know the answer, that's the reason I come to sites like this, in search of answers, not arguments.

Matt said;
''I am no longer contributing to this debate since it is indeed going around in circles. I simply do not understand the logic or reasoning of those non-scientists who do not accept the scientific consensus on this topic. I can only question the objectivity with which they are approaching the issue''.

The answer Matt, is that I have a mind of my own, I can do research and even understand some of what I read and just because you may have scientific qualifications doesn't mean that I, and all the rest of mankind, have to buy into it.

[Ukwildlifeo]

I think the main problem is a lot of people dont want to believe it, and the fact the government has introduced supposed 'green' taxes, which in reality do little of nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, has made many people think and want it to be a made up way to tax us.

And many right wing papers are publishing articles by people writing books on the 'climate change myth' and pointing to the fcat that the average temperature in 2007 was lower than 2008. What they neglect to mention is the fact that 2007 was a la nina year (the opposite conditions to el nino), which would cause a cooler overall temperature. And overall the temperature of the earth has been rising - and rising at a faster rate than previous recorded in the fossil and sedimentry record

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

The answer Matt, is that I have a mind of my own, I can do research and even understand some of what I read and just because you may have scientific qualifications doesn't mean that I, and all the rest of mankind, have to buy into it.

In that case i would siuggest that you employ that mind of your own and actually do some objective research (which implies considering all the facts) rather than blindly accepting arguments you find on junk science websites

it seems somewhat illogical that you are not willing to take matts word "just because" he is a highly qualified academic but you are willing to "buy in" to arguments put forward by a website registered to a post office box in la jolla and a right wing institute in america neither of whom display any similiar qualifications.

I am quite happy to agree to disagree on this topic as it is unlikely that we will convince you , and you certainly arent going to convince me unless you actually have some propper evidence (ie that not derived from right wing , oil company inspired or financed, websites ) to back up your arguments

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

I think the main problem is a lot of people dont want to believe it, and the fact the government has introduced supposed 'green' taxes, which in reality do little of nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, has made many people think and want it to be a made up way to tax us.

And many right wing papers are publishing articles by people writing books on the 'climate change myth' and pointing to the fcat that the average temperature in 2007 was lower than 2008. What they neglect to mention is the fact that 2007 was a la nina year (the opposite conditions to el nino), which would cause a cooler overall temperature. And overall the temperature of the earth has been rising - and rising at a faster rate than previous recorded in the fossil and sedimentry record

i think you have hit the nail on the head ukw , many people dont want to believe it as it might impact on their cosy lifestyles and will go on not believing untill we start seeing actual effects (mass flooding, huge storms, inudation rising salinity, drought, crops failing) which will have a much greater effect but by which time it will be too late to do anything.

[gfilmsuk]

''Many people don't want to believe it as it might impact on their cosy lifestyle''

You've obviously led a very sheltered life eeyore and have not seen much of the world and its problems. I suggest you take a break and go to India, China, Africa and even parts of America (as I have done several times) and tell the real sufferers how cosy they're having it! Maybe it would improve your obvious lack of understanding.

Arrogance conceit and sarcasm seem to be the only tools many 'scientists' depend on. Come up with indisputable evidence for man-made global warming and then you may find you may even gain some respect. It seems that all evidence that does not comply with your way of thinking is branded as rubbish. For a scientist, if that's what you are, you have a very 'lofty' attitude that won't get my vote. I still believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon and has been going on since time began, whenever that was, and something you can't disprove.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

Arrogance conceit and sarcasm seem to be the only tools many 'scientists' depend on. Come up with indisputable evidence for man-made global warming and then you may find you may even gain some respect. It seems that all evidence that does not comply with your way of thinking is branded as rubbish. For a scientist, if that's what you are, you have a very 'lofty' attitude that won't get my vote.

I think your find that eeyore was mearly stating what the scientific data of hundreds if not thousands of studies, not his own views hes decided independently of any evidence. The fact is there is now more CO2 and methane in the atomosphere, causing the greenhouse effect and otehr problems like acidificing the oceans, and where is this coming from? - last I checked there wasnt a supervolcano or masses of smaller volcanoes erupting?

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

I still believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon and has been going on since time began, whenever that was, and something you can't disprove.

Global waming that is caused by milankovich cycles IS natural, however the rapid increase we are experincing is not.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

''Many people don't want to believe it as it might impact on their cosy lifestyle''

You've obviously led a very sheltered life eeyore and have not seen much of the world and its problems. I suggest you take a break and go to India, China, Africa and even parts of America (as I have done several times) and tell the real sufferers how cosy they're having it! Maybe it would improve your obvious lack of understanding.

as regards the world and its problems i'm pretty well versed - well enough to see the total lack of logic in your response - The poor of bangladesh, india, china, africa etc are indeed the real sufferers - they are the ones who more than anyone else will be badly effected by global warming induced famine and flood.

However (with the exception of the bovine problem in india) they are not the cause - those that need to take action and change their cosy lifestlyes are those in the indistrialised west (and to a lesser extent russia and china) - stop flying , drive more fuel efficient vehicles, use less electricity etc - however it is a large proportion of these people who are bent on denying anthropogenic global warming is happening , because they dont want to change their lifestyles one jot.

Do you seriously believe that those organisations behind the links you posted care about protecting the poor in india, africa etc ... talk about a total lack of understanding,

[gfilmsuk]

The thing that really gets me about this type of debate is that these 'armchair' scientists have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The real culprits of global warming are the activists who repeatedly call for lower and lower Co2 emissions without proper proof and without realising the harm that it's doing to third world countries. Greenpeace called for a 60-80% reduction from the 1990 levels, don't you think that would be devastating to the developed world?
The cost of the Kyoto treaty for just one year is enough to provide clean drinking water to everyone on the planet, and would save 2 million lives. Activism, not global warming, is the real threat and who seem to be doing their best to make sure that poor countries stay poor.
Is global warming really happening?. Are we as much to blame as some would have us believe?
All you 'scientists who are calling for even lower emissions are blocking economic development in third world countries. If you don't believe me, which I don't suppose you will, go and see for yourself. I guarantee you will be horrified at the suffering, as I was, and I thought I'd seen all the horrors of this world. Please don't say you've seen it all on TV because you haven't. The UK and America are the two most heavily censored countries in the world. Those who decide what we can and can't see are worried that you would be deeply affected, and believe me you'd never look at human suffering the same again.
We were in Darfur 18 months ago filming the alleged man-made effects to the environment. The people who live there, (yes, even scientists) are convinced it's a natural occurrence that has been going on for thousands of years and nothing to do with Co2. We're going back in 2 months to film a follow-up and I can only imagine that things have not improved.
Is the fighting there about ethnic cleansing? No, it's about having enough to eat and drink, something we in the developed world can do something about with all our money and resources instead of whingeing and whining every other minute about Co2 emissions.
Poor countries need economic development not environmentalists standing in their way. Nobody needs the Kyoto treaty, neither does it need armchair scientists continuously adding fuel to the fire, especially based on an unproven theory. If you really believe you are right and know the answer, then do something positive about it.
Eeyore said; ''Do you seriously believe that those organisations behind the links you posted care about protecting the poor in india, africa etc ... talk about a total lack of understanding''.
The links I posted are lists of thousands of scientists throughout the world who don't buy into your theory! And yes I do believe there are people out there who really care..

[eeyore]

yes the cost of meeying carbon reduction could provide clean drinking water etc , but would the money actually have been spent on this ... of course it wouldnt it wasnt being pre kyoto so why should it have been now.

also environmetalists arent the major block to development in the third world, rather grinding poverty, in some cases corrupt leaders, war and famine are largely to blame.

and darfur is about ethnic cleansing, racism, and sheer bloodlust and brutality - how much do you think weapons cost ? if it was only about poverty might it not be more sensible to spend your money on bread rather than bullets - anyway as we dont discuss politics here so i wont go further down that road - the only point on which i agree with you is that we should do more to stop it , but the money being spent on kyoto commitments doesnt come from our defence budget - thats mainly being spent on other wars

The situation in the third world will not be improved by pretending that global warming isnt real - as i said those poor people will be the major victims of the drought , famine , and storms.

and as i've said before the links you've posted are to right wing american websites which have the stated aim of pursuing free market solutions , and deregulation - if you really think that free market and environmental deregulation benefits the third world then you must have had your eyes closed during your trips - next time you are in india go and visit the ship breakers yards where peasants with no safety gear are working with abspestos, toxic chemicals, carcinogenic used oil, oxyacetylene torches etc and what have you 14 hours a day for not much more than the price of their days food - thats what freemarket solutions and environmental deregulation get you - it might even make a good documentary if you are brave enough to approach it with an open mind.

If britain and america are so heavily censored, how come you are able to spout all this stuff openly on a website ? and how come it is so easy for you to find the sites you use to prop up your argument ?

and finally - anthropogenic global warming is not "my theory" , it is a well researched phenonenem - the ipcc alone has done over fifteen years of research on it - have you read their papers ? or do you just dismiss them out of hand because they arent saying what you want to hear ?

Anyway suggest we agree to disagree - and like matt xyz i am now abandoning this thread , because there is no point in a debate that just goes round and round in circles.

[pressld2]

This may just be adding fuel to the fire but what the hey...

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | More doubt on cosmic climate link

My own view is that there almost certainly are natural phenomena causing changes in global temperatures but there are definitely man-made ones too. Once again it's not either / or, black / white, good / bad - it's both!

Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas", an increase in its level in the atmosphere will cause more heat to be retained. This is a fact, not a theory, and very easy to demonstrate with a simple, repeatable experiment. You can even do it at home with a sealed container, a CO2 cannister, a thermometer and a lightbulb.

Carbon dioxide levels have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution, 284 parts per million in 1832, 384 ppm in 2007 - fact, not theory.

The average temperature of planet Earth is warmer now than it was when CO2 levels were at 284 ppm - fact, not theory.

If CO2 levels continue to rise then global temperatures will rise along with them - theory, not fact, but given the previous three facts I certainly wouldn't bet against it!

We can argue all we like about how much the temperature has risen because of the extra CO2, or how much it may rise in the future with additional CO2, or even what percentage of recent (last 50 years) global temperature increases are due to natural phenomena. But if anyone claims that the additional CO2 pumped into the atmosphere in the last couple of centuries by the burning of fossil fuels is having no effect on global temperatures then they are just plain wrong. And provably so - by facts, not theories.

Dave P.

[The Black Rabbit]

Just to approach the subject of GW or AGW from another (worrying and depressing) angle...

I have a horrible feeling that if we are still here WHEN (not if) we run out of oil, (its coming quicker than you think), Global warming will seem like an insignificant, trivial thing to worry about.
Its a big IF (sure), but its worth bearing in mind. CERTAINLY.

TBR.