The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Paul mabbott]

Well, I've wasted enough time arguing people who won't see the obvious and use comments such as 'scientists did this that or the other'. Some medical and agricultural scientists were slow to catch on to the problems of CJD &c while many ecologists and microbiologists had long been warning of the problems of intensive farming including the feeding of meat to herbivores. Warnings went unheeded because the government took the wrong advice and bowed to pressure from the agricultural industry.
There is seldom such a thing as consensus amongst scientists which is what makes the current view regarding the anthropogenic enhancement of climate change so impressive.
You should be warned that the deniers, such as Singer, tend to be funded by the oil lobby ....

Originally Posted by thwick in 'ead

Unfortunately, I missed the programme, but I am one of those who is not convinced by the man made global warming theory, preferring the inter-glacial and solar activity explanation.

As for scientists - did they not tell us that British beef was safe to eat? They're not all perfect!!!!

Have a look at these two links:

what's up with the weather: the debate: dr. s. fred singer

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 | St Opinion | Opinion | Telegraph

For a different view

[richardkm]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Well, I've wasted enough time arguing people who won't see the obvious and use comments such as 'scientists did this that or the other'. Some medical and agricultural scientists were slow to catch on to the problems of CJD &c while many ecologists and microbiologists had long been warning of the problems of intensive farming including the feeding of meat to herbivores. Warnings went unheeded because the government took the wrong advice and bowed to pressure from the agricultural industry.
There is seldom such a thing as consensus amongst scientists which is what makes the current view regarding the anthropogenic enhancement of climate change so impressive.
You should be warned that the deniers, such as Singer, tend to be funded by the oil lobby ....

I can see where both Thwick and Paul are coming from, but once upon a time all scientists thought the world flat, even earlier than that they considered that the earth was the centre of the universe, and may I remind you that Darwin was a lone voice in the wilderness.

I'm not saying that one side or the other is correct, I consider that the jury is still out regarding climate change and that we should keep an open mind as to the cause, because if it is a natural phemomena and we can have no effect on the cause, we need to think very carefully about the future. If humankind is the cause, then we MUST look at how we can reverse the trend, but it's no good if we in the UK are the only ones taking steps, it needs to be world wide, and that really is a can of worms

[Paul mabbott]

Sorry, must disagree. There were no real scientists until the 18C although there were proto-scientists in the middle ages and renaissance (there were, of course, better [closer to truly scientific] investigators in the Arab world during the European dark ages) but they were constrained by lack of equipment and observations. Remember why early proto-scientists made false deductions: (a) they did not have extensive data and (b) they were working on an accepted world-view handed to them by Aristotle and the Church. Remember what happened when investigators such as Galileo tried to propose an alternative world view!

With the possibility of travel and instrumentation, people were able to make direct observations, make conjectures, test hypotheses, experiment &c (the bases of true science). And Darwin wasn't alone: far from it, he got many of his ideas from earlier or contemporary geologists such as Lyall and, famously, Wallace was going to publish his own evolutionary theory which prompted Darwin into publicly expounding it!

Finally, no one has said that humans cause global warming. Although this is what deniers argue against. Global warming and cooling occur in regular cycles, naturally. What most scientists will agree on is that human activities are accelerating global warming at a rate that will cause enormous problems for humans and for the rest of the natural world. It is the rate of change that is important: we could probably cope with 'normal' changes over millennia but not with the current rate ...

Anyway, whatever the cause, something needs to be done and the only things that we can do are to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released and to actively increase carbon sequestration by 're-greening' the planet.

... and I said I wasn't going to waste any more time ......

Originally Posted by richardkm

..........., but once upon a time all scientists thought the world flat, even earlier than that they considered that the earth was the centre of the universe, and may I remind you that Darwin was a lone voice in the wilderness.

I'm not saying that one side or the other is correct, I consider that the jury is still out regarding climate change and that we should keep an open mind as to the cause, because if it is a natural phemomena and we can have no effect on the cause, we need to think very carefully about the future. If humankind is the cause, then we MUST look at how we can reverse the trend, but it's no good if we in the UK are the only ones taking steps, it needs to be world wide, and that really is a can of worms

[harasseddad]

Originally Posted by thwick in 'ead

Unfortunately, I missed the programme, but I am one of those who is not convinced by the man made global warming theory, preferring the inter-glacial and solar activity explanation.

As for scientists - did they not tell us that British beef was safe to eat? They're not all perfect!!!!

Have a look at these two links:

what's up with the weather: the debate: dr. s. fred singer

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 | St Opinion | Opinion | Telegraph

For a different view

"Dr Singer Singer is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer and between second hand smoke and lung cancer" Fred Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So like yeah, of course he doesn't believe in global warming - this guy doesn't believe in anything.

Incidently, for another viewpoint check out:
Some Like It Hot

[harasseddad]

Originally Posted by richardkm

I can see where both Thwick and Paul are coming from, but once upon a time all scientists thought the world flat, even earlier than that they considered that the earth was the centre of the universe, and may I remind you that Darwin was a lone voice in the wilderness.

I'm not saying that one side or the other is correct, I consider that the jury is still out regarding climate change and that we should keep an open mind as to the cause, because if it is a natural phemomena and we can have no effect on the cause, we need to think very carefully about the future. If humankind is the cause, then we MUST look at how we can reverse the trend, but it's no good if we in the UK are the only ones taking steps, it needs to be world wide, and that really is a can of worms

Actually hardly anyone thought the world was flat - the greeks calculated the circumference pretty accurately circa 200BC The medieval church might have thought it was flat (but actually I'm not sure many of them did) but no scientist ever did. The earth as the center of the universe was accepted for a long time simply because it conforms to experience - you see the sun going round the sky, proving that actually it's us going round the sun requires pretty complex maths. (Incidently in a survey of primary teachers a few years ago something like 30% thought the sun went round the earth, so there's still some work to do here). Darwin's theory was almost universally accepted by scientists as soon as it was published. Only non-scientists argued against it. "How incrediably stupid of me not to have thought of that" was Huxley's first response on hearing about Darwin's theory.

And the jury isn't out as far as science is concerned - no serious scientist who isn't paid by the oil industry has any doubts about the reality and causes of global warming - any more than they have doubts about the link between smoking and cancer. What we are seeing here is a concerted campaign to muddy the waters about global warming run for the most part by the same PR firms who managed to delay action on smoking on health for so long. My uncle died (from lung cancer) still believeing that the link "wasn't scientifically proved", that "the evidence wasn't conclusive", that there was "a controversy". It's exactly the same campaign, complete with fake graphs, tame scientists, and dodgy statistics.

[Bombus Bombus]

I believe global warming is a natural phenomenon "probably" accelerated by mankind.All the comments regarding scientists and people thinking the earth was flat, well there is strong evidence to suggest people were circumnavigating the earth and building cities10,000 years ago.Someone mentions that 300 years ago theydidnt have the "extensive data" they have now but i think its possible that c10,000 years ago although they didnt have computers as we know them these people had the knowledge.The trouble is knowledge gets lost sometimes forever via things likenatural disasters or destroyed in invasions by other tribes.The ancient greeks could make remarkably accurate astronomical calculations using a pole held at arms length cos they had the knowledge ,who needs computers.Ive just touched the tip of the iceberg and could waffle on for ages but anyone who beleives that the earth being round was only discovered a few hudred years ago i wonder what doctrine it comes from.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Sorry, must disagree. There were no real scientists until the 18C although there were proto-scientists in the middle ages and renaissance (there were, of course, better [closer to truly scientific] investigators in the Arab world during the European dark ages) but they were constrained by lack of equipment and observations. Remember why early proto-scientists made false deductions: (a) they did not have extensive data and (b) they were working on an accepted world-view handed to them by Aristotle and the Church. Remember what happened when investigators such as Galileo tried to propose an alternative world view!

With the possibility of travel and instrumentation, people were able to make direct observations, make conjectures, test hypotheses, experiment &c (the bases of true science).

But galileo did make direct observations, make conjectures, test hypotheses by experiment etc - remember two canon balls of different weights , leaning tower of piza etc etc. so why is he a proto scientist rather than a true one based on your own argument

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by harasseddad

Actually hardly anyone thought the world was flat - the greeks calculated the circumference pretty accurately circa 200BC The medieval church might have thought it was flat (but actually I'm not sure many of them did) but no scientist ever did.

would these be the same ancient greeks who definitely werent scientists because there was no science pre renaisance europe as per your posts further up the thread ? I love the consistentcy of your argument

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by eeyore

But galileo did make direct observations, make conjectures, test hypotheses by experiment etc - remember two canon balls of different weights , leaning tower of piza etc etc. so why is he a proto scientist rather than a true one based on your own argument

Yes, good point but I think that he was working within a paradigm that did not allow full investigation of all phenomena. I suppose that you could call him, Copernicus, Bruno scientists because they were trying to break out of that world view and explain why the observed phenomena occurred; but most of his contemporaries who were very good investigators were not scientists because they could not make the break between their observations and the contemporary world view. Ditto the Greeks and Persian astronomers, great mathematicians and engineers but no contribution to why things happen.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by richardkm

If humankind is the cause, then we MUST look at how we can reverse the trend,

the basic problem with the debate ( I mean in the larger sense not the debate on this thread) is that by the time we know for sure, if climate change is anthropogenically influenced it will be too late

if we get to a point where the world has warmed sufficiently that the perma frost on the tundra melts then there will be a huge release of methane ( which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 by at least a factor of 4 , some research suggests a factor of 20) which will lead to a run away positive feedback loop - at this point it will too late to do anything effective and we will be comprehensively stuffed

We need to act now in case the climate change is our fault - if it isnt we will be no worse off ( possibly better off as we will have developed new technologies and coping strategies) and if it is we could avert a catastrophe - you dont really need to draw a picture to work out the right thing to do do you

Another point that is rarely mentioned is that our oil resources are not infinite - so we will need alternative fuel technologies sooner or later anyway, and this being the case our remaining oil is too precious an industrial and chemical resource to be wasted as fuel. - of course the same "scientists" who deny climate change reassure us that oil reserves are much bigger than we suspect - do we want to put our future in the hands of corrupt and foolish optimists with oil company cash wedged into their wallets - i somehow doubt it

[Hornbeam]

I feel totally confused and manipulated about the whole climate change thing. I now suspect scientists in both camps of being political/commercial puppets who are selective about the perceived facts and present them to prove an argument. Now I always understood that science was about observing, measuring and testing to find out how the physical universe worked and NOT to prove a pre-conceived point.

We can all see from personal experience that our weather has changed during our lifetime. But a change in weather patterns over a single human lifespan doesn't in itself signify climate change. Some scientists use longer term measurements to say that increased CO2 causes the world to heat up. Others say that increased CO2 is the result of a hotter planet - ie the sun is giving out more heat and so that heats up the oceans which produce more plankton which give off more CO2. So who is right?

And what about greenhouse gases that are causing global shading? If we lost that shading, wouldn't we be even hotter? What about the theory that Arctic ice melt will switch off the Gulf Stream and plunge us into another ice age? Isn't that Gaia restoring balance?

To me - all these theories seem contradictory. Is anyone measuring what is happening and comparing that with what we understand has happened cyclically before? And is anyone still objective enough to interpret such data without prejudice?

No.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Hornbeam

I feel totally confused and manipulated about the whole climate change thing. I now suspect scientists in both camps of being political/commercial puppets who are selective about the perceived facts and present them to prove an argument. Now I always understood that science was about observing, measuring and testing to find out how the physical universe worked and NOT to prove a pre-conceived point.

We can all see from personal experience that our weather has changed during our lifetime. But a change in weather patterns over a single human lifespan doesn't in itself signify climate change. Some scientists use longer term measurements to say that increased CO2 causes the world to heat up. Others say that increased CO2 is the result of a hotter planet - ie the sun is giving out more heat and so that heats up the oceans which produce more plankton which give off more CO2. So who is right?

its complicated allright , but like i said above if we wait til we know for sure we might be too late to do anything about it if we are at fault.

Originally Posted by hornbeam

And what about greenhouse gases that are causing global shading? If we lost that shading, wouldn't we be even hotter? What about the theory that Arctic ice melt will switch off the Gulf Stream and plunge us into another ice age? Isn't that Gaia restoring balance?

Ive never come accros the global shading argument in that context - i thought that aplied to particulate matter in the atmosphere like a mini nuclear winter and as regards the gulfstream - if it stops or moves britain and bits of western europe will be colder , not the whole planet. If this scenario plays out we might get lucky with the cold from no GS cancelling out the heat from GHE , but we will then have to deal with invasion or mass imigration from huge numbers of countries who are not so fortunate - and some of whom have huge armies and nuclear tipped missiles.

Originally Posted by horbeam To me - all these theories seem contradictory. Is anyone measuring what is happening and comparing that with what we understand has happened cyclically before? And is anyone still objective enough to interpret such data [U

without prejudice[/u]?

that is what the IPPC is for , and is what they do , but unfortunately they arent very good at putting their conclusions in plain english , whic leaves them to be reinterpreted by journalists whose scientific literacy is minimal but who know that sensationalism will sell more papers than sense

[Roaring Mouse]

[quote=eeyore;113045]
Ive never come accros the global shading argument in that context - i thought that aplied to particulate matter in the atmosphere like a mini nuclear winter






Conjecture has it that up to now particulates in the atmosphere of the Northern hemispheres caused by industry etc, has kept the temperature rise associated with global warming artificially low.
Now that the effects from tackling atmospheric pollution are starting to take effect, we could see greater and faster temperature increases.

[svenrufus]

Turned my back for a couple of days and a lot has happened on this thread since then.

Paul Mabbot is spot on in his analysis of the scientific debate, so thanks for saving me the effort of having to do that.

Unfortunately there is a lot of mythology about the quality of early rather random acts of scientific investigation, pandering to modern expectations of what science is about. Gentleman scholars of old were great at looking around and scratching the surface of a lot of issues, but never really getting into the detail as there was not the baseline information to build on - but they did start o develop the baseline for 'proper' scientists to work from later. One example of mythology - Galileo never dropped anything off the Leaning Tower, just a good story.

Hornbeam feels manipulated by the conflicting information coming from different sources and wonders who to beleive. Rule of thumb, look for the vested interest. It is big business that will lose out the short term if things change as the concensus says it must. The fact that they will lose out in the long term if things don't change is irrelevant to them as all they are worried about is short term returns for shareholders - as they are legally required to do. No other party in the debate has such a vested interest. The idea that scientists are coming up with findings backing the Climate Change view just to get more grants is patently wrong, as grants for research are available for all sides of the debate.

Also, Hornbeam, more plankton will absorb more CO2 not release it.

Sadly, the way this thread has gone is exactly why the programme that started it was so dangerous. It breathed a few more gasps of life into the festering corpse of our fossil fuel obsessed society, purely for the sake of provoking controversy and bolstering the selfish opulence of the corporates.

The question was asked 'Why should we do anything about it if no-one else will?' My answer is twofold: a) by developing the alternatives, we not only prepare ourselves against the future-shock, but provide a template for others to follow; and b) because it is all we can do, and if we do nothing, we are at fault.

Last comment, to Paul again - you worried how much time you wasted talking about this sort of thing, but I'm afraid people who see what is happening have to keep wasting time going over the same ground otherwise, how else will the barriers to understanding begin to break down.

See you all in the future, whatever it's like.

[Marliza]

This thread has made very interesting reading, so thank you to all who have contributed to it so far.

Having seen the TV programmes previously discussed and read a great deal in recent years about climate change and its causes, I find it amazing that those whose opinions ought to have all the answers, i e eminent scientists, are STILL arguing over this issue.

'Science' is supposed to be knowledge based on FACT, but all we seem to hear about are OPINIONS! (My apologies for the capitals - not shouting, just emphasising.)

We're told that our world is at '55 minutes to midnight' and if 'we' don't change our behaviour drastically, there'll be an end to mankind before this century is out. If the earth is warming too rapidly and there's so much cause for concern, why are scientists and governments not getting their heads together to find ways of coping with that, instead of wringing their hands and making promises of reductions in carbon emissions which they know they can't achieve? These climate change debates are like a pantomime: 'Oh yes it is!', 'Oh no it's not!' and the result is hopelessly inadequate to meet the challenges involved.

The debate over fossil fuels centres mainly on use of petroleum and its products, and obviously the lives of most people on earth today would be severely curtailed without it. I went to work for an international oil company in the 1960s and was told then that there were proven reserves of crude oil to last until 1980. Exploration since then has obviously discovered far more than that, but as petroleum is a finite, ever-scarcer resource, alternative sources of power must be found unless we're all prepared to revert to living in an agrarian society or becoming hunter-gatherers.

The choice is stark. Oil has had its heyday, which is why oil companies have long been researching sources of renewable energy. Either massive, world-wide efforts need to be made to replace dwindling oil stocks as a major source of power, with no get-out clauses for certain countries, or the doom-laden forecasts from some of today's scientists are likely to be proven correct in a few decades.

Burning coal is not a practical solution, as it also produces large amounts of unwelcome waste gases. Planting trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions causes other problems if they're not in the right place or they're the wrong kind of trees. Wave and wind power are, so far, incapable of producing massive amounts of power, and solar power is still in its infancy but likely to be the best bet in regions where there is sufficient sunlight to make it viable.

On the small scale, it's up to all of us to waste less, recycle and think of the consequences of our actions, but we're a drop in the ocean. It's world leaders who need to take swift, decisive action, and they're never going to be able to make the right choices about what action to take unless the scientists first get together and reach agreement about what action is necessary to enable adaptation to changing climate conditions.

However, something I've missed if it's been mention earlier, but surely continuing huge population growth is a significant factor in this debate. Can mankind continue to increase in numbers at the present rate and still survive?

What about massive volcanic eruptions spewing gases into the air? What about the damage caused by warfare and nuclear weapons testing? I'll never forget the TV pictures of Kuwait's oilfields blazing and emitting huge clouds of gases. All of these things must contribute to climate change.

There are so many factors involved, and the only solutions to the problems we face lie in the hands of people over whom we have precious little influence. The words 'handcart' and 'hell' spring to mind! Very depressing, to say the least.

Marliza

[hammock monkey]

well put Marliza.
i find there's a certain freedom or funny reassurance in feeling that there's not really any chance of long term success for the human race, but that life will go on with or without us.

i've said it before and i'll say it again, what we need is a good plague!

[Marliza]

Hi, Hammock Monkey,

I agree with you. I think The Who summed up my feelings in their song 'My Generation'. I do 'hope I die before I get old' - very old, that is. (I'm almost a pensioner now and I'd like to get back some of my contributions first.)

Re 'a good Plague', I was planning a turkey dinner at Christmas, but the spoilsports are already out there putting a stop to that.

There's always the flu to look forward to, I suppose ...

Marliza

[Gaina]

I've watched that movie a couple of times, but his track record with other 'documentaries' makes him an unreliable source from which to form an opinion. Mind you, 'An inconvenient truth' doesn't sound much better. I must stress I haven't seen this movie yet, but a high court judge ruled that while it was 'broadly accurate' it contained nine 'significant errors' which meant it was not suitable to be show as part of the curriculum in schools.

I think its very important to see both sides of this debate, and I'm sick of people with 'agendas' being the only ones talking about it. If ego's and political one-up-man-ship can not be put to one side in persuite of the facts then everyone is in deep trouble.

Of course, none of this will change the fact that everyone and everything dies and the planet will blow up eventually so my attitude is let's just enjoy what we've got while we've got it.

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Plus, the rate of change of the climate in recent years is far more rapid than that previously experienced through natural causes.

Matt

That is not exactly true. Natural occurences like intense vulcanisity can alter climate really quite rapidly. At the close of the 18th century, prolonged eruptions of the Icelandic volcano, Laki, led to an immediate succession of cold years in Europe. The Thames froze over in consecutive winters and during one winter in Britain, there was lying snow for four months (what a wheeze!).

The warming after the volcanic activity had subsided was equally swift and dramatic.

And compared to the volcanic activity of the Deccan Traps at the close of the Cretaceous, Laki was small fry.

Regards, Chris