hedgehog

I know politicians are far from the most reliable of sources but the following speech has had the advantage of considerable research resources thrown at it and the science is certainly sound, it makes for interesting reading for those with an interest in such things and especially for those with an interest in the impact of the media:

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers...IN%20CYCLE.pdf

TelBoy

What YOU have to be careful of, hedgehog, is only reading those articles that agree with your increasingly entrenched opinion of what's going on, or not, as the case may be.

You can make science prove anything.

Outside my window, things are different now to how they were. Yes it's probably a normal Earth cycle that we're exacerbating, but people such as yourself who think we can swan round and sit back doing absolutely nothing in the face of it, are this planet's biggest threats, in my opinion.

You have nothing to gain from believing all the "media-hype" hype. And everything to gain from taking a sensible approach to how you use and discard of the planet's resources.

OllyK

Science gives you facts, people can interpret those facts to prove anything. Subtle difference I know, but it's people at fault not the scientific process!

TelBoy

I think we said the same thing, Olly

Dave, i honestly and sincerely question your assertion. I've been around long enough too and if you think the weather's the same as when you were a kid then may i suggest you just haven't been paying sufficient attention to it?!

OllyK

Kind of makes my point, seems we may have subtly different interpretations of what you originally wrote! The scientific process is just fine and dandy, it works and produces consistent results. It's when the bloody statisticians start to mess about with them that all hell breaks loose!

TelBoy

So you're saying you can use science to prove anything, then?

The Snug Rhino

...........but as they agree with me on this issue i'll post a link!

OllyK

Nope - the scientifc process just gives you the raw facts, it doesn't prove anything. Science is about repeatable outcomes and each time you get the same result as expected you add to the body of evidence you have supporting a theory. You then (mis)use statistics to prove anything based on those facts.

TonyG

If you've not seen Al Gore's film, I'd suggest that you go and see it.
Interesting snippets from it - Random 10% selection from all peer-reviewed scientific papers published on climate change/global warming. Total reviewed was some 900 papers. The number of papers that disagreed with each other -0.
Total amount of CO2 in atmosphere (according to ice core data) over last 600 000 or so years varies directly with temperature. Cold periods (ice ages) - less CO2, warm periods - more CO2. At no point during that time was the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere above about 250ppm. It's now over 300ppm, and this only happened in the period after the Industrial Revolution.

TelBoy

So you're saying you can use science to prove anything, then?

OllyK

And CO2 is actually a minor greenhouse gas, the contribution it makes to the warming is pretty small. It's a bit like the difference between 1 grain of sugar or 2 in your coffee. It's doubled, but it still counts for little.

OllyK

No, example, you can't use science to prove that apples float upwards when they become detached from a tree. Science has repeatably shown they will fall to earth. You can of course take all those scientific results and interpret them to say anything you like, but that isn't science or scientific.

TelBoy

In your example, you could prove via science that in a vacuum, an apple would fall upwards. That's what i'm getting at - you can "prove" that the extra CO2 isn't having any measurable effect on the atmosphere, for example, whereas what we're all experiencing and what an increasingly large number of scientists with no vested interest are now acknowledging, is that things are changing at an increasingly rapid rate, and we need to be careful as a race not to taunt the Earth one time too many.

It honestly staggers me that some people want to take the contrarian view on this, as if it's in anyone's best insterests to say it's all a load of bollocks. Who wins then? You've got to be pretty damned sure you're right if you take that approach or what happens if and when it comes back to bite you on the ****?

TonyG

Think this case it's the difference between 2 spoons of sugar or 3 spoons of sugar rather than grains. I agree that CO2 is a 'minor' greenhouse gas, but increase it, and you increase the atmospheric temperature by a little bit. That means the atmosphere can hold more water vapour (another greenhouse gas) so up goes the temperature again. Then the permafrost starts to melt and release considerable amounts of methane (a really effective greenhouse gas). Up goes the temperature again. Pretty soon you get the ice cap in the Arctic melting. Not too much of a problem, apart from all the dead polar bears. Except that the sea being darker than ice absorbs more heat, so the ocean temperatures rise a little...

Hanslow

The big question I have that appears to have no definite answer (and probably never will) is this.... is climate change / global warming man made and can we do anything about it anyway?

Unfortunately we don't have records of the last cyclical ice-age and other climatic periods, so cannot say ourselves what the actual natural cycle is. It's a typical self centred thought of the human race that we are the ultimate being and that we can cause and prevent everything.

I'm not particularly a green environmentally friendly person (although the missus is so I am partly) but then I'm not gung ho and think sod it all completely. I'm just still not happy and sure on the way the propoganda is presented and that the current governing policies are correct.

TelBoy

I respect the points you've made, but the above statement makes absolutely NO sense to me at all. I'm paying **** all extra to try and do my bit, in fact i'm saving money from being more energy efficient, for one thing. Why does this all have to be some conspiracy?? Nobody is controlling me in this respect at all, as far as i'm aware.

I don't know ultimately who's right and who's wrong, obviously. I can only go by what i read, and what i experience. For me, this planet is a different place climatically from when i was younger, overall. We can discuss the exceptions all day long, like 1976 for example, but generally, i see things becoming less predictable and more volatile. I have nothing to lose from at least doing something to reduce my resource usage.

PeteBrant

The problem with that is that 600,000 years is a tiny portion of the earth history - It is like basing your opnion of an entire book on the first few paragraphs.
We don't know if this is cyclical or not, simply because we do not have enough evidence to make any concrete statements. To put it into perspective - 600,000 years equates to 0.014% of the Earth's age. For all we know, a similar occurance could have happened cyclically every million years.

Of course reducing carbon emmissions can be no bad thing, but it may make no difference whatsoever to global warming.

OllyK

Actually it wouldn't if it was still on Earth. To "fall" upwards you'd need to be outside the gravitational influence of Earth, and then it would more drift away than float up anyway. However, you changed the conditions, my point is that science will give you the facts NOT the interpretation.

With GW / AGW that's what we are about. The facts are there that "on average" (which is pretty useless as a statistic anyway) the planet is warming. Some people claim it's down to the effect of CO2, others water vapour, others the effect of the sun.

Yes you can show an increase in CO2, but that does not mean that it is the cause of the warming. You can equally show that the number of pirates is inversely proportional to global temperature. So maybe we should all become pirates and save the world?


It honestly staggers me that some people don't agree with everything I say.

The facts I'll agree, CO2 is increasing, Water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas, solar activity is high, we are still recovering from the mini-ice age. All of these are facts, which one is having the biggest effect on the the global average temperature I can't say and if it's solar flares rather than CO2, what's cutting emissions going to do about it? If it isn't Co2 then all the global disaster models based on CO2 being the major influencer would be wrong and what they are predicting wouldn't happen.

As to preserving fossils fuels and looking for sustainable alternatives, well of course that makes sense as oil is a finite resource. Likewise reducing polution so the air is more pleasant to breath makes sense, but these are different issues. Issues that the US in particular don't seem keen to take on board. So you could argue that predicting the doom is the only way that the US can be convinced to start looking at how they use fossil fuels!

OllyK

That's reasonable from a common-sense perspective anyway, you don't need the threat of AGW to make you see that.

TelBoy

But Dave, isn't the point about tax on CO2 just a gripe about tax? If you disagree with the policy then you have to be absolutely certain that CO2 has sod all to do with anything, and can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that it doesn't??

I appreciate the repeated invitations to read one script on the subject. Believe me, i see economic reports all day long that contradict each other all over the place. And you know what? The best reserach you can get sometimes is anecdotal evidence, real evidence, a "feeling" for things. Forget statistics, forget agendas, forget political veted interests. "Something" is going on, i'm in no doubt. And i'm quite happy to see polluting vehicles, to use your example, taxed to high heaven until and unless they prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they're having absolutely zero effect on this planet.

r32

We all need to be careful how we use the resources, they are finite. However when I see that 1/3 of all CO2 is caused by illegal forest burning in Brazil and Indonesia I wonder if the little bit the UK can contribute makes any difference at all.
Then of course there's China, which doesnt give a ****.

Luan Pra bang

The green taxes are pretty numerous Petrol tax increase is justified by Global warming. Company car taxes. New taxes on new houses to the tune of 20k are there to cover envirnmental impact. Extra road tax on 4*4's. Most cities outside london that are pushing for congestion charging are using the environment argument.
Far to much of this green argument is based on attacking the car emissions which makes a tiny proportion of green house gas so why such focus ? Its because it is a way to target normal people and ignore industry. Many of the leading UK green organisations employ scientists to conduct research specificaly with the intention of twisting everything to suit their agenda. While sustainability makes sense in terms of conserving natural resouces the global warming Co2 link is tenuous and I resent having this thrust at me as scientific fact when it clearly is nothing of the sort.
Telboy every old person I have ever met thinks that the summers were all long and hot, in the winter it snowed, the weather was predictable and it was all so much better back then.

TelBoy

As i say, as and when it can be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that all the items you've specified are having no environmental impact at all, THEN i'll join you in condemning them. We just can't continue taking the **** thinking we can do what we want. And yes, i'd be the first to agree that industry, and more importantly, countries such as USA, India and China, are made to tow the line. More likely, however, they'll wait for a few more climatic disasters before begrudgingly paying lipservice to it.

And funnily enough, there's a reason why every older person you have ever met thinks that the summers were all long and hot, in the winter it snowed, the weather was predictable and it was all so much better back then.

Hanslow

This world of ours is long overdue a population cull. Too many people = too much energy resource. Would be against human rights though to put a cap on allowed number of children, which is a shame.

TelBoy

Nah. I'd be the first to admit if it was; i don't do wishy washy nonsense like that.