[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by icstm

The simple truth is that Northern Europe had a Little Ice Age a few centuries ago we had warmer climate during the Roman era (so they could grow vines in North England) and technically we are still in an Ice age throughout mankind's time (we have two ice caps).
None of this is on a variation that has really swung the world over its 100s millions of life.

Clearly you've spent a lot of time looking into this, so you must be right. I'll let the scientists know that they needn't worry any more - icstm has looked into it, and found that it is ok.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Clearly you've spent a lot of time looking into this, so you must be right. I'll let the scientists know that they needn't worry any more - icstm has looked into it, and found that it is ok.

Plenty of proper scientists know this already (just not the government-funded ones it would appear)...

But I'm sure that as usual, your sarcasm will be appreciated.

Meanwhile we continue to waste billions of pounds supporting non-science

[karkus30]

It's interesting and always laying out 'who wins' in arguments of this type and what facts are undeniable then work from there:

The planet IS warming up.
Carbon Dioxide, Methane and water vapours are green house gasses and an increase WILL have an effect.
The planet has gone through cyclic changes of warm and cold climates.
Man is adding to the Greenhouse gasses.

Those are facts, the dispute is only around the degree of warming directly attributable to man.

Then we should turn our attention to those who gain and lose by this argument and it's not simple. This is the real battleground and it has swung to and fro depending on economic conditions. It's economics and money that distort this argument.

China and India are seen as an economic threat and produce vast quantities go greenhouse gas - workers and some business stand to gain by supporting the argument.
Oil companies - stand to lose considerable money and power ( remember the Tobacco companies saying cancer and lung disease were not a product of smoking ).
Industry - most producers would stand to lose money or be pushed into making significant additional costs.
Farmers - cattle produce enormous amounts of methane.
Transport - the freedom the public enjoys of personal transport would be affected.
Air Travel - this is another major industry that would almost disappear overnight as a result.
Government - additional tax revenues.

On balance then, we have more who will lose if the argument is supported. On the other hand the scientists who have supported the argument have very little to gain. We can't even point to the support of a green industrial base, as it didn't really exist prior to 2008.

Despite being a doubter in the past, I think the evidence is that a huge amount of power, money and personal liberty is at stake by supporting the argument, and that makes me think that man made global warming is at least a strong belief by the scientists who did the research, where as, if there is an element of doubt it must be tempered with the costs that will sway the detractors.

I conclude that man made global warming is more likely to be real than a lie, but that scientists who say it is true cannot offer 100% proof of it and that means the element of doubt will be pounced on by the detractors as proof of its fallacy.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by karkus30

The planet IS warming up.

The planet certainly WAS warming up - whether there has been any discernible warming in the last 10+ years is highly debatable

Originally Posted by karkus30

Carbon Dioxide, Methane and water vapours are green house gasses and an increase WILL have an effect.

In the absence of other factors then yes.

But there are many other factors many of which are being ignored as the other factors are more complex (and harder to tax)...

Originally Posted by karkus30

The planet has gone through cyclic changes of warm and cold climates.

Which show little to no correlation with CO2 levels (and of course correlation does not imply causation).

Originally Posted by karkus30

Man is adding to the Greenhouse gasses.

Indeed, but the amount is minimal compared to other sources.

Originally Posted by karkus30

Those are facts, the dispute is only around the degree of warming directly attributable to man.

If any..,,

Originally Posted by karkus30

Then we should turn our attention to those who gain and lose by this argument and it's not simple. This is the real battleground and it has swung to and fro depending on economic conditions. It's economics and money that distort this argument.

China and India are seen as an economic threat and produce vast quantities go greenhouse gas - workers and some business stand to gain by supporting the argument.
Oil companies - stand to lose considerable money and power ( remember the Tobacco companies saying cancer and lung disease were not a product of smoking ).
Industry - most producers would stand to lose money or be pushed into making significant additional costs.
Farmers - cattle produce enormous amounts of methane.
Transport - the freedom the public enjoys of personal transport would be affected.
Air Travel - this is another major industry that would almost disappear overnight as a result.
Government - additional tax revenues.

On balance then, we have more who will lose if the argument is supported.

Even if it could be shown that man-made warming exists (which hasn't been done) there is plenty of evidence to show that positive outcomes might be broadly equivalent to negative ones and that the cost of 'adaption' is likely to be cheaper and more successfully than 'prevention'.

Originally Posted by karkus30

On the other hand the scientists who have supported the argument have very little to gain.

Apart from the protection of their careers and a consistent source of funding..??

Originally Posted by karkus30

We can't even point to the support of a green industrial base, as it didn't really exist prior to 2008.

Despite being a doubter in the past, I think the evidence is that a huge amount of power, money and personal liberty is at stake by supporting the argument, and that makes me think that man made global warming is at least a strong belief by the scientists who did the research, where as, if there is an element of doubt it must be tempered with the costs that will sway the detractors.

I conclude that man made global warming is more likely to be real than a lie, but that scientists who say it is true cannot offer 100% proof of it and that means the element of doubt will be pounced on by the detractors as proof of its fallacy.

You need to keep up - they had to stop calling it 'global warming' after the warming stopped... Now it's 'climate change', where any form of 'weather event' - sun, snow, wind, rain is all attributed to climate change...

The climate is changing, it always has and it always will.
Whether man is influencing the climate is hugely debatable.
Basing opinions on climate models that make significant assumptions about the drivers of that change and yet fail to reproduce the last 10+ years of experience seems somewhat daft to me.
At the same time as spending billions of pounds on this potential risk, millions of people die from lack of clean water which could be resolved...

Something is wrong somewhere....

[karkus30]

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you have written, only that big business will always exploit doubt. I also agree on the need for clean water for everyone which would be possible if we actually had a policy of helping countries populations to become self sufficient ( who am I kidding the West doesn't do that with its population ) instead of reaping their natural wealth in return for supporting puppet regimes.

Global warming or climate change it doesn't really matter, it's obvious that warming energies will inevitably be turned into climatic change so I wouldn't say that is proof of anything, but the climate is altering.

Sometimes I think Global Climate change misses the point entirely. We are so focused on one element that we ignore some of the things that should be addressed:

Pollution of the air, land, sea and water. Living in a filthy rubbish dump can't be good for us, we proved that with London sewers, but now we should look at the wider world.
Over fishing without any attempt at sea farming.
Over grazing by cattle in land that has insufficient water to support cattle farming.
Our diets ( we are over eating on cheap food while the rest of the world goes hungry, it's got so bad that we now have foods that are deliberately low in calories so we can eat even more of them.).
We have allowed companies to pour toxic waste over our living space for years and subsidised an industry that has roads choked with cars belching fumes.

Just a few of the many things.

[tapzilla2k]

There is money to be made through the green economy and as oil becomes harder to get hold of, then we will have no choice but to change how we generate energy and how we use it.

Siddicks as I've said before you'll have to wait for the next decade to be over to see if that trend continues or if it was just a small blip. It might just be that the oceans have been taking the slack and absorbing the Co2 (increasing the oceans acidity levels) thus slowing down temperature rises. If the permafrosts melt then we are pretty much screwed, millions of tonnes of methane amongst all those dead mamouths.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

There is money to be made through the green economy and as oil becomes harder to get hold of, then we will have no choice but to change how we generate energy and how we use it.

Siddicks as I've said before you'll have to wait for the next decade to be over to see if that trend continues or if it was just a small blip. It might just be that the oceans have been taking the slack and absorbing the Co2 (increasing the oceans acidity levels) thus slowing down temperature rises. If the permafrosts melt then we are pretty much screwed, millions of tonnes of methane amongst all those dead mamouths.

What if sunspots decrease and we move into another ice age?

We are currently betting 100% on the previous warming being due to a minimal increase in CO2 due to man against all evidence to the contrary (and common sense) and ignoring all of the other causes.

And of course in the meantime, as mentioned above, millions of people are dying from a simple lack of water while billions are spent on some vague fear about what might potentially happen at some point in the distant future based on a number of flawed assumptions...

[tapzilla2k]

How about some raw scientific data -

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.
Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone

The water supply shortage will only get worse as the planet warms up, some areas will either have so much rain it causes flooding and disease or not enough rain so that it causes droughts, wildfires and famine (which is already happening). I'm very aware of the issues of poverty. Bill Gates is using his vast fortune to do a lot of good where our erstwhile governments fear to tread, in terms of disease control and access to fresh water. In fact Bill Gates foundation has set scientists the task of coming up with a new tiolet that does not require massive water resoruces, energy and expensive sewer systems - Gates Foundation Launches Effort to Reinvent the Toilet | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

And they have just discovered a vast aquifer in Nambia that could supply the country with water for 400 years (as long as it's not depleted by illegal drilling) - BBC News - Vast aquifer found in Namibia could last for centuries

The whole point of tackling climate change, be it man made or not is to reduce the impact for future generations. Or we can carry on with our heads in the sand with our consumption culture that only benefits a fraction of the planets population. It's nothing new though, we tend to deplete resources until a society collapses entirely. There are plenty of opportunities for the science sector and other industry in the UK to innovate in the production of cleaner energy (though I'm aware we need a mix of nuclear, wind, solar and so on).

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

The whole point of tackling climate change, be it man made or not is to reduce the impact for future generations.

How can we tackle it if we don't know what is causing it?

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

Or we can carry on with our heads in the sand with our consumption culture that only benefits a fraction of the planets population. It's nothing new though, we tend to deplete resources until a society collapses entirely. There are plenty of opportunities for the science sector and other industry in the UK to innovate in the production of cleaner energy (though I'm aware we need a mix of nuclear, wind, solar and so on).

There is a big difference in sustainable living, recycling and reducing pollution for the benefit of current and future generations compared with simply taxing plant food gas and adding billions of pounds of costs to companies and households....

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

The whole point of tackling climate change, be it man made or not is to reduce the impact for future generations. Or we can carry on with our heads in the sand with our consumption culture that only benefits a fraction of the planets population. It's nothing new though, we tend to deplete resources until a society collapses entirely. There are plenty of opportunities for the science sector and other industry in the UK to innovate in the production of cleaner energy (though I'm aware we need a mix of nuclear, wind, solar and so on).

That's a whole different question. It's also not true that we have used up resources until society has collapsed. The natural market will mean that If demand remains high and supply falls, then the price will rise. It won't do this in one go, it will happen as resources become more expensive to produce and that will lead to the finances being available to other companies to find a competitive product. Where this fails is when the price is subsidised in some way, by either direct or indirect financial protection.

We do have a problem with pollution. This is a massive problem. One of the reasons is that there is no ownership of common land, sea, rivers and air. This is maybe not as obvious as it seems. For instance we have air around our own homes and streets. We know the air gets polluted with car exhausts, factory pollution, farmers pesticides, jet exhaust etc. If you discovered that this pollution had affected your life, then it would be effectively trespass, or bodily harm if it was a health hazard. We could then use the courts to achieve reparation from the perpetrator. If there were 1000s of people who were able to extract reparation, either directly from the oil company, car company, local authority, airline etc it would make the changes. No need for special rates or taxation. It might be that everyone accepts the situation and that would be fine.

[tapzilla2k]

Originally Posted by karkus30

That's a whole different question. It's also not true that we have used up resources until society has collapsed. The natural market will mean that If demand remains high and supply falls, then the price will rise. It won't do this in one go, it will happen as resources become more expensive to produce and that will lead to the finances being available to other companies to find a competitive product. Where this fails is when the price is subsidised in some way, by either direct or indirect financial protection.

I was talking about the ancient world, where a number of factors ranging from resource delepetion, economics, climate change and natural disasters ended a number of civilisations. What you have there is modern thinking about Economics that does not factor in what's happened in the distant past. Whose to say how well we'd fair if say the yellowstone caldera has a major eruption (640,000 years ago was the last one I think, possibly over due another one) ? If it were a big one it would likely devestate most of the United States while the gasses and dust released would most likely blot out the sun for a number of years. Causing crop failures etc

I think the relavent thing to look at here would be the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

We do have a problem with pollution. This is a massive problem. One of the reasons is that there is no ownership of common land, sea, rivers and air. This is maybe not as obvious as it seems. For instance we have air around our own homes and streets. We know the air gets polluted with car exhausts, factory pollution, farmers pesticides, jet exhaust etc. If you discovered that this pollution had affected your life, then it would be effectively trespass, or bodily harm if it was a health hazard. We could then use the courts to achieve reparation from the perpetrator. If there were 1000s of people who were able to extract reparation, either directly from the oil company, car company, local authority, airline etc it would make the changes. No need for special rates or taxation. It might be that everyone accepts the situation and that would be fine.

The Oil industry is the only industry in the world that does not get fined for dumping it's waste products into the atmosphere (CO2 and all the lovely other gasses that are given off when fossil fuels are burned). We basically have to ween ourselves off our oil addiction and have a more balanced approach to how we obtain energy and use it. All we need is a little common sense and a little less greed.
Though if they ever figure out how to make a fusion reactor work effectively most of our energy problems might be solved aka figure out how to get the reaction going without putting more energy in than you get out. All they have at the moment is an expensive reactor that can fling nuclear waste into to get rid of.

The problem with pollution goes a lot further than the burning of fossil fuels. Fertilizers are a major issue in terms of it borking the Nitrogen cycle and there is the theory that chemicals in the pill are having a direct impact upon frogs (changing sex, causing birth defects etc). All through the simple action of passing the chemicals through Urine into the Environment.

[BISHI]

If you consider geological deep time then the period we will have been using sequestered carbon resources will be a complete insignificance. From the start of the industrial revolution, through max oil and onto a depleted finite resource will happen between 4 and 5 centuries. That half a millennium max will have seen humanity change from horse dependent oat eater to an interplanetary digital traveller. Without this carbon resource non of this spectacular progress will have been made. Once it has all gone the earth will reach a new equilibrium and there may well be consequences on a human scale, some species may go extinct and a number of unique environments lost. But this is natural and is an integral part of evolutionary pressure. New industrial or post tundra ecological niches as yet unknown will provide opportunity for new evolution to occur. The planet is 4 billion years old *** and has accommodated far greater ecological change than a primate burning fossil fuel for 500 years could produce.

[icstm]

CO2 content in the air is tiny compared to O2.
O2 has varied from ~50% to <20%

It is complete nonsense to try to understand climate change, which is an ecosystem, by looking at an element here or there.
And Bishi is right on this one, even if we have caused changes burning carbon for a few hundred years, it is within the margin of distribution that the planet has seen.

[tapzilla2k]

All the Co2 that we are releasing back into the atomsphere was previously taken out by the plant life that either became coal or oil. It's one of the greenhouse gases and it's rather simple in chemistry terms to understand that process.
Though this could all be moot if the permafrosts of the world start to melt, those contain methane gas which if released would put Co2 into the shade in greenhouse gas terms.

As for Oxygen that is mostly a byproduct of photosynthesis ~
carbon dioxide + water (+ light energy) → glucose + oxygen

The danger with climate change is that most of our crops have evolved to grow in a stable climate so any changes out of the stable range will present us with a major food problem, if scientists predictions are accurate then we face a whole heap of trouble regardless of it being man made or not. Which is why we should be doing things now to mitigate the problems. Not doing anything will cost a heap of money in the future.

[icstm]

but that is different, that is not whether life is sustainable, that is whether today's species will survive.
All spiecies have an expiry date and life goes on.

Sure having permafrosts have regulated atmosphere and climate, but we should not expect them to last forever.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

All the Co2 that we are releasing back into the atomsphere was previously taken out by the plant life that either became coal or oil. It's one of the greenhouse gases and it's rather simple in chemistry terms to understand that process.
Though this could all be moot if the permafrosts of the world start to melt, those contain methane gas which if released would put Co2 into the shade in greenhouse gas terms.

As for Oxygen that is mostly a byproduct of photosynthesis ~
carbon dioxide + water (+ light energy) &rarr; glucose + oxygen

The danger with climate change is that most of our crops have evolved to grow in a stable climate so any changes out of the stable range will present us with a major food problem, if scientists predictions are accurate then we face a whole heap of trouble regardless of it being man made or not.

Most of the 'scientists' claims have already proved to be wildly inaccurate!

Surely more CO2 = more plant food = better crop production?

Originally Posted by tapzilla2k

Which is why we should be doing things now to mitigate the problems. Not doing anything will cost a heap of money in the future.

Given we don't know what is driving the climate, any changes we make could be for the worse, not necessarily for the better. We don't know.

What we do know is that billions of pounds are 'wasted' on these unknowns which could be better spent on known problems.

[BISHI]

Tundra is not a particularly diverse Eco system . If it does defrost it opens vast tracts up taiga , grass land and deciduous forest- a sink for future carbon. A new equilibrium will be reached eventually..!

[sidicks]

More dodgy science???
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...elease_web.pdf

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by sidicks

More dodgy science???
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...elease_web.pdf

Sidicks and who ever else wants to bang on about global warming controverses in what ever scope ... find one of those dedicated barm pot conspiracy forums to discuss it.

The discussion was about science spending in general and whether or not it's an ecconomic benifit / should we spend more.
It is not a discussion for people who have very little understanding if any about science to parp on about man made global warming or the LHC etc.

In the UK, science is a major contributor to not only the ecconomy, but just about every aspect of our daily lives from the food we eat, the packing it came in to the internet order we placed to get it delievered.

We have limited resourses on this planet and growing populations.
Science and technology is needed to make what we need to live last longer and work more effeciently.

The Royal Society and every national science instituion around the world agrees that Global warming is happening and that there is credible evidence that human beings are effecting it.
It is highly unlikely that any of those members questioning it are remotely qualified to argue against the findings of the Royal Society nor for that matter to be able to qualify or quantify any of the arguements put forwards against it by any disenting experts.
It is not quite the same, but it is close to the situation of the denials of the theory of evolution.
Those that deny it find all sorts of lists of so called credible scientists stating that evolution is not valid.
It is the lack of understaning of science and a desire for it to be false that leads those wishing to deny evolution or global warming to accept any negative reports at face value without question, yet be skeptical and disregard any evidence supporting it, no matter how credible and respected the source.

It's just plain silly.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

It's just plain silly.

Certainly much of what you've posted above is "plain silly".

But I do accept that this forum isn't the place to discuss it, something I pointed out a few posts ago!

[johntheexpat]

Its heartening to see that even some 'utterly sensible' people get totally wrapped up in conspiracy theories.

The scientists are lying about Global warming, its all a big conspiracy.

Here we go:

[karkus30]

Yes, you have all ruined my nice thread with all your global warming conspiracies ;-)

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by karkus30

Yes, you have all ruined my nice thread with all your global warming conspiracies ;-)

But it does illustrate nicely that its painfully obvious that not enough money is spent on science and science education in the UK. So it's not all bad really.

[BISHI]

Global warming clearly does exist, it's just that in the long term it won't matter... Short term yes.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Global warming clearly does exist, it's just that in the long term it won't matter... Short term yes.

It certainly exists, that's why we are no longer in the depths of an ice age...

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

But it does illustrate nicely that its painfully obvious that not enough money is spent on science and science education in the UK. So it's not all bad really.

There are a considerable number of reports showing that we are not producing enough scientists in the UK. Not enough students are enroleing in science degrees and more worrying is that out of those that do, the level of mathematical abilitiy is poor. Too few people study A-Level mathematics which has a significant impact on science degrees both in uptake and having to reteach remedial mathematics to studients without the required skills to start the courses.

Computer science and engineering is suffering quite when those are the type of skills we so desperately need to boost our ecconomy both in innovation and infrastructure.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Certainly much of what you've posted above is "plain silly".

But I do accept that this forum isn't the place to discuss it, something I pointed out a few posts ago!

How long have you trained and worked as a scientist ?

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by sidicks

How can we tackle it if we don't know what is causing it?

Who is we ?

You'd better check Fox News incase there are more updates to keep you happy in your neo con reality bubble.

Originally Posted by karkus30

On the other hand the scientists who have supported the argument have very little to gain.

Originally Posted by sidicks

Apart from the protection of their careers and a consistent source of funding..??

If your motivation and goals were about careers and money, you would be heading into international finance not science.
Science does not pay well, it is more of a vocation than a career.

Those types of accusations say far more about the thinking and motivation of those accusing sceintists of being in it for the money than about the scientists.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

Who is we ?

You'd better check Fox News incase there are more updates to keep you happy in your neo con reality bubble.

Good to see that personal attacks are still the main part of the warmist agenda...

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Good to see that personal attacks are still the main part of the warmist agenda...

Personal attack ?

I am questioning your ability to be able to qualify any data for or against global warming. That means accademically, experience wise and ideologically.

You made the statement that scientists were motivated by self interest in terms of careers and funding.

You seem to be placing yourself in a position of having a better understanding of climate change and man made global warming than all the worlds national accademies of science.

That means you are establishing yourself as better qualified, less biased and more intelligent than most of the top scientists in the world.

Since you are better able to understand the complexities and nuancies of the data, the climate, science and politics with less self interest or bias, let us all in on your secret.

Otherwise, the only other explination is that you are simply regurgitating politically and ecconomically motivated polemics.