[Zack Attack]

I have to be honest, I haven't done my homework. I've not looked at scientific papers for or against man made global warming, and I've seen documentaries, such as 'An Inconvenient Truth.'

I haven't voted in the 'Poll: Do mankind's actions make any difference to the planet', because there isn't a 'I don't know' button. I don't know, but if I HAD to guess, I'd probably say it seems like we have affected it, but I really don't know, it's only an inkling. Similar to the 'Is there a God?' question, none of us knows, but if we HAD to guess...

You get people saying they know they're right, basing their beliefs upon some scientists or whoever's investigation.

Whilst I can't understand why people seem to know the answer, my point is,

Why risk it anyway?

In the face of some pieces of information, such as 'the sea levels are going to rise and land at sea level might get flooded', or 'millions of animals might get affected', why not become more energy efficient, just in case the pro-MMGW scientists/whoever are right?

I think I can give a preliminary answer, you want to risk it, because you are comfortable with your lives the way they are. Is it really 'my life the way it currently is', or 'bust' ? When choosing the 'my life the way it currently is', why do those people try convince us we're worrying about nothing, is it to hopefully put us on their bandwagon and make them feel happy they've got people around them if they die? If they're going down, they're taking people with them?

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Zack Attack

Why risk it anyway?........


I think I can give a preliminary answer, you want to risk it, because you are comfortable with your lives the way they are. Is it really 'my life the way it currently is', or 'bust' ? When choosing the 'my life the way it currently is', why do those people try convince us we're worrying about nothing, is it to hopefully put us on their bandwagon and make them feel happy they've got people around them if they die? If they're going down, they're taking people with them?

Why risk it?- because that's human nature.
And don't forget, its not you and me it will really affect. It's not even the next generation particularly. And the Western world has the ability to defend itself to an extent from this. So You and me won't particularly suffer. So nuts to it.

[Steve.J.Davies]

The precautionary principle has its risks as well. Especially when mis-applied.
http://www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html
worth a read esp. paras 3 & 4

[pjclark1]

Good find

"The precautionary principle is, however, a very useful one for consumer activists precisely because it prevents scientific debate. The burden of evidence and proof is taken away from those who make unjustified and often whimsical claims and placed on the scientific community which, because it proceeds logically and rationally, is often powerless to respond. This is what makes the principle so dangerous. It generates a quasi-religious bigotry which history should have has taught us to fear. Its inherent irrationality renders it unsustainable."

[Zack Attack]

The trouble with calling a moron, a moron to his face, is that it most the time provokes the moron into a fit of rage, and does not enlighten said moron to the wiser way of thinking. So I shall refrain from saying these previous are moronic.

What I shall say, is that if you are indeed quoting the 'precautionary principle', what if I was to retort with the fact that most scientists ARE saying global warming is on the rise? Would you then still dismiss this precautionary principle? It seems that if these people want to jump onto this lazy anti-MMGW bandwagon, they take something called 'being careful', relabel it as 'precautionary principle', and now that it's a principle, principles can be disputed. You are in effect disputing 'being careful'.

Why risk it?- because that's human nature.
And don't forget, its not you and me it will really affect. It's not even the next generation particularly. And the Western world has the ability to defend itself to an extent from this. So You and me won't particularly suffer. So nuts to it.

so that's a 'thanks world for bringing me up, but now you can go **** youself' ?

I have lived enough to know that you can't argue with morons, they will never change, and I challenge you to find something more pointless than arguing with them.

For me it comes down to this - if you can't afford to lose, don't gamble. And I'll explain that for my favourite species of people - in this scenario, the gamble is the earth. That precautionary principle article you linked, says if people were always careful, we'd be nowhere. It quotes a ship sailing to america - this is an acceptable risk, because if they lose, it's only one ship lost (and a couple dozen men). If a space shuttle flies to space, it's an acceptable risk, as it's only one shuttle. In easy english for my favourite people, they gambled because they could afford the potential loss. Can we afford the potential loss of this earth? No, I'm not asking you to answer that, I know exactly how you'd respond, I want you to really think about it.

[Steve.J.Davies]

Indeed pjclark1. the whole pro MM GW brigade completely ignore the basic scientific principle of 'disproof' - hence the endless and self-defeating attacks on any critique while claiming the the MM GW science is sound/proved/undisputable.
A rather large disconnect - one of many - and reminiscent of many historical events, all of them bad.
Lots of other pieces out there on the precautionary principle e.g.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...n4/v25n4-9.pdf

best short description I have seen of it is "the trope of fear" - sums it up nicely.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

Indeed pjclark1. the whole pro MM GW brigade completely ignore the basic scientific principle of 'disproof' - hence the endless and self-defeating attacks on any critique while claiming the the MM GW science is sound/proved/undisputable.

There has been no disproof of the mainstream position on climate change, despite the woeful barrage of crap you keep throwing in the vain hope that some of will stick. The science is sound. However, as with all empirical science, there is no possibility of absolute proof, only increasingly compelling evidence, to the point where to deny it is the response of an idiot.

I am not going to waste my time defending the universal applicability of the precautionary principle, particularly at a time when we are seeing it invoked once again to bolster up a view based on no evidence whatsoever (the alleged evil of Wi-Fi networks in schools).

Climate change is happening, and we are causing it. That is a position supported by the evidence, and is a sufficient reason for us to act.

[Fusewire]

Sorry N but

Climate change is happening

Yes most would agree that's proven.

That is a position supported by the evidence

Yep I'll give you that one too.

and we are causing it.

Sorry that part has not been proven by the science and hence is a matter of personal opinion.

and is a sufficient reason for us to act.

And this is the whole cruz of the GW debate...... as it has not been proven as to what is causing GW then we are not able to effectivly act, as without understanting fully what is causing GW our actions, however well intended could possibly serve just to make the situation worse.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Fusewire

Sorry that part has not been proven by the science and hence is a matter of personal opinion.

How many times do I have to explain that there is no such thing as absolute proof in any empirical science, before you finally grasp the point?

Given that you do not understand the difference between "personal opinion" and compelling scientific evidence, it is clear that no amount of argument will make you change your mind!

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by njp

There has been no disproof of the mainstream position on climate change, despite the woeful barrage of crap you keep throwing in the vain hope that some of will stick.

"mainstream position" ? ? Mandeleson would be proud of your choice of language but it won't spin here.

Will refer to just one disproof, of the many out there, of the MM GW hypothesis for now - and MM GW is just a hypothesis. The IARC. Calling them "woeful crap" and, what was it, "motley crackpots" doesn't do yourself or your "scientific" position any favours. But it always boils down to this, your responses couched in sciencism (not science) and enflamed attacks. Not my personal view of your posts just a summary of the evidence in this forum.

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by njp

How many times do I have to explain that there is no such thing as absolute proof in any empirical science,

I agree ! But there is disproof which is how science actually works.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

"mainstream position" ? ? Mandeleson would be proud of your choice of language but it won't spin here.

There is a mainstream position on climate change, just as there is a mainstream position on evolutionary biology, a mainstream position on quantum physics, a mainstream position on geology and so on ad-infinitum. No spin is required, because this is a simple statement of fact.

All of these areas have dissenters, of varying degrees of nuttiness.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

I agree ! But there is disproof which is how science actually works.

No there is not. If you think there is, then clearly your understanding of the subject is even more limited than I had previously supposed.

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by njp

No there is not. If you think there is, then clearly your understanding of the subject is even more limited than I had previously supposed.

I would suggest a quick look around on "scientific method" " "disproof" is all that is needed. I suppose the most widely known classic example (as it is covered in schools) is the Micheleson-Morley experiment which disproved the aether theory.

or in general terms:-

Once a hypothesis has won evidence and support by withstanding attempts at disproof; it becomes a theory and eventually may be promoted to the status of a known fact or law of science.

MMGW has not withstood disproof and so is a long way from being called a science.

Another way of looking at your statement that there is no disproof is that as there is no absolute proof possible and also no disproof it has to follow that there is no foundation to 'science' at all. I am sure that is not what you meant to say but it is the meaning of what you said. (am reminded of the Queen of Hearts...)

[Fusewire]

How many times do I have to explain that there is no such thing as absolute proof in any empirical science, before you finally grasp the point?

I do grasp the concept very well.... just because absolute proof is not possible, that does not stop a case being made that would be beyond reasonable doubt.... and to date in my view (and that of many others) is that it has not been made yet.

Given that you do not understand the difference between "personal opinion" and compelling scientific evidence, it is clear that no amount of argument will make you change your mind!

A rational reasoned argument may well convince me, I am open to the truth whatever it may be and however much I may or may not like it, which is more than I can say for extremists such as you.

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by njp

There is a mainstream position on climate change, just as there is a mainstream position on evolutionary biology, a mainstream position on quantum physics, a mainstream position on geology and so on ad-infinitum. No spin is required, because this is a simple statement of fact.

All of these areas have dissenters, of varying degrees of nuttiness.

IARC now "nutters" as well ? ?

My comment about "mainstream" was really getting at the classic inductive falsehood that is being propagated both by that statement and by the pro MM GW acolytes in general.

[Zack Attack]

Well seeming as I did start this thread, I shall give myself a little allowance to suggest we keep to the point my post makes. Debate the global warming in these threads:
Poll: Do mankind's actions make any difference to the planet? or
Global Warming or Global Windup , whichever the mods decide is the more appropriate thread I guess, and please debate MY POINT in THIS thread.

You have people on both sides saying science supports them, and I really don't know which side science does indeed support. So, I googled 'Global Warming Debate', and the second result was this wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Now, it will take alot of time for me to read this, and I have other things to do, but little by little I shall churn my way through this.

IN THE meantime, as per my first post, as we continue to investigate who's right, can I ask that we slow down our polluting so that when eventually we find out who's right later down the road, we don't end up with the atlantic around our knees (or however high it is) and it's too late.

Originally Posted by Zack Attack

Why risk it anyway?

Should men have their testicles removed in case they get Testicular cancer?

Should women have their breasts and ovaries removed incase they get cancer?

as thats that the precautionary principle- we dont know what causes those cancers, and we *know* some will get such cancer... so shouldnt we remove the risk first?

[Zack Attack]

Originally Posted by Marshan Man

Should men have their testicles removed in case they get Testicular cancer?

Should women have their breasts and ovaries removed incase they get cancer?

as thats that the precautionary principle- we dont know what causes those cancers, and we *know* some will get such cancer... so shouldnt we remove the risk first?

You're calling the earth the risk?

I think I need to help you out on labeling the things we're talking about, as your post was a little mixed up.

The Earth - The lovely thing we stand on.
The risk - being the earth getting over.
The cause - the thing which brings the risk into existence.


We should not remove the earth, as suggested in your post , we should remove the CAUSE of the risk. Is this what you meant?

you miss understand the point.

you are advocating the precautionary principle - lets do something incase.

i use the analogy of cancer - i said you are at risk from testicular cancer as a male, left untreated it will kill you - so *just in case* you should remove the thing that may kill you.

you belive that CO2 is going to the kill the planet - so *just in case* you should stop preducing it - listen to the zelots the only time climate change was good (because lets face it, the cliamte has been changing for 4 billion years since the earth was formed) was in the pre industrial period. So if the the current change is *faster than previous changes* then we are like a cancer. to stop all *bad* cancer like human emmissions of CO2 - we need to go live back in caves and reduce our carbon footprint. or better still die, and leave the natural world to its own devices

are you willing to do that, or will you continue to contribute to climate change?

[pjclark1]

I was under the impression that geologically speaking, we are about due for a new ice age.

Under the precautionary principle, shouldn't we all be pumping out as much CO2 as possible in order to avert such a disaster.

[Zack Attack]

Originally Posted by Marshan Man

you miss understand the point.

you are advocating the precautionary principle - lets do something incase.

i use the analogy of cancer - i said you are at risk from testicular cancer as a male, left untreated it will kill you - so *just in case* you should remove the thing that may kill you.

you belive that CO2 is going to the kill the planet - so *just in case* you should stop preducing it - listen to the zelots the only time climate change was good (because lets face it, the cliamte has been changing for 4 billion years since the earth was formed) was in the pre industrial period. So if the the current change is *faster than previous changes* then we are like a cancer. to stop all *bad* cancer like human emmissions of CO2 - we need to go live back in caves and reduce our carbon footprint. or better still die, and leave the natural world to its own devices

are you willing to do that, or will you continue to contribute to climate change?

I may have to apologise, I am missing what you're saying. I can answer a couple of those aspects in the hope I answer what your asking. First, when you say *bad* cancer, what do you mean, like there's a good cancer? Also, about living in the caves, there is no need for this, there are sources of energy which don't involve burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon into the air. In your analogy of cutting out the cancerous body part, I guess that is what's needed here - we need to cut out the fossil fuel power plants.

Originally Posted by Zack Attack

First, when you say *bad* cancer, what do you mean, like there's a good cancer?

where did i use the word *bad* ?

i used a particular types of cancers to illustrate the precautionary principle.

the treatment when a tumor found is to remove it, and the organ it is growing on.
therefore as a precaution against *getting* the cancer the testicles of a healthy male could be removed, thereby reducing the risk of getting testicular cancer to 0% (you cant get testicular cancer if the testicles are removed)




and no i dont believe there are any Zero emission producing methods... wind farms have a carbon cost in the amount of concrete needed to form the foundations of the turbines, the cutting up of the countryside to form the access road to the turbines, the massive amount of energy involved in building the turbines and the transportation of the energy from the farm to your home.

nuclear - again masses amount of emissions in the building.

basically - we come back to - if humans are causing climate change, and this all started to happen around the time of the industrial revolution (1860 seems to be the favorate date) then we *must* return to pre-industrialisation - no electricity or gas, local food/good production, horse and cart transportation. it cant be had both ways.

are you willing to do this, or will you continue to live your life as you do? and hand wring and say your worried about things, without actually doing anything about it *just in case*

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by pjclark1

I was under the impression that geologically speaking, we are about due for a new ice age.

We are in an ice age now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers ("glaciation"). Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).

We could end up throwing a lot of money at preventing climate change when it might not be down to us or it might happen anyway due to countries like China and others going through an industrial revolution. What happens when third world countries sort themselves out as well?

Maybe we should spend the money fighting climate change on instead learning to live with it. For instance building flood proof houses and changing the crops we plant. If Britain becomes a hotter place to live so what? We are surrounded by water we could build desalination plants and irrigate everywhere. We still have no national grid of water. Why not implement that? The Welsh hills still get plenty of rainfall.

The world used to be far hotter. Did the dinosaurs drive 4x4’s?

[Decadence]

Why risk it? Because it is cheaper and the fact that it is being used as an excuse by the government to gain extra tax revenue makes me want to risk it even more.

I look out of the window today and I see a normal day, ten years ago I did the same and guess what, I saw a normal day. 20 years ago I was probably out on my bike as a kid enjoying, you guessed it, a normal day! So to be honest it doesn't appear that I am risking anything by driving my car and turning on my PC and TV.

Whether it is happening or not WE'RE BEING SCAMMED INTO PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE FOR IT!!!!

[Zack Attack]

As I said in my second post, arguing with morons is completely pointless, but I'm sure you're a lovely bloke, it's just that your argument seems a little confused. After this response, I shall not be spending anymore time responding, as I know there is no answer to my first post. There is no need to risk it.

Originally Posted by Marshan Man

where did i use the word *bad* ?

Have another look.

i used a particular types of cancers to illustrate the precautionary principle.

the treatment when a tumor found is to remove it, and the organ it is growing on.
therefore as a precaution against *getting* the cancer the testicles of a healthy male could be removed, thereby reducing the risk of getting testicular cancer to 0% (you cant get testicular cancer if the testicles are removed)

I'm not an expert in english, but it still seems you're mixing up the labels 'earth', 'risk' and 'cause'. Have another look at my description of the labels in my earlier post.

and no i dont believe there are any Zero emission producing methods... wind farms have a carbon cost in the amount of concrete needed to form the foundations of the turbines, the cutting up of the countryside to form the access road to the turbines, the massive amount of energy involved in building the turbines and the transportation of the energy from the farm to your home.

nuclear - again masses amount of emissions in the building.

Have you googled 'CO2 emissions for wind farm' or 'CO2 emissions for nuclear plant?'. I don't see why you would argue that nuclear plants have massive emissions of CO2, when you don't know this.

Wind farm CO2 emissions

This next link says that nuclear power produces 8 to 65 grams per kilowatt hour produced electricity, compared to the best fossil fuel plant at 370g/kWh (natural gas CCPP) :

Nuclear Plant CO2 emissions

basically - we come back to - if humans are causing climate change, and this all started to happen around the time of the industrial revolution (1860 seems to be the favorate date) then we *must* return to pre-industrialisation - no electricity or gas, local food/good production, horse and cart transportation. it cant be had both ways.

now we know wind and nuclear have alot less CO2 output than fossil fuels do, you now know this is no longer true.

and hand wring and say your worried about things, without actually doing anything about it *just in case*

I see, you're assuming that I'm just like you. You may argue that I'm on a laptop producing CO2, but I think it's for the greater good, to try and convince people we should curb our polluting. You may believe this next thing I say is a lie, but I won't drive until they bring out emission free/hydrogen cars that have their energy fed ultimately by very low CO2 emission sources. And I'm just about to change my energy saving lightbulbs for LED lights, which I believe are even more efficient. I use ecover washing powder and detergents because I don't want to pollute the fish that I want to eat without becoming ill. I want to start a business whose profits all goes to combating global warming or feeding hungry people, I have no interest in keeping my money and spending it on ferraris or yachts when people are in pain, believe it or not, I am not greed motivated. That yacht has sailed.

I know there is no answer to 'why risk the earth', for the sake of continuing to use fossil fuels. Anyone who has previously tried or will try in the future to answer this will fail - THERE IS NO NEED TO RISK THE EARTH. Only simpletons would argue against this.

You want to know who I am Marshan Man, you want to understand why I argue with people such are yourself, if you suggest I'm not doing anything about it, it sounds this way. I am more concerned with fixing the problem than with trying to convince simple people they're wrong. I shall now be concentrating on getting my business going to save the world, and you won't be seeing me for quite a while.

BTW, any of the next posts that argue for risking the earth, will be moronic posts - there is no way you can possibly rationally argue for this thing we're standing on to get ****** over.

My 'why risk it?' question, is rhetorical.

Originally Posted by Zack Attack

Have you googled 'CO2 emissions for wind farm' or 'CO2 emissions for nuclear plant?'. I don't see why you would argue that nuclear plants have massive emissions of CO2, when you don't know this.

Wind farm CO2 emissions

This next link says that nuclear power produces 8 to 65 grams per kilowatt hour produced electricity, compared to the best fossil fuel plant at 370g/kWh (natural gas CCPP) :

Nuclear Plant CO2 emissions

what they dont tell you about is whole life emmissions. which was what i was trying to explain to you.

and a 0.75MW turbine... the UK's current energy need is around 60,000MW

I remember in my line of work designing the area needed for a wind farm that my practice was involved in, and scaled up to cover the UKs energy needs we would need to cover most of scotland in windfarms to cope with our energy needs - thats alot of distruction of the natural landscape and habitate needed.


the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Why risk it? Because it is cheaper and the fact that it is being used as an excuse by the government to gain extra tax revenue makes me want to risk it even more.

I look out of the window today and I see a normal day, ten years ago I did the same and guess what, I saw a normal day. 20 years ago I was probably out on my bike as a kid enjoying, you guessed it, a normal day! So to be honest it doesn't appear that I am risking anything by driving my car and turning on my PC and TV.

Whether it is happening or not WE'RE BEING SCAMMED INTO PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE FOR IT!!!!

Two little points here.
The looking out of the window argument correlates nicely with the cancer theme. In both cases you don't usually know theres a problem until it is too late. Everything appears normal and then... wham-problems.
Secondly, the constantly re-appearing tax theme. The Government is going to raise taxes one way or another. So you don't like the idea of a carbon tax, fine they will raise their money some other way, smoking, boozing, VAT, flying taxes, petrol duty, etc etc. If you object to paying 'carbon taxes' then encourage everyone to take up smoking again. The revenue required will be raised, carbon taxes will be dropped and everyone will be happy. Spending loads of cash on fags will result in people having less money to go on exotic holidays, saving on the amount of aviation fuel burnt, reduce our lifespan and thus reduce our lifetime carbon footprint. It will also have the happy result of reducing the impending 'Pensions crisis' and also free up a large amount of housing stock that is currently occupied by wrinklies, thus helping the housing market. And it will stop everyone banging on about smoke free pubs.
Marlboro man for Prime Minister.

[Bartmanekul]

I do agree with Zack here. And one thing many people always say is that 'you need to go live in a cave' and other, quite stupid comments.

If a wind turbine was installed on every viable home, would that be so bad?

Such things like this make sense, but of course the argumentative ones assume you want the whole country powered by wind turbines.

Its debateable if a whole country can become totally reliant on green energy, but there is no harm in trying. A combination of all of it would go a long way. Id like to see the governments doing more, rather than coming up with the lamest stealth taxes Ive ever seen.

But seriously, that cancer anology? That was stupid.

Would it really be so bad if we used more greener sorts of energy?

Would it really be so bad if we bought goods that came from nearer home?

My point is, it doesnt require a huge amount of effort to be greener, and as no-one on this forum (or the world?) can prove GW is real or not, then perhaps it is better to be safe than sorry.

How someone can liken being greener to cutting off testicles is...probably suited to a word that would hit the filter.

One thing we havent figured out yet is transport, I still need my car for work, and visiting family. I simply have no other choice out in the sticks.

[Zack Attack]

One thing we havent figured out yet is transport, I still need my car for work, and visiting family. I simply have no other choice out in the sticks.

Videophone, unless your job is manual labour. And if it's not too far, cycling! I don't know if there's enough pressure on making hydrogen cars more available to the people of the UK, maybe there's a online petition for that. I'll look later.