Is the climate change debate realy over?

[dazzler]

I would be a lot more impressed with this article if had included some details.
For example:
Which conference?
Who organised it?
Who was invited?
Who attended?
Where were the papers they presented published?
Were the views presented in thisd article really the conclusions of the scientists?
Did they vote on it?
Did the writer present the majority view or just the view of a few - maybe even one - scientist?
How can we know whether these views were even presented accurately?

Now, maybe the climate change sceptics will turn out to be right, and the great majority of scientists who study these things will turn out to be wrong. I doubt it, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

One thing I do know, though, is that the writer of this article will have to do a lot better if he wants to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't already agree with him.

Gaz.

Well said Gaz

I love this bit;

Current temperature trends show a warm period between 1920 and 1940, followed by a cooling phase. There was a sudden warming surge from 1976 to 1978 and another in 1998. Since then the weather has been cooler. The year 1934 has emerged as the warmest of the 20th century.

This, along with the evidence of those historical warm periods, confirms that man-made greenhouse gas emissions cannot possibly be the cause of the earth’s warming.


"Confirms". Love sweeping statements. Particularly when it is not the single warm or cold years that they are talking about, its the cumulitive years that scientists point to that worries them.

Carbon created the atmosphere that we now have and has been maintained by the "carbon cycle". We have changed that cycle by raising the carbon PPM ratio.

The best example of what we are up against IMO is the change to our climate resulting from the 1815 eruption of Sumbawa in Indonesia. This vulcanic eruption spread enough dust to cool the planet causing crops to fail globally, frosts in the US throughout summer, a famine in Ireland that killed 65,000, and planted seeds fail to germinate throughout much of the cooler climates. Globally the temparature dropped by only 1degree.

So IF global warming is true, then the calamity that WILL occur will be beyond anything humans have experienced to date. Imagine 2 Billion people in china without food, another 750 million next door and on it goes.

Perhaps Rod is right, maybe its all one big con job. But I would feel a whole lot better if there was another nice watery planet we could all move to if it goes pear shaped.

Oh, and I forgot, what is the reasoning for the vast majority of scientists involved in researching global warming, conning us all and feeding us crap

[rod@plasterbrok]

Plenty of reasons Dazzler, I'm sure many of them feel they are right! Others are riding on the coat tails comming up with scary scenarios on the basis the first guys are right. They are also making a fortune from grants etc.

It is very easy to come up with a multitude of bad things that will happen when or if this happens that will attract huge grants.

Now some of those things are so far fetched they are impossible to believe, yet others are quite plausible provided that the original theory is correct. All these things have created a huge industry for researchers. Hey why not. If people want to know what will happen IF the temps go up 2 degrees well we are here to tell you. They don't want the theory to be proven to be wrong no way!

Yet there are others prepared to speak up. The Greens have jumped all over this like flies on S--t. They love and will keep the wagon rolling at all cost. It is in their interest to do so. They are a well funded loud out there group of individuals.

Now, how do the general public react? Of course many are going to believe everything they read in the paper. Many are going to be fearful of the future quite rightly so given the propaganda they have been fed. Yet when it doesn't come to pass some people start to question the logic, and so they should.

Don't worry there are many many reasons to keep the myth going. But none that are going to do us any good.

Why not look at the other arguments being put forward with an objective view?

Why would you just dissmiss out of hand any other logical explanation for our weather?

I think there will be more food shortages cause by the myth of AGW than anything else, due to the push for Bio Fuels. The world population is growing and we need more arible land planted with food crops not with Bio Fuel crops.

I know many people who have not even considered that AGW might not be a certainty, simply because they blindly believe all that is reported in the main stream media. Now there's a thing, why aren't the anti AGW news story's in the MSM? Good new does not sell papers for one.

I just ask people to consider the logical arguments put forward that dispells the AGW as a myth. Rather than blindly following the leader.

[dazzler]

Given the enormous ramifications of either course of action don't you think it would be better to listen to what they are saying and put their cards on the table so to speak, just so that ultimately the right choices are made.

.

Hi Rod

Last piece from me. You may be right, but what you fail to see or accept is that the one thing that the scientists that DO believe it are saying that we DONT have time and must act now. It would be nice to have a lot more time but they are saying that we dont.

You obviously think we do, as is your right. I am not prepared to gamble on that and support programs to reduce fossil fuel use.

I do agree that there is an industry around it, the carbon offset companies concern me, however it would be silly to look for radical groups with vested interests as a reason to slam it. I do think the greens confuse, on purpose, green issues and global warming.

Thats why I dont support them.

But I do support those scientists who devote much of thier lives to helping mankind, and any conspiracy theories regarding them are just plain stupid .

When the first settlers arrived in the US they came across a tribe of indians who woke each morning before the sun came up. When asked why they said it was to "wake the sun up". The settlers told them they could sleep in because the sun would come up. The indians however refused saying they wouldnt take that chance.

Me thinks Im an indian .

Cheers

[rod@plasterbrok]

Maybe you are lets all hope so!

I just see the ballance of probabillities that the money needed to be spent trying to avoid a potential problem. When there is no emperical evidence to support the theory is just wrong. Particularly when there is evidence (if you care to read it), that downright refutes teh theory of AGW.

Then on top of that the globe has waxed and waned in temperature for billions of years without our help. Based on the evidence of the past 10 years it appears that we have just passed another high point.

[Mickj]

As mentioned in previous threads, its all about "managing the risk".
If there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the "Doom" sayers are correct, then I think its worth while doing something about it.
We fixed the hole in the ozone(yes its still there, but its shinking), and I hope we can fix this as well.

[echnidna]

Rod,
Consider the attitudes of some of the politicians who until relatively recently denied that it was happening, who have now begrudglingly accepted that it is indeed happening.

For example look at the backflips of
Little Johnnie & cohorts
George Bush

Also consider most of the world goverments are to increasing degrees united about it.

It sure is happening, nothing else could cause such widespread change to politicians attitudes.

BTW, the earth is not flat

[johnc]

Maybe you are lets all hope so!

I just see the ballance of probabillities that the money needed to be spent trying to avoid a potential problem. When there is no emperical evidence to support the theory is just wrong. Particularly when there is evidence (if you care to read it), that downright refutes teh theory of AGW.

Then on top of that the globe has waxed and waned in temperature for billions of years without our help. Based on the evidence of the past 10 years it appears that we have just passed another high point.

Rod,

This is a load of rubbish, there is now only a small band of dodgey brothers scientists grasping at straws in a pretence that we don't have a problem. Forget about single years we are looking at pretty solid trends as well as the ice caps shrinking at a fast rate. There is plenty out there to support the idea that those who say lets wait and see are just those that don't want to open their eyes and be part of the solution.

Blokes like you don't get it, the world is warming, there are to many people in it, we are consuming resources at rates we can not maintain for much longer, we can no longer pollute and deforest the planet at the rate we have been. We have to change and countries and regions including Europe, Britain, Russia, much of Asia, Australia, Canada, NZ all seem to think its a really big problem.

The solutions for global warming will also benefit some of our other problems, and we are told we are running out of time. If you don't believe we have a problem then fine, just stop banging on with a whole bunch of unsupported rubbish and the rantings of a few half wits and open your eyes, the world is moving on and I think people have stopped listening to the few drongo's who want their precious little corner of earth to remain as it is until its to late to do anything.

[artme]

I have looked at this debate from every angle I can think of and have still not decided for mysel whether or not the human race contributes enough to actually cause global warming or even contribute to it significantly.

However, we have all seen the effects of increasing industrialisation in places such as China where the air in some cities is now putrid. Those of us who have flown in and out of Los Angeles will remember flying through thick, brown smog for what seemed an eternity. Launceston in Tasmania has badly smoke polluted air in winter due to all the woodbuning heaters and th inability of the air to circulate properly. These are examples, on a smaller but significant scale, of what can happen due to human contributions.

But what of long term climatic cycles? Are we simply unfortunate enough to be caught up in a natural warming phase over which we have no control, whatever our contribution? With all our current knowledg and technology coul we alter an Ice Age? I think not and we know the human species surved at least one.

Aparently when Scott went to the South Pole he was caught up by extreme and unseasonable weather, but that doesn't appear to have been the harbinger of climatic change. Adelaide is experiencincing the longest hot spell in recorded history. Does this mean the end is nigh? Who knows?

The effects of El nino and La Nina are now much better, but not perfectly, understood. It appears that these phenomena have now been used by some as "proof" that the world is warming up.

There is such a plethora of information , misinformation and hysteria floating about that we find it difficult to see the forest for the trees.
A general consensus is that the world is warming up. It's the cause/s that is really the subject of serious debate. How much as a speicies we contribute to the warming is, a part of that debate.

For me, I take the attitude that we are probly getting warmer. I don,t know how much we can or can't do about that but I think we should all be prudent and do everything in our power to lower the effect of our action's on the planet's health.

[dazzler]

Not debating here but something interesting on the ABC radio yesterday.

A scientist from Hobart was saying that IF the sea level is to rise, naturally or unnaturally , that for every metre of sea rise it moves/erodes inland 20metres overall. So IF it was to rise 2m then 40m erosion/flooding etc etc.

He suggested not to buy that new beachside property

[rod@plasterbrok]

Got a bridge for sale Dazzler interested? Yes a big IF and what he says may quite well be true IF. Even the IPCC say it wont rise even 1m. Just more scaring the population.

Pollies had no choice but to embrace climate change no one had the balls to stand up (except for the chez Pres'). I they did they would be out on their ear and they know it. Wont see it in the under developed countries (got too much to gain), nor the developed countries (get booted out).

Johnc it is exactly that type of shrillness in your post from others, that made me start to wonder if all that is being claimed is true in the first place. I can just as easily say what you say is a load or rubbish too. But I'm far too polite. The thing is I can understand why you have your view I just dont agree with it. It is more than a small band of scientist that disagree with AGW. Besides, who is it calling them dodgey? Could it be that they too are experts in their field? Or is it that they just don't comply? Would you prefer that they just say nothing? Or agree when they don't, therefore just lie?

Time of course is the only thing that will tell the truth, but for mine this will go by the wayside like just about every other scare campaign. You wont even conceed that there is a chance that this is just not happening the A in AGW that is. Sure the world has warmed .07 deg in 100 years but is there a chance that this is natural? What to you propose to reduce the human population by the way?

Only this one will take time due to the emotions that it stirs up in the absolute believers.

There is NO WAY that the world as a whole will reduce emissions like what has been bandied around. Sure some countries can off load some of their emissions onto under developed countries and be a bit like Jack Horner who sat in a corner. That will work!!

[rod@plasterbrok]

(not my words) Czech president Vaclav Klaus says global warming activists are a threat to feedom. And their plans to slash emissions by 2020 are fantasies:

I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, the Kyoto protocol era. You don’t need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe.
In the less developed countries, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which during this period were trying to catch up with the economic performance of the more developed EU countries, rapid economic growth led to a 53 per cent increase in CO2 emissions. In the post-communist countries, which went through a radical economic restructuring with the heavy industry disappearing, GDP drastically declined. These countries decreased their CO2 emissions in the same period by 32 per cent. In the EU’s slow-growing if not stagnating countries (excluding Germany where its difficult to eliminate the impact of the fact that the east German economy almost ceased to exist in that period) CO2 emissions increased by 4 per cent.
The huge differences in these three figures are fascinating. And yet there is a dream among European politicians to reduce CO2 emissions for the entire EU by 30 per cent in the next 13 years compared to the 1990 level.
What does it mean? Do they assume that all countries would undergo a similar economic shock as was experienced by the central and eastern European countries after the fall of communism? Do they assume that economically weaker countries will stop their catching-up process? Do they intend to organise a decrease in the number of people living in Europe? Or do they expect a technological revolution of unheard-of proportions?
What I see in Europe, the US and other countries is a powerful combination of irresponsibility and wishful thinking together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project

[Sebastiaan56]

He suggested not to buy that new beachside property

Thats why we bought in the Blue Mountains!

This debate goes on and on. The weight of opinion is that it is happening, Arctic melts, NW passage open this summer, Himalayan glaciers melting etc, etc. If it isnt anthropomorphic, its still happening. I drive a Prius (still costs <$50 to fill), am getting off the grid and have the solar hot water coming. The big picture, well, we have a more sympathetic government but growth in India and China seems unstoppable. China is building a new coal powered station every couple of weeks.

I dont believe there is a con going on but Im not much of a conspiracy theorist anyway. Its just not the history of science to behave that way (if it were the church well then there maybe an argument to be made). Think how the phony cloners in Korea were outed. Peer review is a powerful mechanism. But I do think the cred of the all of the scientists needs to be explored as well as their funding made public.

There is also a tendency to treat this problem as a pollution problem and not an economic or structural one. An interesting interview on Counterpoint this week explored the subject well. Transcript is here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoin...htm#transcript

BTW, Oil has hit $110 US per barrel. This is going to be a much more urgent problem than Global Warming. Im long on oil, $150 US by years end. There is a bit more inflation coming our way I think.

Also Rod, I know there is a lot of economic doomsaying going on about the challenge but I see it as an opportunity. Most energy infrastructure is aging and re investment is urgently needed. This money will have to be spent anyway! We havent had any brown outs in Sydney this year but only because its been a cool summer. NSW has left its privatisation way too late and will cop the costs of carbon taxes. IMHO personal power generation has a lot going for it but its hard to tax so the progress will be slow. Soon there will be a cost tipping point and it will be the same price to generate your own as solar power development gathers steam (boom crash boom). Ive said it before, "there's money to be made in them thar power plants!"

[LotteBum]

Artme hit the nail on the head.... sure, we may not be actively contributing to global warming, but what if we are?

Also, pollution is a major concern. Can it really hurt for us all to make an effort, or is it all just too hard (ie. are we all too lazy?).

Cheers,
Lotte

[pharmaboy2]

A general consensus is that the world is warming up. It's the cause/s that is really the subject of serious debate.

I disagree, that the cause is all that important in a direct sense. the big issue i have with alarmists is the application of computer models to predict outcomes far into the future, that are yet to show they are accurate empirically. The models presume the CO2 anthopogenic story, but apply water vapour as a forcer and positive feedback, which of course goes against what we observe - eg as you go towards the tropics and higher humidity, absolute temps decline because of cloudy skies, but nighttimes warm.

The cost of not putting out co2 is massive - incomprehensibly large on a global scale - and likely to leave less money going around to research and act on preparing and modifying for climate change. I see no likelihood at all that we can have deep cuts across the globe, nor that it would work anyhow, even if the models were right.

The cut co2 idea is an unpractical solution to an unproven problem that will limit our ability to adjust.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Well put pharmaboy2.