Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[trousers]

I think trousers means something slightly different by 'insignificant' - that humanity is too small a component of the planet to affect global climate. In that, he is demonstrably (and I use that word advisedly) wrong.

 

No, nothing to do with humans vs the planet. I'm saying the human race, other species, the planet, the solar system, the universe are all "insignificant" in the sense that it wouldn't matter if any of these entities ceased to exist. Unless you view things from a human perspective of course, whereby we have evolved the concept of self importance (as a species)

[Whitey Grandad]

No, nothing to do with humans vs the planet. I'm saying the human race, other species, the planet, the solar system, the universe are all "insignificant" in the sense that it wouldn't matter if any of these entities ceased to exist. Unless you view things from a human perspective of course, whereby we have evolved the concept of self importance (as a species)

 

Well, I think I'm important.

[aintforever]

whereby we have evolved the concept of self importance (as a species)

 

Probably since we've been pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

There is still alot we don't know about the effects of our actions, and indeed the climate in general, but it would be retarded in the extreme to ignore the science. I have read a fair bit about the subject but what I know barely scratches the surface of what these guys know. I have read enough though to know that saying "we are insignificant" is complete nonsense.

 

Human nature means there is no way we will change the way we live though. Luckily here in England our climate is quite mild anyway so any changes won't hit us that bad.

[Verbal]

No, nothing to do with humans vs the planet. I'm saying the human race, other species, the planet, the solar system, the universe are all "insignificant" in the sense that it wouldn't matter if any of these entities ceased to exist. Unless you view things from a human perspective of course, whereby we have evolved the concept of self importance (as a species)

 

A pretty elegant statement of self-defeating absurdity! Of course we're 'insignificant' measured in the terms we, as humans, have devised to measure the universe. But that's rather the point. Ever heard of the anthropic principle? That the universe exists just the way it does so we can observe it?

 

How else but from a human perspective CAN we observe the world? So to ask if it matters if humans, the solar system, and the universe, etc., cease to exist is bonkers. Who, apart from us, decides what matters?

 

I can only think of one reason you might persist with the 'insignificance' argument, in which case I think you'll need this:

 

http://www.oca.scientology.org/

[Sheaf Saint]

Probably since we've been pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

There is still alot we don't know about the effects of our actions, and indeed the climate in general, but it would be retarded in the extreme to ignore the science. I have read a fair bit about the subject but what I know barely scratches the surface of what these guys know. I have read enough though to know that saying "we are insignificant" is complete nonsense.

 

Human nature means there is no way we will change the way we live though. Luckily here in England our climate is quite mild anyway so any changes won't hit us that bad.

 

You think?

 

What about the low-lying towns and cities that will be underwater as a result of rising sea-levels? What about the more frequent storms and flooding that will result from the warmer air over the Atlantic? What about the food shortages and subsequent price increases that will arise from loss of arable land in other parts of the globe?

[aintforever]

You think?

 

What about the low-lying towns and cities that will be underwater as a result of rising sea-levels? What about the more frequent storms and flooding that will result from the warmer air over the Atlantic? What about the food shortages and subsequent price increases that will arise from loss of arable land in other parts of the globe?

 

There will be effects but compared to other places on the planet we should get off quite lightly.

 

Sea level rises happen so slowly no one is going to drown as a direct result from global warming. Increased storms will still not as bad as some places are at the moment. Tropical storms and hurricanes are just part of life for millions of people. As many areas will be opened up to farming as lost if the planet warms.

 

Global warming will be devastating to many parts of the world, particularly thosewho rely on subsistence farming, but the UK wont be as bad in comparison.

[badgerx16]

.Ironically, the answer to producing more food to feed the out of control human population increase, is to introduce more plant food (Carbon Dioxide) and make it warmer..ie produce one big green house....go figure

 

Venus is warmer and has more 'greenhouse' gases in it's atmosphere than the Earth, how much life exists there ? With a more parochial focus, check out a globe, work out where the food is grown, it's mostly in temperate zones. Global warming will make these more arid, and hence less productive.

Greenhouses work because they are a very strictly controlled and localisedenvironment, which needs continual input of plant food. Ironically, the lushest forest on Earth, the tropical jungles, grow in incredibly poor soil - they function because of the humidity and extremely rapid rate of decay of dead plant materials enabling it to be recycled before it washes away.

[badgerx16]

As many areas will be opened up to farming as lost if the planet warms.

 

If the fertile temperate zones within which food can be effectively grown migrate north and south, which they will do with GW, then the proportion of the Earth's surface that is available will diminish, it's simple mathematics.

[aintforever]

If the fertile temperate zones within which food can be effectively grown migrate north and south, which they will do with GW, then the proportion of the Earth's surface that is available will diminish, it's simple mathematics.

 

Maybe, but it's not that simple with modern farming methods, irrigation and GM technology. Huge swathes of Russia will be opened up for farming with a warmer climate. There will be positive effects as well as negatives.

[Hokie]

Just wondering if this study done by climate skeptics under Koch funding is catching the eye of any of the doubters? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

[badgerx16]

Just wondering if this study done by climate skeptics under Koch funding is catching the eye of any of the doubters? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

That is a very interesting piece. I wonder if Koch thinks that his money has been well spent ?

[SaintBobby]

My take on it is that I'm sceptical about the green policies, but not a denier on the science.

 

Seems there are quite a few hurdles for the green lobby to leap - and not much research to show they can leap all of them.

 

1. Is climate change actually happening?

2. If so, is much of the impact anthropogenic?

3. In any event, is warming a bad thing? (why would we assume the current, prevailing global temperature is optimal, perhaps a global 1 degree increase would be good for mankind overall?)

4. Even if it is a bad thing and caused in substantial part by human activity, might we be better to simply live with the consequences? (to give a simplified example, if the consequence in the UK is that Norfolk and Cornwall will be uninhabitable by 2030, maybe we would be better off - on balance - to continue to emit carbon as we are and plan to relocate those living in these two counties rather than make it crushingly expensive to drive a car or keep warm in winter?)

5. Even if the consequences are very bad, largely man made and extremely severe, are we better to mitigate the consequences or try and prevent it happening? (e.g. perhaps we should focus most effort on building very substantial flood defences rather than on encouraging solar panels etc?)

 

To embrace the current green agenda, you need to be able to be very sure of your position on all 5 of these questions - not just the first two.

[aintforever]

My take on it is that I'm sceptical about the green policies, but not a denier on the science.

 

Seems there are quite a few hurdles for the green lobby to leap - and not much research to show they can leap all of them.

 

1. Is climate change actually happening?

2. If so, is much of the impact anthropogenic?

3. In any event, is warming a bad thing? (why would we assume the current, prevailing global temperature is optimal, perhaps a global 1 degree increase would be good for mankind overall?)

4. Even if it is a bad thing and caused in substantial part by human activity, might we be better to simply live with the consequences? (to give a simplified example, if the consequence in the UK is that Norfolk and Cornwall will be uninhabitable by 2030, maybe we would be better off - on balance - to continue to emit carbon as we are and plan to relocate those living in these two counties rather than make it crushingly expensive to drive a car or keep warm in winter?)

5. Even if the consequences are very bad, largely man made and extremely severe, are we better to mitigate the consequences or try and prevent it happening? (e.g. perhaps we should focus most effort on building very substantial flood defences rather than on encouraging solar panels etc?)

 

To embrace the current green agenda, you need to be able to be very sure of your position on all 5 of these questions - not just the first two.

 

I'm not an expert but from what I've read my opinion is:

 

1. Yes

2. Impossible to say for certain because of natural variations but there is definitely a trend to warming that can only really be explained by the increase in CO2.

3-5. The effects could be catastrophic, the one thing we can say for certain is that we cannot predict what will happen because no matter how good the science, we don't have a crystal ball. Nature may find it's own way of regulating the temperature, or we could in theory be wiped of the planet. Whilst the effect here might be a bit of flooding, a couple of degree warming could kill millions in under-developed countries.

 

Only a fool would ignore the opinions of the scientific community and just hope it turns out OK. In fact the current situation reminds me of the film Jaws where they hire that shark expert and then completely ignore what he says because it would ruin their income if they shut the beach. What is the point in having scientists if we just go against everything they say? Madness.

Edited 30 July, 2012 by aintforever

[buctootim]

To embrace the current green agenda, you need to be able to be very sure of your position on all 5 of these questions - not just the first two.

 

No you dont, just the opposite. The costs of reducing carbon emissions are actually very small compared with the costs of doing nothing.

 

Many of the changes would actual be cost neutral or have a payback of less than 10 years - building insulation being an easy win. When you factor in the rising cost of fossil fuels - which is nothing to do with green agenda, simply a result of increased worldwide demand and rising costs of extracting them from ever more inaccessible sites then renwables become viable. Reducing carbon by 80% doesnt have to be more expensive. Hydrogen cars are already proven and electric cars are getting better.

[Hamilton Saint]

Let's face it, the rational view, in the long-term, is that dealing with environmental degradation is in humanity's self-interest. But that realisation is then trumped by the short-term self-interest of those pushing the current system - they're driven by greed and the lust for power. And the philosophy or religious view that underlies their attitude is that human-beings have dominion over the planet; they believe that humans have the right, even the duty, to exploit all other animals, and to exploit all the natural resources available - regardless whether they're renewable or not.

[SaintBobby]

No you dont, just the opposite. The costs of reducing carbon emissions are actually very small compared with the costs of doing nothing.

 

Many of the changes would actual be cost neutral or have a payback of less than 10 years - building insulation being an easy win. When you factor in the rising cost of fossil fuels - which is nothing to do with green agenda, simply a result of increased worldwide demand and rising costs of extracting them from ever more inaccessible sites then renwables become viable. Reducing carbon by 80% doesnt have to be more expensive. Hydrogen cars are already proven and electric cars are getting better.

 

This is highly, highly contested.

 

See, for example, Matt Sinclair's "Let Them Eat Carbon"

[Minty]

This is highly, highly contested.

 

See, for example, Matt Sinclair's "Let Them Eat Carbon"

 

It is indeed contested, and that's not a bad thing as it forces people to constantly review their findings and not rest easy. But when you look at the balance of papers, books, peer-reviewed science and expert commentary, there is a clear consensus. It is healthy to read sources from all angles, and not remain closed off to any possibilities.

 

Words like 'agenda' and 'lobby' only serve to portray this as a political issue when it should be viewed entirely independent of politics. Sadly, this is where Hamilton Saint's post comes in and the self-interest of some sectors puts pressure on the politicians, which in turn dominates the discussion and *creates* an agenda, rather than allowing the response to be guided solely by the science.

[SaintBobby]

No you dont, just the opposite. The costs of reducing carbon emissions are actually very small compared with the costs of doing nothing.

 

Many of the changes would actual be cost neutral or have a payback of less than 10 years - building insulation being an easy win. When you factor in the rising cost of fossil fuels - which is nothing to do with green agenda, simply a result of increased worldwide demand and rising costs of extracting them from ever more inaccessible sites then renwables become viable. Reducing carbon by 80% doesnt have to be more expensive. Hydrogen cars are already proven and electric cars are getting better.

 

Furthermore, if global warming is happening AND net beneficial, we should subsidise carbon emissions, not tax them.

 

But that aside, if solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power, tangerine juice or humans running around inside our own enormous hamster wheels become cheaper than carbon-based energy production, well fine. But that has nothing to do with climate change. Just technological advancement.

 

If insulating your loft saves a fortune on domestic fuel bills (and thus also adds to the value of the property), this will be provided by the market.

[Saint in Paradise]

Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is a hoax. There is no real-world evidence whatsoever to suggest that the modest warming

of around 0.8 degrees C which the planet has experienced since 1850 is in any way dangerous or unprecedented. Even the suggestion

that it is mostly man-made is at best moot, at worst long since falsified by real world data and superseded by more plausible theories

 

So next time you hear the BBC (or similar) spouting some unutterable crap about some amazingly shocking new event/piece of research/paper

showing that the glaciers or Greenland are melting faster than before, that polar bears or coral reefs are becoming more endangered, or that

there's anything remotely worrying about the possibility that the planet has warmed by 1.5 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution, don't

just take it with a huge pinch of salt. Treat it with about as much respect as you would a report from North Korea radio telling you that this

year's bumper grain harvest has been more gloriously plentiful than ever before and that workers are now at severe risk of expiring due to

an excess of nourishment, plenitude and joy.

 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173120/97-per-cent-of-the-world-to-be-destroyed-tomorrow/

[Hamilton Saint]

Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is a hoax. There is no real-world evidence whatsoever to suggest that the modest warming

of around 0.8 degrees C which the planet has experienced since 1850 is in any way dangerous or unprecedented. Even the suggestion

that it is mostly man-made is at best moot, at worst long since falsified by real world data and superseded by more plausible theories

 

So next time you hear the BBC (or similar) spouting some unutterable crap about some amazingly shocking new event/piece of research/paper

showing that the glaciers or Greenland are melting faster than before, that polar bears or coral reefs are becoming more endangered, or that

there's anything remotely worrying about the possibility that the planet has warmed by 1.5 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution, don't

just take it with a huge pinch of salt. Treat it with about as much respect as you would a report from North Korea radio telling you that this

year's bumper grain harvest has been more gloriously plentiful than ever before and that workers are now at severe risk of expiring due to

an excess of nourishment, plenitude and joy.

 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173120/97-per-cent-of-the-world-to-be-destroyed-tomorrow/

 

I suggest you begin and end those two paragraphs with quotation marks; that way, we know immediately that they're a quote from The Telegraph, rather than opinions of your own.

[Frank's cousin]

Ironically, its the ambiguity of the scientific evidence that is most dangerous of all. Because as we can see, if provides a rational for those whose self interest demands doing nothing to change things, and politicizes the issue.... There IS evidence that since the industrial revolution we have chnaged the composition of the atmosphere and there has been a small rise in temperature. What is less clear is what kind of impact this will have and over what time scale if it continues.

 

This is where we have scientists with different models predicting various degrees of change, and this is natural with all science when generating hypotheses. The problem here is, it impossible to create realistic experiments to test which is right... we will only see an accurate set of results by observing any actual change - over a significant period of time.

 

That is why it then becomes a moral/philosophical argument based on several key considerations that will impact on your opinion;

 

1. Some maintain that as we will never know the true impact until its observed, we should not be taking any further risks, because IF the impact is negative, it will be too late to change it - a fair perspective in my opinion

 

2. Some models predict major issues with global food production, given the potential dessertification of temperate grain belts etc. Which given that we do currently have sufficient food to feed the whole planet, but dont have the politcal will to distribute it appropriately, would possibly see a shift in attitude...

 

3. Self interest - as others have pointed out, many in positions of power, have gained wealth or are supported by the very industries thet would need to change dramatically and thus this becomes a political game

 

4. Some would suggest that in geological time, the changes are insignificant - afterall the atmosphere and temperature of the planet have changed significantly over its 4500 million years - a period of time that is difficult for us to comprehend, and makes our 2 million years, let alone the last 300 a drop of proverbial **** in the ocean. If we create a toxic environment, and humans die out, some other species will become dominant that is better adapted and the world goes on... so what's the problem?

 

5. Ironically, some of the wierdest christian fundemental, creationists in the US, who believe the workd is only 7000 years old (so you would think they would be scared ****less about the impact we have had in 300 years) ...also tend to be those exact same industrialists who dont want to change their working practices and the ambiguity around the potential impact of global warming, allows them to remain 'credible' in their opinion....

 

IMHO,

 

1. We have changed the planet in the last 300 years

2. We do not know what that means if anything short, medium or long term

3. Currently most seem to find this and acceptable risk to continue as we always have done (certainly given the pressure from the industrial might on politicians)

4. Some do not find it an acceptable level of risk.

[Minty]

I suggest you begin and end those two paragraphs with quotation marks; that way, we know immediately that they're a quote from The Telegraph, rather than opinions of your own.

 

And more specifically, to know they are from James Delingpole, a 'journalist' who openly admits he has never read any peer-reviewed science papers, and who, frankly, if he posted on here, would probably be considered a WUM.

[Hokie]

I'll see your James Delingpole, and raise with a consensus summary by the Royal Society. I'll leave it to you to decide who has more authority.

 

"There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last

half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems."

 

from Climate Change: A summary of the Science, The Royal Society, September 2010. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

 

I believe this helps address #1-4 of the well-posed standard Saint Bobby has set, as well.

[SaintBobby]

I'll see your James Delingpole, and raise with a consensus summary by the Royal Society. I'll leave it to you to decide who has more authority.

 

"There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last

half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems."

 

from Climate Change: A summary of the Science, The Royal Society, September 2010. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

 

I believe this helps address #1-4 of the well-posed standard Saint Bobby has set, as well.

 

I suppose there's a 6th specifically UK-question as well.

 

Given that the UK accounts for 1% of the world's population and, I think, about 2% of greenhouse emissions, to what extent are we confident that it is wise to lead by example?

 

Even if we were able to reduce our carbon emissions to zero, the impact will be derisory if the powerhouses of China, India and Brazil are hugely increasing their emissions.

 

This might, I suppose, make apocalypse inevitable - but the UK's policy wouldn't seem to have much rationale other than perhaps giving British taxpayers a better argument to deploy when we finally get to the pearly gates.

Edited 31 July, 2012 by SaintBobby

[SaintBobby]

I'm not an expert but from what I've read my opinion is:

 

1. Yes

2. Impossible to say for certain because of natural variations but there is definitely a trend to warming that can only really be explained by the increase in CO2.

3-5. The effects could be catastrophic, the one thing we can say for certain is that we cannot predict what will happen because no matter how good the science, we don't have a crystal ball. Nature may find it's own way of regulating the temperature, or we could in theory be wiped of the planet. Whilst the effect here might be a bit of flooding, a couple of degree warming could kill millions in under-developed countries.

 

Only a fool would ignore the opinions of the scientific community and just hope it turns out OK. In fact the current situation reminds me of the film Jaws where they hire that shark expert and then completely ignore what he says because it would ruin their income if they shut the beach. What is the point in having scientists if we just go against everything they say? Madness.

 

My (pretty limited) understanding of the scientific debate is that there has been a pretty substantial backtracking/revision of the more catastrophic predictions.

 

For example, the IPCC have quietly ditched the "hockey stick" graph (which forecasts accelerating, apocalyptic results).

 

Similarly, the scientific papers are usually much more qualified/conditional/moderate than the accompanying headlines which render the science too simple, too apocalyptic and too eye-catching.

 

For example, I doubt there are many leading scientists who would still endorse Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" without a very long list of qualifications (they might consider it useful in PR terms to draw public attention to the purported problem, but computer generated images of e.g. Manhattan 20 feet under water are shock tactics not science).

 

A fair number of posters on this thread seem to embrace the precautionary principle (i.e. "even if there's only a 30% chance of this being true and a 10% chance of it being really catastrophic, we'd be wise to take some pretty dramatic steps to try and prevent it happening. If these steps turn out to be have been unnecessary, well that's just part of the uncertainty of life").

 

I'm not persuaded of this approach. It at least needs to build in the potential unintended consequences of making carbon-based energy much more expensive. This is too often caricatured as simply involving rich Westerners insulating their lofts or installing catalytic convertors in their cars. The impact on those in the poorer parts of the world are much less trivial and could often literally be a matter of life and death.

 

A horrific example of the precautionary principle being applied was the ban on DDT use following the publication of "Silent Spring", which argued DDT was potentially damaging to wildlife. The consequence of this well-intentioned, but ill-considered, policy has been the entirely avoidable deaths of thousands upon thousands of people from malaria.

 

My scepticism is further underscored by the fact that climate change follows in a long line of apocalyptic scare stories which have turned out to be utter nonsense despite overwhelming scientific evidence being claimed for these theories at the time. This doesn't mean climate change isn't a problem. But it does mean that we should at least raise an eyebrow before taking some of the claims on board. For more on this, I recommend http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook440pdf.pdf

 

This addresses your point about ignoring scientists being like the mayor of Amity Island refusing to close the beach....

 

I'm not sure we should just take scientists' pronouncements hook, line and sinker about risk and simply roll them out as public policy. Jaws would have been a very different (and enormously less exciting) movie if the mayor had been right. There was no shark, or not much chance of the shark posing much of an ongoing danger, but the beach is closed as a precaution, large numbers of local businesses go under, lifeguards lose their jobs, a high proportion of the local population sink into economic and mental depression, some even become suicidal.

 

The purpose of Jaws was to frighten its audience with a wholly unrealistic narrative about the behaviour of a great white shark. Not to provide a sensible, mature overview of balancing safety and leisure in high density tourist areas with potentially lethal indigenous wildlife. I often feel like a lot of stories emanating from the "green lobby" are too much like the former (Jaws) and not enough like the latter (a calm, collected, more boring view of what we should actually do).

[Hokie]

My scepticism is further underscored by the fact that climate change follows in a long line of apocalyptic scare stories which have turned out to be utter nonsense despite overwhelming scientific evidence being claimed for these theories at the time. This doesn't mean climate change isn't a problem. But it does mean that we should at least raise an eyebrow before taking some of the claims on board. For more on this, I recommend http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook440pdf.pdf

 

Thanks for the link, but its written by Austrian school economists rather than scientists (ouch?), which for me, as a hard scientist (and a neo-Keynesian in my spare time) doesn't work to well to bring me to your side. And honestly, by the time the one essay was referring to the DDT ban as a bad thing and acid rain as a hoax, I had checked out. I'd imagine I couldn't convince a denier with a Greenpeace statement either, so that's a deadlock.

 

Have you seen any skeptical links from scientific society consensus statements? Those I find more convincing than the Al Gore film. For example, the American Physical Society statement. http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm Perhaps we can discuss if the 2010 statement was a walkback, or just proper care?

 

I was really hoping I'd get a reaction from the skeptics or deniers on Richard Muller switching teams. Here's a different summary than the one I posted last week (in case being in the Guardian discouraged anyone) http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112666023/richard-muller-climate-change-skeptic-converts/

[Frank's cousin]

A horrific example of the precautionary principle being applied was the ban on DDT use following the publication of "Silent Spring", which argued DDT was potentially damaging to wildlife. The consequence of this well-intentioned, but ill-considered, policy has been the entirely avoidable deaths of thousands upon thousands of people from malaria.

 

There was and is conclusive scientific evidence with respect to DDT... but that aside your opinion on this suggests that 'anything should be done to save human life, at whatever environmental cost' ? - I would disagree, not out of some beardy green philosophy, but precisely because such actions are often lacking in any acccurate knowledge of the long term outcomes, especially in how they will impact on human life.

 

Would you still argue for the inclusion of lead in petrol for example? Human health is effected by many of the pollutants that are accepted as causal/contributory to the current trends - COPD incidence levels in Far Eastern industrial cities is an obvious one (and yes this is also due to high smoking levels, but not exclusively).

 

From a philosophical perspective, it also only holds true, if you believe humans have a right to do what ever is necessary to their environment, regardless of the ecological impact, if it means human survival - yet what most have been talking about here, is that as a species we seem happy with a risk of 'catastrophe' or even a negative shift, happy to exploit our environment/ecosystems ... for nothing other than greed/economic gain. Yes 'cleaner' alternatives adequate fitration systems, wiser use of natural resources, means increased financial cost, but is cleaner air, more sensible use of limited resources etc really such a bad thing?

 

Millions die each year as a result of starvation. In the First World economies we have the resources to address this but not the political will. Had Maleria been a Western disease, we would have eliminated it by now (assuming, as often happens, the species of Mosquito, did not simply adapt to whatever pesticides were being slung at it)

 

Also your Jaws analogy could be equally effective if used the other way around.... say, the beach had been left open, but there was a shark... how many lives is too many before you close the beach?

[Whitey Grandad]

Lead in petrol has been replaced by benzene, which is horribly carcinogenic.

[Whitey Grandad]

Lead in petrol has been replaced by benzene, which is horribly carcinogenic.

[SaintBobby]

There was and is conclusive scientific evidence with respect to DDT... but that aside your opinion on this suggests that 'anything should be done to save human life' date=' at [b']whatever[/b] environmental cost' ? - I would disagree, not out of some beardy green philosophy, but precisely because such actions are often lacking in any acccurate knowledge of the long term outcomes, especially in how they will impact on human life.

 

Would you still argue for the inclusion of lead in petrol for example? Human health is effected by many of the pollutants that are accepted as causal/contributory to the current trends - COPD incidence levels in Far Eastern industrial cities is an obvious one (and yes this is also due to high smoking levels, but not exclusively).

 

From a philosophical perspective, it also only holds true, if you believe humans have a right to do what ever is necessary to their environment, regardless of the ecological impact, if it means human survival - yet what most have been talking about here, is that as a species we seem happy with a risk of 'catastrophe' or even a negative shift, happy to exploit our environment/ecosystems ... for nothing other than greed/economic gain. Yes 'cleaner' alternatives adequate fitration systems, wiser use of natural resources, means increased financial cost, but is cleaner air, more sensible use of limited resources etc really such a bad thing?

 

Millions die each year as a result of starvation. In the First World economies we have the resources to address this but not the political will. Had Maleria been a Western disease, we would have eliminated it by now (assuming, as often happens, the species of Mosquito, did not simply adapt to whatever pesticides were being slung at it)

 

Also your Jaws analogy could be equally effective if used the other way around.... say, the beach had been left open, but there was a shark... how many lives is too many before you close the beach?

 

I'm pretty decisively pro-human on these matters. The environment and the planet are ours to exploit, alter, drill and adapt to our own needs and desires.

 

Putting aside a small, residual concern for other sentient life forms, I would only measure ecological damage in terms of how it impacts on us.

 

Pollution, deforestation, leaded petrol etc don't trouble me per se - they trouble me only in so far as they impact on humanity (which can be a considerable, negative impact, obviously).

[Hamilton Saint]

I'm pretty decisively pro-human on these matters. The environment and the planet are ours to exploit, alter, drill and adapt to our own needs and desires.

 

Putting aside a small, residual concern for other sentient life forms, I would only measure ecological damage in terms of how it impacts on us.

 

Pollution, deforestation, leaded petrol etc don't trouble me per se - they trouble me only in so far as they impact on humanity (which can be a considerable, negative impact, obviously).

 

Does species extinction concern you at all? And which particular humans are you pro for? What happens when rampant exploitation threatens the survival of some human groups? Are some groups more important than others?

[TopGun]

And more specifically, to know they are from James Delingpole, a 'journalist' who openly admits he has never read any peer-reviewed science papers, and who, frankly, if he posted on here, would probably be considered a WUM.

 

This. Delingpole has his own very narrow agenda.

[Sheaf Saint]

I'm pretty decisively pro-human on these matters. The environment and the planet are ours to exploit, alter, drill and adapt to our own needs and desires.

 

It is this very attitude that has got us to where we are currently and will ultimately be our undoing. We are the only species on this planet intelligent enough to be aware of how we affect our environment, yet we still carry on destroying it for our short term greed rather than preserving it for the long-term benefits.

 

Putting aside a small, residual concern for other sentient life forms, I would only measure ecological damage in terms of how it impacts on us.

 

Pollution, deforestation, leaded petrol etc don't trouble me per se - they trouble me only in so far as they impact on humanity (which can be a considerable, negative impact, obviously).

 

So as Hamilton Saint asks, what about when deforestation means the eviction of indigenous human groups? Is the western demand for cheap beef, wood and other products more important than the living environment of the tribespeople who depend on the natural resources for subsistence? I challenge you to read articles such as this one and then tell us that deforestation is OK.

 

Species loss is always, always a bad thing. In any ecosystem, the loss of a single species, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, will have a lasting affect on all of the organisms in that system. The world is currently undergoing the largest mass extinction since the dinosaurs disappeared, and by far the single biggest cause of that is the destruction of habitat as a result of human activity.

[SaintBobby]

Does species extinction concern you at all? And which particular humans are you pro for? What happens when rampant exploitation threatens the survival of some human groups? Are some groups more important than others?

 

Species extinction concerns me very slightly. There may be biodiversity issues - with a knock-on impact, but in and of itself, it's not a disaster that the dodo is extinct, for example.

 

I wouldn't say that one particular human group is more important than any others (for example, if banning X saves 100 lives in group A but causes 200 deaths in group B, then don't ban X)

Edited 1 August, 2012 by SaintBobby

[SaintBobby]

It is this very attitude that has got us to where we are currently and will ultimately be our undoing. We are the only species on this planet intelligent enough to be aware of how we affect our environment, yet we still carry on destroying it for our short term greed rather than preserving it for the long-term benefits.

 

 

 

So as Hamilton Saint asks, what about when deforestation means the eviction of indigenous human groups? Is the western demand for cheap beef, wood and other products more important than the living environment of the tribespeople who depend on the natural resources for subsistence? I challenge you to read articles such as this one and then tell us that deforestation is OK.

 

Species loss is always, always a bad thing. In any ecosystem, the loss of a single species, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, will have a lasting affect on all of the organisms in that system. The world is currently undergoing the largest mass extinction since the dinosaurs disappeared, and by far the single biggest cause of that is the destruction of habitat as a result of human activity.

 

Deforestation may well constitute a human rights abuse of the indigenous population. It's their HUMAN rights which concern me, not deforestation per se.

 

I don't agree with your implication that mankind has brought itself to be the very brink of disaster.

 

2012 is, pretty much, the best year to be alive in the history of humanity and 2052 will be even better. 3012 will be almost inconceivably better.

[Sheaf Saint]

I don't agree with your implication that mankind has brought itself to be the very brink of disaster.

 

That's not actually what I said. I was referring to the arrogant belief (that would seem to have stemmed from the Old Testament, but let's not go there) that we humans are in some way special and that this planet was created solely for our benefit, allowing for us to harvest whatever resources we care to without any fear of consequence. That kind of thinking will eventually spell the downfall of civilised society IMO.

 

2012 is, pretty much, the best year to be alive in the history of humanity and 2052 will be even better. 3012 will be almost inconceivably better.

 

I'm not sure on what criteria you are basing your assertion that the current times are the best for mankind. Life is certainly much more convenient in this age thanks to the huge advances in technology over the last half-century, but is that really a good thing or has it just made our species more lazy? I sincerely hope your belief that 2052 and 3012 will be better for all turns out to be correct, but it's fair to say they won't be if we continue on the unsustainable path that we are currently on. It has been calculated that if all 7 billion people on this planet were to live the same lifestyle as the average westerner, we would need the resources of 3.5 Earths. We've only got this one, therefore we need to learn to manage its resources far more efficiently than we currently do. This will require drastic behavioural changes that our society is not ready for, as most people are hopelessly addicted to the excesses of consumerism and will not easily give them up.

[aintforever]

My (pretty limited) understanding of the scientific debate is that there has been a pretty substantial backtracking/revision of the more catastrophic predictions.

 

For example, the IPCC have quietly ditched the "hockey stick" graph (which forecasts accelerating, apocalyptic results).

 

Similarly, the scientific papers are usually much more qualified/conditional/moderate than the accompanying headlines which render the science too simple, too apocalyptic and too eye-catching.

 

For example, I doubt there are many leading scientists who would still endorse Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" without a very long list of qualifications (they might consider it useful in PR terms to draw public attention to the purported problem, but computer generated images of e.g. Manhattan 20 feet under water are shock tactics not science).

 

A fair number of posters on this thread seem to embrace the precautionary principle (i.e. "even if there's only a 30% chance of this being true and a 10% chance of it being really catastrophic, we'd be wise to take some pretty dramatic steps to try and prevent it happening. If these steps turn out to be have been unnecessary, well that's just part of the uncertainty of life").

 

I'm not persuaded of this approach. It at least needs to build in the potential unintended consequences of making carbon-based energy much more expensive. This is too often caricatured as simply involving rich Westerners insulating their lofts or installing catalytic convertors in their cars. The impact on those in the poorer parts of the world are much less trivial and could often literally be a matter of life and death.

 

A horrific example of the precautionary principle being applied was the ban on DDT use following the publication of "Silent Spring", which argued DDT was potentially damaging to wildlife. The consequence of this well-intentioned, but ill-considered, policy has been the entirely avoidable deaths of thousands upon thousands of people from malaria.

 

My scepticism is further underscored by the fact that climate change follows in a long line of apocalyptic scare stories which have turned out to be utter nonsense despite overwhelming scientific evidence being claimed for these theories at the time. This doesn't mean climate change isn't a problem. But it does mean that we should at least raise an eyebrow before taking some of the claims on board. For more on this, I recommend http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook440pdf.pdf

 

This addresses your point about ignoring scientists being like the mayor of Amity Island refusing to close the beach....

 

I'm not sure we should just take scientists' pronouncements hook, line and sinker about risk and simply roll them out as public policy. Jaws would have been a very different (and enormously less exciting) movie if the mayor had been right. There was no shark, or not much chance of the shark posing much of an ongoing danger, but the beach is closed as a precaution, large numbers of local businesses go under, lifeguards lose their jobs, a high proportion of the local population sink into economic and mental depression, some even become suicidal.

 

The purpose of Jaws was to frighten its audience with a wholly unrealistic narrative about the behaviour of a great white shark. Not to provide a sensible, mature overview of balancing safety and leisure in high density tourist areas with potentially lethal indigenous wildlife. I often feel like a lot of stories emanating from the "green lobby" are too much like the former (Jaws) and not enough like the latter (a calm, collected, more boring view of what we should actually do).

 

The problem is that the reporting of climate change is sensationalist for both sides. The science behind runaway global warming is as valid now as it was before Gore made a ***t of himself. The trick is to ignore the journos and politicians and read the science behind it.

 

The debate is ruined by reports that blame every other thing on global warming with zero scientific backing, and on the other hand stories that claim it can't be happening because it used to be hot thousands of years ago when we were not here.

 

Read about the measurements and observations scientists have made, experiments they have done and the conclusions they have made from them. I'm pretty sure the more you read the more you will realise that the shark is very definitely out there and potentially very dangerous.

Edited 1 August, 2012 by aintforever

[SaintBobby]

That's not actually what I said. I was referring to the arrogant belief (that would seem to have stemmed from the Old Testament, but let's not go there) that we humans are in some way special and that this planet was created solely for our benefit, allowing for us to harvest whatever resources we care to without any fear of consequence. That kind of thinking will eventually spell the downfall of civilised society IMO.

 

 

 

I'm not sure on what criteria you are basing your assertion that the current times are the best for mankind. Life is certainly much more convenient in this age thanks to the huge advances in technology over the last half-century, but is that really a good thing or has it just made our species more lazy? I sincerely hope your belief that 2052 and 3012 will be better for all turns out to be correct, but it's fair to say they won't be if we continue on the unsustainable path that we are currently on. It has been calculated that if all 7 billion people on this planet were to live the same lifestyle as the average westerner, we would need the resources of 3.5 Earths. We've only got this one, therefore we need to learn to manage its resources far more efficiently than we currently do. This will require drastic behavioural changes that our society is not ready for, as most people are hopelessly addicted to the excesses of consumerism and will not easily give them up.

 

I'm not persuaded the highlighted belief is arrogant (I don't believe the planet was created for us btw...just that we are an accident of nature). I believe - morally - that human lives are almost infinitely more valuable than the lives of chickens, termites, mosquitos, jellyfish etc. And that humanity is, indeed, infinitely more important than non-sentient life - cucumbers, bracken, mushrooms etc. It is acceptable for someone to take a different moral stance. For example, that God entrusted the Earth to us and we will anger Him terribly if we pluck too many apples from the forbidden tree or that our management of the planet's resources should be arranged in such a way as to primarily benefit goldfish. I wouldn't consider either of these alternative positions "arrogant", just wrong.

 

The case that we are "harvest[ing] whatever resources we care to without any fear of consequence" is a straw man argument. I can think of no human exploitation of the planet - mining, drilling for oil, making furniture out of trees which has been done without fear of consequences. That doesn't mean that mistakes aren't made or that visceral greed is never present. But our (often very brave) exploitation of the planet has been precisely what has driven civilisation forward. In any event, if Earth was an apple, mankind has yet to drill through the skin. And who knows what useful stuff we might eventually find in the wider universe, within which our own planet is not even a speck.

 

The "we would need 3.5 as many resources" to all live like Westerners line, falls foul of a very common green misnomer. Namely, that scientific advancement has reached its zenith. In fact, we can be supremely confident that we will get better and better at the smart use of natural resources. I don't know if nuclear power will go on to provide the entire world with clean, cheap energy for everyone. Or if nanotechnology will lead to the almost total elimination of disease. Or if GM food will make human malnutrition a thing of the past. Or if someone will invent a supersonic helicopter that runs off tangerine juice. But I am supremely confident that human ingenuity will prevail.

 

I think today is the best time to be alive for mankind on virtually any sensible criteria you care to pick. Average income and wealth per person. Access to running water. Life expectancy. Infant mortality rates. Amount of leisure time per person. Propensity to recover from illness, disease or injury. Access to electricity. Access to telecommunications. Ability to travel substantial distances both cheaply and quickly. Reduced prospect of being forcibly drafted to go to war. Greater equality for women and ethnic minorities. Longevity and health in retirement. The list just goes on and on.

 

It is not true that this graph is a simple straight line of permanent human improvement (I think things were worse for New Yorkers during and immediately after 9/11 than just before it; the UK economy has not yet recovered to its 2008 levels; Zimbabwe is probably a worse place today even than it was under white supremacist rule etc), but the overall, basic trend is overwhelmingly positive.

 

I think there are interesting and difficult moral questions about inter-generational equity. But if we in the West are even a tad concerned, just a mite worried about the environment we will leave to our kids and grandkids, we should be absolutely apoplectic about the financial debt we are leaving them.

Edited 2 August, 2012 by SaintBobby

[SaintBobby]

The problem is that the reporting of climate change is sensationalist for both sides. The science behind runaway global warming is as valid now as it was before Gore made a ***t of himself. The trick is to ignore the journos and politicians and read the science behind it.

 

The debate is ruined by reports that blame every other thing on global warming with zero scientific backing, and on the other hand stories that claim it can't be happening because it used to be hot thousands of years ago when we were not here.

 

Read about the measurements and observations scientists have made, experiments they have done and the conclusions they have made from them. I'm pretty sure the more you read the more you will realise that the shark is very definitely out there and potentially very dangerous.

 

I've found the more I've read about it, the more it's obvious that there are very big disagreements amongst the experts - and an acceptance by the experts that there are enormous uncertainties and a universal acceptance that climatology is a science in its infancy.

 

To continue with the shark analogy....

 

Even if the shark is out there (which is not universally accepted by any means), there is a huge area of disagreement about whether the shark is a 30 foot beast or a 6 inch tiddler. And even if it is a 30 foot beast, it isn't obviously a carnivore - it may be a coward which flees from mankind. And even if it is a carnivore, it might be fairly straightforward to set up nets or barriers that keep it away from from the area of water close to the beach which we want to swim in. And even if we can't erect such barriers, we might just be willing to accept that every time we go swimming there's a one in a million chance that we will be eaten by a shark.

 

There are a lot of steps between confidently asserting "there is a shark out there" and concluding "we need to move to a world in which no human being ever enters the water again"

[Hokie]

When you say "big disagreement" by the experts, I'd suggest that the disagreement is not as large as indicated in much of the press--whether denier, skeptical, or mainstream (mainstream journalists are taught to seek out multiple opinions creating a false equity of arguments.)

 

Another source I like is PNAS: "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), July 31, 2012, 109 (31). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 )

 

Saint Bobby, I find your 6th question outstanding: "Given that the UK accounts for 1% of the world's population and, I think, about 2% of greenhouse emissions, to what extent are we confident that it is wise to lead by example?" But, if you spend all the time trying to debate 1-3 (i.e. Are we warming?, Is it caused by Humans?, and Will it matter?) which while not "proven" are believed by 80-98% of scientists in this area (not 30%) then question #6 gets little attention.

 

So, do you conceed 1-3 are likely, so we can move onto #6? (Your #4 and #5, I consider 3b and c) I'll give you that #6 is the tough nut, and will require huge effort. But there is no sense in debating it if you really doubt 1-3.

 

BTW, is there really no comment on David Muller's recent work and statements? Does it give any skeptics here pause? Anyone? This I found interesting, from the conservative (but rational?) US News and World Report http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/30/have-the-koch-brothers-changed-their-mind-about-climate-change

[Sheaf Saint]

The case that we are "harvest[ing] whatever resources we care to without any fear of consequence" is a straw man argument. I can think of no human exploitation of the planet - mining, drilling for oil, making furniture out of trees which has been done without fear of consequences.

 

You only need to look at what has become of China since 1978 to see a prime example. The policy of economic growth at whatever cost has caused environmental destruction in huge areas of the country. Acid rain, unrecoverable pollution of lakes and rivers, desertification in areas that have been over-farmed and turned into wasteland; these are just some of the known effects, and there may be many more to come that we don't yet understand. And while many millions have seen their wealth improve as a result, there are countless millions of people in rural areas who are paying the price for it. It is the demand in the western world for cheap products that has driven this situation - every time you buy something "Made in China" you are in a very small way partly responsible for the continuation of it.

 

It just cannot continue like this. Something has to give. It's all very well you placing supreme faith in the ingenuity of mankind to invent solutions and work more efficiently in the long run, but mankind has a rapacious greed for material goods which can't just be switched off. People will always want more and more 'stuff' and believe they have an entitlement to it, and nobody likes being told "Sorry, you can't have it." Sadly, I think it will take some kind of cataclysmic event to trigger the change in attitude that will be required to overcome this, but until that time the population will keep growing, more and more agricultural land will be required to feed everyone, the wealthy and affluent will continue to want un-necessary material goods just for the sake of it or to satisfy their own vanity, and we will keep on draining the natural resources of the planet at an unsustainable rate.

[SaintBobby]

When you say "big disagreement" by the experts, I'd suggest that the disagreement is not as large as indicated in much of the press--whether denier, skeptical, or mainstream (mainstream journalists are taught to seek out multiple opinions creating a false equity of arguments.)

 

Another source I like is PNAS: "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), July 31, 2012, 109 (31). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 )

 

Saint Bobby, I find your 6th question outstanding: "Given that the UK accounts for 1% of the world's population and, I think, about 2% of greenhouse emissions, to what extent are we confident that it is wise to lead by example?" But, if you spend all the time trying to debate 1-3 (i.e. Are we warming?, Is it caused by Humans?, and Will it matter?) which while not "proven" are believed by 80-98% of scientists in this area (not 30%) then question #6 gets little attention.

 

So, do you conceed 1-3 are likely, so we can move onto #6? (Your #4 and #5, I consider 3b and c) I'll give you that #6 is the tough nut, and will require huge effort. But there is no sense in debating it if you really doubt 1-3.

 

BTW, is there really no comment on David Muller's recent work and statements? Does it give any skeptics here pause? Anyone? This I found interesting, from the conservative (but rational?) US News and World Report http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/30/have-the-koch-brothers-changed-their-mind-about-climate-change

 

These would be very, very rough guesses by me, I'm not a scientist let alone a climatologist.

 

1. Is climate change happening? I'd say 85% YES.

2. Are man-made emissions a significant part of this? I'd say 70% YES

3. Are the consequences of climate change a net bad? I'd say 75% YES

 

So, I'm a pretty clear YES to these questions. But the chance I'm right on ALL of them is .85 x .7 x .75 = 44.6%. So, overall, I suppose that means that the chance that these three things are not all true is higher than 50%.

 

I don't accept that my questions 4 and 5 are "subsets" of point 3.

 

4, 5 & 6 are all about what we should do if 1,2 and 3 are all true.

[SaintBobby]

You only need to look at what has become of China since 1978 to see a prime example. The policy of economic growth at whatever cost has caused environmental destruction in huge areas of the country. Acid rain, unrecoverable pollution of lakes and rivers, desertification in areas that have been over-farmed and turned into wasteland; these are just some of the known effects, and there may be many more to come that we don't yet understand. And while many millions have seen their wealth improve as a result, there are countless millions of people in rural areas who are paying the price for it. It is the demand in the western world for cheap products that has driven this situation - every time you buy something "Made in China" you are in a very small way partly responsible for the continuation of it.

 

It just cannot continue like this. Something has to give. It's all very well you placing supreme faith in the ingenuity of mankind to invent solutions and work more efficiently in the long run, but mankind has a rapacious greed for material goods which can't just be switched off. People will always want more and more 'stuff' and believe they have an entitlement to it, and nobody likes being told "Sorry, you can't have it." Sadly, I think it will take some kind of cataclysmic event to trigger the change in attitude that will be required to overcome this, but until that time the population will keep growing, more and more agricultural land will be required to feed everyone, the wealthy and affluent will continue to want un-necessary material goods just for the sake of it or to satisfy their own vanity, and we will keep on draining the natural resources of the planet at an unsustainable rate.

 

Are you suggesting that China was a better place in 1978?

[Sheaf Saint]

Are you suggesting that China was a better place in 1978?

 

From an environmental point of view, yes it was. The rampant industrialisation since then has devastated countless regions that are just completely ignored by the authorities. Why do you think they have been so economically successful over the last 30 years? It's because they don't have anything like the kind of environmental regulations that other countries have. That's why so many western corporations have moved their production there, because on top of the constant supply of cheap labour with virtually no human rights, factories in rural areas are basically allowed to discharge whatever the hell they like into the rivers with no legal comeback.

[doddisalegend]

From the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19077439

 

Palm trees used to grow in Antarctic

 

The study in Nature suggests Antarctic winter temperatures exceeded 10C, while summers may have reached 25C.

 

The early Eocene was a period of atmospheric CO2 concentrations higher than the current 390 parts per million (ppm )- reaching at least 600ppm and possibly far higher.

 

Global temperatures were on the order of 5C higher, and there was no sharp divide in temperature between the poles and the equator.

 

All without a human on the planet goes to show there is nothing new under the sun....

[Minty]

We all know that the climate has changed over the years. The key questions are whether we are having more of an effect than might otherwise be exhibited without our influence.

 

Can I just add that it's good to read some decent debate, thanks Saint Bobby. Saint George could learn a thing or two.

[scotty]

These would be very, very rough guesses by me, I'm not a scientist let alone a climatologist.

 

1. Is climate change happening? I'd say 85% YES.

2. Are man-made emissions a significant part of this? I'd say 70% YES

3. Are the consequences of climate change a net bad? I'd say 75% YES

 

So, I'm a pretty clear YES to these questions. But the chance I'm right on ALL of them is .85 x .7 x .75 = 44.6%. So, overall, I suppose that means that the chance that these three things are not all true is higher than 50%.

 

I don't accept that my questions 4 and 5 are "subsets" of point 3.

 

4, 5 & 6 are all about what we should do if 1,2 and 3 are all true.

 

St Bobby's hit on something here about viewing the possibilities in terms of our personal perception of the percentages involved, as non-expert outsiders.

 

The way I see it, we don't have to "prove" that climate change is taking place, or that mankind's activity is all or part of the cause. All that needs to happen is a fraction of a percentage of possibility that it might be the case for action to become necessary.

 

This situation is genuinely unique, in that we simply cannot afford to lose the stake we are gambling with. The climate deniers could be right, in spite of the evidence mounting up, but if they are wrong we wont be here for them to say "sorry".

[aintforever]

I've found the more I've read about it, the more it's obvious that there are very big disagreements amongst the experts - and an acceptance by the experts that there are enormous uncertainties and a universal acceptance that climatology is a science in its infancy.

 

To continue with the shark analogy....

 

Even if the shark is out there (which is not universally accepted by any means), there is a huge area of disagreement about whether the shark is a 30 foot beast or a 6 inch tiddler. And even if it is a 30 foot beast, it isn't obviously a carnivore - it may be a coward which flees from mankind. And even if it is a carnivore, it might be fairly straightforward to set up nets or barriers that keep it away from from the area of water close to the beach which we want to swim in. And even if we can't erect such barriers, we might just be willing to accept that every time we go swimming there's a one in a million chance that we will be eaten by a shark.

 

There are a lot of steps between confidently asserting "there is a shark out there" and concluding "we need to move to a world in which no human being ever enters the water again"

 

I disagree about the experts, man made global warming is pretty much universally accepted from what I have read. There is obviously big disagreements about what will happen in the future because it is just speculation but the possible effects are so potentially bad I think it would be retarded beyond belief just to carry on and hope it all turns out OK.

[Jonnyboy]

I've found the more I've read about it, the more it's obvious that there are very big disagreements amongst the experts - and an acceptance by the experts that there are enormous uncertainties and a universal acceptance that climatology is a science in its infancy.

 

To continue with the shark analogy....

 

Even if the shark is out there (which is not universally accepted by any means), there is a huge area of disagreement about whether the shark is a 30 foot beast or a 6 inch tiddler. And even if it is a 30 foot beast, it isn't obviously a carnivore - it may be a coward which flees from mankind. And even if it is a carnivore, it might be fairly straightforward to set up nets or barriers that keep it away from from the area of water close to the beach which we want to swim in. And even if we can't erect such barriers, we might just be willing to accept that every time we go swimming there's a one in a million chance that we will be eaten by a shark.

 

There are a lot of steps between confidently asserting "there is a shark out there" and concluding "we need to move to a world in which no human being ever enters the water again"

 

Id be interested to hear your list of recommended reading, thanks.

[badgerx16]

From the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19077439

 

Palm trees used to grow in Antarctic

 

The study in Nature suggests Antarctic winter temperatures exceeded 10C, while summers may have reached 25C.

 

The early Eocene was a period of atmospheric CO2 concentrations higher than the current 390 parts per million (ppm )- reaching at least 600ppm and possibly far higher.

 

Global temperatures were on the order of 5C higher, and there was no sharp divide in temperature between the poles and the equator.

 

All without a human on the planet goes to show there is nothing new under the sun....

 

From the Daily Mail report:

 

"If Antarctica ever became as warm again, sea levels could rise 60 metres (197 feet)" .

That would put most of this country under water; Southampton, Portsmouth, London, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Belfast, Cardiff, Plymouth, Newcastle, etc, etc, etc would be mostly submerged, not forgetting New York, Sydney, Rio, Hong Kong, amongst the huge swathes of the current global land mass that would disappear.

 

If you go back far enough the Earth was a ball of molten rock and metal, several hundred degrees warmer than today, also within any human input - but I don't think it would have been a nice place to live. This report doesn't add anything to the debate, it merely re-iterates what we already know, that the Earth has gone through multiple periods of warmer and colder climate than it is currently experiencing. The issues we need to be addressing are (1) whether human activity enhancing or accelerating the current warming cycle, and (2) whether we can actually do anything to prevent it running out of control, which it may well do.

Edited 2 August, 2012 by badgerx16