Kooky.

But we can't sit back and say, we're doomed, we're all doomed, let's do naff all. We can say, look we may be doomed eventually but if there are things we can do to slow it down, why don't we do them?

edit: Yes that's the simplistic version, I'll leave the detail to you lot.

Burbage

Well there is a difference between the world getting warmer, and the world getting catastrophically warmer.

It seems to me that the former is true, not the latter.

johnnyx0

As I say, it don't matter a bit if it is man-made, but the majority of scientists seem to think that way. The very few scientists who seem to think otherwise may well be being paid for their research by companies with vested interests, such as coal and oil producers.

And remember, climate change isn't necessarily global warming. For instance is it thought that the Gulf Stream may be diverted away from Northern Europe and the UK, which would significantly cool the area - potentially bringing on another localised mini ice-age.

We have all the natural energy we need in solar, wind, geothermal and one of the biggest energy sources - the ocean tides. Why hasn't Australia embraced solar, which we have so much of? Because of the vested interests in coal and uranium. And don't get me started on "clean coal" - what a joke.

It made me laugh on that original Telegraph article, when it said "The vast Antarctic ice-sheet is not melting, except in one tiny corner, the Antarctic Peninsula."
Tiny - haha! Are they on about the Larsen A ice shelf which collapsed in 1995, the Prince Gustav shelf which also went in 1995 or the Larsen B which went the same way in 2002? Maybe they're talking about the Wilkins ice shelf which collapsed in 2008 or maybe the Larsen C which is near it's "limit of viability?"
Maybe they're talking about the Filcher-Ronne ice shelf which at 430,000 square km is the size of Spain and has been spawning quite a few icebergs recently?
Maybe they're talking about the largest ice shelf, the Ross ice shelf which is the size of France and if it went would cause the world's sea level to increase 5 metres! It's still in tact at the moment, but suffering some cracks and break offs lately. In March 2000, a bit broke off and formed the largest ever recorded iceberg - it was the size of Belgium!

Some facts from the British Antartic Survey:
# Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by natural events.
# There is growing evidence that a large part of the recently observed rapid change is driven by human activity.
# The temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by almost 3°C in the last 50 years causing some of the smaller ice shelves to melt.

Although obviously, as you say, there are no scientists among the British Antartic Survey - they're just Loonies

renth

Because that prevents the developing countries from developing.

I think running out of oil is going to have a much bigger impact on mankind.

Burbage

Regarding you BAS points.

1. True.
2. True.
3. Possibly true

As for three the temperature could drop over the next twenty years. Local changes in temperature, even longterm, do not a global catastrophe make.

Here's a question for you then. Where is your cast-iron guarantee that reducing carbon dioxide will have any affect on the rate at which the planet warms?

You certainly seem to believe that you have this guarantee.

(and I'd like to see a quote from a scientist, not a politician or spin doctor)

johnnyx0

I see what the papers saying, although one issue is that the full effect of the greenhouse gases hasn't been felt yet, because of the additional pollution in the atmosphere which is partly shielding us. In the days after 9/11 in the US where they didn't fly any planes for a few days, it warmed up enough for scientists to realise this fact. They reckon that as we reduce the other pollutants we're putting into the atmosphere there will be a period where it will heat up significantly, before the reduction in CO2 will take effect.

And no.3 is quite funny isn't it! Sounds a miracle that that plant life ever came about in the first place without us to chuck shed-loads of CO2 at it!

ossigeno

This 5 metres seems impossible to believe, is there a reliable source for this estimate? I've seen 5 metres estimated for the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet, The Australian: Ross Ice Shelf could 'collapse quickly'.

renth

Volcanoes produce lots more CO2 than man does, so do the oceans.

Burbage

You're obviously not a biologist. The carbon dioxide "we're chucking" as you like to put it, came from plants in the first place. That's what oil and coal are.

Our atmosphere was once composed of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. It wasn't until green plants evolved that they started to convert the carbon dioxide into oxygen. Without plants there would be no oxygen, there would only be carbon dioxide. And nothing bigger than a bacterium would be alive.

You haven't answered my question yet.

Swerv-o

But is there any point in spending a fortune in doing something that is not going to have a demonstrable effect on the end result - i.e. will not change the rate of warming.

I, like Burbage, don't dispute that there is something going on, one way or another. What I don't like is the application of pseudo-science and the heretical way that people who go against the populist view are treated.

The idea that warming is a naturally occurring mechanism, beyond the control of humans, is, by definition, the Null Hypothesis. Thus it is the responsibility of scientists to try and prove the Alternative Hypothesis (that warming is contributed to by man) and not to demonise people who, rightly or wrongly, support the null. Thus far, none of the 'evidence' that I have seen has been compelling enough to make me accept that the Alternative should be taken as gospel.

Sadly the vast majority of human kind have little or no concept of dilligent scientific investigation, and are more than happy to jump onto a dogmatic, religious style bandwagon.


S

johnnyx0

No cast-iron guarantees. But all the scientific evidence seems to point that way.

But do you need a cast-iron guarantee that you will get lung cancer before giving up smoking, a cast-iron guarantee that you'll get a nasty result from injecting heroin, or a cast-iron guarantee that your kids will get run over by a lorry before stopping them playing in the middle of the road?

The point is that we can reduce our effect on the planet, and not taking that opportunity seems a bit dumb.

Notts_bloke

Haha I take it this is a joke?

Burbage

But the scientific evidence does not point that way. It points the other way. There is no evidence at all that carbon dioxide causes global warming. It is a very small contributor at the very most.

Unless you have evidence?

renth

You should watch this, it's good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

Notts_bloke

Seen it. But not really into conspiracy theories. I prefer science.