Amazulu

What's Adolf got to do with MMGW?

moneypenny20

Nothing, I don't think but who knows, he's blamed for a great deal of other shit. No, it was you saying this other guy seemed like a nice bloke, like that meant he was worth listening too.

Wol

I am amazed at the number of people here, and in innumerable blogs worldwide, who seem to have made up their minds on this from the facts!

I have some training in climatology and meteorology but the data and conclusions on climate change are way beyond my knowledge - and, I suggest, way way beyond the understanding of 99.9% of all of us with opinions one way or the other.

So many disciplines are involved, including climatology, meteorology, paleontology, statistics, astronomy, computer modelling, oceanography, mathematics and a host more, that no one person can possibly be conversant enough with all the data sufficient to form a valid opinion.

All that we 99.9% can do is to see which group we accept as being the more educated on the subject and, having followed this for several decades I accept more or less what the IPCC have come up with.

The IPCC themselves do not say they are 100% sure - that would be very unscientific but they have a 90% confidence.

There are thousands of "deniers" (for want of a better word) but when you drill down a little into their references - and you don't often get many of *them* - you find all too often regurgitated myths, journalists' prognostications and so on.

The UEA "scandal" that's been hyped up by all sorts of groups is a storm in a teacup, and the several possibly inappropriate phrases in some emails have been taken out of context, IMO.

So many people bring up "other" climate change drivers such as the Milankovitch cycles, solar activity, cosmic rays, volcanic emissions and the rest as if the IPCC is ignorant of these! The fact is that all the drivers have, as far as is possible with present knowledge, been taken into account in the conclusions.


Many of the deniers don't even seem to be able to distinguish between weather and climate, and will quote numbers a few years apart - nothing to do with climate at all, except that they will in time, and retrospect, indicate trends.

The whole issue is so complicated that we must stop passing on opinions as facts - the internet has become the medium for disinformation as much as education and nowhere more so than on this subject.


Sorry to rant but - as Quoll says - it gets me up and running!

iamthecreaturefromuranus

So on the basis that they think they might have it right, we should spend trillions globally and attempt to modify everything we do when it comes to energy consumption?.

WillBlack

Facts are not the exclusive property of experts, nor, in this instance, are experts in possession of all the facts.

If people are to bear the cost of prevention, they have a right to ask questions.

Water vapour is a more potent green house gas than carbon dioxide, largely because there is more of it.

I have not seen, and would like to, proof that man made changes in carbon dioxide is more significant than natural or man made changes in water vapour.

I'd like the experts to communicate clearly instead of preaching.

Centurion

The alternative of not doing it is far worse in the event they are right. Do we really have a choice ?

ABCDiamond

I am glad you said that, because I am as confused by all this as anything.

ABCDiamond

I turn as many lights off as I can, and I have heat pump hot water, so I am doing my bit

ABCDiamond

Just a quick thought.... the alternative of not doing what ?

Have they decided what to actually do, and how to do it ?
All I hear about is more TAX !

iamthecreaturefromuranus

That's a valid statement only if we can be certain that any action we take will prevent climate change, which is debatable at best. Who's to say that any action we take wouldn't/couldn't make it worse?.

Amazulu

Money is never lost - it just gets transferred to someone else. So who is going to make the most money out of the ETS?

Max&Ozzy

Well isn't this interesting. Our little poll seems to be at odds with the apparently accurate data being claimed by our Gov't parties in this leadership challenge. In that they claimed a high 60% caused by us and touted much need for the carbon schemes.

Centurion

I think its pretty much a safe bet that reducing emissions is not actually going to make anything worse in an environmental sense. Worst case, we achieve nothing. Of course, the economic sense is something else entirely given the ETS. I'm not sure many people actually know what it does.

Most people I speak to seem to support the idea without the foggiest as to what it does and what it will mean to them. It seems that you can achieve anything by painting it green nowadays.

moneypenny20

Governments work to their own agendas whatever the subject, it's best not to assume they're telling the truth, they don't tend to know what it is.

cranston

Maybe, but when you have leading scientists (CRU) caught allegedly falsify their output it is human nature (for some) to be suspicious of their claims.

There is an old cliche if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...its a duck.

Skeptics is a better word. 'Denier' suggests a definitiveness that may not be there. We don't 100% know. You may want to accept the findings of the CRU as they stand but I and many others want a full and thorough investigation.