I'm only replying to stuff from the first page, as some things need pulling straight away, and I'm yet to read the rest of the thread.
| Locknuts said: This seems to be a sensitive issue for some people as it's become a political issue rather than a scientific one. I have become fascinated as I have watched this whole thing play out. I looked into the science. Seemed legit. 1) Co2 is a greenhouse gas (ie it traps and radiates heat), that is a fact and something that can be demonstrated in a lab environment. 2) There is also a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Not only that, but the computer models appeared to be predicting an increase in global temperatures fairly well for a while. But then something strange happened.... 3) Observations started deviating from the predictions of the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so they quietly began lowering their short and medium term expected temperature rises. 4) But the alarmism seemed to get more drastic instead of dying down. People were and still are heavily emotionally invested in the idea that man made CO2 emissions are going to destroy the planet, despite the latest observations and peer reviewed literature showing that less alarm is actually warranted. Not only that, but many powerful people and organisations are now heavily financially invested in carbon markets and other such schemes. A paper titled 'The Consensus Project was trotted out in 2013 by John Cook et al. in the hope that if the public saw that there was a 'scientific consensus' on man made climate change then they would take it as gospel and insist that their governments take action. I have seen an interview with him where he stated that this was the purpose of his paper. I'm sure many of you have heard of the '97% consensus'. This is where that number came from, but the number is misleading and misused. Please read the paper, or at least the abstract of the paper to see how they arrived at that particular number. President Obama tweeted the 97% number, added that man made emissions were also 'dangerous' (this isn't mentioned in the consensus project), and the world bought it. 5) Instead of appealing to the data, there is an appeal to authority and consensus. That is not science, that's politics. Even if you do like to appeal to authority, most claim that the IPCC is the authority on man made global warming but do not actually read the literature from the IPCC (which is becoming less alarming with each report). Instead they listen to what politicians say about the IPCC literature. Since when are politicians ever truthful about anything? 6) I prefer to look at the data and peer reviewed literature, which indicates that the climate is far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought, and that the atmosphere is far more complex than it was previously understood to be. What do you think? Am I wrong? Is an apocalypse coming? I get the feeling some people are so devoted to the solution, that they are failing to see that it is becoming a less urgent problem. |
1) whislt yes we know that CO2 increases the temperature in a closed system, the Earth is NOT a closed system, so taking this and thinking that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the temperature is a false assumption, as it's not know how it works in an open system.
2) Yes there is, but it's not CO2 preceeding the temperature increase, it's the temperature increase which happens first, followed by the CO2 increase.
3) Yes because the models are all a crock of shit, and all have a fudge factor because of the fact that we don't have a perfect knowledge of the earth system, yet all the modles predict, to some slight variance of severity, the same thing, does that not smell an awful like corruption and collusion? The models can't even acurately back predict the climate in the past, which is the very easiest sort of modeling you can do.
4) Of course alarmism has risen, can't sell you shit if you don't feel like there's a need for said shit.
5) Of course it politics, or do you not realise which countries look to suffer the most due to the demonizing of fossil fuels, oh yes that's right, the developing world, and what does the developing world offer? Competition to the established, it's all away of reducing the competitive edge these developing countries have over the developed.
6) And this is the right way to think, thank you very much for this, of course CO2 doesn't have a drastic effect on the temperature, I mean ffs how on earth is a gass that makes up only 0.00004% of the atmosphere supposed to have any real effect on the temperature when compared to the fact that we have a big massive open fussion reactor in the sky that fluctuates in output constantly. I mean FFS come on people.
| sethnintendo said: I believe practices like fracking cause earthquakes (OK has had huge increase in quakes recently) and could pollute ground water (they don't even tell us what types of chemicals they are injecting). I am more concered about pollution, GMO crops (destroying biodiversity), and factory farms. The food chain and the way we grow/make food is a major concern of mine. |
And do you not think that ALL mining activity has an effect on earthquakes? So is that a reason to not mine anything from the ground? no don't be silly, so why is it disastrous for Fracking? And no fracking can't pollute ground water, because for a start there's an impermeable layer between the shale that's being fractured and the ground water about, and the chemicals used are less than 3% of the water pumped down there, sometimes less, almost never more. And just think about it, if it could pollute ground water, wouldn't the water companies be having a massive hissy fit about it all? Yet they're just sitting quiet not doing anything.
Can you explain to me how GMO crops can destroy biodiversity, I'm not particularily well researched in this areas, and what's the problem with factory farms?
| pokoko said: The way I see it, the odds are good that human waste emissions are, at the least, exacerbating climate change. At the worst, they're the main catalyst. If we try to minimize the damage and it turns out that they aren't a major factor, then what is the real harm? However, what if we do nothing and the outcome is that they are really bad and the world is irreversibly screwed? Will people just go, "oops, my bad?" Logic would say to err on the side of caution, especially since we know other pollutants have caused irrefutable damage to the environment. Honestly, though, the one thing that really, really bugs me is how many people form their opinions on this based solely on the stance of their political party of choice and whichever political entertainer they follow. Think for yourself, people. |
You have to ask yourself the cost of doing nothing verses the cost of making a real effort, and the cost of doing nothing is an unkown, simply because we can't predict, at all, how the climate will change in the future, yet we do know that MILLIONS of people in the developing world will die unnessecarily if we put massive restrictions on fossil fuels. What pollutants have caused irrefutable damang to the environment? Not all organisms thrive in the environment we deem perfect, how do you know that this 'damage' hasn't actually increased the diversity in life on the planet due to the new environment being beneficial to new kinds of organisms? Also and increase in CO2 isn't necessairly damaging to the environment, it's well know that more CO2 leads to greater and stronger plant growth.
| Teeqoz said: I think the reason "the alarmism is increasing" (though I haven't noticed that) is because people are more informed, so more people are aware of the issue. It's not because those that were aware of the issues have become more "alarmed". As far as the actual issue goes, it's there and it's real. There's no denying that. I can't say I know the extent of this issue, but to me it's enough to know that it's real to feel a certain responsibility to avoid that it gets out of hand. There have already been complications that are pretty undeniably related to manmade activities. There has been more cases of extreme weather (and that's something that I can notice from where I live), sea levels have risen, deserts are spreading more and more rapidly, mean temperature is increasing. All these things are measurable and have been measured. It's better to be safe than sorry here. Better to take too many preventative measures than too few. Better to take action now than to wait to find out how big the consequences will be. |
What complications that are undeniably related to manmade activities? If you're talking about oil spill and things of that nature fine, but what does that have to do with 'climate change'. There actually haven't been an increase in extreme weather, the number of storms each year is dropping. Sea levels are risin a miniscule ammount since we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, they rose far more rapidly at the end of the last ice age 10000 years ago. Deserts are spreading due to piss poor land use and deforistation, NOT due to 'climate change'. What if the preventitive measures cause more harm than doing nothing?
