Evidence for Man Made Climate Change

[Cavegirl]

The article whilst admitting some uncertainty in the data is however sufficiently confident of it from a variety of sources to make the claims it does. All it has to show to is that there is cooling, whilst the troposhere warms, the precise extent of it is not so important, although it is sufficiently precise to show different levels of cooling at different heights, predictions made by the greenhouse effect theory that have been shown to be true and that are otherwise inexplicable.

 

Agreed on your last point. I just think however your scepticism about the consensus opinion misplaced.

 

Haha I just don't think a lot of probably's add up to a definately

[convert]

Even if you disagree with the 90%+ of scientists who believe it to be happening, surely people can see that pumping billions of tonnes of toxic gasses into the atmosphere isn't going to do us much good?

 

OK, which gases are toxic?

[Wildcat]

Haha I just don't think a lot of probably's add up to a definately

 

Science doesn't deal with definites, only probabilities. Your standard of proof is higher than is reasonable.

[Cavegirl]

I'm a scientist, that's why I only deal with probably's and never definately's when it comes to interpretations.

 

I'll leave definately's to the politicians.

[Wildcat]

OK, which gases are toxic?

 

Those that are bi products of combustion.

 

CO2 for example is particularly toxic to sea life.

 

http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/FAQs/#2

[donkey]

I have changed my opinion on the climate change issue. Although I am still convinced that human activity is very probably contributing to climate change, I now believe that the focus on this issue is something of a smoke screen which is distracting attention away from far more serious and urgent environmental problems, as well as serving to give 'green' credentials to the types of individuals and organisations which in reality are only concerned wth their own wealth and power.

 

The worst predictions concerning the amount carbon emissions could raise the temperature of the planet would still leave global mean temperatures quite low compared to what they were in the distant geological past There is no geological evidence to show that these warm periods caused any mass extinctions. The evidence of huge extinctions caused by ice ages, on the other hand, is plentiful. No doubt that sudden raises in temperature cause periods of great evolutionary instability, where some species rise and others decline, but there is no evidence of a threat to the existence of life in general.

 

On the other hand, one of the greatest mass extinctions in the Earth's history is currently taking place. It is being caused by humans, but not through global warming. It is being caused by the problems associated with burgeoning human populations (the same root cause behind man made climate change). This matter of the wholesale and increasingly rapid destruction of habitats and species has taken a back seat and is being pesented as being less important than the climate change which is currently occuring. From a geological perspective, changes in climate on the scale being predicted even by the most pessimistic scientists are neither unusual or particulary extreme. However, the speed and scale of the mass extiction being caused by the destruction of habitats caused by other types of human activity is comparable with the worst mass extiction events in the Earth's history.

 

I do believe we are faced with an imminent global crisis. However, it is not climate change. It is overpopulation. Any serious approach to bringing populations under control would necessarily cause a period of economic decline roughly proportionate to the length of time over which populations were reduced, and the degree to which they were reduced by. That would spell the end of the economic boom - that Holy Grail of the wealthy and powerful the world over. It would be a thing of the past. Seen in this light, the status given Climate Change as the main threat to humanity and the planet - and the fact that some of the main cheer leaders of this belief appear to be organisations and individuals who normally show no interest in anything other than increasing their own wealth and power - takes on an entirely different perspective. More to the point, even if climate change were a more serious issue than the sytematic destruction of habitats, surely the best cure for it is working towards co-operation in planning the scaling back of global human populations over several generations?

[Wildcat]

I'm a scientist, that's why I only deal with probably's and never definately's when it comes to interpretations.

 

I'll leave definately's to the politicians.

 

A high probability is as much certainty as we need, you made a similar point earlier.

[Wildcat]

I have changed my opinion on the climate change issue. Although I am still convinced that human activity is very probably contributing to climate change, I now believe that the focus on this issue is something of a smoke screen which is distracting attention away from far more serious and urgent environmental problems, as well as serving to give 'green' credentials to the types of individuals and organisations which in reality are only concerned wth their own wealth and power.

 

The worst predictions concerning the amount carbon emissions could raise the temperature of the planet would still leave global mean temperatures quite low compared to what they were in the distant geological past There is no geological evidence to show that these warm periods caused any mass extinctions. The evidence of huge extinctions caused by ice ages, on the other hand, is plentiful. No doubt that sudden raises in temperature cause periods of great evolutionary instability, where some species rise and others decline, but there is no evidence of a threat to the existence of life in general.

 

On the other hand, one of the greatest mass extinctions in the Earth's history is currently taking place. It is being caused by humans, but not through global warming. It is being caused by the problems associated with burgeoning human populations (the same root cause behind man made climate change). This matter of the wholesale and increasingly rapid destruction of habitats and species has taken a back seat and is being pesented as being less important than the climate change which is currently occuring. From a geological perspective, changes in climate on the scale being predicted even by the most pessimistic scientists are neither unusual or particulary extreme.

 

I do believe we are faced with an imminent global crisis. However, it is not climate change. It is overpopulation. Any serious approach to bringing populations under control would necessarily cause a period of economic decline roughly proportionate to the length of time over which populations were reduced, and the degree to which they were reduced by. That would spell the end of the economic boom - that Holy Grail of the wealthy and powerful the world over. It would be a thing of the past. Seen in this light, the status given Climate Change as the main threat to humanity and the planet - and the fact that the main cheer leaders of this belief appear to be organisations and individuals who normally show no interest in anything other than increasing their own wealth and power - takes on an entirely different perspective. More to the point, even if climate change really is more imporatnt the sytematic destruction of habitats, surely the best cure for it is co-operation in planning the scaling back of global human populations over several generations?

 

There is some truth in that. But I don't see a huge industry trying to convince us of anthropomorphic climate change. Yes there are some groups lobbying for carbon trading etc. But the bulk of the debate like with "climategate" is dominated by neo-liberal puppets of the oil lobby. A lobby that spends billions on promoting its interests. Whilst they are setting that debate to some extent it distracts people from other issues, like ocean acidification, like population etc. but the blame for that rests fairly and squarely with the oil lobby and media groups that think people like Lord Monckton, and his band of denialists deserve any positive attention.

 

Whilst papers like the Telegraph promote bad science and censor their columnists, climate change will be argued over.

 

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/16/is-the-telegraph-censoring-criticism-of-climate-change-deniers/

[Cavegirl]

Actually, if the risk is significant enough, which higher than natural levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is, I think it's important to act even if it's a relatively low probability occurrence. I was emphasising risk over probability in this case.

[Wildcat]

Actually, if the risk is significant enough, which higher than natural levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is, I think it's important to act even if it's a relatively low probability occurrence. I was emphasising risk over probability in this case.

 

Point taken and accepted.

 

I think some of my response to you in tone was because I mistook you for being "sexbag" from the first page, only because you replied to one of my replies to them and we were on different pages at that point. Had I spent a moment in reflection I would have realised the massive qualitative difference in your respective contributions... but I didn't.