Do you believe in man made global warming?

[Mikes10]

I've modified my part of my original submission to:

 

At the present the earth is warming and the CO2 concentration

is 390-PPM, never in the earth's recent history (600,000 years)

has the concentration been so high!

[Cyclone]

<snip>

 

There is no consensus, there can't be since a significant number of scientists disagree with a significant other number.

[Cyclone]

Assuming we cannot know the truth of the matter completely, is it possible to intuit a sense of the risks we are running from the broad data that we can rely upon?

Science doesn't normally deal in intuition.

 

As a starting point - is it possible to agree that there are homeostatic mechanisms in the biosphere that regulate the climate? Or not?

I think that is widely accepted yes. As is the fact that CO2 is a short lived greenhouse gas and that we have increased it's concentration in the last 100 years.

 

We don't really know what, if any, affect that is having though as we have too little data and the system is too complex. We can't even work out what factors are actually important to the climate, so how can we possibly model the effect of changing one parameter and predict what it's likely to do?

[llamatron]

I'm not at all convinced that that is the case, quite the opposite in fact. I'm slightly more convinced by things like this long list of many of the largest and most well respected scientific organisations in the world who all either agree that we are causing the climate to change, or are non committal, and things like this study which found that 97% of the most published climate scientists in the world agree that we are causing the climate to change. In what universe is 97% not a consensus?

 

You are of course wrong. I am a scientist that does not agree with the consensus ....

 

whose degree was sponsored by the american oil consortium!!!

[flamingjimmy]

There is no consensus, there can't be since a significant number of scientists disagree with a significant other number.

 

So you are still denying there's a consensus, what about things like this long list of many of the largest and most well respected scientific organisations in the world who all either agree that we are causing the climate to change, or are non committal, and things like this study which found that 97% of the most published climate scientists in the world agree that we are causing the climate to change. In what universe is 97% not a consensus?

[fruitisbad]

There is no consensus, there can't be since a significant number of scientists disagree with a significant other number.

 

there is overwhelming evidence backing up climate change and a few people with vested interests disagreeing.

 

what have you got to lose by accepting climate change as happening?

[MrSmith]

So far so good.

Doh, unsubstantiated assumption.

Or maybe we end up triggering the next ice age.

It's just not as simple as you're trying to make out.

 

You agree that CO2 is a green house gas; simply put a green house gas traps heat like a blanket.

You agree human activity is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so making the blanket thicker.

But you think it is an unsubstantiated assumption that humans are affecting temperature and climate. I’m guessing that when you get cold you put on more cloths to trap the heat you generate thereby keeping you warmer. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is now more of it because of human activity then we must have had an effect.

Scientists don’t dispute this, they just argue about how much we have affected the climate and the consequences of those changes.

I have already said the climate is affected by many things, but it has to be put in simple terms for people like you that can’t get your head round the fact that humans have and are affecting the climate.

[MrSmith]

Or maybe we end up triggering the next ice age.

 

By not acting we could well trigger the next ice age, Britain as a relatively mild climate because of the Gulf Stream which helps to regulate our weather. If enough fresh water is dumped into the north Atlantic from melting ice, rain and rivers then the Gulf Stream could stop working because it relies on salinity.

[Phanerothyme]

Science doesn't normally deal in intuition.

Wrong. Without intuition there would be no science, just blind repetition. Also, this isn't a scientific debate, it's a debate about scientists and whether we trust them.

I think that is widely accepted yes.

 

OK, well that's a start.

 

As is the fact that CO2 is a short lived greenhouse gas and that we have increased it's concentration in the last 100 years.

 

We don't really know what, if any, effect that is having though as we have too little data and the system is too complex. We can't even work out what factors are actually important to the climate,

 

So we can't know. That's another good point to start from.

 

so how can we possibly model the effect of changing one parameter and predict what it's likely to do?

 

We can't.

 

And that's my point.

 

We can't know, so we have to guess (or intuit if you prefer) what sort of risk we are running.

 

We know quite a lot about the generic features of complex systems, perhaps some of that could be brought to bear on the subject.

 

My intuition (remember, none of us can know or claim to know) is that the climate is a complex system.

 

It is powered by the sun. The biosphere reacts in complex ways to changes in the system thermodynamics, and has been doing so for a billion years or more, preventing runaway heating or cooling.

 

Anyone disagree with this so far?

[Cyclone]

By not acting we could well trigger the next ice age, Britain as a relatively mild climate because of the Gulf Stream which helps to regulate our weather. If enough fresh water is dumped into the north Atlantic from melting ice, rain and rivers then the Gulf Stream could stop working because it relies on salinity.

 

So what's your preference then, trigger it by acting or trigger it by not acting. Sounds like hobsons choice to me.