Do you believe in man made global warming?

[fruitisbad]

It's no coincidence that it has bad press, the same people that would like the government to throw money at wind farms (which they're doing) and which can't realistically provide for our energy needs, have a vested interest in making sure that nuclear has a bad name.

And despite what you may think, the government (the entire world) has a limited amount of money to go around. Spend it on wind farms and on wind farm subsidies (they get paid more for making electricity than it can be sold for, they also get paid when they can't make electricity due to the weather) and it isn't available to spend on modern fission reactors or research into fusion.

 

I was thinking more along th e recent japanese disaster, which is still causing massive problems out there (yes I know we don't have earthquakes here etc. etc.) which isn't some slick marketing from the pro wind lobby, it happened and people will make up their own minds about it.

[Phanerothyme]

Sounds correct so far, but I'd like to add a little bit of information.

CO2 levels have in the past been massively higher than they are today, clearly the system and it's feedback mechanisms did not fail under those conditions.

Granted, but we'll come back to that.

 

So we have a planetary biosphere that has prevented runaway heating or cooling for a billion years. This is achieved through the emergent homeostatic mechanisms that have evolved into generally stable oscillators. Stable enough for unicellular life to evolve into multicellular, complex lifeforms about 5-600 mya.

 

This falls somewhat short of the Gaia hypothesis, which contends the earth is a single organism. But the important part here is that life evolves around the climate and the climate evolves around life at the "highest level" of homeostasis, if you see what I mean.

 

OK so far?

[Cyclone]

I'm not sure you can describe the climate as evolving. It's modified by life, which itself has evolved to exist within the parameters that the climate forms part of.

[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]

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?

 

when the 3% have all the money

[Phanerothyme]

I'm not sure you can describe the climate as evolving. It's modified by life, which itself has evolved to exist within the parameters that the climate forms part of.

 

 

Ok, well that's a fair point. We can say that stable climatic systems emerged, rather than evolved. But you'd accept that the climate reacts to the biosphere, and vice versa, rather than the idea where the climate dictates and the biosphere responds?

 

And that is the top level of regulation of the planetary climate and the biosphere. Additional factors, such as axial tilt, precessional cycles, sunspot cycles and solar wind are all inputs, but the biosphere has no effect on their (generally) cyclic activity.

 

Agree?

[Cyclone]

Definitely. The history of the emergence of life is one where a poison (Oxygen) gradually builds up in the atmosphere due to the activities of life that evolved to live in conditions without Oxygen. As O2 increases other life evolves to start to take advantage of it.

[Cyclone]

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?

 

Research and comment from the scientists who don't agree are being routinely suppressed, it's hardly surprising then that what is published is largely in favour of the hypothesis. It's also not surprising that scientists who don't agree will often say nothing as they are immediately attacked and vilified for not agreeing.

Look at your behaviour, you appear to be incensed that I won't accept this hypothesis as a proven truth.

[truman]

which found that 97% of the most published climate scientists in the world agree that we are causing the climate to change. ?

 

Do all climate change papers get published..or just the ones that agree with the political aims? If papers against this "concensus" aren't being published then how do you know how many scientists don't agree..?

[flamingjimmy]

Research and comment from the scientists who don't agree are being routinely suppressed, it's hardly surprising then that what is published is largely in favour of the hypothesis. It's also not surprising that scientists who don't agree will often say nothing as they are immediately attacked and vilified for not agreeing.

So the fact that there seems to be a consensus amongst scientists proves that there isn't one? Forgive me for not being convinced.

 

Look at your behaviour, you appear to be incensed that I won't accept this hypothesis as a proven truth.

Not at all, I was just a bit miffed that you completely ignored my substantive points twice, it almost seemed as if you didn't have a convincing response so just chose to ignore them altogether, in fact it still seems that way.

 

The way I see it, this debate you guys are having about various levels of stuff and what you can conclude form it is pretty much pointless, none of you have any idea what you're talking about, deferring to the consensus amongst scientists seems the only rational course.