Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[spindrift]

We know that CO2 is a very effective greenhouse gas. We know that before the industrial revolution the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280pmm. We know that currently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 386pmm, and rising by 2-3pmm every year. We know that global temperatures have risen by 0.4 degrees C since the 70s, which is too large an increase to be explained by natural causes, therefore human activity must have tipped the balance. We know that all the major glaciers in the world are in retreat. We know that artic ice has lost almost half it's volume in just a few decades. We know that whatever we do now, the Earth is headed for at least another increase of 0.5 degrees. We know that by 2100, the artic will have no summer ice left, which has not occurred for over 700,000 years.

 

Read science journals such as Nature and you will know that 99% of the world's climatologists agree that global warming is being caused by human activity, and the main product of that activity is CO2 emissions.

[convert]

Incredibly lame.

 

Fist NASA are all communists, then a single figure mistake means every single scientific source is worthless.

 

Getting desperate are we?

 

Hey it's not me getting that way old chap.

 

It's not a single figure mistake, it's a massive mistake that casts doubts over their credibility. 1934 being the hottest year sort of negates Global warming; well that along with the last decade's cooling trend.

[spindrift]

I've already given you enough facts to explain why global warming is being caused by human activity but all you can do is parrot the same line over and over. You're just showing you have nothing to add. It's not surprising really, since climate change denial has about as much going for it as holocaust denial.

[Lotusflower]

Global warming may or may not be happening. One thing though that we can be profoundly sure about is that...whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons and daughters of the earth.

"Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."

[convert]

It's not surprising really, since climate change denial has about as much going for it as holocaust denial.

 

That's a pretty low shot. You really are getting deperate now old chap.

 

I don't deny the holocaust, I don't deny climate change. I just don't accept that man has a great role in climate change. So far I have seen no proof that man made CO2 is having any effect on the global climate. I have seen no proof as to whether CO2 levels actually lead or lag temperature change.

 

I have however seen emails from some of the leading proponents of AGW that show cherry picking of datasets, attempts to evade FOIA requests, blatant statements asking for data to be deleted, attempts to exclude scientists on the other side of the argument from the debate, and attempts to modify the peer review process.

 

Even George Monbiot is calling for the head of the CRU to be served up on a platter.

 

 

Having said that I see no reason to just pollute / destroy our planet, and we should be looking into alternate, clean technologies to replace our use of fossil fuels. I don't even mind paying more taxes, provided the revenue is directed into such research. However I don't like my 'tax dollar' being paid due to debunked scientific research funded by a Government with an agenda, and a gaping hole in it's coffers.

[Phanerothyme]

This sums it up.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

[Crayfish]

I think that's exactly the crux of the CO2 argument, there's a multidimensional equilibrium of balancing forces that respond to keep the climate clement, but that these reactions can be overwhelmed. It's not so much about how much CO2 (for example) is anthropogenic, but the rate at which it is increasing.

 

Yup.

 

But, to reiterate a point I and others have made before, there are more concrete and imminent global sustainability issues than climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise).

 

There are less than 10% and in some cases less than 1% of many sealife and forest resources that there were when humanity started exploiting them. Most independent analysts agree that peak oil is both inevitable and close. Certain minerals essential for much of modern technology including rare earths and lithium are feared to be running low (already). Even fresh water is starting to turn up short.

 

Despite these drastic declines in finite resource pools, global population is increasing to unprecedented levels at an unprecedented rate. All of these people will want a piece of what few resources remain.

 

Although these facts are blindingly obvious to anyone who cares to look, most people (not all) and most governments (not all) choose to ignore them.

 

These are the real issues of the next few decades. We can worry about global warming later.

 

NB: don't want to come over all apocalyptic, a lot of this will be self correcting, mostly by leading to massive starvation in the third world and a mostly-welcome curtailment of extravagance elsewhere. Be much less damaging if planned for though, particularly in terms of biodiversity and human suffering.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Crayfish

[spindrift]

The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) carry more weight with me than unsourced claims.

[Berberis]

It's not surprising really, since climate change denial has about as much going for it as holocaust denial.

 

And there we have it. Loony lefties not only believing everything they are fed hook, line and sinker, but also want to criminalise and silence anyone contradictory argument.

 

The climate change Nazis have spoken, speak out against them and you will get a visit from the Green Stasi.

 

The earth has not warmed over the last 10-11 years - FACT

The sun has been in a state of low activity for the last 10-11 years - FACT

The sea has not risen in temperature at all, only land mass - FACT

Global warming models failed to predict the current hiatus in temperature rises - FACT

A leading authority on climate change has been proven as fraudulent – FACT

 

How often are scientists wrong? Over time, on almost every occasion but there are always those who scream blue murder when their chosen belief is criticised.

[Phanerothyme]

Yup.

 

But, to reiterate a point I and others have made before, there are more concrete and imminent global sustainability issues than climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise).

 

There are less than 10% and in some cases less than 1% of many sealife and forest resources that there were when humanity started exploiting them. Most independent analysts agree that peak oil is both inevitable and close. Certain minerals essential for much of modern technology including rare earths and lithium are feared to be running low (already). Even fresh water is starting to turn up short.

 

Despite these drastic declines in finite resource pools, global population is increasing to unprecedented levels at an unprecedented rate. All of these people will want a piece of what few resources remain.

 

Although these facts are blindingly obvious to anyone who cares to look, most people (not all) and most governments (not all) choose to ignore them.

 

These are the real issues of the next few decades. We can worry about global warming later.

 

NB: don't want to come over all apocalyptic, a lot of this will be self correcting, mostly by leading to massive starvation in the third world and a mostly-welcome curtailment of extravagance elsewhere. Be much less damaging if planned for though, particularly in terms of biodiversity and human suffering.

 

You're right of course, anyone with half an ounce of sense and the will to admit this to themselves knows that the current trajectory of human development is totally unsustainable.