Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice" - as the saying goes.

 

Evidence shows that over the last 10,000 years there has been an increase in the GMST of 10 degrees, which is equivalent to 0.1 degrees per century. Historical data shows this to be an expected rate of rise during an interglacial period. Since 1800, the records show a rate of increase in the GMST of 0.5 degrees per century - 5 times greater than over the previous 10,000 years.

 

Do you really think it's just a crazy coincidence that this unprecedented 400% increase in the rate of warming has occurred during the same time that human industrial activity has been responsible for a massive increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

 

Maybe the evidence for it is coincidental with the rush to get on the money train.

[Smithster]

Maybe the evidence for it is coincidental with the rush to get on the money train.

 

Well if some people believe that all climate scientists are just corrupt and make stuff up to continue to get funding then that's up to them. But it works both ways. The fact that the oil industry's attempts to cloud the debate included hiring the pseudo-scientist that was paid by tobacco companies to convince the world that smoking was completely safe in the 1960s is very telling IMO.

 

The debate will rumble on forever because there is no way to conclusively prove it either way, and my opinion is that until we know for certain (or at least as certain as we can be) we should adopt the precautionary principle when it comes to energy policies. There are, however, two indisputable facts regarding climate change....

 

1. Greenhouse gases are so called because of their ability to store infrared radiation, therefore the higher the concentration of greenhouse gases in any given volume of air, the greater the amount of heat is retained. This is observable using the scientific method and cannot be disproved.

 

2. Human activity (industrial and domestic) is responsible for pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year.

 

The micro-detail of climate science is progressing every day, but given these two simple facts, how anybody can believe that carrying on polluting the atmosphere as we have been is anything other than a very bad idea is completely beyond me.

[maxmaximus]

The problem as I see is it is that many people think climate change is one thing or the other, it’s either natural or manmade when in fact it’s both. It’s indisputable that human activity as affected the climate, it’s to what degree that is disputed. We can do very little about the natural cause but we can do something about the manmade causes and we should do our best not to make matters worse than they already are. I don’t see anything wrong with pumping green houses gasses into the atmosphere during a cooling cycle provided that we have the ability to extract it again when the climate is warming naturally.

[Smithster]

The problem as I see is it is that many people think climate change is one thing or the other, it’s either natural or manmade when in fact it’s both. It’s indisputable that human activity as affected the climate, it’s to what degree that is disputed. We can do very little about the natural cause but we can do something about the manmade causes and we should do our best not to make matters worse than they already are. I don’t see anything wrong with pumping green houses gasses into the atmosphere during a cooling cycle provided that we have the ability to extract it again when the climate is warming naturally.

 

Do we though? Do we have either the technology, the finance or the political will to carry out such a task? Sadly I think not. The best option is to stop emitting it in the first place.

[maxmaximus]

Do we though? Do we have either the technology, the finance or the political will to carry out such a task? Sadly I think not. The best option is to stop emitting it in the first place.

 

No we don't have that ability yet but one day maybe and then we might be able to manipulate the climate in our favour.

[WeX]

there is evidence of warming, but that doesn't mean governments and companies are not using it to make more money under the guise of being green.

[Total Chaos]

You really think every Government in the world, all the leading research establishments, NASA, all the experts in the field are involved in a huge conspiracy?Just Wow.

 

The gullibility of those that don't want to believe in something that is not in their short term interest never ceases to astound me.

 

They are making it out to be man made when in fact it is NATURAL.Its called The New World Order.

[Total Chaos]

there is evidence of warming, but that doesn't mean governments and companies are not using it to make more money under the guise of being green.

 

That is what i meant in post 2847,but someone read it wrong.

[bothyman]

They are making it out to be man made when in fact it is NATURAL.Its called The New World Order.

 

OK. What natural climate forcings have lead to a rise of 0.8C of mean global surface temperatures in the past 100 years?

Why would doubling the concentration of a known greenhouse gas not lead to a rise in global temperatures?

[maxmaximus]

OK. What natural climate forcings have lead to a rise of 0.8C of mean global surface temperatures in the past 100 years?

Why would doubling the concentration of a known greenhouse gas not lead to a rise in global temperatures?

 

The irony is that natural forces have actually tried to cool the earth and it’s the increase in CO2 we humans have put into the atmosphere that prevented it from cooling, our problem is that when the warming cycle starts there’s nothing we can pump into the atmosphere to stop it, and we currently don’t have the ability to take the CO2 back out quick enough.