Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[El Cid]

Thats been happening for millions of years so your point is???

 

Are we prepared?

[dawny1970]

Are we prepared?

 

Prepared for what, nothings happening, no sea level rise, in fact artic ice is at its greatest level in 30 years, hardly global warming!!!

[El Cid]

Prepared for what, nothings happening, no sea level rise, in fact artic ice is at its greatest level in 30 years, hardly global warming!!!

 

Flooding, its happened not far from us, and in other coutries; is it back to

 

 

Thats been happening for millions of years so your point is???

[Cyclone]

Flooding, its happened not far from us, and in other coutries; is it back to

 

You think that flooding is down to AGW?

 

Several days of heavy rain seem to be sufficient to cause flooding now. You don't think that might be down to lots of soft ground having been turned into hard surfaces? Because that's what the authorities generally blame. Rapid run off from hard surfaces exceeding the capacity of the drains (that are Victorian in many cases).

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 08:32 ----------

 

One doesn't need a scientific mind to conclude that human activity affects the climate, a bit of knowledge and common sense is enough.

You are desperately straw manning. I haven't disputed that humans (and all life by definition) affects it's environment.

What I'm questioning is the claim you made about the consensus regarding AGW.

 

 

Happy that you agree that living things affect the environment, some obviously more than other.

I'm happy that we agree as well, I don't think we ever disagreed on this point.

 

 

 

 

Not sure why you think that would be a bad thing, it would cut over consumption and make the world a better place.

That would indicate that you've completely failed to investigate the potential economic effects.

 

 

No but it contributes to it.

Is there proof that it causes warming? I'll accept that it contributes to climate change, but not necessarily AGW on a global scale.

 

 

 

But as we already know how to warm the planet, so if it was proven that the next ice age was imminent we could react, if it isn't imminent are we capable of reversing the warming we have already caused.

We don't know how to warm it. We've got some half baked ideas about what might have caused some warming that may not actually have happened.

 

 

If it doesn't exist we would struggle to survive on such planet.

Struggling to survive is better than all being on this rock if another rock hits it.

 

 

 

I agree AGW isn't necaseraly an adverse affect.

 

 

 

 

How can it not exist when we have done things that warm the planet.

The evidence for warming is not clear cut, and the proposed methods in which we might have caused it are untestable and unproven.

 

New Study Shows Independent Evidence Of Global Warming

 

This is just one more piece of evidence on top the staggering pile of evidence demonstrating the simple fact that average global temperatures have been increasing over the past two centuries.

The staggering pile of suspect, manipulated, self serving 'evidence' produced with an agenda. Climate science in most cases appears to be bad science, it starts out knowing what it's result is and then manipulates it's data and hypothesis to fit the desired result.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 08:32 ----------

 

The link doesn't work.

[dawny1970]

One doesn't need a scientific mind to conclude that human activity affects the climate, a bit of knowledge and common sense is enough.

 

 

 

Happy that you agree that living things affect the environment, some obviously more than other.

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure why you think that would be a bad thing, it would cut over consumption and make the world a better place.

 

 

 

No but it contributes to it.

 

 

 

But as we already know how to warm the planet, so if it was proven that the next ice age was imminent we could react, if it isn't imminent are we capable of reversing the warming we have already caused.

 

 

If it doesn't exist we would struggle to survive on such planet.

 

 

 

I agree AGW isn't necaseraly an adverse affect.

 

 

 

 

How can it not exist when we have done things that warm the planet.

 

New Study Shows Independent Evidence Of Global Warming

 

This is just one more piece of evidence on top the staggering pile of evidence demonstrating the simple fact that average global temperatures have been increasing over the past two centuries.

Ooops another bad piece of quasiscience mumbojumbo pulled offline because its so wrong!!! Lol

[Rupert_Baehr]

Well, it's good for a giggle, isn't it.

 

In 148 pages nobody nailed the problem.

 

Nogody got even near enough to identifying that there WAS a problem.

 

Other than a spelling mistake.

 

'Being f*cked' andState taxes may have something to do with this.

 

What is the taxable rate?

 

(Al Gore made a few bob though.)

[maxmaximus]

I haven't disputed that humans (and all life by definition) affects it's environment.

What I'm questioning is the claim you made about the consensus regarding AGW.

If the warming we have seen isn't caused by an increase in green houses gasses from human activity, what do you think caused it?

 

That would indicate that you've completely failed to investigate the potential economic effects.

Or that we have completely different opinions on what is important, I don’t place much importance on material things and wealth.

 

 

Is there proof that it causes warming? I'll accept that it contributes to climate change, but not necessarily AGW on a global scale.

This is where common sense come in, forests use CO2 and produce oxygen, we want oxygen and could do without so much CO2, we know CO2 traps heats so common sense tells us that more trees will use more CO2 thereby cutting the planets ability to trap heat. We also know that destroying forests has many other negative consequences.

 

 

We don't know how to warm it. We've got some half baked ideas about what might have caused some warming that may not actually have happened.

 

Terraforming mars would involve making it warmer by increasing the amount of green houses gasses in the atmosphere.

 

 

The evidence for warming is not clear cut, and the proposed methods in which we might have caused it are untestable and unproven.

It is to many.

 

The staggering pile of suspect, manipulated, self serving 'evidence' produced with an agenda. Climate science in most cases appears to be bad science, it starts out knowing what it's result is and then manipulates it's data and hypothesis to fit the desired result.

 

I don’t see it as a conspiracy theory because the evidence matches what I already knew.

[Cyclone]

If the warming we have seen isn't caused by an increase in green houses gasses from human activity, what do you think caused it?

If that's the best argument that we have to support CO2 driven AGW then I think my point is proven.

My inability to be able to explain the (not very much) warming that has taken place, is not proof that one particular hypothesis that doesn't appear to explain it either is correct.

 

 

Or that we have completely different opinions on what is important, I don’t place much importance on material things and wealth.

Or on yours or anyone elses standard of living I guess, or on the progress of humanity.

 

 

This is where common sense come in, forests use CO2 and produce oxygen, we want oxygen and could do without so much CO2, we know CO2 traps heats so common sense tells us that more trees will use more CO2 thereby cutting the planets ability to trap heat. We also know that destroying forests has many other negative consequences.

We don't want excess O2 to be honest.

You ignore the fact that increased CO2 concentrations actually assist plant growth, a self limiting feedback loop.

You also ignore the fact that felling trees causes a boom in plant growth in the exposed area.

 

And I'm no expert in this particular area, but this just demonstrates how simplistic analysis is (can be) misleading.

 

 

 

Terraforming mars would involve making it warmer by increasing the amount of green houses gasses in the atmosphere.

It would certainly mean making it warmer. It's atmosphere is largely CO2 at the moment though...

 

 

 

It is to many.

 

 

I don’t see it as a conspiracy theory because the evidence matches what I already knew.

The evidence appears to be highly suspect. If you're prepared to accept it just because it happens to support something you want to believe then that says more about you than me.

 

I'm not closed to the idea that we are affecting the climate, I just don't think we are anywhere close to understanding how or what affects we are actually having. The science is in it's infancy, we are poking around at the edges and don't understand so much that trying to form policy based on it would be a huge mistake.

[maxmaximus]

If that's the best argument that we have to support CO2 driven AGW then I think my point is proven.

No answer then, you don't believe any of the evidence for AGW but can't give an alternative for the warming we have seen.

 

 

Or on yours or anyone elses standard of living I guess, or on the progress of humanity.

Again different opinion on what constitutes a good standard of living, humans are developing alternative clean renewable energy sources as a consequence of global warming, that’s progress.

 

 

You ignore the fact that increased CO2 concentrations actually assist plant growth, a self limiting feedback loop.

No I haven't ignored that.

 

 

You also ignore the fact that felling trees causes a boom in plant growth in the exposed area.

 

The vast Amazon rainforest is on the brink of being turned into desert, with catastrophic consequences for the world's climate, alarming research suggests.

 

And I'm no expert in this particular area, but this just demonstrates how simplistic analysis is (can be) misleading.

It would certainly mean making it warmer. It's atmosphere is largely CO2 at the moment though...

Atmosphere of Mars composed mostly of carbon dioxide though far thinner than ours.

 

The evidence appears to be highly suspect. If you're prepared to accept it just because it happens to support something you want to believe then that says more about you than me.

It’s not suspect at all, if you are prepared to dismiss it just because you don't understand it then that says more about you than me.

 

 

I'm not closed to the idea that we are affecting the climate, I just don't think we are anywhere close to understanding how or what affects we are actually having. The science is in it's infancy, we are poking around at the edges and don't understand so much that trying to form policy based on it would be a huge mistake.

 

So do you suggest we continue as we are until such time that we fully understand it, at which time it might be too late to do anything?

Or should we continue to pursue clean renewable energy?

[Cyclone]

No answer then, you don't believe any of the evidence for AGW but can't give an alternative for the warming we have seen.

Like I said, my inability to explain a phenomenon doesn't make any alternative explanation automatically correct.

I'm happy to admit that we can't explain everything we observe in the universe yet (that ignorance being the basis for learning).

 

I also don't accept that we have accurately measured a global temperature change that requires explanation beyond the normal mechanisms that cause such changes.

 

 

 

Again different opinion on what constitutes a good standard of living, humans are developing alternative clean renewable energy sources as a consequence of global warming, that’s progress.

That is progress, I agree.

 

No I haven't ignored that.

 

 

 

 

The vast Amazon rainforest is on the brink of being turned into desert, with catastrophic consequences for the world's climate, alarming research suggests.

I think you exaggerate somewhat.

 

 

Atmosphere of Mars composed mostly of carbon dioxide though far thinner than ours.

 

 

It’s not suspect at all, if you are prepared to dismiss it just because you don't understand it then that says more about you than me.

If you assume that I don't understand it then you're leaping to unsupported conclusions.

 

So do you suggest we continue as we are until such time that we fully understand it, at which time it might be too late to do anything?

Or should we continue to pursue clean renewable energy?

We should heavily invest in research into fusion and stop messing about with wind IMO. Our oil reserves should be saved for the many other uses that exist other than burning.

Until there is actually some evidence that there is a danger to be averted I don't think we should focus on it. At the moment it's just scaremongering.