Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Phanerothyme]

Even if ACC is plausible but not proven, it behooves us as a planet to do something about it or risk unbelievably bad consequences.

 

But the consequences are so bad, and it's questionable whether we can actually pull together and salvage a possibly catastrophic situation, so most people would understandably rather stick their fingers in their ears and sing.

 

But energy saving lightbulbs and hybrid cars aren't going to cut it, and a 50 year moratorium on fossil fuel burning and air travel isn't going to happen.

[Greybeard]

 

Even if human activity doesn't cause this (which I strongly believe it does), limiting the use of fossil fuels and finding alternative, cleaner and more sustainable energy is a good thing anyway.

 

 

I doubt anyone could disagree with that.

 

Which is why all the £billions that are to be frittered away on get-rich-quick carbon trading scams would be much better spent on research into, and development of, alternative sources of energy. Can you disagree with that ?

 

It is the hysteria driven by AGW claims which is spawning these carbon trading schemes.

 

"Only a small number of people fully understand the science behind this topic and so arguing technical points is pointless on a forum like this."

 

This has a strong equivalence to religion. Only a small number of people are credited with fully understanding the Koran and Bible, the rest of the faithful are expected to take on trust what the high-priesthood tell them is the truth

[Br8inend]

I have a lot more trust in the IPCC than in any sceptic website or youtube video. Only a small number of people fully understand the science behind this topic and so arguing technical points is pointless on a forum like this.

 

In my simple world this is how it works:

 

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - check

CO2 levels are massively higher now than ever before - check

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide - check

We burn a lot of fossil fuel - check

The average temperature of the world is increasing and if this continues, climate change will eventually become catastrophic - check

 

Even if human activity doesn't cause this (which I strongly believe it does), limiting the use of fossil fuels and finding alternative, cleaner and more sustainable energy is a good thing anyway.

 

The oil and gas industries have most to lose from limiting carbon emissions - check

They will do whatever they can to counter any such move - check

Any conspiracy is a million times more likely to come from the sceptics lobby than the climate change lobby - check (probably)

 

Thanks for listening.

 

One difference between our atmosphere and a greenhouse? Our atmosphere does not have a glass roof. Heat escapes.

[Cyclone]

In my simple world this is how it works:

 

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - check

CO2 levels are massively higher now than ever before - check

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide - check

We burn a lot of fossil fuel - check

The average temperature of the world is increasing and if this continues, climate change will eventually become catastrophic - check

 

CO2 levels have been higher in the past - check

The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is rock solid - fail

Temperatures have fluctuated in the past - check

Correlation between CO2 and temperature is proven - fail

Causal Fallacy possibly in progrss - check

[Phanerothyme]

One difference between our atmosphere and a greenhouse? Our atmosphere does not have a glass roof. Heat escapes.

 

But you're aware of the global energy budget?

 

The one where you count the amount of sunlight hitting the planet, what that sunlight heats (atmosphere, ocean, land) and how much is reflected back, and how much is radiated back as heat, and the rates at which all these things happen, and the net effects of, for example, pumping more and more energy into a complex system like the global climate.

 

Obviously the Greenhouse effect is a metaphor, so that simple minded souls like us can get a handle on a deeply complex problem. But you're right to show that even that doesn't always work.

[convert]

Strange then you should consistently quote from sceptical websites without even doing a modicum of research on the subject.

 

 

 

Excuse my laziness but C02 is the major greenhouse gas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases#Natural_and_anthropogenic

 

Note the details of C02 are given in parts per million whilst the others are parts per billion. Also note the forcing impact is highest.

 

Which rather undermines the rest of what you say.

 

 

 

...

 

Well old chap, a modicum more research on your part would show you that water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, not CO2 as you have falsely stated. (Check your own link to that font of unbiased knowledge that is wikipedia)

 

Water Vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 accounts for only 3.618%, of which manmade CO2 accounts for 0.1117%

 

Source http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

 

Given this small percentage of man made CO2, and the fact that no one can show a causal link netween CO2 and temperature (They seem to find plenty or correlations though, however we could comparethe number of pirates and global temperature in much the same way), then it would appear that we have been, and continue to be led down the garden path.

 

 

Time to scrap the carbon trading 'get rich quick' weatlh re-distribution schemes and invest in nuclear power and stopping the rainforests being destroyed.

[Cyclone]

Some interesting research in the news today about the effect of soot in the atmosphere. It might be a bigger factor than CO2 and is much easier to control and has a much shorter lifespan. That would scupper the carbon trading plans though, so it'll probably be quietly burried.

[retep]

Did you see this article about Dr.Pachauri ?

 

He and Al Gore should do very well out of AGW

 

I did put the article up in post 650 but Wildcat would sooner attack James Delingpole's credibility.

[Wildcat]

I did put the article up in post 650 but Wildcat would sooner attack James Delingpole's credibility.

 

Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that he was appointed because of George Bush and sceptical fossil fuel company lobbying?

 

That was just one of many reasons to think Delingpole is an idiot.

[Greybeard]

Some interesting research in the news today about the effect of soot in the atmosphere. It might be a bigger factor than CO2 and is much easier to control and has a much shorter lifespan. That would scupper the carbon trading plans though, so it'll probably be quietly burried.

 

Link ? I didn't look too hard but these two are certainly interesting.

 

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/warming-caused-soot-not-co2

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090123075628.htm