Climate Change Honesty required!

exprog

It's all a con.

Mankysteve

Oil, gas and coal will run out that is a fact there no getting around it. Now it just so happens that if conserve these fuels and use more renewable if then the climate change lot are right will be preventing that if there wrong then we'll simple be insureing that there stuff left not future generations.

Also if we neglect climate change and look at the localised effects of Driving car, burning fossil fules for power they kick out some pretty nasty stuff which by it self is not very good for people or nature. again it just so happens that if sort out the pollutions levels of these we reduce the chances of global warming.

So there are other benefits to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels than just climate change. The problem is that these other affects are largely ignored by both the left and the right media.

Ben84

Cathk wrote: »

Just a quick one, is all excess co2 not absorbed by the sea which is not yet saturated?

Not all of it is dissolved in the oceans. CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily and I'm not aware of any reason why it will all migrate in to the oceans. It would be increasingly against the concentration gradient and need energy input to do this. Nor would the oceans retain it against the concentration gradient for very long. What it will do is reach an equilibrium with some in the sea and some in the atmosphere.

However, quite a bit has been dissolved in the oceans, and this has issues too. It should not be seen as harmless or that it has been removed in some way. It's causing the sea to become more acidic, which in turn is adversely affecting the environment through things like coral reef death. The dissolving of gasses in water is also temperature related as water holds more gas at lower temperatures. If the planet warms, or the water moves to a warmer area, the CO2 currently dissolved in the oceans will start to move back in to the atmosphere.

PandorasJar

Thought some of you might have been interested in a more recent publication (which I will never be able to find online!). It pointed out several common mistakes in people trying to be green. Things like the hybrid cars are actually worse than buying an older car, buying English produce is often worse than foreign produce being flown over, due to intensive farming, etc etc.

Having taught about the environment as part of a larger event for almost 2 years now, it was quite an interesting article!

Also does anyone else remember David Attenborough's old view about the climate change... he proved in a programme that it was naturally set to occur anyway. A fact which was later backed up to me (at that time) in science classes. Showing that we're set on a cycle, regardless on human change.

Anyhows, I'm not saying any of this is indeed fact, but I do believe there's truth to the fact it would be happening anyway, I think that all we've done is slightly accelerated it. Hopefully we can now slow it back to an acceptable rate

Ramble over!

P

Cardew

PandorasJar wrote: »

Also does anyone else remember David Attenborough's old view about the climate change... he proved in a programme that it was naturally set to occur anyway. A fact which was later backed up to me (at that time) in science classes. Showing that we're set on a cycle, regardless on human change.

With respect he didn't prove anything. He advanced some theories!

These theories seem to be:

A. Climate change isn't happening.

B. Climate change is happening but Man is not playing any/little part.

C. Climate change is happening and Man is the primary cause.

Vested interests on one side of the debate argue for A & B; the other side for C.

Both sides are less than honest!

cepheus

Unfortunately climate scientists are never allowed to counter the heavy bias in the right wing media. They have to be honest and get everything balanced and 100% correct, whereas the Deniers can get everything 100% wrong through deliberate lies and deception and no-one even blinks.

It's like being in a court of law against a prosecutor who knows nothing about the hard facts but is a genius in psychology, and so feeds the jury extremely biased information. Your defence lawyer in contrast is technically knowledgeable but is not streetwise, moreover he isn't allowed to play the same game to neutralise the bias and has to tell both sides of the story with complete honesty. Result the prosecutor always manipulates the jury and wins.

Come into the real world of public ignorance and PR.

PandorasJar

Cardew wrote: »

With respect he didn't prove anything. He advanced some theories!

These theories seem to be:

A. Climate change isn't happening.

B. Climate change is happening but Man is not playing any/little part.

C. Climate change is happening and Man is the primary cause.

Vested interests on one side of the debate argue for A & B; the other side for C.

Both sides are less than honest!

That would depend on your definition of 'proof' indeed there is very little proof of anything in this world.
At the time, he showed us a very strong argument for 'B'

In science, even now, we are taught that we are on a natural cycle, man has merely sped it up. I won't go into detail, but it's a simple theory, in layman's terms... Too much CO2, most animals die. Plants thrive, create too much O2. Plants die back a bit, evolution starts again from the few mammal survivors and reptiles/fish and animals and plants start to thrive again together. It's basically a natural cycle of life on a grander scheme.

Personally I couldn't care less which side lies at fault, the simple fact is that it's happening, we can now choose to try and help slow it, or not to.

There are however several other theories now promoting the fact that expanding the hole even more, could in fact do more good than harm.

It's what we as humans do best, we meddle, sometimes we fix, sometimes we break... and hey, sometimes we put ourselves so high up on a pedestal we think we're in control/responsible for everything.

P

Ben84

cepheus wrote: »

Unfortunately climate scientists are never allowed to counter the heavy bias in the right wing media. They have to be honest and get everything balanced and 100% correct, whereas the Deniers can get everything 100% wrong through deliberate lies and deception and no-one even blinks.

This problem is common in many areas of science. As scientists with theories, people have to defend specific ideas. However, as critics people can resort, and I do see this a lot, to simply generating large numbers of unrelated multi-angled attacks. Although to class some of the common ones as attacks, such as the classic "it has been naturally warmer in the past, Medieval warm period, etc" is being generous. They rarely have much substance to them, for example original research, they simply work to fight the idea in the public understanding because there are huge numbers of them. They also tend to be fairly simple statements, and yet disproving them requires much more work than making them, and sometimes requires the general public listening to them to have a greater understanding of the topic or general science than many people actually have. If one suggestion is however shown to be flawed, just present another, and another, and when they finally get through all of them start representing earlier ones that have been covered, perhaps with a few changes.

It doesn't matter how wrong or silly the criticisms are. However, if the scientists defending their theory are found to have even a small error or to have overlooked something, they can look forward to claims that the theory is disintegrating and the truth has come out.

Spotting the rubbish talking critic from the real critic is thankfully quite easy. They won't have an alternative single theory of their own, and won't be actively involved with producing any research, constructing things is far more work than breaking them. Besides this lack of angle gives them freedom to present and generate large numbers of unrelated criticisms. The more unrelated reasons why it's wrong they can present, the more likely they're talking nonsense. One good well presented argument is plenty, dozens of scattered ones tends to indicate a focus on picking holes. Lack of consistency is another good indicator. Their idea of truth might not match mine, but it should be consistent. Some people who pull out the classic warmer in the past angle are also attacking the science behind these long term temperature records and suggesting we have no good way to determine past temperatures.

Fire_Fox

Climate change is far from the only reason to make 'green' or ethical choices.

Cardew

Ben84 wrote: »

This problem is common in many areas of science. As scientists with theories, people have to defend specific ideas. However, as critics people can resort, and I do see this a lot, to simply generating large numbers of unrelated multi-angled attacks. Although to class some of the common ones as attacks, such as the classic "it has been naturally warmer in the past, Medieval warm period, etc" is being generous. They rarely have much substance to them, for example original research, they simply work to fight the idea in the public understanding because there are huge numbers of them. They also tend to be fairly simple statements, and yet disproving them requires much more work than making them, and sometimes requires the general public listening to them to have a greater understanding of the topic or general science than many people actually have. If one suggestion is however shown to be flawed, just present another, and another, and when they finally get through all of them start representing earlier ones that have been covered, perhaps with a few changes.

It doesn't matter how wrong or silly the criticisms are. However, if the scientists defending their theory are found to have even a small error or to have overlooked something, they can look forward to claims that the theory is disintegrating and the truth has come out.

Spotting the rubbish talking critic from the real critic is thankfully quite easy. They won't have an alternative single theory of their own, and won't be actively involved with producing any research, constructing things is far more work than breaking them. Besides this lack of angle gives them freedom to present and generate large numbers of unrelated criticisms. The more unrelated reasons why it's wrong they can present, the more likely they're talking nonsense. One good well presented argument is plenty, dozens of scattered ones tends to indicate a focus on picking holes. Lack of consistency is another good indicator. Their idea of truth might not match mine, but it should be consistent. Some people who pull out the classic warmer in the past angle are also attacking the science behind these long term temperature records and suggesting we have no good way to determine past temperatures.

You really are missing the point of this thread, so please spare us from the 'we are right and they are wrong and it was ever thus' routine.

It is not in dispute that vested interests, will try to rubbish the 'climate change' theories.

There is also a huge body of sceptics who, frankly, are suspicious of the climate change scientists.

The point I was making is that the deceipt shown by the University of East Anglia is simply an own goal that has served the interests of the deniers and reinforced the doubts of the sceptics.